With 50 films to go... Has your favourite been and gone or is it still waiting to be called. Would love to hear your views...
82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2005
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
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
66. OLIVER! - 1968
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
60. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998
59. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
58. MRS MINIVER - 1942
57. HURT LOCKER - 2009
56. HAMLET - 1948
55. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
54. PLATOON - 1986
53. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
52. GIGI - 1958
51. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
STILL TO COME
WINGS - 1928
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
GRAND HOTEL - 1932
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934
MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
GONE WITH THE WIND - 1939
REBECCA - 1940
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
CASABLANCA - 1943
THE LOST WEEKEND - 1945
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946
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
THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
BEN-HUR - 1959
THE APARTMENT - 1960
WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - 1962
MY FAIR LADY - 1964
THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
PATTON - 1970
THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971
THE GODFATHER - 1972
THE STING - 1973
THE GODFATHER II - 1974
KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
AMADEUS - 1984
THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
RAIN MAN - 1988
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 1991
UNFORGIVEN - 1992
SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
TITANIC - 1997
AMERICAN BEAUTY - 1999
GLADIATOR - 2000
CHICAGO - 2002
MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
THE DEPARTED - 2006
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - 2007
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008
Wednesday 28 April 2010
51. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST - 1975
I appreciate that most people would place this film much higher on the list. It is regarded a classic and is (at time of writing) in the top ten films ever on the IMDB website. Personally, I would not put it this high.
‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’ is the tale of McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a convicted criminal who decides that rather than being in prison it would be easier to pretend that he is mad and spend time in a mental institution. Once in the asylum he tries to liven the place up with games and general high jinx, but finds himself clashing with the head nurse, the formidable Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), who wants order and routine returned to the hospital.
As it is only the second of three films to win the big five awards, the two leads cannot be ignored. Nicholson is over-the-top as always. He plays McMurphy will a manic joy that only he could. Nicholson is not one of my favourite actors, I find that his default mode is over-the-top no matter what the part, even in more serious films such as ‘The Departed’, which is yet to come on the countdown, and whereas this film is set in an asylum, I’m not as transfixed by his performance as I would have liked to have been, because I’d seen it all before.
Fletcher’s performance I prefer much much more. She manages to be cold and joyless and manages to control the film whenever she is on the screen, which is remarkable as she does very little throughout the duration. Whenever she is not in the film I either found my attention waning or I became annoyed by Nicholson’s character, neither of which I wanted.
My problem with the film (I say problem loosely, it’s still manages to make it near the middle of my ranking) is that it’s so of its era, that I find it bares very little relevance today. Nicholson is supposed to be the hero, but in reality he’s a criminal who main aim is to destroy an institution. Fletcher is supposed to be this big villain, on the American Film Industry’s List of 50 Villains of all time she appears at number 5, one place below The Wicked Witch of the West and 10 places above Ralph Fiennes in ‘Schindler’s List’ and why…? Because she tried to restore some order in an asylum whilst some criminal is running amok.
It’s a film very much of its age. It’s an anti-establishment film and as such an important film it should be watched as a simple of its age, but do I think it’s a great film? No. I think that the characters are largely simplified to the point that they become too obvious and that Nicholson over-acts for the majority of the film. The story is actually pretty good given the characters provided, and from a technical point of the film is fine, given the confines of an asylum, but there are very little opportunities for glorious sweeping shots of dramatic scenery, and it cannot be considered a great film on this front. In short I appreciate the finer points of this film, but ultimately it enters the category of films that I consider to be important rather than brilliant.
‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’ is the tale of McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a convicted criminal who decides that rather than being in prison it would be easier to pretend that he is mad and spend time in a mental institution. Once in the asylum he tries to liven the place up with games and general high jinx, but finds himself clashing with the head nurse, the formidable Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), who wants order and routine returned to the hospital.
As it is only the second of three films to win the big five awards, the two leads cannot be ignored. Nicholson is over-the-top as always. He plays McMurphy will a manic joy that only he could. Nicholson is not one of my favourite actors, I find that his default mode is over-the-top no matter what the part, even in more serious films such as ‘The Departed’, which is yet to come on the countdown, and whereas this film is set in an asylum, I’m not as transfixed by his performance as I would have liked to have been, because I’d seen it all before.
Fletcher’s performance I prefer much much more. She manages to be cold and joyless and manages to control the film whenever she is on the screen, which is remarkable as she does very little throughout the duration. Whenever she is not in the film I either found my attention waning or I became annoyed by Nicholson’s character, neither of which I wanted.
My problem with the film (I say problem loosely, it’s still manages to make it near the middle of my ranking) is that it’s so of its era, that I find it bares very little relevance today. Nicholson is supposed to be the hero, but in reality he’s a criminal who main aim is to destroy an institution. Fletcher is supposed to be this big villain, on the American Film Industry’s List of 50 Villains of all time she appears at number 5, one place below The Wicked Witch of the West and 10 places above Ralph Fiennes in ‘Schindler’s List’ and why…? Because she tried to restore some order in an asylum whilst some criminal is running amok.
It’s a film very much of its age. It’s an anti-establishment film and as such an important film it should be watched as a simple of its age, but do I think it’s a great film? No. I think that the characters are largely simplified to the point that they become too obvious and that Nicholson over-acts for the majority of the film. The story is actually pretty good given the characters provided, and from a technical point of the film is fine, given the confines of an asylum, but there are very little opportunities for glorious sweeping shots of dramatic scenery, and it cannot be considered a great film on this front. In short I appreciate the finer points of this film, but ultimately it enters the category of films that I consider to be important rather than brilliant.
52. GIGI - 1958
After winning the Best Picture Oscar for ‘An American in Paris’ but failing to clinch the Best Director award, Minnelli returned with ‘Gigi’ and secured nine Academy Awards in the process. For such a successful musical it has always struck me as a slightly odd film, and this is mainly to do with the subject matter.
Gigi (Leslie Caron) is a young girl in 1900s Paris who is being trained to be a courtesan. Her grandmother used to be the mistress of Horore Lachaille (Maurice Chevalier) and his nephew Gaston (Louis Jourdan), a turn-of-the-Century playboy, spends more and more time with the young girl as he is bored of his hedonistic lifestyle. As can be expected, the two young people’s friendship gradually develops into something more.
The film has many wonderful musical numbers. The song ‘Gigi’ scooped the Best Song Oscar and a personal favourite is the delightfully witty ‘I Remember it Well’. One of the most famous songs is ‘Thank Heaven for Little Girls’: it is an absolutely excellent song, sung perfectly by Chevalier.
Caron is delightful in the title role. Whereas I prefer ‘An American in Paris’ to ‘Gigi’ overall, I think that she is stronger in this and she plays the role with charm and ease. Jourdan is a perfect choice as the love interest: brooding, charming but a little insecure, and Chevalier was, again, an inspired choice.
The best thing about the film is how it is filmed. One of the earliest colour winners, ‘Gigi’ is delightfully shot. The colours used, the costumes, the make-up are all stunning, and from a visual perspective, the film is easily one of the greatest triumphs of cinema.
What stops this film, for me, being higher up the list is the aforementioned subject matter and story. This is a musical which is supposed to be a big romance, but is actually when it’s stripped down it’s about a young girl who is essentially being trained to be a high-class escort and a man about town several years older than her. This in itself is fine, ‘Moulin Rouge’ manages to do this but doesn’t try to hide it. ‘Gigi’ (maybe because of when it was made) almost seems to hide this and makes their relationship look wholesome, whereas in reality it’s all a little bit seedy.
This is a small criticism: It is a beautiful film, but this flaw always makes me a little uncertain when I watch it. I wish that the film had either been made to be more traditional and to cut out the courtesan aspect, or to actually address the issue at hand. As it stands it just seems a little odd at times, despite the fact it is one of the most beautifully shot musicals ever made.
Gigi (Leslie Caron) is a young girl in 1900s Paris who is being trained to be a courtesan. Her grandmother used to be the mistress of Horore Lachaille (Maurice Chevalier) and his nephew Gaston (Louis Jourdan), a turn-of-the-Century playboy, spends more and more time with the young girl as he is bored of his hedonistic lifestyle. As can be expected, the two young people’s friendship gradually develops into something more.
The film has many wonderful musical numbers. The song ‘Gigi’ scooped the Best Song Oscar and a personal favourite is the delightfully witty ‘I Remember it Well’. One of the most famous songs is ‘Thank Heaven for Little Girls’: it is an absolutely excellent song, sung perfectly by Chevalier.
Caron is delightful in the title role. Whereas I prefer ‘An American in Paris’ to ‘Gigi’ overall, I think that she is stronger in this and she plays the role with charm and ease. Jourdan is a perfect choice as the love interest: brooding, charming but a little insecure, and Chevalier was, again, an inspired choice.
The best thing about the film is how it is filmed. One of the earliest colour winners, ‘Gigi’ is delightfully shot. The colours used, the costumes, the make-up are all stunning, and from a visual perspective, the film is easily one of the greatest triumphs of cinema.
What stops this film, for me, being higher up the list is the aforementioned subject matter and story. This is a musical which is supposed to be a big romance, but is actually when it’s stripped down it’s about a young girl who is essentially being trained to be a high-class escort and a man about town several years older than her. This in itself is fine, ‘Moulin Rouge’ manages to do this but doesn’t try to hide it. ‘Gigi’ (maybe because of when it was made) almost seems to hide this and makes their relationship look wholesome, whereas in reality it’s all a little bit seedy.
This is a small criticism: It is a beautiful film, but this flaw always makes me a little uncertain when I watch it. I wish that the film had either been made to be more traditional and to cut out the courtesan aspect, or to actually address the issue at hand. As it stands it just seems a little odd at times, despite the fact it is one of the most beautifully shot musicals ever made.
53. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
Another film which I have seen towards the bottom of many best picture rankings is this little known late 1930s biopic of one of France’s most famous authors. The film is largely about his involvement in the Dreyfus affair, but also takes a look into his literature, and I quite comprehend why it is often dismissed as one of the weakest winners of this award.
