MovieChat Forums > Around the World in Eighty Days (1956) Discussion > The least deserving of all Best Picture ...

The least deserving of all Best Picture Winners?


I find this film to be one of the weakest of it's year. I think it's a shame that something so elegant as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS didn't recieve the award for Best Picture that year... or even THE KING AND I... but this? While I do own this movie, I still think that it's very much TOO long and drawn out... and relied heavily on it's "exotic" locations and unique cinematography (for the time). Your thoughts on who should have really won the Best Picture Oscar for that year?

reply

[deleted]

woops....someone has a short brain span

Jesus LOVES winners

reply

Yup.

Chicago, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Forrest Gump--hell, in the 90's they were wrong more than they were right.

reply

Chicago was 2002

reply

And it was terrible.

reply

Amen. I walked out half way through.

reply

>> Chicago, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Forrest Gump--hell, in the 90's they were wrong more than they were right.

What on earth? Titanic? Masterpiece. The English Patient? Very good. Braveheart? Masterpiece, Forrest Gump? Masterpiece.

reply

If every movie you meet is a "masterpiece", by what standards could you judge if a movie turns out to be shit?

reply

When did I say that every movie I meet is a masterpiece? Braveheart, Titanic and Forrest Gump happens to be amazing films. They are all in my top 100 of all time, and every movie on that list is a masterpiece or close to it.

Yeah I know, it's popular to hate on Titanic and Forrest Gump, but I don't care about being hip.

Looking at the IMDB top 250 I can give you several movies that are not masterpieces, though some are pretty good:

The Dark Knight, All of the LOTR movies, Inception, Whiplash, Joker, Django Unchained, Avengers: Infinity War, Dark Knight Rises, Coco, Inglorious Basterds, Snatch, Batman Begins, Kill Bill, Ford vs. Ferrari, 12 years a slave, Harry Potter Deathly Hallows p2 and Spotlight.

There - I just went through the whole list and mentioned every non-masterpiece I met.

reply

I am a fan of some of the movies you mentioned though I do agree about Dark Knight. I like it and would give it an 8/10 but it should not be up there with Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, and One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. Frankly I hate Dark Knight Rises and do not get how so many people think it is on par with its predecessors. But Forrest Gump is a great film and I do not think it deserves hate just because it beat Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction for best picture at the Oscars.

reply

I am a fan of some of the movies you mentioned though I do agree about Dark Knight. I like it and would give it an 8/10 but it should not be up there with Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, and One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.

So true. TDK is very good, but nowhere near deserving a spot in the top 10.

But Forrest Gump is a great film and I do not think it deserves hate just because it beat Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction for best picture at the Oscars.

Yes, that is one of the reasons people give it so much hate. It’s also a very sweet film and some people find it easy to make fun of. 1994 was one of the best years in movie history, and Pulp, Shawshank and Forrest all deserved the win one way or the other.

reply

Forgot to mention that Quentin Tarintino won the best screenplay written for the screen Oscar for Pulp Fiction. So it was not snubbed by the academy.

reply

And Pulp Fiction won the Palm D'or, so it was big in it's time. Shawshank wasn't, especially compared to the reputation the film has today. I'm astonished that it got as many oscar nominations as it did. The box office was not good either.

reply

The 1956 Best Picture list was pretty weak. The real best picture of that year was undoubtedly The Searchers which wasn't even nominated.

reply

Obviously The Searches should have received the trophy in hindsight as it is now regarded (by some, not all) as one of the best American movies ever made.

But in terms of all time Oscar blunders I would have to give this a top 5 mention.

Others include:
Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan (the most egregious error IMHO)
Titanic over LA Confidential
Chicago over everything else that was nominated
Rocky over All the President's Men and Taxi Driver
Ordinary People over Raging Bull (both for best picture and best director)
Kramer vs Kramer over Apocalypse Now
Oliver! over everything else that was nominated
Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas (both for best picture and best director; Marty gets screwed Part II!)
Forest Gump over Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption (Gump is good but not better than those other two movies from '94)

And I'll say this about Crash...I wasn't expecting it to win but I was as happy as Three Six Mafia when it did. *beep* Brokeback.

reply

I hope s.kelly-25 isn't against Brokeback Mountain due to it's homosexual subject. Don't forget Crash won with a last minute (homophobic?) campaign after many months of Brokeback Mountain's social impact aside from it's cinematic quality. (May theaters even refused to show Brokeback Mountain and received huge protests, did any theaters refuse to show Crash?).

reply

[deleted]

deanmorrisnyc-1: "I hope s.kelly-25 isn't against Brokeback Mountain due to it's homosexual subject."
-------------------------------------------------------------

Not saying s.kelly-25 is, . . . . but what IF he is?

