12 Years a Slave : This movie robbed Leo DiCaprio

DiCaprio should've won an academy award for Wolf of Wall Street but was robbed by this Oscar bait crap no one even remembers. Thankfully, Leo got an award last night and it healed some of those wounds from 2014.

Except McConaughey won Best Actor that year you dumb heathen.

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

Disagree. What was the better movie that year?

Wolf of Wall Street.

Troyaltrollwalker(Darth Spino)

---

What was the better movie that year?

---

Wolf of Wall Street is a much better movie. Wolf of Wall Street is a far more popular movie that still has many people talking about it. No one really cares about 12YAS.

Wolf of wallstreet was good and entertaining, but I prefer 12YAS. Also, I don't think you can confirm than "no on really cares about it".

Wolf of Wall Street was good.

It would had been better if it was half the running time.

However 12 years did not rob DiCaprio.

It's that man again!!

So popularity defines quality.

"and the academy award for best actor goes to 12 Years a Slave!"

The Academy always did have a track record of *beep* up, but this is on a whole new level of incompetence.

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

Not at all. If you had paid attention to the awards Wolf of Wall Street and 12 Years a Slave got, you would know neither leading actor won best leading actor. So I think your beef should be with another movie.

*Duke

OP only rates movies 10 or 1. OP is therefore not qualified to judge anything. I urge the rest of you to be a little more thorough when dealing with one-dimensional fools (or trolls with too much time on their hands).

'OP only rates movies 10 or 1.'

It must be weird not being able to say after watching a movie: 'That was just average.'

It's that man again!!

Leo played a loud mouth money grubbing *beep* in WOWS. Sure he played it well but 12YAS was a far more moving film than watching some greedy money grubbing *beep* try to screw people over for 3 hours.

---

Leo played a loud mouth money grubbing *beep* in WOWS. Sure he played it well but 12YAS was a far more moving film than watching some greedy money grubbing *beep* try to screw people over for 3 hours.

---

How moving the film was makes no difference. Best actor is about the individual performance given. Wolf of Wall Street depicted a guy taking drugs and going mental - So what? Leo did a fantastic job of it and deserved the award then.

I would go one step further and say it should've won best picture. Literally everone I know has seen Wolf of Wall Street and loved it. It's hilarious, an instant classic, and part of the popular culture. 12 Years a Slave is a mediocre Roots ripoff that nobody really cares about.

Well I for one didn't love it, I thought it was tedious. After the umdeenth scene of them getting pissed, taking drugs, screwing hookers, and stealing from honest people all I could think was " geez enough already, I get it ". This film could have been at least an hour shorter as the source material was clearly limited.

Perhaps I'm a little bias as I found the characters in the film so repugnant. The Academy clearly thought so as well. As for Leo, yea he was fine but basically he just jumped about and acted like a jackass for 3 hours, 12 YAS by contrast had some truly masterful and emotional performances. On the flip side Leo's performance in The Revenant was truly masterful and full of emotion, it was for more deserving of and Oscar that WOWS.

I personally liked Wolfie better, but 12 Years is a better film.