THE VERDICT – Best Motion Picture: 1994 (and some more…)

So, here are the results.

To tell you right now, # 5 actually improved (if I’m going to grade the film by my first viewing of it, it would be 1.5, seriously). # 4 was easy. #3 was hard to grade, particularly in comparison with # 2. # 1 has improved with me (formerl a 4.5, actually).

You can just click on the titles for their profiles.






5. Four Weddings and a Funeral

I suppose I was able to get the reason why people are charmed by this movie, but I am not. Some of the jokes are really funny, but the romance is dead. And how do you deal with it if the romance in a romantic film is useless? Okay film, anyway, but best picture? I’m not so sure.


Best Performance: Hugh Grant as Charles
Best Scene: The second wedding




4. Forrest Gump

As a drama, it works so well. The performances are very good, the technical achievements are noticeable, and there is no doubt that it has cultural significance. But with a screenplay that has superficiality as the one working for and working against the film, the final product is no less than good, but could have been better.


Best Performance: Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump
Best Scene: The flying feather at the start




3. Pulp Fiction

I know whit you might be thinking – # 3? Well, it still has to grow on me, and right now, I can say it’s somewhat flawed on tiny bits, particularly with the pacing, but how cool is this film, how sensational, how powerful, how dynamic! It’s a gun filled with explosive hits, and it’s not hard to see why it has that high reputation.


Best Performance: Uma Thurman as Mia Wallace
Best Scene: Trying to revive Mia




2. Quiz Show

It’s really intelligent, and it was able to set the whole story in through  the exchange of words of the characters, yet it was able to manage its pacing, keeping me on the edge of my seat as I watch the film. It’s quite thrilling when you watch a film like this – smart, but not self-indulgent, fascinating, but never that showy.


Best Performance: Ralph Fiennes as Charles Van Doren
Best Scene: Stempel’s wrong answer – “Marty”




1. The Shawshank Redemption

How could a gritty, almost haunting yet slow moving story of men inside the prison be such a fascinating cinematic experience? With powerful performances and sincerity in it, this heartfelt drama is a very effective showcase of cinema at its most humane and most inspiring.

Best Performance: Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne
Best Scene: Andy’s escape from the prison



So, it was quite a good year for Best Picture line-up. Aside from Four Weddings, each have their own strengths that make them worthy contenders in the race.

Having Forrest Gump as the winner,

I should say # 2 was The Shawshank Redemption because of the very positive things about it, even with the lukewarm box-office it had.

Pulp Fiction was # 3 because those who love the film love the film, and I am sure a number of Academy members did.

# 4 was Quiz Show because it is cool, smart, period, and directed by an actor.

Four Weddings and a Funeral is # 5. Quality aside, the nomination baffled me. I mean, Bullets Over Broadway had seven nominations including Best Director, and The Lion King is nominated for 4 Oscars. Well, whatever. I guess the Brits got it.


As said in the title, there are more things in this post. Since after finishing 1994, I already completed my

50th Best Picture Profile.

So, for that, I took a look back at the nominees reviewed, and I give myself the privilege to adjust their scores, but I won’t change their scores in their reviews, by the way.

Increased Scores


Oliver (1968)




The Blind Side (2009)





Decreased Scores


Romeo and Juliet (1968)




Goodfellas (1990)





Here are my picks for each year:

1968: The Lion in Winter
1988: Working Girl
1990: The Shawshank Redemption
2001: The Lord of the Rings – The Fellowship of the Ring
2007: Atonement
2009: Inglourious Basterds
2010: Inception

Here are the bottom 3 nominees (arranged chronologically):

Rachel, Rachel (1968)
Romeo and Juliet (1968)
There Will Be Blood (2007)

What’s you pick? Do you agree with the Academy, or with me, or you have a different choice?


But before we proceed with the next year, FINALLY, I’m going to hold the

I’m excited myself! Everything is ready – just the posts :P!

