Zephyr Ranks the Oscar Best Picture Winners

16. MY FAIR LADY - 1964

2011-01-16T14:46:00.000-08:00

The film musical of Lerner & Lowe’s ‘My Fair Lady’, adapted from the play ‘Pygmalion’, is a story of a flower seller in Edwardian Britain, Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) who is tutored by the arrogant and misogynistic professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison).

When stage musicals are put onto the big screen many details are often changed, but ‘My Fair Lady’ is a largely faithful adaptation of the stage production, which results in a very stylised and handsome production, and this is one of the reasons why this film is such a success. It is beautiful to watch. I can think of only a handful of films which have more iconic stills than this: Eliza arriving at the ball, the flower sellers at Covent Garden, and of course, the wonderful Ascot Scene.

The scene at the Ascot is one of my favourite scenes from any musical. For a start, there is the wonderful song, coupled with the most gorgeous costumes, and the most delightfully witty dialogue during which Eliza sticks to her two allocated topics of conversation: the weather and everyone’s health.

Musicals can suffer at times from poor scripting, relying on sparkly musical numbers to pull the film through, but ‘My Fair Lady’ does not falter here: the script is wonderful. The musical numbers performed by the professor are speak-sung, and are delightfully clever and performed to perfection by Harrison, who deservedly won the Best Actor award for his performance.

Hepburn is often criticised for her performance in this film, largely because her voice was dubbed by Marni Nixon and because the role was not performed by Julie Andrews, who played the role on the stage. The Academy snubbed Hepburn unfairly, because it is a great performance. She is perfect as Eliza, both as the common flower seller and as transformed lady. Audrey Hepburn has become one of the most iconic actresses ever, and that can result in her being overlooked as an actress. There are few actresses who can light up the screen in the way that Hepburn can and this is, along with ‘Roman Holiday’ her most enchanting performance.

The best thing about ‘My Fair Lady’ is, however, the music. Every song is brilliant: from Harrison’s numbers, to the classic ‘I Could’ve Danced All Night’ and from ‘Wouldn’t It Be Loverly’ which introduces us to Eliza, to the film’s best number ‘On the Street Where You Live’, they are all exceptional.

‘My Fair Lady’ is truly on of the greatest musicals of all time and thoroughly deserves its place high up on the list of the greatest Best Picture winners of all time.

17. THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965

2010-12-02T07:46:00.000-08:00

Few films were as difficult to rank as ‘The Sound of Music’.

It is allegedly the most watched film ever, but for those who have not seen it, the storyline is as follows: in the last days of peacetime in the 1930s in Salzberg, Austria, a young nun, Maria (Julie Andrews) takes a job working for Captain von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) as a governess for his seven children. The Captain runs his house like a ship with no music or fun, but Maria changes this and brings the music back into the house. However, war is approaching and it will not be long before the Nazis enter Austria and everything changes.

It is easy to criticise ‘The Sound of Music’. It is full of sentimentality and children skipping around gardens but it is truly a great film. Starting with the main point about this film: the music. Every single song is a classic, but the best are ‘The Sound of Music’, ‘Climb Every Mountain’ and ‘Do-Re-Mi’ the latter filmed all over the sights of Salzberg. It was the last collaboration between Roger and Hammerstein and it is their greatest work: brilliant tunes, brilliant lyrics.

The filming is also stunning, and overlooked. The opening sequence in the mountains is wonderfully constructed, ending with Julie Andrews running towards the camera about to burst into song. It is an iconic film moment and truly great. The scene in the graveyard of the abbey towards the end of the film is also a masterclass in creating tension on the screen.

The script is also highly witty and another forgotten thing about this film. The best lines come from Eleanor Parker as the Baroness, Maria’s glamorous love-rival. Some of her lines are so wonderfully acidic, a personal favourite being, ‘Have you heard of a delightful little thing called boarding school?’, but in fairness the whole script is peppered with delightful one-liners and the whole film is wonderfully quotable.

Moving on to the acting: Julie Andrews is a delight and made for this role. She plays the part of the wholesome love interest, who is actually believable as a genuine partner for the Captain. Christopher Plummer is also great as the captain and father to the seven children, but for me it is the scenes with Eleanor Parker that I relish the most: she is manipulative and acerbic, but also totally charming. In the stage musical she has a song, which was removed for the film. I think that was a totally sensible idea, for without a song she is not part of the music that it brought back into the house.

At the end of the day, ‘The Sound of Music’ is a feelgood musical and not to be taken too seriously, and therefore levels of schmaltz are to be expected, and that is exactly what one gets, which will not be to everyone’s taste. If you are willing to look past dancing puppets and singing nuns then you will actually find a film that is so magical, so heartwarming and most remarkably, so beautifully made. If the word ‘classic’ ever referred to a film it was this one.

18. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946

2010-12-02T07:07:00.001-08:00

In many ways the ultimate coming home from war film released just after the end of World War II. This Wyler masterpiece sees three soldiers coming home from war to their small Midwestern town and the difficulties that they face. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) returns to the world of banking but is not used to working away from his fellow servicemen and finds the transition from the team work he was used to in the war to being a hard hearted banker difficult. Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) returns to his wife, who he only married a few weeks before the war, and realises that she does not love him. Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) has lost both of his hands in the war and returns to his fiancée, but is worried that she pities him rather than still loves him. As time passes all the men learn to adapt to the changes even though things are not the same as they were before.

What is so good about ‘The Best Years of our Lives’ is that rather than giving the idea that coming home from war is either wonderful or unbearable, it shows the complexity of how relationships changed in different ways for different people and across different ages and socio-economic groups, and also of the most unlikely relationships that were formed between the three men, despite their differences. The issues such as divorce and amputees had rarely been discussed before and it is easy to forget the impact that this film must have had at this time.

The film is an fine example of taking a small story involving a few individuals and using it as a microcosm of what was happening at this time across the whole of the western world, but it manages to be a totally balanced film and at no point becomes patronising or clichéd.

The acting is solid across the board, which is always a relief in these ensemble films. There are no weak links and both March and Russell picked up acting Oscars for their memorable performances. For me it is Russell who gives the best performance as the youngest of the group in what must have been a challenging performance for anyone to carry off. Russell had not been an actor previous to this role and, as an actual amputee, was picked from an army rehabilitation video, and Wyler didn’t want Russell to be sent to acting classes, as wanted a more natural style. Despite this, he manages to easily hold his own despite being surrounded by some of Hollywood’s biggest stars.

Once you’ve combined the excellent acting with the enchanting story and engaging script, and taken into account the fact that it one of Wyler’s best films one realises just what a special film this is. Forget any other returning from war films that you have seen: this one is by far the best and is still totally relevant for today’s audience.

19. ON THE WATERFRONT - 1954

2010-12-02T05:25:00.000-08:00

Elia Kazan films are instantly recognisable as his work, and ‘On the Waterfront’ is no exception. It tells the story of Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) who works on the gang-run docks on New York. He is involved in the set-up of the death of a young man who refused to cooperate with the gang and becomes guilt ridden, when he spends time with the man’s sister (Eva Marie Saint). The film looks at his relationship with the gang leader (Lee J Cobb), his brother (Rod Steiger) and the local priest (Karl Maldon) whilst he battles with both his own sense of morality and the force of the gang.

It is a film with many complex levels as the viewer is put into Malloy’s position, and is forced to ask the question of whether to take the easy route of going along with something knowing it is wrong, or to stand up against it and risk everything. The film also draws religious comparisons, through the involvement of the priest and through the messianic ending in which Malloy really does refuse to go back on what he thinks is right.

Filmed in moody black and white tones in bleak surroundings, Kazan really uses all techniques to bring the desperation of the situation to life, and each shot, despite being bleak is perfectly taken and it is a beautiful film in a tragic and bleak way. The Bernstein score is also powerful and like the cinematography is both beautiful and tragic, and used well. I think the way that Kazan makes films on small stories about normal people and makes them into productions which manage to be both elegant and intimate shows what a fantastic director he was.

Moving on the acting: what can one say? It is easily one of Brando’s greatest roles, and when you have one of the greatest roles from one of the greatest (if not the greatest) actors ever, then you know that you are in for something special. He is everything that this role should be: tough, vulnerable, honest, and he lives the role. Whenever I see a Brando performance, I don’t think that he is playing a part, but that I am actually watching that person in that situation. This is one of the greatest performances and one of the greatest winners of the Leading Actor Oscar.

Eva Marie Saint also shines in her role, as the grieving sister torn between her feelings for her brother and her feelings for Malloy. Her need to be loved is beautifully honest and I think that the scenes between them are among the best in the film. She also won an Oscar for her performance.

The three supporting men all got nominations for their roles, but I think that the greatest of the three was Karl Maldon, who delivered a good a performance as he did being the nice guy in ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, adding a sense of hope to the desperate situation. Maldon is such a consistent actor who never overacts and like Brando, I feel he becomes a role rather than just acting it.

In short, ‘On the Waterfront’ is not the easiest of films to watch but it is one of the most important and relevant of the Best Picture Winners: a film that truly has stood the test of time and should be watched by all.

20. IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934

2010-12-02T04:41:00.000-08:00

The first film to win the big five (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress & Screenplay) was ‘It Happened One Night’, a screwball comedy romance directed by Frank Capra. The film tells the story of a spoilt heiress, Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert) who runs away from her father after he traps her on his yacht after annulling her marriage to a society aviator. She takes a bus back to New York to return to her new husband, and is seated next to cynical newspaper reporter Peter Warne (Clark Gable) who she immediately dislikes. However, when her purse is stolen, leaving her with no money, she is forced to take Warne up on his offer: he will help her return home, if she agrees to travel with him, so that when he gets back to New York he can write about her and their journey in an article. When they return to New York, Ellie has to ask herself if Warne was interested in her or just making money out of her.

The film is primarily a comedy, and it is wonderfully funny, thanks to the witty script and the wonderful chemistry between the two leads. I can think of few romantic comedies in which the two leads spend so much screen time together, and every moment sizzles between them. The second that they meet her dismissive attitude sets the scene perfectly and as they grow to know each other, and they start to fall in love it is totally believable. It is perfectly fitting that they both won an Oscar, as if only one of them had played the part as well as they had done, then the film may’ve fallen flat.

The film is full of iconic scenes and moments: the scene in which Warne teaches Ellie to hitchhike is one of my favourite comic scenes ever made, but the scene in which they pretend to be an arguing married couple to fool people who are looking for the missing girl is comic genius. The quick one-liners as the couple scream and shout at each other, mirrored by the utter bemusement of the onlookers is followed by Warne and Ellie giggling at their own quick thinking. It’s absolutely charming.

‘It Happened One Night’ is also technically important, which one might not expect from a mid 1930s romantic comedy, but techniques such as back projection imaging, soft lighting and moving cameras were all used in this film, all of which were new innovations. If you compare this film to the winner the previous year ‘Cavalcade’ then the difference is startling, and ‘It Happened One Night’ seems frighteningly modern by comparison.

There are many screwball comedies made in this period, and a lot of these do seem a little dated today, and it is for this reason that ‘It Happened One Night’ is so good. Some of the ideas and situations would not happen today, but the film is full of so much class and so much wit that the overall feeling is one of timeless pleasure and anyone who enjoys a good romantic film will not fail but to love this film, and see one of the best romantic pairings in the history of cinema.

RECAP - 20 TO GO

2010-11-29T14:10:00.001-08:00

As we enter the top 20, here is a recap of the 62 films that didn't quite make it.

Be interesting to hear any views or predictions...

:-)

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

50. GLADIATOR - 2000
49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
48. THE DEPARTED - 2006
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008

40. PATTON - 1970
39. MARTY - 1955
38. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
37. TITANIC - 1997
36. GRAND HOTEL - 1932
35. CHICAGO - 2002
34. MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979

30. THE APARTMENT - 1960
29. YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
28. SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993
27. THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971
26. THE STING - 1973
25. WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
24. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
23. UNFORGIVEN - 1992
22. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
21. THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996

STILL TO COME - THE TOP 20 BEST PICTURE WINNERS

1928 - WINGS
1934 - IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
1939 - GONE WITH THE WIND
1940 - REBECCA
1943 - CASABLANCA
1945 - THE LOST WEEKEND
1946 - THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
1950 - ALL ABOUT EVE
1951 - AN AMERICAN IN PARIS
1953 - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY

1954 - ON THE WATERFRONT
1962 - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
1964 - MY FAIR LADY
1965 - THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1972 - THE GODFATHER
1974 - THE GODFATHER II
1984 - AMADEUS
1991 - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
1999 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
2007 - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

21. THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996

2010-11-29T14:07:00.000-08:00

Very few films have been made in the past twenty years to rival the scale of ‘The English Patient’. The genre was seen as dead and antiquated, and I think that ‘The English Patient’ got quite a lot of undeserved criticism because of it.

The source of this was a novel by Ondaatje and tells the story of Count Almasy (Ralph Fiennes). The film is in flashback, with one half showing the burned and dying Fiennes known as the English patient (although he is in fact Hungarian) being cared for in Italy in the last years of the Second World War by a Canadian nurse, Hanna, played by the joyous Juliette Binoche. He had a poor memory of his life, but can remember more recent events, and recounts his obsession and love after with an English married woman, played by Kristin Scott Thomas, whom he met in the early years of the war in North Africa. His memory is helped by the arrival of David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a spy who remembers the role that the Count played a during this period.

If there is one word that I would use to describe this film, it is lavish. The cinematography is stunning: sweeping desert scenery, the wild Italian house where the Count is nursed, the bustling and exotic cities, and then conversely the suspense filled intense love scenes, most beautifully between Binoche and her love interest Kip (Naveen Andrews) when he takes her flying around a church. Coupled with the excellent story, the film was always going to have potential.

The acting is excellent. Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas, him as the mysterious brooding offhand male and her as the proper English lady who has a deep passion, have wonderful chemistry when on screen together, but for me, the film belongs to Binoche. A less glamorous and more challenging role than her co-stars, she is simply delightful as the caring nurse, and the screen just lights up whenever she is on it.

The film draws on themes of love, war, trust but perhaps most importantly identity, as all characters struggle to find out who they are, how they should behave and what they want in this changing war time period.

Admittedly the film is not fast paced and not full of action, but for those who give it the time and want to get lost in a celluloid world of pure old-fashioned romance and stunning vistas, then they will be firmly rewarded. In years to come, this will be heralded as a romantic epic to content with ‘Doctor Zhivago’ and ‘Gone with the Wind’.

One final word on the contest this year between ‘The English Patient’ and ‘Fargo’. I am torn, and I think that this would have been one of the hardest years to choose a winner as both films are excellent but entirely different, but if forced to make a choice, I would select ‘Fargo’ for best picture and ‘The English Patient’ for Minghella’s direction.

22. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957

2010-11-29T13:32:00.000-08:00

There are few directors that have made such an impact in the world of cinema than David Lean. ‘Brief Encounter’ is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, romance films ever made, and then he churned out three fantastic epics: ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’, ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and the stunning ‘Doctor Zhivago’ amongst over great works. Whereas ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ is the adventure epic and ‘Doctor Zhivago’ the romantic epic, ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ is the intellectual epic.

In World War II in a Japanese Prisoner of War camp on the banks of the River Kwai, the British prisoners are instructed to build a bridge as a strategic move for the Japanese forces. Initially, the British soldiers are rebellious, and do all in their capabilities to undermine attempts to build the bridge. The most senior member of the British Army in the camp, Colonel Nicholson, in an award winning turn from Alex Guinness, is horrified by the lack of discipline from the men and orders them to build the bridge properly as it will give them structural and a sense of purpose whilst in the camp, whilst showing the enemy the superiority of the British.

Initially the soldiers are horrified that they should be helping the enemy, but eventually follow their leader and construct a bridge. Meanwhile, three soldiers, including Shears, a US Navy Commander (William Holden) escape (although they are believed to have been shot and killed) and are recruited into a plot to blow up the bridge in an effort to help the British and American forces, and the film is left with a situation where one side of the war are fighting for two very different things.

What is so clever about this film is that the audience are left understanding both sides of the argument: should the British soldiers be helping the Japanese in order to keep their own morale high? And do we, after siding with the Colonel, feel a sense of anger that these escapees are trying to sabotage the bridge. This leads to a nail-biting ending where we are torn in our hopes and expectations.

Like in all of Lean’s films, the filming is complemented by excellent acting, and this is headed by a Lean favourite, Alec Guinness, in a challenging and memorable role. There are few examples of a Best Actor Oscar being more deservedly won. Holden, a favourite of Hollywood at the time is also excellent, and the list continues with Jack Hawkins and Sessue Hayakawa. What makes this film work so well is the different views that each actor manages to put across and although it is filmed like a sumptuous epic, the actually theme is much smaller and personal.

I defy anyone not to be fascinated by this film. It is so interesting, so though-provoking and so beautiful, and really does have one of the most brilliant endings in the history of film. A timeless, must see classic.

23. UNFORGIVEN - 1992

2010-11-29T12:50:00.000-08:00

Brilliant westerns, and there have been more than a few in the history of modern film making, have never really done well at the Academy Awards. ‘Cimarron’ won in 1931, but it is more an epic set in the west, and ‘Dances with Wolves’ is more a romance/war film than a proper western, in my eyes. Yes. ‘Unforgiven’ is the only western to win the most coveted award in film.

Like all westerns, the basic story is simple and but what is right and wrong is not straightforward. In Big Whiskey, Wyoming, a whore is cut up by a couple of drunken cowboys, and the sheriff, Little Bill (Gene Hackman) takes little action to punish the perpetrators. The prostitutes are unhappy and decide to take matters into their own hand by putting a bounty on the heads of these men. Three men are attracted to this: the retired widower Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood, who also directed), his former partner in crime, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), and the young opportunistic Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett), and they set off to avenge the young girl.

I think that this is one of Eastwood’s greatest performances. He is restrained and commanding, but as always is never over the top: the role does not command that, and Eastwood has never been an over the top type of actor. Morgan Freeman is, as ever, reliable. He is one of those actors who is steady and secure, and whilst I am rarely blown away by his performance, I am always happy to have him on my screen. For me, the standout roles are from Woolvett, who is naïve and foolish and a total irritant for the older men, but is a great role for the audience, who displays all the excitement for the life of a gunslinger as a real fan of westerns does, and also from Hackman who is absolutely superb as the brutal sheriff: it is a wonderfully rich part and a performance that you can tell Hackman enjoyed playing as much as I enjoyed watching it.

The basic premise may be simple, but the issues are less so. The main issue of right and wrong is explored in great detail through the character of Munny. His wife made him give up his violent ways, but now he is returning for one last time: is it right to kill people who have committed awful crimes for the reason of receiving money to support his impoverished family, and can he justify it to himself?

‘Unforgiven’ is one of the greatest westerns ever made and also the last great true western that will be made. I have no doubt about that. For ‘Unforgiven’ whilst a great film in its own right, is also a tribute to the genre, closing the book on the making of westerns, and from the shots of the graves, to the idea of coming out of retirement one final time, Eastwood clearly knew that this would be the last western.
It is a brilliant film: wonderfully scripted, expertly directed, beautifully filmed and acted with understanding and obvious commitment, it can not only be described as the last western, but also one of the greatest, a film for those who love the west.

24. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930

2010-11-29T12:03:00.000-08:00

Perhaps one of the most well known of the earliest Best Picture winners was the ultimate anti-war film, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’. Based on the German novel, the film follows a group of young German soldiers who are encouraged to enlist in the army by their teacher during the First World War. The film is American, but sticks to the original nationality of the characters. Despite this: this film is not about right or wrong, about Germans or Americans, or about heroism of any type, but about the utter futility of war.

The world had not seen a war like this and the film brings to life the realism of what encouraged young men to enlist, what they experienced, and how those at home reacted when they gave honest accounts of what the reality of war was like.

The first scene is particularly memorable: a teacher through clever speech encourages the young men to enlist. Forgetting the benefit of hindsight, this film shows exactly how war must have appealed to these students: the excitement, the national pride, the camaraderie. It also shows what a much larger place the world was in 1914 as this was the only chance that these men would have to see the world.
Of course, the realities are different, and the experiences of the war are shown through a series of scenes in which the hardships and brutal experiences are exhibited. From the training camp to the actual front, the war is not what the soldiers expected. The reality of war is most evident in a wonderful scene between the protagonist, Paul (the excellent Lew Ayers) and a Frenchman who he shoots and then tries to save when they are trapped together. There are no sides in this most humane of scenes, just the inevitability of death.

Death, of course, happens to several of the young group, and this understandably has a profound effect on Paul. The opening scene is contrasted beautifully, when he goes back to his former school and talks about the war. The new students and the former teacher are horrified, not by his tales, but by his attitude which is not patriotic.

The film, however, never becomes preachy. The facts of war are obvious, and Milestone shows experiences, but does not hammer home the point, and from that point, it is a very intelligent film, never underestimating the audience and never stopping to bask in its own self-importance. In many ways it is a very simple film: there is no complex storyline, but it still manages to deal with complex issues, and that is what makes this film such a success, and so timeless.

It is, in my mind, the third greatest Best Picture winner from the 1930s (with still ‘It Happened One Night’ and ‘Gone with the Wind’ to come), but I think it feels in many ways, the least dated. The structure is similar to ‘The Hurt Locker’ in that a series of episodes paint a picture rather than provide a narrative, and the theme is timeless: whereas the methods have combat have changed since this film was made, the greater issues are the same, and that is what makes the film so watchable and so relevant.

25. WEST SIDE STORY - 1961

2010-09-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

Another film that I am torn about. If you were to ask me what my favourite musical is, I would definitely consider West Side Story, however it’s not my favourite film musical. That’s not to say I don’t like it, I really do, but it has a few faults that stop it getting a higher position on the list.

I will start with the bad. The film is dated. Very dated. Although the music and dancing are brilliant, there are times (when the film is in ‘cool’ mode) that just seem irrelevant today. I think it is a general rule that if musical films are set in the era that they are made they can age very badly, as the general idea of a musical with characters bursting into song needs to be done with some irony. The other negative I have is with Richard Beymer’s portrayal of Tony. I realise that in the Shakespeare play, the character of Romeo is a little soft, but in ‘West Side Story’ the character of Tony is meant to be a former gang leader, and I just don’t buy it, he is just so wet.

And now the positive, and there is lots to say: firstly the music. How anyone cannot just love the wonderful songs by Bernstein is hard to believe. The songs are beautiful, witty and perfectly performed. ‘Tonight’ is a gorgeous love song, performed as both a duet and as a quintet later in the film, ‘Jet Song’ is a fun-packed and intense gang song that makes you know that the film is going to not be like other musicals, but the best moment is the wonderful ‘America’. It is truly one of the best song and dance numbers in any musical ever made.

There are some great performances in this film. George Chakiris is great as Bernardo, and although I would have given the supporting Oscar to Montgomery Clift in ‘Judgement at Nuremburg’, Chakiris’ performance is one of the most memorable Supporting Actor wins that I have seen. He is feisty, passionate and truly convincing as the leader of the Sharks. It is, however, Rita Moreno who steals the show as Anita. The screen really does come alive whenever she is on screen, and her performance in the song ‘America’ is truly fantastic.

It is a cinematographic delight as well. Every scene and shot and close up rivals the most epic of films, and not many films bring the streets of the darker areas of New York to life as much as this one does.

It’s a shame that there are a few faults with this film, and it’s probably the only Oscar winner that I think would be successful if it were remade today with the right director and cast, of course. However, despite the faults, ‘West Side Story’ is one of the most important and beautiful musicals ever made, and will always be rightly regarded as a classic.

26. THE STING - 1973

2010-09-08T10:11:00.001-07:00

From the moments I hear the opening bars of Scott Joplin’s ‘The Entertainer’ I remember why I like ‘The Sting’ so much: there are films that make you think, there are films that are beautiful works of art and then there are films that are just fun.

‘The Sting’ reunited the irresistible combination of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, and I actually prefer this to ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’. This great film is a comedy crime caper set in the 1920s and is about a small time con-man played by Redford, who after his partner in crime gets killed, teams up with Newman a one time master to seek revenge. The film takes the characters through a wild and elaborate scam in order to settle the score, with the sting being the twist at the end.

Newman and Redford have such chemistry in this film. They play their parts with ease and humour and build great rapport over the duration of the film. I mentioned the relationship between the leads in ‘The French Connection’, and this relationship is even better.

It’s a brilliant example of storytelling. The film moves along at such a rate of knots that it is impossible not to be swept along – there are some wonderful moments: the card game, when Redford asks out a drugstore girl, and of course, the final scene. It is difficult to discuss the film without giving too much away, but in terms of plot, let’s just say that it is fun from start from finish.

The style of the film is also interesting and appealing. It’s a comedy, but also a period drama and is full of wonderful details, like the fact that each section of the film is introduced with titles. The film also could run the risk of over glorifying criminals, but instead it ends up painting a picture of crime in New York at a certain era. The characters are not responsible for destroying law and order, but are rather products of a certain era.

In short it is a wonderful and fun picture that uses many stylistic techniques complete with wonderful direction and great acting to create one of the most memorable films of the 1970s.

27. THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971

2010-09-03T10:36:00.000-07:00

In the early 1970s, the Academy looked to the crime genre for their Oscar winners, and in 1971 ‘The French Connection’ beat off competition from such classics as ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange’.

The film is a fast paced tale of two policeman played by Gene Hackman and Roy Schneider who investigate a drug deal in which Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) plans to sell $32 million worth of heroin to New York dealers. The plot twists and turns with unrelenting attitude until it ends in a fantastic showdown between the dealers and the police.

The film works in two ways. Firstly it’s a fun, exciting crime drama. Not only is the plot intense and exciting throughout, but it includes some wonderfully dramatic scenes, and so many of these are memorable. There is the famous car scene chase across New York. I am not usually one for lengthy pieces of action and feel that they can often ruin a good drama, but this adds to the tension so much. The other great scene that springs to mind is when Schneider is following Rey on a subway platform. For a while you wonder if Rey has spotted him, as they both hop on and off the train acting as inconspicuous as possible.

The other great thing about the film is the wonderful acting from the two leads. Hackman plays a bigoted alcoholic cop and Schneider is his more straightlaced and reserved partner. Unlike the traditional, modern cops and robbers film, the good guys are not perfect: they are normal people with normal faults. This makes them more interesting and believable and allows them to develop as real characters rather than just being parodies of heroes.

The relationship between the two characters is extraordinary. There are few films in which two male actors have as natural and unforced chemistry. Compare this relationship to, say, Frodo and Sam in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and you’ll see what I mean. They are both excellent.

On top of this, the film is excellent in other areas. It is technically superior to so many films of this genre. It is smoothly edited with camerawork that only adds to the intensity throughout. The music is equally tense, but not overused, and Friedkin’s direction uses both the music and the noises of the city in equal measure to create the required atmosphere.

What is great about this film is that it is not only a great piece of cinema but also totally accessible. Anyone who gives this film a chance will be drawn along by the fantastic performances and great storyline. And yes, despite the strong competition in 1971 I agree with the choice of the Academy for this year.

28. SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993

2010-08-28T09:20:00.000-07:00

When I was ranking these winners, I had some issue deciding where to place ‘Schindler’s List’. The vast majority of these films have some form of enjoyment factor to take into consideration. ‘Schindler’s List’ is not an enjoyable film to watch. It is not a piece of entertainment in the traditional factor. This film is more important than entertaining and therefore in order to place this film I needed to look at how well made I think it is.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it is the tale of Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi party who owns a factory, and uses this to save the lives of thousands of Jewish people in occupied Poland. The film tackles the individual story of this complex character as well as the legacy of the holocaust.

The film swept many of the categories at the Oscars but did not win any of the acting awards, which I think was a massive mistake. Liam Neeson, as Schindler, lost out to Tom Hanks in ‘Philadelphia’ probably my least favourite best actor win, but should have won. What makes is performance so wonderful is that he manages to create a character that is the hero of the story, but who is far from perfect. He uses his position to save thousands of life, but was vain and greedy and a member of the Nazi party, a party responsible for horrific atrocities. As this film is not about entertainment but realism, he does not overact once. Every look, every movement is believable and creates a wonderfully complex character.

Ralph Fiennes is superb as Amon Goeth, sent to Krakow to set up a concentration camp. He plays the part of the Nazi with such conviction, that you thoroughly believe that he is this evil. Truly villainous, but also truly believable, and that is what makes him such a superb actor.

There are other good things to focus on, but I am going to look at the one thing about this film that prevents me from placing it a bit higher. The direction. I am not a fan of Spielberg’s work. For me, all his films are very obvious: he wants to scare, he wants to entertain, he wants to make you cry… whatever his mission is, he pulls out all the stops to get the desired effect. However, he never seems to want to make the viewer think. For the most part, ‘Schindler’s List’ is carried by other things: the acting, the cinematography, the music, but occasionally, I can see that this is a Spielberg film, and it ruins it a little. The worst example of this is the ending when Jewish survivors place stones on Schindler’s grave. I realise that this film is in many ways a tribute to his legacy, but as a viewer we have just watched three hours of his story and the ending cheapens it a little. I think a different director could have done a better job. A more subtle approach to certain elements would have been more effective.

Back to the positive: I have touched on the cinematography in the previous paragraph. It is a beautifully filmed picture. The wonderful use of black and white was a brilliant idea: it shows the gravity of the subject matter whilst still enabling a beautiful experience in other ways. Then the use of colour with the girl in the red coat, enables the film to focus on the individuals involved as well as the overall theme of the holocaust.

In short, ‘Schindler’s List’ is a massively important film. It is not perfect, but includes some of the best acting seen in the past twenty years and balances a serious subject matter with some beautiful elements, and should be watched by all.

29. YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938

2010-08-26T10:43:00.000-07:00

Frank Capra. In my mind the number one person associated with comedy is this fantastic director. Four years after ‘It Happened One Night’ swept the Oscars, the almost as good ‘You Can’t Take It With You’ earned Capra another best picture award and a third best director award (he also won for ‘Mr Deeds Goes to Town’).

‘You Can’t Take it with You’ is a wonderfully simple tale. Alice Sycamore (Jean Arthur) is a stenographer, in love with her boss Tony Kirby (James Stewart) who is the son of the company owner. Alice lives with her eccentric family who clash with Tony’s family, not only due to the cultural differences but also because Tony’s father wants to buy the family home for his latest business venture.

This is what Capra specialises in: comedy with a heart. He takes what could be clichéd love story about two families clashing and makes it a winner from every angle. The script is wonderfully peppered with glorious lines, a personal favourite is when the grandfather (Lionel Barrymore) explains why he does not pay income tax, and moves the story along at a wild pace.

The cast is, of course, excellent. What works so well is how Jean Arthur and James Stewart play their parts in such a straight manner, whilst there is chaos all around. It is a perfect example of how you do not need to overact to be funny (some unmentionable modern comic actors take note), the smallest glance and motion from these characters is hysterical and utterly charming. James Stewart truly is a wonderful actor: from comedy (‘The Philadelphia Story’) to westerns (‘The Man who Shot Liberty Vallance’) and thrillers (‘Vertigo’) he is one of the best actors ever on film.

The supporting cast have more obvious fun in their comic roles. The Sycamore family are all a little eccentric in their own way and they make the most out of their screen time. This is where Capra’s excellent direction comes in: they do not, at all, ever, act on top of each other, and the effect is remarkable. It enables the film to move at a furious pace without descending into incomprehensible mayhem. The Kirby family are comically snobbish but without ever becoming ridiculous caricatures.

Like all Capra films, this film just makes the viewer feel delightfully warm inside. Maybe it’s not to the average modern viewers taste: it’s very much of its time, but I defy anyone not to watch this film with an open mind and be taken in by this charming love story.

30. THE APARTMENT - 1960

2010-08-26T10:11:00.000-07:00

1960 was a brilliant year for film. ‘Psycho’, ‘A bout de souffle’ and ‘La dolce vita’ were all made in this year (also the latter was not honoured by the Academy until the following year), but it was Billy Wilder’s dark tale of love that ended up winning the most coveted award in film.

Jack Lemmon is CC Baxter, a clerk in a large New York insurance film who lets his seniors in the film use his apartment to entertain their mistresses in order to advance his career. His boss Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) promotes Lemmon in return for letting his use his apartment to entertain elevator girl, Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine). Even though Baxter is in love with Kubelik he goes along with the situation until one night he finds Kubelik in his apartment following a suicide attempt and this makes him rethink his position.

Often dubbed as a comedy, ‘The Apartment’ is so much more. It has some wonderful comic moments, but the main theme is so brutally tragic that for me it ranks amongst the best character studies ever put to film.

This film has so many good qualities. The direction is what you could come to expect from the wonderful Billy Wilder. He handles every scene with humour and tragedy linked in such an expert manner that it is impossible not to be drawn into this unconventional love story.

This is one of Jack Lemmon’s best performances. He moves from the competitive career-minded clerk to the lonely man struggling with an extremely difficult decision, and he handles it expertly, changing with each scene. His wit and sensitivity is honed to perfection.

Shirley MacLaine is also stunning in her role as the confused and equally lonely younger girl trying to realise what she wants out of life. There are some wonderful moments between the two: when they play rummy together and she has an epiphany and when she is walked around the apartment to keep her conscious. The Christmas party scene is equally wonderful.

The characters are not perfect people: they have faults, insecurities and problems. In short they are real people in a real situation, and all the characters are handled perfectly. ‘The Apartment’ should be watched by anyone wanting to see a film that blends humour and sorrow together expertly. It may not have been my personal choice for the best film of 1960, but it is certainly a worthy winner in an extremely strong year.

RECAP - 30 TO GO

2010-07-18T02:50:00.000-07:00

As we head into the top 30 we are left with a collection of films that in my opinion rank amongst the best of all time.
Is there anything that you would change? Anything that you would like to have seen higher or lower?
Be good to hear your opinions.

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

50. GLADIATOR - 2000
49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
48. THE DEPARTED - 2006
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008

40. PATTON - 1970
39. MARTY - 1955
38. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
37. TITANIC - 1997
36. GRAND HOTEL - 1932
35. CHICAGO - 2002
34. MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979

STILL TO COME

WINGS - 1928
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
GONE WITH THE WIND - 1939
REBECCA - 1940
CASABLANCA - 1943
THE LOST WEEKEND - 1945
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946
ALL ABOUT EVE - 1950

AN AMERICAN IN PARIS - 1951
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY - 1953
ON THE WATERFRONT - 1954
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
THE APARTMENT - 1960
WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - 1962
MY FAIR LADY - 1964
THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965
THE FRENCH CONNECTION -1971

THE GODFATHER -1972
THE STING - 1973
THE GODFATHER II - 1974
AMADEUS - 1984
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 1991
UNFORGIVEN - 1992
SHCINDLER'S LIST - 1993
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
AMERICAN BEAUTY - 1999
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - 2007

31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979

2010-07-18T02:49:00.001-07:00

The premise behind this film is not overly promising. Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep) walks out on her workaholic husband Ted (Dustin Hoffman) and son when she decides that she wants to live her own life. Ted has to change his life completely in order to become a single parent. Just has he is adjusting to this new life, Joanne returns and wants custody of their child.

There were so many films in the emotional family drama genre made in the 1980s, and they range from thoroughly watchable to absolutely dire, and then there is ‘Kramer vs Kramer’: easily the best film of this genre that I have seen.

But what makes it so good?

I have already written about my opinions on Dustin Hoffman in his other performances and ‘Kramer vs Kramer’ is another example of a great performance. Here is plays an everyday character unlike in ‘Midnight Cowboy’ or ‘Rain Man’, but still manages to create a person that is thoroughly watchable and that you want to know more about. I admire more these convincing normal roles than some of the more over the top Oscar winning performances over the ages because there is nothing for Hoffman to hide behind.

Streep also picked up the Oscar for Supporting Actress in this film. Meryl Streep is as diverse as Hoffman, and can play any role with conviction. As with Hoffman’s performance, this is one of her more normal characters and her acting is just outstanding.

Add to these wonderful performances some excellent supporting roles from Jane Alexander as the family friend and Justin Henry as the eight year old son: incredible for such a young actor.

Add to these performances a script that is poignant, realistic but also full of wit and gentle humour which gives the actors something great to work with. The script combined with the sensitive direction stops the film from falling into contrived nonsense, which is found in so many of these types of dramas. But it’s still extremely emotional: the ending is unexpectedly tearjerking but not in an over-the-top manner, but because of the realistic portrayal of a family torn apart.
‘Kramer vs Kramer’ is what family drama should be about. There are no unlikely twists, no over the top performances, such a few characters put in a realistic but sad situation and forced to deal with it. I don’t know if with a different cast that this would have worked, but with the leads of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep this becomes a terrific film.

32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987

2010-07-16T11:10:00.001-07:00

One of the hardest stories to make into a Best Picture winner must have been ‘The Last Emperor’. The majority of epics take a story of a nobody and show how their character develops through a series of events to end in a big moment in their life or their dramatic death. ‘The Last Emperor’ does the opposite. It takes the story of Pu-Yi, who at the age of three becomes the emperor of China in 1908. He lives in the Forbidden City and never leaves. His life within these walls is excessive, but the outside world is unsafe and he is essentially a prisoner in his own home. By 1967, after many events he is a gardener in the Beijing Botanical Gardens.

‘The Last Emperor’ is not an easy film to watch. It is very long and deals with an unusual main character who is awkward and not easy to warm to, but it is a triumph of cinema: filming the impossible.

This film was made possible by one of the greatest directors ever: Bertolucci. He handles the topic in a very clever manner by having the main story running from 1950 to his death, with the childhood and years as the emperor told as a series of lengthy flashbacks. Although the technique of flashbacks is hardly revolutionary, I have seldom seen it so well done. Certain things trigger the memory of the Emperor and Bertolucci takes this opportunity to contrast the drab life of the older man to the colourful and extravagant life of his childhood.

The artistic quality of this film is outstanding. Every scene is shot in such a beautiful way: the costumes, cinematography, scripting: all carefully done to transport the viewer to the different eras.

It’s not a film that includes great famous performances. Although the film won all of the nine Oscars for which it was nominated, it did not include a single nod to the acting force. It did not help that the Emperor was played by different actors throughout the timeline, but each of the actors playing this unusual character bring something new to the role. Whereas Pu-Yi is a difficult character to really get inside, the actors are almost like props in this sumptuous epic. One actor who does shine is Peter O’Toole as the tutor who cares for the young emperor. He is the voice of reason in the Emperor’s surreal world and provides his usual level of wit that we have learnt to expect from such a great actor.

It is ultimately a film made possible by two men: Bernardo Bertolucci who proves himself as a wonderful director, able to make an epic that is both vast and intimate, and Pu-Yi, one of the most interesting and surprisingly not well known figures of the 20th Century.

33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY

2010-07-16T10:48:00.001-07:00

Makers of ‘Rocky’ take note. This is how to make a sports film.

Sports films fall flat when they focus on the sporting aspect. The excitement of sport is not knowing the outcome, but in film dramas the director’s job should be to make the viewer think and make up their own mind about a certain situation. This is why the best films are the most intelligent films that give you challenging situations and complex characters. That is why ‘Million Dollar Baby’ is a success.

The film focuses on Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), a waitress with no future who decides to commit herself to becoming a female boxer. She wants top coach Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) to train her. After initial reluctance he agrees. His attitude to training is not to push boxers to their limit, after a former pupil, Scrap (Morgan Freeman) lost an eye in his last final. Scrap is now a caretaker in Frankie’s gym. We also learn about Frankie’s relationship with his daughter which helps to explain the close relationship that develops between coach and fighter.
The purpose of the film is not to find out if Maggie wins a particular fight, or not. In every fighter’s career there are highs and lows and ‘Million Dollar Baby’ does not try to pretend that after starting to train into your 30s that you will suddenly become a world champion. Instead it focuses on the fragile and intricate relationships between these complex but every day characters.

I personally think I overlook Swank when looking at great actresses of our time, but she really is a fearless actress. Despite her obvious beauty, she attacks tough and unglamorous roles with determination and skill. Compare this role to her disturbing role in ‘Boys Don’t Cry’ (a film which without her would have bordered on mediocre but with her becomes a fascinating portrayal of a confused character) and you will see her talent. Maggie is a tough but likable character who we want to learn more about. We don’t necessarily mind if she wins fights or not, but we do want her to be happy, which is ultimately the most important thing for her.