The film starts with Zola’s early life. He is a struggling author and close friends with Paul Cezanne, and more interested writing a social commentary than ever he is with making money. Over the course of the film he becomes more successful and this is told largely though a montage of his work. The bulk of the film concentrates itself with the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus was arrested and sent to Devil’s island, convicted of treason, but new information soon comes to light that suggests that he is innocent. The military, however, want to suppress this information as it would dampen moral, but Zola decides to speak out in one of the earliest examples of courtroom drama.
Zola is played by Paul Muni, who ages expertly during the film. He won the Best Actor the year before for playing Louis Pasteur, but this performance would have been a worthy win too. He really does control the screen and the film is clearly about him. The supporting cast are solid. There is, for me, no performance that really stands out as fantastic, but pleasingly there are no weak links.
The best word to describe ‘The Life of Emile Zola’ is solid. This film is the first in the list that I find difficult to really fault. There is nothing that I can find wrong with it. Equally, it’s not a spectacular film, and I would find it hard to believe that there are many people who would have a deep love for this film. The majority of the film tells the story of the life of Zola in an effective, interesting but not particularly inspiring way. You get an essence of the man without really becoming overly involved in the film.
There are a couple of really high spots in this film. Perhaps it would be hard to create a bad version of the famous ‘J’accuse’ speech, but nevertheless it is a pretty special moment. The last section of the film in the courtroom is also brilliant. It gives an lasting impression and would easily come near the top of my favourite courtroom drama moments.
I have heard people describe this film as dated and criticise it because of this. It is dated in many ways: if this film were to be made today it would have completely different feel about it (if this film were to be made today I think it would be a bit like ‘Milk’ in style), but this also makes the film have a certain charm. There are some things, as well, that are important no matter how old a film, and that is intelligent, sensible and solid acting, and ‘The Life of Emile Zola’ succeeds in this for sure.
The film starts with Zola’s early life. He is a struggling author and close friends with Paul Cezanne, and more interested writing a social commentary than ever he is with making money. Over the course of the film he becomes more successful and this is told largely though a montage of his work. The bulk of the film concentrates itself with the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus was arrested and sent to Devil’s island, convicted of treason, but new information soon comes to light that suggests that he is innocent. The military, however, want to suppress this information as it would dampen moral, but Zola decides to speak out in one of the earliest examples of courtroom drama.
Zola is played by Paul Muni, who ages expertly during the film. He won the Best Actor the year before for playing Louis Pasteur, but this performance would have been a worthy win too. He really does control the screen and the film is clearly about him. The supporting cast are solid. There is, for me, no performance that really stands out as fantastic, but pleasingly there are no weak links.
The best word to describe ‘The Life of Emile Zola’ is solid. This film is the first in the list that I find difficult to really fault. There is nothing that I can find wrong with it. Equally, it’s not a spectacular film, and I would find it hard to believe that there are many people who would have a deep love for this film. The majority of the film tells the story of the life of Zola in an effective, interesting but not particularly inspiring way. You get an essence of the man without really becoming overly involved in the film.
There are a couple of really high spots in this film. Perhaps it would be hard to create a bad version of the famous ‘J’accuse’ speech, but nevertheless it is a pretty special moment. The last section of the film in the courtroom is also brilliant. It gives an lasting impression and would easily come near the top of my favourite courtroom drama moments.
I have heard people describe this film as dated and criticise it because of this. It is dated in many ways: if this film were to be made today it would have completely different feel about it (if this film were to be made today I think it would be a bit like ‘Milk’ in style), but this also makes the film have a certain charm. There are some things, as well, that are important no matter how old a film, and that is intelligent, sensible and solid acting, and ‘The Life of Emile Zola’ succeeds in this for sure.
Saturday 24 April 2010
54. PLATOON - 1986
‘Platoon’ is Oliver Stone’s ultimate Vietnam film which focuses on a platoon of American soldiers as they fight together in the Vietnamese wilderness.
The main character is Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) who is a volunteer and an inexperienced fighter and not as indispensable as he believed he would be. We meet the other members of the platoon and see them go through training and fighting together. The platoon is split in two when a violent killing takes place during a raid on a village. The film then looks at the two conflicts: the conflict within the platoon and the conflict of the war.
‘Platoon’ is undoubtedly one of the great war films. The acting is solid throughout, with a surprisingly good performance from Sheen and great performances from the two commanders Barnes (Tom Berenger) and Elias (Willem Dafoe) whose rivalry really does elevate this film to higher levels.
The film is shot beautifully: there are some shocking and moving moments of the film, and the film really does show the panic that it intends to portray. It’s also a balanced film in that it’s clearly anti-war, but refrains from becoming either anti-American or anti-Vietnamese, and the film deserves credit for that. The use of the two confrontations really helps to do this, and I think that it was a great decision to introduce this internal conflict into the film.
The film is not without its faults and suffers at time from a common war film flaw in that it tries to put too many events into a short time period. Whereas I do not doubt that these events did take place in Vietnam, it is highly unlikely that they would have taken place to one group of people within a time frame of a few weeks.
Whereas the cinematography of the war scenes is stunning and illustrates the general confusion of war, at times this scenes do drag as once the idea of confusion has passed it can turn into a series of loud bangs and flashing lights, and I personally felt my attention waning at some of these points.
Platoon is a war film that everyone should watch. It is a cleverly constructed film which gives an interesting insight into life in Vietnam. It’s not perfect: there are parts where the expression style over substance can be applied, but on the whole it is a strong film with many good qualities. Incidentally, my winner would have been ‘A Room with a View’, in my opinion one of the greatest films of the 1980s.
The main character is Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) who is a volunteer and an inexperienced fighter and not as indispensable as he believed he would be. We meet the other members of the platoon and see them go through training and fighting together. The platoon is split in two when a violent killing takes place during a raid on a village. The film then looks at the two conflicts: the conflict within the platoon and the conflict of the war.
‘Platoon’ is undoubtedly one of the great war films. The acting is solid throughout, with a surprisingly good performance from Sheen and great performances from the two commanders Barnes (Tom Berenger) and Elias (Willem Dafoe) whose rivalry really does elevate this film to higher levels.
The film is shot beautifully: there are some shocking and moving moments of the film, and the film really does show the panic that it intends to portray. It’s also a balanced film in that it’s clearly anti-war, but refrains from becoming either anti-American or anti-Vietnamese, and the film deserves credit for that. The use of the two confrontations really helps to do this, and I think that it was a great decision to introduce this internal conflict into the film.
The film is not without its faults and suffers at time from a common war film flaw in that it tries to put too many events into a short time period. Whereas I do not doubt that these events did take place in Vietnam, it is highly unlikely that they would have taken place to one group of people within a time frame of a few weeks.
Whereas the cinematography of the war scenes is stunning and illustrates the general confusion of war, at times this scenes do drag as once the idea of confusion has passed it can turn into a series of loud bangs and flashing lights, and I personally felt my attention waning at some of these points.
Platoon is a war film that everyone should watch. It is a cleverly constructed film which gives an interesting insight into life in Vietnam. It’s not perfect: there are parts where the expression style over substance can be applied, but on the whole it is a strong film with many good qualities. Incidentally, my winner would have been ‘A Room with a View’, in my opinion one of the greatest films of the 1980s.
Friday 16 April 2010
55. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
I cannot justify delaying the ranking of this film any longer. I realise that this film is often heralded as the greatest film of the last decade, and it did achieve both commercial and critical success, but it’s not one of the greatest Best Picture winners ever.
‘The Return of the King’ is the final part of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, and it’s difficult to review one without reviewing them all. The story is a faithful adaptation of Tolkien’s novel about a fellowship of nine folk (a mixture of 4 hobbits, 2 men, a dwarf, an elf and a wizard) who need to destroy a ring in order to prevent the evil lord from taking over Middle Earth. This is a very abridged synopsis for a ten hour trilogy which is to be expected!
‘The Lord of the Rings’ succeeds where many fantasy films fail. It is a brilliant story. The story of Middle Earth is complex with many interwoven stories. It resists taking a linear form and the characters, whilst often basic are all relevant to the story and you rarely feel that your time is being wasted with irrelevant details.
The film is mainly a success on a technical level. The film won all of the eleven awards that it was nominated for, but bizarrely it did not receive a nomination for cinematography, and the cinematography is simply beautiful. From wonderful sweeping vistas of Middle Earth (filmed in New Zealand), to the close up shots: every scene is beautiful and nobody could surely deny that. I am no expert on awards like sound and editing, but I gather that this film was pretty much groundbreaking in all these categories.
There are two reasons why this film doesn’t really make a great film for me. The first thing is the ending. After three hours of wonderful story we are subjected to an epilogue section which drags, really drags. It’s totally unnecessary and could have been done much quicker and in a much more effective way. This does not bother me too much. I can stop the film before the end.
The second reason is much more serious. The acting is the worst in any Best Picture winner. Some films rely totally on acting and some do not. There are very serious parts in ‘The Return of the King’ that are totally ruined by over the top and, to be honest, hideous acting. The worst culprits of this are Sean Austin as Sam and Orlando Bloom as Legolas. It makes it worst that the film features Ian McKellan who is faultless throughout. Next to him the acting all seems totally brittle and the characters unbelievable. There are a few scenes between Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Austin’s Sam where deep friendship is meant to be portrayed and they act like lovers. This is a massive problem with this film.
Everyone should see this trilogy as it is a spectacular set of films, but do not expect to see high quality method acting here.
‘The Return of the King’ is the final part of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, and it’s difficult to review one without reviewing them all. The story is a faithful adaptation of Tolkien’s novel about a fellowship of nine folk (a mixture of 4 hobbits, 2 men, a dwarf, an elf and a wizard) who need to destroy a ring in order to prevent the evil lord from taking over Middle Earth. This is a very abridged synopsis for a ten hour trilogy which is to be expected!
‘The Lord of the Rings’ succeeds where many fantasy films fail. It is a brilliant story. The story of Middle Earth is complex with many interwoven stories. It resists taking a linear form and the characters, whilst often basic are all relevant to the story and you rarely feel that your time is being wasted with irrelevant details.
The film is mainly a success on a technical level. The film won all of the eleven awards that it was nominated for, but bizarrely it did not receive a nomination for cinematography, and the cinematography is simply beautiful. From wonderful sweeping vistas of Middle Earth (filmed in New Zealand), to the close up shots: every scene is beautiful and nobody could surely deny that. I am no expert on awards like sound and editing, but I gather that this film was pretty much groundbreaking in all these categories.
