I don't know what Page 3 is on espn.com, but apparently it has nothing to do with sports. Anyway, here is an article that ought to spark some debate: Righting Oscar's wrongs.

Some very good points, though I personally have no idea why people are so enamored of LA Confidential. These guys got that year all wrong in my opinion. I will never understand why Amistad never got the respect it deserved. It might very well be Speilberg's best movie. My wife and I saw it in Colorado Springs the day before we saw Titanic. I had never before seen a theater of people so moved by a film that they just quietly filed out of the theater as if saying anything would just cheapen the experience. Titanic (which I actually liked except for the cheesy love story) the next night was kiddie stuff by comparison. Amistad should have been nominated and won best picture over Titanic. Anthony Hopkins should have won best supporting actor in a landslide over Robin Williams and Burt Reynolds--though both gave great performances. And John Williams should have won for best score. (James Horner should have won earlier for Braveheart.) And sorry, Dame Judi Dench absolutely deserved the Oscar for Shakespeare in Love. She just ate up the screen in a move that won best picture.

On the same note, Shakespeare in Love should not have won best picture when it was going up against Saving Private Ryan. I have a little theory that had Speilberg cut off the first twenty minutes of that movie, it would have won best picture running away. Instead, people got overwhelmed by the landing sequence and missed the subtle, and very realistic ways, American soldiers thought about what they were fighting for in that war.

Denzel Washington is the man, and he got absolutely no love--not even a nomination--for Courage Under Fire in 1996, the year Geoffrey rush won for Shine (which I still haven't seen). Actually, Courage Under Fire got shut out of even an nominations, which is nonsense, because it is a damn good movie and Denzel plays the best drunk I have ever seen. All that said about Denzel, Russell Crowe should have won for A Beautiful Mind over Denzel in Training Day, just like Tom Hanks in Cast Away should have won over Crowe in Gladiator.

In the Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love category belongs Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. Again, Hackman was great in Unforgiven (although how about Morgan Freeman?), but Jack's performance actually lifted that film to getting nominated for Best Picture, and he was barely in the movie. Now I have seen A Few Good Men about sixty times so I know the movie pretty well (Kevin Pollack is also great), but can the average fan even think of a scene that doesn't include Jack. And the movie came out 12 years ago and people still quote him in that movie: "You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall" "You can't handle the truth." Come on.

And how on God's green earth did Glory not even get nominated in 1989? My Left Foot, Born on the Fourth of July, Dead Poets Society? Are you kidding me? I actually like Driving Miss Daisy, and think Morgan Freeman should have won over Daniel Day Lewis for Best Actor. But 1989 best picture should have been between Glory and Field of Dreams (one of my all time favorite movies). And Edward Zwick certainly should have won best director over Oliver Stone.

Finally (for now), Ron Howard is a very good director--let's not forget Backdraft, a great movie hurt by a Baldwin--but A Beautiful Mind no way beats Fellowship of the Ring and Peter Jackson.