Why was Hugh Hudson's snoozer of a movie--a gaseous bore totally devoid of any inventiveness, cinematic interest or entertainment value--considered better than Malle's movie? Lancaster's performance was more charismatic and memorable than the bland perfunctory ,,performances'' of the entire cast of COM.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)
Couldn't agree more. Also Lancaster gave a far richer and more memorable performance than Henry Fonda, who picked up the ultimate in 'make-up' Oscars for his silly, sentimental performance in On Golden Pond, easily one of the least distinguished of his career.
shareThis was my choice for Best Picture in 1980, however I don't disrespect Chariots of Fire in the least. I saw it after it won and found it to be a very good and inspirational film, very worthy of the Best Picture Oscar.
Yippee: "For king!"
Yappee: "For country!"
Yahooie: "And, most of all, for 10ยข an hour!"
I liked "Chariots.."also: a memorable glimpse at a world and a set of values now forever gone.
The best of the two? "Chariots.."but just by a nose.
I don't know why you would ask such a question. If you truly don't know the answer to your question, I'll tell you. It's because the ' American Sheeple ' eat dreck like Chariots of Fire up. If I said that the biggest majority of the audience who loved C.O.F. probably couldn't appreciate Atlantic City, I wouldn't be wrong. Atlantic City should have won all five of the Oscar nominations it received. It's one of the very finest American films of the last half century. There are several truly memorable scenes in the film. I'd be curious if you have any favorite scenes.
Happy New Year!
the ' American Sheeple ' eat dreck like Chariots of Fire up.Hmm, also the British Sheeple (best film), Japanese Sheeple, German Sheeple (best foreign film), Canadian Sheeple (people's choice)...to name just a few.