Sometimes I do feel that magazines get caught up in themselves and their need to bash what they preach. For instance I stopped buying XBox Official magazine because all they did was hype the XBox and slate the PS2, I own both and they each have their merits. Likewise Empire magazine can sometimes get lost in themselves and start bashing things where they maybe shouldn’t.
One such example is the story from Ireland on-line, of all places, quoting an Empire article which I have yet been able to find. It highlights their top ten most undeserving Oscar winners ever.
Before I quote the list I have to say that I do indeed agree with some of their entries, but definitely not some of their cutting and bashing comments. Plus I am sure there are more deserving entries for the top ten. However, let me get on with their list:
The 10 Worst Best Pictures – from Empire magazine
1. Braveheart (1995)
2. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
3. The Greatest Show On Earth (1952)
4. Ordinary People (1980)
5. Forrest Gump (1994)
6. Terms Of Endearment (1983)
7. Around the World In 80 Days (1956)
8. Cavalcade (1933)
9. Rocky (1976)
10. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
The associated comments seem a bit harsh, let me throw some down, and remind you that these are quoted from Ireland on-line as being from Empire:
This typical piece of Pom-bashing from Mel Gibson is just about the all-time worst Best Picture – Braveheart
Randall Wallace (the writer) might have merited praise for making 14th-century history relevant to audiences who thought King Edward was a potato or a cigar, but his dialogue has all the thudding subtlety of a parody – Braveheart
wilfully dishonest screenplay and clunkily intricate direction – A Beautiful Mind
tawdry circus spectacle – The Greatest Show on Earth
I thought Braveheart and The Greatest Show on Earth were very good movies, and being Scottish I think Braveheart was excellent, even if it was created by non-Scots, totally ravaged history as we know it, and reminded us all what a downtrodden race we have become, and how we were failed by our own infighting and some turncoats in our ranks. Sigh. Back to the point, I also thought Terms of Endearment and Forrest Gump were excellent movies and well deserving winners, so what if they were tear jerkers? They moved an audience, that’s the most impressive thing about a movie, is the ability to affect an audience. Surely if you can achieve that you deserve to be thought of in these circles.
Of course it all comes back to what the competition was at the time, and is that any way to value what is a “Best Film”?
Empire magazine writer Patrick Peters said: “Critical worth is almost irrelevant where bestowing the Best Picture award is concerned.”
“Scope and scale, the civic validity of the storyline, the plushness of the production values and the tissue count during those crucial heart-warming moments are what matter.”
“The Oscars aren’t about quality. They’re peer-group nods of approval and, as a result, there has been a surfeit of unworthy Best Pictures and, rest assured, there will be many more to come.”
Interesting words, and some that I would tend to agree with, it in fact reflects part of what I was previously talking about with regards the BAFTA’s and the Best Picture award.
Do you have any thoughts on what should, or shouldn’t be in that top ten? Perhaps we at MB should put together what we think are our best and worst top ten of all time…
