1994 Best Picture Kumite
- Thread starter abomb
- Start date
Chaplin
Better off silent
Ugh. Agree about Shawshank, disagree about the overrated Pulp Fiction.
I went that way too. Shawshank was a box-office failure and although nominated for seven Oscars, got destroyed by FG all the way around.
Shawshank has too much of a sap factor for me. I like it, but not as much as PF. Not sure I like any of the choices as much as I used to.
Totally subjective though. I can see how Shawshank could be #1. Gump? No way. More like Dorrest Dumbp.
That is why it is my top 3.
But I am starting to agree with you; the more I watch QT, the more I realize he didnt really do anything new, just mashed up a lot of things he was influenced by (Kurosawa, Hawkes, Hitchcock, Leone, blaxploitation).
JS22
Say Vandelay!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 211
I have seen Shawshank at least 10 times. (And I've caught parts numerous times on TNT - even though I own it.) It's one of the few movies that entertains me no matter how many times I watch it.
FArting
Lopes Up!
I voted for Forrest Gump.
Cardinals.Ken
That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
Shawshank has too much of a sap factor for me. I like it, but not as much as PF. Not sure I like any of the choices as much as I used to.
Totally subjective though. I can see how Shawshank could be #1. Gump? No way. More like Dorrest Dumbp.
Pulp Fiction for me. The influence that movie had on how movies are made and written is still in play today.
Chaplin
Better off silent
Are you kidding? No way!
The problem with Pulp Fiction is that it's a stage play. Full of meaningless dialogue that, while clever, really does nothing for the story.
If Tarentino had taken that script and actually created a stage play, it might actually get me liking theater. As it is, all the accolades it has received over the years has only added to it's mediocrity. Reservoir Dogs and the complete Kill Bill are both better movies than Pulp Fiction.
I will admit that at the time, I loved the movie. But after seeing it a few more times, it just got more and more average. The acting is all right, but you've got a guy saying all kinds of clever dialog and not really saying anything! (Sam Jackson)
I didn't vote for Quiz Show but it's my second favorite flick on that list. It's really impressive when a movie can capture a moment in time and maintain its purpose without becoming sentimental for the period (or periods, a la Forrest Gump). Probably best acting from lead to one-liners of any of the four movies. Underrated (and understated) direction.
Shawshank got my vote because it's the best story. Stories told appropriately through film always get my thumbs up over innovation.
I am in total agreement with Chaplin. The dialogue in the film for Pulp Fiction is pretentious at best. Tarantino had people fooled into thinking he had created something more profound than it was. As a writer, that's a really irritating thing to watch ... too many verses, no chorus with a hook line. Alinear chronology is only impressive if I leave the theater thinking about the story, not the unusual chronology with which it was told. I have the same guidelines for unusual film angles. If Tarantino were a musician, we would say he was being indulgent or "having a **** fest" with this film trying too hard to show us his cinema chops.
Oh, one more thing ... Reservoir Dogs is infinitely more influential than Pulp Fiction. Dozens of shots have been copied from that film over and over again. RD is imminently quoted by peers and up-and-comers over the years. Pulp Fiction is more of a, "yeah, that was good, too" kind of film for QT fans. PF may have introduced some young director to QT, but Dogs with that opening shot at the table, the strobe effect when they walk down the street, the camera inside the trunk of the car shot -- those are the things that give director wanna-bes goose bumps.
Shawshank got my vote because it's the best story. Stories told appropriately through film always get my thumbs up over innovation.
I am in total agreement with Chaplin. The dialogue in the film for Pulp Fiction is pretentious at best. Tarantino had people fooled into thinking he had created something more profound than it was. As a writer, that's a really irritating thing to watch ... too many verses, no chorus with a hook line. Alinear chronology is only impressive if I leave the theater thinking about the story, not the unusual chronology with which it was told. I have the same guidelines for unusual film angles. If Tarantino were a musician, we would say he was being indulgent or "having a **** fest" with this film trying too hard to show us his cinema chops.
