82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2006
78. BRAVEHEART - 1995
77. ROCKY - 1976
76. TOM JONES - 1963
75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952
74. THE BROADWAY MELODY - 1929
73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983
72. GOING MY WAY - 1944
71. GANDHI - 1982
STILL TO COME:
WINGS - 1928
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
GRAND HOTEL - 1932
CAVALCADE - 1933
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934
MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
GONE WITH THE WIND - 1939
REBECCA - 1940
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
MRS MINIVER - 1942
CASABLANCA - 1943
THE LOST WEEKEND - 1945
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946
GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
HAMLET - 1948
ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
ALL ABOUT EVE - 1950
AN AMERICAN IN PARIS - 1951
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY - 1953
ON THE WATERFRONT - 1954
MARTY - 1955
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
GIGI - 1958
BEN HUR - 1959
THE APARTMENT - 1960
WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - 1962
MY FAIR LADY - 1964
THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
OLIVER! - 1968
MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
PATTON - 1970
THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971
THE GODFATHER - 1972
THE STING - 1973
THE GODFATHER PART 2 - 1974
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST - 1975
ANNIE HALL - 1977
THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
AMADEUS - 1984
OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
PLATOON - 1986
THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
RAIN MAN - 1988
DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 1991
UNFORGIVEN - 1992
SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
TITANIC - 1997
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998
AMERICAN BEAUTY - 1999
GLADIATOR - 2000
A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
CHICAGO - 2002
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
THE DEPARTED - 2006
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - 2007
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008
THE HURT LOCKER - 2009
Wednesday 24 March 2010
71. GANDHI - 1982
‘Gandhi’ is a true epic. It details the life of one of the 20th Century’s most important political figures: the anti-violent Gandhi, from finding himself as a young man through to his death, through his struggle to liberate India from the British, and protest against the unfair laws imposed on the native Indian population.
I shall start with the good things about this film. Ben Kingsley’s performance as Gandhi is brilliant. He is totally convincing as the title character is appearance and mannerisms. If there was one award that this film truly deserved, then the award for best actor is it. He manages to portray the strength and gravitas of the character without overplaying the part, and you truly do forget that this is Kingsley and not Gandhi himself.
The cinematography is very impressive. This film was made before the days of computer generated crowds and the big scenes are truly impressive to watch.
The trouble that I have with this film is that I find it a bit dull. Richard Attenborough clearly wants to portray Gandhi as a remarkable and wonderful person, which is fine. I have no reason to say that Gandhi was any less great than this film says. The trouble with this, however, is that watching a serious three hour film about a person with no faults does not always make for entertaining viewing. I compare this to films such as ‘Amadeus’: Mozart is arguably the greatest composer ever lived, yet if the film was purely about his genius, it would be dull, so by portraying him as totally vulgar adds a twist to the story. ‘Patton’ the biography of General Patton is another good example. He was a great wartime leader and strategic thinker, but in this film is shown as being eccentric and difficult. I am not suggesting that Gandhi should have been portrayed as vulgar, difficult or in a negative light at all in this film, but what I do feel is that if the subject of a biopic is someone who you want to show as being faultless then the film needs some other way of making it interesting, and this, for me, it what stops the film being any better.
I did not particularly feel that I gained anything from watching ‘Gandhi’. It is not accurate enough to be treated as a documentary and not entertaining enough to be regarded as a piece of wonderful cinema. Instead, for me, it falls into the category of an admirable and respectable film that is a handsome tribute to one of the most important political figures of the last century, but cannot compare with many of the great biopic tributes that have been made.
I shall start with the good things about this film. Ben Kingsley’s performance as Gandhi is brilliant. He is totally convincing as the title character is appearance and mannerisms. If there was one award that this film truly deserved, then the award for best actor is it. He manages to portray the strength and gravitas of the character without overplaying the part, and you truly do forget that this is Kingsley and not Gandhi himself.
The cinematography is very impressive. This film was made before the days of computer generated crowds and the big scenes are truly impressive to watch.
The trouble that I have with this film is that I find it a bit dull. Richard Attenborough clearly wants to portray Gandhi as a remarkable and wonderful person, which is fine. I have no reason to say that Gandhi was any less great than this film says. The trouble with this, however, is that watching a serious three hour film about a person with no faults does not always make for entertaining viewing. I compare this to films such as ‘Amadeus’: Mozart is arguably the greatest composer ever lived, yet if the film was purely about his genius, it would be dull, so by portraying him as totally vulgar adds a twist to the story. ‘Patton’ the biography of General Patton is another good example. He was a great wartime leader and strategic thinker, but in this film is shown as being eccentric and difficult. I am not suggesting that Gandhi should have been portrayed as vulgar, difficult or in a negative light at all in this film, but what I do feel is that if the subject of a biopic is someone who you want to show as being faultless then the film needs some other way of making it interesting, and this, for me, it what stops the film being any better.
I did not particularly feel that I gained anything from watching ‘Gandhi’. It is not accurate enough to be treated as a documentary and not entertaining enough to be regarded as a piece of wonderful cinema. Instead, for me, it falls into the category of an admirable and respectable film that is a handsome tribute to one of the most important political figures of the last century, but cannot compare with many of the great biopic tributes that have been made.
Tuesday 23 March 2010
72. GOING MY WAY - 1944
The win of ‘Going My Way’ is one of those winners that can only be explained by the year that it won. After five years of war, the academy voters probably wanted to honour something that would bring a smile to their faces and forget about the never ending war. ‘Going My Way’ ending up collecting seven academy awards, a fact that now does seem quite hard to believe: it is quite simply the happiest film to ever win the award for best picture.
The film revolves around Bing Crosby, who plays Father O’Malley, a young clergyman who goes to his new parish. Before he joined the Catholic Church the Father clearly led a more colourful life, and this history enables him to influence a young gang of street urchins (turning the thugs into a choir who sing about sunbeams is a personal favourite), and to take control of the finances of the church. Initially he regarded with suspicion by his superior, Father Fitzgibbon, played by Barry Fitzgerald, but even he is eventually won over by Crosby’s cheery nature and ability to help all.
‘Going My Way’ is a pleasant film to watch, and Crosby is as watchable as always. Fitzgerald is especially good as the slightly more complex older figure, and there are some very cheery musical numbers, including the Academy Award winning ‘Singing on a Star’. There is very little else, however, that one can really say about this film. Although the acting is perfectly adequate, the script and storyline are so undemanding that these cannot be described as classic roles in the history of cinema.
Where this film does succeed is that although it is so very happy, it does cleverly avoid plunging into over sentimentality. It is possible to genuinely like the character that Crosby plays without finding him nauseating, which, given the consistently jolly outlook that he has is saying quite a lot.
Not surprisingly, the most delightfully sweet moment of the entire film is the last scene in which Father O’Malley does something for his friend and colleague Fitzgibbon that trumps all of the other delightful things that he has done over the course of the film.
‘Going My Way’ is not a great piece of cinema, but it is so heart warming, that it is impossible not to watch this film without feeling warm inside. It is a light look at how the problems that people have can sometimes be solved through simple actions, and high melodrama and complex resolutions are not always needed if an audience is to be entertained.
The film revolves around Bing Crosby, who plays Father O’Malley, a young clergyman who goes to his new parish. Before he joined the Catholic Church the Father clearly led a more colourful life, and this history enables him to influence a young gang of street urchins (turning the thugs into a choir who sing about sunbeams is a personal favourite), and to take control of the finances of the church. Initially he regarded with suspicion by his superior, Father Fitzgibbon, played by Barry Fitzgerald, but even he is eventually won over by Crosby’s cheery nature and ability to help all.
‘Going My Way’ is a pleasant film to watch, and Crosby is as watchable as always. Fitzgerald is especially good as the slightly more complex older figure, and there are some very cheery musical numbers, including the Academy Award winning ‘Singing on a Star’. There is very little else, however, that one can really say about this film. Although the acting is perfectly adequate, the script and storyline are so undemanding that these cannot be described as classic roles in the history of cinema.
Where this film does succeed is that although it is so very happy, it does cleverly avoid plunging into over sentimentality. It is possible to genuinely like the character that Crosby plays without finding him nauseating, which, given the consistently jolly outlook that he has is saying quite a lot.
Not surprisingly, the most delightfully sweet moment of the entire film is the last scene in which Father O’Malley does something for his friend and colleague Fitzgibbon that trumps all of the other delightful things that he has done over the course of the film.
‘Going My Way’ is not a great piece of cinema, but it is so heart warming, that it is impossible not to watch this film without feeling warm inside. It is a light look at how the problems that people have can sometimes be solved through simple actions, and high melodrama and complex resolutions are not always needed if an audience is to be entertained.
Saturday 20 March 2010
73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983
There is a certain type of film that flourished throughout the 1980s, and that is the emotional family drama. These films look at the developing relationships between close family members or lifelong friends and vary in quality. Of these films that won the Best Picture award, ‘Terms of Endearment’ is my least favourite.
The film charts the relationship between Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) and her daughter Emma (Debra Winger), from Emma’s birth until death separates them. Aurora is a fearsome character who finds it difficult to express to her daughter how much she loves her, whereas Emma is the daughter who, smothered by her mother, marries the first man that she finds and has children of her own.
The main relationship in the film is between Aurora and Emma, but we are also invited to look at others: between Emma and her husband, between Emma and her son, between Aurora and her son-in-law, and most interestingly between Aurora and her next door neighbour Garrett (played by Jack Nicholson). Nicholson’s character is a womanising retired astronaut whom Aurora initially cannot stand, and later falls in love with.
There are good things about this film. Most noticeably is Shirley MacLaine’s performance, who won the Leading Actress Oscar for this performance. She plays her part with conviction and she truly brings the part of this difficult woman to life. The film is at its best when she is on screen. The other performances I am less keen on: Debra Winger is fairly average and lets herself be overacted by her older co-star, Jeff Daniels is largely forgettable as her husband, and personally I find Jack Nicholson just too over-the-top to take seriously. It is because of this that I find the film hard to like. I watch this film and at no point can I really believe that MacLaine and Nicholson would ever like each other. She is just too proper and he is too over-the-top for be to believe that they would ever want to spend any time with each other.
The mother-daughter relationship is more credible. I find their relationship believable, and I can understand why they act in the way that they do in the final half hour of the film. The final part of the film has one aim and that is to make its audience weep as the characters are forced to acknowledge their true feelings for each other. It’s the natural conclusion for the film, and I think that there are more emotional endings in this type of film (‘Kramer vs Kramer’ being a good example), which are less predictable and better written.
I do not dislike this film, but I think of it more as a weepy romantic comic drama than a really high quality piece of cinema.
The film charts the relationship between Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) and her daughter Emma (Debra Winger), from Emma’s birth until death separates them. Aurora is a fearsome character who finds it difficult to express to her daughter how much she loves her, whereas Emma is the daughter who, smothered by her mother, marries the first man that she finds and has children of her own.
The main relationship in the film is between Aurora and Emma, but we are also invited to look at others: between Emma and her husband, between Emma and her son, between Aurora and her son-in-law, and most interestingly between Aurora and her next door neighbour Garrett (played by Jack Nicholson). Nicholson’s character is a womanising retired astronaut whom Aurora initially cannot stand, and later falls in love with.
There are good things about this film. Most noticeably is Shirley MacLaine’s performance, who won the Leading Actress Oscar for this performance. She plays her part with conviction and she truly brings the part of this difficult woman to life. The film is at its best when she is on screen. The other performances I am less keen on: Debra Winger is fairly average and lets herself be overacted by her older co-star, Jeff Daniels is largely forgettable as her husband, and personally I find Jack Nicholson just too over-the-top to take seriously. It is because of this that I find the film hard to like. I watch this film and at no point can I really believe that MacLaine and Nicholson would ever like each other. She is just too proper and he is too over-the-top for be to believe that they would ever want to spend any time with each other.