As I have mentioned before, Eastwood has a limited range of characters that he plays, but this outwardly tough, but sensitive inside character is perfect for him. He can control the scene when required, but has the art of not dominating when not required. Because of his careful selection of roles I have yet to find an Eastwood performance that I do not like.
Morgan Freeman is always consistent, and the addition of this character gives the film an extra dimension.

Of all the Best Picture winners, this was easily one of the biggest surprises. I read about it and I thought: oh dear, a soppy film about a woman boxer. But, I found myself unable to tear my eyes away. Whether it was the great acting, the intelligent storyline and handling of issues, or the interesting way that the film was told, with Freeman’s character narrating, or most likely, a combination of all of these factors I’m not sure, but I found it to be one of the best films of the year and the second best winner of the last decade. For those apprehensive about watching this film as they will think it is not really their thing, I would suggest that you watch it, as you may be very very pleased that you did.

34. MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969

2010-07-16T10:17:00.000-07:00

After a decade of musicals and period dramas, ‘Midnight Cowboy’ was a very different film. When the winner was announced in the first months of 1970 it was clear that a new decade had been entered with a completely new style of winner.

Young Texan Joe Buck (John Voight) moves to New York in the hope of making some money. Dressed as a cowboy he prostitutes himself to wealthy woman, but ends up being constantly degraded. He invents himself as a hustler character, but it is not long that due to his naïve nature that others are taking advantage of him. He meets the street savvy Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) who initial cons the young Texan, but they soon form a bond and become friends.

It is a wonderful character study. The film really does get to the bottom of these two complex characters, especially in its handling of Voight’s character. He is a happy-go-lucky, trusting yet naïve man, completely out of his depth. But, we also witness flashbacks, which suggest sexual abuse and dark secrets. We know less about Rizzo’s history, but over the course of the film learn to pity him, and even like him, even though as a character he is fairly unpleasant.

The actual story is not what is important here: the film does not follow a series of events in the strictest sense. Instead we witness moments from their friendship, all of which add something to the film. The film is very much of its time. Set in the late 1960s, it shows the drug culture, the art scene and the ideas of hope and disappointment associated with this period of history.

Technically the film is like no other that I have scene from that era. In fact, of the all the Best Picture winners, this feels like a foreign film more than any other. The scene in which the characters are at a drug-fuelled party is perhaps the most obvious example of this. This scene is extremely uncomfortable to watch: the camera work and editing is extremely claustrophobic as if there is no escape from the events unfolding on scene. The cartoon heads in the death scene add another element of surreal, yet captivating moments.

With all its impressive technical attributes it is perhaps easy to forget to mention Voight and Hoffman. These two leads are both so impressive. Voight is perfect as the perky partner in this odd relationship: both likable and tragic. Every look, every expression seems to reveal something new and it is a performance that should be watched. I have mentioned Dustin Hoffman before. He really can play any part and play any part well. Throughout the history of films there have been actors great at playing a particular part. I really like Clint Eastwood, but his acting range is limited. What he does he is good at, and that’s fine, but very few people: Brando, Spacey, Clift, have the ability to tackle any part and succeed as Hoffman. This is another example of a wonderful performance, found in a difficult and depressing, but powerful film.

35. CHICAGO - 2002

2010-07-03T08:01:00.001-07:00

For the first time since ‘Cabaret’ in 1972, musical lovers were given a wonderful musical to tap their toes along too. There had been ‘All The Jazz’ (brilliant, but not really a musical), ‘Moulin Rouge!’ (a little odd) and ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ (inspired), but nothing that crept back to the glory days of Gene Kelly, Judy Garland or Roger & Hammerstein, until ‘Chicago’ came along.

‘Chicago’ is a musical set in 1920s Chicago about Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger), a wannabe singer who kills her boyfriend when he tries to split up with her. She is sent to the same prison as Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta Jones) who killed her sister and husband after catching them together. Whilst in prison they are put under the control of Mama Morton (Queen Latifah) who holds the key to top lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere). The top cast is finished off by John C Reilly as Roxie Hart’s drippy husband, Amos.

Despite the rather dark subject matter of murder, ‘Chicago’ is a riotous and witty film from start to finish. There are some wonderful lines in the film. A personal favourite is during the court scene. Flynn is defending Hart, when the district attorney produces a diary. Flynn objects, ‘My client has never held a diary! And even if she did, this would be... invasion of privacy, and violation of the fourth amendment, and... and illegal search without a warrant!’. Roxie Hart steps in: ‘Yeah. And she broke the lock’. Despite reminding me of the glory days of musicals it is also has a very modern feel about it, with black backdrops during the musical numbers and it oozes sex in a very modern, very un-Sound of Music way. There is nothing dated or old-fashioned about it.

The musical talent of the women is outstanding, especially Zeta-Jones. She is outstanding as the rival: excellent comic timing, brilliant singing voice and slick sharp dancing. This film is her shining point. Latifah is sassy as the prison warden and Zellweger is good in the lead, although unfortunately is at times overshadowed by her co-stars, and her best moments are when she is on her own (during the numbers ‘Roxie’ and ‘Funny Honey’).

There are some wonderful song and dance routines in this film. It gets off to a flying start with the most famous number, ‘All That Jazz’, but the fun continues with Latifah’s ‘When You’re Good to Mama’ and ‘We Both Reached for the Gun’. The highlight of the film, however, is the absolutely wonderful, ‘Cell Block Tango’. Six murderesses on death row tell Hart how they killed their lovers through this feisty number: witty lyrics and a sexy Tango routine.

I was delighted that ‘Chicago’ won the Best Picture Award. It had been over 30 years since a musical had won and when one finally did win it was one of the best winners of the decade.

36. GRAND HOTEL - 1932

2010-07-03T04:04:00.001-07:00

‘Grand Hotel’ won the Best Picture Oscar for 1932 and those interested in trivia will know that it is the only Best Picture winner which was not nominated for any other award. The premise is simple: a group of different characters come together at the top Berlin establishment ‘Grand Hotel’ and the film examines the characters and how they interact with each other.

It is a wonderfully exciting film. The opening sequence still has such impact on me, no matter how many times I watch it. The bustling lobby full of guests and porters, the endlessly rotating doors, the telephony staff, and then some of the biggest names of Hollywood in the 1930s appear.

The film is like an early day ‘Gosford Park’ in many ways. It is not so much about the plot, but how these characters are reacting in their circumstances and during, of course, the Depression. The characters are all different and all treated in a different way, which means that they all receive enough attention, meaning that the audience gets to know them all well in the short time of the film’s duration.

Greta Garbo is Grusinskaya, a Russian ballerina who wants to be alone and does not want to perform anymore. Midway through the film she transforms as she falls in love and becomes alive again. This is a beautiful performance from Garbo. John Barrymore is a Baron who has run out of money and charms the women in the film, acting with desperation. Joan Crawford is a stenographer: manipulative, scheming with an acidic tongue and cynical views. Lionel Barrymore is a bookkeeper spending his life savings in the Hotel as he knows that he will soon die. He is longing to be accepted and feels that people do not feel that his money is worth anything. Wallace Beery is a brutal businessman, totally dismissive of Lionel Barrymore’s actions. It is wonderful that each of them play their parts to perfection, commanding the screen, but never dominating for a second. Credit must go to Goulding for his sensitive direction in balancing these great names.

The script moves the film along at a healthy speed: frantic but always easy to follow, and is peppered with wonderful quotes, the most celebrated being, ‘Grand Hotel, always the same. People come. People go. Nothing ever happens’, which perfectly sums up how the individual character development is much more important than the plot.

From an artistic perspective, ‘Grand Hotel’ is a success as well. The hotel is stunning: with sweeping corridors which look down to the bustling reception, elaborate rooms, gorgeous costumes, wonderful use of light and shade. It is, in short, a beautifully shot film.

‘Grand Hotel’ is dated. Very dated and very melodramatic, but for two hours it manages to entertain in such a charming and fun way that I cannot help but rate this film highly. Anyone interested in what is now referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood should watch this film as it is one of the best examples of 1930s melodrama that I can find.

37. TITANIC - 1997

2010-06-26T10:49:00.000-07:00

Another lengthy picture here in the form of James Cameron’s mighty nautical blockbuster, ‘Titanic’. For those of you unfamiliar with this work, it is a love story before a penniless American painter Jack Dawson (Leonardo di Caprio) and an upper-class engaged lady Rose DuWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) who meet aboard the Titanic, on its ill-fated maiden voyage.

The first part of the film is mainly focused on their romance. She is engaged and from a different class, but he rescues her and becomes mixed into her world. Then the inevitable happens, and the ship hits an iceberg. The second half of the film focuses on the sinking of the ship and the actions of the characters.

The film made Di Caprio and Winslet household names, and although their performances in this film are not as good as some of their more recent performances you can see the talent here. Di Caprio is charming and thoroughly likable as the poor painter, and Winslet plays the rich English girl well. There are some very strong supporting performances, notably from Kathy Bates as Molly Brown, who takes Dawson under her wing, and Frances Fisher as Rose’s domineering mother, looking to preserve the family’s name.

Although the story is fairly simple what makes it work, especially in the second half is by showing little sub-stories regarding how others are being affected by the events that are unfolding: the captain, the designer, an elderly couple, the orchestra. Cameron manages successfully to look at the big picture of the sinking ship and also the smaller individual stories at the same time without straying into over sentimentality.

It is of course for the brilliant technical achievements that ‘Titanic’ won most its awards, and it is a technical masterpiece. From the boat sinking in the middle of the Atlantic to the small details throughout the different rooms in the ship it is beautiful: the cinematography, art direction, costume, sound… were all recognised by the Academy and it’s not difficult to see why.

This film is often criticised and I think that this is to do with the amount of overexposure the film had on release. What we have here, though, is a film that is technically superior, but that still manages to deliver a well acted and touching story, and whereas it is not the best film ever made, it is a genuine joy to watch a blockbuster film that is not purely about special effects.

38. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936

2010-06-26T09:35:00.001-07:00

Thank you to the makers of ‘The Great Ziegfeld’. This is how a biopic should be made.

The film tells the story in a pretty accurate (so I gather) way of Florenz Ziegfeld, from the 1893 Chicago’s World Fair, to his death in 1932. The audience see him make money, lose money, fall in love and promote the idea of the all American girl.
It is a mammoth film. It is sprawling in its length, contains massive production numbers and was an expensive and extravagant film to make in the middle of the depression.

William Powell plays Ziegfeld with authority throughout. Whereas his particular performance is not particularly memorable, he is steady throughout and delivers a safe portrayal of the theatrical master. Luise Rainer plays Anna Held, the French performer and Ziegfeld’s first wife with charm and sensitivity. She took the Oscar for her performance and it is largely felt that she won for one scene in particular, where she breaks down in tears whilst congratulating Ziegfeld on his second marriage over the telephone. The dramatic scenes are best when she is on screen, and this scene in particular is a highlight. Myrna Loy plays his second wife, Billie Burke, and although does not have the emotional impact of Rainer, was a good box office choice. Frank Morgan plays Billings, Ziegfeld’s friend and rival and delivers a fun, more light performance than the other leads.

The film is also great for star spotting. Most famously Fanny Brice and Ray Bolger appear on the stage for Ziegfeld.

The reason why this film is so good is that it not only tells a story with good acting, but it adds more to make it interesting, in the form of wonderful song and dance routines that add so much. With wonderful costumes, music by Berlin and inspired routines, these numbers break this epic into measurable chunks, making it largely, I think, a pretty fast paced film.

I cannot mention this film without mentioning ‘A Pretty Girl is like a Melody’. It is probably the best direction of a musical number that I can think of in the history of film. Following a short solo singing performance the curtains are gradually opened to reveal a large rotating spiral staircase full of dancers and performers. The production is over eight minutes long and taken in one shot, and it has got to be seen to be believed.

I know that this film usually hangs around the bottom of other Best Picture Ranks that I have seen, and I am at a loss to understand why. Maybe the subject doesn’t have modern appeal, maybe some find the length a little daunting, and maybe it is a little dated. However, I think that this is a stunning piece of cinema and any film makers looking for inspiration on how to make a biopic interesting and different, whilst still keeping authenticity could do worse than watch this little known winner.

39. MARTY - 1955

2010-06-18T08:27:00.000-07:00

There are many large Best Picture winners, and when watching the Best Picture winners I saw the burning of Atlanta, the sinking of the Titanic, the rise of Communism in China and the Holocaust. It was with great relief that I found the smallest of the Best Picture winners to be a delight to watch.

Everything about the film is small. It is the shortest winner to date, it is set largely over a couple of hours during one evening, the characters are plain and the setting is remarkably ordinary. It is for these reasons that the film works.

Ernest Borgnine plays Marty, a single, plain-looking everyday butcher in New York, whose family are eager for him to meet someone. At a dance one night he meets Clara, played by Betsy Blair, a shy and dowdy schoolteacher. They form a connection and show that the path towards love is not as glamorous as Hollywood would have you believe.

As this film is so unglamorous, it relies entirely on the strength of the script and acting to hold the attention of the audience for the duration. Borgnine is a great talent. Two years previously he made a memorable part out of Fatso in ‘From Here to Eternity’, a part which was essentially the villain of the film. In ‘Marty’ he plays a thoroughly likable ordinary man in a totally understated manner. There are no long monologues for him to deliver, no melodramatic moments: just a totally balanced and believable performance.

Like no other film of its era that I have seen this film offers a snap shot into the lives of other people. There is no grand acting from Borgnine or the supporting characters, and it is almost as if, through the help of the script and clever direction, that we are watching the characters closely without being noticed, not for decades, but for one night. Everything that we need to know about the two strangers we find out when they do, and this gives the film an intimacy that very few films are able to achieve. When they first meet, she is nervous and barely talks, and whilst he chatters awkwardly, it is impossible to not want them to end up together. Everytime they smile at each other or they find something in common the viewer is genuinely happy for these characters, and I think that is because of the film’s intimate nature that it makes Borgnine and Blair seem less like actors and more like real people.

