The new millennium Oscars?

Posted by · 9:53 am · January 18th, 2009

Viggo Mortensen in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the KingLooking back over the previous Oscar winners for Best Picture since 2000, the start of a new century (and a new millennium), I find myself wondering sometimes what the hell the Academy was thinking.  It’s no secret I disagree with the Academy a lot, but I can also admit that when they get it right, they get it right.

But since 2000, their Best Pic choices have run the gamut from incredibly ridiculous, “Gladiator” and “A Beautiful Mind” being just goofy, to bang on, with “The Departed” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”  I am told the Academy is moving in a more progressive direction, willing to take more risks, and I suppose some of these winners do just that.  But they could have gone further.

Year by year, here’s a quick look, with some thoughts about who might have won, and who should have at least been nominated…

2000: “Gladiator”
A shock to me when Steven Soderbergh had already won Best Director for “Traffic” earlier in the evening and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” won so many other awards.  For me, the film of the year was “Requiem for a Dream,” but of the nominated films, “Traffic” was the best.  I was also a huge fan of “Cast Away,” “Almost Famous,” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”

2001: “A Beautiful Mind”
Though Ron Howard should have won Best Picture and Best Director for “Apollo 13” six years prioer, did the Academy have to make it up to him with “A Beauitful Mind?”  Sure, Russell Crowe is terrific (when is he not?) but really, best of the year?  Over “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” or the non-nominated “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence” and “The Royal Tanenbaums?”

2002: “Chicago”
One of the most problematic years for me.  While “Chicago” was superbly directed and edited, I do not feel for a moment it should have won Best Pic.  But I cannot for the life of me decide what, of the nominees, should have. “Gangs of New York” has its moments, most of them with Daniel Day-Lewis, and “The Pianist” is undoubtedly powerful, along with “About Schmidt” (which wasn’t in the mix).  For me, “Far from Heaven” was among the best of the year, and I loved both of Steven Spielbergs offerings: “Minority Report” and “Catch Me If You Can.”  However, my #1 film that year was the Canadian masterpiece “Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner,” an Innuit film that is simply one of the most extraordinary, surreal film experiences you will ever have.

2003: “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”
No argument from me on this year’s victor.  I loved the trilogy. “Lost in Translation” would have also been a worthy winner along with “Mystic River” and the Canadian film, which won the foreign language film Oscar, “The Barbarian Invasions.”

2004: “Million Dollar Baby”
I admired “Million Dollar Baby” very much, as well as Martin Scorsese’s “The Aviator,” but there is a special place in my heart for “Sideways,” the finest American comedy since “Tootsie.”  Ditto “The Passion of the Christ,” which was criminally under-appreciated by the Academy.  Mel Gibson deserved the Best Director honor in 2004 for his harrowing work.

2005: “Crash”
I liked “Crash,” but I cannot believe it won Best Picture over “Brokeback Mountain.” Nor can I believe that “King Kong” was not nominated.

2006: “The Departed”
Again, no argument.  The best film of the year…period.

2007: “No Country for Old Men”
While I admire the work of the Coens very much, I did not think “No Country for Old Men” was superior to “There Will Be Blood,” which is simply one of the finest films ever made.  And to not even nominate “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford?” Wow.

There you go, a fast trip through the new millennium so far.  What are your picks for the best of the last eight years?

→ 98 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

98 responses so far

  • 1 1-18-2009 at 1:58 pm

    Speaking English said...

    “Billy Elliot” should have been nominated and won the Best Picture Oscar in 2000. Talk about criminally underrated.

    “Almost Famous” should have also nabbed a nod, of course.

  • 2 1-18-2009 at 2:10 pm

    Steven said...

    John, I completely agree with you about “The Passion of the Christ.” It’s a bold and well-made film. It should have at least won in the makeup and cinematography categories that year (it was nominated for those at least, thank goodness).

    “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” was robbed of everything. I also think the Disney/Pixar movies deserved more than the obligatory Animated Oscar. Those films (“Monsters, Inc.” [which didn’t even with the Oscar: a crime!], “Finding Nemo,” “The Incredibles,” “Ratatouille,” and of course this year with “WALL-E”) have some of the finest storytelling of this decade. Where’s that Oscar for screenplay and direction?


  • 3 1-18-2009 at 2:14 pm

    Steven said...

    Speaking English, I also agree with you about “Billy Elliot,” one of my favorite movies. Should have been nominated for Best Picture and Jamie Bell for Best Actor (best performance by a child I’ve seen… simply astounding).

