Is it really the best picture of 2004?

Rating: 5/10 (10 March 2005)

No. I've seen "Million Dollar Baby" and enjoyed it very much, but does it deserve the attention it's getting? Sure Clint Eastwood organized the production very well, his acting was okay, and his score didn't sound too bad either (one of those nice chicken-pecking piano tunes), but was the production as a whole better than that of "The Aviator"? This comment centers on this year's Academy Awards more than it does the film. Honestly and deeply in my soul I ask myself this question once again "Has the Academy lost its mind?" My interpretation of what is most likely best picture of the year is the one that succeeds on the widest variety of factors. "The Aviator", nominated for eleven awards actually competing against "Million Dollar Baby" (7 nominations)? This should be one of those obvious landslides like Titanic was in '97 or "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" should have been in '01. I'm so sick of members of the Academy voting for who they think DESERVES an Oscar over who did the best job. Take Morgan Freeman for example. Poor Scorsese. Honest recognition is so hard to find these days.