Today ‘Marty’ is not one of the most well known Best Pictures, and admittedly it does lack the punch of some of the grander epics of the day. However, for those wanting to see an example of 1950s realism and watch the early days of a relationship between two likable, but ordinary people then this is a delightful and charming little film which never strays into oversentimentality.

RECAP - 40 TO GO

2010-06-18T06:29:00.000-07:00

I should have done this before my review of 'Patton', but it slipped my mind.
We are just over half way through the countdown. Would love to hear views so far.
Any surprises so far or preditions to come?!

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

50. GLADIATOR - 2000
49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
48. THE DEPARTED - 2006
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008

STILL TO COME

1928 - WINGS
1930 - ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
1932 - GRAND HOTEL
1934 - IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
1936 - THE GREAT ZIEGFELD
1938 - YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
1939 - GONE WITH THE WIND
1940 - REBECCA
1943 - CASABLANCA
1945 - THE LOST WEEKEND

1946 - THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
1950 - ALL ABOUT EVE
1951 - AN AMERICAN IN PARIS
1953 - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
1954 - ON THE WATERFRONT
1955 - MARTY
1957 - BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
1960 - THE APARTMENT
1961 - WEST SIDE STORY
1962 - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

1964 - MY FAIR LADY
1965 - THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1969 - MIDNIGHT COWBOY
1970 - PATTON
1971 - THE FRENCH CONNECTION
1972 - THE GODFATHER
1973 - THE STING
1974 - THE GODFATHER II
1979 - KRAMER VS KRAMER
1984 - AMADEUS

1987 - THE LAST EMPEROR
1991 - SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
1992 - UNFORGIVEN
1993 - SCHINDLER'S LIST
1996 - THE ENGLISH PATIENT
1997 - TITANIC
1999 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
2002 - CHICAGO
2004 - MILLION DOLLAR BABY
2007 - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

40. PATTON - 1970

2010-06-17T03:42:00.001-07:00

There are two reasons for rating films highly. The first is that you enjoy them so much, and the second is that you give them the upmost respect. ‘Patton’ is definitely a film in the latter category.

It is a vast and lengthy biopic of the eccentric American Second World War general Patton. Feared by the Germans, he was an excellent tactician, but had unconventional ruling methods. He had a short temper and was intolerant of the weaknesses of others. He also believed that he was a warrior in a past life.

The beginning of the film has the most impact. The General stands infront of the American flag and delivers a speech, addressing his troops with nothing short of passion. To him war is everything. The screen shows nothing but the flag and Patton, and the impact of this scene is so great that the viewer is forced to watch with nothing short of full attention. Few first scenes are as great as this.

Unfortunately the film does not maintain this impact for the rest of the film, but takes the form of a linear biopic that is definitely well delivered, but at times is, I personally feel, a little slow.

Some war films rely too heavily on extravagant fighting scenes, but this is not a typical war film, instead is remains faithful to the purpose and uses war as a setting for a study of a man, and that it largely delivers is testament to the talent behind this film.

Once again, I am confused as to why filmmakers change history for no explicable reason, and from reading about this film I see that the actual facts of the events are changed, without this adding anything to the story (see ‘A Beautiful Mind’). Patton was clearly a fascinating subject so I would have preferred this film to maybe focus on one event in his life, and that way the film could have been slicker and more factually accurate.

Patton is played by the wonderful George C Scott. This is one of the best performances that I have seen in any of these Best Picture winners. The screen is commanded by him for the duration, and there is no doubt who the star of the show is. Other performances support him, but are largely forgettable, as he drives his way through all the scenes: acting as if his life depended on it. From his mannerisms, facial expressions, script delivery, this is a performance that every actor should study in an attempt to learn how to become another person.

In short, whereas this is not a film that I ever feel myself wanting to rewatch time and time again, it does contain one of the greatest performances on screen, which is why this biopic finds itself in my top 40 Oscar Best Picture winners of all time.

41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008

2010-06-17T02:47:00.000-07:00

Last year, when the winner of the Best Picture Award was announced there was very little surprise. ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ had won several awards before the Oscars and the momentum had kept going.

Of one the most original winners, ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ told the story of a young boy from Mumbai’s slums who appears on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ in an attempt to find his long lost friend. He is able to answer the questions as he is able to use his past experiences, resulting the film being shot in a series of flashbacks as we are taken through the boy’s story.

The film featured a cast of unknowns as is one of only a handful of Best Picture winners in which no actor has appeared in any other Best Picture winner. The acting is fine, although as the film is a series of flashbacks into the boy’s youth, the main characters are played by a series of different actors, and therefore no actor really gets enough screen time to steal the film. Dev Patel plays the protagonist Jamal at his oldest, and he delivers a steady performance as the boy accused of cheating on the game show. The game show host, played by Anil Kapoor, is over the top and more of a caricature, and the childhood friend and love interest played by Freida Pinto, is sweet, but it’s hardly a knockout performance.

Instead, this film is a success because it is so beautiful. The colours, the music, the scenery all pull the audience in and it makes the film as exciting as could have been possible. Personally, this film would not have been my choice of winner in 2008 (I would have opted for ‘The Reader’, although I realise that I am largely on my own there), but in terms of direction, ‘Slumdog’ was definitely a worthy winner.

One of the successes of the direction is the contrasts that it manages to put into the film. We have, what is essentially a violent and quite dark subject matter. We see prostitution, child abuse, gun crime throughout the film, but also friendship, love and great humour. It is a feel-good film, but does not gloss over the gritty background to the story.

This is a film where the cinematography really does shine. The camera weaves its way through the slums and crowded trains bringing the claustrophobic atmosphere to life which endeavours to transport the viewer to India, and manages to show beauty in the least likely of places.

The only thing that I would really like to change about the film is the flashbacks are delivered in chronological order and I would have preferred it if they were shown in random order as that would have added to the mayhem which the film tries to portray, especially as it is unlikely that the order of the questions would match the order of the events in his life, but this is more of a personal preference, and in fairness the story is not the most realistic to be committed to screen.

This film was much hyped when it was released, and although it does not manage to quite reach the top 40 of the Best Picture winners of all time, it is a thoroughly enjoyable and watchable film largely thanks to the stunning production.

42. RAIN MAN - 1988

2010-06-15T02:12:00.000-07:00

When playboy Charlie Babbett’s (Tom Cruise) father dies, he leaves his fortune to the brother that Charlie never knew he had. Charlie tracks down his brother, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) and finds that he is institutionalised and suffers from autism. He kidnaps him with the intention of holding him to ransom and together they embark on a road trip across America, during which the impatient Charlie becomes frustrated with his brother’s habits and mannerisms.

‘Rain Man’ is the ultimate road trip film, in which two brothers travel across America and find things about themselves that they never knew before, and it is a charming film.

Tom Cruise is not an actor who is always highly regarded. I feel, however, that in his defence, that it is more to do with the films in which he was in. His parts tend to be one dimensional action heros in which he is just unable to shine. But, give him a good part, like in ‘Rain Man’ or ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ and he is able to deliver. In this film he transforms from frustrated and jealous to a much more compassionate character. When he first spends time with Dustin Hoffman he finds him impossible, and this frustration is very real and believable. His transformation is slow and, once again, believable. For me, this is Cruise’s best role to date.

Despite this, it is Hoffman who shines. Dustin Hoffman is one of my favourite actors of all time. Like Meryl Streep he is able to play any part. His three performances in Oscar Best Pictures, in this, ‘Kramer vs Kramer’ and ‘Midnight Cowboy’ are totally different, and it’s impossible to mention Hoffman without acknowledging his perfect portrayal of Ben in ‘The Graduate’. Hoffman’s portrayal of Raymond Babbett in ‘Rain Man’ is one that no-one interested in film can miss. He shows how frustrating spending time with someone with autism must be, but rather than creating a overly sentimental film, he delivers his role with humour and integrity, and never for one second does not live the character.

This film could have been patronising and soppy, and with a lesser cast it could have been the ‘Forrest Gump’ of the 1980s. But, thankfully it is a charming and highly watchable film that engages from start to finish. Admittedly, the ending is predictable and the production is not the most exciting ever, but the script moves effortlessly from scene to scene which moves the film along at a healthy pace and the Hans Zimmer score really enhances the film: the main theme accompanies the theme of a journey both physically and emotionally.

At the end of the day, this film won due to the high quality level of acting found from beginning to end, and it is one of the best winners from the decade.

43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935

2010-06-05T08:14:00.000-07:00

‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ was one of the most pleasant surprises for me when I watched the Best Pictures. I imagined a gung-ho adventure film with over acting and silly stereotypes. Instead I got a intelligent character study.

The premise is straightforward. Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton) is the captain of a ship travelling from England to Tahiti. As the journey gets harder and harder he becomes more and more ruthless and his methods of maintaining discipline are brutal. On the return journey first mate Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) revolts against the captain. The crew, however, do not account for the captains return. The film also stars Franchot Tone as the midshipman Byam: torn between loyalty to the captain and his belief in what is right.

The film moves along at a pleasing rate. There is snappy dialogue that enables the scenes to move on quickly and efficiently. The film never gets dragged down with lengthy fight scenes and the viewers are never taken down a sub-plot with no relevance. It is a well constructed film. Admittedly the cinematography now looks dated, but it does not take away from the overall impact of the film, and the fantastic score really helps to add to the overall exciting impact of the experience.

But the film is a triumph for the acting. It is the only film in the history of the Oscars to receive three nominations for Best Actor in a Leading Role (although this was before the days of the Best Supporting Actor award), and all the nominations are worthy. Tone plays the man in the middle of the two factions and does a perfect show of a character split between his moral views. His part is the hardest due to this split conscious, but he does an excellent job of it.

Clark Gable proves himself as the leading man of the 1930s with his portrayal as the ‘hero’, but due to the clever positioning of Tone’s character, we, as the audience are not sure is we are fully behind Gable’s first mate. Gable clearly relishes playing this role and he makes the part more than just another dull swashbuckling hero.

It is, however, Laughton that makes the biggest impact. From ruthless villain to loser in battle to his comeback and return to England, he plays them all with conviction, and is watchable throughout. In the way that Gable’s character is not quite the hero, Laughton makes the captain not quite the tyrant that he could have been. Instead we see a complex character: a captain with difficulties in keeping control over his crew.

In brief, I found ‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ to be a thoroughly enjoyable film about character development with some excellent performances, and even if the production and storyline were slightly dated it is still one of the best sea adventure films that I have ever seen.

44. BEN-HUR - 1959

2010-06-04T16:58:00.000-07:00

The most famous of all the Roman epics is this lengthy, extravagant, most grandiose of films. It tells the story of Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston), a Jewish prince in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. His old friend, Messala (Stephen Boyd), arrives in the city to command the Roman army there. Initially they try to rekindle their old friendship, but their political differences come between them, and when Ben-Hur refuses to tell him the names of Jews who oppose the Roman rule, he is sent as a slave and his family sent to prison. This sets the scene for a film based on the revenge of the Jewish prince.

It is a mammoth production. Everything about the film is huge. From the sweeping vistas to the soaring musical score, it never fails to show the audience that they are watching a giant of a film. A few words need to be said about the cinematography: I cannot think of a film before ‘Ben-Hur’ that reached that stage in production. I can imagine the impact of watching this film in 1959 and being blown away by it. I cannot to this day think of a scene as big as the infamous chariot scene. The speed of the horses and the heat of the sun are really brought to life by the production team.

Heston is a likable hero. This is not a film that one would necessarily watch for great acting performances, but he puts on a good show as the hero of the film. I find Boyd more captivating as the rival to the hero. His character develops over the beginning of the film from believable friend to desperate and treacherous nemisis.
It’s not really a film about the story either. The film is essentially a series of events following the arrival of Messala in Jerusalem and there are scenes/sections of the film that could have been cut without losing the overall impact. This film was made solely for the production values, and it does at time show.

I was surprised to find that in length ‘Ben-Hur’ actually is only the third longest Best Picture winner: both ‘Gone with the Wind’ and ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ are longer, but ‘Ben-Hur’ does feel at times never ending. At times I wanted the film to move at a much slicker pace.

What does elevate this film above many other epics is how it treats religion. There is a wonderful section of the film where the prince is offered a drink of water by a carpenter (Jesus). Later in the film when Jesus is being led to death, Ben-Hur then offers him a drink. It is a powerful moment, and although this section of the film is very dark, it gives Ben-Hur hope and new found faith.

It is not a perfect film, but it is extremely impressive and a film that anyone who loves grand epics should embrace and enjoy immensely.

45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949

2010-06-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

I could be wrong, but I imagine that this 1940s political drama would feature towards the middle of most people’s ranking of the Best Picture Winners. It is a totally solid film even if it is a difficult film to really love.

It is the tale of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) a man who is one of the people who wants to take a stand against the corrupt nature of politics by running for county treasurer. Although he does not win the election, he later becomes involved in politics and as he rises up the ladder he becomes more and more corrupt just like the politicians that he was trying to stand against. The film is based on the Pulitizer Prize winning novel of the same name and was loosely based on the story of Huey Long.

It’s a film that is equally relevant now as it was then. Political Scandal still exists as does the general feeling that voters want a leader who thinks about the people above personal gain. From recent leaders like Obama, to the worst dictators in modern history like Hitler and Stalin, all have tried to show that they are essentially one of the people.