Official start of the awards will be on the following posts.

Best Picture Profile: Forrest Gump

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis

Written by: Eric Roth

Company: Paramount Pictures

Runtime: 142 minutes


One of the highest-grossing films ever to win Best Picture is actually one of the most hated winners.

The film is about Forrest Gump, a Texan boy who has a low level of IQ, setting him apart from the other children in their place. One child became his friend – Jenny, a girl abused by his father. They grew up together, but also got separated. In the process, Forrest gets carried away into history. He goes to the war in Vietnam, becomes an international ping pong player, and a cross-country runner, and with all of that, he still loves the only girl she ever cared for – Jenny.

Many people are complaining that the film is very unrealistic and far-fetched from reality, and guess what? It is. It is Forrest Gump. This is a fable, not an account from real life. The fantastical texture of the story makes the film, but at the same time ruins the credibility of the movie for me, but more on that later.

The screenplay makes the good and the mediocre in the film.

On the good side, it gives the film the emotions the story needed for it to work. It has a story, by the way, and it is actually quite involving. We see this character-driven plot about this special man who goes on an odyssey in the American history, and I felt for it. And Forrest’s story, no matter the stretch of believability may have been used, is still palatable. The scenes are still anchored with heartfelt exchange of words that gives the film a somewhat authenticated feel to it.

However, the screenplay also damages the credibility of the story. Sure, it was sometimes funny, and a lot of times, scenes of emotional heaviness are effective, but when you take a lot at it again, the screenplay oversimplified Forrest Gump the character, which is quite disappointing because thinking about it, the character could have been more developed and that would have made the film more interesting, but it just settled for making Forrest a symbolism, which is not really bad, but it could have been way better.

On the other hand, the direction is not bad. It provides a steady hand to the otherwise sparsely unreliable storytelling techniques the screenplay employs. It never goes overboard, and it is actually very subtle. It makes each scene worth the watch, if not really that good. So, with this, the direction is not the reason why I don’t like this film that much. Why? It’s as good as it can get actually. With the superficial approach of the screenplay to the story, the film adds the necessary shades of realism in the story that at least makes the film believable, if not entirely.

The cinematography efficiently captures the realistic parts of the material, giving the film the sometimes gritty, sometimes dramatic nature of the scenes. The editing adequately does its job of giving the flow of the film the ease and grace each scene. After I have seen the making-of of the film, I have learned to appreciate the importance of the sound in the film, so I like that. The music was great, as it was able to turn the film into a very effective tale of a man filled with innocence but full of love, and you can hear that with the music.

The visual effects are still a wonder, and I admit it was fun seeing Tom Hanks have interaction with these historical figures, but making sense out of it, was there really a need for all of those effects? I won’t discount the achievements of the effects because again, it’s all the fault of the problematic screenplay. The production design is equally as impressive as the costume design in recreating the eras where the characters have lived in.

Tom Hanks is actually very good as the titular character. First, let me say that he “got” the character and I believed him as Forrest. The acting tics are there, the rolling of the eyes, the accent, the body language – it is complete, he has fully realized the character, and I never doubted for even just one second that he was actually the character. He could be cute, he could be funny, but he could also be sad, and Hanks was able to play that range of emotions for the character without ever getting away from the character he is in. He is so in the character, and he also plays with his charisma, furthering his accessibility to the audiences. I am not passionate about it, but his work is quite excellent.

Robin Wright is also solid in her co-leading role as Jenny. Again, I said it, co-leading. She has the time of a supporting role, but her relationship with Forrest was the most important part of the film, for me, and she possesses the heart of the film. She hits all the right notes, she gives justice to the character, and most importantly, she undergoes a humane transformation that is really believable.

Gary Sinise is also good as the disabled Lieutenant. His struggles are very believable, and although his character is somewhat unlikable, he maintains the humanity in it which makes his character someone to care for. Sally Field is humorous and touching as Forrest’s mother, adding as much depth as possible in an almost thankless role using her skillful addition of facets to the character.