You gonna ban him from the boards?

reply

Really surprised about the comments previous poster made about Brokeback. Frankly the best love story I have ever seen. Oh well I guess its all very subjective. Greetings by the way.

reply

"Oliver! over everything else that was nominated"

Uh, the 'everything else that was nominated' for 1968 was:

Funny Girl
The Lion in Winter
Rachel, Rachel
Romeo and Juliet


In that group, Oliver! is easily the most entertaining. And let's not forget that Ron Moody was beaten by Cliff Robertson in Charly for Best Actor. Sheesh...

Maybe if The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and 2001: A Space Odyssey had been nominated, I could understand the disgruntlement about Oliver! winning for 1968. But those others? Nah...

If the Academy didn't have its head up its ass nearly every year, 2001: A Space Odyssey would have won for 1968. As it was, it wasn't even nominated (although Kubrick was nominated for Best Director). At least A Clockwork Orange got a nomination for Best Picture for 1971 as compensation, although it was beaten (and rightly so) by The French Connection.

As for 80 Days, well, 1956 was pretty much a dismal year for movies. The only movies worth a damn were Moby Dick, The Harder They Fall, Giant, and The Killing. Of those, The Harder They Fall is the one to watch from 1956. It probably would have won Best Picture, too, if it hadn't been so similiar to On the Waterfront which had won Best Picture two years prior.

reply

Certainly a weak year, but I have no problem with Ten Commandments losing to anything. I'd have to force myself to vote for Ten Commandments over Plan 9 from Outer Space, I hated it that much.

reply

I never saw Oliver! but The Lion in Winter was a very good movie...

Why you separate the saints from the sinners, you're lucky to wind up with Abraham Lincoln.

reply

Funny Girl and The Lion in winter are SO much better than Oliver!. And more entertaining too.

Acting is behaving truthfully under imaginary circumstances.
- Sanford Meisner

reply

Pulp Fiction is one of the most overrated films (and Taratino the most overrated director) in the industry.

reply

i agree with everything you named, s.kelly-25, but you were a little unfair to Rocky which is a really good movie. you're right that Taxi Driver was better though.

i always wonder why nobody mentions THE worst best picture winner of all times in those discussion. it is *drumroll*... The Great Ziegfeld.

reply

The Great Ziegfeld I would definitely put up there with my worst Best Picture winners of all-time. The others: The Broadway Melody (1929), An American in Paris (1951), The Greatest Show on Earth (1952), Tom Jones, (1963), A Man for All Seasons (1966), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), Ordinary People (1980), Out of Africa (1985), Dances with Wolves (1990), Shakespeare in Love 1998), and Chicago (2002).

reply

A Man for All Seasons??? Are you crazy???

Why you separate the saints from the sinners, you're lucky to wind up with Abraham Lincoln.

reply

Ugh, I tried to watch The Great Ziegfeld the other day and it was awful, and I'm a big fan of many 30s movies, Myrna Loy and William Powell. I find Florenz Ziegfeld interesting, yet the movie was a dog. I'm shocked to read here that it actually won Best Picture.

reply

Taxi Driver is a classic. Rocky and All the President's Men are also terrific, but the worthy winner in 1976 was Network.

Gladiator and Crash (especially Crash) were also unworthy winners.

reply

I would agree with your list except for the last one; Forest Gump should have won and it did. The Shawshank Redemption was a great film, but Pulp Fiction was garbage!! Not in the same universe as the other two.

I do agree wholehearted with you about your first one. Saving Private Ryan was just super and I couldn't stay awake during Shakespeare.

reply

Most of all - How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane!

reply

You know 1956 was also the year when "The Seven Samurai" was released in the USA.

reply

Seven Samurai wasn't "Hollywood" enough to win.
I realy enjoyed Around the World in 80 days though. It leaves you with a good feeling. Splendid movie. Good show!

reply

It wasn't just the usual Hollywood BS that awarded this film. Even the usually more artistically inclined New Yorl Film Critics named this best picture. My own choice (looking back now) would have been "Giant". The innovation of the wide-screen, cinerama, Todd-AO production values may have been influrential in the awards that year. I was too young to remember those details, but I saw "Around the World" back then at age 9 and thought it was terrific! So, maybe you had to be 9 to appreciate this film and as we grow older, it's less impressive. The last time I remember it being on TV, several years ago, I started watching but got bored early on.

reply

Yes... The Searchers all the way for Best Picture that year. It's a shame it was not even nominated though.

reply

Good point. It's another of those magnificent films that weren't even nominated, like Blade Runner, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and The Third Man.
Let's see what happens with Inception and Toy Story 3.

reply

The Searchers was one of the best films ever made, but I think that Hollywood saw the name "John Wayne" and thought of it being just a Duke shoot 'em up movie. It is ten times better than this one!!

reply

How was THE SEARCHERS the best movie of 1956? Please.

reply

If you notice, I posted that SEVEN years ago. Since then, I have seen many more films from 1956. I now believe The Killing is the best film of that year. And yes, I do think The Searchers would still have been a worthy winner.

