Responding to your various responses: I completely agree re: placing Gandhi seventh in that list. Even the damaged goods version of Blade Runner is better (if the uncompromised cut had been released, I'd put it neck and neck with E.T., with E.T. winning by a narrow margin). Tootsie would be my third choice. :)

Re: 1994. I like Forrest Gump, but I agree all the other nominated films are better. I'd probably have gone with The Shawshank Redemption (I'm one of the two people who saw that in the cinema during the original run - the other was my cousin Robert who came with me).

Regarding Tom Hanks, he shouldn't have won for Philadelphia the previous year (that should have been Anthony Hopkins for The Remains of the Day). It's particularly galling that he won for Forrest Gump too, considering he was up against the brilliant Nigel Hawthorne. (Have you ever watched BBC TV comedy series Yes Minister? Hawthorne's greatest role, I'd say.)

To be clear: I love Tom Hanks, but he won for the wrong films. I'd have loved him to win for something like Captain Phillips (now that's an outstanding performance).

I can't agree with you on Fargo. I love it (as I love almost all Coen Brothers films) but The English Patient is a beautiful masterpiece of tragic romance, and I adored it. I'm a particular sucker for this type of film - Gone with the Wind, Doctor Zhivago, Far from the Madding Crowd, Ryan's Daughter, etc.

Juno? Very unlucky to be up against not only No Country For Old Men, but also There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. My choice for that year? The latter by a nose. But all four of those are brilliant.

Titanic versus LA Confidential: That's a tough one. For years, I said LA Confidential ought to have won. It's a damn good thriller with outstanding performances. But in more recent years, I've warmed to Titanic, to the point that now I'm not so sure. Ask me again in ten years. :)