I've said it here before, and I'll say it again: Jack Nicholson was absolutely robbed of an Oscar for AFGM. He lost to Gene Hackman for Unforgiven. I love Gene Hackman, but Unforgiven was a not a good movie and his part was lousy. When you think of AFGM, you think of Jack on the stand. When I think of Unforgiven, I think how boring that movie was, despite a stellar cast, and how much better Pale Rider was. Your thoughts?
share[deleted]
^When had Hackman ever played a role like the one he played in Unforgiven.
Jack was overrated in this. Someone said it previously, all style little substance. Hackman's acting in Unforgiven was more complex and he had the more difficult role.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This was Jack Nicholson in top form - he was outstanding.
Gene Hackman is always good, but Jack could have won the big prize.
I agree that Jack Nicholson should have won. In fact, I thought he had until I saw your thread, lol.
He was on my list of actors who won Oscars playing opposite Cruise while Cruise gets passed over. I guess Nicholson moves to nominated.
Won:
Paul Newman (The Color of Money)
Dustin Hoffman (Rain Man)
Cuba Gooding Jr. (Jerry Maguire)
Nominated:
Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men)
Jamie Foxx (Collateral)
If the Academy thought the same way that you did, then "Unforgiven" wouldn't even have been nominated for Best Picture. Considering that the movie WON that top award, what does that tell you?
It could have went either way. Hackman had a lot more lines/scenes in The Unforgiven though.
share