williesnyder t1_iu4amqg wrote
And this move lost Best Picture to Forest Gump in 1995. Both movies were great but Shawshank, in my opinion, was better!
Seahearn4 t1_iu50tk3 wrote
But Pulp Fiction was better than both.
I think it's always important to remember that the Oscars aren't 100% merit-based. They're a snap-shot of the year, and nothing about judging art qualitatively is objective. There's campaigning and a limited window to view the films. Not much time for re-watching and thorough analysis.
DobleRanura t1_iu5ii90 wrote
"Better" is being used way too loose by you here. To me Shawshank pierced farther than any "artistic" merits it might hold and simply resonated into what it means to be human in a more profound way than Oscars might be criticizing for. Pulp Fiction was badass and love it as well, and Forrest Gump was also a class A human experience film that crammed a lot more than you could swallow so it didn't let you dwell on the emotions presented to you quite like Shawshank did.
WhereIsThatElephant t1_iu5p4w9 wrote
But Sisterhood Of Traveling Pants was better than all of these dot
ibringstharuckus t1_iu70dey wrote
Forest Gump dumbest movie to win an Oscar
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments