I have not seen Gangs of New York.
But since I find almost every performance by Daniel Day Lewis to be way over the top and annoying I will say I have no problem with Brody winning.

Yeah DDL ate the scenery in Gangs of New York. His character was mostly just annoying. Brody was more believable.
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0

Like 100x better to be honest.

Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the greatest living actors, but Adrien Brody's performance was as powerful as any given in 2002. His Best Actor win was well-deserved.
Never for the sake of peace and quiet deny your convictions-Dag Hammarskjold

This message has been deleted.

yes it waswell deserved.
Friends don't let friends drink and post.

This message has been deleted.

deemed Roberto Benigni's performance in Life Is Beautiful better than Edward Norton in American History X
Benigni's performance is unique in that it combined physical comedy with dramatic urgency. He displays a range of prowess which is much more impressive to me than Norton's rather one note and sour role in American History X. In fact, some of his acting in that film was downright bad (note his forced crying at the ending scene That is not Oscar worthy).
bland, overly muted, underplayed to the point of near-invisibility at times.
Was Brody bland or was he just providing a refined performance? Spilzman is clearly a more realistic, calm character compared to Day-Lewis's caricature, but the Academy obviously (and rightly) recognized how much more human and tasteful it was. Notice the very real sense of dread and panic Spilzman has when he's pulled from the line of Jews marching towards the train. The total loss and devastation as he walks back crying like a child, and how by the end of the film he is rendered a muted and scarred husk of his former self. He runs the full gamut of emotions in this film, and it's a shame that this would be seen as underplayed I think it was just not beating the viewer over the head in a cartoonish fashion. Spilzman is "near-invisible" because that is the essence of his character; he is just a normal man trying to survive in the ruins of the Warsaw. But the unbridled passion he has for his music is played out brilliantly in a few key scenes, specifically where he begins playing the piano in his head. You can see the longing he has to release himself, but is constrained by the awful circumstance he finds himself in, torn between his longing for comfort of the things he once knew and the primal instinct of survival. It's a bravura performance and Brody deserved his Oscar full-stop. Day-Lewiz was good too, but he always was a bit of a ham.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

^^^^This. Especially the second paragraph.
Dave "Crown Time" Blankenship for Time Man of the Year.

They're just a bunch of idiots. And they do seem to have a penchant for Holocaust films, as if the subject matter itself is enough to earn them acclaim and awards. So, although Brody was a surprise winner - actually the film's three Oscar wins were underdog victories, the bookie's favourite being Day-Lewis with Jack Nicholson (in About Schmidt) poised for the upset - this award was after all given by the same voting body that deemed Roberto Benigni's performance in Life Is Beautiful better than Edward Norton in American History X, Nick Nolte in Affliction, and Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters. So maybe not such a shock when all is said and done.
The Pianist is a good film, reaching for greatness in its better moments, but not ultimately an astonishing or great film, on the whole. And one of the main reasons for that is Brody's blank, vapid performance. Just because the CHARACTER is rather quiet and reserved doesn't necessarily mean the ACTING is "beautifully subtle and understated" - the sort of thing usually said in praise of his performance and to justify the Oscar win. And that a character is loud and very demonstrative doesn't imply a lack of nuance in the actor's work. Actually there is far more complexity and skill in the performances of Day-Lewis and Cage among that year's group of nominees. Brody's work on the other hand was bland, overly muted, underplayed to the point of near-invisibility at times.

Yes, because Daniel Day Lewis his performances are usually one-dimensional. In the case of Gangs of New York it was a violent, brooding, psychopatic beep of a dimension, but it was still one-dimensional.

Yes, Brody deserved to win over DDL
I am Senor Velasco, I drink my milk with tabasco

This message has been deleted.

Obviously he isn't a better actor, but I do prefer his performance in The Pianist to Day-Lewis's histrionics in GONY.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Absolutely yes. Lewis was awesome but overracted like he often does. Brody was just the opposite. A fine and very subtle performance.

Put it in other words.
Did DDL deserve an Oscar for doing a hammy version of Robert De Niro?
Its that man again!!

Of the nominated performances Michael Caine's lovely, at or close to career-best work was my favourite; but yes, I'd certainly rank Brody ahead of Day-Lewis, and his Oscar win was a great moment.

In this particular case, Yes!
Prostitute: What the beep are you doing?
Johnny: I'm gonna kill a bunch of people.

Gangs of New York in general is way over the top.

Daniel Day-Lewis's performance was little over the top.

Brody carried the whole film so, yes, without question.

Well its about the holocost so, plus he lost weight etc the academy love all that from an actor/actress and slavery films. Of course dispicable etc but its a sure thing for the oscars ..
Imo day lewis should have got it for his role in gangs of new york but was he not a supporting cast not the main ???