This was a series of posts I did during the 2023 30 Days of Oscar feature on my Cinema Maven Facebook page. The countdown was based on a healthy mixture of objective review of the elements of filmmaking, and a bit of subjective in it too. That said, this countdown was not a list of my favorite Best Picture winners. It is meant to be a more critical list. My own favorites in many cases would differ wildly.

94/94. THE BROADWAY MELODY (1928/29) A sister act attempts to find success on the Great White Way, and when love threatens to break them apart, one sister fakes love with another man to help the other one out.

Something has to be dead last in a countdown, and this won that prize, though I don’t believe it is a terrible movie. Nearly a century later, it holds little appeal as a trailblazing musical. It also has technical and writing problems. This was made in the very early sound days when studios were rushing to get out the brand new concept, and musicals seemed like the perfect showcase for it. What was produced was a semi-charming piece with bad sound, tinny voices, and a schlock love story (that took itself too seriously). On its plus side, the actors give reasonably good performances given the new medium, and the music is good. Still, later iterations of this movie are better. Better still is “Singin’ in the Rain” if you want to watch what Hollywood must have been like in 1929 (and “Singin’” was clearly influenced by “Broadway”).

93/94. CRASH (2005) This post-9/11 narrative interweaves several storylines dealing with racism and how the characters (White and people of color) handle it.

Despite some powerhouse actors (some of whom are good in this movie, some of whom aren’t) this movie is, for lack of a more subtle word, a mess. It is overt and obvious in its sense of importance and does nothing to advance the real conversation on race that it pretends to be about. Instead, it has facile ideas of what racism is and how it can be fixed. The good characters are not terribly likable; the bad ones are complete caricatures. Actually, they are virtually all caricatures of the ideas they represent. Instead of a thoughtful and in-depth look at racism and xenophobia, it resorts to cheap, stereotyped Blaxploitation. It whitewashes reality, and its ending veers toward White Savior Syndrome, seemingly not understanding how racism works, especially systemic racism, or what it is actually about. It is badly edited. And like many movies of different stories weaved together, how the film intertwines them seems contrived and not terribly believable. In short, this movie could have been so much better, and more meaningful, with just a little subtlety and less of a heavy hand. It beating BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is a hard sell for me, both critically and personally. But to be honest even had “Brokeback” been from a different year, there isn’t a world where “Crash” deserved its win. More and more critics and audiences have agreed. The only reason it isn’t dead last is that it is still more watchable and more relevant than #94.

92/94. 92. CIMARRON (1930/31) A man who loves to go walk-about for years at a time, and his settled wife do what they can to bring statehood to Oklahoma over a 40-year period from the initial land rush.

A reasonably good movie that didn’t survive well. [One of many.] Richard Dix, Irene Dunne, and the rest of the cast are good in it, especially Dunne. And it has the distinction of being the first Western to win Best Picture, which makes it of historical significance. But it is filled with racism and racist tropes, its pacing is uneven, and its length (just over two hours) feels longer. The hero is not terribly likable, and Dix could do little to bring sympathy to him. Dunne’s character, as the wife, stays put and runs the family paper and is the real hero of the piece. The film romanticizes Manifest Destiny (in an adventurous spirit), but its only appeal today is for the actors and its curiosity value. FUN FACT: This is one of only two films (along with “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”) to be nominated in every eligible category. It won three, including of course Best Picture.

91/94. CAVALCADE (1932/33) This pre-code story represents English life from the late Victorian period until the Depression, from the point of view of a single affluent family.

Like “Forrest Gump” later, it features many actual historical events and the fictional family’s reaction and involvement with them. This includes The Boer War, Queen Victoria’s death, the 1909 historic airplane crossing of the English Channel, the sinking of the Titanic, and World War I. Its title comes from the title cards which break the story into its various acts. The actors are good, and the film is reasonably well-paced and pretty to watch, but it is also terribly shmaltzy and instead of a cohesive story, it hops from event to event.

90/94. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD (1936) This is the semi-biographical story of the rise of impresario Florenz Ziegfeld, a Broadway producer, and creator of the famous Ziegfeld Follies. It is also the melodramatic story of his off-stage shenanigans and features a love triangle. Coming in at three hours, it was also very long, even by today’s standards. It is the poor man’s “Citizen Kane,” and takes liberal interpretations with historic reality. On the plus side, it features some great show tunes and choreography, and it has an all-star cast, including a few cameos. Unfortunately, much of the acting is at best adequate, if not over-exaggerated. And during a year in which one of the greatest movies ever made – MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN – was nominated, it is a near travesty that this film won. But Hollywood does love its extravaganzas.

FUN FACT: This became the first musical for which an actor won. Luise Ranier won the first of back-to-back Oscars for Best Actress, considered one of the least-deserved wins in Oscar history.

89/94. GREEN BOOK (2018) When a Black pianist goes on tour in the early ‘60s South, he hires a Bronx bouncer as his driver. What begins as a fractious relationship grows close as the driver begins to sympathize with the pianist’s treatment in the South. The title refers to the travel guide used by Blacks traveling in the Jim Crow South.

Had this film been made thirty years ago or more, it would almost certainly be considered better. That it was made in this era makes this film’s faults far worse. It is one of a handful of movies that the Academy loves that suffers from White Savior Syndrome. It has a deeply out-of-touch perspective on race. It skips over some of the uglier aspects of the real story, and it leaves us with a happy ending that too easily gives the impression that all we need to do is get to know each other and all will be fine. What’s worse, it suggests that the respect of a White man is needed to complete the Black man. Again, heavy White Savior stuff. There is also potential historical inaccuracy, as the family has also disagreed with the film’s portrayal, saying that Tony was Don Shirley’s employee, not his friend. (That is, however, contradicted by interviews with Shirley.) On the plus side, the two lead actors both give excellent performances, and it is a very enjoyable well-paced film. Nevertheless, there were better choices for Best Picture that year about the experiences of Blacks, including fellow nominees “BlacKKKlansman” and “Black Panther.”

88/94. A BEAUTIFUL MIND (2001) This is the story of mathematician and schizophrenic Dr. John Nash.

This is a paint-by-numbers look at mental illness and an overly sentimental look at that. Despite excellent performances by Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly (who won Best Supporting Actress,) Paul Bettany, and others, it is slick and formulaic and yet another film passing itself off as “Important,” which can sometimes backfire. This film garnered a great deal of criticism from mental illness advocates, especially among the schizophrenia community. It also garnered criticism from Dr. Nash himself, who said the movie went off track and didn’t have a lot to do with what he actually experienced. [For the record, Nash *did* commend the filmmakers for how they handled the mathematics side.] It was also heavily criticized for the casting of the black-Irish Connelly, rather than the accented Latina that Mrs. Nash actually was. But its biggest problem may have been its saccharine and melodramatic screenplay, which felt like it was milking every scrap of emotional worth out of each scene as humanly possible.

87/94 AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS (1956) A man bets that he can travel around the world in eighty days. He finds meaning in his life through his travels.

This highly entertaining adaptation of the Jules Verne novel has a first-rate (and all-star) cast. At three hours, it is longer than needed but is frothily enjoyable. It has excellent cinematography and production design, a fine score, and costumes that fit the grand production. Hollywood (and the Academy) love to reward big production movies, but the reality is, while very enjoyable and funny, there is little substance other than eye candy.

86/94 GOING MY WAY (1944) A progressive priest is sent to improve a parish, currently run by an aging – and traditional – priest. The younger priest’s unorthodox approach at first turns off the older man but they later become friends.

A heartwarming wartime movie made to help salve the morale of American audiences, it does its job well. This musical was the biggest box office hit of the year, and the sequel (THE BELLS OF ST. MARY’S) was the biggest box office hit of the next year. Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald carry this movie on their shoulders, bringing with it humor, warmth, and sweetness. That last trait is too prevalent, especially the prevalence of songs for Crosby. It was nominated for ten Academy Awards, and aside from Best Picture, it also won for Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, and the popular song, “Swinging on a Star.”

FUN FACT: Barry Fitzgerald, the old priest in the film, was actually nominated in both the lead actor category and the supporting category. He won the latter. After that awards year, the rules were changed to prevent something like that from happening again.

85/94 BRAVEHEART (1995) After English King Edward I (Longshanks) invades Scotland, rebel fighter William Wallace decides to fight for Scottish independence, despite the caution of Scottish leaders such as Robert the Bruce. The results are disastrous.

This epic movie has much to recommend it. It is visually gorgeous, with the landscape and the cinematography, a beautiful score that became a major bestseller, and mostly good performances, including Brendan Gleeson, Angus Macfadyen, and Sophie Marceau. It is such a sweeping epic, and with such a well-choreographed battle scene, that one cannot help but be caught up in it. It was nominated for ten awards (none of them acting) and won five. It is on many AFI lists, including Heroes & Villains, Movie Quotes, and Film Scores.

Where the movie goes wrong is that it has become arguably the single most historically inaccurate film of modern times. It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with poetic license in filmmaking. It is done all the time. But when films try to portray themselves as history itself, to the point of being taught as history, there *is* a problem. Movies such as this, GREEN BOOK, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, PLATOON and others, should be recognized for the way they twist history around or misrepresent a person, or a national people. This was a problem here. The Scots people openly admitted to its many inaccuracies and portrayals. It didn’t exactly thrill the English, either, with accusations of xenophobia being leveled against them. Allegedly, anti-English sentiment grew after the release of this film. Still, it’s an entertaining, if long and problematic, film.

84/94 GIGI (1958) A playboy and his friend, a young courtesan-in-training, fall in love as she matures.

A thoroughly enjoyable musical with several good performances, lush sets and costumes, and the famous song, “Thank Heaven for Little Girls.” Nobody could possibly be disappointed. Leslie Caron is charming, and Louis Jourdan is flawlessly handsome. But there are better musicals out there, including a few other Best Pictures, and many more that either weren’t nominated or were but didn’t win. Most especially, in a year that also featured nominees such as THE DEFIANT ONES and the classic CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF this charming but fluffy film falls short.

83/94 DRIVING MISS DAISY (1989) When an independent and demanding post-war Southern woman crashes her car, her son hires a Black man to drive her around. An initially fraught relationship blossoms into friendship over the course of several years.

This movie features an award-winning performance by Jessica Tandy, and the nominated Morgan Freeman, who gives one of the best performances of his career (this movie also pushed him into stardom). It features a strong screenplay. It was also one of the very few Best Picture winners whose director was not nominated, earning the joke that it directed itself. Unfortunately, it relies on stereotypes (regarding both racism and antisemitism). It also relies on its own White Savior Syndrome. That I rank it higher than CRASH or the similar GREEN BOOK has more to do with its age, and people not being as aware of racist tropes and microaggressions as we are now. It is also simple enough to not announce itself as An Important Film, as both the others do. It certainly does not beat the viewer about the head. Thus, its sins are less.

FUN FACT: If anything justifies a lower placing of this film among the pantheon of Best Picture winners, is that when The Hollywood Reporter Magazine polled hundreds of Academy voters about a decade ago, the majority admitted, that had they a do-over, they’d have given the statuette to MY LEFT FOOT instead. I would have given it to GLORY, which wasn’t even nominated.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This film was the last PG movie to win Best Picture. Everyone since has been PG-13 or R.

82/94 TERMS OF ENDEARMENT (1983) This is a film about the up-and-down relationship between a controlling mother and a loving daughter who nevertheless yearns for independence from her mother. When the daughter marries to escape her mother, she must deal with her growing family, her husband’s suspected philandering, her own affair, and her mother’s constant attempts to interfere. When the daughter develops cancer, she must reconcile with her husband, plan for her kids’ future, and accept her mother’s help, something she has loathed to do in the past. Meanwhile, her mother, who has devoted herself to her daughter for decades without hope of her own romance, allows herself to be wooed by a playboy astronaut.

“Terms” is very nearly a great film, with exceptional performances from the entire cast, which features Best Actress Shirley MacLaine (the mother), nominee Debra Winger (the daughter), Best Supporting Actor Jack Nicholson (the astronaut), Jeff Daniels as the cheating husband, and John Lithgow as the daughter’s lover. It also won Oscars for its director, James Brooks, and its strong writing. In fact, this movie’s story is so engaging and watchable that I cry even while writing this.

And that is the problem. The movie is weighed down by its own sentimentality and its tear-jerker story. It is very difficult to walk that fine line in such movies, to draw the viewer into the story without becoming maudlin. While this film succeeds better than many others of its ilk, it still falls well short of what it needed, something a little more bracing. In addition, its focus is really between the two women’s stories, the one tragic, the other just about a romcom (and the switch back and forth can be jarring). Because of this focus, the film leaves little room for most of its other characters’ development, instead using broad stereotypes. Nicholson is a great enough actor to work with what he was given and make it his own (and he has never been sexier or more playful). The other two main actors were too inexperienced to do the same Nevertheless, on a personal countdown, this would rank considerably higher. I wish I could have placed it higher here.

