it won best picture over FOUR far superior films (Gangs of NY, the hours, the pianist, LOTR)
proves the academy is a joke
K Dizzle Dubs
No
actually its one of my Favorites
I love Musicalls and chicago its one best ones
Don't agree.
"Chicago" was a refreshing film. A good satire with a fascinating ruffian tendency full of sarcasm. With a vintage plotline that can be extrapolated to anytime of our days. It's funny, with good acting, an intelligent ironic plotline and a very good staged spectacle. There's nothing wrong in "Chicago" actually (unless it's a bad thing not being a powerfull drama like most of the oscars winners).
"Gangs of New York" starts good, but the last third is avoidable and empty in all aspects.
"The Hours" lost half of its strenght and wow factor in a second viewing.
"The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers" is too much dense and stretched to even thrill.
Only "The Pianist" was a match to "Chicago". But there are plenty good dramas and not so much good musical satires.
I think it was a good oportunity for the Academy to award a good comedy/musical since there are not so much good comedies over there that deserve that reconigtion. But "Chicago" deserved it, so.
I think "The Hurt Locker" or "Shakespeare in Love" were worst choices to win best picture.
"Don't agree.
"Chicago" was a refreshing film. A good satire with a fascinating ruffian tendency full of sarcasm. With a vintage plotline that can be extrapolated to anytime of our days. It's funny, with good acting, an intelligent ironic plotline and a very good staged spectacle. There's nothing wrong in "Chicago" actually (unless it's a bad thing not being a powerfull drama like most of the oscars winners).
"Gangs of New York" starts good, but the last third is avoidable and empty in all aspects.
"The Hours" lost half of its strenght and wow factor in a second viewing.
"The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers" is too much dense and stretched to even thrill.
Only "The Pianist" was a match to "Chicago". But there are plenty good dramas and not so much good musical satires.
I think it was a good oportunity for the Academy to award a good comedy/musical since there are not so much good comedies over there that deserve that reconigtion. But "Chicago" deserved it, so. "
comepletley agree with everything you said
"The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers" is too much dense and stretched to even thrill.
You shut your face you ignorant peon.
The second sentence is true. The first sentence is false.
'Cimmeron', 'The Greatest Show on Earth', 'Oliver!', 'An American in Paris', etc... Many movies won the Oscar over more-deserving movies. I was glad 'Chicago' won, though.
"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"
I still think the biggest upset in Best Picture history was Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan, now there's a crap best picture winner.
The world belongs to the meat eaters, Miss Clara, and if you have to take it raw, take it raw.
I still think the biggest upset in Best Picture history was Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan, now there's a crap best picture winner.I clicked on this thread to say the exact same thing. You beat me to it! share
Yes, this man speaks the truth. Although, I do also think that "Chariots of Fire" beating out "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in '81 was also pretty bad, too, though I guess not to the same degree. But, hey, Spielberg got the shaft in both! lol
shareYou obviously have not seen Shakespeare in Love, or you didn't go into it with an open mind.
shareIt was a good movie, but to deem it better story wise and cinematography-wise than SPR is ridiculous.
sharebut to deem it better story wise and cinematography-wise than SPR is ridiculous.
god that is depressing
shareI think Chicago deserved it, Gangs is one of my favorite Scorsese films but i agree with an earlier post that the last third drags way too far. Cut some of the last third and you have a would have a very strong argument there. As far as the others, The Pianist would be my choice as first runner up, followed by the hours, gangs, and LOTR.
Translating chicago to the big screen was a really hard undertaking and they made it work incredibly well. Not only a worthy best picture winner but I think one of the top musicals of all time right up there with singin in the rain, the bandwagon, meet me in st. louis, and cabaret.
By far the most egregious mistakes the academy made in recent memory were shakespeare in love over saving private ryan, crash over brokeback mountain, and my biggest violation ever is Terms of Endearment over The Right Stuff.
I wanted The Hours to win soooo bad :(
Meh at Chicago.
BTW Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line clearly split votes and Shakespeare In Love pulled a shocking victory.
The Hours was a good film, but Chicago REVIVED the movie musical genre. Moulin Rouge started the revival, but it didn't become big until Chicago.
share2003 was an awful year for film. Chicago doesn't deserve a Best Picture award, but none of the other films in 2003 deserve it either.
No matter which film won in 2003, it would be considered one of the weakest ever.
The Hurt Locker was a good film, though it beat out some superior ones (Slumdog, Milk, Wall-E, Dark Knight, Frost/Nixon...dude, 2008 was a GREAT year for films, my list of films I loved that year can keep going) to win the award it still stands out as a well-made and powerful film, especially to those of us who served in the Military. 2008 does have 4 of the worst movies I've ever seen though: 27 Dresses, Made of Honor, Meet Dave and The Love Guru!
2003? Look at the title of the board you are posting on.
shareYou have your years wrong. The Hurt Locker won in 2010 and Slumdog won the year before.
shareChicago shouldnt have won, but just because a movie beats a superior nominee does not make it a "worst best picture". I HATE this mindset. A movie should be judged as "best" or "worst" in it's relation to the other winners, NOT the films it beat.
My Alternative Best Pictures: http://www.imdb.com/list/fX3tVUHtWho/
1929
1931
1932
1933
1936
1937
1947
1952
1956
1958
1963
1980
1981
1983
1985
1989
2005
Chicago is CLEARLY better than the best picture of those years and its arguable just as good as some other years. So yeah its FAR from the worst best picture winner and being that it didn't even win best director or screenplay so overall it was fairly awarded.
1929 - Which "Best Picture" are you talking about? "Production" (which was Wings)? Or "Unique and Artistic" (which was Sunrise)? There's a web site called TheyShootPicturesDontThey that combines all of the other polls and lists that they can find into one meta-poll (for the world, not just US movies). It's the best approximation that I've seen to a "consensus of informed opinion". Sunrise is #7 all-time, world-wide on the current version of that list. As for Wings: Have you ever seen it on a big screen in a theater? It plays wonderfully in a theater(as intended); in no small part because the air combat scenes are, in many ways, more visceral than those in Top Gun; there's just something about really having the planes swooping and circling around each other; not having the dogfight created in the editing room with the actors blue-screened into the cockpits (yes, the two lead actors in Wings really flew their own planes). Also, there was a reason why Clara Bow was the *original* "It girl"; and her charisma keeps the momentum going during the "romantic interest" portions of the story.
1952 - An American in Paris came in #9 on the AFI's Best Musicals list, 3 spots ahead of Chicago. You may like Chicago a lot better, but it's not the all-caps kind of clear split you're saying.
1956 & 1958 - Marty is an intimate character study sort of movie; The Bridge on the River Kwai is a grand epic war movie. They're both trying to do very different things than Chicago (and than each other), and will therefore appeal to different tastes. They're both excellent examples of their own type of movie.
1963 - Lawrence of Arabia, same as Kwai
And how did you make that long of a list and *not* include The Greatest Show on Earth, which won in 1953 and really amounted to a lifetime achievement award for De Mille?