POLL- The WEAKEST LINK: BEST PICTURE OSCAR WINNERS OF THE 1990s - ROUND 4

MedozK

With the Oscars and other award shows over for the year, I figured a movie based 'Weakest Link' would be a fun thing. Since we are here in this forum for a 90s based band, I decided we could choose the BEST FILM for all the BEST PICTURE WINNERS of the 1990s.

Here we continue with Round 4 to determine the BEST OSCAR WINNING BEST PICTURE OF THE 1990S.

You are going to pick the film that you think is the "Weakest Link" after 2 days I remove the one (1) movie with the most votes. We will then move to the finals.

Complete list of Best Picture Oscar Winners of the 1990s

1990, Dances with Wolves - Eliminated Round 2

1991, The Silence of the Lambs

1992, Unforgiven - Eliminated Round 3

1993, Schindler's List

1994, Forrest Gump - Eliminated Round 3

1995, Braveheart

1996, The English Patient - Eliminated Round 1

1997, Titanic - Eliminated Round 1

1998, Shakespeare in Love - Eliminated Round 1

1999, American Beauty - Eliminated Round 2

tempo_n_groove

The Silence of the Lambs

It's MY ISLAND...

F Me In The Brain

Schindler's List

You are a bunch of savages!     

This should be down to Lambs and Unforgiven, imo.

Schindler's Fist was too much to view more than 1x. 

Watched the other two many times and Lambs is by far the superior film, to me. 

JimmyV

Schindler's List

Never let Ten Clubbers choose the movie or the setlist. Write that down. 

oftenreading

Braveheart

Tossing in my vote for Braveheart, despite having lived within spitting distance of the Wallace Monument near Stirling for four years.

(The Scots still shout "remember Culloden" when drinking )

Gern Blansten

Braveheart

Easy vote...but I liked the movie

brianlux

The Silence of the Lambs

They say cannibals find thumbs to be a delicacy.   I wouldn't know, don't wanna know!  

tbergs

Braveheart

As long as Braveheart doesn't win, fine. It's not even top 10 of half the decade.

dankind

Schindler's List

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

hedonist

Braveheart

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

F Me In The Brain

Schindler's List

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

tempo_n_groove

The Silence of the Lambs

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

I thought it was fava beans?

markymark550

Braveheart

tempo_n_groove said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

I thought it was fava beans?

Along with a nice Chianti. 

tempo_n_groove

The Silence of the Lambs

markymark550 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

I thought it was fava beans?

Along with a nice Chianti. 

A nice chianti!

oftenreading

Braveheart

tempo_n_groove said:

markymark550 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

I thought it was fava beans?

Along with a nice Chianti. 

A nice chianti!

I wonder if he put ice in it? 

tempo_n_groove

The Silence of the Lambs

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

markymark550 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

I thought it was fava beans?

Along with a nice Chianti. 

A nice chianti!

I wonder if he put ice in it? 

Only if their name is McGruff...

hedonist

Braveheart

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

Reminds me I need to get into Hannibal again. 

F Me In The Brain

Schindler's List

tempo_n_groove said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

I loved the scene in Schindler where new Oskar holds sway in the nightclub. 

Never saw Braveheart. Maybe that’d sway me?

(wasn’t Buffalo Bill into wearing vs. eating?)

Yes he was...but Lector liked to eat some liver and sweetbreads

I thought it was fava beans?

Same guy, different lines/victims.  He ate another's sweetbreads.  If I am not mistaken in one of the books (perhaps Hannibal?) he describes the parts he likes to eat most and believe he mentions these.

But, yeah, in that one line he mentions fava beans.  I was talking human parts...

mickeyrat

Braveheart

the show was far more sinister in my view than what was inferred and shown in silence

mcgruff10

The Silence of the Lambs

No ice tonight my friends!  

hedonist

Braveheart

mickeyrat said:

the show was far more sinister in my view than what was inferred and shown in silence

Madds is so badass in that role.

He’s just badass, really. 

mrussel1

Braveheart

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

mrussel1

Braveheart

And there's no historical value to Braveheart.  Just a rabble.

mcgruff10

The Silence of the Lambs

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I taught The Holocaust for many years; which films do you feel are better and more factual?
what wasn’t factual in Schlinder s List?

dankind

Schindler's List

mcgruff10 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I taught The Holocaust for many years; which films do you feel are better and more factual?

Shoah is the first thing that comes to mind. Also, Genocide. And the relevant films of Marcel Ophüls. 

dankind

Schindler's List

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

mcgruff10

The Silence of the Lambs

dankind said:

mcgruff10 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I taught The Holocaust for many years; which films do you feel are better and more factual?

Shoah is the first thing that comes to mind. Also, Genocide. And the relevant films of Marcel Ophüls. 

Shoah is a documentary, Apples to oranges comparison?  I mean I showed “The Last Days” for years and would never compare it to Schindler s List.  

mrussel1

Braveheart

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

dankind

Schindler's List

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

Yes, we’ve established that Spielberg’s purpose is to pander to ignoramuses; others serve the truth. 

mrussel1

Braveheart

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

Yes, we’ve established that Spielberg’s purpose is to pander to ignoramuses; others serve the truth. 

That's ridiculously judgmental.  Let me give you another example.  I tried to get my wife to read the wonderful Margaret George book about Henry VIII because I find him fascinating and critical to western history.  She read like a chapter and said.. this sucks.  So instead we watched the Tudors (Showtime series) which is inaccurate in all sorts of minor and immaterial ways, but generally a solid depiction of the adult life of Henry.  She loved it. Now she has a better understanding of Henry, the split with Rome, the Reformation, etc.  You may think she's an ignoramus, but she also graduated Summa cum laude from the University of Richmond school of business and a CPA.  She's not stupid, she just isn't into history like I am.  So movies and shows that bring history to life for people and allows them to have some basic understanding of important events are very important.  No one's doing a dissertation of German work camps on the Eastern Front and citing Spielberg.  I used to get agitated about pop history, but now I see the value in it, so long as the message and direction are right. 

dankind

Schindler's List

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

Yes, we’ve established that Spielberg’s purpose is to pander to ignoramuses; others serve the truth. 

That's ridiculously judgmental.  Let me give you another example.  I tried to get my wife to read the wonderful Margaret George book about Henry VIII because I find him fascinating and critical to western history.  She read like a chapter and said.. this sucks.  So instead we watched the Tudors (Showtime series) which is inaccurate in all sorts of minor and immaterial ways, but generally a solid depiction of the adult life of Henry.  She loved it. Now she has a better understanding of Henry, the split with Rome, the Reformation, etc.  You may think she's an ignoramus, but she also graduated Summa cum laude from the University of Richmond school of business and a CPA.  She's not stupid, she just isn't into history like I am.  So movies and shows that bring history to life for people and allows them to have some basic understanding of important events are very important.  No one's doing a dissertation of German work camps on the Eastern Front and citing Spielberg.  I used to get agitated about pop history, but now I see the value in it, so long as the message and direction are right. 

Yes, the GOP sees the value in continuing to teach glossed-over history to our children as well so long as the message and direction are right.