So, to wrap things up, did I hate this? No. I would never say that. It is an important film, and it is very accomplished. Some scenes have an emotional weight that really is effective. It was quite remarkable, actually. But the film’s biggest problem is also the reason why the film is this iconic: superficiality. I understand the reason why they went with that, and it is in the spirit of the film, but also, the film could have been better if they added more realism to it. Alas, this is a good film that is quite problematic.

For this, the movie gets:


Agree? Or disagree?

Best Picture Profile: The Shawshank Redemption

Directed by: Frank Darabont

Written by: Frank Darabont

Company: Castle Rock Entertainment

Runtime: 142 minutes


Seven nominations, but no best director nomination. But now, this is one of the most loved films of all-time.

The film is about Andy Dufresne, a man sent to prison for killing his wife because of infidelity. In his stay in the prison, he meets Red, a man that will soon become his friend. Together, they spend their days in the prison with some other prisoners as they live their lives. Andy becomes a librarian himself in the jail, but due to his will to get out of the jail, he will do everything just for him to be free.

Honestly, I do not have the words to actually detail the story of the film.

First off, the direction is actually very subtle but was able to make the film the thrilling emotional experience it is. Truth be told, I would not be offended if some will say that they were bored with the film. Not because I was bored also, but because I simply understand that the film takes its time to build the characters, the story, the situations inch by inch, just like the life in prison that it really wants to say. But that does not mean that the direction does not do anything to make the movie at least watchable. It presents to us the story with the right amount of aesthetic showiness and naturalistic storytelling. It aptly holds the film with authenticity that makes it quite affecting.

It patiently holds back the possible fast-beat pace of storytelling to facilitate the exposition of the different facets of prison life. It is not fun, and it is actually quite slow. But the film, at least for me, is not slow enough to make me sleep. The direction does that by adding texture of grittiness and restrained horror inside the jail that makes the film quite a harrowing emotional experience.

Of course, the film wouldn’t have succeeded had it not been for the amazingly textured screenplay. The good thing about this screenplay is that it was able to use the characters as symbolisms but it never neglects its duties to give dimensions to these characters. Take Red as an example. He’s the narrator, and he is not as active as Andy. In fact, he’s the one observant character in the film because everyone does something for themselves. But through those narrations filled with humanity, the screenplay made Red a living creature in the film.

The cinematography gives the film the darkness that it has to have without overdoing it. The editing brings the scene the heartfelt nature of the scenes with such ease. The music raised the film to a very high level of emotional validity, making the scenes as true as they are, and making the film more inspiring than what it could have been without that music. It completes the film with whole bunch of hopefulness against hopelessness in a very compelling way.

Morgan Freeman is very powerful in an unflashy performance. I mean there is nothing in this role that comes close to being ‘actory’, but instead of acting dull, Freeman takes what he has and pushes the limitations of his performance to inhabit a soulful rendition of a man. He has times of hopelessness, hopefulness, loneliness, happiness, but all of these things come off him like it really comes from Freeman himself. It’s almost hard to distinguish Red from Freeman because in that body language, he buried himself to render a portrayal of a real human being. Now that’s a work of a real actor.

Tim Robbins, surprisingly ignored by different awards for this, is magnificent as Andy Dufresne. There are a lot of conflicts going in this character, but he is also very much a passive one. He uses his facial expressions to always implicate what he is feeling. He never really shows the fullness of his emotions to others, and it is such an intelligent choice that Robbins took, making his acting in the escape scenes breathtaking to an extent. He paints strength and vulnerability in his face with complete charisma and believability that it is quite hard for you not to be able to sympathize with his character.

