A few things:

First, Groucho's "liberal" crack was WAY out of line. If he doesn't like movies made by liberals, then maybe he should just watch every Schwartzenegger movie ever made, because every other movie is made by "liberals". Anyone with ANY knowledge of Hollywood knows that.

Second, Moore was very much out of line, and showed himself to be extremely ignorant of the facts. It's one thing to want peace (we all want that), but it's completely another to do what he did now that the war was started.

There are several undeserved Oscars. I think Chicago winning Best Picture was totally undeserved--but then again, musicals are overrated just by definition. Catherine Zeta-Jones was all right in Chicago, but better than Meryl Streep?? Please.

I loved the Adrien Brody pick--I felt that Jack definitely didn't deserve the award--and my favorite was Daniel Day-Lewis, who I felt gave the performance of a generation--the "Olivier" of our time. But Robert Wise put out a full-page ad in the Hollywood Reporter talking about how Martin Scorsese deserved any award he can get, and in Hollywood, that is considered as unethical as you can get--notice that Gangs didn't win a single award. And that article that Wise wrote is probably the culprit. Brody's speech was also very, very good.

To that end, The Pianist was a brilliant film and I thought since Polanski won the Best Director award (I voted for Scorsese, but Polanski definitely was my #2), that The Pianist would win Best Pic. Too bad.

All in all, this was an inept and horrible ceremony. Steve Martin had about 3 good jokes and all the political speeches were unneccessary. There were a few good parts, like the In Memoriam (which is always pretty good), the bleachers with previous acting winners, and the clips of every winner in the category.

But as a final note, I am extremely disappointed in some of the picks... Eminem, Chicago, Catherine Zeta-Jones, The Chubbchubbs (the German Das Rad is a brilliant short film), Adaptation not winning, Gangs not even acknowledged... I used to be a defender of the Oscars, but the Academy has really lost its marbles.

Again, the unfortunate blame has to lie with Robert Wise.

The problem is, after the first half hour, Saving Private Ryan isn't THAT great. Black Hawk Down is better. It's still a great film, but I think that saying SPR is more deserving than SIL is a stretch. Shakespear in Love is a great film from start to finish.

It's obviously been 20 years. Hindsight is 20/20, but really, the effects were great, but Annie Hall is probably one of the top 3 best written comedies of all time. Not only is the writing great, but it actually is pop culture stylistic phenomenon.

Star Wars, on the other hand is a childhood fantasy, but was it well-made? Not really. Empire was much more well-made than the original, even though I love Star Wars, even more than Annie Hall, but as a film achievement, Annie Hall deserved the Oscar.

Wise just wrote a short letter to the editor to voice his praise of Scorcese. Harvey Weinstein then took the letter and turned it into a full page ad to the shock of Wise and Scorcese both.

Robert Wise is NOT to blame - Harvey Weinstein and his unscrupulous tactics are.

How shocked was Striesand when she opened the envelope. It's hard not to agree with the choice though. The songs were pretty weak this year. What was that Paul Simon disaster all about?

And after tonight's show, I still stand by this statement.

Are you serious? Really?

Wow, that's a pretty broad statement. It's not like Kevin Spacey deserved his Oscar for Usual Suspects or Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Demme for Silence of the Lambs. Or Lawrence of Arabia. Or Bridge on the River Kwai. Or Unforgiven. Godfather Part II? DeNiro in Raging Bull? Schindler's List?

I can name hundreds of awards that were well-deserved over the years.

Eminem as best song was this year's turkey!

Last year, even though I thought A Beautiful Mind was a good picture, and the *original* story written by Sylvia Nasar (who went to my high school as a kid) was excellent, I think it was a crime for the screenplay to have been altered as much as it was from the book and what really happened, sold as a true story, and to win adapted screenplay Oscar over one of the most brilliant adapted screenplays from the Tolkien Epic (LOTR).

This is why I don't understand comments about "the Academy has really lost its marbles." Some of the things you hated were highlights for me. I was sooooo glad "The Chubbchubbs" won. I loved it and found it funny and very good. One of a few times I almost did a little dance when a film or actor won their award. Ditto with Eminem, Chicago's best picture win and Catherine Zeta-Jones winning.

Don't people who make comments like this understand that this is all opinion? Can't you see past your own opinion and see that other's takes on film might be just as valid even if you don't agree with it? I hated Adaptation, but I didn't hold any ill will toward Chris Cooper winning. Ditto with Kidman taking the Best Actress award for The Hours, which I found ok, but not great. I would have rather seen Julianne Moore win, but that's just my opinion.