81/94 FORREST GUMP (1994) Forrest is a person with an intellectual disability. His IQ is only 75. The film follows him through his childhood, early adulthood, and middle years, as he goes innocently through life, experiencing war, meeting celebrities, and being a part of major historical and pop culture events.

Another film that would rate considerably higher on a personal countdown. Its placement so low won’t be a popular choice, given how beloved it remains with audiences (and it was beloved then too, as the biggest box office hit of 1994).

But this movie is not without its problems. It makes a mockery of Forrest’s handicap (either intentional or a natural side effect of the subject material). Despite the amount of humor, it is also melodramatic and sweet to a fault, with sugar so treacly we risk diabetes just watching. It can also be considered a political film, intentionally or not, as an Ann Rand-style metaphor for the ability even of people like Forrest to become rich and independent. While the film is supposed to use Forrest’s simplicity to muddle through some difficult decades in this country, the effect of the film simply pays short shrift to any given event, so they can cram in as much as possible: he plays college football, meets multiple presidents, becomes a Vietnam war hero, meets the Black Panthers, plays Chinese ping pong, becomes a millionaire fisherman, a cross-country hero, and eventually a husband and a father. He also helps others invent things that will become famous and successful. Thus, the movie places this man, who is totally incapable of even understanding any of what is happening, at the center of just about anything important from the 1950s to the 1990s. And expects the audience to enjoy the pop-culture winks of all these references without understanding any more than Forrest does.

There is nothing at stake for Forrest, as he goes through events without facing politics, killing, PTSD, depression, physical abuse, or AIDS. And in the one scene where he might have had the chance to show any understanding, at the Lincoln Memorial, the plug is pulled on him, and we don’t hear what he says. The film is afraid to go into depth, instead relying on a series of vignettes. Unfortunately, the movie suffers from its own pop-culture fame, becoming almost a spoof of itself, with all its pithy life philosophies and Jenny quotes.

The magazine The Hollywood Reporter did a survey a decade ago on Oscar voters (see DRIVING MISS DAISY,) who admitted, given a second chance, they’d have awarded Best Picture to “The Shawshank Redemption.” I’d have given it to “Pulp Fiction.” Even “Quiz Show” was probably a better choice.

The trick is, what Forrest Gump lacks, it makes up for in sheer hubris. It has a fantastic score and soundtrack, which matches the events in the correct historical time. It features an excellent job by Tom Hanks and by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan. Robin Wright has the dubious distinction of having to play Jenny from an abused child, to self-abusing young adult, to a dying woman and she did well enough with it, despite limited screen time. The many pop-culture and historical references *are* fun, and one is drawn into the story readily enough. It won Oscars not just for the film, but Best Actor for Hanks, Director for Robert Zemeckis, Best Screenplay, Editing, and the truly visionary special effects.

80/94 PLATOON (1986) When a young college student goes to Vietnam, he finds himself in a power struggle between two sergeants: One (Tom Berenger) is a xenophobe who hates the Vietnamese. The other (Willem Dafoe) is more sympathetic to the locals. Their battle draws the soldiers into taking sides, pitting them against each other as well as the Vietnamese.

Director Oliver Stone has a well-deserved reputation for mispresenting facts and passing his work off as historically accurate. This is no different. It is loosely based on his own experiences in the war, though by the time it was made, he had changed many details. On the plus side, it is a relatively grim movie that does bring home the horrors of war, and its destructive power on troops. It also features truly excellent performances by Charlie Sheen, Dafoe, and Berenger (the latter two both got Oscar nominations for Best Supporting Actor, though neither won).

There are a few negatives. It romanticizes war and the craziness in it, to the point that Dafoe literally becomes a Jesus figure. The shot of him falling has become iconic and not in a good way. It is a movie that tells, rather than shows, what the viewer should feel. The film also took some criticism that though there were Black officers there, in this film, all the Blacks are soldiers; Stone further portrayed them in broad stereotypes, in Stepin Fetchit-like cowardice and ignorance.

At the end of the day, “Platoon” came up against two far superior films about Vietnam the same year: FULL METAL JACKET and HAMBURGER HILL. Either of those would have been better choices, but neither was nominated. Nevertheless, this film remains very popular with audiences.

79/94 BEN-HUR (1959) A Palestinian Jew named Judah battles the Roman empire during the time of Christ. Judah ends up a slave after an old friend turns him in for a crime he didn’t commit. After a couple of years, he escapes slavery and becomes a champion charioteer. Eventually, he gains his revenge in a chariot race, against the old friend who originally had him enslaved. Meanwhile, Jesus helps Judah early on, a favor Judah is later able to return.

This movie is famous for one reason: its chariot race. Much like the pod race in PHANTOM MENACE, it is long and drawn out – but unlike PHANTOM, in a good way. The race was actually directed by multiple people, including Sergio Leone, and required weeks to film. It takes up a whopping 40 minutes of screen time.

The movie has unbelievably good cinematography, and the choreography is just about the best out there. But past the chariot race, there isn’t a lot of value, and the screenplay suffers from unevenness. At over three and a half hours long, the story isn’t really strong enough or cohesive enough to hold interest for long. Then midway through the movie, we get the chariot race, which disrupts whatever cohesion the movie had, and then – instead of ending with the race – the film keeps going. The scenes with Jesus, and the visits to the leper colony, don’t help with that cohesion. Especially at the end, the scenes of the trial and crucifixion take up the kind of time reserved for a story in which Jesus is the centerpiece. Except he isn’t; he is a very minor character. The reason to have him is to place the fictional events of the movie into historical context, but he isn’t meant to take over the story, nor – other than the exchange in favors – does Jesus’ existence serve any meaningful part of the main character’s development or arc.

But the chariot scene alone makes the entire movie worth it.

The film won 11 Oscars, a feat matched only by TITANIC and THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING. Besides Picture and Director, it won Best Actor (Charlton Heston,) Supporting Actor (Hugh Griffith,) and most of the production awards.

78/94 THE ENGLISH PATIENT (1986) Told in two different timelines, a man on his deathbed recounts to a nurse his experiences during World War II and his ill-fated affair with a married woman.

This is a visually stunning film and has some genuinely great performances. [Juliette Binoche –the nurse – won Best Supporting Actress and the two leads, Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas, should have won.] But the story, based on a novel, is overly ambitious, and the movie, closing in on nearly three hours, is almost appallingly long, with one feeling the time. There is also something rote about it, like a paint-by-numbers work. It hits all the right notes like a movie someone set out to win Best Picture with. In doing so, despite the romance, it is remote from genuine depth, except for the nurse’s personal story.

Despite what is said above, it was popular with critics and audiences alike and won nine Oscars. Besides the two mentioned, it won for Director, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Score, and Sound.

77/94 OLIVER! (1968) Young orphan Oliver Twist falls in with an urchin street gang led by a teenager named Artful Dodger and the Jewish criminal Fagan. When a kind man decides to adopt Oliver, another criminal, the vicious Bill Sikes, plans to kidnap the boy to keep the gang’s activity secret.

This entertaining musical – the last to win Best Picture for 35 years –is full of great songs and is fully engaging. Jack Wild (Dodger), Ron Moody (Fagin), and Oliver Reed are all brilliant in it. Moody was nominated for Best Actor and Wild was nominated for Supporting Actor. As for Reed, the film helped make him a leading man. Most of the other performances were serviceable at best. Aside from Best Picture, the film won Best Director (Carol Reed), Art Direction, Score, and Sound.

Its only real fault is its exaggeration of the greedy Jew stereotype, though Moody plays it with sympathy, dampening the effect.

76/94 THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (1952) The business of a circus and its interpersonal relationships play out under the Big Top, with love, jealousy, and even an old murder, culminating in a train wreck that threatens to derail the entire circus (pun intended).

I won’t lie. I can’t lie. This is one of my favorite films of all time. If this were a personal countdown only, it would likely be in the top twenty. If it were strictly objective (if possible), it would rank lower than it is. This film was the #1 box office hit of 1952 (pretty much around the world), a romping good time. The Academy doesn’t give out separate Oscars for Best Spectacle or Production (which they did a single year), but if it did, that would be an appropriate win.

The film features an all-star cast, plus nearly 100 acts from the actual Ringling Bros circus, including the legendary clown Emmett Kelly. In addition, the Ringling Big Top itself is used as the set. Then-Ringling owner John Ringling North plays himself. It also features a number of cameos, including Bing Crosby and Bob Hope, William Boyd (Hopalong Cassidy), Danny Thomas, Edmund O’Brien, and Van Heflin.

On its plus side, the movie was filmed in beautiful Technicolor, has wonderful cinematography, fantastic show costumes, and a great plot, if melodramatic. It also has a good score and features several fun songs. It has a good documentary-style approach to circus business. The train crash is beautifully shot. Above all is the choreography of the actors and the actual circus people performing. If you like the circus and like dramatic stories, this movie is highly entertaining.

On the downside, the movie isn’t good art. It is trite, sappy, and maudlin, and in a very large sense, resembles the disaster movies of the 1970s. In fact, one might call it two movies: a story about running a circus and the stories of the performers’ lives. Most of the actors are good enough in it, but not well enough to earn nominations: it got none in acting. James Stewart does, however, give an Oscar-worthy, genuinely sensitive performance. The movie is rarely played anymore on television and is usually considered by critics to be one of the worst Best Picture winners. That it won over such classics (and truly great films) such as HIGH NOON, THE QUIET MAN, and SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN is an admitted mistake. One cannot help but wonder if the film may actually have survived better had it NOT won Best Picture. But what a great guilty pleasure.

FUN FACT: The movie won only two Oscars (its screenplay was the other) and it became the last Best Picture to win less than three awards until the 2015 film SPOTLIGHT.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: In the current film THE FABELMANS — an accurate adaptation of Steven Spielberg’s life – THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH is the first film he sees in the theater, at about age six. This film becomes the inspiration for his desire to become a filmmaker. If Spielberg loves it, it can’t be all bad. Right?

75/94 TOM JONES (1963) An 18th-century bastard child is raised by a country squire. When he is cast out of the house due to villainy, he goes forth into the world where he experiences a series of misadventures and sows his wild oats.

This is a wonderfully rollicking film, in a bawdy way. Albert Finney is simply marvelous in it, and the movie made a star of him. He received the first of five Oscar nominations for this role (he won none of them). In addition to Best Picture, the film won Best Director (Tony Richardson), Score, and Screenplay. It was nominated for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (Hugh Griffith), and Supporting Actress (Diane Cilento, Edith Evans, and Joyce Redman).

FUN FACTS: The five acting nominations this film received tie it with a whopping eight other films: MRS. MINIVER, ALL ABOUT EVE, ON THE WATERFRONT, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, PEYTON PLACE, BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE GODFATHER PART II, and NETWORK for the most in any film. In addition, this is the only film in Oscar history to have three actresses nominated for Supporting Actress. [At least one film, ON THE WATERFRONT, had three for Supporting Actor.]

74/94 A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966) When British statesman Sir Thomas More refuses to pressure the Pope into annulling King Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he must face the choice between his faith as a devout Catholic and potential treason.

This is, more than anything, an actor’s film. There is nothing really showy, no Important Topic, just solid acting. Paul Scofield won Best Actor for his role as More, and there were two supporting nominations, for Robert Shaw as the king, and Wendy Hiller as Alice More. In addition to Best Picture, it won Best Director (Fred Zinneman), Screenplay, Cinematography, and Costume Design.

If the film has a fault, it is that it is more like a stage play than a film. It was adapted from a play, but kept the stage feel to it.

73/94 BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) A fading actor (Michael Keaton), the star of the superhero Birdman trilogy, is trying to do a stage play as a comeback, while the Birdman “voice” (a paranoid schizophrenic-like or alter ego voice of self-criticism) is trying to get him to make a fourth Birdman film.

This black comedy is a case of the parts being greater than the sum – by a long shot. If one considers the various parts, then BIRDMAN is a brilliantly done film. It has an original story—though often hard to follow—with many themes that will probably be taught in film schools for years to come. It has brilliant performances from Michael Keaton, the always-stellar Edward Norton, and Emma Stone, as well as very good performances from nearly everyone else. It has brilliant direction, for which Alejandro González Iñárritu deservedly won an Oscar. He filmed it as a single-shot movie, using frequent long takes. The music and cinematography are excellent.

