Am I wrong in thinking 2005 had a bumper crop of good-to-great movies? One metric I am thinking of that shows just how much better this year's slate was is possible Oscar nominees. Most years I can't be bothered to care, but this year it seems like there might be about two dozen movies that would be satisfying oscar wins for something or another. A partial list of 2005 movies that might be pretty good, even if I think they're overrated or haven't seen it:

Brokeback
Junebug
Broken Flowers
Good Night and Good Luck
capote
Kong
Match Point
The Constant Gardener
Syriana
Munich
The Squid and the Whale
Wallace and Gromit
Narnia, Pass the Chronic(what)les of
A History of Violence
Serenity
Me and You and Everyone We Know
Grizzly Man
Kung Fu Hustle
Walk the Line
Upside of Anger
Aristocrats

Am I wrong in thinking 2005 had a bumper crop of good-to-great movies?

Most year end lists have noted it was a good year to be a movie fan. And usually they're desultory.

Grizzly Man

Already passed over for Oscar consideration, much to my dismay. (Not that it ever had a chance at beating the penguins anyway, but still.)

What amazes me is how many of bon bon's list I have seen -- 6. Last year, I skipped the Oscars entirely, because I hadn't seen anything that was nominated.

I'm not sure that it's really been a year of Quality, so much as a year where all the blockbusters happened to be crap, so the smaller movies are the only candidates for awards. Usually there is some Saving Private Ryan or some other big feely movie that is considered good (if not by me) and is widely-seen enough to basically become a shoo-in for all the bigger prizes.

I don't agree, Nutty. I think that movie is Brokeback, Narnia or King Kong.

There isn't one obvious Oscar-Blockbuster though, it's true.

I can't see Narnia or Kong winning anything but tech awards, especially after last year's LotR sweep.

I have only seen one of those (Brokeback), and it's not that big a release, is it? I mean, it is playing at the Harvard Theatre, which is usually a sign that it does not have Art House Wait For DVD tattooed on its forehead, but it's not playing on 2500 screens either.

I guess King Kong did have some good reviews, didn't it? I just have exactly zero interest in its subject matter.

I don't think Oscar voters will vote in a children's movie as best picture, whatever its pedigree. Even LOTR, which was often called adolescent fodder, had actual adults as its main characters, which is not the case for Narnia.

I found it too self-aware to be successful.

Oh, I understand. I've seen very little Freaks and Geeks but it had struck me as a conventionally made drama about mundane incidents, rather than a drama striving for a fly-on-the-wall-look-into-the-lives-of-people-waiting-for-bus feel. Do you feel the same way about everything that is aiming for realism, like, say, The Office?

ETA. Sorry for sounding like a questionnaire

I have only seen one of those (Brokeback), and it's not that big a release, is it?

Not yet -- it goes wide mid-January. (It's in limited release right now for Oscar qualification.)

Do you feel the same way about everything that is obviously aiming for realism

No, only the ones that miss. :)