There are two reasons why this film doesn’t really make a great film for me. The first thing is the ending. After three hours of wonderful story we are subjected to an epilogue section which drags, really drags. It’s totally unnecessary and could have been done much quicker and in a much more effective way. This does not bother me too much. I can stop the film before the end.
The second reason is much more serious. The acting is the worst in any Best Picture winner. Some films rely totally on acting and some do not. There are very serious parts in ‘The Return of the King’ that are totally ruined by over the top and, to be honest, hideous acting. The worst culprits of this are Sean Austin as Sam and Orlando Bloom as Legolas. It makes it worst that the film features Ian McKellan who is faultless throughout. Next to him the acting all seems totally brittle and the characters unbelievable. There are a few scenes between Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Austin’s Sam where deep friendship is meant to be portrayed and they act like lovers. This is a massive problem with this film.
Everyone should see this trilogy as it is a spectacular set of films, but do not expect to see high quality method acting here.
56. HAMLET - 1948
Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the most well regarded play writers ever, and it is not surprising that three of the Best Picture winners were either written by him or inspired by his work or life: we have already looked at ‘Shakespeare in Love’, and we have ‘West Side Story’ still to come.
Laurence Olivier directed and stared in this Oscar winner, and although is a shortened version of the original play it’s still a lengthy film. Each time a Shakespeare play is developed the take is slightly different, and Olivier goes for the dark version. There is no humour to be found here whatsoever.
For those not familiar with the Shakespearian masterpiece it is a dark medieval Danish tale. The brother of the King, murders his brother with the help of the king’s wife. The king’s son Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father who reveals how he was killed. Hamlet seeks revenge by haunting his uncle, the murderer and the new king.
This film is Laurence Olivier’s film: a chance for him to show his worth and show his prowess. ‘Hamlet’ is to Olivier what ‘Dances with Wolves’ was to Kevin Costner and ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ was to Gene Kelly.
Olivier’s performance is undoubtedly great. I don’t imagine that there are many actors who could master the part of ‘Hamlet’ and then also direct the film and make this heavy piece of work accessible and watchable.
Having said that, I view ‘Hamlet’ in the same way that I view ‘A Man for All Seasons’. I appreciate that a lot of thought and attention went into this film but I am not entertained by this film at all, and in my mind the best films should combine entertainment with art. There is art by the bucketful here, but the entertainment factor often gets lots behind Oliver’s lengthy monologues. I’m not blaming Olivier for this and I respect the decision to shorten rather than modify the text, but I’m not sure that ‘Hamlet’ is the easiest of Shakespeare’s plays to make into a film, and I’m not sure that the humourless version of ‘Hamlet’ is the most watchable version.
In favour of ‘Hamlet’ I did like how the film was shot. Maybe it’s a Scandinavian trait, but the film reminded by of Ingmar Bergman films with the dark shadows and unbroken camera shots, and this high level of art makes the film very attractive at times.
In short, I have no qualms in admitting that this film is of an exceedingly high quality technically, but it’s not the type of film that I personally could enjoy watching over and over again.
Laurence Olivier directed and stared in this Oscar winner, and although is a shortened version of the original play it’s still a lengthy film. Each time a Shakespeare play is developed the take is slightly different, and Olivier goes for the dark version. There is no humour to be found here whatsoever.
For those not familiar with the Shakespearian masterpiece it is a dark medieval Danish tale. The brother of the King, murders his brother with the help of the king’s wife. The king’s son Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father who reveals how he was killed. Hamlet seeks revenge by haunting his uncle, the murderer and the new king.
This film is Laurence Olivier’s film: a chance for him to show his worth and show his prowess. ‘Hamlet’ is to Olivier what ‘Dances with Wolves’ was to Kevin Costner and ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ was to Gene Kelly.
Olivier’s performance is undoubtedly great. I don’t imagine that there are many actors who could master the part of ‘Hamlet’ and then also direct the film and make this heavy piece of work accessible and watchable.
Having said that, I view ‘Hamlet’ in the same way that I view ‘A Man for All Seasons’. I appreciate that a lot of thought and attention went into this film but I am not entertained by this film at all, and in my mind the best films should combine entertainment with art. There is art by the bucketful here, but the entertainment factor often gets lots behind Oliver’s lengthy monologues. I’m not blaming Olivier for this and I respect the decision to shorten rather than modify the text, but I’m not sure that ‘Hamlet’ is the easiest of Shakespeare’s plays to make into a film, and I’m not sure that the humourless version of ‘Hamlet’ is the most watchable version.
In favour of ‘Hamlet’ I did like how the film was shot. Maybe it’s a Scandinavian trait, but the film reminded by of Ingmar Bergman films with the dark shadows and unbroken camera shots, and this high level of art makes the film very attractive at times.
In short, I have no qualms in admitting that this film is of an exceedingly high quality technically, but it’s not the type of film that I personally could enjoy watching over and over again.
57. THE HURT LOCKER - 2009
The most recent winner of the Best Picture winner comes about a third of the way into our countdown. I therefore do not regard this film as a poor winner, but it is also not one of the greatest of all time.
‘The Hurt Locker’ is a film about a bomb disposal unit in Iraq as they come to the end of their tour of duty. It is largely not a story as such with the traditional beginning, middle and end, but more of a pastiche of scenes from the war.
There are some amazing things about this film. Bigelow really does give us an insight into what life may be like in this type of war. Having never been in Iraq I have no idea if this is a faithful depiction, but it certainly shows the war being entirely different from WWI and II, and there are some extremely tense scenes in the film. I am especially impressed by how the film deals with how the combat involved the residents of the country. The soldiers have to deal with bomb disposing and during this a local comes to talk to them and they have no idea if the local is an enemy or just a curious bystander.
There is an excellent scene towards the end of the film where an Iraqi has a bomb attached to him and the unit needs to disarm it. The scene is perfectly tense without being at all contrived.
The film contains largely a cast of unknowns, but does include appearances from Guy Pierce and Ralph Fiennes, for a bit of box office pull. How these actors are dealt with is perfect. They are both involved in one event in the film in which they are central without dominating. Jeremy Renner plays the lead role in the film and received an acting nomination for his performance. His performance is fine, but not really Oscar worthy, as the film is mainly about the events rather than the people. The film is a technical triumph with brilliant cinematography and it really does feel like each shot was carefully considered and planned.
So why not higher? There were a few things that I really did not like about this film. I felt that it would have been perfect as a serious of scenes about the life of a group of soldiers in Iraq, which I think is what the film wanted it to be. But then suddenly it was as if the audience were supposed to suddenly care about the characters. We know very little about Renner’s character but then suddenly we are forced though a series of scenes when he is back in America with his girlfriend and child and we are supposed to care about this. I feel that this cheapens the film somewhat and makes it more like other flashy American films.
There are a couple of unlikely events in the film as well. The boy who is buys DVDs from is later found dead which is a most unlikely coincidence, and I find it hard to believe that trained soldiers would be outwitted by a couple of locals hiding in a derelict house in the desert, but I can overlook this. I can’t overlook the way that a couple of scenes turn the film from an extremely tense and gripping piece of art cinema to an over-sentimental blockbuster type movie.
I was definitely pleased that ‘The Hurt Locker’ beat ‘Avatar’. I though ‘Avatar’ was a pretty film about nothing, but I wished that ‘The Hurt Locker’ had been truly what it clearly set out to be, as there was potential for it to be amazing.
‘The Hurt Locker’ is a film about a bomb disposal unit in Iraq as they come to the end of their tour of duty. It is largely not a story as such with the traditional beginning, middle and end, but more of a pastiche of scenes from the war.
There are some amazing things about this film. Bigelow really does give us an insight into what life may be like in this type of war. Having never been in Iraq I have no idea if this is a faithful depiction, but it certainly shows the war being entirely different from WWI and II, and there are some extremely tense scenes in the film. I am especially impressed by how the film deals with how the combat involved the residents of the country. The soldiers have to deal with bomb disposing and during this a local comes to talk to them and they have no idea if the local is an enemy or just a curious bystander.
There is an excellent scene towards the end of the film where an Iraqi has a bomb attached to him and the unit needs to disarm it. The scene is perfectly tense without being at all contrived.
The film contains largely a cast of unknowns, but does include appearances from Guy Pierce and Ralph Fiennes, for a bit of box office pull. How these actors are dealt with is perfect. They are both involved in one event in the film in which they are central without dominating. Jeremy Renner plays the lead role in the film and received an acting nomination for his performance. His performance is fine, but not really Oscar worthy, as the film is mainly about the events rather than the people. The film is a technical triumph with brilliant cinematography and it really does feel like each shot was carefully considered and planned.
So why not higher? There were a few things that I really did not like about this film. I felt that it would have been perfect as a serious of scenes about the life of a group of soldiers in Iraq, which I think is what the film wanted it to be. But then suddenly it was as if the audience were supposed to suddenly care about the characters. We know very little about Renner’s character but then suddenly we are forced though a series of scenes when he is back in America with his girlfriend and child and we are supposed to care about this. I feel that this cheapens the film somewhat and makes it more like other flashy American films.
There are a couple of unlikely events in the film as well. The boy who is buys DVDs from is later found dead which is a most unlikely coincidence, and I find it hard to believe that trained soldiers would be outwitted by a couple of locals hiding in a derelict house in the desert, but I can overlook this. I can’t overlook the way that a couple of scenes turn the film from an extremely tense and gripping piece of art cinema to an over-sentimental blockbuster type movie.
I was definitely pleased that ‘The Hurt Locker’ beat ‘Avatar’. I though ‘Avatar’ was a pretty film about nothing, but I wished that ‘The Hurt Locker’ had been truly what it clearly set out to be, as there was potential for it to be amazing.
58. MRS MINIVER - 1942
Is it hard to imagine such a blatently obvious piece of propaganda winning the best picture award today, but in 1942, Mrs Miniver swept the Oscars with its WWII family drama. Set in a small British village, the Minivers are a gloriously middle-class family who are affected by the war even though they are not on the front line. Mrs Miniver (Greer Garson) is heavily involved in the community and has a rose named after her. Her husband Clem is an architect, and their oldest son is at university. The son falls in love with the granddaughter of a local Lady whose rose comes up against the Miniver rose in the local flower show.