The mother-daughter relationship is more credible. I find their relationship believable, and I can understand why they act in the way that they do in the final half hour of the film. The final part of the film has one aim and that is to make its audience weep as the characters are forced to acknowledge their true feelings for each other. It’s the natural conclusion for the film, and I think that there are more emotional endings in this type of film (‘Kramer vs Kramer’ being a good example), which are less predictable and better written.
I do not dislike this film, but I think of it more as a weepy romantic comic drama than a really high quality piece of cinema.
Friday 19 March 2010
74. THE BROADWAY MELODY OF 1929 - 1929
Another film to frequently appear towards the tail end of great best picture winners is this, the second ever winner of the award, and the first to be filmed in sound. ‘The Broadway Melody of 1929’ (not to be confused with any of the several other Broadway Melody films that followed) is a delightful example of an early Hollywood musical, and should be watched by anybody interested in the history of musicals, but really does have very little appeal for anybody else.
Anita Page and Bessie Love play sisters who move to New York in order to become a vaudeville act on Broadway for Francis Zanfield (not Florenz Ziegfeld!). There are two men in their new life, Eddie, a family friend, confused about which sister he loves, and Jock, who is, to be honest, a bit of a cad.
All films should be judged against other films of their era, and I can think of no truer example than with ‘Broadway Melody’. It is a transition film, from silent to talkie, and it really shows: title cards appear throughout the film and shots with no talking are silent with no background noise, which makes for slightly disconcerting, if charming, viewing. That’s not to say that the film is not without its qualities: the acting (especially from the two women) is strong and it is responsible for the Broadway Melody song (made famous in ‘Singin’ in the Rain’), and the film offers an easy viewing experience with some charming scenes.
Personally, as a lover of great musicals, I would love to rank this film higher in my list. Without this film, ‘Top Hat’ would never have been made, and this film is clearly the inspiration for ‘Singin’ in the Rain’, another classic musical film. ‘The Broadway Melody’ was the blueprint for musicals to come: a simple plot, enhanced with music, dancing and costumes.
Unfortunately, I cannot justify increasing the ranking: the cinematography is largely uninspiring (there are plenty of films previous to this which have excellent cinematography, yet the camera barely moves during this film), and the supporting acting is largely wooden. This is a film that I wish could have been great: it is one of the most important films ever made, especially in the context of musicals, and unfortunately it isn’t, but it is a film that I can watch with fondness and respect: a landmark in the world of cinema.
Anita Page and Bessie Love play sisters who move to New York in order to become a vaudeville act on Broadway for Francis Zanfield (not Florenz Ziegfeld!). There are two men in their new life, Eddie, a family friend, confused about which sister he loves, and Jock, who is, to be honest, a bit of a cad.
All films should be judged against other films of their era, and I can think of no truer example than with ‘Broadway Melody’. It is a transition film, from silent to talkie, and it really shows: title cards appear throughout the film and shots with no talking are silent with no background noise, which makes for slightly disconcerting, if charming, viewing. That’s not to say that the film is not without its qualities: the acting (especially from the two women) is strong and it is responsible for the Broadway Melody song (made famous in ‘Singin’ in the Rain’), and the film offers an easy viewing experience with some charming scenes.
Personally, as a lover of great musicals, I would love to rank this film higher in my list. Without this film, ‘Top Hat’ would never have been made, and this film is clearly the inspiration for ‘Singin’ in the Rain’, another classic musical film. ‘The Broadway Melody’ was the blueprint for musicals to come: a simple plot, enhanced with music, dancing and costumes.
Unfortunately, I cannot justify increasing the ranking: the cinematography is largely uninspiring (there are plenty of films previous to this which have excellent cinematography, yet the camera barely moves during this film), and the supporting acting is largely wooden. This is a film that I wish could have been great: it is one of the most important films ever made, especially in the context of musicals, and unfortunately it isn’t, but it is a film that I can watch with fondness and respect: a landmark in the world of cinema.
75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952
To modern audiences, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is mainly known for being widely regarded as the worst film to win the academy award for Best Picture. In my countdown of ranking the best pictures, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is firmly in the section of films with good qualities that I do not consider great works of art, but that are infinitely better than ‘Forrest Gump’.
‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is a film set in the circus. Charlton Heston in his first major role plays the circus master (Brad Bradon) whose girlfriend Holly (Betty Hutton) is the star trapeze artist. In order to ensure that the circus is profitable, Bradon is forced to employ The Great Sebastian to be the star trapeze act. This, understandably, does not impress Holly and the two trapeze artists try to outclass each other in the ring; on ground Sebastian tries to seduce her. The plot is uncomplicated, but entertaining, as the relationship between the three main characters shifts over the course of the film, and the acting is fine, without being spectacular.
As well as telling the above story, the film also does its best to give an insight into the life of the circus. De Mille used real circus performers in order to gain an insight into life in the big top, and also enabled his to include some fantastic photography of the performances. Unfortunately, this is probably the reason for the film’s poor reputation. If the film had focused on the story between the main characters, it could have been developed further and become much more emotionally complex. If the film had focused on the circus elements it could have potentially become a beautifully shot art classic. As it stands, it becomes a slightly overlong mix of the two, which makes for shaky, if admittedly sometimes entertaining, viewing.
By far the best performance of the film comes from Jimmy Stewart. It is incredible to think that of all the classic Jimmy Stewart films made, the only two to feature on the list are this film and the little watched (nowadays) ‘You Can’t Take It With You’. He plays a clown with a dark secret who never takes his make up off, and is as brilliant in this role as all his other performances, even if it is a surprisingly role for him to have taken. His input to the story at the end of the film is a perfect example of how justice was carried out in Hollywood during this period.
One of the other reasons for this film to be poorly regarded is that it was released in 1952, a strong year generally for film. It was nominated for best picture against ‘High Noon’ and ‘The Quiet Man’ and ‘Viva Zapata!’, ‘The Snows of Kilimanjaro’ and most importantly ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ were all released in the same year as well.
In short, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is not a perfect film by any means. It tries to be too many things, and fails in several areas. Having said that, it is an entertaining watch and should be enjoyed for its cinematography and Jimmy Stewart’s performance, and even for the simple love triangle story. It is not the greatest Best Picture winner ever, but I could not ever agree that it is the worst.
‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is a film set in the circus. Charlton Heston in his first major role plays the circus master (Brad Bradon) whose girlfriend Holly (Betty Hutton) is the star trapeze artist. In order to ensure that the circus is profitable, Bradon is forced to employ The Great Sebastian to be the star trapeze act. This, understandably, does not impress Holly and the two trapeze artists try to outclass each other in the ring; on ground Sebastian tries to seduce her. The plot is uncomplicated, but entertaining, as the relationship between the three main characters shifts over the course of the film, and the acting is fine, without being spectacular.
As well as telling the above story, the film also does its best to give an insight into the life of the circus. De Mille used real circus performers in order to gain an insight into life in the big top, and also enabled his to include some fantastic photography of the performances. Unfortunately, this is probably the reason for the film’s poor reputation. If the film had focused on the story between the main characters, it could have been developed further and become much more emotionally complex. If the film had focused on the circus elements it could have potentially become a beautifully shot art classic. As it stands, it becomes a slightly overlong mix of the two, which makes for shaky, if admittedly sometimes entertaining, viewing.
By far the best performance of the film comes from Jimmy Stewart. It is incredible to think that of all the classic Jimmy Stewart films made, the only two to feature on the list are this film and the little watched (nowadays) ‘You Can’t Take It With You’. He plays a clown with a dark secret who never takes his make up off, and is as brilliant in this role as all his other performances, even if it is a surprisingly role for him to have taken. His input to the story at the end of the film is a perfect example of how justice was carried out in Hollywood during this period.
One of the other reasons for this film to be poorly regarded is that it was released in 1952, a strong year generally for film. It was nominated for best picture against ‘High Noon’ and ‘The Quiet Man’ and ‘Viva Zapata!’, ‘The Snows of Kilimanjaro’ and most importantly ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ were all released in the same year as well.
In short, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is not a perfect film by any means. It tries to be too many things, and fails in several areas. Having said that, it is an entertaining watch and should be enjoyed for its cinematography and Jimmy Stewart’s performance, and even for the simple love triangle story. It is not the greatest Best Picture winner ever, but I could not ever agree that it is the worst.
76. TOM JONES - 1963
In my opinion, ‘Tom Jones’ is the most surprising Best Picture winner. The film is the adaptation of the classic Henry Fielding book and it is told as a raunchy, farcical comedy with scenes that pay homage to silent movies. The title character was abandoned as a baby and brought up by a kindly squire. He falls in love with the fair Sophia but due to his lack of parentage and foolish behaviour he is shunned by the other characters. He then proceeds to sleep his way through the film and cause havoc wherever he goes.
I found ‘Tom Jones’ perfectly pleasant to watch in the same way that I find Carry on films enjoyable. Albert Finney plays the role well: he is a lovable rogue, but the film does not show any of the characters good qualities that are described in the book. His loyal nature goes unmentioned in order to make the character more of a caricature and less of a credible human being. Because of this, the film can never considered a high brow drama or anything more than what it is: a fun frolic.
The best moment in the film is the iconic feasting scene: Tom Jones meets Mrs Waters (Joyce Redman) and the two of them make lustful eyes at each other whilst gorging themselves on a massive feast. It is a wonderful scene and a real iconic comedy moment.
Good things about the film include the acting: it was nominated for five acting academy awards (no film has more), the music, the hilarious feasting scene and the stylish way that the silent film sections are interspersed with the main film; but the overriding problem with the film is that I cannot take it seriously as a great piece of cinema. ‘Tom Jones’ gives the viewer nothing to think about and it is, when it boils down to it, nothing more than a well acted, but silly, comedy picture that it very much of its day.
1963 is not widely regarded as the best year for cinema, and when you look at the list of best picture nominations for the year, there are no films that provoke a horrified reaction, ‘What?! Tom Jones beat that?!’, until you realise that 1963 was the year that ‘Fellini’s 8 ½’ was released. However, the Academy has never awarded the Best Picture film to a foreign language film and therefore there is no surprise that ‘Tom Jones’ triumphed over that landmark piece of cinema. ‘Tom Jones’ is essentially a film of its day: a period comedy, in a very 1960s style with the main character as bold an anti-hero as any.
I found ‘Tom Jones’ perfectly pleasant to watch in the same way that I find Carry on films enjoyable. Albert Finney plays the role well: he is a lovable rogue, but the film does not show any of the characters good qualities that are described in the book. His loyal nature goes unmentioned in order to make the character more of a caricature and less of a credible human being. Because of this, the film can never considered a high brow drama or anything more than what it is: a fun frolic.
The best moment in the film is the iconic feasting scene: Tom Jones meets Mrs Waters (Joyce Redman) and the two of them make lustful eyes at each other whilst gorging themselves on a massive feast. It is a wonderful scene and a real iconic comedy moment.
Good things about the film include the acting: it was nominated for five acting academy awards (no film has more), the music, the hilarious feasting scene and the stylish way that the silent film sections are interspersed with the main film; but the overriding problem with the film is that I cannot take it seriously as a great piece of cinema. ‘Tom Jones’ gives the viewer nothing to think about and it is, when it boils down to it, nothing more than a well acted, but silly, comedy picture that it very much of its day.
1963 is not widely regarded as the best year for cinema, and when you look at the list of best picture nominations for the year, there are no films that provoke a horrified reaction, ‘What?! Tom Jones beat that?!’, until you realise that 1963 was the year that ‘Fellini’s 8 ½’ was released. However, the Academy has never awarded the Best Picture film to a foreign language film and therefore there is no surprise that ‘Tom Jones’ triumphed over that landmark piece of cinema. ‘Tom Jones’ is essentially a film of its day: a period comedy, in a very 1960s style with the main character as bold an anti-hero as any.
Sunday 14 March 2010
77. ROCKY - 1976
I appreciate that I have placed this film much further down the list than most people would. I do not hate ‘Rocky’, we have entered the section of the countdown where I am covering films that I think are fine, but that certainly did not warrant a Best Picture win. For many, ‘Rocky’ is the ultimate sports drama: the tale of the underdog who has a chance to fight the world champion, and the film ends with a boxing showdown between the two.