So can we pleeeeaaassseeee just stop with the "The Academy has lost my respect" comments just because it picks films and performances that you might not have liked as much as those voting did?

How many other short films did you see, badger1997? Did you even see any others, aside from Mike's New Car? Chubbchubbs was an enjoyable short, but it was a crowd-pleasing Pixar wannabe. It wasn't even very original.

Fine. You liked Chicago. Did you even see the Pianist? Did you see Gangs of New York? I've seen them all, so I think I'm qualified to express my opinion. If you have seen them all, then you are also qualified. My question is, are you? And why is your opinion all right to express and mine not?

I've seen none of the Oscar-nominated movies (except for "Road To Perdition"), so I thus have no opinions. I am opinion-less. Not opinionated, am I.

Eminem should of easily won and did. The rest of the songs flat out sucked. Polanski shouldn't of won, Moore shouldn't of won, and Lord of the Rings should of won.

I'm not saying it's not all right to voice your opinion. That was exactly my point. That this is all OPINION and to bash the Academy because it doesn't pick the films you prefer and therefore has "lost your respect" (and this is not just about you, but many other people who post similar things), is ludicrous.

For the record, I saw all five Best Picture nominees and I saw all but one of the animated shorts nominees. I still stand by my opinions, the difference is where the Academy differed from my choices, I don't say they are idiots and picked horrible choices.

Gangs of New York didn't win anything because it wasn't all that good. Rather empty in my opinion. And Lewis's performance was decent, though completely over the top. If that role had been in the hands of anyone else besides such a distinguished "thespian", it would have been described as scenery chewing and overacted. The fact that he kept it from being so shows his talent. But it still wasn't the best performance.

I have a question: How can Pianist win best adapted screenplay over Chicago, have a best actor nomination and win, and also win best director over Chicago, and yet not be Best Picture? That seems illogical to me.

stoolie

Seems they like to share the wealth, and most times do not want a landslide victory for a film unless it is totally deserving. I guess they didn't think "The Pianist" was all deserving.

That's unfortunate, because Chicago was actually the weakest film of the nominees for Best Pic.

My point exactly. Chicago is an undeserving Best Picture winner.

I don't think you can look at just wins in deciding what makes up a best picture. By my count, Chicago ranked (according to the Academy at least) in the top five in a bunch of different categories (set design, costumes, supporting actress, supporting actor, actress, director, cinematopgrapher, picture, etc.). So I can see the reasoning that even though it didn't win some of those awards, it had quality performances and it adds up or averages out. At least that's how I could explain it.

Maybe it didn't have the best directing or best actress (but neither did The Pianist on the second count), but it had among the best and it all added together cumatively? To use a sports analogy, it would be like saying the best team is Team #1 because they have the best coach and best quarterback and best kicker. But if Team #2 has good players all around, then they might actually be the best without having the top in all categories.

But I'm defending Chicago, so flame on.

Really? Whose definition? Maybe you could explain a blanket statement like this instead of just tossing it off. What makes them overrated instead of, say, a historical drama or comedy as a whole.

I always find it odd when someone dismisses an entire genre.

It probably means he hates musicals in general

I don't "hate" musicals. I just think they are given more credit than they deserve.

Chicago, especially. It told a story, but every musical number was outside the actual plot, whereas in a film like Moulin Rouge, the numbers were part of the plot.

This is just a personal preference, mind you. Musicals are interesting (I especially do like Sound of Music and Singin in the Rain), but Best Picture material? No. All 4 of the other films were better from a true filmmaking standpoint, IMO.

Exactly! If you take the actual story it would only take up about 30 minutes of screen time. I have no problem with Chicago winning awards for "Best Costume" and the like but not "Best Picture". How can you even compare a film like this with "The Pianist".......

Some of can do so easily and actually favorably. But that's just our opinion. You know what the real secret is? The only thing that really truly should matter to you is what film you liked best. Whether or not Chicago had won yesterday, to me it would still be the Best Picture of 2002. Just as Traffic and L.A. Confidential are the "best pictures" for me for their respective year. All the Academy Awards are is opinions after all.

Pianist and hours don't interest me and imo, Chicago is one of the best movies I have actually ever as far as being entertaining.