Mrs Miniver was one of the most culturally significant films at the time. Churchill said that this film had done more for the war effort than a flotilla of destroyers, and Roosevelt even had transcripts of the now famous closing speech dropped on enemy territory. Director Wyler happily admitted he made the film for propaganda films in order to draw America into the war.
Famous scenes of the film include Garson finding a German spy in her garden and capturing him, the son heroically deciding to join the war and the aforementioned closing speech. I’m not sure what the impact of such an obvious piece of propaganda would be if it was released today, but as a piece of war time propaganda it’s an interesting watch if nothing else.
Greer Garson is really strong in the title role and provides a central character who is delightful to watch and convincing throughout. It is understandable why she is clearly a local figure who everyone seems to adore. The supporting cast are equally watchable, especially Teresa Wright as the son’s love interest, and it’s a shame that Walter Pidgeon as Mr Miniver does not have more to do in the film. One comment on this is that there are some deeply suspicious British accents, which at times ruins the effect of a quaint English village.
I enjoy ‘Mrs Miniver’. It’s one of those frightfully nice films where everything is super and everyone drinks sherry, but with the dark cloud of war hanging over it. I’m not convinced that it’s a brilliant film as there is nothing particularly spectacular about it, and the total lack of subtlety means that it could not be discussed as a cinematic great. It is, however, a very interesting film to watch and put in context. To a world in the middle of a war, this film must have been very poignant, and as a piece of propaganda it is fascinating to watch. It was also by far the highest grossing film of 1942, which means that it must have been pretty effective as well.
Mrs Miniver was one of the most culturally significant films at the time. Churchill said that this film had done more for the war effort than a flotilla of destroyers, and Roosevelt even had transcripts of the now famous closing speech dropped on enemy territory. Director Wyler happily admitted he made the film for propaganda films in order to draw America into the war.
Famous scenes of the film include Garson finding a German spy in her garden and capturing him, the son heroically deciding to join the war and the aforementioned closing speech. I’m not sure what the impact of such an obvious piece of propaganda would be if it was released today, but as a piece of war time propaganda it’s an interesting watch if nothing else.
Greer Garson is really strong in the title role and provides a central character who is delightful to watch and convincing throughout. It is understandable why she is clearly a local figure who everyone seems to adore. The supporting cast are equally watchable, especially Teresa Wright as the son’s love interest, and it’s a shame that Walter Pidgeon as Mr Miniver does not have more to do in the film. One comment on this is that there are some deeply suspicious British accents, which at times ruins the effect of a quaint English village.
I enjoy ‘Mrs Miniver’. It’s one of those frightfully nice films where everything is super and everyone drinks sherry, but with the dark cloud of war hanging over it. I’m not convinced that it’s a brilliant film as there is nothing particularly spectacular about it, and the total lack of subtlety means that it could not be discussed as a cinematic great. It is, however, a very interesting film to watch and put in context. To a world in the middle of a war, this film must have been very poignant, and as a piece of propaganda it is fascinating to watch. It was also by far the highest grossing film of 1942, which means that it must have been pretty effective as well.
Thursday 15 April 2010
59. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
‘A Man for All Seasons’ is probably a film that I should like more than I actually do. It is often heralded as one of the great pieces of British Cinema and the fine acting and wordy script are both celebrated.
The film is the dramatisation of the story of Sir Thomas More, played by Paul Schofield. During the reign of Henry VIII (Robert Shaw), Sir Thomas More is appointed Lord Chancellor of England. More is a devout Catholic and puts the Church above all else. When the King decides that he wants to divorce, More refuses to dissolve the marriage and once the King has declared himself Head of the Church of England, More resigns from his post, and is later tried for treason.
It is a very serious film that looks at the issues of religion, marriage and loyalty, and although it’s set in the 16th Century, the topics that are up for discussion are still relevant today, which I think is what makes the film so undated. Another reason why it has aged well is that it is not a typical film of that decade. In the 1960s protagonists tended to be the anti-hero type (see Tom Jones), but yet Sir Thomas More is a man with extremely strong principles who will not bend them on a whim.
The acting is as serious as the film with a strong performance from Paul Schofield and respectable performances from the supporting characters. The script is equally as serious with long speeches and tight arguments being used by the characters, especially during the final section of the film.
I have no doubt that this is a clever and stately film full of fine acting and carefully studied dialogue. Although I am not over familiar with Tudor history, I am also led to believe that the film is supposed accurate, with no ‘Braveheart’ style tactics used to spice up history. My personal reason for not putting this higher is that I just do not find the film very entertaining, and although we can respect a film, without any form of wow-factor, it is difficult for me to perhaps place this film any higher, despite its obvious high level of technical quality.
By far the best part of the film is when we see Orson Welles playing Cardinal Wolsey (More’s predecessor). There is something quite delightful about his role and for a while he really makes the film animated. When he leaves the screen (and he does not have a particularly large role unfortunately) the film dies a little. The quality is still there, but it lacks that spark that could have made it a wonderful piece of cinema.
The film is the dramatisation of the story of Sir Thomas More, played by Paul Schofield. During the reign of Henry VIII (Robert Shaw), Sir Thomas More is appointed Lord Chancellor of England. More is a devout Catholic and puts the Church above all else. When the King decides that he wants to divorce, More refuses to dissolve the marriage and once the King has declared himself Head of the Church of England, More resigns from his post, and is later tried for treason.
It is a very serious film that looks at the issues of religion, marriage and loyalty, and although it’s set in the 16th Century, the topics that are up for discussion are still relevant today, which I think is what makes the film so undated. Another reason why it has aged well is that it is not a typical film of that decade. In the 1960s protagonists tended to be the anti-hero type (see Tom Jones), but yet Sir Thomas More is a man with extremely strong principles who will not bend them on a whim.
The acting is as serious as the film with a strong performance from Paul Schofield and respectable performances from the supporting characters. The script is equally as serious with long speeches and tight arguments being used by the characters, especially during the final section of the film.
I have no doubt that this is a clever and stately film full of fine acting and carefully studied dialogue. Although I am not over familiar with Tudor history, I am also led to believe that the film is supposed accurate, with no ‘Braveheart’ style tactics used to spice up history. My personal reason for not putting this higher is that I just do not find the film very entertaining, and although we can respect a film, without any form of wow-factor, it is difficult for me to perhaps place this film any higher, despite its obvious high level of technical quality.
By far the best part of the film is when we see Orson Welles playing Cardinal Wolsey (More’s predecessor). There is something quite delightful about his role and for a while he really makes the film animated. When he leaves the screen (and he does not have a particularly large role unfortunately) the film dies a little. The quality is still there, but it lacks that spark that could have made it a wonderful piece of cinema.
60. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998
In recent years I cannot think of many wins as controversial as ‘Shakespeare in Love’. People were generally shocked when it beat ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and swept the board in many of the major categories.
‘Shakespeare in Love’ is an original story about William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes), and the period of his life when he writes Romeo and Juliet and falls in love. The object of his affection is Gwyneth Paltrow’s Viola de Lesseps, who pretends to be a man playing the part of Juliet, as in Elizabethan England, all parts were played by men.
Like ‘Annie Hall’ this is another film where the script is the star of the film. The comic script is witty and full of clever jokes based around the writing of Shakespeare, as we learn the ficticious story of how Romeo and Juliet was developed from a draft of Romeo and Ethel the Pirate’s Daughter. The delightful script is certainly one of my favourites in the last few years.
The film swept the Oscars, including awards for Best Actress and Supporting Actress. These wins are unfortunately not my least favourite wins in this category. Paltrow is fine in her role, but it is not a particularly challenging role and she does not command the screen in my opinion, in the way that I feel other actresses with better comic timing could have done. I am a big fan of Judi Dench, but her role as Queen Elizabeth is so minute that it’s not really Oscar worthy.
I actually much preferred Joseph Fiennes’s performance in the title role. I think he is quick, witty and utterly charming, and I was really impressed by this performance. I much perfer his performance as a woman than Paltrow's performance as a man. The shock of the show is, however, Ben Affleck, as an actor set to play the part of Mercutio. I cannot think of a single Ben Affleck film in which he delivers a good performance, and yet in this film he is witty and manages to laugh at himself without dominating his scenes.
The film is full of some of the best British comic actors: Martin Clunes, Tom Wilkinson, Geoffrey Rush, Imelda Staunton: all of whom deliver the solid performances that one would expect.
I am not naturally a fan of comedy films, and the comedy genre is the most subjective of films, but I really enjoyed ‘Shakespeare in Love’. It’s not your average comedy: it’s original, witty and includes a solid cast. It’s a shame that this film is slated so much as I think that as a winner it was an original and interesting choice.
‘Shakespeare in Love’ is an original story about William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes), and the period of his life when he writes Romeo and Juliet and falls in love. The object of his affection is Gwyneth Paltrow’s Viola de Lesseps, who pretends to be a man playing the part of Juliet, as in Elizabethan England, all parts were played by men.
Like ‘Annie Hall’ this is another film where the script is the star of the film. The comic script is witty and full of clever jokes based around the writing of Shakespeare, as we learn the ficticious story of how Romeo and Juliet was developed from a draft of Romeo and Ethel the Pirate’s Daughter. The delightful script is certainly one of my favourites in the last few years.
The film swept the Oscars, including awards for Best Actress and Supporting Actress. These wins are unfortunately not my least favourite wins in this category. Paltrow is fine in her role, but it is not a particularly challenging role and she does not command the screen in my opinion, in the way that I feel other actresses with better comic timing could have done. I am a big fan of Judi Dench, but her role as Queen Elizabeth is so minute that it’s not really Oscar worthy.
I actually much preferred Joseph Fiennes’s performance in the title role. I think he is quick, witty and utterly charming, and I was really impressed by this performance. I much perfer his performance as a woman than Paltrow's performance as a man. The shock of the show is, however, Ben Affleck, as an actor set to play the part of Mercutio. I cannot think of a single Ben Affleck film in which he delivers a good performance, and yet in this film he is witty and manages to laugh at himself without dominating his scenes.
The film is full of some of the best British comic actors: Martin Clunes, Tom Wilkinson, Geoffrey Rush, Imelda Staunton: all of whom deliver the solid performances that one would expect.