The film is very much, again, an emotional experience that really grows on you. It may be slow at parts, but once you see the soul of the film, you will soon realize how rich the film is, emotionally speaking. And that’s what I really appreciate about the film: the emotions. It’s quite hard to get from a men’s prison drama, but this film got it right. This film is a treasure, a very valuable celebration of life, freedom, and friendship. It couldn’t get any better than that.

For this, the film gets:

Agree? Or disagree?

Best Picture Profile: Quiz Show

Directed by: Robert Redford

Written by: Paul Attanasio

Company: Hollywood Pictures

Runtime: 133 minutes


This is one of the only few films nominated for Best Picture that is mostly set in the world of television.

The film starts with Herb Stempel, a slightly awkward man who is continuously winning in the famous television quiz show Twenty One. As he enjoys being the reigning champion of the show, Stempel finds himself threatened when Charles Van Doren, son of a renowned couple and a professor in a university, is in contacts with ther producers to join the game show.

Not that he is threatened that Van Doren is going to defeat him with the smarts, but because the producers actually want Stempel to give up his reign by intentionally giving the wrong answer. Forced by the situations, Stempel loses the game and Van Doren gets his place. Van Doren himself has become an unexpected sensation, and a heartthrob, for that matter.

Through the investigation of Dick Goodwin, the whole thing is exposed – the whole game show is a fraud, manipulated by the interests of the producers. This causes a national stir, putting the people involved in embarrassment and shame.

What will you make of a film that does all of the ups and downs of the plot by scenes of people exchanging dialogue?

The screenplay is as intelligent and as specific as a drama script can get. It’s very involving and it carries the emotional baggage with such ease that it makes watching the film a lot easier. It also causes the build-up of the plot with the use of words that makes the era it is in but also makes it very accessible to the audiences. I also like how it used dialogue to define the characters in a very subtle way. But for me, its biggest achievement is that it was able to make the backbone of the film. The whole film is consisted of exchanges of words, or the game show proper, leaving a very little time for much actions and noise. And for me, it was a very wise choice because it makes sense in what the film is really about – intelligence.

Now, there already is the said intelligence. But without the also-knowledgeable direction, it would not work. Fortunately, it did. Well, at first, it was very subtle, letting the screenplay establish the atmosphere of the film, which is mostly built in words, and guides it with utmost care. But as the conflict rises, the direction immediately takes over to raise the stakes of the story. It makes such wise decisions of giving very tense scenes the unexpected moments of silence that perfects the staging of what possibly some of the most breathtaking scenes ever built on words.

The cinematography captures the era it is in while giving way for the specificity of the vision of the filmmakers that makes the film distinct from the others. It is especially precise when the tension rises between the characters. You can sense the feeling of undeniable urgency with it. It also knows when to show off, when just to do the right thing, when to give the story the push it needs visually, and when to make it old school. It’s a very knowing camerawork, I must say.

The editing puts all of these things together with an editing that does not let these elements down. Instead, like the other elements discussed, it possesses the consciousness of the material that its foundation are the conversations and everything the characters say. Even the turning point of the story – Dick Goodwin viewing an old footage of the game – is revealed through words. So, it is up to the editing to compose these scenes for it not to be drowned in self-indulgence that most “intelligent” films have when they fail. But no, the film is edited in a thrilling way that it is almost you were watching the actual events happen, but not without the cinematic touch.

Curiously though, the film has very little or almost no musical score. There are few occurrences of music heard in the film, but honestly, there isn’t lot of music in here. And again, it is a smart choice to let the, again, words to actually move the story forward with the help of canny cinematography and slick editing.

The production values are also evident. The costume design appropriately makes the most of the opportunities for it to create a façade of the characters that suits them very well. The make-up and hairstyling are evidently good in bringing these actors to the period where the story is set. The production design was also successful to make this world where these characters are with such detail and clarity.

Ralph Fiennes gives a nuanced performance as Charles Van Doren. He comes in the film a bit late, but he easily picks up the character with ease, grace, and authentic dimension of the intelligence that he has. Using his charm, he raises the stakes of the character by making him likable but also, giving his character points of doubt.