I have an issue with sports drama as a genre. The excitement of sport is the unpredictability and not knowing what will happen. This cannot easily be transferred to the big screen because a director will usually be pushing the viewer to want one outcome or another and then either granting that wish or not. The outcome of the film is in the hands of the film makers and not the sportsmen.
A good sports film needs to focus on the characters and their issues and this is where ‘Rocky’ fails where other sports films succeed. Take ‘Million Dollar Baby’ for example, the film is not about boxing but about the relationships between believable and credible characters, in a boxing setting. Sylvester Stallone is just not a good enough actor to be able to create a believable and relatable character: we are supposed to want him to win and defeat the champion purely because he is the underdog, but when I watch this film I just don’t care. I don’t care if he wins or not and I don’t care if he ends up with Adrian, because he does not create a character that is worth caring about. His character Rocky also does not seem to care about the outcome of the match. At the end he seems more interested in Adrian, and their love is more important to him than the match.
Adrian is an uninspiring love interest. She is shy and quiet and everyone thinks she is ugly until she removes her glasses (a picture worthy of a Best Picture win really needs to come up with something slightly more original and sophisticated than this), and in honestly far too drippy to really take seriously. Rocky’s trainer, played by Burgess Meredith, is good and is by far the best thing about the film.
The film is certainly watchable, the soundtrack is fun and the fight scenes are good, but in all honesty the film is just a standard, unsophisticated low budget flick which leaves no lasting impression from a cinematic perspective. Rocky has become a cult figure and a symbol of the underdog evidenced in the countless sequels that have been made, but the film cannot be viewed for its style or substance.
I have an issue with sports drama as a genre. The excitement of sport is the unpredictability and not knowing what will happen. This cannot easily be transferred to the big screen because a director will usually be pushing the viewer to want one outcome or another and then either granting that wish or not. The outcome of the film is in the hands of the film makers and not the sportsmen.
A good sports film needs to focus on the characters and their issues and this is where ‘Rocky’ fails where other sports films succeed. Take ‘Million Dollar Baby’ for example, the film is not about boxing but about the relationships between believable and credible characters, in a boxing setting. Sylvester Stallone is just not a good enough actor to be able to create a believable and relatable character: we are supposed to want him to win and defeat the champion purely because he is the underdog, but when I watch this film I just don’t care. I don’t care if he wins or not and I don’t care if he ends up with Adrian, because he does not create a character that is worth caring about. His character Rocky also does not seem to care about the outcome of the match. At the end he seems more interested in Adrian, and their love is more important to him than the match.
Adrian is an uninspiring love interest. She is shy and quiet and everyone thinks she is ugly until she removes her glasses (a picture worthy of a Best Picture win really needs to come up with something slightly more original and sophisticated than this), and in honestly far too drippy to really take seriously. Rocky’s trainer, played by Burgess Meredith, is good and is by far the best thing about the film.
The film is certainly watchable, the soundtrack is fun and the fight scenes are good, but in all honesty the film is just a standard, unsophisticated low budget flick which leaves no lasting impression from a cinematic perspective. Rocky has become a cult figure and a symbol of the underdog evidenced in the countless sequels that have been made, but the film cannot be viewed for its style or substance.
Saturday 13 March 2010
78. BRAVEHEART - 1995
Watchable? Yes. Good cinema? No.
The main criticism of ‘Braveheart’ seems to be that it is totally historically inaccurate and it is. Events were twisted to the extent that any credibility is wiped out immediately: the princess would have been about three when William Wallace died, the Battle of Stirling Bridge is missing a bridge, and the costume dating is comparable to 18th Century Traders wearing modern day business suits. I can however cope with this, I am more than aware that the plot of ‘Amadeus’ is completely fabricated, and it takes nothing away from the film, but ‘Braveheart’ is billed as a historical epic, and really needs to have something in it that is slightly accurate to be taken seriously.
That, however, is not my main criticism of ‘Braveheart’. My main criticism of this film is that it is nothing more than blockbuster pulp fiction masquerading as something much more serious, and this is largely due to Mel Gibson’s over the top, subtle as a breezeblock performance as the hero William Wallace. The character that he creates is totally one dimensional. He is the good guy, and even after this lengthy film is over we still know nothing about this character and nothing about the subtleties of the how Wallace or any of the supporting characters feel: essentially this is an empty film.
I can only assume that Gibson (who also directed this film) has something against the English. He shows every English character to be totally evil and also totally stupid. Every English person in the film seems to like nothing more than to rape, pillage and murder, and whereas they seem to have a pretty firm stronghold over Scotland, the English King is so stupid that he fires arrows at his own army. The English in ‘Braveheart’ make the orcs in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ look like the children in the ‘The Sound of Music’. I appreciate the fact that the English are easy targets with their numerous colonies, but to portray a whole nation as being quite this hideous is bordering on racism. You would be hard pushed to find another film that makes a whole race of people look quite this venomous.
The scenery is beautiful and makes you want to go to Scotland to see such landscapes (and also to get out of England for fear of being slaughtered by my fellow countrymen either accidently or on purpose), but other qualities are few and far between. I urge anyone about to watch this film to watch it for what it is: a thoughtless crowd-pleaser about goodies and badies, and remember that it is not a film to be taken remotely seriously.
The main criticism of ‘Braveheart’ seems to be that it is totally historically inaccurate and it is. Events were twisted to the extent that any credibility is wiped out immediately: the princess would have been about three when William Wallace died, the Battle of Stirling Bridge is missing a bridge, and the costume dating is comparable to 18th Century Traders wearing modern day business suits. I can however cope with this, I am more than aware that the plot of ‘Amadeus’ is completely fabricated, and it takes nothing away from the film, but ‘Braveheart’ is billed as a historical epic, and really needs to have something in it that is slightly accurate to be taken seriously.
That, however, is not my main criticism of ‘Braveheart’. My main criticism of this film is that it is nothing more than blockbuster pulp fiction masquerading as something much more serious, and this is largely due to Mel Gibson’s over the top, subtle as a breezeblock performance as the hero William Wallace. The character that he creates is totally one dimensional. He is the good guy, and even after this lengthy film is over we still know nothing about this character and nothing about the subtleties of the how Wallace or any of the supporting characters feel: essentially this is an empty film.