I am not naturally a fan of comedy films, and the comedy genre is the most subjective of films, but I really enjoyed ‘Shakespeare in Love’. It’s not your average comedy: it’s original, witty and includes a solid cast. It’s a shame that this film is slated so much as I think that as a winner it was an original and interesting choice.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
RECAP - 60 TO GO
82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2005
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
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
66. OLIVER! - 1968
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
STILL TO COME
1928 - WINGS
1930 - ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
1932 - GRAND HOTEL
1934 - IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
1935 - MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY
1936 - THE GREAT ZIEGFELD
1937 - THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA
1938 - YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
1939 - GONE WITH THE WIND
1940 - REBECCA
1941 - HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY
1942 - MRS MINIVER
1943 - CASABLANCA
1945 - THE LOST WEEKEND
1946 - THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
1948 - HAMLET
1949 - ALL THE KINGS MEN
1950 - ALL ABOUT EVE
1951 - AN AMERICAN IN PARID
1953 - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
1954 - ON THE WATERFRONT
1955 - MARTY
1957 - THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
1958 - GIGI
1959 - BEN HUR
1960 - THE APARTMENT
1961 - WEST SIDE STORY
1962 - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
1964 - MY FAIR LADY
1965 - THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1966 - A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
1967 - IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT
1969 - MIDNIGHT COWBOY
1970 - PATTON
1971 - THE FRENCH CONNECTION
1972 - THE GODFATHER
1973 - THE STING
1974 - THE GODFATHER II
1975 - ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
1979 - KRAMER VS KRAMER
1980 - ORDINARY PEOPLE
1984 - AMADEUS
1986 - PLATOON
1987 - THE LAST EMPEROR
1988 - RAIN MAN
1991 - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
1992 - UNFORGIVEN
1993 - SCHINDLER'S LIST
1996 - THE ENGLISH PATIENT
1997 - TITANIC
1998 - SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
1999 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
2000 - GLADIATOR
2002 - CHICAGO
2003 - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
2004 - MILLION DOLLAR BABY
2006 - THE DEPARTED
2007 - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
2008 - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
2009 - THE HURT LOCKER
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2005
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
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
66. OLIVER! - 1968
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
STILL TO COME
1928 - WINGS
1930 - ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
1932 - GRAND HOTEL
1934 - IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
1935 - MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY
1936 - THE GREAT ZIEGFELD
1937 - THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA
1938 - YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
1939 - GONE WITH THE WIND
1940 - REBECCA
1941 - HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY
1942 - MRS MINIVER
1943 - CASABLANCA
1945 - THE LOST WEEKEND
1946 - THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
1948 - HAMLET
1949 - ALL THE KINGS MEN
1950 - ALL ABOUT EVE
1951 - AN AMERICAN IN PARID
1953 - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
1954 - ON THE WATERFRONT
1955 - MARTY
1957 - THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
1958 - GIGI
1959 - BEN HUR
1960 - THE APARTMENT
1961 - WEST SIDE STORY
1962 - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
1964 - MY FAIR LADY
1965 - THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1966 - A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
1967 - IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT
1969 - MIDNIGHT COWBOY
1970 - PATTON
1971 - THE FRENCH CONNECTION
1972 - THE GODFATHER
1973 - THE STING
1974 - THE GODFATHER II
1975 - ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
1979 - KRAMER VS KRAMER
1980 - ORDINARY PEOPLE
1984 - AMADEUS
1986 - PLATOON
1987 - THE LAST EMPEROR
1988 - RAIN MAN
1991 - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
1992 - UNFORGIVEN
1993 - SCHINDLER'S LIST
1996 - THE ENGLISH PATIENT
1997 - TITANIC
1998 - SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
1999 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
2000 - GLADIATOR
2002 - CHICAGO
2003 - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
2004 - MILLION DOLLAR BABY
2006 - THE DEPARTED
2007 - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
2008 - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
2009 - THE HURT LOCKER
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
‘Out of Africa’ is typical Oscar winning fare. It is a true romantic period epic with two major actors in the lead roles.
Based on the memoirs of Karen Blixen, a Danish woman living in Kenya in a loveless marriage, ‘Out of Africa’ stars Meryl Streep as Blixen with Robert Redford as her love interest with Klaus Maria Brandauer as her husband. It is a film that ought to be brilliant. Streep is one of my favourite actresses of all time and her ability to play any character always impresses me, and Robert Redford is also someone I would describe as consistently solid. The cinematography is stunning and the music is beautiful. But something does not quite elevate this film to lofty heights.
The story is fairly standard and not overly complex, which is fine, but it results in the film dragging for what seems like ever. Compared to films like ‘Gone with the Wind’ or ‘The English Patient’, which are also lengthy romantic epics, there is very little to really get involved in and nothing out of the ordinary to really recommend the narrative. It just plods along through three hours of Streep and Redford spending time together and time apart and them time together again, without ever really going anywhere.
Meryl Streep’s character is very Danish. She has the strongest Danish accent imaginable, which is fine. However, Redford is supposed to be British, but sounds as American as ever. I can’t quite understand why they did not select a British actor, or at least expect Redford to attempt the accent. It makes the film slightly less credible.
As mentioned before, the cinematography is extraordinary, and this is by far the best thing about the film. The sweeping African scenery lends itself to this and there are a couple of wonderful pieces in the film. The wonderful shots with the lion and the scene where they travel across the savannah in a plane, are the highlights of the film for me.
The addition of the Mozart based score is another plus, and the main score that runs throughout the film is beautiful.
I feel that ‘Out of Africa’ is a technical triumph. The filming of this epic is stunning, but it is all style and very little substance. It could have been better if they had focused on maybe one aspect of her life and culled the length by a good hour. It’s a pretty enough watch but the lack of content prevents this from being any higher up the list.
Based on the memoirs of Karen Blixen, a Danish woman living in Kenya in a loveless marriage, ‘Out of Africa’ stars Meryl Streep as Blixen with Robert Redford as her love interest with Klaus Maria Brandauer as her husband. It is a film that ought to be brilliant. Streep is one of my favourite actresses of all time and her ability to play any character always impresses me, and Robert Redford is also someone I would describe as consistently solid. The cinematography is stunning and the music is beautiful. But something does not quite elevate this film to lofty heights.
The story is fairly standard and not overly complex, which is fine, but it results in the film dragging for what seems like ever. Compared to films like ‘Gone with the Wind’ or ‘The English Patient’, which are also lengthy romantic epics, there is very little to really get involved in and nothing out of the ordinary to really recommend the narrative. It just plods along through three hours of Streep and Redford spending time together and time apart and them time together again, without ever really going anywhere.
Meryl Streep’s character is very Danish. She has the strongest Danish accent imaginable, which is fine. However, Redford is supposed to be British, but sounds as American as ever. I can’t quite understand why they did not select a British actor, or at least expect Redford to attempt the accent. It makes the film slightly less credible.
As mentioned before, the cinematography is extraordinary, and this is by far the best thing about the film. The sweeping African scenery lends itself to this and there are a couple of wonderful pieces in the film. The wonderful shots with the lion and the scene where they travel across the savannah in a plane, are the highlights of the film for me.
The addition of the Mozart based score is another plus, and the main score that runs throughout the film is beautiful.
I feel that ‘Out of Africa’ is a technical triumph. The filming of this epic is stunning, but it is all style and very little substance. It could have been better if they had focused on maybe one aspect of her life and culled the length by a good hour. It’s a pretty enough watch but the lack of content prevents this from being any higher up the list.
Tuesday 13 April 2010
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
Gentleman’s Agreement has always struck me as an important film, rather than a great film, and if you were to rank the films in order of how serious they are, it would come in at number 2, closely behind ‘Schindler’s List’.
Gregory Peck plays Philip Green, a journalist who agrees to pretend to be Jewish in order to write an exposé on anti-Semitism in post World War II New York. The anti-Semitism in which he is interested is not the obvious examples like the Holocaust, but the small occurrences about how everyday people he meets are intrinsically anti-Semitic, even if they would consider themselves not to be racist. It’s not an easy film to watch, and one that would have forced the audience (certainly at the time) to ask themselves difficult questions.
There are good things about this film. I am a big fan of Gregory Peck, and although this isn’t my favourite Gregory Peck performance, he is solid throughout. The supporting cast are also strong, especially Celeste Holm, who is another of my favourites, and won her only Oscar for her role in this film.
Why I have placed the film fairly low down in my ranking is because the film takes itself so seriously it saps any enjoyment out of it. I am not saying that the film should be less serious, or that the issue raised in the film should be treated with any less gravitas, but this film could have been more interesting. I referred to ‘Schindler’s List’ early, and I would like to make a comparison. The character of Schindler in that film is complex. He prevented the deaths of thousands of Jews, but was still a member of the Nazi party. Philip Green seems less of a complex character to me. The film says that racism is bad and this point is hammered home through all his actions. Whenever something in the film happens you know that Green will do ‘the right thing’. When he young son (who is also pretending to be Jewish) is being bullied at school, you know that his attitude will be that the bullies are wrong. The intrinsic racism seems to be in everyone, from his colleagues to his love interest, but Peck’s character seems to deal with this in a manner that is too heavy handed and never seems to question himself.
There are films that everyone should watch because they are brilliant films, beautifully made and wonderful to watch. Then there are films that everyone should watch which although may not be brilliant films have such an interesting subject matter and force you to think. ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ fits into the latter category. I have never read the book that the film is based on, and would like to as I suspect it works better that way.
Gregory Peck plays Philip Green, a journalist who agrees to pretend to be Jewish in order to write an exposé on anti-Semitism in post World War II New York. The anti-Semitism in which he is interested is not the obvious examples like the Holocaust, but the small occurrences about how everyday people he meets are intrinsically anti-Semitic, even if they would consider themselves not to be racist. It’s not an easy film to watch, and one that would have forced the audience (certainly at the time) to ask themselves difficult questions.
There are good things about this film. I am a big fan of Gregory Peck, and although this isn’t my favourite Gregory Peck performance, he is solid throughout. The supporting cast are also strong, especially Celeste Holm, who is another of my favourites, and won her only Oscar for her role in this film.