Yet the sum of those parts doesn’t work quite as well together. There is a genre problem. The movie goes from fantasy to drama to comedy, back and forth, on a not-infrequent basis. There are thematic confusions, with insanity mixing with self-realization, among other examples. The film doesn’t have much real depth of character development and doesn’t end further down the emotional road from the beginning. While one pities Riggan (Keaton) the reality is, most of the characters are not terribly likable, and a few are outright detestable, with the writer (also Iñárritu) and the actors failing to bring sympathy to most characters. There is a reality disconnect so that we don’t always know when we’re watching something real or his own hallucinations. In the end, this LSD trip is so overdone that it becomes boring.

Stone and Norton were nominated in the supporting categories. Keaton was nominated for Best Actor and was the favorite going in. He lost to Eddie Redmayne (THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING).

72/94 ROCKY (1976) When the scheduled opponent of the heavyweight boxing champ Apollo Creed backs out of a planned match, Apollo chooses the inexperienced Rocky Balboa to fight against. Rocky, the severe underdog, must train hard to have a chance, all while romancing his best friend’s sister.

The film that launched a thousand sequels – or so it seems. This is a movie whose feel-good story and ending are often confused with good filmmaking, though it remains extremely popular. Unknown actor Sylvester Stallone wrote the script in about three days—rarely a good sign for quality. Schmaltzy and predictable (both the story and dialogue), this movie’s main appeal is the fight, for those liking sports films (and I do). Stallone was nominated for the Best Actor Award, despite his heavy-handed approach to the role (and most of his other roles).

The film, of course, is not without its charm. It does have a Capraesque quality to it that makes it endearing. The music is iconic. The pacing makes the film fly by (pun intended).

Unfortunately for the movie, one of its besetting sins was to beat far superior movies, in a great year for filmmaking. Among the movies it beat were ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, TAXI DRIVER, and NETWORK (which won three acting Oscars). Those three are considered groundbreaking and among the greatest films ever.

FUN FACT: This movie has several appearances in AFI’s 100 Years series. Included are Rocky’s win, Heroes and Villains, Songs (“Gonna Fly Now”) Quotes (Yo, Adrian!), and many more.

71/94 GRAND HOTEL (1931/32) At a German hotel in the Interwar years, a permanent resident observes, “The Grand Hotel. Always the same. People coming and going. Nothing ever happens.” Then things begin happening. This film is a series of vignettes among various guests. There’s the ballerina (Greta Garbo), the Baron (John Barrymore) who supports himself as a card sharp and thief, the dying accountant (Lionel Barrymore) who just wants luxury in his final months, the industrialist (Wallace Beery) trying to close an important deal, and the stenographer (Joan Crawford) that he hires. As the various stories close at the end of the film, the same resident repeats his observation that nothing ever happens.

This may have been the first film with an all-star cast. The movie is well-cast, well-acted, and well-edited and paced.” There is honestly little to criticize, other than it seems more like a series of stories than a cohesive whole. The only real thread is that the stories are all set in the same place. Its lower rating has more to do with other movies having potentially more to offer than this one having little to offer. It has outlasted most of the early classic films and is still a staple of TCM and other classic movie channels. It is a golden classic.

FUN FACT: One of Garbo’s lines is a famous quote, “I want to be alone.” In fact, she repeats it in various ways in the film. She later said, in response to the line as an oft-repeated metaphor for her famously reclusive life, “I never said I want to be alone. I said I want to be *left* alone.”

70/94 OUT OF AFRICA (1985) A sort-of biopic about when the Danish Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep) heads to Africa to become a dairy farmer with her husband. Instead, he begins a coffee plantation. After multiple infidelities by him, they split, and she falls in love with a family friend, while working on her farm, and acting as a teacher, nurse, and leader to her Kikuyu workers.

We might as well deal with the elephant in the room first. This film takes place during the pre-and-post World War I years. This was the height of the colonial era and the heavy hand of imperialism does play a part in this movie, from the colony’s involvement in the war to Karen’s approach to her workers. Because of this, the movie has not aged well. While discussions should be had about that, the movie also has a great deal to offer.

For one thing, along with LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, GONE WITH THE WIND, and THE LAST EMPEROR – and maybe THE SOUND OF MUSIC — this is arguably the most beautifully shot film in Hollywood history. It is gorgeous. That and its John Barry-composed score (which became a bestseller) are its two defining features. With the beauty of Africa laid out before the viewer to the strains of Barry’s music, the movie seems perfect. Add in a great performance by Streep and a good one by Redford, and it seems to have the recipe for a great film.

Naturally, of course, it isn’t perfect. For one thing, it clocks in at well over two and a half hours. No matter how appealing, this means the story drags on into boredom. The setting can’t offset that. And unfortunately, the pacing is off enough that one feels its length. Then there is the historical inaccuracy. I have said before, and I maintain, that there’s nothing wrong with poetic license so long as one isn’t passing something off as the definitive history. Nobody is passing anything off here, but the fact remains that Isak Dinesen (the pen name Karen later used for writing) didn’t write most of what is presented here as her own life. They came from other books. Then there is the writing. Leaving aside the White Savior Syndrome that often went hand-in-hand with the colonial era, we have a story of hard work and romance, neither of which offers anything different or stand-out. In other words, it is rather trite and ordinary. It wasn’t groundbreaking writing. Nevertheless, this film’s strengths are enough that on a personal countdown, this would rank considerably higher. Other than Picture, the film won for Director (Sydney Pollack), Screenplay, Art Direction, Cinematography, and Score.

FUN FACT: OUT OF AFRICA is on two AFI: 100 Years countdowns. It’s #13 for Passions and #15 for Score.

69/94 DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990) After a Civil War soldier is injured and mustered out of the war, he moves West and develops a friendship, with some Lakota Indians. Preferring their lifestyle, and being in love with the adopted daughter of their leader, he chooses to leave his life behind.

Another personal favorite, this movie would be considered great simply by its focus on Manifest Destiny and the gradual genocide of the indigenous people of this continent. So appreciative were the Lakota, several ceremonies were held to honor the actors, including actor and director Keven Costner. Aside from the historical viewpoint, the film still has much to offer, including a strong screenplay, cinematography, and score (by John Barry, who had also done OUT OF AFRICA). All these were Oscar winners, as was Costner for Director. Graham Greene and Mary McDonnell were both nominated for their performances, as was Costner. None won.

Its problems lie in a couple of different areas. First was that after Costner took the effort to have all the actors speak Lakota, it later transpired that it was the feminine form of the language, being spoken by males as well as females. Then there were a few historical inaccuracies or omissions, such as the fact the real Lt. Dunbar was a missionary. Perhaps the biggest fault of the film, however, is the lack of subtlety in Costner’s approach. There are good Indians (who are all good) and bad Indians (who are all monsters). Then there is the White Savior Syndrome, of Dunbar being the literal protector of the tribe. In fact, in the end, while largely heralded by indigenous tribes throughout the country, it was also noted that no matter how commendable and bringing just light to this issue, it was still a movie by Whites, not Indians.

68/94 GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT (1948) A Gentile journalist goes undercover as a Jew to write about the Jewish experience and finds himself struggling with his own beliefs and the antisemitism he experiences while undercover.

This film is genuinely important, coming just a couple of years after the Holocaust when Americans were grappling with the Holocaust their own potential antisemitism, and collective guilt. It features outstanding performances by Gregory Peck (as the journalist), Dorothy McGuire (as his girlfriend, who has her own journey to undergo), and Celeste Holm (another potential love interest). Holm won, as did director Elia Kazan.

This movie did a great deal in confronting the issue of antisemitism. In fact, its real value is as an Important Film, rather than great art. It was also criticized for showing only one side, a middle-to-upper-class view of the subject.

(NOT SO) FUN FACT: This film was unable to avoid being targeted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) for its strong political stance. Actress Anne Revere refused to testify. Actor John Garfield testified but refused to give names. Both were blacklisted for a period of time.

67/94 THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) During the Anschluss, a nun falls in love with a retired naval officer and widower while serving as the governess to his seven children. Meanwhile, the officer knows time is running out before being called to duty by the Nazis, something he refuses to do.

This film easily wins the award for the most saccharine sweet movie to win Best Picture. It is filled with pure and good characters, for the most part, recognizes the family as representing Good and the Nazis as Evil. The lines are drawn and from that perspective, the movie is very simple in its outlook. The only –and much-needed acerbity – is offered by the naval officer, who is wonderfully sardonic. Otherwise, it is very much a romanticized version of what is basically a true story. Of course, the historical inaccuracies could be considered one of its many faults, but at heart, the story’s broad strokes are correct.

But as former skater and commentator Dick Button used to say – as he watched skaters making mistake after mistake – who cares? It’s all so lovely. This is the kind of film that was made during wartime to lift morale. Instead, it was about the upcoming death of a culture by evil, that people believed they need merely walk away from. The story is irresistible, with only the cynical rejecting it. The songs are earwigs. The cinematography is unbelievably beautiful, one of the most gorgeous films ever shot. And its history, mistakes or not, is a good lesson for people unfamiliar with World War II. It is just the ultimate feel-good movie, and what can possibly be wrong with that?

The movie was not without its detractors. Most critics hated what they felt was its sickly sweetness, Pauline Kael going so far as to call its viewers ‘emotional and aesthetic imbeciles.’ Almost certainly, the real reason for its win was its box office take. It was enormously successful.

FUN FACT: In point of fact, the film took over from GONE WITH THE WIND as the highest-grossing movie ever, a title it held for seven short years until THE GODFATHER came out.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: the AFI lists are littered with this movie, including no less than three songs: the title track, “My Favorite Things,” and “Do-Re-Me,” a giddy and wonderfully choreographed song and sequence.

66/94 GLADIATOR (2000) The psychotic new emperor of Rome strips his father’s intended successor Maximus of power, kills the man’s family, and tries unsuccessfully to kill *him*. After being found by slavers and sold to a gladiator trainer, Maximus becomes determined to work his way up through the gladiator ranks for the chance to get revenge, while a group of highly placed rebels attempts to dethrone the emperor.

In full disclosure, this is my favorite film of 2000 and probably of that decade. The movie opens with one of the best-choreographed battle scenes in the history of film. What follows is a tour de force of filmmaking and acting. Russell Crowe (who won Best Actor as Maximus), Joaquin Phoenix (who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor as the emperor), and Connie Nielsen (as the emperor’s sister and Maximus’ former lover) all give outstanding performances and lead a strong cast of supporting actors. Ridley Scott’s direction of the movie was also excellent and is now considered one of his best, though he did not win an Oscar for it. Its gladiator combat scenes were as well-choreographed as the opening, and the movie has an engaging screenplay, score, cinematography, costumes, visual effects, and production design. It won most of these, though notably not the screenplay. In other words, it was all-around excellence, not strong in a few areas and weak in a few others.

That said, it was not without its problems. First and foremost, it was historically inaccurate, and the pronunciation of certain names was ridiculous. On the other hand, while the filmmakers used historians to inform the story, nobody claimed it was historically accurate, unlike films such as BRAVEHEART. The costumes, good as they are, are also not accurate. The movie has been criticized for its darkness and some have accused Crowe of confusing stoicism with acting. Some of the dialogue is also a little silly, and probably not of its time (the language notwithstanding). However, in the past twenty years, the movie has seen a resurgence by critics and is considered better than its initial reviews indicated.

FUN FACT: GLADIATOR is the first movie since ALL THE KING’S MEN (1949) to win Best Picture without winning either Best Director or Best Screenplay.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Ridley partly made the movie as an homage to the old “sword and sandal” genre. Such films were very popular from the last 1940s through the early 1960s and included SAMSON AND DELILAH, QUO VADIS, THE ROBE, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR, SPARTACUS, and CLEOPATRA. A series of failures (namely that last-named film) put sword and sandal movies out of fashion. GLADIATOR resurrected the popularity and was responsible for a renaissance of such films, including TROY, 300, ALEXANDER, THE SCORPION KING, remakes of SPARTACUS and QUO VADIS, HELEN OF TROY, and (arguably) KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

65/94 RAIN MAN (1986) A heartwarming story of a young hustler who finds he has an autistic brother, and who, in the course of their road travels, comes to care for the brother.

Dustin Hoffman gives perhaps his most method performance as the autistic Raymond, and it’s a good performance. The relatively average actor Tom Cruise is always elevated by working with great actors and this is no exception. He gives one of his strongest performances.

The film won Best Director (Barry Levinson), Best Actor (Dustin Hoffman, his second), and Screenplay. The movie doesn’t have much wrong with it. It has a slight disposition toward sentimentality and Hoffman veers toward overacting. It also perhaps has a weaker screenplay than its win would suggest, as the story doesn’t really break new ground. Otherwise, it has an excellent mixture of humor and drama that make the film so very watchable; indeed, it was the number one box office draw of 1988.

