It won best picture but . . .

I saw the movie about a month ago, I didn't like it.

There are more questions:

Why does Maggie want only Frankie as a trainer? ("I know that if you train me, I'll win" doesn't cut it) What's with the Danger character? He feels out of place in the movie. Why does the narrator have to talk in a raspy voice?

The movie seems like pieces of other movies sewn together:
- the underdog story/too old to do something
- relationship between an older man with a young woman
- years old friendship
- the euthanasia dilemma
- family troubles

I think Eastwood is way overrated as a writer/director.

You all may be right because I believe "The Aviator" deserved best picture.

I have to agree with you on the Danger character. He added nothing to the narrative. When he disappeared after his beating, I thought he would never re-surface, so his return was jarring.

The other thing is the narrative led you the viewer to believe that the gym was marginal as a business venture. After Frankie disappeared (let's face it: the hospital staff had to have suspected him of pulling the plug on Maggie), the gym continued to run! Danger could only return to the continuing gym! The problem is the authorities would have seized the property on Maggie's death because the hospital would have alerted them to Frankie.

The family theme was overstated. It was alright with me in terms of plot that the viewer never knows the cause of friction between Frankie and his daughter. However, the sheer awfulness of Maggie's mother and siblings was ridiculous. The people were characatures.

The one thing I liked about the movie was the friendship between the Eastwood and Freeman characters, which could have been developed more.

I haven't seen The Aviator yet, but I thought that Scorcese was finally going to receive a best director Oscar. Poor Martin! Clint has been honored enough by Hollywood.

There had to be some kind of split vote that buoyed MDB over-the-top. And I do mean over-the-top. I'm not a big fan of fight films but Scorcese has made the best of them all, "Raging Bull." However, I have little desire to see that film again nor "Rocky," "Champion" or any of the classic fight films. Sorry but being witness to two grown men beating the **** out of one another doesn't really appeal to me. It's still the remnant of the Roman gladiator spectacles. I will admit to a friend getting me to watch a live fight and getting caught up in the excitement but I'd still rather watch a very competitive tennis match. Ooops, I might be revealing my gentile nature here so must exit!

I think Clints character went to church because he felt responsible for Freemans character losing sight in one eye.He didnt believe in the Bibles stories but he went anyway, and therefore tried to get the priest to explain the unbelieveable stories in the Bible(eg the immaculate conception)

Swanks parents were OTT .People dont normally see the bad in their own family, we as the audience can see it.Her parents were poor and lazy and clearly wanted to live off benifits as her mother made clear when Swank offered them the new house.

Swanks family were poor.She only seriously started training at 30 because as you can see she had to save up pennies in dribs and drabs just to buy her own punch bag, let alone join the boxing club and pay for lessons.I think at one point she said she had been training in her own way for a couple of years previously.

The Cushla name intrigued me,I knew it was gona be something special.It stood for My Darling, My Blood, as in Clint saw Swank as his 'substitute' daughter.
The friction between Clint and his daughter would have been good to know but didnt really seem important.

The narrative throughout the film was from Freemans letter he was writing to Clints daughter, explaining the situation and hoping he had gone to find her.I think Freeman just wanted ot know if Clint was ok and maybe contact him.
Freemans character was an old friend of Clints so there is no reason why he shouldnt be there.Clint taking on Swank also echoes the relationship Freeman and Clint had years before, maybe Clint saw it as a way to rectify the accident he felt responible for whilst Freeman was under his supervision, a way to rectify anything he had done wrong in the past yet something worse happened.He looked after her the best he could but when she said she wanted to take her own life he wasnt sure but eventualyy helped her.

I havnt seen the Aviator so couldnt compare the 2.MDB wasnt the best film in the world but it tugged at the heartstrings and was quite an original story.

I did see the Aviator at the tail end of a long movie going week. I think it's better than MDB. For one thing, the characters are believable. And, yes, they are real people, but, they are understandable.