Why I have placed the film fairly low down in my ranking is because the film takes itself so seriously it saps any enjoyment out of it. I am not saying that the film should be less serious, or that the issue raised in the film should be treated with any less gravitas, but this film could have been more interesting. I referred to ‘Schindler’s List’ early, and I would like to make a comparison. The character of Schindler in that film is complex. He prevented the deaths of thousands of Jews, but was still a member of the Nazi party. Philip Green seems less of a complex character to me. The film says that racism is bad and this point is hammered home through all his actions. Whenever something in the film happens you know that Green will do ‘the right thing’. When he young son (who is also pretending to be Jewish) is being bullied at school, you know that his attitude will be that the bullies are wrong. The intrinsic racism seems to be in everyone, from his colleagues to his love interest, but Peck’s character seems to deal with this in a manner that is too heavy handed and never seems to question himself.
There are films that everyone should watch because they are brilliant films, beautifully made and wonderful to watch. Then there are films that everyone should watch which although may not be brilliant films have such an interesting subject matter and force you to think. ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ fits into the latter category. I have never read the book that the film is based on, and would like to as I suspect it works better that way.
Monday 12 April 2010
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
‘Annie Hall’ frequently appears towards the top of Best Picture rankings. For me, it is the ultimate example of a film that you either get or you don’t, and personally, I don’t: at least not in the way that the film’s biggest fans do.
‘Annie Hall’ is essentially a romantic comedy. The film charts the relationship between Woody Allen’s characters (Alvie Singer) and Diane Keaton in the title role. Although the chronology is distorted we learn how they first met, how they moved in with each other and how the relationship came to an inevitable conclusion. Woody Singer’s character is essentially Woody Allen himself: a Jewish New Yorker obsessed with death and his religion, and Keaton plays a love interest who is much more of a conformist.
I can totally agree with the decision to award this film with a screenplay award, the script is clever, witty and full of intelligent laughs, and also highly original, and it is for this reason that the film should be watched.
I like Diane Keaton in this film and she puts in a strong performance. I actually generally do enjoy watching Keaton. Although her performances are often quite similar, she does possess excellent comic timing, and nowhere is this more evident than in this film. She has some wonderful moments: the conversation with the subtitles, the lobster scene… she is subtle but very good.
As an actor, Allen has never blown me away. He is a comic and a writer, but I don’t feel that he is an actor, and the character of Singer is a bit irritating. This is where my issue with film lies. I just do not buy the relationship. He is supposed to be this intellectual character, but he is so paranoid about everything that I am not convinced that she would be attracted to him. The film pushes us to think that they should be together (there are two contrasting scenes involving the aforementioned lobsters), but at no point do I find them a realistic couple that I can care about.
The film is big on techniques. There are subtitled sections to show what the characters are thinking, animated scenes and interaction between Allen and the camera, but not big acting performances and this is where I think it boils down to personal tense. For those who enjoy films big on method acting like ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’ and ‘Suddenly Last Summer’ this film is not a natural favourite.
I seem to have already dismissed several films from the late 70s and early 80s. This is not because I think that films from this era are particularly bad, but I just think that the winners were not that spectacular. It’s ultimately due to personally choice, there will be people who think that ‘Forrest Gump’ is a brilliant film and those who cannot abide my number 1 film, and it’s personally choice that makes me place ‘Annie Hall’ not as high as many others. I think that there are goo moments in the film, but largely I find it to be slightly pretentious and not overly compelling cinema.
‘Annie Hall’ is essentially a romantic comedy. The film charts the relationship between Woody Allen’s characters (Alvie Singer) and Diane Keaton in the title role. Although the chronology is distorted we learn how they first met, how they moved in with each other and how the relationship came to an inevitable conclusion. Woody Singer’s character is essentially Woody Allen himself: a Jewish New Yorker obsessed with death and his religion, and Keaton plays a love interest who is much more of a conformist.
I can totally agree with the decision to award this film with a screenplay award, the script is clever, witty and full of intelligent laughs, and also highly original, and it is for this reason that the film should be watched.
I like Diane Keaton in this film and she puts in a strong performance. I actually generally do enjoy watching Keaton. Although her performances are often quite similar, she does possess excellent comic timing, and nowhere is this more evident than in this film. She has some wonderful moments: the conversation with the subtitles, the lobster scene… she is subtle but very good.
As an actor, Allen has never blown me away. He is a comic and a writer, but I don’t feel that he is an actor, and the character of Singer is a bit irritating. This is where my issue with film lies. I just do not buy the relationship. He is supposed to be this intellectual character, but he is so paranoid about everything that I am not convinced that she would be attracted to him. The film pushes us to think that they should be together (there are two contrasting scenes involving the aforementioned lobsters), but at no point do I find them a realistic couple that I can care about.
The film is big on techniques. There are subtitled sections to show what the characters are thinking, animated scenes and interaction between Allen and the camera, but not big acting performances and this is where I think it boils down to personal tense. For those who enjoy films big on method acting like ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’ and ‘Suddenly Last Summer’ this film is not a natural favourite.
I seem to have already dismissed several films from the late 70s and early 80s. This is not because I think that films from this era are particularly bad, but I just think that the winners were not that spectacular. It’s ultimately due to personally choice, there will be people who think that ‘Forrest Gump’ is a brilliant film and those who cannot abide my number 1 film, and it’s personally choice that makes me place ‘Annie Hall’ not as high as many others. I think that there are goo moments in the film, but largely I find it to be slightly pretentious and not overly compelling cinema.
Saturday 10 April 2010
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
A film about John Nash, the genius mathematician with severe schizophrenia could have been brilliantly interesting. I think it’s a good film, but not as brilliant as it perhaps could have been.
Russell Crowe plays the mathematician in his greatest role to date. He won is best actor Oscar the year before for his role in ‘Gladiator’, but this is the stronger performance. The film traces his life from college onwards taking into account his relationship with Jennifer Connelly, his workings with the government and finally his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize.
The acting in this film is solid throughout. As well as Crowe and Connelly, we are also witness to strong performances from Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany and they all make the most of what they are given.
We are also given an insight into how the mind of someone with schizophrenia works and although he is rude and dismissive, we find ourselves seeing him as the hero and wanting him to succeed against the odds. It’s largely true, but film viewers tend to support the underdog and the Academy is certainly no exception, with so many underdogs from ‘You Can’t Take It With You’ to ‘Slumdog’ triumphing.
What irritates me about this film is similar to the irritation that I have with ‘Braveheart’ in that the film makers have taken a perfectly good true story, changed it to make it more Hollywood and then sold it off as a true story. There are so many aspects of Nash’s life that were so interesting and yet were omitted to make it more user friendly. The story with his wife was given a sense of romantic naivety. She was his first love and then they lived happily ever after. This is nonsense. He had a previous wife and child and Connelly’s character left Nash when things got difficult. Now that is a story worth telling. Nash was also arrested for soliciting in a toilet, yet his homosexual tendencies are totally left out of the film. Now, I understand that every aspect of someone’s life cannot be portrayed in a two hour film, but I feel that I was almost lied to in ‘A Beautiful Mind’. I almost do not mind being lied to if it makes the story more interesting but why pretend that the couple lived happily ever after if that wasn’t the case.
The storyline regarding the workings with the government I also feel is a bit over the top. At times I feel the schizophrenia storyline is bypassed in order to make the international spy storyline more accessible with more action sequences than were really necessary.
In short, ‘A Beautiful Mind’ tells a good story and is acted well. But the story told is nowhere near as interesting as it could have been had they been more truthful and not glamorised it for the Hollywood audience.
Russell Crowe plays the mathematician in his greatest role to date. He won is best actor Oscar the year before for his role in ‘Gladiator’, but this is the stronger performance. The film traces his life from college onwards taking into account his relationship with Jennifer Connelly, his workings with the government and finally his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize.
The acting in this film is solid throughout. As well as Crowe and Connelly, we are also witness to strong performances from Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany and they all make the most of what they are given.
We are also given an insight into how the mind of someone with schizophrenia works and although he is rude and dismissive, we find ourselves seeing him as the hero and wanting him to succeed against the odds. It’s largely true, but film viewers tend to support the underdog and the Academy is certainly no exception, with so many underdogs from ‘You Can’t Take It With You’ to ‘Slumdog’ triumphing.
What irritates me about this film is similar to the irritation that I have with ‘Braveheart’ in that the film makers have taken a perfectly good true story, changed it to make it more Hollywood and then sold it off as a true story. There are so many aspects of Nash’s life that were so interesting and yet were omitted to make it more user friendly. The story with his wife was given a sense of romantic naivety. She was his first love and then they lived happily ever after. This is nonsense. He had a previous wife and child and Connelly’s character left Nash when things got difficult. Now that is a story worth telling. Nash was also arrested for soliciting in a toilet, yet his homosexual tendencies are totally left out of the film. Now, I understand that every aspect of someone’s life cannot be portrayed in a two hour film, but I feel that I was almost lied to in ‘A Beautiful Mind’. I almost do not mind being lied to if it makes the story more interesting but why pretend that the couple lived happily ever after if that wasn’t the case.
The storyline regarding the workings with the government I also feel is a bit over the top. At times I feel the schizophrenia storyline is bypassed in order to make the international spy storyline more accessible with more action sequences than were really necessary.
In short, ‘A Beautiful Mind’ tells a good story and is acted well. But the story told is nowhere near as interesting as it could have been had they been more truthful and not glamorised it for the Hollywood audience.
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
‘The Deer Hunter’ is a Vietnam War saga. The film starts with three men (Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken and John Savage) celebrating their forthcoming trip to Vietnam at Savage’s wedding. The three men are all excited about the prospect of heading to war. Once they arrive in Vietnam they are captured by the Vietcong and forced to play Russian Roulette. When they arrive back in America the repercussions of the events abroad change their lives for ever.
I shall start with the positive aspects of ‘The Deer Hunter’. It’s difficult to deny that the acting in this film is good. It is the best performance that I have ever seen from Walken, and De Niro is always solid. The film also features Meryl Streep in her first Oscar Nominated role, and as a big fan of Meryl Streep, I feel that she adds a great deal to this film.
Another good thing about this film is the impact of a couple of key scenes. The infamous scene where the characters play Russian Roulette is easily one of the most memorable scenes in the history of cinema, and although this has a lot to do with the subject matter, I feel that credit should also go to Cimino’s direction.
