Please try to have your fact accurate

Avatar, Elvis and Triangle of Sadness didn't do well critically so they can be immediately disregarded (why there are there at all is beyond me).

Huh? All three did fine critically.

No they didn't. They score in the 60s on Metacritic. "Doing well critically" means 80s and above. Many critics deemed these mediocre-to-bad films and, as such, none of them has even the tiniest chance of winning.

No, that’s your own arbitrary take. Green Book was in the 60s as well and it won Best Picture.

When it comes to winning an Oscar, it's typically not enough to merely be "green" on metacritic. Those films were not well received, by Oscar winning standards.

As for Green Mile - it was not a good movie, IMO, but it did (unexpectedly) win an Oscar. That was certainly an outlier, but it did happen. Same thing with "Crash" - bad movie that did not do well critically, but for some reason won.

You wrote they didn’t do well critically, which is a different statement altogether. They did well critically. Did they do Oscars good? Who knows, but insinuating those films had meh or bad critical receptions isn’t accurate.

It absolutely is. Also, the cutoff for "universal acclaim" is an 80 on Metatritic. Please try to have your fact accurate before attempting to disagree with me.