FUN FACT: Dustin Hoffman has been in an incredible number of movies that were at least nominees, if not winners, of Best Picture. He is tied for fifth place with several other actors, each associated with eight such films apiece. Three of Hoffman’s won Best Picture; the other two are coming later.

64/94 AMADEUS (1984) A deeply religious composer, Salieri, becomes jealous of the greater talent of the young (and alcoholic) Mozart and eventually plots to either murder him or work him to death.

Two excellent performances (F. Murray Abrahams won Best Actor and Tom Hulce was nominated) and tremendous humor highlight what is otherwise a good, though not excellent, movie. It also heavily misrepresents many of the “facts” in it, first and foremost the relationship between the two men. Director Miloš Forman (who won Best Director) and writer Peter Shaffer (who won Best Screenplay) were upfront about it, saying they went with a good story, not reality.

FUN FACT: When presenting Best Picture, the elderly Lawrence Olivier (suffering from mild dementia) forgot to mention the nominees, simply naming the winner. After an official confirmed the legitimacy of the win, producer Saul Zaentz thanked Olivier and then took the trouble to name the other nominees before giving his acceptance speech. That wasn’t the only humorous part of the evening. When composer Maurice Jarre won for the score of A PASSAGE TO INDIA (a far superior film), Jarre said he was lucky Mozart was not eligible that year. AMADEUS had won nearly everything else.

This was not the last time either of those events happened. In 2016, an elderly Warren Beatty was handed the wrong envelope, and called out LA LA LAND as the winner, despite the actual winner being MOONLIGHT. And in 1988, when the screenwriter for MOONSTRUCK won, he thanked THE LAST EMPEROR for not being eligible in that category. EMPEROR had swept everything else, including its own writing category.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: AMADEUS, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, THE HURT LOCKER, THE ARTIST, and BIRDMAN are the only Best Picture winners to never make any given weekend’s box office top 5 during their theatrical runs.

63/94 CHARIOTS OF FIRE (1981) In post-World War I United Kingdom, two runners train determinedly for the 1924 Summer Olympics. Eric Liddell, a Scotsman, is a deeply religious missionary who refuses to run on Sundays, which nobody understands. Englishman Harold Abrahams is Jewish and has a chip on his shoulder from perceived (and real) antisemitism. He is determined to use his speed to force respect from everyone. Together, they become Olympic heroes.

Chariots is one of the few Best Picture winners to be made in Great Britain, with an almost entirely British cast and crew, and just a thoroughly British feel to it.

This is a sports film, but it is also very thematic, with threads of both religion – Christian and Jewish – as well as patriotism, running through it. This is an ensemble film, with an excellent cast. Had the Screen Actors Guild awards been around then, with its Best Cast award, Chariots might have been a shoo-in. The Oscars have no such award. As it is, only one actor received a nomination: Ian Holm (as Harold’s trainer) for Best Supporting Actor. The movie is seamless in its story (and won Best Screenplay) and is very upbeat and inspirational (which is both one of its strengths and weaknesses). It has beautiful cinematography and production design. It won for its costume design.

The movie is now remembered mostly for its iconic modern techno score, by the Greek composer Vangelis (who won an Oscar for it). Some found the music anachronistic, but it was a clever choice, as a metaphor for bridging the old (the pre-War order with its imperialism and class divisions) with the new (the very different and ultra-modern Roaring Twenties).

The movie is not perfect, of course. It does straddle the line of sentimentality. It is inaccurate in many details from the actual events. It is a wee bit long for the story. Its biggest sin is that (as a very good, but perhaps not excellent film) it beat the superior REDS, the arguably superior RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and the maybe superior (and incredibly schmaltzy) ON GOLDEN POND.

It is also, in full disclosure, a pet (favorite film of 1981). On a personal countdown, this would definitely be in the top 20. And fully geeky, I attempted to run on the actual beach in slow motion, to the strains of the title song. So, there’s that.

FUN FACT: During the 2012 Olympics, Britain went nuts with the Chariots theme, with commercials aired constantly. [A particularly funny one featured Rowan Atkinson in his Mr. Bean persona, running along the beach with the movie actors. There was also a stage adaptation mounted in 2012.]

ANOTHER FUN FACT: The 2024 Games will be hosted by Paris, 100 years from when Paris hosted the Games from the movie. It is hard to believe something won’t be made of that, in the way of commercials or showings of the movie, to capitalize on that.

62/94 MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969) When a young Texas man goes to New York to become a male prostitute, he gets involved in the seamy underbelly of city life, and meets a dying con man named Ratso.

This is a film about relationships. Prostitute and client. Girlfriend and rapists. Male rape victim and rapists. Victim and con man. Friendship. And – though dealt with mostly peripherally — homosexuality. Because of its extremely adult themes, it earned an X rating. The two leads give sensitive performances as the would-be prostitute (Jon Voight) and the ailing con man, Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). The subject matter itself is also done sensitively, largely avoiding the sensationalism that must have been tempting, especially in its era. But it is an unutterably depressing movie. The two lead actors were both nominated, but they split the vote. It did win Best Director (John Schlesinger), and Screenplay.

FUN FACT: This movie is on Japanese director Akira Kurosawa’s list of his 100 favorite movies.

61/94 ORDINARY PEOPLE (1980) Conrad, a teenage boy, sees a psychiatrist to grapple with the death of his brother, his own attempted suicide (he was in the accident that claimed his brother’s life), and return to normalcy, while his mother continues to grieve for her favorite son, taking it out on the surviving son.

Robert Redford, in his directorial debut, shows a deft hand at the breakup of a family, and got five amazing performances from it. Timothy Hutton won Best Supporting Actor for his role as the surviving son, beating out co-star and fellow nominee Judd Hirsch (the shrink). Mary Tyler Moore (the dysfunctional mother) was nominated for Best Actress. And while neither received a nomination, both Donald Sutherland (as the sympathetic father), and Elizabeth McGovern (as a schoolmate of Conrad’s) give sensitive performances. Of Moore’s performance, an expert in narcissism later wrote that Moore nailed every aspect of it. In addition to Picture and Supporting Actor, the film won Director (Redford), and Screenplay, all of them deserved.

This movie, however, is not for anyone just looking for a couple of hours of entertainment. It weighs in at over 2 hours and feels like it. And its screenplay, despite its win, doesn’t delve as deeply into the subject as it could, showing the various other factors that help tear the family apart. Its main worth lies in it being another example of an actors’ movie.

FUN FACT: McGovern was attending Julliard at the time the film began. She had to get permission to miss classes for the filming, which was applied as an internship for her degree.

60/94 MILLION DOLLAR BABY (2004) This is a gritty tear-jerker about an up-and-coming female boxer and the accident that ends it all.

Less sentimental than one would expect from a film of this type, the movie largely manages to avoid – though not completely – its cliched storyline. Its problem is that the characters act and react to each other, but not within the world the story has created. Perhaps that is because writer Paul Haggis didn’t create a fuller world for the characters to inhabit (Haggis was nominated, but did not win). But Eastwood (who won his second Director Oscar) does an excellent job with the material, and both Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman give Oscar winning performances. This is a good movie for sports fans, and realistically shows the very real danger that boxing poses. But warning: the movie isn’t a female ROCKY. It is very dark and is more about what happens from the sport than the sport itself.

59/94 AMERICAN BEAUTY (1999) A Suburban man, frustrated with his boring life, quits his job and begins behaving like an irresponsible teenager (even crushing on a friend of his daughter’s), and learns to see beauty in places he’d never thought about before. Meanwhile, his equally frustrated wife becomes more contemptuous of her husband’s behavior and seeks an outlet in infidelity. Gradually, her neuroses, his free-spirit discoveries, and a neighbor’s own neuroses lead them down a tragic path.

This is a brilliant satire and richly thematic: Suburban expectations vs breaking free from expectation. Mid-life crises vs trying to grow up too quickly, morality vs immorality, hedonism vs restraint, material greed vs simplicity, self-confusion vs self-realization, and sexuality vs repression. Nearly every character grapples with one or more of these. Lester (the main character) grapples with nearly all of them. In the end, both Lester and the viewer come to realize life and its surroundings are beautiful and its problems are either not important or solvable.

This movie is a drama – but never heavy-handed – and a comedy. It won Oscars for its direction (Sam Mendes) and its writing (Alan Ball). The film features many career-high performances, including Oscar winner Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening (nominated and should have won), and its extensive supporting cast. It had excellent production values and its other Oscar wins were for Cinematography, Editing, and Score, all richly deserved.

The biggest criticism of the film, in fact, is simply that it didn’t age well. Two years after its release came 9/11, which changed what society sought: the themes from the movie mattered less. Kevin Spacey’s years-later assault charges didn’t help, especially given the storyline with his daughter’s friend. It also didn’t help that the movie was considered one of the greatest films ever made (a big responsibility for any movie to carry) and there is no place but down after that.

58/94 PATTON (1970) A World War II-set biopic about General George Patton, this film covers his travails and triumphs in North Africa and Southern Italy, his rivalry with British General Montgomery, as well as the men directly above and below Patton himself, and his demotion in France, due to his terrible temper and unorthodox leadership.

Clocking in at nearly three hours, this film is much longer than it needs to be. Its biggest problem is its attempt to cover everything about Patton (a biopic), rather than seeing it first and foremost as a war film, which usually covers one specific area, event, etc. Had the movie ended perhaps with Northern Africa, or Italy, it would have been better paced and been more fully realized. As it is, it goes on so long, through so many different parts (and locations) during the war, it drags the viewer down. Moreover, the film effectively covers the same personality defects and Patton’s beliefs in the second part as it does in the first, not really adding to the overall picture. There is no hero’s journey in the typical sense. In addition, there is just criticism that despite his less pleasant attributes, Patton is made a hero, while everyone else is slightly villainized. In fact, on AFI’s list of Heroes and Villains, the role of Patton ranked #29.

On the plus side is George C. Scott’s performance, who takes over the role so commandingly one forgets completely that it’s a movie. So completely submerged in it, he sometimes has to fight to keep from crossing the line into overacting. Scott won the Best Actor Oscar for the role. The director (Franklin J. Schaffner) also won an Oscar. The movie has finely choreographed battle scenes, with well-applied special effects. (Nominated for both, it won neither.) Then there is the production design, a well-deserved win. Finally, there is the iconic score by Jerry Goldsmith (nominated but did not win). Younger movie viewers, unfamiliar with PATTON might recognize the theme from the 80s comedy series of films, THE POLICE ACADEMY.

FUN FACT: Scott had been nominated for Best Supporting Actor for ANATOMY OF A MURDER (1959) and clearly wanted it. He lost to Hugh Griffith, for BEN-HUR. Scott was so disappointed that he decided that giving out awards to actors, and having them compete against each other as artists, was wrong and he publicly vowed that he would never accept an Oscar if he won. Two years later, he was nominated again, for THE HUSTLER. He lost, but not before reminding the Academy he didn’t want nominations. He gave the same speech after his nomination in PATTON. When he won, he wasn’t present, and Goldie Hawn opened the envelope and cried out in shock, “Oh my God, the winner is George C. Scott!” [It’s worth noting he doesn’t seem to have felt the same negativity toward the Golden Globe, and I could find no record of his having refused his two Globe statuettes.]

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Scott was neither the first nor last filmmaker to refuse the award. The first was screenwriter Dudley Nichols, who won for THE INFORMANT (1935). He refused because the Academy wouldn’t recognize the Screen Actors Guild or any other union. The Academy tried repeatedly to mail him the Oscar, only to have him mail it back! The other refusal, in 1973, was the most famous: Marlon Brando won for THE GODFATHER, and sent a Native American actress on stage, in protest of Hollywood’s misrepresentation and hiring practices of Native Americans.

57/94. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998) A highly fictional tale of William Shakespeare, his writing of the play that would later be called “Romeo & Juliet,” and the woman (Viola) he falls in love with, even as she disguises herself as a man in order to be able to work with him. She becomes his inspiration for “Twelfth Night”.

This is an extremely charming dramedy. Most of the drama comes from the triangle between Shakespeare, Viola, and her betrothed, an arranged marriage she is uninterested in. This triangle, while having its own share of humor, is also overly melodramatic. Most of the humor, the genius writing, and the best of the acting, come from the rest of the movie, as everyone scrambles to get the play ready for production. The often tongue-in-cheek writing earned an Oscar for Original Screenplay, deservedly so. Part of the cleverness of the writing was how the film paid homage to the Zeffirelli version in a couple of scenes. More importantly, as the film ends with Shakespeare writing “Twelfth Night,” we see him incorporate elements from his experiences throughout the movie into his next play Thus, we have cross-dressing characters, mistaken identities, and other such elements that he adds to the new play.