There are, however, issues that I have with ‘The Deer Hunter’. I am not entirely sure, even after several watches, what the message the film is trying to put across. Is it pro-American or anti-war? The film portrays the three lead characters as the heroes and the humble wedding scenes and the horrific acts of the Vietnamese certainly place the viewer firmly on the side of the Americans. The dreadful way in which the war affects the soldiers gives the ending of the film an anti-war feeling to rival many other war epics.
I do not suggest for one moment that all films need to be either pro or anti war, and it is perfectly reasonable that a film should be created to show the impact of war on its soldiers without being either for or against it. My problem with ‘The Deer Hunter’ is that whilst it manages to show the impact of the war it largely fails to show the war and what actually impacted them. One moment the protagonists are at a wedding in Pennsylvania, and the next they have been captured and are being made to play death games. There is no transition between the two places and we, as the viewer, never really get to see what life was like in Vietnam and therefore why they have been affected in the way they were. Of course, we saw a couple of horrific scenes, but not enough to give, I felt, a realistic and well rounded picture.
Overall I think that the ‘Deer Hunter’ is a sprawling over lengthy shambles of a film which is partly rescued by some wonderful performances and a few highly memorable scenes.
I shall start with the positive aspects of ‘The Deer Hunter’. It’s difficult to deny that the acting in this film is good. It is the best performance that I have ever seen from Walken, and De Niro is always solid. The film also features Meryl Streep in her first Oscar Nominated role, and as a big fan of Meryl Streep, I feel that she adds a great deal to this film.
Another good thing about this film is the impact of a couple of key scenes. The infamous scene where the characters play Russian Roulette is easily one of the most memorable scenes in the history of cinema, and although this has a lot to do with the subject matter, I feel that credit should also go to Cimino’s direction.
There are, however, issues that I have with ‘The Deer Hunter’. I am not entirely sure, even after several watches, what the message the film is trying to put across. Is it pro-American or anti-war? The film portrays the three lead characters as the heroes and the humble wedding scenes and the horrific acts of the Vietnamese certainly place the viewer firmly on the side of the Americans. The dreadful way in which the war affects the soldiers gives the ending of the film an anti-war feeling to rival many other war epics.
I do not suggest for one moment that all films need to be either pro or anti war, and it is perfectly reasonable that a film should be created to show the impact of war on its soldiers without being either for or against it. My problem with ‘The Deer Hunter’ is that whilst it manages to show the impact of the war it largely fails to show the war and what actually impacted them. One moment the protagonists are at a wedding in Pennsylvania, and the next they have been captured and are being made to play death games. There is no transition between the two places and we, as the viewer, never really get to see what life was like in Vietnam and therefore why they have been affected in the way they were. Of course, we saw a couple of horrific scenes, but not enough to give, I felt, a realistic and well rounded picture.
Overall I think that the ‘Deer Hunter’ is a sprawling over lengthy shambles of a film which is partly rescued by some wonderful performances and a few highly memorable scenes.
66. OLIVER! - 1968
One of the last of the classic musicals was ‘Oliver!’ – a children’s adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel about an orphan who escapes from his life in the workhouse and finds himself working as a pickpocket in Victorian London. The cast includes Jack Wilde as the Artful Dodger, and Ron Moody as Fagin, who both received acting nominations for their performances in this film.
The story of Oliver Twist always strikes me as a interesting subject for the only children’s film to win the Best Picture Oscar, as it deals with (amongst other things) murder, theft, kidnapping, prostitution and violence. What elevates this film above other children’s films is the fact that the characters are not totally one-dimensional. We know that Oliver is the hero of the story and that Bill Sykes, the violent burglar who beats his charming girl, is bad news, but some of the others characters: Fagin, the Artful Dodger, are more interesting.
The film’s dark subject matter is lightened considerably by the wonderful music, and ‘Oliver!’ really does contain some classic numbers: ‘As long as he needs me’ is Nancy’s tear-jerking swansong and a firm favourite of mine, sung perfectly by Shani Wallis, ‘Reviewing the Situation’ is Fagin’s dark number during which he contemplates his life of crime, and ‘Who Will Buy?’ is a gloriously uplifting number, with clever interweaving parts and fun choreography. Some of the stage musical’s songs are omitted, including Sykes’ ‘My Name’, which is a shame, as well as ‘That’s Your Funeral’, which would have added some more adult humour to the film.
The acting is also pretty good for a film of this type, if a little over the top at times from the child actors. Notably good are Ron Moody as Fagin and Oliver Reed as Bill Sykes, who plays a brilliant villain throughout.
Being raised on musicals, ‘Oliver!’ is probably the Oscar winner that I have seen second most often (behind that other family favourite ‘The Sound of Music’), and it almost pains me to place this film at so far down the list. Having said that, whereas the film is thoroughly entertaining and a children’s film that adults can also enjoy, it just cannot compare to some of the greater musicals made. The film simply does not have the style and finesse found in ‘Singin’ in the Rain’, ‘Top Hat’ or ‘Cabaret’ (I have deliberately not included Best Picture winners here) and I don’t think it was a worthy Best Picture winner.
The story of Oliver Twist always strikes me as a interesting subject for the only children’s film to win the Best Picture Oscar, as it deals with (amongst other things) murder, theft, kidnapping, prostitution and violence. What elevates this film above other children’s films is the fact that the characters are not totally one-dimensional. We know that Oliver is the hero of the story and that Bill Sykes, the violent burglar who beats his charming girl, is bad news, but some of the others characters: Fagin, the Artful Dodger, are more interesting.
The film’s dark subject matter is lightened considerably by the wonderful music, and ‘Oliver!’ really does contain some classic numbers: ‘As long as he needs me’ is Nancy’s tear-jerking swansong and a firm favourite of mine, sung perfectly by Shani Wallis, ‘Reviewing the Situation’ is Fagin’s dark number during which he contemplates his life of crime, and ‘Who Will Buy?’ is a gloriously uplifting number, with clever interweaving parts and fun choreography. Some of the stage musical’s songs are omitted, including Sykes’ ‘My Name’, which is a shame, as well as ‘That’s Your Funeral’, which would have added some more adult humour to the film.
The acting is also pretty good for a film of this type, if a little over the top at times from the child actors. Notably good are Ron Moody as Fagin and Oliver Reed as Bill Sykes, who plays a brilliant villain throughout.
Being raised on musicals, ‘Oliver!’ is probably the Oscar winner that I have seen second most often (behind that other family favourite ‘The Sound of Music’), and it almost pains me to place this film at so far down the list. Having said that, whereas the film is thoroughly entertaining and a children’s film that adults can also enjoy, it just cannot compare to some of the greater musicals made. The film simply does not have the style and finesse found in ‘Singin’ in the Rain’, ‘Top Hat’ or ‘Cabaret’ (I have deliberately not included Best Picture winners here) and I don’t think it was a worthy Best Picture winner.
Thursday 8 April 2010
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
‘Dances with Wolves’ was a brave film for Kevin Costner, even if the end result was far from perfect. Coming in at just over three hours, ‘Dances with Wolves’ tells the tale of John Dunbar, a Civil War veteran who is sent to the west frontier. He waits for others in the army to join him, but they never appear. He meets Native Americans and after a while begins to live with them, learn their language, and fall in love with a white girl who had been raised by them since birth.
‘Dances with Wolves’ is set in the west and often billed as a western, but essentially this is a standard white-people-bad / nature-loving-people-good film that 20 years later ‘Avatar’ would copy mercilessly, that just happens to be set in the west. I am not claiming to know much about the treatment of Native Indians by white people, and therefore do not feel remotely qualified to comment on the bias of the film. The film does portray all white men as being totally bloodthirsty and barbaric, which I feel probably over simplifies things slightly, but Costner clearly wanted to make a film about the poor treatment of the Native Indians, so he has done.
It is this one-sided look at the film that is its main weakness and prevents any additional depth being added to the film. As a result the acting probably suffers. Whereas I respect the fact that Costner did not use big name actors to play the roles of the Native Indians, because of the one-sided look of events, the characters are not as meaty and interesting as they could have been.
There are some things about this film that I think should be mentioned. The script is at times very witty and charming, which was a bit of a pleasant surprise and does help to elevate this film from the usual goodies vs badies films (makers of ‘Avatar’ take note). The music is also of a very high quality and era appropriate (no inappropriate Vangelis electro-music here). The best thing, however, about this film is the quite simply wonderful cinematography. The filming is perfect and manages to take the viewer to the wild west and show the beautiful yet hostile surroundings like no other western that I have seen. I have not seen this film on a big screen, but I would love to watch it given the chance.
In short, ‘Dances with Wolves’ is a film with some excellent qualities, but unfortunately the overriding premise of the film was too basic and did not stray away from the simple message that it was trying to deliver.
‘Dances with Wolves’ is set in the west and often billed as a western, but essentially this is a standard white-people-bad / nature-loving-people-good film that 20 years later ‘Avatar’ would copy mercilessly, that just happens to be set in the west. I am not claiming to know much about the treatment of Native Indians by white people, and therefore do not feel remotely qualified to comment on the bias of the film. The film does portray all white men as being totally bloodthirsty and barbaric, which I feel probably over simplifies things slightly, but Costner clearly wanted to make a film about the poor treatment of the Native Indians, so he has done.
It is this one-sided look at the film that is its main weakness and prevents any additional depth being added to the film. As a result the acting probably suffers. Whereas I respect the fact that Costner did not use big name actors to play the roles of the Native Indians, because of the one-sided look of events, the characters are not as meaty and interesting as they could have been.
There are some things about this film that I think should be mentioned. The script is at times very witty and charming, which was a bit of a pleasant surprise and does help to elevate this film from the usual goodies vs badies films (makers of ‘Avatar’ take note). The music is also of a very high quality and era appropriate (no inappropriate Vangelis electro-music here). The best thing, however, about this film is the quite simply wonderful cinematography. The filming is perfect and manages to take the viewer to the wild west and show the beautiful yet hostile surroundings like no other western that I have seen. I have not seen this film on a big screen, but I would love to watch it given the chance.
In short, ‘Dances with Wolves’ is a film with some excellent qualities, but unfortunately the overriding premise of the film was too basic and did not stray away from the simple message that it was trying to deliver.
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
‘Chariots of Fire’ is another sports film that I feel doesn’t quite achieve all it should. It’s much better than ‘Rocky’ that came in further down the list, but it’s still not one of the better Academy Award winners as I think it has some major flaws.
