This movie was superior to Titanic in acting, directing, writing, and set direction. Don't get me wrong, Titanic is a good movie but L.A is so much better for the reasons listed above.
Agree or diagree?
Agree wholeheartedly.In fact the 90's had some of the worst robberies in Oscar history,i.e DANCES WITH WOLVES over GOODFELLAS, FORREST GUMP over PULP FICTION, TITANIC over L.A CONFIDENTIAL, BRAVEHEART over ALL THE OTHER NOMINEES,THE ENGLISH PATIENT over FARGO,SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE over SAVING PRIVATE RYAN!!!!!!!!
"THE THINGS THAT U OWN,END UP OWNING U".
Dances with Wolves, Forrest Gump, Titanic, and Braveheart were all good movies. Yes...they beat superior films (from a quality standpoint at least), but most of the 90s films are better than the 80s and the 2000s.
shareI don't see the 90's as a particularly great decade for film. In fact, I think there was somewhat of a fallow period for great films between 1985 and 1996.
You've got Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Groundhog Day, Ran, Blue Velvet, Do the Right Thing, Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Wings of Desire, A Fish Called Wanda, Broadcast News, Aliens, Brazil, Star Tek IV, and a few I think are hugely underrated: That Thing You Do, Six Degrees of Separation, Man Facing Southeast, The Stepfather.
Compare those 12 years to the last 12 (mixing the acknowledged greats with lesser-known movies I'm sure are brilliant):
The Lord of the Rings, Donnie Darko, Memento, A Separation, Winter's Bone, The Fall, Inception, The Prestige, Hugo, In the Mood For Love, Lars and the Real Girl, Primer, Once, Spirited Away, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Avatar, Greenberg, Milk, Sideways, School of Rock, Punch-Drunk Love, Amelie, Talk to Her, Secretary, Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring, Half Nelson, No Country for Old Men, Minority Report, Spiderman 2, Almost Famous, In Bruges, The Lives of Others, Let the Right One In, Moulin Rouge!, Whale Rider, Before Sunset, Children of Men, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Michael Clayton, Kill Bill, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Squid and the Whale, The Social Network, High Fidelity, Inside Job, The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford, Pan's Labyrinth, 127 Hours, Hotel Rwanda, Monster, The Tree of Life.
Granted, I'm much more aware of obscure movies from this millennium than the last, and the first list will probably expand some once I track some down. But I think that we are in absolute Golden Age of cinema that started, in fact, in 1997 with L.A. Confidential, Gattaca, In the Company of Men, Face/Off, and Chasing Amy and saw that decade finish with Dark City, Henry Fool, the original Insomnia, and then a spectacular 1999 with The Sixth Sense, Run Lola Run, Magnolia, Fight Club, Boys Don't Cry, and Open Your Eyes.
I just think that movies have gotten a lot smarter in the last fifteen years. Notice how many of the movies I've listed really require multiple viewings to fully appreciate. I think it's a generational thing: we now have a bunch of directors who've never known anything but VHS and DVD availability and are willing to challenge audiences with films that need to be seen more than once.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
Emvan, how was there a fallow period between 1985 and 1996, considering you listed several great movies from the early 1990s? (I agree with many of the movies you listed from that time period and would also add "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Unforgiven.")
I'd say the fallow period began right when the New Hollywood era (1967-1980) ended. In particular, I'd say "Raging Bull" was the last great movie of that era. This fallow period lasted for the entire decade of the 1980s and didn't end until 1990 with "Goodfellas." The 1990s saw a return to great film-making, almost on par with the New Hollywood era.
Look at the Oscars Best Picture nominees from the 1980s. Then compare those to the Best Pic nominees from the 1990s. Pretty much every single Best Pic nominee from the 1990s was still a very good, if not great, movie. By contrast, with maybe the exception of 1982, the Best Pic nominees in the 1980s included only one or maybe two really good movies any given year. In the 1980s, movies like "The Big Chill" were being nominated, and movies like "Out of Africa," "Terms of Endearment" and "Driving Miss Daisy" were winning.
The most memorable movies from the 1980s were, for the most part, in one of two categories: (1) great, fun adventure/fantasy/sci-fi movies ("Aliens," "The Terminator," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "E.T."), or (2) overly-sentimental schlock that received more awards or nominations than it should have ("Out of Africa," "Chariots of Fire," "Terms of Endearment," "The Big Chill," "Driving Miss Daisy," "Rain Man").