Gwyneth Paltrow won an Oscar for Best Actress, playing her dual role of the unhappily engaged Viola and the male actor Thomas Kent. Judi Dench won Supporting Actress for eight minutes of screen time as Queen Elizabeth I, and she made the most of it, stealing every scene she is in. Geoffrey Rush was nominated in the Supporting Actor category, though he did not win. Wonderful supporting performances are also given by Simon Callow, Tom Wilkinson, Ben Affleck, and Imelda Staunton, among others. In fact, the cast is the film’s strongest attribute and would undoubtedly have won a Best Cast Oscar if the Academy had such a category (they should). The movie *did* win the Screen Actors Guild award for Best Cast. (The film also got Oscars for Art Direction, Costume Design, and Score.)

The movie does have many historical inaccuracies, even given its fictional side. And as mentioned, the melodrama detracts from the enjoyment of the nearly-slapstick comedy of much of the rest of the film. But as is true with a handful of Best Picture winners, its besetting sin is to have won – as a charming puff movie – over THE THIN RED LINE or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Spielberg did win Best Director, defeating John Madden, the director of SHAKESPEARE.

56/94 THE SHAPE OF WATER (2017) Sally Hawkins plays a Cold War-era government custodian, who falls in love with a captured part humanoid, part amphibian being and decides to help him escape from the government.

There’s no other way to put it. This film is a strange one. A movie that makes the audience all look at each other at the end, wondering what they just watched. What it is, is a fantasy love story within a Cold War setting, and the hero is a deep-sea alien creature. Once you get past that, the movie is brilliant in its way. Guillermo del Toro has never been stronger as a director, and the score and production design are both strong (all these won Oscars). The cinematography is also one of the film’s best elements, though it didn’t win (it was nominated). It is just beautifully filmed. The cast, especially Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, and Octavia Spencer, are just about perfect.

55/94 GANDHI (1982) A biopic of Mahatma Gandhi and his nonviolent fight for Indian independence from British rule. It covers literally decades of Gandhi’s life.

Ben Kingsley won the Best Actor Oscar for his role as Gandhi, perhaps deservedly. Best Director winner Richard Attenborough famously took twenty years trying to get the film made, a real labor of love. This sweeping epic also took home awards for Screenplay, Art Directions, Cinematography (that one richly deserved), Costume Design, and Film Editing.

The film is problematic, however. The Academy (and sometimes the public as well) buys into the idea that if something takes long enough to make, and is a real passion project, then it must be a masterpiece and likely A Very Important Film. GANDHI is a very good film with truly great cinematography and a great performance by its lead actor (and strong performances from much of the rest of the cast). But it is not a masterpiece, and while it is a worthy story, not terribly important as filmed. It said little at the end of the day about the Indian experience, especially in the modern day. At least a couple of its wins are questionable, notably Editing, in a picture that is uneven. Then there is its length, which at three hours, is just too long. (Movies need tighter editing and better pacing if they are to be that long.) The movie attempts to cover too much in the story, over 50 years’ worth of Gandhi’s life. A more concise biopic might have made for a better experience and a better film. Finally, it turns Gandhi into a saintly being that removes his humanness and leaves him with no faults, a veritable Jesus figure. That Kingsley is able to play through that is fantastic. That it was written and directed that way is a shame to the real and very complicated man.

When I mention a movie that won against superior films (which I try to minimize in this countdown), it is usually the fluff entertainment that won and the Serious Film that was beaten. Here it is the opposite. The Academy has a dreadful history of ignoring comedy, even when brilliantly done. That year, E.T. (a fantasy dramedy) and TOOTSIE, one of the greatest comedies ever made, lost to Gandhi; in addition, TOOTSIE’s Dustin Hoffman lost to Kingsley. It was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that a comedy was ignored for a good, but pompous movie.

FUN FACT: Around this same period – the mid-1980s – there was a series of theatrical movies and television miniseries, about India, all of which were highly rated, and seen by mass audiences; most won their share of awards. These included OCTOPUSSY (okay, no awards there), THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN, THE FAR PAVILIONS, and A PASSAGE TO INDIA (a far superior film to Gandhi, though different subject matter).

54/94 TITANIC (1997) Two people, one of them an aristocrat traveling in first class, the other a poor artist traveling in third class, fall in love against the backdrop of the sailing and sinking of the Titanic.

This is a film that is both great and far from it. It is hard to know where to begin, except to say in full disclosure that this is my favorite film of 1997 and that I have very mixed feelings toward this problematic movie. For any Titanic buff, ship buff, immigration buff, or history buff, there is a great deal to offer. First and foremost are the special effects that enabled director James Cameron to make a ship that looked real. Add to that his dives to the wreck site and the use of some of that footage in the story of treasure hunters/underwater archaeologists looking for a famous diamond, which gives an understandable realism to this story and the visual appeal. One feels one is actually there, which as a moviegoer must be one of the chief reasons to see a film, especially on the big screen. If you ever imagined seeing this ship in all its beauty, this is it and well worth it. The movie also has a fair amount of realism, if not explored terribly deeply, of the hubris of technology, of what brought people to immigrate, and how the sinking brought the end of the Edwardian era (or why there still was an era, to begin with).

The movie has an all-star cast, with most actors playing fictionalized versions of famous people, and others playing purely fictional characters. Then there are the two leads, Kate Winslet (the aristocrat, Rose) and Leonardo DiCaprio (the artist, Jack). Cameron claimed they were based on real people, but to call them “based on” is a strong exaggeration. The actors mostly give fine performances but are hindered by a poor screenplay (more on that below).

The truly outstanding special effects, the good story (doesn’t every event have a movie where a love story plays out against it?), and some really good performances are outweighed by some really appallingly bad elements of filmmaking. While Cameron has insisted that the film was not meant to be historically accurate, that insistence is belied by interviews, his use of experts on the ship, and by the care he put into every small detail. It is historically inaccurate in very many ways, and in many others, events or beliefs are stretched well beyond what really happened, to a hyperbolic degree. Two of many examples of that are the ship’s reputation as unsinkable, and the Edwardian class distinctions. I’ve spoken many times during the countdown on poetic license. Here is an egregious example of it. Then, there is a fair amount of anachronisms in the movie, including nearly everything to do with Molly Brown (Kathy Bates) as she is written.

The film’s biggest problem is its screenplay. A screenplay covers more than just the story, which here was adequate for the task. It is the dialogue that is terrible. Screenplays are not Cameron’s strong suit: he should stick to story creation and let someone else write it. Most of the dialogue was trite, silly, contradictory (a scene between Rose and Jack comes to mind), explanatory, and in many other ways problematic. Some lines that are meant to be funny are eye-rollers. Some others, especially within the love story, are so clichéd that they should never have been allowed to be filmed.

Unfortunately, the dialogue impacts some actors’ performances, as they seem to fight to keep a straight face while delivering their lines. Thus, even the actors who give good performances, give unevenly good performances. Then there are the performances that are lesser than they should be. Molly Brown is written with nearly 21st-century sensibilities and Kathy Bates unfortunately plays her that way. Her dialogue is the worst in the film. The same problem exists with Leonardo DiCaprio. I’ve seen him in period pieces both before and since this film. Here he plays Jack like a 1996 character who time-traveled to the past, without any training on how men of that era might behave. DiCaprio gets away with it because he is also genuinely winsome in it. Of the actors, only Winslet (as the young Rose) and Gloria Stewart (who plays the old Rose in the treasure hunting present) were nominated for Oscars. Neither won.

The film really shines in certain shots, outside of just the ship. The zoom-out when people are drowning, is amazing and reminiscent of the Atlanta scene in GONE WITH THE WIND. The scene of the ship breaking up. The imagery of the Strausses hugging each other in bed, of the mother comforting her children, the water flowing UP. Great shots.

TITANIC was nominated for 14 Oscars, a feat matched only by ALL ABOUT EVE and LA LA LAND. It won 11, again matching two other movies: BEN-HUR and THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING. Besides Best Picture, it won for Cameron as director, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Score, Song (“My Heart Will Go On”), Sound, Sound Effects Editing, and Visual Effects. TITANIC genuinely deserved most of the Oscars it won. What made the movie terrible for the most part didn’t get nominated.

Oscar voters love epics. The movie won like many other epics before or since. It is unfortunate that one of the best films of the 1990s, if not all time, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, had to pay the price of being the same year.

53/94 KRAMER VS KRAMER (1979) When a man’s wife unexpectedly deserts him and their young son, the man must learn from scratch how to parent. When his wife returns and sues him for custody, he must battle in court perceived attitudes about gender roles.

This is effectively a two-act film. The first is Dustin Hoffman’s character (Ted) struggling to learn how to parent his son, Billy, with his job commitments hanging over him. This part of the movie is excellent, as Ted and Billy first rub each other the wrong way, and eventually learn to bond. Jane Alexander gives an excellent performance as Margaret, a neighbor who had urged the wife to leave but who helps Ted adjust and comes to appreciate him as a friend and as a father. This part of the movie is by far the better part, and Hoffman and Justin Henry (the young actor playing Billy) give shining performances. [Hoffman won Best Actor, Alexander was nominated for Supporting Actress, losing to her co-star Meryl Streep, and Henry was nominated for Supporting Actor. To this day, he remains the youngest nominee in any category. He was eight.]

The second act, when Ted’s wife Joanna (Streep) returns, is where the film begins to go downhill. The first part could probably have stood on its own, and ended another way. This second act involves Joanna wanting to take back custody of their son and move him to California, where she has set up a new life. Keeping in mind this was still the 1970s, the outcome of the custody battle should come as no surprise, especially after Margaret takes the stand and reluctantly testifies to Ted’s sexism toward his wife and lack of involvement as a parent before Joanna deserted them. This second act features a Joanna that while seeming stable, is clearly shaky and neurotic. In the end, when she begs out, it comes as no real surprise, and isn’t even terribly selfless, as we hope it might be.

Unfortunately, the movie has not aged well. The primary reason, of course, is that single parents have become more and more common, including a very high percentage of single fathers. Part of the charm of the movie was that at the time, watching a father learn to parent seemed fresh. Now it is too common for anyone to care. There is also an important secondary reason for the film’s decline in popularity. It comes across as horribly sexist. It isn’t just Ted’s character, it is everything. We are given little opportunity to sympathize with Joanna, and Streep’s slightly neurotic approach to the role doesn’t help. But worst of all is that when Joanna wins (which she obviously shouldn’t have) she can’t handle it. She gives custody back to Ted and while she says she thinks Billy will be better off with him, she also kind of says (and her whole demeanor screams) that having won, she can’t deal with the reality.

In addition to the Oscar wins mentioned above, the film also won Best Director (Robert Benton), and Screenplay.

(NOT SO) FUN FACT: Dustin Hoffman is one of the most notoriously method of method actors and the stories, true or false, of his film prep, are legion. An entire post could be written on some of those stories. One of them is his alleged harassment of Meryl Streep during filming, with the intention of creating a natural hostility between them, to better the finished product. His behavior included slapping her in one scene, without telling her first, to get real anger and surprise. Streep commented much later about her on-set experiences, though she incorrectly referred to KRAMER as her first movie and the slap scene as the first scene in the movie. KRAMER wasn’t her first movie; she had made several, including another with a large role. She had also done several TV programs, including a major role in one of them.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Yours truly played Joanna years ago in a series of recreations that came out of scene study. This is not an easy role to play.

52/94 THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA (1937) Frenchman Émile Zola finds success as an author, writing about Paris, and about French politics. When Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus is wrongly imprisoned as a spy, Zola comes to believe that Dreyfus is the innocent victim of antisemitism and Zola must persuade himself to put himself and his career on the line to defend Dreyfus.

One of the first movies to tackle the important subject of antisemitism, it, unfortunately, skates around the subject. The Hays Production Code wouldn’t allow the filmmakers to preach too strongly against French antisemitism, and Dreyfus is never said to be Jewish. The film does feature some strong statements that modern-day audiences could easily see as anti-Nazi, without ever mentioning the Nazis or even Germany in general. Nevertheless, the film is considered cutting-edge for its day. It features a strong cast, with many excellent performances, including Paul Muni as Zola (he won Best Actor), Joseph Schildkraut as Alfred Dreyfus (he became the second Best Supporting Actor winner), and Gale Sondergaard as Lucie Dreyfus. Aside from Best Picture and the two actors, the film also won for Best Screenplay.

