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
I can't believe anyone still expects the Academy to be a fair and just arbiter of the "best" anything.
In fact the whole concept of more than two people agreeing on the best film of any year is inherently flawed. Too many factors: cultural sensibilities of the film's era, politics, popularity of the participants, public relations campaigns ... and that just skims the surface.
The Oscars is a big, high-end party, with a fashion parade for good measure. Sure, on some level it's probably an honest effort to note and award the "best", but the task is impossible on its face.
But people still get their noses out of joint when they perceive the Oscar went to the "wrong" movie. Is that really a shocker?
Agree with you there. This year's Oscar nominations were all excellent films, each aimed at a different audience, imo. Was difficult for me to decide which should win, well except the Sniper film, didn't think it was BP quality. Wouldn't be upset if Sniper film had won, but glad that Birdman won BP and kind of thought it would (Oscar loves show biz movies!). People were so bent out of shape at the Sniper film not winning BP, thought that was crazy...who cares?!
Enjoy the 'event' of it all.
On the Chicago film...watching it now for the first time, not liking it at all exc maybe John C. Reilly (who is excellent in ANYTHING!). As a musical, I've seen better.
Martha
Austin, Texas
May the Force be with you!
I love musicals, but Chicago was not as good as I might have thought. For me it had some weak links, the only good singer being Mr Cellophane (J. Reilly). I loved Moulin Rouge much more, for it's music and innovations. I love Baz...
Other movies that were weirdly chosen as the best: my number 1 bad movie award goes to Hurt Locker (4-5/10 stars for me).
Shakespeare in love is cute, nice movie, but no big gun, nothing special
I liked King's speech, but I think other options may have been better
Boo Oscars, some bad choices, some political moves...
Nope, that honor belongs to Shakespeare in Love
When God made Tom Cruise, he was only joking.
#1 - Anyone who thinks Chicago is the worst best picture winner is a total dope who probably votes everything 1 or 10
#2 - Yes - The Pianist is worlds better than Chicago and should have won
#3 - LOTR which was 3 hours of computer graphics being better - that is funny
Chicago - solid movie even though a couple of the numbers I didn't like. Solid musical that was worth a nomination - 7 / 10
[deleted]
And some people can appreciate musicals and can also appreciate that this movie was *beep* I would hardly call Gangs of New York an epic flop. That is a bit hyperbolic.
share[deleted]
The word "flop" generally means that a movie is financial failure - losing money, not making back its budget.
The phrase "epic flop" would mean that it was the kind of huge money loser that threatens to drive its studio into bankruptcy.
Whatever you may think of the movie, I've never seen anything that said that it was kind of financial disaster. People bought tickets to see it.
[deleted]
Box office receipts don't determine a film's quality
Hahahahaa no way. Crash deserves that accolade.
http://zummer.blogspot.com/
I don't necessarily think Gangs of NY, The Hours, The Pianist, or LOTR are better films—I think you're associating "better" with "seriousness," which is a dangerous thing to do.
Chicago is a satire, a tongue-in-cheek musical—the other films you mentioned, aside from LOTR, are overall more serious melodramas. Just because Chicago is not as serious a film doesn't mean it wasn't worthy; the translation of it to film was truly phenomenal, and Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Queen Latifah were all ridiculously good in it.
If I were to pick a second best or alternate winner, it would've been The Hours, just for the acting alone—but Chicago deserved the win with all of its pizazz, spunkiness, and top-notch performances.
Agreed completely.
share