The film is not a vivid and cheery number: the cinematography is bleak and dull and it’s not a particularly glamorous film. This makes the film successful. In the midst of this glum surroundings is Stark: someone who brings hope to the people with his sincere and honest speeches.

Crawford is great in this role: he plays the role of politician with studied ease. You can understand how he could have motivated the people and won them over with his brilliant rhetoric and public presence. His rise to power and fall from public grace is measured and largely not overacted, although there are a couple of over the top scenes.

The scene also looks at his relationship with Sadie Burke (Mercedes McCambridge). She gives the best performance in the film: balanced, dignified and commanding of the screen, even though her role is not massive. Their relationship is based around her role as his ambitious and backstabbing political aide and the audience can really believe their relationship would work in the way that it does in the film. The film really does succeed in making the two stories (his rise and fall as a politician along with the adulterous relationship) work at the same time, without feeling that one of the stories is being pushed into the background.

For a film made in the 1940s it is not glossy and sumptuous, but instead is one of the first Oscar winners that tries to bring realism to the screen. There are times when the film has its over the top moments that don’t fit into the film’s gritty nature, but on the whole this is a relevant and intelligent film that has aged well over the years and should be essential viewing for anyone interested in political dramas.

46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967

2010-06-02T09:57:00.000-07:00

There are some films that are made that are symbols of the era in which they were made, and ‘In the Heat of the Night’ sums up entirely the racial and social tensions present in America during the 1960s. It is not a preachy piece about race however, as it comes with a wonderful murder mystery which is equally as notable as the social aspects which it portrays.

Sidney Poitier is Virgil Tibbs, a black Mississippi-born detective working in Philadelphia. He goes to visit his mother in the southern state and whilst there, a rich, white tycoon is found dead. Race is enough for the local police to arrest the detective, although he is released when they find out about his profession. Rod Steiger is the Sheriff who has to then put aside his prejudice in order to let Poitier help his solve the murder.

It is difficult to discuss the mystery aspect of the film without giving too much away, but it is enough to say that it takes the viewer down a number of exciting twists and turns before revealing an ending that I think may just be the biggest surprise that I have ever seen on screen. The direction with the excellent script manages to keep the suspense throughout.

It is perhaps more important to comment on the racial aspects of the film as it is this that probably largely helped the film to win more than the murder story. There are countless films out their about racial prejudice that paint one sided characters throughout. Compare this to ‘Crash’ and the differences are remarkable. In ‘Crash’ all the characters have a place to play in the plot and there is no character development, as that would have halted the story. That is why ‘Crash’ is not a very good film. In ‘In the Heat of the Night’ the characters are so complex and interesting that they become believable people rather than just objects in a plot.

Tibbs has suffered from racism in his life. That does not make him into a bitter one-sided character, but instead he is balanced, poised, but has not shut these memories out of his head, and this shows. Sheriff Gillespie is even more interesting. He is bigoted and initially cruel, but the character grows in a believable way. Steiger was given the Oscar for his balanced and realistic performance.

Of all the Oscar winners that I had not seen before, I was most sceptical about watching this. I expected a dated and patronising film about stereotypical racism in southern America, but instead I was rewarded with a thoughtful and intelligent film with real feeling, a great storyline, and smooth direction that makes you feel how Mississippi was in the 1960s. Admittedly, my choice would have been ‘The Graduate’, one of my all time favourite films, but this is still a worthy winner.

47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941

2010-06-01T16:08:00.000-07:00

John Ford won four awards for directing, more than any other director in the history of the Oscars, but ‘How Green Was My Valley’ was the only one to also scoop the best picture award. It is easily the most famous film ever made to be set in Wales, and is also regarded as was of the least deserving Best Picture wins as it saw off competition from ‘Citizen Kane’ a film often regarded as the best film ever made.

It is a film told in flashback by Huw Morgan (Roddy McDowall) about his childhood in rural Wales at the turn of the last Century. The film looks at the changes in religion, economics and values over his childhood, especially at how the family struggle with the introduction of industry into the area. Maureen O’Hara plays the part of his sister with Walter Pidgeon as her love interest and the local minister.

The film is nothing if not charming. We see all the members of the family change over a period of years, and Ford manages to make us interested in the family. As a viewer we become involved with the characters from the beginning and this is one of the biggest successes of the film. Unfortunately whereas we are made to care about the family, due to the size and scale of the family, and the limitations of the film, some individual members of the family get lost.

Along with the story, the cinematography and music make this film memorable. We see beautiful camerawork, from sweeping scenes of rural Wales to more intimate scenes, and each one looks as if it was made with care: this is not a brash film but one that the makers clearly cared about. The scenes are backed with the tones of welsh male voice choirs. This, again, adds intimacy to the film, and makes it easy to like.

The acting is not the most memorable that I have seen in a Best Picture winner. This is largely because all roles are essentially supporting. Yes, it’s Huw Morgan telling the story, but he is not telling his story, rather the story of the family. O’Hara is pretty to watch, and competent, but it’s not a groundbreaking performance, and I’ve seen Pidgeon in more interesting roles.

‘How Green Was My Valley’ is essentially a heart-warming film about a bygone era, and yet despite its sentimentality, it never feels nauseating. This is largely due to fact that the characters are hardened and tackle anything that is thrown at them with a sense of determination, rather than wallowing in self-pity, and this allows the storyline to develop without getting trapped by the various misfortunes bestowed upon the family. It is a film that should be watched for its merits. It’s not ‘Citizen Kane’, but it is a very respectable and expertly directed piece of classic cinema and for that it should be acknowledged.

48. THE DEPARTED - 2006

2010-05-28T10:24:00.000-07:00

Set in Boston, ‘The Departed’ is based on the criminal underworld and the battle between the state police and the Irish mob. The police send Billy Costigan (Leonardo Di Caprio) to work undercover for Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) in his criminal gang. Costello begins to trust the newcomer and the police find out more and more about how they are working. What the police do not know is that Costello has sent his own mole into the police force in the form of Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon).

‘The Departed’, directed by Martin Scorsese, is one of the more unusual choices for Oscar winner. The typical Oscar winner is a character study which traces a character during a particular event, whereas ‘The Departed’ does not have a main character, but instead shows a series of events revealing some information to the audience, but holding back other information.

It is easily one of the best films of its genre to be made in recent years, and that is largely to do with the clever, twisting, turning plot that really does keep the viewer watching until the very end, and each turn leaves the viewer wanting more.
There is some fine acting to witness in this film as well. Di Caprio who is now really cementing himself as a serious actor is totally convincing in this role, and Matt Damon as his opposite is equally good. I have mentioned Nicholson before. I find he has a tendency to overact in many of his films, and I think that it is in ‘The Departed’ that he is most guilty of doing this. This is a serious film about organised crime, and yet there is something almost comedic about Nicholson’s performance: at times there is very little difference between his character here and as Jack Torrence in ‘The Shining’. There are a few scenes that I feel he almost ruins through this approach.

On a positive note, Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good in his supporting role as a ruthless and aggressive Sergeant and I feel does manage to control the screen without dominating and really does make good use of any screen time that he is given.

What I like about this film is that despite its length, or maybe because of it, the various plots and sub-plots all get developed fully: nothing is rushed and this means that there are none of the gaping plot holes or incredulous moments that can certainly be found in other films of this genre.

In short, ‘The Departed’ is an exciting violent thriller with some good acting, but it is really the twisting plot with fully developed storylines that makes this film rank firmly towards the middle of the best picture winners.

49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980

2010-05-28T09:09:00.000-07:00

The Academy Awards during the 1980s were full of films full of emotion and crying and families suffering together, and no film full of more trauma and emotional relationships than ‘Ordinary People’. Luckily it’s good.

Buck and Conrad (Timothy Hutton) are brothers. When Buck dies in a boating accident, Conrad feels responsible for his death and suicidal and starts undergoing extensive therapy. Their mother Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) does not show her feelings and puts on the performance that they are coping. She is cold towards her surviving son, leading him to feel unloved. The father (Donald Sutherland) tries to hold the family together but the audience have to watch this desperate and devastating story unfold.

What elevates this film over other tearjerkers of the era is that the film and characters do not behave in the way that one would expect. The actions of the mother especially feel wrong and this is what makes the film so utterly compelling. Her actions are such that the audience wants to know why she is acting in this way, and rather than presenting a shallow character of a grieving mother, we are actually presented with a much more complex and intriguing character. Mary Tyler Moore handles this part well, and although there are actresses who would have been more obvious choices, she does enough to make the part her own.

Sutherland is also highly watchable as the father who blames his bad parenting for the state of his surviving son. He is plays the helpless father well: torn between his distant wife and distressed son, he wants to appease everyone whilst he is grieving himself.

The person who really does make the film his own is Hutton. He scooped the Best Supporting Actor award for his performance, but really this is a Leading Actor role, and especially considering his young age he does a fantastic job. He manages to play the role of a young boy who is confused, devastated and lonely without ever over-acting for one minute. You can believe that he is in that situation and I cannot think of many child performances that I have seen that have been of such a high quality.

Despite the serious subject matter, the script never allows the film to become mawkish (a trait of lesser dramas) and the film takes a realist approach rather than going over the top, which would not have worked with this dark and tragic subject matter.

The film also tries to grasp the feeling of the snobbery and waspish attitudes of Illinois, the way that ‘American Beauty’ did 20 years later, and although I do not feel that ‘Ordinary People’ is quite the artistic triumph of ‘American Beauty’, it is a moving and memorable film that should be watched for some outstanding acting performances and for being a successful directorial debut for Robert Redford.

50. GLADIATOR - 2000

2010-05-28T07:30:00.000-07:00

Apologies that it has been so long since my previous post.

In the 2000s the sword and sandal epic became popular again, and these varied in quality from the awful ‘Alexander’, to the highly watchable ‘Troy’ and reached a peak with ‘Gladiator’, a tale of revenge in Ancient Rome.

The film tells the tale of Maximus (Russell Crowe), a Roman general, who is betrayed by Prince Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) after the death of the Emperor. Commodus orders the death of Maximus, and although he escapes, he finds his family murdered. After losing the will to carry on the general is captured by slave traders and sold to the owner of a Gladiator School, Proximo (Oliver Reed). Although he initially refuses to fight, he is clearly a brilliant fighter, and once his spirit is rebuilt, he vows to avenge the death of his family.

With big fight scenes, sweeping vistas and a proper hero to support, ‘Gladiator’ really is a great piece of entertainment. I am not usually one to really enjoy big modern blockbusters, favouring largely more serious dramas, but there is something about ‘Gladiator’ that I really enjoyed. It could have been a very dull film, with overly-long fight scenes, or unnecessarily sentimental with lengthy shots of Crowe finding himself, but it isn’t. Essentially it’s a very simple film in terms of the issues, and this is the film’s greatest strength: it doesn’t pretend to be anything that it isn’t. My issue with films such as ‘Avatar’ (not the worst culprit, but a recent one) is that they can feel a bit preachy and manipulative, but ‘Gladiator’ never goes off track. It entertains from start to finish.

Technically this is a beautifully made film. The cinematography is at once impressive and subtle. The visuals add to the film without dominating, and the film is always about the characters and never about the special effects. The same can be said about the music.

The acting is consistent throughout. Although there are better actors than Crowe, this part was made for him to play, and I enjoyed his performance.
Joaquin Phoenix is my favourite in this film. He is powerful, nasty and yet still manages to have a slight charisma, which is what I always want from a screen villain. Oliver Reed delivered his final film performance in this film and his career definitely ended on a high note. There are several other big names in this film, and I cannot criticise any of the performances, it is a very well balanced film.

Admittedly this film is not the most intellectual film ever made. The script, whilst it contains some good one-liners, is there to give the actors something to say, rather than to be admired for its own merit. Having said that, this film was not meant to be anything more than great entertainment, and it is therefore in my eyes a success. Ridley Scott is also responsible for ‘Alien’, one of the greatest science-fiction films ever made and whereas ‘Gladiator’ doesn’t quite do enough to challenge ‘Alien’ as his greatest film, it’s a film that anyone should enjoy.

RECAP - 50 TO GO

2010-04-28T14:46:00.000-07:00

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

51. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST - 1975

2010-04-28T14:40:00.001-07:00

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.

52. GIGI - 1958

2010-04-28T13:36:00.000-07:00

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.

53. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937

2010-04-28T12:40:00.001-07:00

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.

54. PLATOON - 1986

2010-04-24T03:13:00.000-07:00

‘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.

55. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING - 2003

2010-04-16T16:34:00.000-07:00

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.

56. HAMLET - 1948

2010-04-16T15:40:00.000-07:00

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.

57. THE HURT LOCKER - 2009

2010-04-16T09:39:00.001-07:00

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.

58. MRS MINIVER - 1942

2010-04-16T09:02:00.000-07:00

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.

59. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966

2010-04-15T16:32:00.001-07:00

‘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.

60. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998

2010-04-15T04:11:00.000-07:00

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.

RECAP - 60 TO GO

2010-04-14T03:20:00.001-07:00

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

61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985

2010-04-14T03:12:00.001-07:00

‘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.

62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947

2010-04-13T02:31:00.000-07:00

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.

63. ANNIE HALL - 1977

2010-04-12T15:30:00.001-07:00

‘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.

64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001

2010-04-10T08:39:00.000-07:00

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.

65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978

2010-04-10T07:50:00.000-07:00

‘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.

66. OLIVER! - 1968

2010-04-10T06:57:00.000-07:00

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.

67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990

2010-04-08T03:14:00.000-07:00

‘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.

68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981

2010-04-08T02:34:00.000-07:00

‘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.

69. CAVALCADE - 1933

2010-04-08T01:54:00.000-07:00

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.