I can only assume that Gibson (who also directed this film) has something against the English. He shows every English character to be totally evil and also totally stupid. Every English person in the film seems to like nothing more than to rape, pillage and murder, and whereas they seem to have a pretty firm stronghold over Scotland, the English King is so stupid that he fires arrows at his own army. The English in ‘Braveheart’ make the orcs in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ look like the children in the ‘The Sound of Music’. I appreciate the fact that the English are easy targets with their numerous colonies, but to portray a whole nation as being quite this hideous is bordering on racism. You would be hard pushed to find another film that makes a whole race of people look quite this venomous.
The scenery is beautiful and makes you want to go to Scotland to see such landscapes (and also to get out of England for fear of being slaughtered by my fellow countrymen either accidently or on purpose), but other qualities are few and far between. I urge anyone about to watch this film to watch it for what it is: a thoughtless crowd-pleaser about goodies and badies, and remember that it is not a film to be taken remotely seriously.
79. CRASH - 2005
‘Crash’ is one big frustrating mess of a film. The premise behind ‘Crash’ is interesting: several storylines come together over the course of three days cumulating in a crash of both cars and cultures. It is a film about how closely we are all linked, about racial prejudice, about how people are not what they first seem. This film could have been great, but it has so many faults that it belongs firmly towards the bottom of this list.
‘Crash’ is set in Los Angeles and takes place over three days. We are introduced to many characters: the wealthy white housewife of a DA, a racist white cop, some black car thieves, a successful black Hollywood director and his wife, the list goes on… A series of events bring the characters together in a frankly unlikely series of events. This is the film’s first flaw: the film takes the six degrees of separation theory and runs havoc with it, causing most unlikely turns of events, not because the paths of the characters could cross, but solely because it would help the storyline. I was instantly amazed by the shift pattern of the LAPD.
My main reason for disliking this film comes from the individual stories, and how it is assumed that we should be able to identify with them. Matt Dillon plays a racist cop. He pulls over the aforementioned Hollywood director and his wife late at night, whilst she is performing fellatio. But, Dillon’s character is not just a bit racist, he is so racist that he decides to molest the offending woman. The point is made. The character is a racist cop from Los Angeles. However, the very next day, the same cop saves the same woman from certain death and risks his own like to do it. Of course, Dillon’s character once had some bad experience from black people. This is supposed to excuse his actions. I think. Even though he is racist, inside he is a good person, and this is the point of the film.
The flip side of this story involves Ryan Phillippe. He is not racist. However, when he picks up a black hitchhiker from the side of the road he shoots him when he thinks that he will pull a gun on him. The hitchhiker however was in fact only going to give Phillippe his St Christopher. In this instance, the film wants to tell us that we are all a little bit racist even if we think that we are not. Each person involved in this film has a similar story to tell, and each story is equally contrived.
It’s such a shame that a film that tries so hard to be clever ends up being a totally farcical. The individual performances are largely not bad: Dillon is notably good, as is Sandra Bullock, but there are no real opportunities to get to know these characters as anything more than props which are supposed to signify either racists who are not racist inside, or non racists who actually are, and this is why the film fails to really engage its audience in any of the carryings on between them. In 2005 the Academy had the opportunity to award the Best Picture Award to the wonderful ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and instead they opted to honour this pretentious offering.
‘Crash’ is set in Los Angeles and takes place over three days. We are introduced to many characters: the wealthy white housewife of a DA, a racist white cop, some black car thieves, a successful black Hollywood director and his wife, the list goes on… A series of events bring the characters together in a frankly unlikely series of events. This is the film’s first flaw: the film takes the six degrees of separation theory and runs havoc with it, causing most unlikely turns of events, not because the paths of the characters could cross, but solely because it would help the storyline. I was instantly amazed by the shift pattern of the LAPD.
My main reason for disliking this film comes from the individual stories, and how it is assumed that we should be able to identify with them. Matt Dillon plays a racist cop. He pulls over the aforementioned Hollywood director and his wife late at night, whilst she is performing fellatio. But, Dillon’s character is not just a bit racist, he is so racist that he decides to molest the offending woman. The point is made. The character is a racist cop from Los Angeles. However, the very next day, the same cop saves the same woman from certain death and risks his own like to do it. Of course, Dillon’s character once had some bad experience from black people. This is supposed to excuse his actions. I think. Even though he is racist, inside he is a good person, and this is the point of the film.
The flip side of this story involves Ryan Phillippe. He is not racist. However, when he picks up a black hitchhiker from the side of the road he shoots him when he thinks that he will pull a gun on him. The hitchhiker however was in fact only going to give Phillippe his St Christopher. In this instance, the film wants to tell us that we are all a little bit racist even if we think that we are not. Each person involved in this film has a similar story to tell, and each story is equally contrived.
It’s such a shame that a film that tries so hard to be clever ends up being a totally farcical. The individual performances are largely not bad: Dillon is notably good, as is Sandra Bullock, but there are no real opportunities to get to know these characters as anything more than props which are supposed to signify either racists who are not racist inside, or non racists who actually are, and this is why the film fails to really engage its audience in any of the carryings on between them. In 2005 the Academy had the opportunity to award the Best Picture Award to the wonderful ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and instead they opted to honour this pretentious offering.
80. CIMARRON - 1931
If this ranking was based entirely on the first opening sequence of the films, then ‘Cimarron’ would be somewhere near the top of the list. The first sequence shows the start of the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 and it is fantastically filmed, giving the viewer the impression that they are about to engage in an adventure of mammoth proportions. The rest of the film does not live up to this exciting opening.
The film then deals with one family, and the role that they play in their new surroundings, over the course of the next four decades, ending in 1930, the year that the film was made.
My main problem with ‘Cimarron’ is the husband and father of the family, Yancey Cravat, played by Richard Dix during his silent to talkie transition. He is one of the least appealing hero figures in film: chauvinist, boisterous and does not appear to really care about his family at all, but despite this, the film seems to portray him as a hero and we are supposed to care about him, which is hard to understand. Dix’s acting is over the top and almost comedic: the role is played as if the film is a silent comedy, and not an epic western.