The film tells the tale of British runners in the 1924 Olympic Games, and essentially about their religions. Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) is Jewish and wants to escape prejudice. Eric Liddell (Ian Charleston) is a devout Scottish Catholic and wants to win for God. Whereas these issues are touched upon, I don’t feel that they are dealt with in enough detail. We never see the prejudice that Abrahams encounters or why he decides to run rather than enter any other sport, and likewise, we are never sure why Liddell believes that God wants him to run. Because of this, as a viewer, we never get to really know the characters and that really does prevent the film being elevated to loftier heights.
I see the above as the fault of the direction and scripting rather than from the acting. The two lead actors handle their roles well and are backed up by a throng of high quality British actors (Nigel Havers, Ian Holm, John Gielgud) whom I actually wanted to see more of. Although the film is long, I felt that some of the scenes were wasted and could have been used to further explore the leading and supporting characters.
I think that because I felt the issues behind the characters were not explored in enough detail and I didn’t feel that I knew the characters well enough, I didn’t really care about the outcome of the race. This leads me to my next problem with most sports films. Generally they tell you all about one competitor and you are expected to get behind that person/team and will them to beat others who may very well have just an important reason for wanting to win. For me that doesn’t really hold up.
The thing that the film is most famous for, perhaps, is the score by Vangelis. The score is undeniably powerful and emotional and I do not deny that he deserved his Academy Award for the score. But I have a slight problem with this as well. The film is set in the 1920s. Everything else about this film tries to be as true to the era as possible: the costumes, language etc, so why on earth couple this with an electronic score, rather than writing music suitable to the decade? The score is lovely, but not remotely appropriate.
In short, ‘Chariots of Fire’ is a film with some merits, but one that I feel will appeal more to sports fans than lovers of great cinema, due to some fairly significant flaws.
The film tells the tale of British runners in the 1924 Olympic Games, and essentially about their religions. Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) is Jewish and wants to escape prejudice. Eric Liddell (Ian Charleston) is a devout Scottish Catholic and wants to win for God. Whereas these issues are touched upon, I don’t feel that they are dealt with in enough detail. We never see the prejudice that Abrahams encounters or why he decides to run rather than enter any other sport, and likewise, we are never sure why Liddell believes that God wants him to run. Because of this, as a viewer, we never get to really know the characters and that really does prevent the film being elevated to loftier heights.
I see the above as the fault of the direction and scripting rather than from the acting. The two lead actors handle their roles well and are backed up by a throng of high quality British actors (Nigel Havers, Ian Holm, John Gielgud) whom I actually wanted to see more of. Although the film is long, I felt that some of the scenes were wasted and could have been used to further explore the leading and supporting characters.
I think that because I felt the issues behind the characters were not explored in enough detail and I didn’t feel that I knew the characters well enough, I didn’t really care about the outcome of the race. This leads me to my next problem with most sports films. Generally they tell you all about one competitor and you are expected to get behind that person/team and will them to beat others who may very well have just an important reason for wanting to win. For me that doesn’t really hold up.
The thing that the film is most famous for, perhaps, is the score by Vangelis. The score is undeniably powerful and emotional and I do not deny that he deserved his Academy Award for the score. But I have a slight problem with this as well. The film is set in the 1920s. Everything else about this film tries to be as true to the era as possible: the costumes, language etc, so why on earth couple this with an electronic score, rather than writing music suitable to the decade? The score is lovely, but not remotely appropriate.
In short, ‘Chariots of Fire’ is a film with some merits, but one that I feel will appeal more to sports fans than lovers of great cinema, due to some fairly significant flaws.
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
Some films one watches and then immediately recommends to everyone they know. Some films one realises will only appeal to people with very specific taste. I would not recommend ‘Cavalcade’ to those who love films full of action and CGI special effects. It is a film for those who, like me, want to engulf themselves in early British melodrama, with a gloriously staged script and stern acting. The best word that I can find to describe this period piece is sumptuous.
Based on a Noel Coward play, this film charts the lives of two families (one upstairs, one downstairs) from the Boer War to 1933. The film takes the families through the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic, the Great War, the roaring Twenties and finally the Depression. It takes the families as a micro-study of society as a whole as they are affected by the world events around them.
The characters are, without exception, interesting and played well. Diana Wynyard is especially good. The different events, however, are handled with varying levels of quality. The Great War section of the film is brilliant, there is a wonderfully harrowing montage of war scenes and how the family is affected by this event is not as predictable as may’ve been expected. The Titanic section, however, is about as subtle as a breezeblock, which is a shame as it could have been handled much better.
There is lots of talk of this film being an unworthy and unlikely winner, but in many ways, I see this as an obvious winner. It is what the academy loves: a social epic about how world events change the lives of those involved, and if modern viewers look past the severe cinematography, and contrived script, they will find a film not dissimilar to several much more famous films (‘Gone With The Wind’ and ‘Giant’ to name two).
It is the ending of this film which I find so poignant, although Frank Lloyd would have had no idea at the time. The end scene, between the now elderly couple of the wealthy family is one of hope. They have suffered horrifically, but are now looking forward to the future together. Little did the viewers know that 1933 would be the year that Hitler came to power and a period of further unrest would follow.
As a best picture winner it is perhaps the most dated as it has not aged well. For those of you who want to see a early winner where the filmmakers were coming to grips with sound and more modern techniques, coupled with an interesting insight into events of the first three decades of the 20th Century, then it is definitely worth a watch, but expect to find it interesting, rather than typical Hollywood entertainment.
Based on a Noel Coward play, this film charts the lives of two families (one upstairs, one downstairs) from the Boer War to 1933. The film takes the families through the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic, the Great War, the roaring Twenties and finally the Depression. It takes the families as a micro-study of society as a whole as they are affected by the world events around them.
The characters are, without exception, interesting and played well. Diana Wynyard is especially good. The different events, however, are handled with varying levels of quality. The Great War section of the film is brilliant, there is a wonderfully harrowing montage of war scenes and how the family is affected by this event is not as predictable as may’ve been expected. The Titanic section, however, is about as subtle as a breezeblock, which is a shame as it could have been handled much better.
There is lots of talk of this film being an unworthy and unlikely winner, but in many ways, I see this as an obvious winner. It is what the academy loves: a social epic about how world events change the lives of those involved, and if modern viewers look past the severe cinematography, and contrived script, they will find a film not dissimilar to several much more famous films (‘Gone With The Wind’ and ‘Giant’ to name two).
It is the ending of this film which I find so poignant, although Frank Lloyd would have had no idea at the time. The end scene, between the now elderly couple of the wealthy family is one of hope. They have suffered horrifically, but are now looking forward to the future together. Little did the viewers know that 1933 would be the year that Hitler came to power and a period of further unrest would follow.
As a best picture winner it is perhaps the most dated as it has not aged well. For those of you who want to see a early winner where the filmmakers were coming to grips with sound and more modern techniques, coupled with an interesting insight into events of the first three decades of the 20th Century, then it is definitely worth a watch, but expect to find it interesting, rather than typical Hollywood entertainment.
Tuesday 6 April 2010
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
There’s cinema as entertainment and cinema as great art, and ‘Driving Miss Daisy’ belongs firmly in the former category. ‘Driving Miss Daisy’ is a very watchable, very enjoyable sentimental film that contains a solid performance from Morgan Freeman, and a brilliant performance from Jessica Tandy.
Jessica Tandy plays the title role, an aging, difficult widow in 1950s Georgia, who is old fashioned in her views, and passively racist. When she crashes her car, her son hires Morgan Freeman to be her chauffeur, much to the horror of Tandy. Over the years, however, she warms to his kind nature, and they learn to coexist, and then become firm friends.
It is a hard-warming film that, to its credit, does not become preachy. This is largely due to the performance of the two lead actors, who remain give honest, balanced performances. Jessica Tandy is believable as the prickly pensioner, but never becomes a caricature of herself, and although Morgan Freeman’s character is clearly a nice man, he is still human and not without imperfections.
Having said all this, the film does not excel in many other areas (although the score is marvellous). Aside from the acting the film has little to rave about. I wouldn’t say that anything in the film is bad, but just not particularly notable. The script is fine, the direction adequate, and the supporting cast largely forgettable. The trouble with the film as a viable Oscar best picture winner is that it’s almost too small. It’s a lovely character study, but in order to rate this any higher, I need to find something else to latch onto, other than the performances of the lead roles. Whereas, I was totally drawn in by the characters, I was not drawn in by the film at all.
Some would argue that beautiful sweeping cinematography or a wittier script, would not be appropriate for such a film as this, and they may be right, but I personally think that a best picture award is also not appropriate for a film such as this.
I like this film and I have seen it many more times than some of the films ranked higher on the list, but I like it because of Tandy and Freeman and not because it is particularly wonderful piece of art.
Jessica Tandy plays the title role, an aging, difficult widow in 1950s Georgia, who is old fashioned in her views, and passively racist. When she crashes her car, her son hires Morgan Freeman to be her chauffeur, much to the horror of Tandy. Over the years, however, she warms to his kind nature, and they learn to coexist, and then become firm friends.
It is a hard-warming film that, to its credit, does not become preachy. This is largely due to the performance of the two lead actors, who remain give honest, balanced performances. Jessica Tandy is believable as the prickly pensioner, but never becomes a caricature of herself, and although Morgan Freeman’s character is clearly a nice man, he is still human and not without imperfections.
Having said all this, the film does not excel in many other areas (although the score is marvellous). Aside from the acting the film has little to rave about. I wouldn’t say that anything in the film is bad, but just not particularly notable. The script is fine, the direction adequate, and the supporting cast largely forgettable. The trouble with the film as a viable Oscar best picture winner is that it’s almost too small. It’s a lovely character study, but in order to rate this any higher, I need to find something else to latch onto, other than the performances of the lead roles. Whereas, I was totally drawn in by the characters, I was not drawn in by the film at all.
Some would argue that beautiful sweeping cinematography or a wittier script, would not be appropriate for such a film as this, and they may be right, but I personally think that a best picture award is also not appropriate for a film such as this.
I like this film and I have seen it many more times than some of the films ranked higher on the list, but I like it because of Tandy and Freeman and not because it is particularly wonderful piece of art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)