70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989

2010-04-06T15:51:00.000-07:00

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.

RECAP - 70 TO GO

2010-03-24T04:53:00.001-07:00

82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2006
78. BRAVEHEART - 1995
77. ROCKY - 1976
76. TOM JONES - 1963
75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952
74. THE BROADWAY MELODY - 1929
73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983
72. GOING MY WAY - 1944
71. GANDHI - 1982

STILL TO COME:

WINGS - 1928
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
GRAND HOTEL - 1932
CAVALCADE - 1933
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934
MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
GONE WITH THE WIND - 1939

REBECCA - 1940
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
MRS MINIVER - 1942
CASABLANCA - 1943
THE LOST WEEKEND - 1945
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946
GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
HAMLET - 1948
ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
ALL ABOUT EVE - 1950

AN AMERICAN IN PARIS - 1951
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY - 1953
ON THE WATERFRONT - 1954
MARTY - 1955
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
GIGI - 1958
BEN HUR - 1959
THE APARTMENT - 1960
WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - 1962

MY FAIR LADY - 1964
THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
OLIVER! - 1968
MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
PATTON - 1970
THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971
THE GODFATHER - 1972
THE STING - 1973

THE GODFATHER PART 2 - 1974
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST - 1975
ANNIE HALL - 1977
THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
AMADEUS - 1984
OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
PLATOON - 1986

THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
RAIN MAN - 1988
DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 1991
UNFORGIVEN - 1992
SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
TITANIC - 1997
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998

AMERICAN BEAUTY - 1999
GLADIATOR - 2000
A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
CHICAGO - 2002
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
THE DEPARTED - 2006
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - 2007
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008
THE HURT LOCKER - 2009

71. GANDHI - 1982

2010-03-24T04:50:00.001-07:00

‘Gandhi’ is a true epic. It details the life of one of the 20th Century’s most important political figures: the anti-violent Gandhi, from finding himself as a young man through to his death, through his struggle to liberate India from the British, and protest against the unfair laws imposed on the native Indian population.
I shall start with the good things about this film. Ben Kingsley’s performance as Gandhi is brilliant. He is totally convincing as the title character is appearance and mannerisms. If there was one award that this film truly deserved, then the award for best actor is it. He manages to portray the strength and gravitas of the character without overplaying the part, and you truly do forget that this is Kingsley and not Gandhi himself.
The cinematography is very impressive. This film was made before the days of computer generated crowds and the big scenes are truly impressive to watch.

The trouble that I have with this film is that I find it a bit dull. Richard Attenborough clearly wants to portray Gandhi as a remarkable and wonderful person, which is fine. I have no reason to say that Gandhi was any less great than this film says. The trouble with this, however, is that watching a serious three hour film about a person with no faults does not always make for entertaining viewing. I compare this to films such as ‘Amadeus’: Mozart is arguably the greatest composer ever lived, yet if the film was purely about his genius, it would be dull, so by portraying him as totally vulgar adds a twist to the story. ‘Patton’ the biography of General Patton is another good example. He was a great wartime leader and strategic thinker, but in this film is shown as being eccentric and difficult. I am not suggesting that Gandhi should have been portrayed as vulgar, difficult or in a negative light at all in this film, but what I do feel is that if the subject of a biopic is someone who you want to show as being faultless then the film needs some other way of making it interesting, and this, for me, it what stops the film being any better.

I did not particularly feel that I gained anything from watching ‘Gandhi’. It is not accurate enough to be treated as a documentary and not entertaining enough to be regarded as a piece of wonderful cinema. Instead, for me, it falls into the category of an admirable and respectable film that is a handsome tribute to one of the most important political figures of the last century, but cannot compare with many of the great biopic tributes that have been made.

72. GOING MY WAY - 1944

2010-03-23T18:07:00.000-07:00

The win of ‘Going My Way’ is one of those winners that can only be explained by the year that it won. After five years of war, the academy voters probably wanted to honour something that would bring a smile to their faces and forget about the never ending war. ‘Going My Way’ ending up collecting seven academy awards, a fact that now does seem quite hard to believe: it is quite simply the happiest film to ever win the award for best picture.

The film revolves around Bing Crosby, who plays Father O’Malley, a young clergyman who goes to his new parish. Before he joined the Catholic Church the Father clearly led a more colourful life, and this history enables him to influence a young gang of street urchins (turning the thugs into a choir who sing about sunbeams is a personal favourite), and to take control of the finances of the church. Initially he regarded with suspicion by his superior, Father Fitzgibbon, played by Barry Fitzgerald, but even he is eventually won over by Crosby’s cheery nature and ability to help all.

‘Going My Way’ is a pleasant film to watch, and Crosby is as watchable as always. Fitzgerald is especially good as the slightly more complex older figure, and there are some very cheery musical numbers, including the Academy Award winning ‘Singing on a Star’. There is very little else, however, that one can really say about this film. Although the acting is perfectly adequate, the script and storyline are so undemanding that these cannot be described as classic roles in the history of cinema.

Where this film does succeed is that although it is so very happy, it does cleverly avoid plunging into over sentimentality. It is possible to genuinely like the character that Crosby plays without finding him nauseating, which, given the consistently jolly outlook that he has is saying quite a lot.
Not surprisingly, the most delightfully sweet moment of the entire film is the last scene in which Father O’Malley does something for his friend and colleague Fitzgibbon that trumps all of the other delightful things that he has done over the course of the film.

‘Going My Way’ is not a great piece of cinema, but it is so heart warming, that it is impossible not to watch this film without feeling warm inside. It is a light look at how the problems that people have can sometimes be solved through simple actions, and high melodrama and complex resolutions are not always needed if an audience is to be entertained.

73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983

2010-03-20T08:27:00.000-07:00

There is a certain type of film that flourished throughout the 1980s, and that is the emotional family drama. These films look at the developing relationships between close family members or lifelong friends and vary in quality. Of these films that won the Best Picture award, ‘Terms of Endearment’ is my least favourite.

The film charts the relationship between Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) and her daughter Emma (Debra Winger), from Emma’s birth until death separates them. Aurora is a fearsome character who finds it difficult to express to her daughter how much she loves her, whereas Emma is the daughter who, smothered by her mother, marries the first man that she finds and has children of her own.

The main relationship in the film is between Aurora and Emma, but we are also invited to look at others: between Emma and her husband, between Emma and her son, between Aurora and her son-in-law, and most interestingly between Aurora and her next door neighbour Garrett (played by Jack Nicholson). Nicholson’s character is a womanising retired astronaut whom Aurora initially cannot stand, and later falls in love with.

There are good things about this film. Most noticeably is Shirley MacLaine’s performance, who won the Leading Actress Oscar for this performance. She plays her part with conviction and she truly brings the part of this difficult woman to life. The film is at its best when she is on screen. The other performances I am less keen on: Debra Winger is fairly average and lets herself be overacted by her older co-star, Jeff Daniels is largely forgettable as her husband, and personally I find Jack Nicholson just too over-the-top to take seriously. It is because of this that I find the film hard to like. I watch this film and at no point can I really believe that MacLaine and Nicholson would ever like each other. She is just too proper and he is too over-the-top for be to believe that they would ever want to spend any time with each other.

The mother-daughter relationship is more credible. I find their relationship believable, and I can understand why they act in the way that they do in the final half hour of the film. The final part of the film has one aim and that is to make its audience weep as the characters are forced to acknowledge their true feelings for each other. It’s the natural conclusion for the film, and I think that there are more emotional endings in this type of film (‘Kramer vs Kramer’ being a good example), which are less predictable and better written.
I do not dislike this film, but I think of it more as a weepy romantic comic drama than a really high quality piece of cinema.

74. THE BROADWAY MELODY OF 1929 - 1929

2010-03-19T17:16:00.000-07:00

Another film to frequently appear towards the tail end of great best picture winners is this, the second ever winner of the award, and the first to be filmed in sound. ‘The Broadway Melody of 1929’ (not to be confused with any of the several other Broadway Melody films that followed) is a delightful example of an early Hollywood musical, and should be watched by anybody interested in the history of musicals, but really does have very little appeal for anybody else.

Anita Page and Bessie Love play sisters who move to New York in order to become a vaudeville act on Broadway for Francis Zanfield (not Florenz Ziegfeld!). There are two men in their new life, Eddie, a family friend, confused about which sister he loves, and Jock, who is, to be honest, a bit of a cad.

All films should be judged against other films of their era, and I can think of no truer example than with ‘Broadway Melody’. It is a transition film, from silent to talkie, and it really shows: title cards appear throughout the film and shots with no talking are silent with no background noise, which makes for slightly disconcerting, if charming, viewing. That’s not to say that the film is not without its qualities: the acting (especially from the two women) is strong and it is responsible for the Broadway Melody song (made famous in ‘Singin’ in the Rain’), and the film offers an easy viewing experience with some charming scenes.

Personally, as a lover of great musicals, I would love to rank this film higher in my list. Without this film, ‘Top Hat’ would never have been made, and this film is clearly the inspiration for ‘Singin’ in the Rain’, another classic musical film. ‘The Broadway Melody’ was the blueprint for musicals to come: a simple plot, enhanced with music, dancing and costumes.

Unfortunately, I cannot justify increasing the ranking: the cinematography is largely uninspiring (there are plenty of films previous to this which have excellent cinematography, yet the camera barely moves during this film), and the supporting acting is largely wooden. This is a film that I wish could have been great: it is one of the most important films ever made, especially in the context of musicals, and unfortunately it isn’t, but it is a film that I can watch with fondness and respect: a landmark in the world of cinema.

75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952

2010-03-19T16:34:00.000-07:00

To modern audiences, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is mainly known for being widely regarded as the worst film to win the academy award for Best Picture. In my countdown of ranking the best pictures, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is firmly in the section of films with good qualities that I do not consider great works of art, but that are infinitely better than ‘Forrest Gump’.

‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is a film set in the circus. Charlton Heston in his first major role plays the circus master (Brad Bradon) whose girlfriend Holly (Betty Hutton) is the star trapeze artist. In order to ensure that the circus is profitable, Bradon is forced to employ The Great Sebastian to be the star trapeze act. This, understandably, does not impress Holly and the two trapeze artists try to outclass each other in the ring; on ground Sebastian tries to seduce her. The plot is uncomplicated, but entertaining, as the relationship between the three main characters shifts over the course of the film, and the acting is fine, without being spectacular.

As well as telling the above story, the film also does its best to give an insight into the life of the circus. De Mille used real circus performers in order to gain an insight into life in the big top, and also enabled his to include some fantastic photography of the performances. Unfortunately, this is probably the reason for the film’s poor reputation. If the film had focused on the story between the main characters, it could have been developed further and become much more emotionally complex. If the film had focused on the circus elements it could have potentially become a beautifully shot art classic. As it stands, it becomes a slightly overlong mix of the two, which makes for shaky, if admittedly sometimes entertaining, viewing.

By far the best performance of the film comes from Jimmy Stewart. It is incredible to think that of all the classic Jimmy Stewart films made, the only two to feature on the list are this film and the little watched (nowadays) ‘You Can’t Take It With You’. He plays a clown with a dark secret who never takes his make up off, and is as brilliant in this role as all his other performances, even if it is a surprisingly role for him to have taken. His input to the story at the end of the film is a perfect example of how justice was carried out in Hollywood during this period.
One of the other reasons for this film to be poorly regarded is that it was released in 1952, a strong year generally for film. It was nominated for best picture against ‘High Noon’ and ‘The Quiet Man’ and ‘Viva Zapata!’, ‘The Snows of Kilimanjaro’ and most importantly ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ were all released in the same year as well.

In short, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is not a perfect film by any means. It tries to be too many things, and fails in several areas. Having said that, it is an entertaining watch and should be enjoyed for its cinematography and Jimmy Stewart’s performance, and even for the simple love triangle story. It is not the greatest Best Picture winner ever, but I could not ever agree that it is the worst.

76. TOM JONES - 1963

2010-03-19T15:37:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, ‘Tom Jones’ is the most surprising Best Picture winner. The film is the adaptation of the classic Henry Fielding book and it is told as a raunchy, farcical comedy with scenes that pay homage to silent movies. The title character was abandoned as a baby and brought up by a kindly squire. He falls in love with the fair Sophia but due to his lack of parentage and foolish behaviour he is shunned by the other characters. He then proceeds to sleep his way through the film and cause havoc wherever he goes.

I found ‘Tom Jones’ perfectly pleasant to watch in the same way that I find Carry on films enjoyable. Albert Finney plays the role well: he is a lovable rogue, but the film does not show any of the characters good qualities that are described in the book. His loyal nature goes unmentioned in order to make the character more of a caricature and less of a credible human being. Because of this, the film can never considered a high brow drama or anything more than what it is: a fun frolic.
The best moment in the film is the iconic feasting scene: Tom Jones meets Mrs Waters (Joyce Redman) and the two of them make lustful eyes at each other whilst gorging themselves on a massive feast. It is a wonderful scene and a real iconic comedy moment.

Good things about the film include the acting: it was nominated for five acting academy awards (no film has more), the music, the hilarious feasting scene and the stylish way that the silent film sections are interspersed with the main film; but the overriding problem with the film is that I cannot take it seriously as a great piece of cinema. ‘Tom Jones’ gives the viewer nothing to think about and it is, when it boils down to it, nothing more than a well acted, but silly, comedy picture that it very much of its day.

1963 is not widely regarded as the best year for cinema, and when you look at the list of best picture nominations for the year, there are no films that provoke a horrified reaction, ‘What?! Tom Jones beat that?!’, until you realise that 1963 was the year that ‘Fellini’s 8 ½’ was released. However, the Academy has never awarded the Best Picture film to a foreign language film and therefore there is no surprise that ‘Tom Jones’ triumphed over that landmark piece of cinema. ‘Tom Jones’ is essentially a film of its day: a period comedy, in a very 1960s style with the main character as bold an anti-hero as any.

