You thought Chicago had unlikeable character but that 25th Hour was robbed? I don’t understand that. I hated every character in 25th Hour with every fiber of my being.
I hated the entire movie, in fact, and while I don’t necessarily think Chicago is best picture material, I’m much happier with that winning than the cesspool that is 25th Hour.
I’m with you. I loved Chicago AND The 25th Hour, but The Pianist was the best film of the year. (Well, it, and City of God, but that is eligible for this next Academy Awards.)
Chicago was great! I went in fully-prepared to be irritated by Richard Gere. He was awesome.
Great art direction, great music, great cast. I’m looking forward to picking up the DVD.
Was it better than The Pianist? Totally meaningless question. The Pianist is much more serious film, with much more nuanced performances, a script based on a very personal contemporary account, a director who has his own personal experience of the times to draw on, and rock-solid research to make sure the whole thing is seamless.
Chicago doesn’t compare well at all, if you try to judge it by the same yardsticks. It’s hopelessly anachronistic, apparently sliding anywhere from 1920 to 1945 in the middle of a scene. The dialogue is totally unnatural, the costumes hopelessly inauthentic. It presents a completely unbelievable view of prison life. Don’t get me started.
On the other hand, the choreography in The Pianist was terrible. That old man dancing for the German soldiers? I could barely watch.
Movies are so apples-and-oranges (good movies, anyway,) that the very idea of a “Best Picture” category is ridiculous.
Ah, the old GHANDI vs. E.T. question. I thought CHICAGO was the better example of a moviemaker’s art, coming together with a classic example of a genre I love and want to see encouraged, while THE PIANIST had a more meaningful story and better performances. I’m glad I don’t have a vote.
No friggin way,
Chicago was hardly a movie at all, more like a filmed musical. There wasn’t much added to the film version that couldn’t have been done on stage.
-don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed it, but no way did it deserve best picture.
Moulin Rouge was a great example of how a musical movie can incorporate creative elements only available in the movie format.
IMO, 25th hour was a really good film and I’m glad to see spike lee making movies that are about more than blackness, but not oscar worthy unless there’s a category for “best hottie” in which Rosario Dawson would have been a lock.
The one that was snubbed was “gangs of new york”
Other movies I would have put ahead of Chicago:
Bowling for columbine
The two towers
Is it possible for a documentary to be nominated for Best Picture? I know foreign films have their own category but occasionally nab the Best Picture Oscar™ as well, so I suppose they could. I’d still go with CHICAGO over COLUMBINE though due to the reasons expressed in the 2 million posts on these boards about the merits of Michael Moore.
I can’t believe the snubbing of the LOTR films. In 30 years, how many people will still be watching A BEAUTIFUL MIND and CHICAGO v. how many will still be watching LOTR? It’s this generation’s Star Wars (which of course was also snubbed).
Well, Bruce_Daddy, there’s a whole lot of bare skin (the dancers had to get Brazilian waxes for their costumes), but no nudity.
I LOVED Chicago. I’ve seen it 3 times now (2 times in theater, last night on DVD). My husband even liked it, and he hates musicals. That being said, I haven’t seen The Pianist, Bowling for Columbine, or 25th Hour, but I do think Gangs of New York deserved BP more than Chicago.
Star Wars wasn’t snubbed! It wasn’t as good as the pictures that won. Star Wars is not great moviemaking, it is just a fun movie which doesn’t require too much thought.
LOTR is better, but it still isn’t Oscar worthy (though FOTR was close… I didn’t think TTT was anything special at all).
I actually would have gone with THE PIANIST for best picture over Adrien Brody for Best Actor. His performance certainly wasn’t bad but it wasn’t Oscar calibre imo.
I thought Chicago was great.
Saw it when it first came out, and saw the DVD last night - BTW, nice behind the scenes documentary included on the disc.
I am not a big western fan, but understood when Dancing With Wolves won. I also understood why Schindler’s List won, although I wasn’t a big fan of the film. I was also probably the only one happy when Shakespeare In Love won out over Saving Private Ryan. And yes, I am still pissed that Ghandi (like anyone has ever seen that film since) beat out E.T. - a classic that kids will be watching for a long time.
In other words - sorry you didn’t like Chicago - but maybe this was simply the year for the musical to win. Don’t worry, I don’t think it is going to happen again for a long, long time.
Oh, and I am laying odds that this year, The Lord Of The Rings will get its due and win Best Film. After two years of being nominated, the Susan Lucci factor kicks in and even people who don’t like fantasy/science fiction/epics will admit the dues have been paid and the Oscar goes to…
I would have to agree that “Chicago” was a pretty horrible choice - a worse choice, IMHO, than “Titanic.” It wasn’t a bad movie, but even as movie musicals go, it was nothing special at all. It does not stand up very well against “Moulin Rouge!” when you look at it is a movie.
On top of that, the musical it’s based on isn’t very good.
I understand why it won, though; the voters liked it because it was a throwback, and with no clear favourite to oppose it, it got enough votes to snare a plurality.
