was it really that good?

No.

Did anyone else notice that it seemed like Jack was just joking when he said Crash?

haha I almost started a thread with the exact same title.

It's not bad. It's my third fav film in the category but it's the last one I expected to win.

No.

Pretty mediocre film---not too unexpected though

I thought it might become a darkhorse, but I haven't met one person that saw it and said "wow" like they did the others. Such a farce.

In fact, it's easily the worst Best Pic of the past 20 years:

Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003)
Chicago (2002)
Beautiful Mind, A (2001)
Gladiator (2000)
American Beauty (1999)
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
Titanic (1997)
English Patient, The (1996)
Braveheart (1995)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Unforgiven (1992)
Silence of the Lambs, The (1991)
Dances with Wolves (1990)
Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
Rain Man (1988)
Last Emperor, The (1987)
Platoon (1986)
Out of Africa (1985)

Worse even than these?

edit: Im assuming there was a big split vote between brokeback and capote (the ghey advocates) and crash (the ethnic advocates) snuck in. Just keeping it real.

It certainly was a year for advocates however. Jon Stewart was absolutely on, though.

"Lets recount: Martin Scorsese, zero oscars, 3-6 Mafia, one"

I agree. Very wholeheartedly. Never has a bunch of B and C list actors/actresses been heralded as much.

Lion's Gate pulled a Weinstein/Miramax and spent $4M on Oscar promotions, so I'm guessing that's why they ended up winning.

nah, these movies were pretty awful.

Boo to you. Braveheart was good.

while I can't vouch for Titanic (as I've never seen it) and I'll agree with Shakespeare In Love, I think the others were far more encompassing in a best picture winner than Crash. I cannot believe you listed Braveheart in there....for shame.

Fuck Braveheart, Fuck Mel Gibson, Fuck all these "give me the oscar movies"...why must every winning movie be one of these over dramatic, overacted pieces of shit?

Hmm. I thought Crash was better than these. The first two thirds was interesting and while some criticize a contrived plot, it kept surprising, and had some interesting ethinic/racial scenes that were not as stupid as they seem if you live(d) in LA. It lost energy and didn't know where to go with its intertwining plot lines and so tried to "go" somewhere, and "say" something (not learning from Altman, whose films Haggis kinda referenced, by not caring about the shape of an ending... just end). It wound up being kinda maudlin and weak-minded.

It wasn't the best film in the group, but it wasn't the worst. BBM had too much baggage for the older homophobes in the Industry... many of whom may be homos.

Predictable. American's dark night of the soul is in session. None of these films nominated could say that much about the Hound of Hell. As it were.

Crash writer/director Paul Haggis wrote Million Dollar Baby too. What was he doing before he fooled Hollywood into believing his scripts aren't ass suckily bad? That's right, Walker Texas Ranger.

What that they were well-acted, well-directed, well-shot films? Just a question though--who would you have nominated for best picture?

We all enjoyed Braveheart when it came out, but in retrospect, its morally cartoonish story tracks "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" pretty well, and its got its share of cheap tricks aimed at giving it broad appeal (actiony war scenes, humorous anachronisms).

I don't know. Being a director, I know the hard task of directing people, and it never ceases to amaze me the scope of projects like Braveheart. It was emotional, and it was well-written and acted. I think people's perception unfortunately fell when Mel's Christ movie hit.

Oh well, perception is essence.

i thought crash was the best movie i saw from last year

nah, i don't think any are awful, but equally as mediocre as the predictable, cliched Grand Canyon II, err Crash.

Oh wow.

I commented on this many times throughout tonight's show. Most notably at the absent of any comedy being nominated for an award.

If your movie is based on a real event or a real person, you're a shoe-in for a nominee. If it's a period piece, same thing. Especially in the costume and makeup and set departments.

So if your goal is to go out and write a movie about characters existing in 2006, good luck. Because it's so much easier for people to be impressed by an actor portraying someone they already know -- i.e. Truman Capote, Johnny Cash -- than it is for them to be impressed by an actor playing a character that was created solely for this project.

no, he's just always been terrible.

Me and You and Everyone We Know was better than any of the films nominated