    “A Beautiful Mind” and “Crash” are two of the biggest blunders in Oscar history. It’s a shame. To have those two years defined by those two films is just plain stupid.


  • 4 1-18-2009 at 2:38 pm

    Doug said...

    Films that deserved to win:
    2000 – Gladiator
    2001 – Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
    2002 – The Pianist
    2003 – Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
    2004 – The Aviator
    2005 – Munich
    2006 – The Departed
    2007 – There Will Be Blood

    What I would’ve nominated:
    2000 – Almost Famous, Requiem for a Dream, Billy Elliot
    2001 – Amelie, Memento, The Royal Tenenbaums, A.I.
    2002 – Spirited Away, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, Road to Perdition
    2003 – City of God, American Splendor, Finding Nemo, The Last Samurai
    2004 – The Incredibles, Eternal Sunshine, Hotel Rwanda
    2005 – King Kong, Pride & Prejudice, Walk the Line, Constant Gardener
    2006 – Pan’s Labyrinth, Children of Men, Half Nelson
    2007 – Into the Wild, Assassination of Jesse James, Ratatouille

  • 5 1-18-2009 at 2:46 pm

    Speaking English said...

    I’d also like to add that “King Kong” (2005) is perhaps the most passionate melding of artistry, cinematic inspiration, and pure, unadulterated movie-making liveliness we have witnessed this decade. You can feel Jackson’s passion of the craft just oozing through every frame, a kid with big dreams who has finally found his playground and is willing to go all out with it. So much fun.

  • 6 1-18-2009 at 2:49 pm

    Speaking English said...

    *I guess “finally” wasn’t the word, considering the LOTR series before it. But you could definitely tell he had a hell of a time making it, and that his genuine love for film was expressed with no reservations.

  • 7 1-18-2009 at 2:57 pm

    Patrick said...

    2002 was the greatest year for film of this decade. And the masterpiece “Talk to Her” on top of all the rest. Add one of the best Daniel Day-Lewis performances ever, plus perhaps the best Nicholson ever, plus Adrien Brody, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep…

  • 8 1-18-2009 at 3:00 pm

    Michael said...

    Films that should have been nominated (which I guees means my top 5 each year :-D )

    2000- Almost Famous, Traffic, Amores Perros, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Gladiator
    2001- Fellowship of the Ring, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Moulin Rouge, In the Bedroom, Mulholland Dr.
    2002- The Hours, Far From Heaven, Road to Perdition, Adaptation, About Schmidt
    2003- Mystic River, Lost in Translation, In America, 21 Grams, Finding Nemo
    2004- Sideways, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Aviator, Closer, Vera Drake
    2005- Brokeback Mountain, Munich, Capote, The Squid and the Whale, The Constant Gardener
    2006- United 93, The Departed, Dreamgirls, Children of Men, Babel
    2007- There Will be Blood, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I’m Not There, Into the Wild, No Country for Old Men

  • 9 1-18-2009 at 3:10 pm

    Joel said...

    Thank goodness Doug mentioned “Minority Report.” That movie is absolutely phenomenal. And it got one nomination: for sound effects editing, which may be the least important of the technicals. It should have been nominated for just about everything. And I really truly mean that. Picture, director, actor, actress, supp. actor (Farrell…yeah, I said it), adapted screenplay, cinematography (simply stunning and among the best of the decade), art direction, visual effects (whoa), editing (sound was definitely right, but the film editing was even better), score (among Williams’s greatest works). Coulda been a contender. But it freakin’ wasn’t.

    On to my list:

    2000: Of the nominees, Traffic should have won over Gladiator, but even that’s a pretty small margin. Of the actual movies, The Cell or Cast Away.

    2001: Of the nominees, Fellowship of the Ring over Beautiful Mind. Of the actual movies, A.I. or Donnie Darko.

    2002: Of the nominees, Two Towers over the vastly overrated Chicago. Of the actual movies, I think I covered my bases with Minority Report.

    2003: Of the nominees, Return of the King. They were spot on that year, actually.

    2004: Of the nominees, Million Dollar Baby. Of the actual movies, I would’ve preferred Collateral or, the best of them all, Terminal.

    2005: I didn’t see any of that year’s nominees. From the looks of them, Capote looked the best. Of the movies I saw, King Kong stands as the second best film this decade.

