Which decade had the best "Best Pictures"?

[Super Flight]

Se7en was too disgusting to win best picture.... i dont understand how Silence of the lambs won.... sick movies shouldnt win...Think of the Children damnit!!!!

 

[GoldGoblin]

80's,they had Indiana Jones,Star Wars,Back to the Future,etc.

 

[mister Lennon]

From the oscars winners, id say a tie between the 60s and the 70s. In general terms, the 30s , 40s and 50s were the best decades about cinema.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

The 70's was when they learned how to make superb movies. Then, in the 80's, they retained some of the knowledge but were forgetting much of it. Then in the 90's, they completely lost it. Of course I'm generalizing, but that's the over-all feeling I get.

 

[Shuley]

How come there is no 1940's? 40's was best.

 

[Nefarious]

I'm not too fond of the movies that came out during the 90s and I know next to nothing about 80s movies. Movies from the 60s and 70s are all classics, but I think I prefer the movies that came out during this decade (so far).

 

[iceberg325]

90s were pretty good. We got Pulp Fiction, Matrix. Waterworld......im joking. I Forest Gump, saving private Ryan etc.... 90s were pretty good for cinema. Oh lets not forget goodfellas, nightmare before xmas, the list goes on.

 

[Compi716]

1970s. As much as I love Schindler's List, it really is impossible to top The Godfather.

 

[iceberg325]

1970s. As much as I love Schindler's List, it really is impossible to top The Godfather.

I love the godfather, I guess it depends on personal preference.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

The 70's for gritty and groundbreaking, not to mention the beginnings of the big summer movies (which can be bad depending on your outlook). Hell, movies that didn't win best picture were better than a lot of the pictures in the 90's that did.

The 60's were great too, with lots of classics and the seeds for the grittiness of the 70's (Leone westerns, etc.) being sewn.

The 80's were great since it was an attempt to get back to nostalgia and sentimentality, as the 70's had the dark films. Plenty of great family movies as well as just plain fun films.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

what do you mean? those WERE the best pictures in 2000-2006...

Return of the King only got it because the prior 2 films were snubbed. It was a good movie, but Fellowship was more deserving.

Million Dollar Baby only got it because of Clint Eastwood.

 

[xwolverine2]

90's and 2000's

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Return of the King only got it because the prior 2 films were snubbed. It was a good movie, but Fellowship was more deserving.

Million Dollar Baby only got it because of Clint Eastwood.

No LOTR movie deserved Best Picture, and Million Dollar Baby was a very well directed little movie.

 

[Cmill216]

Okay, I have a question. I watched The French Connection for the first time a couple of months ago. Can someone explain to me how it won Best Picture?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

No LOTR movie deserved Best Picture, and Million Dollar Baby was a very well directed little movie.

ROTK isn't the best of the trilogy. The Aviator should have won over Millon Dollar Baby, but the Academy seems to like keeping the tradition of snubbing any Scorsese movie.

 

[Speedball]

ROTK isn't the best of the trilogy. The Aviator should have won over Millon Dollar Baby, but the Academy seems to like keeping the tradition of snubbing any Scorsese movie.

OMG!
The Aviator was amazing and it SHOULD have won.
I now remember how much that pissed me off.

 

[Shuley]

I loved The Aviator,I think hollywood should have voted for it and given Scorese his due.But the way Hollywood votes (not the AMPAS) is that they vote for the film that they REALLY,REALLY liked. With Eastwood and Morgan Freeman in it with a twist at the end (I was thinking,"Wow,she's winning") then the unthinkable happened. It stuck a cord with hollywood which is needed to win the Oscar...Travis Bickle blowing away everyone in site,didn't strike a cord with Oscar voters..but a very powerful film and it's nomination was it's award.

 

[logansoldcigar]

It's the most historically inaccurate film ever i think.
He married Anne Hathaway in 1582. The film takes place in the 1890's.
there is no Anne Hathaway listed in the film on IMDB.

It would be a surprise is SIL was set in the 1890s.to be fair, that would be pretty historically inaccurate


and as for the most historically inaccurate movie ever, Braveheart has to feature somewhere round abouts

Firstly, William Wallace did not get Queen Isabella pregnant as implied (and thus is not the direct ancestor of the present Queen). Apart from the fact that they never actually met in real life, far less had sex, Wallace died in 1305 when Isabella was 13 and hadn't married Edward II. Indeed, Isabella's son wasn't even born until 1312, which would have made for a rather long pregnancy even if they had met.

Edward I did not die as Wallace was being executed, and did in fact live for another two years, finally toppling off the mortal coil as he rode north for another attempt at subjugating the Scots

Wallace himself was not a peaceful farmer driven to rebellion by the murder of his wife; he was a minor nobleman who had been carrying out a guerrilla-style war with the English for many years before the events of the film.

Robert the Bruce and Wallace were enemies (Bruce being one of the two main claimants to the then vacant Scottish throne, and Wallace being one of the other claimant's supporters) and Bruce would hardly have invoked Wallace's name at a battle fought nine years after the latter man's death.

characters are invented, (the nobles Lochlan, Mornay, and Craig) or real ones have their names changed (Wallace’s wife Marion is “Murron” in the film, as the film-makers did not want to confuse viewers with the heroine in Robin Hood’s story).

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

1970's are pretty hard to beat. A lot of great films were made in that decade

 

[Leto Atrides]

It would be a surprise is SIL was set in the 1890s.to be fair, that would be pretty historically inaccurate


and as for the most historically inaccurate movie ever, Braveheart has to feature somewhere round abouts

Firstly, William Wallace did not get Queen Isabella pregnant as implied (and thus is not the direct ancestor of the present Queen). Apart from the fact that they never actually met in real life, far less had sex, Wallace died in 1305 when Isabella was 13 and hadn't married Edward II. Indeed, Isabella's son wasn't even born until 1312, which would have made for a rather long pregnancy even if they had met.

Edward I did not die as Wallace was being executed, and did in fact live for another two years, finally toppling off the mortal coil as he rode north for another attempt at subjugating the Scots

Wallace himself was not a peaceful farmer driven to rebellion by the murder of his wife; he was a minor nobleman who had been carrying out a guerrilla-style war with the English for many years before the events of the film.

Robert the Bruce and Wallace were enemies (Bruce being one of the two main claimants to the then vacant Scottish throne, and Wallace being one of the other claimant's supporters) and Bruce would hardly have invoked Wallace's name at a battle fought nine years after the latter man's death.

characters are invented, (the nobles Lochlan, Mornay, and Craig) or real ones have their names changed (Wallace’s wife Marion is “Murron” in the film, as the film-makers did not want to confuse viewers with the heroine in Robin Hood’s story).

You forgot the part where the battle of Stirling Bridge was missing a bridge.

I love the movie on it's own merit, but as a historical film it's very inaccurate.