FUN FACT: Decades later, it was revealed that Hollywood producers had banded together in agreement to not antagonize Hitler and his regime, suppressing attacks or suggestions of Nazi impropriety. Given that the story in the film was decades before the Nazis came to power, it is particularly offensive that producers took this stand.

51/94 THE LAST EMPEROR (1987) The epic tale about the life of Puyi, the last emperor of China, from his childhood, when chosen as emperor, a puppet of the Japanese during World War II, a victim of the Chinese Communist Party, and old man.

One of the most beautifully shot films among any of the Best Picture winners. It has so many great elements. Excellent direction by Bernardo Bertolucci. A strong screenplay. Excellent production values, including gorgeous cinematography, art direction, and costume design. Its iconic score is delicate and memorable, often added to compilation music CDs. It won Oscars for all of these things, as well as Best Editing and Best Sound. It won everything it was nominated for (tied for the highest clean sweep at the time– leading the screenwriter for MOONSTRUCK, when he won the other screenplay award, to thank this movie for not being eligible in his category.

But to sing the praises of its parts is to not praise it enough. The Chinese, amazingly, gave permission for the production crew to shoot *inside* the Forbidden City, which not only lends verisimilitude to the early scenes of the movie but is of historic value. The movie would have been just a little bit less without that. The cast was far better than the Oscars recognized. Another movie that shows the Academy needs to add a Best Cast category, this is about the ensemble, which includes superb performances by John Lone (who should have been nominated for Best Actor), Joan Chen, and Peter O’Toole (who should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor). Instead, it received no acting nods.

As is the case with other seemingly perfect movies, this one isn’t. It clocks in at nearly three hours, and like nearly all the really long movies in this countdown, could have stood to be 10 to 20% shorter without sacrificing much of its plot or meaningfulness. It also walks a fine line between truly engaging and a piece of art that one admires for its beauty, but doesn’t truly like.

50/94 SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008) A young Indian man, Jamal, relives his past as a street hood to explain to the police how he knows all the answers to a quiz show he is competing on – a show he joined to attract the notice of a woman from his past, a woman he loves.

A thoroughly enjoyable film that is dramatic without being melodramatic, romantic, without being cloying, and humorous, without being silly. Danny Boyle lends a deft touch to the story and his actors. This is a sweeping film in the sense that it covers years of Jamal’s life, but never becomes boring. This is in large part due to strong writing, and in large part due to tight editing and good pacing. And despite the sad portions of the movie, it has an upbeat feel, with an ending that guarantees pure joy, as the cast goes into full Bollywood mode with a dance number.

The movie features another ensemble cast that (as with so many other ensemble pieces) didn’t get any acting nominations. But they all do so well, and American audiences no doubt recognize many of the actors, from movies and television both before and after SLUMDOG. Some of the actors are worth singling out. Anil Kapoor as the game show host. Irrfan Khan as the policeman who initially believes Jamal is cheating at the game and decides nobody could make up such a story as Jamal tells him. Madhur Mittal as Jamal’s dominating elder brother, Salim. And, of course, Dev Patel and Freida Pinto, as Jamal and his love interest, Latika.

If the movie has a problem, is that it gives only a surface look into the gritty conditions of street life in India or of its poor. It could probably have sacrificed some of the good times for a more realistic look into this theme.

The movie won eight Oscars. Other than Picture, it also won Director (Danny Boyle), Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Score, Song (for “Jai Ho” at the end), and Sound Mixing.

FUN FACT: SLUMDOG became the fifteenth film to win at least eight Oscars (there have been none since), and the eleventh Best Picture Oscar winner without a single acting nomination ( not until the 2019 film PARASITE was there a twelfth).

ANOTHER FUN FACT: It was the first film using digital cinematography to win Best Picture.

49/94 NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) A man (Josh Brolin) steals drug money, and a cop (Tommy Lee Jones) tries to find him before a hired killer (Javier Bardem) does, a killer who uses the toss of a coin to determine his victims’ fate.

The Coen Brothers are famous for their quality work; their films have received numerous Oscar nominations and a few wins. Many of their films have been considered borderline masterpieces; with this one, they created the best work of their career thus far.

Nearly every aspect of the film is well-done. The Coen Brothers’ usual filmmaking style was changed slightly for this one. Normally, both brothers wrote the screenplay, Joel directed, and Ethan produced. For this film, they were sharing jointly all three

responsibilities. This may have provided a better forum to bounce ideas off each other, to play around a little, and decide what worked best.

The film was deservedly nominated for its direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, and sound. It won for the first two, but none of the others.

The acting is superlative and the film’s strongest element. Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, and Kelly Macdonald all give fine performances. Javier Bardem, as the killer, Chigurh, gives one of the greatest performances in film. His win for Best Supporting Actor was a shoo-in.

Weak areas of the movie include its time – at right at two hours, it is a tad long for its type of movie, which may point to pacing problems. Also, the film is very violent, easily the most violent of the Coen Brothers’ oeuvre. They considered lessening the violence, but given it was in Cormac McCarthy’s novel, felt it important to leave it all in. Finally, the film’s ending is weak. The movie basically peters out, several scenes after the main thread of the plot has been resolved.

FUN FACT: Josh Brolin, who badly wanted to play Moss, enlisted friends Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez to make an audition reel and gained the part. Meanwhile, Bardem had scheduling issues and nearly had to withdraw. Mark Strong was cast to replace him if needed; it proved unnecessary. Given that this is Bardem’s signature role, the movie would quite simply not have been the same without him.

48/94 FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) The lives of three men are played out against the backdrop of the final days and weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

An all-star cast giving excellent performances is the hallmark of this movie. As are several actors playing against type. Burt Lancaster stars as a sergeant who tries to protect the soldiers under him from the wrath of the vengeful captain. Meanwhile, he is having an affair with the captain’s wife (Deborah Kerr), who wants Lancaster to become an officer, so she can divorce her husband and marry him, instead. Montgomery Clift plays a former boxer who gave it up after blinding his sparring partner. The Captain makes his life a misery when he refuses to box on Oahu. Frank Sinatra plays Maggio, a close friend of the boxer’s, and a drunk. He earns the animosity of the stockade sergeant (Ernest Borgnine) who badly beats him. Donna Reed plays the prostitute Lorene, who is drawn to the boxer, and is trying to get back to the mainland. Lancaster is all Lancaster, delivering a strong performance. Clift gives a sensitive performance as perhaps the most fully realized character in the story. Sinatra gives a forceful performance as a man of temper and violence. This was something against type for the popular crooner, whose bread and butter had mostly been musicals. He proved he could be a great dramatic actor, too. Donna Reed was also cast against type, at least on its face. Normally the good girl, she wanted this role, a prostitute – who in the end, has a heart of gold. Sinatra and Donna Reed won Oscars in their respective Supporting categories. Montgomery Clift and Burt Lancaster went head to head in the Best Actor category (and may have split votes); Deborah Kerr was nominated for Best Actress.

The film also won for Best Director (Fred Zinnemann), Screenplay, Cinematography, and Editing. It was also nominated for Costume Design and Score.

FUN FACT: This film features one of the most iconic scenes in film history: that of Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr making love on the beach as the waves crash over them. It barely passed the Hays Code as being too sexual. Such is the iconic stature of the scene, it was spoofed in the comedy AIRPLANE!, with the two leads in a similar scene – only seaweed is crashing over them, too, not just waves.

47/94 WEST SIDE STORY (1961) A modern, musical version of Romeo & Juliet features a young Puerto Rican woman, Maria, the sister of the leader of a Hispanic gang, falling in love with Tony, a former leader of a White gang. Tensions explode between the two rival gangs, with tragic consequences.

This is a classic tale and a classic movie. This film involved a lot of creators. The movie was directed by Robert Wise, with choreography by Jerome Robbins. The screenplay was written by Ernest Lehman, based on the stage musical, with the book by Arthur Laurents, music by Leonard Bernstein, and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. Sometimes, it really does take a village…

With its box office gross and Oscar wins, it is one of the most celebrated musicals ever made. On this countdown, only three are above it. It was nominated for 11 Oscars; its only loss was for Screenplay. It won for Picture, Director, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Score, and Sound. All of these were well-deserved. It also won for two of its actors, Supporting Actor and Actress, George Chakiris and Rita Moreno. The film also got a Special Oscar, for choreographer Jerome Robbins, given there was no category for it.

The setting, the photography, the modern take on this story, and the songs, with their meaningful and sometimes humorous, sometimes tragic, lyrics, are memorable and hard not to get into. It is just a fan favorite and a critics’ favorite and deserves it.

The film is far from perfect, however. In addition to its built-in melodrama, given its source material (which can grate a little), it has a few other problems. As is very often the case, unfortunately, the supporting cast is much superior to its two leads. Wood was a decent enough actress (if a little wooden sometimes), but she doesn’t shine here. She has too much affectation, and the spray tan looks bad (that isn’t her fault, but does affect perception). Richard Beymer was good in other roles both before (THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK) and after (a major role in the TWIN PEAKS series). But in this, he is boringly earnest. Then there are issues connected to race. The first is the lack of depth the race relations or why the gangs are at each other’s throats to begin with. This goes back to the original book of the musical, of course, and isn’t the movie’s fault. What *is* the movie’s fault –or the filmmakers – is that they didn’t feel the actors were “dark” enough for Puerto Ricans, so they put makeup on them to darken them. When Moreno (who actually *is* Puerto Rican) showed up too light against the makeup of the others, they put makeup on her, to darken her skin.

FUN FACT: The Steven Spielberg remake of the movie in 2021 was in some respects better than the first. He changed just enough to keep it interesting. He cast Hispanics in the roles of the Puerto Rican characters, with Rita Moreno advising him on casting and race portrayal. The two leads (Ansel Elgort and Rachel Zegler) give more convincing performances, Ariana DuBose (who as a member of the ensemble, originated the role of “The Bullet” in the Broadway show HAMILTON) gives a brilliant performance as Anita (the Moreno role) and Moreno plays a smaller role in the movie.

2nd FUN FACT: Like Audrey Hepburn, Wood was a decent singer. She was under the impression that her voice was going to be used in the movie and recorded all the songs, then pre-dubbed the filming. However, Marnie Nixon (who later also dubbed Hepburn) was chosen to dub Wood. Also like Hepburn, Wood can be heard in her own singing voice, briefly. She is singing the reprise of “Somewhere” at the end.

3rd FUN FACT: George Chakiris played Riff in the London stage production, not Bernardo. And Elvis was considered for the role of Tony (he was probably too old by then) but Colonel Parker turned down the offer.

46/94 GONE WITH THE WIND (1939) Based on the best-selling novel, this is the story of Southern belle Scarlett O’Hara, against the backdrop of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, as she tries to find love with her childhood friend, Ashley, and does what she can to save her plantation from ruin.

What can one say about this film? It is the most famous movie ever made. It was the highest-grossing movie ever made up to that point, and it held that record for 26 years when THE SOUND OF MUSIC passed it. It remains the highest-grossing when adjusted for inflation. It is the film of all films, epic, beautiful to watch, and mostly well-acted (with many exceptions). It became the standard bearer against which all epics were compared, what all epics wanted to be. It has memorable imagery, of war, recovery, and romance. It has quotes that are so famous, people still know many of them. It was once the most beloved film of all time. It is also probably the most hated film in America, certainly among the Best Picture winners.

A political post about this movie would be long enough on its own, so there is really only room to touch on it. The film whitewashes the experiences of slaves, making it look like all slaves were well-treated and happy to be in their positions. It positively swims in Black stereotypes. It is very clear that such depictions are now considered wrong. It remains unclear how many were considered wrong when the film was made. Whatever the case, the film has become increasingly unpopular. Attempts to “cancel” it (including the Orpheum Memphis removing it from their Summer Movie Series) have been met with protest, much of it from Black academics, who feel that it is more important to make the art available for discussion.

The film’s depiction isn’t the only thing modern audiences are aghast by. The marital rape scene, where a drunk Rhett Butler sweeps Scarlett up in his arms and takes her upstairs, makes clear he plans on sex, regardless of her wishes. That is bad enough but when she awakens, appearing satisfied, the movie reinforces the idea that forced sex is what women really want: she may say no, but she means yes. Some critics have pointed out that for many women, this is what they think of when they have rape fantasies, but true though that may be, overall, it’s a scene that like so many others, ages very poorly indeed.

It isn’t all bad news, however. There are plusses. This movie provided work for a lot of Black actors who had limited opportunities in their chosen field. That they were almost certainly paid less than any of the White actors doesn’t change that. Most of the Black actors in major roles went on to lengthy careers in film, television, Broadway, or some combination thereof. It is hard to think GWTW and its exposure didn’t help them. Thus, the bad needs to be remembered—and discussed. But so does any potential good.

