Did Bugsy Deserve Best Picture

[deleted]

There were a lot of good films that year. Bugsy is a pretty strong film. It's interesting to see how much of Warren Beatty is in the character by comparing it to Reds (1981), which won Beatty a Best Director Oscar and a Best Actor nomination.

The new DVD has a lengthy and recent discussion about the film and in that talk includes the clip from Manpower where George Raft hands the chair leg to Virginia Hill.

I think Warren Beatty had lost whatever he had in the beginning by the time the 90's rolled around. This and movies like Dick Tracy were attempts to make him a box office draw once again. However by this stage in life you could tell he was so into himself that he all but ruined the part of Siegal with his over the top acting.

Annette Benning, although a good actress, seemed bad for the part. Of course her and Beatty were together

should have been
*Silence of the Lambs
Terminator 2 (not Bugsy!)
Beauty and the Beast
JFK
Boyz n the Hood (not Prince of Tides)

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=23949572 - My vote history (>6000 titles)

While it certainly deserved to have all those nominations, it clearly was not the winner that year.
Silence of the Lambs and JFK are far superior films. IMO, JFK should have won.

Either way, I would rank Beauty & the Beast, and Prince of Tides, WAY below any of those films.

the fact that Prince of Tides was even nominated is a travesty, that movie is awfully terrible.

Anyways, JFK, SofLambs and Bugsy were top-notch films that deserve the recognition.

Bugsy really has not aged well. There have been so many good gangster films and TV shows in the intervening years that Bugsy really doesn't hold up in comparison. Goodfellas was a much better film, as were Miller's Crossing, Donnie Brasco, possibly Casino...and let's not talk about Godfather I & II or the Sopranos.

Watched it today and a few things really stood out. The problem is right at the top. I just cannot buy Warren Beatty as a big-time gangster. He just seems like a movie star pretending to be a gangster. Benning is better than he is, but her accent is inconsistent, and that's a bit jarring.

There _are_ good performances in this film: Ben Kingsley and Harvey Keitel stand out.

But really, this film is several notches below Silence of the Lambs. I really felt at the end that Beatty had completely misrepresented to us who Bugsy Siegel must have been. He wasn't even convincing when he did explosions of temper - and that's usually the easiest thing for any actor to do. (At least Benning did that part well.) I couldn't fathom what was supposed to be his motivation, or what his strengths were, or how a person like this could possibly have risen to a high position in organized crime.

In retrospect, I think this film was loved by Hollywood largely because they love Warren Beatty. But it hasn't stood the test of time.

It shouldn't have been awarded **** because it was an inaccurate portrait of BUGSY Siegel. He was a total piece of **** from the day he was born until the day he was assassinated. The acting was pretty great, and the movie very good, but when a movie bends the historical truth like that it should be awarded nothing.

[deleted]