    2006: Didn’t see any of these either. Of the nominees, the script for Departed was freakin’ amazing, so that’s my pick. But of the others, Children of Men is the best film of 2006.

    2007: No Country for Old Men was a masterpiece. I personally found There Will Be Blood much more flawed than others do, and thus it was my least favorite of the nominees. Striking but it kind of flopped around in the last thirty minutes. Anyway, NCfoM was flawless.

    This year: I want Curious Case to win. Dark Knight was the best of the year until the last week of it, and then Curious Case came in and left me staggering. I think they’ll both be nominated, and I want TDK to win, but I think Curious Case is ultimately the deserving film.

  • 10 1-18-2009 at 3:14 pm

    Joel said...

    Speaking English, I may be the only person in my age group (18-125) who thinks that King Kong is lightyears ahead of the LotR trilogy, which is already a groundbreaking achievement. But King Kong was more personal for Jackson (the original was his favorite film), and so yes, his artistry shines through. All four films are landmark achievements, but King Kong was simply the better all-around experience to me.

  • 11 1-18-2009 at 3:23 pm

    Fincher said...

    Some of your choices are awful like The Departed the best picture of 2006 and Lots in Translation a runner up in 2003. The Departed is a very bad remake of the fantastic Infernal Affairs. That makes me question your opinion quite a bit dude. No Country For Old Men is quite overrated I think and Jesse James is a misunderstood masterpiece

    2000: Memento / Requim for a dream/ American Psycho / Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

    2001: Mulholland Drive

    2002: Talk to Her and Hero

    2003: City of God and Return of the King

    2004: Dogville

    2005: United 93 / Der Untergang / Children of Men

    2006: Crash – I know that Im in the minority here. Brokeback Mountain is a really close runner up

    2007: Zodiac. Eastern Promises, The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford, There Will Be Blood

  • 12 1-18-2009 at 3:34 pm

    John Foote said...

    Wow Speaking Englsih we agree!!! I too believe “King Kong” is a masterpiece, in fact I named it best film of 2005. A masterpiece that I never tired of watching.

  • 13 1-18-2009 at 3:39 pm

    AdamL said...

    @ John

    Attacking you for being Canadian?????? Show me where I did that. All I said was…

    “I take it Foote is Canadian since he keeps mentioning rather underwhelming Canadian films that belong nowhere near a Best Picture line up (although Invasions is pretty good I guess)”

    Can you read? That is not an attack. How can you even begin to describe that as an attack?

    You then ask if I have seen any of the Canadian films you mentioned. I think it is pretty clear from my post that I saw and liked Barbarian Invasions. It just doesn’t belong in a best picture line up IMO.

    Frankly, I don’t know why Kris lets you post on this site. Your dull, uninformed, ill-thought out posts are almost as bad as your bristling, inexplicably overly-defensive replies to responses. To be expected from someone that likes Peter Jackson films I guess.

    BTW – *that* is an attack.

  • 14 1-18-2009 at 3:55 pm

    Andre said...

    I don’t agree with all your picks, but I’m 200% with you regarding the 2001 oscars.. I was actually very surprised when you mentioned my 3 favorite films of that year in the same sentence! (fellowship, AI and Tenenbaums)


  • 15 1-18-2009 at 3:55 pm

    Gustavo said...

    2000: UNBREAKABLE. Out of the nominees: ERIN BROCKOVICH (the least worst?)

    2001: A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Out of the nominees: A BEAUTIFUL MIND (why the hate?)

    2002: I haven’t seen much from that year. Out of the nominees: CHICAGO (again, the least mediocre one).


    2004: THE VILLAGE. Out of the nominees: THE AVIATOR.

    2005: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. From the nominees: MUNICH.

    2006: LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA – “best of the year, period” ;)


  • 16 1-18-2009 at 4:23 pm

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    Oh yeah, I wrote a paper on A History of Violence. Love that film, small, completely rounded. Brilliant.
    Damn so many films I keep forgetting about and read about them again.
    Master and Commander is another one of those films, although, it justly lost to ROTK ;).
    I guess I’ll go and see King Kong again tomorrow, I remember truly adoring it.

  • 17 1-18-2009 at 4:49 pm

    Matt said...

    ““A Beautiful Mind” being just goofy,”

    To say this then go on to mention The Departed anywhere in a sentence that describes it as anything but total crap, well, makes you lose pretty much all credibility.

  • 18 1-18-2009 at 4:50 pm

    Matthew Lucas said...

