I'm sorry if this thread has come up before. I ran a search and didn't find anything, so I guess I'm Ok.
In 1994, three great movies were released...
- Forrest Gump.
- Pulp Fiction.
- The Shawshank Redemption.
They were all up against each other for the main awards at the Oscars, and were all favorites to win.
Forrest Gump won Best Picture, Best Actor (Tom Hanks) and Best Director (Robert Zemeckis).
I can understand Tom Hanks winning Best Actor instead of John Travolta and Morgan Freeman.
But I can't understand how Forrest Gump won Best Picture instead of The Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction.
Frank Darabont (d. Shawshank...) wasn't even nominated for Best Director, Tarantino was, but Zemeckis won.
Do you think that Forrest Gump deserved all those awards over Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption?
In 1994, three great movies were released...
- Forrest Gump.
- Pulp Fiction.
- The Shawshank Redemption.
They were all up against each other for the main awards at the Oscars, and were all favorites to win.
Forrest Gump won Best Picture, Best Actor (Tom Hanks) and Best Director (Robert Zemeckis).
I can understand Tom Hanks winning Best Actor instead of John Travolta and Morgan Freeman.
But I can't understand how Forrest Gump won Best Picture instead of The Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction.
Frank Darabont (d. Shawshank...) wasn't even nominated for Best Director, Tarantino was, but Zemeckis won.
Do you think that Forrest Gump deserved all those awards over Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption?
__________________
TOP 100 | "Don't let the bastards grind you down!"
TOP 100 | "Don't let the bastards grind you down!"