John Turturro is very good as the unlikable but ultimately, sympathetic former quiz champion Herb Stempel. What’s so good about this performance is that he informs us that he is not perfect, yet we still need to root for him. Nothing is forced in his performance.

The rest of the cast, especially Rob Morrow, David Paymer, Paul Scofield, Elizabeth Wilson, and Martin Scorsese are also great in inhabiting their characters with full understanding and conviction.

Looking right now, it is arguably the least known of the five nominees of 1994 (Four Weddings is even much more known), and it is a sad thing because frankly, my dear, it is one of the best. A thrilling story told in a classic but modern way, this movie is. It’s full of scenes people talking, people arguing, people discussing, people admitting the truth, people saying lies, and with all of the words the film has, it was an engrossing experience, I must say.

For this, the movie gets:


Agree? Or disagree?

Best Picture Profile: Pulp Fiction

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino

Written by: Quentin Tarantino, Roger Avery

Company: A Band Apart / Jersey Films / Miramax Films

Runtime: 154 minutes


If I am not mistaken, this is one of the first full-blooded independent films to be nominated for Best Picture, if you get what I mean.

The film is mainly about Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield, two criminals connected to Marsellus, a crime boss. The film also features the characters of Butch, a boxer whose connection to the crime network seems blurry at first, but quite clears up as the film unfolds, and Ma Wallace, Marsellus’ wife, a heroin-snorting woman who might just have a problem on taking too much of it. In a non-linear fashion, the movie tells how these characters meet n Los Angeles as guns, drugs, money, and vulgarity make their world go round.

What can I say about one of cinema’s most praised films?

Let me just say this up front: I’m not the craziest fan of this film, but there are really some neat, cool, and great stuff here.

The direction is top-notch at work to give of the most complex screenplays ever written with absolute justice and life. It is action-packed when it needs to be, it calms down when the screenplay does – there is sense of rhythm in it. True, the direction is a bit uneven at times, but it’s for the benefit of the screenplay that it does that, so I say it now – there are few faults in the direction, but nevermind those missteps.

When the direction gets better, heck, it gets a hell a lot better. Certain scenes come that show how this film stands out from the rest of the movies of the 90’s, for that matter. The direction is also responsible for making the film the important film it is. The screenplay is one of the best ever, but it’s this direction that throbs in the inevitable urgency of the film that holds the audience in breathlessness as it goes full throttle.

The screenplay is masterfully constructed, dynamic, full of life, and smart. As the story unfolds, it dives in deeper dimensions of the characters and the events unlike no other film I have seen before. The non-linear storytelling was never bothersome, and I did not care anymore to tie the knots in recalling the vents to make a story told in the usual linear way because when you get the hang of it, you just got to let the sensational dialogue and the gripping characters to take over you.

Every exchange of words is rich, and each line registers the brilliance of the film in every single way. It’s also stylized, but never to a point where you just think that it is just a creation of the writer. The conversation in the car to the hallway of an apartment about Royale with Cheese to foot massage is already a very fine example of how the screenplay creates these characters with these simple dialogues and turning them to the different facets of these characters.

The scintillating cinematography holds the screen with stylized virtuosity while going for apt realism through the images and shadows that each scene features. The playfulness in the scenes are really evident and evocative of what the4 screenplay has and what the direction has to do with it. The colors are richly vivid, augmented by the already impeccable production design, to authentically bring you to a certain place and time that is different from anything you have seen before.

I am not certain of the specificity of the period the film is set, but it is unique for me because it mixes elements of a contemporary film and the feel of the days slightly farther than the time the film was actually made. Nevertheless, it is the atmosphere that you can get in watching the movie, particularly on how it drives the imagery of every shot.