    Not nominating “Children of Men” in 2006 was a travesty.

  • 19 1-18-2009 at 5:14 pm

    Violet said...

    This isn’t new. The very first movie to win best picture “Wings” beat out “Sunrise”. Wings isn’t at all better than Sunrise which was directed by F.W Murnau. Sunrise won four award including most artistic picture of the year. That award did not exist the following year. I see Sunrise on TV all the time,the only time I see Wings is Oscar season. Also consider that “Gone with the Wind” won over movies that are much popular today, and “Citizen Kane”, “The Maltese Falcon” and “Suspicion” were beaten by “How Green was my Valley”.

  • 20 1-18-2009 at 5:17 pm

    Josh said...

    Among the movies that have either not won and should have, or not been nominated at all, the Oscars have missed many mentioned above (Memento, Royal Tenenbaums, Adaptation, Road to Perdition, Children of Men, Pan’s Labyrinth, Sideways, Aviator, and on and on), but only one other vote for Punch-Drunk Love? It’s certainly a smaller film, but I find it equally as intriguing and textured as There Will Be Blood.

    Also…no one else for Big Fish? Am I the only one who loved that movie? It was far better an experience than other nominees of the year, like Mystic River and Lost in Translation.

  • 21 1-18-2009 at 5:18 pm

    Casey Fiore said...

    @AdamL… uncalled for dude. John is an excellent writer who’s opinion I value greatly. his posts are often my favorite to read because he seems to have a firm grasp on the history of cinema and always meshes that knowledge well with recent events in order to post interesting thoughts that, as evidenced by the many responses on this post, catch the readers eye and interest. I’ll prove I enjoyed this article by contributing my own list.
    first come my favorite of the nominees followed by my ballot in order of preference
    2000 – Gladiator / Almost Famous, O Brother Where Art Thou, American Psycho, Gladiator, Snatch

    2001 – Moulin Rouge / The Royal Tenenbaums, Moulin Rouge, Memento, LOTR, The Man Who Wasn’t There

    2002 – Gangs of New York / Gangs, 25th Hour, Equilibrium (anyone else like this gem), Road to Perdition, LOTR

    2003 – LOTR / LOTR, Kill Bill, Mystic River, Lost in Translation, Love Actually

    2004 – Sideways / The Incredibles, I Heart Huckabees, Sideways, The Aviator, Eternal Sunshine

    2005 – Munich / Sin City, Batman Begins, A History of Violence, Pride and Prejudice, 40-Year-Old Virgin

    2006 – The Departed / The Departed, Letters From Iwo Jima, The Prestige, Thank You For Smoking, Little Miss Sunshine

    2007 – Juno / Assassination of Jesse James, Juno, No Country for Old Men, Zodiac, Superbad

    2008 – I will be happier than anyone if the consensus 5 get nominated. save for Frost/Nixon, they are my top 4 actually. I would like to see that 5th spot drop to Wall-E or the Wrestler. my top pick is Benjamin Button but I wont be unhappy if any of the 4 win, specifically Dark Knight

  • 22 1-18-2009 at 5:29 pm

    Silencio said...

    2000: Either Gladiator or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

    2001: Moulin Rouge!

    2002: Chicago

    2003: In America or Lost in Translation were my faves. But ROTK is more than acceptable.

    2004: Eternal Sunshine

    2005: Brokeback Mountain

    2006: Pan’s Labyrinth, by a nose over The Fountain and Children of Men

    2007: Atonement, though Once would have rocked my godloving socks.

  • 23 1-18-2009 at 6:30 pm

    Robin said...

    2000: Almost Famous
    2001: Fellowship of the Ring
    2002: The Two Towers
    2003: Return of the King
    2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
    2005: Brokeback Mountain
    2006: Babel
    2007: There Will be Blood
    2008: The Dark Knight

  • 24 1-18-2009 at 6:30 pm

    Mike said...

    2006: they year babel should have triumphed

  • 25 1-18-2009 at 7:29 pm

    Jake said...

    Let’s just put is this way: assuming that Slumdog Millionaire, CCBB, Frost/Nixon, and The Dark Knight are nomination, I don’t care what film wins as long as it isn’t Slumdog, because it is an incredibly overrated film.

  • 26 1-18-2009 at 8:02 pm

    Scott Ward said...

    AdamL, I’m not going to waste any fancy wording on you and just simply call you an idiot.