77. ROCKY - 1976

2010-03-14T14:58:00.000-07:00

I appreciate that I have placed this film much further down the list than most people would. I do not hate ‘Rocky’, we have entered the section of the countdown where I am covering films that I think are fine, but that certainly did not warrant a Best Picture win. For many, ‘Rocky’ is the ultimate sports drama: the tale of the underdog who has a chance to fight the world champion, and the film ends with a boxing showdown between the two.

I have an issue with sports drama as a genre. The excitement of sport is the unpredictability and not knowing what will happen. This cannot easily be transferred to the big screen because a director will usually be pushing the viewer to want one outcome or another and then either granting that wish or not. The outcome of the film is in the hands of the film makers and not the sportsmen.

A good sports film needs to focus on the characters and their issues and this is where ‘Rocky’ fails where other sports films succeed. Take ‘Million Dollar Baby’ for example, the film is not about boxing but about the relationships between believable and credible characters, in a boxing setting. Sylvester Stallone is just not a good enough actor to be able to create a believable and relatable character: we are supposed to want him to win and defeat the champion purely because he is the underdog, but when I watch this film I just don’t care. I don’t care if he wins or not and I don’t care if he ends up with Adrian, because he does not create a character that is worth caring about. His character Rocky also does not seem to care about the outcome of the match. At the end he seems more interested in Adrian, and their love is more important to him than the match.

Adrian is an uninspiring love interest. She is shy and quiet and everyone thinks she is ugly until she removes her glasses (a picture worthy of a Best Picture win really needs to come up with something slightly more original and sophisticated than this), and in honestly far too drippy to really take seriously. Rocky’s trainer, played by Burgess Meredith, is good and is by far the best thing about the film.

The film is certainly watchable, the soundtrack is fun and the fight scenes are good, but in all honesty the film is just a standard, unsophisticated low budget flick which leaves no lasting impression from a cinematic perspective. Rocky has become a cult figure and a symbol of the underdog evidenced in the countless sequels that have been made, but the film cannot be viewed for its style or substance.

78. BRAVEHEART - 1995

2010-03-13T09:28:00.000-08:00

Watchable? Yes. Good cinema? No.
The main criticism of ‘Braveheart’ seems to be that it is totally historically inaccurate and it is. Events were twisted to the extent that any credibility is wiped out immediately: the princess would have been about three when William Wallace died, the Battle of Stirling Bridge is missing a bridge, and the costume dating is comparable to 18th Century Traders wearing modern day business suits. I can however cope with this, I am more than aware that the plot of ‘Amadeus’ is completely fabricated, and it takes nothing away from the film, but ‘Braveheart’ is billed as a historical epic, and really needs to have something in it that is slightly accurate to be taken seriously.

That, however, is not my main criticism of ‘Braveheart’. My main criticism of this film is that it is nothing more than blockbuster pulp fiction masquerading as something much more serious, and this is largely due to Mel Gibson’s over the top, subtle as a breezeblock performance as the hero William Wallace. The character that he creates is totally one dimensional. He is the good guy, and even after this lengthy film is over we still know nothing about this character and nothing about the subtleties of the how Wallace or any of the supporting characters feel: essentially this is an empty film.

I can only assume that Gibson (who also directed this film) has something against the English. He shows every English character to be totally evil and also totally stupid. Every English person in the film seems to like nothing more than to rape, pillage and murder, and whereas they seem to have a pretty firm stronghold over Scotland, the English King is so stupid that he fires arrows at his own army. The English in ‘Braveheart’ make the orcs in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ look like the children in the ‘The Sound of Music’. I appreciate the fact that the English are easy targets with their numerous colonies, but to portray a whole nation as being quite this hideous is bordering on racism. You would be hard pushed to find another film that makes a whole race of people look quite this venomous.

The scenery is beautiful and makes you want to go to Scotland to see such landscapes (and also to get out of England for fear of being slaughtered by my fellow countrymen either accidently or on purpose), but other qualities are few and far between. I urge anyone about to watch this film to watch it for what it is: a thoughtless crowd-pleaser about goodies and badies, and remember that it is not a film to be taken remotely seriously.

79. CRASH - 2005

2010-03-13T08:25:00.000-08:00

‘Crash’ is one big frustrating mess of a film. The premise behind ‘Crash’ is interesting: several storylines come together over the course of three days cumulating in a crash of both cars and cultures. It is a film about how closely we are all linked, about racial prejudice, about how people are not what they first seem. This film could have been great, but it has so many faults that it belongs firmly towards the bottom of this list.

‘Crash’ is set in Los Angeles and takes place over three days. We are introduced to many characters: the wealthy white housewife of a DA, a racist white cop, some black car thieves, a successful black Hollywood director and his wife, the list goes on… A series of events bring the characters together in a frankly unlikely series of events. This is the film’s first flaw: the film takes the six degrees of separation theory and runs havoc with it, causing most unlikely turns of events, not because the paths of the characters could cross, but solely because it would help the storyline. I was instantly amazed by the shift pattern of the LAPD.

My main reason for disliking this film comes from the individual stories, and how it is assumed that we should be able to identify with them. Matt Dillon plays a racist cop. He pulls over the aforementioned Hollywood director and his wife late at night, whilst she is performing fellatio. But, Dillon’s character is not just a bit racist, he is so racist that he decides to molest the offending woman. The point is made. The character is a racist cop from Los Angeles. However, the very next day, the same cop saves the same woman from certain death and risks his own like to do it. Of course, Dillon’s character once had some bad experience from black people. This is supposed to excuse his actions. I think. Even though he is racist, inside he is a good person, and this is the point of the film.
The flip side of this story involves Ryan Phillippe. He is not racist. However, when he picks up a black hitchhiker from the side of the road he shoots him when he thinks that he will pull a gun on him. The hitchhiker however was in fact only going to give Phillippe his St Christopher. In this instance, the film wants to tell us that we are all a little bit racist even if we think that we are not. Each person involved in this film has a similar story to tell, and each story is equally contrived.

It’s such a shame that a film that tries so hard to be clever ends up being a totally farcical. The individual performances are largely not bad: Dillon is notably good, as is Sandra Bullock, but there are no real opportunities to get to know these characters as anything more than props which are supposed to signify either racists who are not racist inside, or non racists who actually are, and this is why the film fails to really engage its audience in any of the carryings on between them. In 2005 the Academy had the opportunity to award the Best Picture Award to the wonderful ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and instead they opted to honour this pretentious offering.

80. CIMARRON - 1931

2010-03-13T06:36:00.000-08:00

If this ranking was based entirely on the first opening sequence of the films, then ‘Cimarron’ would be somewhere near the top of the list. The first sequence shows the start of the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 and it is fantastically filmed, giving the viewer the impression that they are about to engage in an adventure of mammoth proportions. The rest of the film does not live up to this exciting opening.
The film then deals with one family, and the role that they play in their new surroundings, over the course of the next four decades, ending in 1930, the year that the film was made.

My main problem with ‘Cimarron’ is the husband and father of the family, Yancey Cravat, played by Richard Dix during his silent to talkie transition. He is one of the least appealing hero figures in film: chauvinist, boisterous and does not appear to really care about his family at all, but despite this, the film seems to portray him as a hero and we are supposed to care about him, which is hard to understand. Dix’s acting is over the top and almost comedic: the role is played as if the film is a silent comedy, and not an epic western.

Irene Dunne as his wife and centre of the family and the community is better to watch. She plays the supportive wife with subtlety and style and comes into her own towards the end of the film when she finally has enough of her husband constantly disappearing for years on end, and stands on her own. Aside from the opening sequence the scenes featuring Dunne are the strongest.
There are a variety of supporting roles that come and go in a seemingly aimless manner: the town prostitute with a big heart, the noisy neighbours and the assortment of western characters, but these are too small to make a difference one way or another.

One of the main criticisms of the film, historically, has been how black characters were treated. The portrayal of the simpering Isaiah is, by modern standards, appalling, and although not all films of this era treat black characters in the same way, these characters were not unusual for such films. It also needs to be considered that this film was lifted from the Edna Ferber novel, and the film only replicates the treatments that are found in the book.
In short, ‘Cimarron’ is only really worth watching for those interested in seeing an early western. If you want a great epic then look elsewhere.

81. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS - 1956

2010-03-12T18:06:00.000-08:00

My opinion of ‘Around the World in Eighty Days’ can be summed up in one sentence: It’s not the worst Best Picture winner ever, but it is not in the top eighty.
The adaptation of the Jules Verne classic is an obvious choice for a film. David Niven plays Phileas Fogg who is challenged to make his way around the world in eighty days. He sets off with his new butler, Passepartout, but meanwhile the Bank of England, has been burgled and people suspect that Fogg might be behind this.
This film is not offensive in any way, and I do not object to it as a concept but it’s also not remotely interesting. The length is painful: I estimate it to be approximately 17 hours long, some scenes seem never ending, and to me it feels essentially like a second rate children’s film but with very little charm.

The characters are totally one dimensional, the script basic and the story totally undemanding, but despite that, it is the production that frustrates me. The film is supposed to be impressive: shots from all over the world in vivid colour, but in doing these grand scenes it neglects its main characters. The close-up shots of Niven are few and far between which means that his acting and expressions are never picked up, and Cantiflas’ Passepartout is such an irritating character that any screen time spent on him does not please.

Fans of film should watch this for one reason: how many famous faces can be spotted? For this reason alone the film is worth the watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Frank Sinatra, Buston Keaton and Marlene Dietrich can all be found making cameo roles, and spotting these screen icons can be a fun pastime. But this is the problem of ‘Around the World in 80 Days’: any film during which the viewer has to entertain themselves by spotting Noel Coward in the background is not worthy of a Best Picture win. Ever. 1956 was not a bad year for the big screen: ‘Giant’ and ‘The King and I’ were both contenders, but regrettably I suppose that any film with such a large cast of real celebrities must have attracted some attention that the academy voters could not ignore. I can understand how this film won when this is taking into account, but I cannot see how anyone could honestly see this film as a genuinely good film, let alone the best picture of any given year.

82. FORREST GUMP - 1994

2010-03-12T17:06:00.000-08:00

There are some films that won Best Picture that surprise me to this day, and the fact that ‘Tom Jones’ won is the most obvious example. In my opinion, however, the least deserving winner is actually an obvious choice: a film that aims to make the everyday man feel good about himself and show that nothing is impossible. ‘Forrest Gump’ is an obvious winner.

I want to say something good about all 82 best picture winners, I honestly do. But, with ‘Forrest Gump’ I am almost stuck. Forrest Gump is a simple man who is encouraged by his mother to choose his own path in life. He does so, and on his way becomes involved in many historical events, and changes the course of history without even realising it. The reason that he does not notice the impact that he has made is that he is only interested in making his childhood friend, Jenny, fall in love with him. The very premise of the film makes me feel a little queasy.

I shall run through the different part of film production in the attempt to clarify why I think the film has few redeeming features. I shall start with the acting. Tom Hanks plays the title role, and this is where personal opinion really comes into play. I’m not a big Tom Hanks fan. I cannot, infact, think of any Tom Hanks film which I would actively want to re-watch (expect for the ‘Toy Story’ films), and this film does nothing to improve my opinion of him. It’s a fairly bland performance in my view. The supporting cast are largely forgettable: Sally Fields is the biggest name in it after Hanks, and she is pushed to sideline after declaring that everyone loved her after winning the Best Actress Award for ‘Places in the Heart’.
The storyline is fairly non-existent. This, on its own is fine. There are plenty of films with little or no storyline that are brilliant (‘La dolce vita’ being a fine example), but the storyline cannot be therefore used as one of the strong points of ‘Forrest Gump’.

The best things about the film are the cinematography and the soundtrack. The title characters journey through different decades and meeting different historical characters in different places lends itself perfectly to these areas, and on this score the film does not disappoint. However, a few picturesque shots and a couple of nice tunes do not make a Best Picture winner.

Whereas I have so far explained why I do not rate this film, I have yet to state why I despise it. The best word that I can use to describe this film is nauseating. It is so patronisingly repulsive that I cannot see how any fan of film can watch this and not realise that it is manipulative nonsense about one dimensional characters that do not develop over the course of this long and drawn out faux-history biopic.
When you consider other films that were released in the same year, the fact that this film won becomes even more ridiculous, especially the magnificent ‘Pulp Fiction’, one of the most influential films of the 1990s and responsible for cementing Tarantino as of the important directors of his generation.
In short, in my opinion, ‘Forrest Gump’ is a dreadful film.

Introduction

2010-03-12T15:46:00.000-08:00

Last weekend 'The Hurt Locker' became the 82nd winner of the most desired award in the film industry: the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Throughout the history of the awards the winner of this coveted award has caused much debate, and everyone has an opinion on the winners: from the grand epic ‘Ben-Hur’, to the low budget ‘No Country for Old Men’, from the musical ‘West Side Story’ to the silent ‘Wings’ and from the comedic ‘It Happened One Night’ to the most serious ‘Schindler’s List’.
In this blog I will attempt to rank the 82 winners in reverse order, from the film that I thought should never have won, to what is, in my opinion, the greatest film ever made. Film, like all art forms is subjective, and the opinions expressed here are my own and I am always willing to hear the opinions of others and hope that if I make any factual errors I will be corrected. Some of my views will be widely followed, and there will be some that many people disagree with, but I hope that you enjoy reading what I have to say and join in the debate.
Best wishes
Z