Movies that Shouldn't Have Won the Best Picture Oscar

How could a movie with that snob Gwyneth Paltrow win over what I consider a fantastic and very realistic movie called Saving Private Ryan?

They chose this over Saving Private Ryan, really?

It has no story, just random war scenes. Worst movie of all time.

Super ironic that Academy voters chose this, a movie about moral quandaries and race relations, over the other four, less "safe" choices like Brokeback Mountain and Capote. Do better, Academy. Just... do better.

We had three other, way more phenomenal nominees that year, but the one that definitely should've won was Secrets & Lies. That movie was a gripping, subtle, and straightforward drama.

All this had was... what, 2, 3 great actors certainly not at their career bests? Everyone in Secrets & Lies is at their best. The director, Mike Leigh, and his beautiful actors, Brenda Blethyn, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Timothy Spall, were way better equipped to be the Best Picture of 1996.

It is okay, but not exactly one of the most memorable musicals out there, neither story-wise nor musically.

Also, this was a strong year where each other nominee would have deserved the award much more. "Gangs of New York" is a brilliant epic with storylines involving basic emotions and complex characters and an unexpectedly great performance by all three main actors (yes, Diaz can act very well if she wants). "The Hours" is a sensitive and imaginative anthology film with three of the greatest actresses of today, mixing reality with fiction.

I don't think I have to say anything about the second installment of the "Lord of the Rings" saga. Enough has been said about this epic. It rightfully has its place in film and pop culture history.

Well, I may not personally think that "The Pianist" is one of the greatest movies of all time (there have been more intense, sadder, and more stunningly directed and written movies about the horrors of the Holocaust), but I know that many regard it as one of the best. I can see why: it is emotional, has a strong and important message, and an astounding performance by the leading actor.

"Chicago" is by far the least outstanding picture of the five nominees. Actually, it's nothing more than an okay movie in general and shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.

I never really got the praise for this movie. It sure has an interesting premise and also something to say, but in the end, it just didn't get me.

On the one hand, it's about the serious topics of ghettos in India. On the other hand, it's also built up like a fairy tale about love and destiny. While this could go well together - Titanic works as both a big Hollywood picture and as a realistic depiction of the horrible disaster, and ends up being one of the saddest and most gripping movies I know - in "Slumdog Millionaire" it just doesn't go far enough in both aspects. I don't feel the strong emotion both storylines have to offer.

Back then, no one could foresee the impact of Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon. Since Citizen Kane was critically panned back then, it was a wonder it was even nominated in the first place and on top won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

As for The Maltese Falcon, no one could foresee it would start a whole new genre that is among the most acclaimed ones and be constantly referenced in pop culture to an extent where lines and scenes of it became part of everyday language.

I have not seen How Green Was My Valley, but most modern reviews are great and the premise sounds good, so I assume it is not on here because it isn't a great movie but because of the influence of the other two nominees I just wrote about.

While I think "Argo" is a really good movie and the nomination was justified, the year was so strong that it just doesn't feel right that this got the Best Picture Oscar.

When you have a movie like "Life of Pi," which is rich in philosophy and metaphorical meanings as well as being an audiovisual experience one has never seen before, then a realistic movie about an elderly couple having to go through the painful experience of the woman slowly withering away, a Tarantino movie about slavery which is among his most praised works (I don't agree, but it still is better than most other movies by other directors), a movie about the methods of the CIA raising moral questions, the tale of an unlikely relationship of a man with bipolar disorder and a woman with borderline personality, and a handcrafted epic musical based on a literary classic, this win seems extremely unjustified.

Inception should have decimated this, but no. This one had to win, even though the plot and storyline weren't interesting. Inception still won the most Oscars of the year, though, so it doesn't really matter.

Black Swan should've decimated The King's Speech and this category in general.

Textbook example of the Academy going for the crowd-pleaser instead of the two REAL best pictures of '94: Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption.

Extremely overrated! I don't get it. Is it a comedy?

A clear-cut example of politics overshadowing actual filmmaking for the Academy. There is nothing special about Spotlight, especially in regard to the technical aspects. Somehow it still managed to beat The Revenant for Best Picture.

Even Mad Max: Fury Road would've been a better choice than Spotlight, and that's not getting into movies that weren't nominated like Anomalisa, Sicario, Son of Saul, etc.

Yes, this movie didn't deserve Best Picture. It's just a talking fish and a girl. It isn't that great.