Irene Dunne as his wife and centre of the family and the community is better to watch. She plays the supportive wife with subtlety and style and comes into her own towards the end of the film when she finally has enough of her husband constantly disappearing for years on end, and stands on her own. Aside from the opening sequence the scenes featuring Dunne are the strongest.
There are a variety of supporting roles that come and go in a seemingly aimless manner: the town prostitute with a big heart, the noisy neighbours and the assortment of western characters, but these are too small to make a difference one way or another.
One of the main criticisms of the film, historically, has been how black characters were treated. The portrayal of the simpering Isaiah is, by modern standards, appalling, and although not all films of this era treat black characters in the same way, these characters were not unusual for such films. It also needs to be considered that this film was lifted from the Edna Ferber novel, and the film only replicates the treatments that are found in the book.
In short, ‘Cimarron’ is only really worth watching for those interested in seeing an early western. If you want a great epic then look elsewhere.
The film then deals with one family, and the role that they play in their new surroundings, over the course of the next four decades, ending in 1930, the year that the film was made.
My main problem with ‘Cimarron’ is the husband and father of the family, Yancey Cravat, played by Richard Dix during his silent to talkie transition. He is one of the least appealing hero figures in film: chauvinist, boisterous and does not appear to really care about his family at all, but despite this, the film seems to portray him as a hero and we are supposed to care about him, which is hard to understand. Dix’s acting is over the top and almost comedic: the role is played as if the film is a silent comedy, and not an epic western.
Irene Dunne as his wife and centre of the family and the community is better to watch. She plays the supportive wife with subtlety and style and comes into her own towards the end of the film when she finally has enough of her husband constantly disappearing for years on end, and stands on her own. Aside from the opening sequence the scenes featuring Dunne are the strongest.
There are a variety of supporting roles that come and go in a seemingly aimless manner: the town prostitute with a big heart, the noisy neighbours and the assortment of western characters, but these are too small to make a difference one way or another.
One of the main criticisms of the film, historically, has been how black characters were treated. The portrayal of the simpering Isaiah is, by modern standards, appalling, and although not all films of this era treat black characters in the same way, these characters were not unusual for such films. It also needs to be considered that this film was lifted from the Edna Ferber novel, and the film only replicates the treatments that are found in the book.
In short, ‘Cimarron’ is only really worth watching for those interested in seeing an early western. If you want a great epic then look elsewhere.
Friday 12 March 2010
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS - 1956
My opinion of ‘Around the World in Eighty Days’ can be summed up in one sentence: It’s not the worst Best Picture winner ever, but it is not in the top eighty.
The adaptation of the Jules Verne classic is an obvious choice for a film. David Niven plays Phileas Fogg who is challenged to make his way around the world in eighty days. He sets off with his new butler, Passepartout, but meanwhile the Bank of England, has been burgled and people suspect that Fogg might be behind this.
This film is not offensive in any way, and I do not object to it as a concept but it’s also not remotely interesting. The length is painful: I estimate it to be approximately 17 hours long, some scenes seem never ending, and to me it feels essentially like a second rate children’s film but with very little charm.
The characters are totally one dimensional, the script basic and the story totally undemanding, but despite that, it is the production that frustrates me. The film is supposed to be impressive: shots from all over the world in vivid colour, but in doing these grand scenes it neglects its main characters. The close-up shots of Niven are few and far between which means that his acting and expressions are never picked up, and Cantiflas’ Passepartout is such an irritating character that any screen time spent on him does not please.
Fans of film should watch this for one reason: how many famous faces can be spotted? For this reason alone the film is worth the watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Frank Sinatra, Buston Keaton and Marlene Dietrich can all be found making cameo roles, and spotting these screen icons can be a fun pastime. But this is the problem of ‘Around the World in 80 Days’: any film during which the viewer has to entertain themselves by spotting Noel Coward in the background is not worthy of a Best Picture win. Ever. 1956 was not a bad year for the big screen: ‘Giant’ and ‘The King and I’ were both contenders, but regrettably I suppose that any film with such a large cast of real celebrities must have attracted some attention that the academy voters could not ignore. I can understand how this film won when this is taking into account, but I cannot see how anyone could honestly see this film as a genuinely good film, let alone the best picture of any given year.
The adaptation of the Jules Verne classic is an obvious choice for a film. David Niven plays Phileas Fogg who is challenged to make his way around the world in eighty days. He sets off with his new butler, Passepartout, but meanwhile the Bank of England, has been burgled and people suspect that Fogg might be behind this.
This film is not offensive in any way, and I do not object to it as a concept but it’s also not remotely interesting. The length is painful: I estimate it to be approximately 17 hours long, some scenes seem never ending, and to me it feels essentially like a second rate children’s film but with very little charm.
The characters are totally one dimensional, the script basic and the story totally undemanding, but despite that, it is the production that frustrates me. The film is supposed to be impressive: shots from all over the world in vivid colour, but in doing these grand scenes it neglects its main characters. The close-up shots of Niven are few and far between which means that his acting and expressions are never picked up, and Cantiflas’ Passepartout is such an irritating character that any screen time spent on him does not please.
Fans of film should watch this for one reason: how many famous faces can be spotted? For this reason alone the film is worth the watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Frank Sinatra, Buston Keaton and Marlene Dietrich can all be found making cameo roles, and spotting these screen icons can be a fun pastime. But this is the problem of ‘Around the World in 80 Days’: any film during which the viewer has to entertain themselves by spotting Noel Coward in the background is not worthy of a Best Picture win. Ever. 1956 was not a bad year for the big screen: ‘Giant’ and ‘The King and I’ were both contenders, but regrettably I suppose that any film with such a large cast of real celebrities must have attracted some attention that the academy voters could not ignore. I can understand how this film won when this is taking into account, but I cannot see how anyone could honestly see this film as a genuinely good film, let alone the best picture of any given year.