The editing hits you right in your eyes with undeniable force. It holds the scenes with full understanding, giving the beautifully shot scenes the kick for them to be more thrilling. In some ways, the piercing cuts in the scenes makes you wonder how they were able to compose these shots together into a single scene with full ease. It’s just breathtaking at times.

The music engulfs the audience into a totally different world the film is in. All of the music here are pre-existing music, but each piece appears as if it was tailor-made for the film. It makes the film more engaging in some scenes where it is already high spirited. It serves as the film’s anchor of mood for it to channel to the audience the crime-filled world these guys are in, and the feeling of hypnosis it throws in every scene. From the first music, that crazily danceable Miserlou, to the ending’s sunny song Surf Rider, the music transports you to the film with absorbing nuance and intelligence.

The acting couldn’t get any better.

John Travolta, Samuel Jackson, Uma Thurman, and Bruce Willis provide very strong performances that are strong enough to win them accolades that they deserve. With the complicated script they are given, they give their characters the justice, dimensions, and life they need to accurately portray Tarantino’s highly stylized visionary piece with ease and control. Can’t say anything except that I really am very appreciative of what they have done in the film. Also included in my praises are the actors in smaller roles who have completed the film.

Now, I got to say this immediately: I do not fully love the film. I thought it was a bit overlong, but hey, I love lots of pieces of it, and you can ask me those bits: Travolta and Jackson’s lengthy discussion about television and hamburgers, Mia Wallace’s whole chapter, with that amusing twist number and her swaying to the music “Girl, You’re A Woman Soon”, Jules accidentally shooting Marvin in the face, and those other stuffs. I love the film’s pieces. And I understand if others will go crazy about this.

Is this film great? Yeah, sure, or course. Would I want to watch it any time soon? I don’t know. Thinking twice.

For this, the film gets:


Agree? Or disagree?

Best Picture Profile: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Directed by: Mike Newell

Written by: Richard Curtis

Company: Polygram Filmed Enterttainment /Working Title Films / Channel Four FIlms

Runtime: 117 minutes


This is the one of the only four best picture nominees in the last thirty years that is only nominated for two Academy Awards. Now talk about historical significance.

The film is about Charles, a suave man who always gets invited in weddings but always arrives late. He avoids to form any kind of relationship with commitments everytime he attends one, but one wedding, Carrie, an American woman gets his attention and attraction. He makes his move to know her more, but he finds out that she is engaged to be married.

However, that did not actually stop them for further development in their relationship. Carrie gets married, causing much bitterness to Charles. Suddenly, one of Charles’ friends died in the very same occasion, leading them to his funeral.

Now, after some months, Charles is about to be married. Through different circumstances that will unfold, Carrie must find a way to reconcile with Charles.

Before I go on with my critique of the film, I just want to really think of how this got nominated.

Factors against: few known actors, romantic comedy, lightweight, “feel-good”, small-budgeted.

Factors supporting: due to the fact that more or less, the other best picture nominees are either heavily dramatic, violent, or intelligent, and the other best picture contender, Bullets Over Broadway, well, they d not like to give Woody Allen films the Best Picture nominations that much. With the nature of the other films in contention, the Academy must have needed something to light things up, and this seems to be the logical choice, given that it is highly successful, critically acclaimed, and British – oh, they love British films, by the way.

So, let’s go back to what I really want to say.

The direction is direction that the film needed. It is adequate, well functioning, often setting the film into the pace that is breezy enough for it not to drag. It also makes the film more sophisticated, and that’s the film’s appeal is – its sophistication. In my opinion, the film is not important, but the direction, with all of its smart decisions, makes the film look important. And, I dare say, the direction is better than the film itself. It gives the film assurance that it needs for the audience, me specifically, to have the drive to continue in watching. And this might just be the film’s biggest asset – its direction.

The screenplay is on the shaky side, for me. While the direction brings the class in the film, the screenplay both gives some good jokes and some terribly bad lines. The jokes in the film, I appreciated, and I even giggled, but I never laughed out loud like some movie reviews promised me to be. The set-up of the five major events as major plot points is a good choice, for it somewhat removes the distinction of being just another romantic comedy.