"Let us be crooked, but never common."

reply

No, I don't think so. The least deserving winner is definitely How Green Was My Valley. It isn't a bad movie, but it definitely shouldn't have beaten Citizen Kane that year.

reply

I disagree with "How Green was My Valley" as the least deserving Oscar winner. It may have won because William Randolph Hearst was powerful enough to keep "Kane" from winning. In my opinion, the least deserving was "Tom Jones" that won over "How the West Was Won" and "Cleopatra" in 1963.

reply

I'm defending TOM JONES as the best film from that year, that I've seen. It deserved its Oscar. I think it holds up well after all these years.

reply

I thought it was an awful movie. My wife and I were shocked it could even be nominated as best picture.

---------------------
Life is like a sewer. You only get out of it what you put into it. - Hen3ry

reply

We are all entitled to our opinions. "Tom Jones" only memorable scene is the suggestively eating scene. Albert Finney had to carry the movie, an Herculean task where he does not succeed. He's done other better work.

reply

Its all just a matter of taste. I didn't like Tom Jones the first time I saw it so I saw it again. Still didn't like it. That eating scene for me was a turnoff.

reply

Yep. Tom Jones was a snoozer, and I like period films ... generally.

reply

No. Maltese Falcon should have beated Citizen Kane that year.

From Here to Eternity springs to mind...all of the other nominees were far better than it...Return of the King over Mystic River makes my blood boil...Chicargo over Gangs of New York is erring on the side of stupidity...Gladiator even being nominated is a complete and utter joke...as is any LOTR film...

So many errors....

__
"Tahiti is not in Europe! I'm going to be sick!"

reply

And let us not forget "The Greatest Show on Earth" from 1952 beating out "High Noon" and remember that "Singing in the Rain" wasn't nominated for Best Picture that year.

reply

Totally agree with this thread. Along with OUT OF AFRICA, ANNIE HALL & TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, I rank this as one of the most undeserving BEST PICTURE winner of all time.

reply

[deleted]

Moby Dick!?!?! Probably for best porno of 1950-something...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Am I the only who appreciated this movie, me and my little brother both like watching this movie, the movie and the novel both are descriptive view of our globe. I think its a fantastic and I don't get why everybody call this dated material. The only thing dated is the British empire mentallity but that's what adds the charm of the film. It deserved to win the Best Picture.

Personally I don't like how Titanic, How Green the Valley, and Chicago could be Best Picture. I was very upset when the name Chicago was called because me being a big LOTR I wanted The Two Towers or at least Pianist because I've seen that and it was great movie also.

And what's the complaint of CRASH I think racial tensions need to be explored more than homosexual love story (UGGHH!)

reply

Brokeback deserved to win over Crash because

1. it made more money
2. it got more awards/nominations
3. it got better reviews from the critics
4. and it was just better, d----t.

Crash didn't even deserve to be nominated. It won because it's publicity department shamelessly shoved it down voters' throat at Oscar time and the voters went homophobic.

I can't believe some people here are bashing it just because the two lead characters happen to be men who are in love. Grow up! It just shows how immature and ignorant you are.

As for this movie, it was okay, but I would have chosen The King and I or even Anastasia over this.

reply

[deleted]

I've heard Cimarron (1930/31) called the worst Best Picture winner of all time.

There are endless, countless moments of Oscars being handed out throughout the academy's history that don't amount to a hill of beans, endless examples of movies not nominated, not winning and so on, why this one won over that one.

"Leads to a great debate for future generations!" one says with a beaming grin, right?

Not hardly, it just diminishes any credibility to the silly things.

We might as well examine gameshow winners on The Price Is Right or Family Feud.

40 years on, where does Around the World stand with today's audience?

No one watches it, only film buffs and those who are curious. I myself have been a David Niven fan for quite some time and am surprised that I havent bothered looking for this one sooner.

In fact, I'm watching it now, am at the bullfight.

I can see how far off locales could have appealed to the audience of the 1950s moreso.

But just this past Easter, Ten Commandments ran on primetime on a major tv network.

So which one has stood the test of time?

But that isn't what the Oscars are for, is it?

The oscars hardly reflect the best of a year either, because the nominees and winners largely are released in the months of November or December, the awards being handed out the beginning of the next year.

Another best picture winner that was a head-scratcher was Greatest Show On Earth, 1952.

Over Quiet Man, High Noon (boring), Quo Vadis, Moulin Rouge?

Or Singing In The Rain, which wasn't even nominated?

Again, the awards don't represent much.