The film is also a feast for the eyes. The beautiful Technicolor sweeps through every scene. Its beautiful Cinematography was one of its ten Oscar wins. It also won, deservedly so, for Art Direction, Best Director (Victor Fleming, more on that below), Best Actress (Vivien Leigh) and Best Supporting Actress (Hattie McDaniel, beating out fellow nominee Olivia de Havilland). At the ceremony, McDaniel was segregated. It won two special Oscars, won for its color, the other for technical achievement. The movie was also nominated but did not win for its iconic score, visual effects, and sound. Many of the scenes of the movie, from a filmmaking view, have survived well and are as well-respected today as they were then. No scene is this more true than the famous zoom-out of Scarlett picking her way over bodies in Atlanta, first just a few, then hundreds, then thousands. The burning of Atlanta is another such shot.

From a filmmaking point of view, the movie has its share of problems, too. GWTW won for its screenplay, which was written to be as close to the book as possible. Given the film’s nearly four-hour running time (including Overture and Intermission), it is patently clear someone with sense should have taken a marker and cut out some subplots. That problem affects the editing, which also won. Then there are some of the acting performances, none more so than Leslie Howard. He only took the part in return for being able to produce INTERMEZZO. He hated the part and did the least amount of work needed. It shows. Clark Gable didn’t want to do it either, but he took a different approach, turning Rhett Butler into an insatiably sardonic character. But no problem is bigger than the problem of directing. It had three directors. George Cukor (who did about 13% of the film), Fleming (who did about 70% of the film, got the credit, and the Oscar), and Sam Wood (who did the remaining 17% of filming). This obviously affected the flow of the film, and the feel of it, too. [Given producer David O. Selznick was a hands-on producer, one wonders why multiple directors mattered, but it’s clear it did.]

FUN FACT: GWTH is the crème de la crème, the greatest movie (theoretically) in the greatest year of Hollywood filmmaking. With the film now in the doghouse, the list of movies it beat becomes even more important than their own greatness had already made them. DARK VICTORY, GOODBYE MR. CHIPS, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, NINOTCHKA, OF MICE AND MEN, STAGECOACH, and THE WIZARD OF OZ.

45/94 THE DEER HUNTER (1978) Three steel-town best friends go on one of their hunting trips before going to Vietnam where the horrors they see overwhelm them and even the survivors and their loved ones struggle to regain normalcy.

This is a great film. It made Michael Cimino’s career as the youngest member of the New Hollywood group of filmmakers, shortly before HEAVEN’S GATE ruined it. It is one of the finest Vietnam flicks ever, one of the best films in demonstrating PTSD and its effects, and even one of the best working-class movies. A central theme of Russian roulette is used as a metaphor for the horrors and lack of control the soldiers have. That Russian roulette may not have been a thing during the war is something some critics have raised, though others defend its use.

Its cast is outstanding. Robert De Niro plays Mike, the de facto leader among the friends, and becomes a sergeant in the war. John Savage is Steven, who becomes a corporal, and who barely comes out alive. Christopher Walken is the third friend, also a corporal, who only finds tragedy waiting for him. George Dundza and John Cazale play their hunting friends. Meryl Streep, in her first big(ish) role, plays the love interest of both Mike and Steven. The latter three don’t understand the PTSD the men have but are nevertheless affected by it. De Niro, Walken, and Streep were all nominated. Walken won.

In addition to Picture and Supporting Actor, Cimino won for Best Director, and the film also won Editing and Sound. It was nominated for Screenplay and Cinematography.

It has a big problem, its length. I feel like I am preaching constantly on this issue. Overly long movies are (or can be) a sign of a director who hasn’t control of the story and/or the editor. This movie is three hours, and as good as the movie is, it is just too long.

FUN (BUT DEPRESSING) FACT: John Cazale was dying during filming. They filmed his scenes first. The producers wanted to let him go, but Meryl Streep (his girlfriend) and Michael Cimino threatened to walk off the film. Cazale was not insured, so De Niro paid for it himself. Cazale died before the film was released.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This was the first of three films De Niro and Streep made together. Several years later, they made an excellent, if little known romantic drama named FALLING IN LOVE. Over a decade after that, Streep played the sister of Diane Keaton, whose character is terminally ill. De Niro was her doctor.

44/94 NOMADLAND (2020) Based on a nonfiction book, after losing her job, a widow leaves home to travel around the United States as a nomad, living out of her van. She learns various survival skills on the way.

Frances McDormand gives a fine performance as the nomad, Fern. She is supported by an equally fine cast, including David Strathairn, and a few actual nomads. Despite the loneliness of the road, the film is upbeat, shows the community spirit among the nomads, and ends happily enough.

The film was written, directed, and edited by Chloé Zhao. Zhao becomes the focal point of the best about the movie (its direction and script) and the worst about the film (its uneven flow and editing).

Zhao won for Director and was nominated for the aforementioned editing and writing. Frances McDormand won her third Best Actress Oscar.

FUN FACT: Zhao became the second female director to win that prize, after Kathryn Bigelow had won eleven years prior. The year after Zhao, a third woman won, Jane Campion.

43/94 WINGS (1927/28) Two men competing for the same woman’s affections (one of them not realizing another girl is in love with him) head off to training camp to become combat pilots and then to France to fight against Imperial Germany.

If this movie had nothing to offer other than being the first Best Picture winner, it would be of historical value and worthy of watching. But it also has value as a film, and the first war film to win this accolade. It is also the only silent film to win. And this pre-code movie shows nudity, a brief scene with star Clara Bow.

The movie took nine months to complete, many times the normal average shooting schedule of films in its era. The filmmakers worked with a lot of actual pilots for authenticity and the movie later became the yardstick against which other flyer movies were compared. Nearly a century later, the technical effects and the real flying still stand out.

As for the actors, they are all good, but none standout. The director was not nominated, thus the movie became the first movie to “direct itself”. The Best Picture and Best Engineering Effects were the only Oscar nominations and wins that the movie got.

FUN FACT: Good-time girl Clara Bow, who had recently become engaged to director Victor Fleming, notoriously flirted with both male cast members and with fliers. But none was as torrid as the affair she had with Gary Cooper, here in his fourth film. It wouldn’t be the last time he had an affair during making of a film.

42/94 UNFORGIVEN (1992) When a prostitute is disfigured in a small Wyoming town, her fellow hookers post a reward for their murder, against the no-vigilante policy of the dangerous sheriff (Gene Hackman). Multiple gunfighters show up to claim the reward, including retired shooter – and failing farmer –Will Munny (Clint Eastwood) and his companions, old friend Ned (Morgan Freeman), and The Schofield Kid, who is less experienced than he has advertised. They find that going up against the sheriff is the real challenge.

This film is only the third Western to win Best Picture, behind CIMARRON (1930/31) and DANCES WITH WOLVES, just two years before this one. The other two movies concentrate much more on the panorama, the beauty of the prairie (in the first one), and of the hills (in the second). UNFORGIVEN uses a light filter that turns the panorama into a grittier, hazier background. The choice of lighting helps set this Western apart, as a story that is more about the characters than romanticizing the land. In fact, part of the point is that Will is failing as a farmer; the land is definitely not the draw.

Thematically, it’s a very well-done film, with several broadly used tropes. There is revenge being sought by several characters. There is hyperbole surrounding the legend of the West: Men who claim to be fearless are cowards, while liars are exposed by people telling more lies. There are different destinies of the shooters: A rookie who wrongly thinks he has what it takes, the sheriff who mistakes brutality for justice, the friend who grows weary of this lifestyle, and above all Will Munny, a retired shooter who still struggles with his past – and claims to be a different man — who comes out of retirement first from desperation, then later for revenge, turning back into what he once was. Meanwhile, all this is being recorded for posterity by a man who doesn’t understand the difference between men of honor and monsters.

However, even more than the photography and the writing, this movie’s strongest asset is its performances. Clint Eastwood, a man no stranger to Westerns, gives one of the best performances of his career. Gene Hackman, much more used to playing morally ambiguous characters or anti-heroes, plays a bad sheriff, perhaps the most villainous of his career. Morgan Freeman, as the friend who understands when enough is enough. Frances Fisher, as the head prostitute, fearless in her pursuit of justice. And so it goes, with many other cast members who stand out.

Strong direction, good editing, and a beautifully simple score help round out why this Western won awards that so few movies of its genre have done. Eastwood won for Director, and Hackman won Best Supporting Actor. Most of the standouts mentioned above were nominated, though didn’t win: Eastwood’s acting, the screenplay, the art direction and cinematography, and its editing.

FUN FACT: AFI listed UNFORGIVEN as the fourth best American film in the Western genre, behind THE SEARCHERS, HIGH NOON, AND SHANE. The two previous Western Best Pictures aren’t even in the Top 10.

41/94 HAMLET (1948) The first adaptation of Shakespeare’s famous play, a story about a man haunted by his dead father, who wants vengeance for his death at the hands of his brother, while at the same time, the killer marries Hamlet’s mother and plans to kill Hamlet.

Bringing Shakespeare to the big screen is nothing new. Since cinema began, filmmakers have been doing their own adaptations of various plays. This is the first for “Hamlet” though it certainly wouldn’t be the last: it is the most adapted of Shakespeare’s plays. Lawrence Olivier, the OG 20th-century Shakespearean actor, against whom all others are still compared, does a brilliant job both as the character and directing the movie. He won Best Actor and was nominated for directing. Jean Simmons, who here was still fairly early in her career, plays Ophelia and was nominated for Supporting Actress.

In addition to Picture and Actor, the film also won for production design, and costume design. Another nomination, for the score, did not win.

There have been so many great movie adaptations of this play, that critics argue about whether Olivier’s Hamlet is still the best one. It isn’t perfect. Concerned about time, Olivier had completely cut out the comedic characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He had also concentrated too much on the Oedipal aspect of the play, much to many critics’ consternation. Many prefer the Mel Gibson version, directed by Franco Zeffirelli (who put the comedic characters back into the play, in a shorter movie), while many others prefer Kenneth Branagh’s version, though it is by far the longest version. Some even prefer THE LION KING, an animated adaptation, which also leaves in the comedy, in the characters Timon and Pumbaa, but removes any Oedipal trace. Regardless, it is a sure bet that while any of these filmmakers were making their versions, Olivier was probably in their minds.

FUN FACT: HAMLET is the first British film to win Best Picture. There are only seven others: TOM JONES, OLIVER!, CHARIOTS OF FIRE, GANDHI, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, and THE KING’S SPEECH.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This was the first film where the lead actor directed himself to an Oscar-winning performance. There was no other until 1998 when Roberto Benigni directed his Best Actor-winning performance in LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL.

40/94 ANNIE HALL (1977) A professional comedian narrates for the viewer his examination of the neurotic relationship he had with former girlfriend Annie Hall.

Perhaps the greatest satirist in Hollywood, Woody Allen ditched his more slapstick comedies in favor of a more nuanced dramedy. Like all his films, this one is very dialogue driven. Like all his movies, this one is about story and characters. ANNIE HALL is considered the apex of his career (personally, I feel that came in the 1980s with other films).

Diane Keaton shines as Annie, a role that has typecast her forevermore. Allen is good, if essentially himself. The dialogue is witty, if a little fantastical, and over the top. Thematically, the film explores Jewish identity, sexuality, and psychoanalysis, among others.

Keaton and the screenplay both won, as did Allen for his direction. They weren’t the only good parts of the movie: though not nominated, the cinematography is excellent. The cinematographer did what Steven Soderbergh did later in TRAFFIC, adopting different color schemes for each locale. He uses a sun-drenched gold for California, dingy gray for Manhattan, and yet another look for the dream sequences.

The movie, while brilliant in many spots, also manages to be overdone, with dramatic moments not interesting and comedic moments not funny. It also suffers from not making the viewer invested in the outcome of the romance.

Its biggest problem, however, is that it simply hasn’t aged well. There are many reasons. The most obvious thing to point out is the current disfavor with anything Allen-related. But from a film perspective, it is more complicated. The reality is, the type of comedy the film uses isn’t usually thought funny anymore, and there is frequent debate about how funny it ever was. Just one example is psychoanalysis. Nearly anyone in therapy or who knows someone either in therapy or needing it has probably cracked a joke or two. Those are inside jokes (and sometimes about survival). But making public humor of it isn’t encouraged anymore or found amusing. That isn’t the only example; the film is filled with such examples.

Then too, the irony is not lost that the very year the highly cerebral ANNIE HALL came out, so did the popcorn film STAR WARS, which heralded a new type of film and what the masses enjoy. Maybe that should be considered a compliment to Hollywood that the same year could give us two wildly different film forms. But it doesn’t change the fact that such a transition in people’s taste has helped age this film.