But then, even if it has its own share of goodies, the bad things in the screenplay are also evident. Some characters are just written like cardboard, just there to throw some lines that sound like they were just written for the sake of throwing a line. Some lines are simply corny, and you know what line I am hitting the most. It is that line, that notorious line, that symbolizes the screenplay as a whole – really well-intentioned, but the delivery is almost a failure.

I don’t know what’s got into the cinematography, but it somewhat makes the film look smart. Maybe it is the look of the film as a whole, with that sophisticated direction reaching the camera’s lens, and giving us a film that really looks close to beauty. Some close-up and medium shots do the job of setting this film apart from other romantic comedies, and other films for that matter.

The editing works as a remedy for the screenplay’s slips and faults. There are parts that are really cringe-worthy or, more directly, awful, but the somehow, the editing lessen the impact of its awfulness. Of course, it is not perfect. There are small glitches in the editing; those times where some scenes felt abruptly cut, but those are very small mistakes that are forgettable.

The music is corny, but it sustains the quirky seriousness of the film that it still works for the film’s benefit. The songs used are not really brilliant choices, but they do add some texture to the film’s dreary atmosphere.

The acting fares well, even if there are noticeable annoyances.

Hugh Grant brings well-delivered justice to his character. The naive nature of his character suits him actually very well, but also gives him intelligence that he may not look stupid. It’s not an extraordinary job, but this work is surprisingly more layered than most romantic leads in other romantic comedy films.

Andie MacDowell is adequate as the leading lady. Her role is written quite awfully, and her effort is not really paying her quite that much, but I can see the graceful effort for her character to come alive, but I also see moments where she just drags herself through a scene as if she is not interested.

The rest of the cast really divides my opinion. While Kristin Scott-Thomas, John Hannah, Rowan Atkinson, Charlotte Coleman, and David Bower actually do well in their roles, others like Simon Callow just annoy the heck out of me. Maybe the screenplay actually do not do well, but they could have turned the tables and instead some palatable creations, they instead dwell on characters written with idiocy and brainlessness.

Before I give my biggest hit against the film, I would just state my biggest praise in the film’s highlight.

The funeral scene is, hands down, the film’s most powerful scene. It is one of the very few times in the film where the film reaches the certain amount of maturity that carries the emotional baggage of a great film. All of the actors are in top form, the emotions are achingly honest, the line reading is superbly delivered – this is one of the best scenes that one can see in a romantic comedy film.

Now, as you know, this film is a romantic comedy. There is the romance, I don’t deny that, and there is the comedy, I also don’t deny that. But what will you make of a film whose genre is romantic comedy but the romance itself happens to be the least interesting part of the film? Don’t get me wrong. The couple look good together, but if they just don’t keep an interesting spark in the romance, than what will you make of that film?

For this, the film gets:


Agree? Or disagree?

INTRODUCTION – Best Motion Picture: 1994

Once I got Pulp Fiction in my hands, I know I want to do this year already.

So, I just need to do some rewatching. I hated one of the nominees, but I’ll see it again with open mind just for the sake of fairness. I remember liking the other three, on varying degrees. This year excites me, so here it is. The nominees are:

Forrest Gump

Four Weddings and a Funeral

Pulp Fiction

Quiz Show

The Shawshank Redemption

What would be my pick?

Would it be the epic comedy drama romance film with some Vietnam War scenes? Or the British romantic comedy that took the world by surprise? Or the non-linear crime film that gained Tarantino his hardcore following? Or the historical drama film about a television show? Or the prison drama that gained a cult following after a great word-of-mouth?

The arrangement would be by lottery, then the last profile would be the Best Picture winner, Forrest Gump.

Would I go with the Academy? Or would I go with an another nominee? =)