@谭哞哞 said:

@Benton12 said:

The hit movie is partially set in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was a brutal mass-murderer of landlords in North Vietnam the 1950s ( if you haven't read my postings before -- see them). Probably no draft of this film's script talked much about that mass-murderer fact.

Forrest Gump was based on no one particular individual. But was a composite of several different real life folks.

Setting aside the question of whether the Vietnam War was just or worthy of praise, the film attributes several of the protagonist's negative actions to his childhood sweetheart, Jenny. In the original novel, it was Gump, not some innocent angel, who engaged in drug use and promiscuity; his IQ of 75 is a far cry from the image of purity.

It's a shame that the 1994 Best Picture went to such a politically correct, post-war trauma-soothing film. Shawshank Redemption was far superior.

I will not set aside that non-question. Ho Chi Minh's mass-murder started with unfortunate Nguyen Thi Nam- a lady who owned private land and a sugar granary. She was the first of Ho's many thousands of victims who had been landowners. He was very dangerous and he had to be stopped from taking South Vietnam and doing likewise down there.

But instead of discussing politics any longer in this theead(now that I have Ho's total guilt importantly established) I would like and will only discuss further your idea about what should have won best picture. The Shawshank Redemption you feel?

Well, I wish to say about this movie and Tom Hanks. He was admired by a certain actress named Joanna Cameron. She did the 70s show Isis. It was a very low budget Saturday morning show and her show was way, way better than any of the way more expensive projects he appeared in. ( Hanks did not appear on Isis!) That is the state of everything Tom Hanks ever did -- it was way lower and far worse than a low budget Saturday morning TV kids program from the mid 70s. How pathetic of him!!! His best work was his early 80's sitcom Bosom Buddies. It was a third of the way to almost pretty good. And he went down from there.

At first it seems like I am saying that your view of what should have been best picture that year is probably correct. But wait. It was not just Hank's shows that are almost completely awful ( save for Bosom) it is almost every movie and TV made since 1983. Entertainment reached a tremendous new low by 1985. A final good movie ( in small letters) was 2001's Planet of The Apes. So the film you vouch for ( whether incidentally better than Forrest Gump or not) is also scraping the bottom of the barrel like about every film in 1994 did. For just feel lousy reasons and bad and wrongheaded themed attitudes and vapid attempts at convincing people it's really happening. And so on. Again, imagine a super cheap Saturday morning TV show of 1975 being better than nearly 500 million dollar movies of today!!

In 1983 when Mash was going off the CBS air, Newsweek ran an article. The end of Mash will primetime TV ever be as good again-the title read. They knew then that TV and entertainment in general was sinking in quick sand. And it would just sink further. ( See my postings on bad Mash!)

In short any movie released in 1994 and made around that time was just as bad as the and any other. They all were very inferior to films made before 1985!

@谭哞哞 said:

I'd like to say more, but I clearly don't understand this deeply as well as you do.

My comments would feel rather superficial if I hadn't seen more films. To be honest, I worked backwards from the "Best Picture" Oscar winners, starting with black and white films from the 1930s and ending up with this 1994 movie, rather than relying on any regional top 100 lists.

The Oscars are rather academic. Over the past 60 years, Best Picture winners have often reflected the judges' preferences at the time, but haven't been to my taste. I've only fully watched a handful. By your account, you're even more critical; almost no films earn your praise, LOL.

Cinema is one of humanity's nine great arts. With performance styles constantly evolving and aesthetic sensibilities rising, time will reveal the truly great films. I hope you find one you enjoy. The Oscars rarely give Best Picture to foreign films. You should check out the 2019 South Korean film "Parasite." Your comment about 1985 being a watershed seems to refer to English-language cinema. Have you seen any Japanese animation from that era? Studio Ghibli and Satoshi Kon's works are excellent, as are Shunji Iwai's "Love Letter" and "Swallowtail Butterfly"—romantic films, far from being mass-produced commercial fare. I hope you enjoy them.

Almost no films since 1985 earn my praise.

@谭哞哞 said:

I'd like to say more, but I clearly don't understand this deeply as well as you do.

My comments would feel rather superficial if I hadn't seen more films. To be honest, I worked backwards from the "Best Picture" Oscar winners, starting with black and white films from the 1930s and ending up with this 1994 movie, rather than relying on any regional top 100 lists.

The Oscars are rather academic. Over the past 60 years, Best Picture winners have often reflected the judges' preferences at the time, but haven't been to my taste. I've only fully watched a handful. By your account, you're even more critical; almost no films earn your praise, LOL.

