I've seen Shawshank more than once. It's a fantastic film, and together with Pulp Fiction constitutes one of my major exhibits in the Oscar-gets-it-wrong-most-of-the-time lecture. They both lost to Gump, and although most people disagree, I would give the Oscar to Shawshank over even Pulp Fiction.

Stand By Me is also based on Stephen King, as is Dolores Claiborne, far from a horror flick.

What I'd add to the "great" Oscar winners.

All Quiet on the Western Front
Grand Hotel
Midnight Cowboy

Of the ones I've seen among Billy's "best" I'd say The Apartment was good, not great, but it was very very much better than the films it was up against.

Totally agree with Syd. Gump is a very unworthy winner. And yet--and this is the really disgusting factoid here--it's still a lot better than a lot of the other winners. Only about a third of Oscarwinning movies are even good, and only a handful deserve the word "great."

Okay, you didn't ask, but here is my personal "handful" (in chronological order):

It Happened One Night
Gone With the Wind
Rebecca
Casablanca
The Best Years of Our Lives
All About Eve
On the Waterfront
The Apartment
The Godfather
The Silence of the Lambs
Schindler's List
Chicago

I think most Oscar winners are good, solid films, but agree that few of them are great. On your list I'd only out the last two and I would add Annie Hall and No Country for Old Men.

I can understand taking out Chicago (it's far from a universally loved film), but Schindler's List? Really??? One of the greatest Oscarwinners of them all.

I would substitute non-winners Manhattan for Annie Hall and Fargo for No Country.

Annie Hall, by the way, is one of only two movies I have described as my favorite movie of all time. At least as an adult; there was probably a time when my favorite movie of all time was Cock-Eyed Cowboys of Calico County. And for what it is worth, Manhattan - a great film - is merely my fourth favorite Woody, behind Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Crimes and Misdemeanors.

"Spielberg decides he needs to hammer his message home..."

Spielberg always seems to do that and it screws up a number of his films. He has a bad habit of sticking something he thinks is good at the end. He's not a deep thinker.

Whiskey, I was thinking of of putting Annie Hall and No Country for Old Men on my great list but for some reason I didn't. Probably because I didn't think they were the creators' best.

I prefer my Spielberg straight up visceral entertainment - ET, Jaws, Close Encounters. When he tries to get serious he just gets heavy handed. Schindler's List is the only one of his serious movies that I think is even close to great.

Excuse me? Though it has its moments, Close Encounters is as heavy-handed as Spielberg ever has gotten. Agree in general that Spielberg is a better entertainer than philosopher, but about Schindler's List IMO there can be no argument. It's a flat-out masterpiece.