MovieChat Forums > Ragtime (1981) Discussion > Worst movie ever nominated for more than...

Worst movie ever nominated for more than one academy award?

posted 18 years ago by whigpresident
43 replies | jump to latest

Just got through the insufferable 2+ hours. The acting is atrocious, and I mean really atrocious. Wearing a 3 piece suit or a frilly peticoat does not automatically add gravity to your statements. Any dignity in the film is thrown out with purely gratuitous nudity. The story is hacked to pieces to the extent that any character's motivation is absent. I laughed out loud to most of this movie, Tivoed it to show my wife and had the same response. The treatment of race is infantile, apparently any reference to unions and anarchist theory is edited out. Just a train wreck. Howard Rollins was adequate to good, but even worse, that just underscored how bad everyone else was. Mandy Patinkin is likeable in this as always, but he's onscreen for about 5 minutes, and his story is hacked to pieces. Oddly enough, Altman would have tightened this thing up.

[–] rsb342013 11 years ago

Two words. 'Armchair critic.'
Amateur hour, at that. Go watch Transformers. Child.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

I think Ragtime was a worthwhile film, and probably worth seeing again (I've seen it twice). That to me is an 8 rating, but I also don't think it was like the greatest film or anything like that. The editing was too loose, imo, and the story itself (it being very much a narrative focused film) was kind of meandering.

Some great performances, though. Elizabeth McGovern in particular was excellent, following up on Ordinary People.

[–] gioconda91423 10 years ago

"Reds?" Boring, revisionist, and rarely shown any more.

I much preferred "Ragtime", and as the years have gone by, it's the only of the films mentioned in this debate that I'd bother to watch. None of the Best Picture nominees from that year have aged well at all.

[–] vajta99 10 years ago

As far as the Oscars go, I do agree with some of the posters here that "Ragtime" should've been nominated in the Best Picture category. I mean, to give a film 8 nominations and not nominate it in the best picture category is pure ridiculousness (something similar happened this year when "Foxcatcher" got nominations in best director, actor, supporting actor and screenplay categories and it was NOT nominated for best picture).

I loved "Reds" - I thought it was a true epic and I wouldn't have anything against it winning for the Best Picture. Also, I loved "Chariots of Fire" but over the years out of all nominated films ("Reds", "Chariots of Fire", "On Golden Pond", "Indiana Jones" and "Atlantic City") I think only "Reds" maintained some kind of status among movie lovers. Well, and "Indiana Jones" obviously.

However, I do think that "Ragtime" should've been nominated instead of "On Golden Pond". It is a very good movie with great production and casting. I loved it and could watch it again (probably will, too). :)

[–] jellyree 9 years ago

Goodbye.

Perhaps the OP just wants to reach out for some sense of community.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wylierichardson-966-922691 9 years ago

The cast of "Ragtime" actually consists of well-regarded actors, for the most part. Do I really need to spend ANY time defending James Cagney?

Mary Steenburgen was already an Oscar winner when she played this part, and Brad Dourif was also up for one. Debbie Allen is also a well-regarded talent.

Such future stars as John Ratzenburger, Jeff Daniels, Fran Drescher, and Sam Jackson are also in this one.