    Major shout out to James D. for calling Passion of the Christ what it truly was: pornography. Mad props to you man.

    Major shout out to red_wine for mentioning I’m Not There as one of the best from last year. Now that is artistic film making on every level. Being a huge Dylan fan, I never ever thought that it could have been done so perfectly.

  • 27 1-18-2009 at 8:23 pm

    Marvin said...

    2000- Yi Yi
    2001- Gosford Park
    2002- Y tu mamá también
    2003- Lost in Translation
    2004- Before Sunset
    2005- Brokeback Mountain
    2006- Children of Men
    2007- Ratatouille
    2008- ?

  • 28 1-18-2009 at 8:55 pm

    seasondays said...

    film that should have won out of the nominees / of the year:

    2000: traffic
    2001: moulin rouge!
    2002: hours
    2003: lost in translation / elephant or finding nemo
    2004: million dollar baby / eternal sunshine or incredibles
    2005: brokeback mountain
    2006: little miss sunshine / children of men
    2007: there will be blood / there will be blood
    2008: ¿? / wall*e

    films i would have nominated:

    2000: almost famous / dancer in the dark / erin brokovich / requiem for a dream / traffic
    2001: lord of the rings / memento / moulin rouge! / shrek / y tu mama tambien
    2002: catch me if you can / chicago / hours / in america / pianist
    2003: elephant / finding nemo / lost in translation / mystic river / 21 grams
    2004: aviator / eternal sunshine / garden state / incredibles / million dollar baby
    2005: brokeback mountain / crash / king kong / match point / squid and the whale
    2006: babel / brick / children of men / little miss sunshine / pan’s labyrinth
    2007: darjeeling limited / juno / no country for old men / ratatouille / there will be blood

  • 29 1-18-2009 at 9:22 pm

    Jerry Grant said...

    2000: 1. Crouching Tiger, 2. Traffic, 3. Wonder Boys, 4. You Can Count on Me
    2001 (great year): 1. Moulin Rouge!, 2. The Fellowship of the Ring, 3. Mulholland Drive, 4. Amelie
    2002: 1. Adaptation, 2. Chicago, 3. Talk to Her, 4. Spirited Away
    2003 (great year): 1. The Return of the King, 2. Kill Bill, vol. 1, 3. Lost in Translation, 4. Master and Commander
    2004: 1. Hotel Rwanda, 2. Eternal Sunshine, 3. Sideways, 4. The Aviator
    2005 (great year): 1. Brokeback Mountain, 2. Capote, 3. Munich, 4. King Kong
    2006: 1. Children of Men, 2. Pan’s Labyrinth, 3. The Departed, 4. The Queen
    2007 (terrible year): 1. Into the Wild, 2. There Will Be Blood, 3. 3:10 to Yuma, 4. Knocked Up
    2008: 1. Slumdog Millionaire, 2. The Dark Knight, 3. Revolutionary Road, 4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

  • 30 1-18-2009 at 9:27 pm

    Scott Ward said...

    Jerry you are the very first person I have ever heard say that last year was a bad year in cinema. But at least you have the balls to state your beliefs, so, power to ya.

  • 31 1-18-2009 at 9:41 pm

    Gareth said...

    No Country will be remembered and rewatched.
    There Will be Blood, not so much.
    But 2007 was the year Fincher was robbed.

  • 32 1-18-2009 at 9:58 pm

    Scott Ward said...

    Yea, how so Gareth. I don’t have any problem with you saying No Country will be, because it is a great film and I think it will, but TWBB.

    Anyway it is pretty much a fact that you are already wrong. If you read the previous posts here and on John’s other post, you would see that There Will Be Blood pops up more than any other film as far as what movie was masterly directed and moved people the most. So this is not really even your opinion.

  • 33 1-18-2009 at 10:18 pm

    Cat in the Hat said...

    Well, if they REALLY wanted to be PROGRESSIVE then at the end of the Oscar ceromony, I expact to hear, “And the Best Picture goes to……THE DARK KNIGHT!!”. Now THAT’s Progressive for ya!

  • 34 1-18-2009 at 10:58 pm

    Scott Ward said...

    Cat in the Hat,

    It would be “And the Oscar goes to….”

    Great thought, you just ruined it at the end there.

  • 35 1-19-2009 at 12:25 am

    Robert Cameron said...

    I think you’re being a little too hard on some of the films. Here are my thoughts.