Oh, one more thing ... Reservoir Dogs is infinitely more influential than Pulp Fiction. Dozens of shots have been copied from that film over and over again. RD is imminently quoted by peers and up-and-comers over the years. Pulp Fiction is more of a, "yeah, that was good, too" kind of film for QT fans. PF may have introduced some young director to QT, but Dogs with that opening shot at the table, the strobe effect when they walk down the street, the camera inside the trunk of the car shot -- those are the things that give director wanna-bes goose bumps.
Last edited:
Are you kidding? No way!
The problem with Pulp Fiction is that it's a stage play. Full of meaningless dialogue that, while clever, really does nothing for the story.
If Tarentino had taken that script and actually created a stage play, it might actually get me liking theater. As it is, all the accolades it has received over the years has only added to it's mediocrity. Reservoir Dogs and the complete Kill Bill are both better movies than Pulp Fiction.
I will admit that at the time, I loved the movie. But after seeing it a few more times, it just got more and more average. The acting is all right, but you've got a guy saying all kinds of clever dialog and not really saying anything! (Sam Jackson)
I pretty much agree with you on all points. As far as imact in film, Reservoir Dogs pretty much launched the '90s indie film movement!
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Posts
- 47,300
- Reaction score
- 13,966
I'm not voting because I can't decide. Quiz show is pretty underrated. One of the best 'Best Picture' classes of our generation.
I left off the fifth Best Film nom; Four Weddings and a Funeral, which was just voted by Brits as the #1 British film of all-time.
I havent seen it.
Last edited:
that is just bloody daft.
Bada0Bing
Don't Stop Believin'
Completely agree.
I can see that happening to PF. It definitely happened that way for me with Gump.Are you kidding? No way!
The problem with Pulp Fiction is that it's a stage play. Full of meaningless dialogue that, while clever, really does nothing for the story.
If Tarentino had taken that script and actually created a stage play, it might actually get me liking theater. As it is, all the accolades it has received over the years has only added to it's mediocrity. Reservoir Dogs and the complete Kill Bill are both better movies than Pulp Fiction.
I will admit that at the time, I loved the movie. But after seeing it a few more times, it just got more and more average. The acting is all right, but you've got a guy saying all kinds of clever dialog and not really saying anything! (Sam Jackson)
I suppose I should watch Shawshank again.
Chaplin
Better off silent
My take is that all 4 of those movies are great in their own way. Forrest Gump is a terrific "Hollywood movie", something you can really sink into and enter a well-constructed world.
Pulp Fiction, while a mediocre film, still has some things going for it. The performances were pretty good and even though I dislike the writing in the context of a feature film, what is there is pretty funny and quotable.
Shawshank resonates with me because it is one of those movies that I saw in the theater and was mesmerized by. Maybe just a tad overlong, but still a powerful film and easily inspires more emotion than the other 3.
Finally, Quiz Show IMO is the technically superior of all those films. Robert Redford did a spectacular job taking a subject that on the surface sounds quite boring, but making it fascinating. Other than Rob Morrow's awful Boston accent, the film is very well-acted, and the production value is impeccable. If you're looking at an award based on technical expertise, I think Quiz Show is the best.
But as an overall experience, it's ALL about The Shawshank Redemption.
Pulp Fiction, while a mediocre film, still has some things going for it. The performances were pretty good and even though I dislike the writing in the context of a feature film, what is there is pretty funny and quotable.
Shawshank resonates with me because it is one of those movies that I saw in the theater and was mesmerized by. Maybe just a tad overlong, but still a powerful film and easily inspires more emotion than the other 3.
Finally, Quiz Show IMO is the technically superior of all those films. Robert Redford did a spectacular job taking a subject that on the surface sounds quite boring, but making it fascinating. Other than Rob Morrow's awful Boston accent, the film is very well-acted, and the production value is impeccable. If you're looking at an award based on technical expertise, I think Quiz Show is the best.
But as an overall experience, it's ALL about The Shawshank Redemption.
I remember sitting in the theatre for Gump and eating a 50 pound bag of popcorn. Loved in until Gump started walking across the country. Movie came to a screeching halt for me at that point.
Now when I watch it on tv. I can barely stand it at all.
Now when I watch it on tv. I can barely stand it at all.
This is the 1994 Kumite.
that is why I deleted it the post, Forrest.