I also thought that Leonardo deCaprio did a wonderful job of portraying all aspects of Howard Hughes' personality: his randiness, his genius and his madness. And I liked the chemistry between deCaprio's Hughes and Cate Blanchett's Kate Hepburn. The scene in which he teaches her to fly was a warm and authentic representation of two people utterly fascinated with each other. It was difficult to tell how long they knew each other at that point: it seemed that it was their first date, the evening of the day that Hughes fetched Hepburn from her movie set. Blanchett looks at deCaprio in a way that said, "This is a totally fascinating man. I'm impressed." DeCaprio's relaxed appraisal answers, "My instincts were right about this woman." Thoroughly romantic scene.

agreed

Scorcese always coaxes his actors into highly believable interaction -- just saw "Taxi Driver" again and although this has to be one of the most outre milieus ever committed to film the characters all seemed real as life. Jodi Foster was nothing short of astonishing. He should have won the Oscar for that film, for "Raging Bull" and for "Goodfellas."

I haven't seen "The Aviator" but I'm a big admirer of Scorsese. Lightwizard (and others): Why do you think he's never won an Oscar? My guess is that it's because he's not a Hollywood guy.

Movies that weren't the Hollywood establishment projects have won the prize before many times. I don't know why other than the the splitting of votes to the degree that Scorcese got aced out each time. What one has to remember is these films and several others were nominated. This means they are recognizing his talent but in the end, for whatever reason, another film from the five wins by a nose.

It seems a bit strange. One could argue that he's the best American director of the past 25 years, yet he's won no Oscars. More than a bit strange, in fact...

We can always argue the merit of a prize itself. Does an award really mean that this product, whether it was a movie or book, was actually the best produced in a year? There are some awful films that won the best film Oscar.

My favorite movie of the year -- and there were many gaps in my viewing -- was A Very Long Engagement. Foreign films don't count, however.

Yes, it seems that there are a lot of much more memorable films that were edged out by some movie that most people don't even recognize now.

I mean, Raging Bull was up in 1980, and "Ordinary People" won! Ordinary People!? Come on! Now, which of these movies has stood the test of time?

The nominations were:

"Ordinary People"
"Coal Miner's Daughter"
"The Elephant Man"
"Raging Bull"
"Tess"

I think the voting for these five great films as divided up almost equally and "OP" probably won by a small margin. Which one was second? "The Elephant Man" is also a fine film as well as Polanski's "Tess," both high on the artistic literate scale and both successful without being pretentious. Wouldn't it be great if they would reveal the number of votes each film received?

In 1990, the nominations were:

"DANCES WITH WOLVES"
"Awakenings"
"Ghost"
"The Godfather, Part III"
"GoodFellas"

Clearly a bad year for movies if films like "Awakenings," "Ghost," and "The Godfather, Part III" were nominated.

"Goodfellas" might have had votes lost to those other three films for some inexplicable reason (it's being as good, some say even better, film about the mob as "The Godfather"), at least enough for "DWW" to win. Joe Pesci did win for his electrifying performance and the ensemble acting was incredible spawning, IMHO, "The Sopranos." "Goodfellas" being the best film about the mob but is "DWW" the best film about our past national Indian prejudices (the ignoble savage) or the best Western? No to both.

"GoodFellas" not winning that year confirmed my realization that the Oscars are not indicators of quality. Popularity (of a sort), maybe...

Actually, "Goodfellas" did as well at the box office as "Dances With Wolves." Winning the big prize did give a boost to "Dances." It began its run by only bringing in considerably less than the target -- two things against it was that it's long and it's a Western. The five nominated films are of high quality but there were other films that could have taken the place of "Ghost" and "Awakenings." 1990 was the hangover from the Reagan 80's which for some reason was, IMHO, the worst decade for films in Hollywood history.

Speaking of which...I watched Casino for the first time last night. Pretty good flick. The editing and camera work showed Scorcese is a master craftsman.