    I personally believe that Gladiator was a tremendously good movie. It is so difficult to create an authentic epic that is rousing, sophisticated, but also deeply soulful that I think any one being produced should be regarded as a treasure. I think many people don’t give it the credit for being deeply felt. I certainly found it to be a worthy winner. Almost Famous should have been nominated, and would have also deserved the prize. Traffic is great, but I don’t find it as compelling as others do.

    Moulin Rouge! ought to have won, methinks. A Beautiful Mind was very moving, y’know? But I don’t think it ought to have won the award by any stretch of the imagination. Howard certainly shouldn’t have won over Luhrmann, Lynch, Scott, or Jackson.

    I think Chicago is a helluva lot better than some people give it credit for. It’s very sexy and entertaining, more so than most musicals aspire to be. Should it have won? Well, I could name a couple of films I prefer, but it wasn’t a bad choice. I would have awarded The Pianist for being such a haunting and gorgeous experience, while Road to Perdition, Adaptation, Punch-Drunk Love, Catch Me If You Can, Talk to Her all had a right to be nominated. 2002 was a damn good year; it’s a shame there are only five slots.

    Yeah, Return of the King deserved it. Capping off an awe-inspiring trilogy so beautifully (especially since we all know that the third film almost never gets it right). I also wouldn’t have minded if Master and Commander won. It’s an extraordinarily observed masterpiece.

    Million Dollar Baby felt like this spare prose of a film that managed to invoke so much. It really taps into these emotions you have never felt before. However, I do prefer The Aviator for the win for being such a deliriously fascinating epic, although the film that most affected me from that year was Kill Bill Vol. 2. The way that Tarantino was able to expand and layer the story while giving it this deeply emotional resonance I thought was really remarkable.

    Crash had no business winning over its competition. Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck, Brokeback Mountain, and especially Munich were all exceptional films. Crash did have this power to it that made it very memorable, but it was very flawed and I don’t really understand what was so lovable about the damn thing. Props for Matt Dillon’s performance, but I think that’s where the accolades ought to have ended. It makes me even more sad when my favorite film from that year, Pride & Prejudice, was never considered for a nomination. Such a beautiful gem of a movie.

    The Departed was a great film, and it felt so fucking satisfying to see Scorsese get his due. However, my favorite film of that year was Letters from Iwo Jima. I thought it was unique in what it had to say about war (perhaps not original in the idea, but certainly in how it was told). That it was so superior to Flags of Our Fathers makes me appreciate it all the more.

    No Country for Old Men is a fucking masterpiece. Plain and simple, a great American movie. I have a hard time deciding between it and There Will Be Blood for the win between the nominees. Blood was so bold and Day-Lewis’ performance ranks up there with Nicholson in Cuckoo’s Nest and De Niro in Raging Bull, but I find No Country to be the more tight and thought-provoking film. However, my favorite film of ’07 was The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which was one of the lyrical pieces of art I’ve ever seen.

    As for ’08; I’m glad that Slumdog’s the front runner because it’s my favorite of the year. It’s one of those movies I watch and I’m constantly wondering “how the hell did they shoot that?” The storytelling is just so beautifully done, and the romance is one of the most genuinely moving I’ve seen in a long time.

  • 36 1-19-2009 at 1:05 am

    Ian D. said...

    2000: O brother where are you?
    2001: Mulholland drive
    2002:Catch me if you can
    2003: Kill Bill
    2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
    2005: Brokeback Mountain
    2006: Letters from Iwo Jima
    2007: There will be blood (best film ever made in this century)
    2008: Gomorrah

  • 37 1-19-2009 at 1:45 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    “School of Rock.” Best film of 2003.


  • 38 1-19-2009 at 4:00 am

    Chris G said...

    For anyone who says Crash deserved the win Over Brokeback Mountain:

    Yeah it was a good movie, but did you see it again? The entire THEME and DIALOGUE becomes overly blunt and completely laughable. EVERY sentence and scene is about someone being Black, white yellow or red. It just becomes too much, and when you can’t watch a movie the 2nd time without starting to question yourself why you liked this in the first place, it doesn’t deserve to be up there.

    Besides, the narrative has been seen before and is nothing revolutionary.

  • 39 1-19-2009 at 4:00 am

    Joaquin said...

    Last year, I believe that indeed, “There Will Be Blood” should have taken the prize. It is simply a flat-out American masterpiece that will be remembered from years to come. “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” comes in close second, so I can’t understand why the Academy didn’t nominate it along with “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.”