It's perhaps too soon to judge the last decade (2000-2009), but it seems much better than the 1980s and almost as good as the 1990s.
Also,Robocop.
share[deleted]
Completely agree on Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas, Titanic over L.A. Confidential and The English Patient over Fargo. I was and am OK with Braveheart winning, though I would have preferred Apollo 13. And while I agree that 1994 was a robbery, it was The Shawshank Redemption that got robbed more than Pulp Fiction. Don't get me wrong. Pulp Fiction is a great, great movie. But Shawshank is the best movie ever. It's No. 1 on IMDB for a reason.
shareMost definitely. Any year but the Titanic movie year, this would have won hands down. Excellent writing, directing,and acting all around. Titanic was also very good, but this one, to me anyway, was better. This is from someone who saw Titanic more than once when it came out. Don't have it in my collection, but do have LA Confidential. Excellent movie. Watching it again right now.
Completely agreed with OP and others. Titanic is good. LA Confidential is beyond good.
shareThe OP just reminded me of the Oscars that year.
L.A. Confidential was robbed pure and simple. I just saw it again tonight and this movie is just so well put together, an awesome showcase. Titanic won because everyone in the industry were *beep* themselves that Titanic cost so much and Waterworld talk was being swirled about. The collective sigh of relief when Titanic made so much money was palpable - and the Oscars reflected that.
Ever since Pulp Fiction was robbed I've not taken the Oscars seriously.
Yes.
"Ah, ya's fancy pants, alla ya's"
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
LA Confidential was way too good to win Best Picture.
Titanic was a disaster.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I completely understand and agree with what you are saying.
However, with several movies made of Titanic before, plus the history of tragedy that most people had heard of before the billiant Cameron version, as well as the actual findings of what happened to cause the sinking, the breaking apart, eyewitness testimony from that era, etc, it wasn't totally a blank screen. Just needed to fill in many places (fictional young lovers and entourage), words by people that may or may not have been spoken, as well as actions by passengers and crew at that time, a lot documented. James Cameron tried to be as accurate as possible.
I didn't realize LA Confidential was a novel first, so writer and director had more of a script to follow from the beginning. Maybe that is what caused it to lose to Titanic. That, and the huge box office revenue, which always impresses the academy voters.
Like both pictures very much, but still prefer LA Confidential. As I've mentioned, have LAC in my collection and watch it from time to time, but don't have Titanic.
[deleted]
Personally I find Titanic unwatchable, even though I adore Kate Winslet. This is a great film with so many good rolls and good performances it's ridiculous. No contest IMHO - LA Confidential is the better film.
shareJust so in again for the first time in years, and I have to agree: while 'Titanic' is certainly quite enjoyable, 'L.A. Confidential' is miles better. It's funny how one forgets the way some scenes actually act out (compared to one's memory), but this is one of the movies that just gets better with each viewing.
A well-rounded cast, great - and interesting - story, intelligent pacing.
Wow I didn’t even see how busy this post got! haha. It’s been a while. let me also expand my reasoning because I just started watching L.A again and it’s even better than I originally thought (if that’s even possible).
Maybe Titanic should have won Best Picture because I totally agree with one post on here that said: “it’s too good to win best picture”. Haha that couldn’t be any more true because so many smart films have been robbed but hands down Curtis Hanson should have won Best Director. Simply not only a snub but an insult as well.
The screenplay is outstanding (and it did win for it’s screenplay-so at least it won something as well as BSA for Basinger). The characters are wonderful (I find Cameron’s script and characterization waaaay too 2-D).
NO! Titanic resonates much more. 1997 was a weak year for film, like much of the product from this dreary decade—there were a few standouts.
share[deleted]
My personal choice for Best Picture of 1997 would be 'The Ice Storm'. Since it wasn't that popular and really has a limited appeal, I would say giving it Best Picture of the year would have been a wasted award—especially in the wake of 'Titanic'. 'Titanic' had a soggy script with some cringe worthy dialogue, but it's overall strengths outweigh it's weaknesses on a cinematic level. As for the other films from 97' I saw, most of them just sit at a blah that was OK plane for me and didn't really raise any bars—I can take them or leave them.
shareHead & Shoulders, L.A.C. was the best film of 1997.
share