82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
There are some films that won Best Picture that surprise me to this day, and the fact that ‘Tom Jones’ won is the most obvious example. In my opinion, however, the least deserving winner is actually an obvious choice: a film that aims to make the everyday man feel good about himself and show that nothing is impossible. ‘Forrest Gump’ is an obvious winner.
I want to say something good about all 82 best picture winners, I honestly do. But, with ‘Forrest Gump’ I am almost stuck. Forrest Gump is a simple man who is encouraged by his mother to choose his own path in life. He does so, and on his way becomes involved in many historical events, and changes the course of history without even realising it. The reason that he does not notice the impact that he has made is that he is only interested in making his childhood friend, Jenny, fall in love with him. The very premise of the film makes me feel a little queasy.
I shall run through the different part of film production in the attempt to clarify why I think the film has few redeeming features. I shall start with the acting. Tom Hanks plays the title role, and this is where personal opinion really comes into play. I’m not a big Tom Hanks fan. I cannot, infact, think of any Tom Hanks film which I would actively want to re-watch (expect for the ‘Toy Story’ films), and this film does nothing to improve my opinion of him. It’s a fairly bland performance in my view. The supporting cast are largely forgettable: Sally Fields is the biggest name in it after Hanks, and she is pushed to sideline after declaring that everyone loved her after winning the Best Actress Award for ‘Places in the Heart’.
The storyline is fairly non-existent. This, on its own is fine. There are plenty of films with little or no storyline that are brilliant (‘La dolce vita’ being a fine example), but the storyline cannot be therefore used as one of the strong points of ‘Forrest Gump’.
The best things about the film are the cinematography and the soundtrack. The title characters journey through different decades and meeting different historical characters in different places lends itself perfectly to these areas, and on this score the film does not disappoint. However, a few picturesque shots and a couple of nice tunes do not make a Best Picture winner.
Whereas I have so far explained why I do not rate this film, I have yet to state why I despise it. The best word that I can use to describe this film is nauseating. It is so patronisingly repulsive that I cannot see how any fan of film can watch this and not realise that it is manipulative nonsense about one dimensional characters that do not develop over the course of this long and drawn out faux-history biopic.
When you consider other films that were released in the same year, the fact that this film won becomes even more ridiculous, especially the magnificent ‘Pulp Fiction’, one of the most influential films of the 1990s and responsible for cementing Tarantino as of the important directors of his generation.
In short, in my opinion, ‘Forrest Gump’ is a dreadful film.
I want to say something good about all 82 best picture winners, I honestly do. But, with ‘Forrest Gump’ I am almost stuck. Forrest Gump is a simple man who is encouraged by his mother to choose his own path in life. He does so, and on his way becomes involved in many historical events, and changes the course of history without even realising it. The reason that he does not notice the impact that he has made is that he is only interested in making his childhood friend, Jenny, fall in love with him. The very premise of the film makes me feel a little queasy.
I shall run through the different part of film production in the attempt to clarify why I think the film has few redeeming features. I shall start with the acting. Tom Hanks plays the title role, and this is where personal opinion really comes into play. I’m not a big Tom Hanks fan. I cannot, infact, think of any Tom Hanks film which I would actively want to re-watch (expect for the ‘Toy Story’ films), and this film does nothing to improve my opinion of him. It’s a fairly bland performance in my view. The supporting cast are largely forgettable: Sally Fields is the biggest name in it after Hanks, and she is pushed to sideline after declaring that everyone loved her after winning the Best Actress Award for ‘Places in the Heart’.
The storyline is fairly non-existent. This, on its own is fine. There are plenty of films with little or no storyline that are brilliant (‘La dolce vita’ being a fine example), but the storyline cannot be therefore used as one of the strong points of ‘Forrest Gump’.
The best things about the film are the cinematography and the soundtrack. The title characters journey through different decades and meeting different historical characters in different places lends itself perfectly to these areas, and on this score the film does not disappoint. However, a few picturesque shots and a couple of nice tunes do not make a Best Picture winner.
Whereas I have so far explained why I do not rate this film, I have yet to state why I despise it. The best word that I can use to describe this film is nauseating. It is so patronisingly repulsive that I cannot see how any fan of film can watch this and not realise that it is manipulative nonsense about one dimensional characters that do not develop over the course of this long and drawn out faux-history biopic.
When you consider other films that were released in the same year, the fact that this film won becomes even more ridiculous, especially the magnificent ‘Pulp Fiction’, one of the most influential films of the 1990s and responsible for cementing Tarantino as of the important directors of his generation.
In short, in my opinion, ‘Forrest Gump’ is a dreadful film.
Introduction
Last weekend 'The Hurt Locker' became the 82nd winner of the most desired award in the film industry: the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Throughout the history of the awards the winner of this coveted award has caused much debate, and everyone has an opinion on the winners: from the grand epic ‘Ben-Hur’, to the low budget ‘No Country for Old Men’, from the musical ‘West Side Story’ to the silent ‘Wings’ and from the comedic ‘It Happened One Night’ to the most serious ‘Schindler’s List’.
In this blog I will attempt to rank the 82 winners in reverse order, from the film that I thought should never have won, to what is, in my opinion, the greatest film ever made. Film, like all art forms is subjective, and the opinions expressed here are my own and I am always willing to hear the opinions of others and hope that if I make any factual errors I will be corrected. Some of my views will be widely followed, and there will be some that many people disagree with, but I hope that you enjoy reading what I have to say and join in the debate.
Best wishes
Z
Throughout the history of the awards the winner of this coveted award has caused much debate, and everyone has an opinion on the winners: from the grand epic ‘Ben-Hur’, to the low budget ‘No Country for Old Men’, from the musical ‘West Side Story’ to the silent ‘Wings’ and from the comedic ‘It Happened One Night’ to the most serious ‘Schindler’s List’.
In this blog I will attempt to rank the 82 winners in reverse order, from the film that I thought should never have won, to what is, in my opinion, the greatest film ever made. Film, like all art forms is subjective, and the opinions expressed here are my own and I am always willing to hear the opinions of others and hope that if I make any factual errors I will be corrected. Some of my views will be widely followed, and there will be some that many people disagree with, but I hope that you enjoy reading what I have to say and join in the debate.
Best wishes
Z
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)