I believe Life is Beautiful is, as it describes, beautiful. I think it deserved all of the accolades it received and maybe would have warranted more in a different year with different competition - I don't buy the criticisms that it glosses over the Holocaust because no individual story should be extrapolated out to generalize a wider experience. Somehow though, the only big four (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress) award it won was the one Life is Beautiful had the least claim to, Best Actor. Roberto Benignis performance is not terrible, but it is broad and occasionally excessive. Edward Norton on the other hand delivered a career defining performance in American History X that year. His performance was everything Benignis should have been but wasnt (disregarding tone mind you). A lesser actor would likely have spoiled the role Norton plays so well with an overwrought delivery of every key scene. Norton maintains a notch below excess even in his most explosive scenes. It creates tension within the film that no actor of Benignis caliber could achieve.
11. Roger Deakins Losing Cinematography Eleven Times
By my account Roger Deakins should have at least two Best Cinematography awards for Fargo and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford under his belt. Deakins is a maestro behind the camera, but even when he pulled out all the stops for TAJJCRF he ended up being upstaged by the considerably louder Daniel Day-Lewis vehicle There Will Be Blood. All is not lost for Deakins though. The Academy has a long history of paying reparations to worthy recipients who they foolishly overlooked in their deserving years. Hell get his due some day, but probably for a film with less merit, though Sicario would be an excellent and worthy winner.
Phil loves a good debate. Don't expect him to shy away from starting the conversation. Follow him on Twitter @MrTallgeese if you're of a like mind, or if you just want to troll him relentlessly.