    In 2001, I think “Moulin Rouge!” should have won, along with at least a director nomination for Baz Luhrmann. 2004 should have belonged to “Sideways”, which I find irresistibly charming and well-written. And, hate me, but I enjoy “Crash”, a lot. And “Letters from Iwo Jima” and “Little Miss Sunshine.” My opinions, I guess.

  • 40 1-19-2009 at 6:01 am

    John Foote said...

    Just overwhelmed at the suggestions here gang…many great ones, most lining up perfectly with my initial list — thank you, thank you, thank you — Jerry, you are the only person I have ever heard or read to state 2007 was a bad year, when in fact I consider it one of the greatest along with `1939, 1956, 1974 and 1976.

  • 41 1-19-2009 at 6:02 am

    Joel said...

    Kris: Wow. Never thought I’d hear you say that. But I agree, sort of. Brilliant comedy. Touching drama. Soaring rock ‘n roll fable.

  • 42 1-19-2009 at 7:23 am

    Kokushi said...

    2000: Requiem for a Dream
    2001: FOTR
    2002: Two Towers
    2003: ROTK or Kill Bill 1
    2004: Kill Bill 2 (Carradine deserved a supporting nomination adn Thurman for best actress)
    2005: People forgetting Batman Begins? My favorite movie from that year, Great movie and 1000 times better than Crash, also Munich, Capote, A History of Violence, Sin City were better than Crash.
    2006: 10000% correct.
    2007: Again 10000% correct

    Collateral deserved nom in 2004, Zodiac and Eastern Promises (beside best actor) not getting any nomination is depressing, Apollo 13 is a very good movie but The Usual Suspects, Heat, Se7en and Casino are 100 times better.

  • 43 1-19-2009 at 2:48 pm

    frankieleo said...

    why do people hate Crash so much??
    I’m quite confused actually?
    What makes it so bad and Brokeback Mountain so good? My opinion of Brokeback is that it was a good movie but nothing spectacular. What is it that people believe is so special about Brokeback? If you change the story to be about a heterosexual couple, then there is absolutely nothing unique about this story. Making this story about two gay men’s relationship can only add so much to an unoriginal story. Crash is more unique due to its converging story lines, which is more difficult to effectively accomplish in a movie than television. There is no doubt in my mind that Crash’s story is far more complex than Brokeback’s. Can someone please explain what is so great about Brokeback Mountain?!

  • 44 1-19-2009 at 2:53 pm

    frankieleo said...

    Why do people dislike Crash so much?
    What is so special about Brokeback Mountain? If you were to replace the lead characters with a heterosexual couple struggling to hide an affair, then there would be nothing new and original about it. Crash’s story is far more complex. The interweaving story lines prove this as do the interesting characters. Can someone please explain what is so special about Brokeback Mountain?!

  • 45 1-19-2009 at 2:56 pm

    JC said...

    I don’t know that I’d label Brokeback “spectacular”, but it’s definitely artful. Whereas many folks find Crash to be heavy-handed in the utmost.

    But someone else who’s seen the two films more recently could probably provide a more detailed answer.

  • 46 1-19-2009 at 3:24 pm

    Leo said...

    2000 – Almost Famous / In the mood for love

    2001 – Mullholand Drive / Amelie

    2002 – Talk to her / The pianist

    2003 – Mystic River / The barbarian invasions

    2004 – Eternal Sunshine / City of god

    2005 – History of Violence / Match Point

    2006 – Children of men / Pan’s Labyrinth

    2007 – There will be blood / Zodiac

  • 47 1-23-2009 at 8:17 pm

    Jules said...

    I’ll do what Guy did and list down what I thought were the movies that should’ve won among those that were nominated, and my personal pick for Best Picture in parentheses.

    2000: Traffic (Billy Elliot)
    2001: Moulin Rouge! (Amelie)
    2002: The Pianist (Far from Heaven)
    2003: Lost in Translation (City of God)
    2004: Sideways (Before Sunset)
    2005: Brokeback Mountain (A History of Violence)
    2006: Letters from Iwo Jima (United 93)
    2007: NCFOM (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days)

  • 48 1-18-2015 at 12:20 am

    crovie said...

    2000: almost famous
    2001 : fellowship of the ring
    2002 : the pianist
    2003 : return of the king
    2004 : sideways
    2005 : brokeback mountain
    2006 : juno, honestly this is terrible year
    2007: there will be blood