Biggest Crime in Oscar History?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MDS on July 1, 2009 at 2:42am

Didn't Steven win Best Director that year?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alter_Ego on July 1, 2009 at 2:57am

Yes.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Fenrir Chisholm on July 1, 2009 at 10:16am

But Saving Private Ryan did deserve to win for Best Picture that year.. At least they were given the nomination for it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by MyWifeDave on July 1, 2009 at 12:27pm

Saving Private Ryan isn;t a perfect film but it's miles ahead of Shakespear in love.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by BOWENARROW on July 1, 2009 at 1:21pm

If a movie wins for best director doesn't it pretty much always win best picture too? Another example of that is in 2006 when Brokeback Mountain won for best directing and then Crash won for best picture. Can't really think of any others

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alter_Ego on July 1, 2009 at 3:27pm

Usually, that is what happens.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by khuff92 on July 1, 2009 at 2:36pm

Talk about a fucked up decision.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by BOWENARROW on July 1, 2009 at 3:08am

To quote the movie FREE ENTERPRISE the fact that Annie Hall won over Star Wars: A New Hope for best picture....even though I have to admit that I've never seen Annie Hall. On my NetFlix que though

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by MDS on July 1, 2009 at 3:19am

I saw Annie Hall for the first time about 2 years ago. I thought it was a good movie, but I also didn't think it was the best Woody Allen movie.

I don't know. It's hard to say if I was 25 and saw them both in the same year how I would feel, but since I only saw Star Wars when it first came out my money would be on Star Wars.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gnarf on July 1, 2009 at 3:08am

i thought Chicago beating Gangs of New York was a horrible decision. and i hated that dark knight wasn't nominated just because it didn't fit a genre that the academy liked. and it pisses me off that it took so long for scorsese to get his best director.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by MDS on July 1, 2009 at 3:22am

Chicago had a lot going for it though, at least on the "Popular play" aspect.

And yeah, I agree that Scorsese should have won an Oscar a long time ago, but not for Gangs of New York, maybe Kundun after his loosing with Goodfellas. Think that Kundun showed a more "compelling" aspect to the direction than Gangs did. Gangs just had a TON of talent in front of the camera that helped it, but Kundun had TONS of talent BEHIND the camera.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Fenrir Chisholm on July 1, 2009 at 10:21am

Yes, but there was certainly more depth in the overall scope of Gangs than Chicago.. Better storyline, acting, and loved the ferocity of the fight scenes. Plus, you rarely can topple a brilliant Daniel Day Lewis role when he's good, and he was superb as the Butcher. Not to mention that DiCaprio was tolerable and came out on his own for the role. The supporting cast was equally impressive..

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last