Cinema is one of humanity's nine great arts. With performance styles constantly evolving and aesthetic sensibilities rising, time will reveal the truly great films. I hope you find one you enjoy. The Oscars rarely give Best Picture to foreign films. You should check out the 2019 South Korean film "Parasite." Your comment about 1985 being a watershed seems to refer to English-language cinema. Have you seen any Japanese animation from that era? Studio Ghibli and Satoshi Kon's works are excellent, as are Shunji Iwai's "Love Letter" and "Swallowtail Butterfly"—romantic films, far from being mass-produced commercial fare. I hope you enjoy them.

No cinema the world over has to come to suck. 1985 was a landmark year in destruction. They had anywhere from great to good films till 1985. You apparently missed the Newsweek article mention proving this. ( That article was TV concerned but could be used to describe film erosion as well!)

Let me tell you something. The world God created is degenerating. That is why things stink more and more. Everything film wise out of Japan stinks too.

The mid-80s was the turning point of the whole world in film, TV, and most other aspects of society the world over.

@谭哞哞 said:

I'd like to say more, but I clearly don't understand this deeply as well as you do.

My comments would feel rather superficial if I hadn't seen more films. To be honest, I worked backwards from the "Best Picture" Oscar winners, starting with black and white films from the 1930s and ending up with this 1994 movie, rather than relying on any regional top 100 lists.

The Oscars are rather academic. Over the past 60 years, Best Picture winners have often reflected the judges' preferences at the time, but haven't been to my taste. I've only fully watched a handful. By your account, you're even more critical; almost no films earn your praise, LOL.

Cinema is one of humanity's nine great arts. With performance styles constantly evolving and aesthetic sensibilities rising, time will reveal the truly great films. I hope you find one you enjoy. The Oscars rarely give Best Picture to foreign films. You should check out the 2019 South Korean film "Parasite." Your comment about 1985 being a watershed seems to refer to English-language cinema. Have you seen any Japanese animation from that era? Studio Ghibli and Satoshi Kon's works are excellent, as are Shunji Iwai's "Love Letter" and "Swallowtail Butterfly"—romantic films, far from being mass-produced commercial fare. I hope you enjoy them.

No. I have not seen Japanese animation from that era. Why on Earth would I? Cause I wrote of Asia? I am most concerning of live action. And Japan's cinema also a thousand time times better from the 1960s than the mid-1980s on!

Let me put it to you this way, bub.

Mad Magazine printed in this mag in their once.

1895: Pictures move

1927: Pictures talk

1971: Pictures stink.

(For fourteen years more though sometimes too violent or suggestive or overly deep in theme movies still maintained a solid in theme attitude, gone now by about 39 years.)

Probably the only reason 2001's POTA was as great as it was was the following. Charlton Heston was on set himself and they wanted to impress him with actually doing the best work possible to them.

And. Do not even vaguely subconsciously think I would ever look at Japanese animation.

Benton, as it appears you have quite a strict outlook on movies after 1985, what would be some movies you rewatch time and time again?

Do more mainstream movies of the 60s, 70s and 80s get your stamp of approval?

The Graduate, Dog day afternoon, One flew over the cuckoos nest, the shining, The godfather, taxi driver, some Woody Allen films?

@rubenkemp said:

Benton, as it appears you have quite a strict outlook on movies after 1985, what would be some movies you rewatch time and time again?

Do more mainstream movies of the 60s, 70s and 80s get your stamp of approval?

The Graduate, Dog day afternoon, One flew over the cuckoos nest, the shining, The godfather, taxi driver, some Woody Allen films?

All those film's are better than anything made after '85. Godfather was brilliant. Deserving of its cult status. The second sequel was uchh.

Dog Day Afternoon had disturbing storyline but is better than anything out today. Promise yourself to keep your sanity before looking at it. Loved Carol Kane in it. Always found her so hot.

The Graduate was a great look at the 60s. Anne Bancroft's legs not in film poster. It was beauty Linda Gray's. Yes, Sue Ellen from Dallas!

One flew over the cuckoo's Nest was solid and thus better and less disturbing than DDA and beats out anything made today.

Saw 'Take the money and Run'. Loved Janet Margolin and the tow truck shootout scene. Sleeper was very interesting. Both are better than anything in 40 years.

Taxi Driver-- junky a little to quite a bit. Actually. Still beats our best today.

The Shining. Stanley Kubrick's Masterpiece and a great film due to him. Beats the '97 TV version ('cept for Rebecca De Mornay over Shelly Duvall).

Thanks for asking.

I recommend a couple of great movies for viewing that were made just a couple of years before movies turned bad. Still of the Night. Starring Meryl Streep and Roy Scheider and it is a superb thriller with Hichcock-honored plot holes. Plus, Blue Thunder also starring Scheider and it is about LA Police helicopters. More solid story in this stuff than anything from '85 on!