No order of preference. I'm talking about films who didn't deserve to be nominated or be awarded the Oscar for Best Motion Picture.
Paul Haggis's Crash certainly deserved a nomination for the Oscar of Best Motion Picture. Unfortunately, the Oscar for Best Motion Picture should have been awarded to Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain in 2006. In fact, Lee's film gives a more humane face to homosexuality by having a lead character (played by Heath Ledger) who can reconcile his manhood with his homosexuality. Although Brokeback Mountain is important for its depiction of gay in films, it's not just a "gay" film. It's a story about trying to break free when society tells you its expectations.
This film neither deserved to a nomination and a coronation at in the category of Best Motion Picture at the Oscar. It's historically inaccurate given that Commodus, the Roman emperor played by Joaquin Phoenix, liked to fight in the arena. This goes without saying that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon deserved the Oscar for Best Motion Picture in 2001. Unlike Gladiator, CTHD actually renewed a genre (martial arts films) that, at that time, finally showed it could be taken seriously for what its storyline is worth.
Despite being touching, The King's Speech actually takes viewers for idiots. Therefore, it didn't deserve to win the Oscar for Best Motion Picture. The film suggests that George VI (Colin Firth), a British king known for stuttering, met Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), his speech therapist, in 1934 rather than in 1926. Given that George VI read the UK's declaration of war to Germany on radio in 1939, does the film try to make us believe that he was the Jack Bauer of his time?
Basically this film is about two rival criminal gangs, the Irish immigrants and the "native" white Americans who have been there since many generations. Unfortunately, Gangs of New York should have been a TV series. Although being historically very accurate, the film superficially deals with so many aspects of life in New York back in the 19th century: the corruption in New York's city hall, the conscription crisis in New York prior to the Civil War, the ineffectiveness of the NYPD at that time and so on. Unfortunately, the film often goes away from its main plot line and therefore should have been made into a HBOesque miniseries.
I'm sure this film won the Oscar for Best Motion picture just because the American Academy wanted to say how much it appreciated the trilogy instead of this specific film. Besides, The Return of the King is the most badly paced film of the trilogy. As for the whole trilogy, although it's entertaining, it's just a simple story between a fight between good and evil.