Clearly the academy wanted to honor Cecil B. DeMille with a Best Picture for Greatest Show, never knowing that Ten Commandments would hold up much better for years to come.

reply

Your comment is spot on. Right now, I'm watching THE TEN COMMANDMENTS on ABC. Have never watched AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. Doubt that it is even shown anywhere today. Very undeserving Best Picture award winner.

reply

Ten Commandments is on? Should have known. I totally forgot. It's a tradition to air the Saturday before Easter, isn't it?

I'm a Niven fan, I ordered 80 Days on dvd, but it isn't that splendid, not THAT splendid.

I read once it was more noteworthy now for the cameos. I actually enjoyed following the path around the world more, which I think was the original story's intent.

But 10 beats 80 bigtime.

reply

So, let's get this right. You haven't actually seen ATWI80D, but you hold that it was undeserving? You may be right, but forgive me if I suggest that your opinion on the matter is not terribly relevant to the discussion.

P.S. It IS shown today - just watching it now on British TV. It's nearly as much fun as I found it when I saw it as a child...with an extra layer of enjoyment from its deliciously non-PC (by current standards) attitude to Native Americans, Indians (and indeed all 'foreigners'), servants, women and practically everything else! And spotting the cameos - from a long-gone generation of wonderful actors - is a blast.

reply

The Ten Commandments is laughable camp. The dialogue is stilted and it's a wonder there were sets left since the actors chewed so much of the scenery.



"Victor, what are we going to do to stop this fiendish tit?"

reply

Titanic
Rocky
Ordinary People
Forrest Gump
American Beauty
Gladiator
Crash

reply

I'd say the least deserving was Driving Miss Daisy (1989). It was a decent movie, but the worst of the five nominees (Born on the Fourth of July; Dead Poets Society; My Left Foot; Field of Dreams). My favorite movie of that year (Glory) wasn't even nominated.

reply

I'm currently watching Around the World in Eighty Days on TV. It's fun for the cameos, but not Great Cinematic Art. While the Academy Awards sometimes get it right, the list of winners isn't NEARLY as ridiculous as the imdb top 250. Give me a break!

reply


I don't really understand the hostility toward this film. It won Best Picture primarily because Hollywood wanted to show it could still make entertainment that you couldn't see on TV, and seeing as DeMille had just been given a vanity Oscar for THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (don't think it doesn't happen), THE TEN COMMANDMENTS was out.

AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS was essentially a big, epic literary adaptation (at that time, the fact that it was based on a book was not lost on anyone). It was a prestige picture that was also a lot of fun to watch, and was interestingly the second win in a row for United Artists (who would do a triple streak in 1975-1977 with Best Picture winners).

____
View my films at: www.youtube.com/comedyfilm

reply

Around the World in Eighty Days is one of the greatest movies ever made and well deserving of it's best picture oscar.
The Searchers is an ok film but not best picture material.
I don't understand the hostility towards this film either but there is no accounting for taste.

reply

I quite agree, this movie along with the book were both travelogue stories and I think the film did it justice still entertaining to me as it was 50 years ago.

reply

I thought this movie was not so great.

Let's face it--everything about it from its self-congratulatory and weird introduction to its wooden characters and cheesy "ethnic" music affirm the fact that it's an empty spectacle. I know that this criticism is often hurled at films, but in this case, most things really happen for the sake of spectacle, not character development. Why does their balloon land in Spain? To show off sexy flamenco costumes and Hispanic stereotypes. Why does the Frenchman fight a bull? To show off a Mexican comic's physical talents. Why is an Indian princess a white woman in blackface? To show off Shirley Maclaine's rack. And the cameos, oh God, the cameos. How many times can the camera pan and linger deliberately on the face of a nothing character to highlight the withered ruin of a 30s or 40s matinee idol reduced to appearing in this "extravaganza"?

Don't get me wrong--I love some cheesy movies. Those Ten Commandments were all ten hoots, and The King and I is great too. But this movie--the definition of an expensive, undeserving winner (in my opinion--no offense to fans of the movie; there are fun elements too). Too bad High Noon lost to The Greatest Show on Earth and The Ten Commandments lost to this--1956 would have been a banner year to honor DeMille.

reply

i could get around the world faster than 80 days...

reply

I wish this guy was around 13 years later to get a detailed answer to his nonsense, but sadly, no. LOL

reply

at that time, the fact that it was based on a book was not lost on anyone

Very true. Adaptions of Verne's more famous works were churned out regularly in the decade after Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
1954: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
1956: Around the World in 80 Days and Michael Strogoff
1958: From the Earth to the Moon and The Fabulous World of Jules Verne
1959: Journey to the Center of the Earth
1961: Master of the World, Mysterious Island, and Valley of the Dragons (from "Career of a Comet")
1962: Five Weeks in a Balloon and In Search of the Castaways (from "Captain Grant's Children")

reply