FUN FACT: Japanese film director Akira Kurosawa cites this as one of his Top 100 favorite films.

39/94 MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1935) Ship’s Lieutenant Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) leads a mutiny against Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton), a brutal tyrant. After being stranded, Bligh attempts to get revenge. Meanwhile, Christian romances and marries a beautiful Tahitian girl and determines to avoid capture.

The movie plays around with factual details but is otherwise a riveting drama. Filmed partly on location in French Polynesia, which was a rarity in those days, the movie is beautifully shot, even given its black and white photography. It also features excellent performances from nearly the entire cast. In fact, its three leads – Laughton, Gable, and Franchot Tone (as a midshipman who dislikes the captain but also dislikes mutiny) – were all nominated for Best Actor, though all lost to the brilliant Victor McLaglen for THE INFORMER. The film was nominated for Best Director, Screenplay (despite the inaccuracies, Editing, and Score.

FUN FACT: Bligh features high on AFI’s Villains list. He’s #19.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: There have been two remakes, each also considered a classic. The first was a Marlon Brando 3-hour epic in beautiful Technicolor. The film failed, but it earned a Best Picture nod (it also earned Brando his second wife, the actress who played his Tahitian wife). The second remake was a 1980s version with Mel Gibson. This film is considered the most accurate to the real events and to Bligh’s real disposition and personality.

38/94 PARASITE (2019) A satirical con film about a poor family who successfully scheme to become employed by a wealthy family, despite a total lack of credentials or qualifications. When the owners go away for a few days, the new “servants” enjoy the luxuries of the large modern home. When the owners return early, attempts to hide the mess degrade into violence that extends into the next day.

One of the greatest black comedies ever made, PARASITE insinuates itself into the viewer, and the second half of the movie is hysterically funny. It is also, admittedly, very violent and bloody. The actors pour their hearts into the story, in excellent ensemble perfection.

Winning Best Picture just weeks before the COVID-19 shutdown, the film was still growing in popularity. The themes of class conflict and socioeconomic disparity hit at the right time, turning the film into a cult favorite and a surprising box office hit.

The film won the important Palme d’Or, by unanimous vote. It won the Screen Actors Guild award for Best Cast, a category that the Academy shamefully lacks. At the Oscars, in addition to Best Picture, it won for Director and Screenplay (both Bong Joon-ho) and International Feature. It was nominated for Editing and (well-deservedly) for Production Design.

FUN FACT: This is the first movie to win both Best Picture and Best International Feature Film (formerly known as Best Foreign Film). It is also the international film with the most Oscar wins.

37/94 LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (2003) A popular and well-made trilogy wraps up with Frodo and his protectors reaching Mount Doom, as his remaining companions fight against Sauron in Minas Tirith.

It is hard to know where to place this film. The same problem happens when justifying its Oscar for Best Picture. It isn’t that this film stands out as vastly superior in its story or filmmaking from the two before it, or vastly superior to its fellow nominees. Everybody knows the Oscar was for the entire trilogy. Its high placement here is for the same reason.

Unlike Jackson’s THE HOBBIT trilogy, which took a small children’s book and turned it into three excessively long movies, this was a perfect adaptation. Each film is long, yes, but befitting three relatively long novels, and fairly faithful to them at that. Great care was put into the film’s direction and screenplay, the performances, the special effects, the cinematography and production design, and into the choreography of its battle scenes. The sum total is very nearly a cinematic masterpiece.

The ensemble cast only got a single nomination (Ian McKellen, in the first film), but the acting was very well done. More proof that the Academy needs a Best Cast award. The final film won Oscars for Picture, Director (Jackson), Screenplay, Production Design, Costumes, Editing, Makeup, Score and Song, Sound Mixing, and Visual Effects. The Oscars had given the two prior ones only a few each, holding off one presumes until the last movie, to just give it them all.

The final film does have a fault. It has several conclusions. They play out almost like post-credit scenes, though they aren’t actually post-credits. But there are too many of them, to the point the viewer can be forgiven for thinking the film will never actually end. Given its nearly three-and-a-half hour running time, such things tend to affect the quality of a film.

FUN FACT: RETURN OF THE KING surpassed the previous highest clean sweep of Oscar wins, which had jointly been held by GIGI and THE LAST EMPEROR, with nine nominations and nine wins apiece. This won had eleven.

36/94 THE KING’S SPEECH (2010). Elizabeth, Duchess of York, approaches Australian actor and speech therapist Lionel Logue to train a secret client how to speak without stuttering. The client turns out to be her husband, Albert (Bertie), the Duke of York (later King George VI), and second in line to the British throne. As Bertie’s therapy helps him become more comfortable with speaking, his father dies, his brother David ascends to the throne (as Edward VIII), and his brother’s love affair brings on a constitutional crisis that threatens to undo everything Bertie has worked to fix.

A sentimental and heartwarming film, it features superb performances from Colin Firth (who won Best Actor), Geoffrey Rush (nominated for Supporting Actor), and Helen Bonham Carter (nominated for Supporting Actress). Tom Hooper’s direction and the screenplay (both of which won) are also stellar. The film received nominations in most of the production categories and should have won for production design and costume.

Critics praised the accuracy of stuttering, as well as resisting the urge to scale back the severity of Bertie’s problem (but probably exaggerating it a bit). The film does suffer from some historical inaccuracies, most of them in small details that don’t affect the historical record. The film also suffers from a little too much sentimentality, though it is tempered by its share of humor as well. Its biggest fault is concentrating on the speech aspect to nearly the exclusivity of the events that led to the constitutional crisis, or of David’s strong Nazi leanings. Bringing more of the history into it would only have enriched the film.

35/94 CHICAGO (2002) Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, two murderers in jail awaiting trial, battle with each other for the fame they believe will save them from hanging. Roxie, who looks up to Velma’s vaudevillian fame and talent, emulates her even as she competes with her. Meanwhile, sleazy lawyer Billy Flynn, who makes celebrities of his clients to get them off, has agreed to take Roxie on as his client.

A marvelous musical and black comedy, this film had great chemistry between its leads (Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Richard Gere), and overall stellar performances, including among its supporting cast, which includes Queen Latifah as the jail’s matron, and John C. Reilly, as Roxie’s hapless husband. The songs are earwigs, and the lush production design and costumes bring further pleasure to watching.

The film was nominated for a dozen Oscars. It won for Picture, Zeta-Jones (for Supporting Actress), Production Design, Costume, Editing, and Sound. It didn’t win for its direction by Rob Marshall, Zellweger (Best Actress), and Reilly and Latifah (in their respective Supporting categories). The Oscars snubbed Richard Gere, who won many other awards for his surprisingly sleazy and playful performance, surprising critics.

This adaptation, very faithful to the stage musical, is the third-highest musical in the countdown.

FUN FACT: CHICAGO is currently the second-longest-running show on Broadway, though a revival, not its original opening. With Phantom of the Opera closing this spring, it will become the longest-running.

34/94 MY FAIR LADY (1964) Pompous Professor Henry Higgins makes a bet with a professional colleague that he can take Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle and transform her into a cultured lady who can mingle easily in high society.

This showy film is adapted from a stage musical, itself adapted from George Bernard Shaw’s seminal play Pygmalion.

The songs, by lyricist Alan Jay Lerner and composer Frederick Loewe, are not only familiar but famous. We cannot help but cheer Eliza on every step of the way, from her early stubbornness to her failures, and finally to her triumphs. We sing happily along with the songs. We admire the lushness of the production design, the costumes, the cinematography, the score (all of which won Oscars). It also won for Screenplay and Best Director (George Cukor).

Julie Andrews originated the role on Broadway and many believed the film part should have been hers. Andrews was still a relative unknown then, however, and the producers wanted someone with more box-office clout. The then-thirty-six-year-old Audrey Hepburn was chosen. Hepburn gave a strong, if not spectacular, performance. That she was not nominated was considered a snub that was answering Andrews’ own.

Rex Harrison did (and very deservedly) win for his role as Henry, a role he originated on Broadway. Further acting nominations (but no wins) were given to Stanley Holloway (as Eliza’s father) and Gladys Cooper (as Henry’s mother), each in their respective Supporting categories.

A fun, if overly long (at nearly three hours) romp, it is worth noting that the film Pygmalion is worth a view, also. A Best Picture nominee for 1938 (it lost to YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU), it is a wonderful adaptation of the source material, itself.

FUN FACT: It is Oscar lore that Julie Andrews, who made MARY POPPINS after being declined for this film, won Best Actress because of collective guilt over her not getting the Eliza role. That seems silly, as few voters likely knew the whole story – which would seemingly prove the producers right to begin with! But especially after Hepburn was not nominated, it is a story that persists.

33/94 MARTY (1955) Working-class Italian-American Marty Piletti lives with his mother in the Bronx. Resigned to his bachelorhood, he nevertheless submits to his mother’s insistence that he go to a ballroom; there, he meets a teacher named Clara, and the two instantly hit it off. Despite his nearly instant feelings for her, his family suddenly becomes jealous and urges him not to call her back. Marty must figure out what is more important to him, his family or this girl.

Ernest Borgnine, who was primarily known at the time for his role as Fatso in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, replaced Rod Steiger, who had originated the role on Broadway. This role was so different from the other one, Borgnine instantly proved what range he was capable of. He won Best Actor for the movie.

The film also won Best Director (Delbert Mann) and Best Screenplay (Paddy Chayefsky). Two of its other actors were nominated, Betsy Blair (Clara) and Joe Mantell (as Marty’s best friend).

The movie is just the kind of sweet romance that manages to avoid sentimentality.

FUN FACT: MARTY, is one of only three films to win both the Palme d’Or and the Best Picture Oscar. The other two are THE LOST WEEKEND and PARASITE. In addition, MARTY is officially the first movie to win the Palme d’Or under its new name.

32/94 YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU (1938) When a woman falls in love with a scion of a wealthy – and straitlaced – banking family, she invites his family to meet her decidedly middle-class and eccentric family. Things go awry when he chooses to bring his family on the wrong day, believing his parents might as well learn about their eccentricity in its natural state.

A sweet romantic comedy, this film is adapted from a Pulitzer Prize-winning play. Jean Arthur is perfect as Alice, who is understandably worried his parents won’t like her family. James Stewart, in one of the first notable roles of his career, provides the perfect foil and romantic partner. The film manages to get its laughs while still leaving the characters’ humanity in place. In that sense, it is vaguely reminiscent of MOONSTRUCK, funny but very real.

The film won Best Director (Frank Capra). Its other nominations include Spring Byington as Best Supporting Actress, the screenplay, the cinematography, and the editing.

FUN FACT: Ann Miller was only fifteen when she made this movie.

31/94 MRS. MINIVER (1942) A married woman must hold her family together in the early days of World War II, as her husband sails to Dunkirk to assist in the evacuation, her son joins the RAF, a downed Nazi pilot tries to take her hostage, and her new daughter-in-law is killed.

The highest-grossing film of 1942, this was the first World War II-centered film to win Best Picture, though it would certainly not be the last. Greer Garson won Best Actress for the title role, and Teresa Wright won Best Supporting Actress as her daughter-in-law. There were three other acting nominations: Walter Pidgeon for Best Actor (as Mr. Miniver), Henry Travers for Supporting Actor, as the local station master, and Dame May Whitty, as the younger Mrs. Miniver’s grandmother. The film also won Best Director (William Wyler), Screenplay, and Cinematography.

While this wartime film often slides into sentimentality, it nonetheless has the acting performances to overcome the schmaltz. In addition, the story’s charm is its Homefront setting and its effect on the British citizens, rather than afar military personnel.

FUN FACT: This movie was the first to receive five acting nominations. It is in good company. The others are ALL ABOUT EVE, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, ON THE WATERFRONT, PEYTON PLACE, TOM JONES, BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE GODFATHER, PART II, AND NETWORK.

30/94 AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (1951) An American ex-GI stays in postwar Paris hoping to succeed as a painter. He falls for a pretty French woman, unaware that she is the girlfriend of a friend. Meanwhile, a woman offers to be his patron, and he reluctantly accepts, not realizing she wants more than that.

This American classic features tunes by George Gershwin, wonderful cinematography, production design, costume design (all three won Oscars), and Gene Kelly-choreographed dance numbers. That last is especially marvelous, featuring a famous seventeen-minute ballet sequence. It reportedly took so long to rehearse, director Vincente Minnelli directed another movie between the majority of this one and that dance number. That sequence is to musicals what the chariot race in Ben-Hur is to action movies. It was so cutting-edge it proved influential for future filmmakers, both in musicals and other film genres. And unlike Ben-Hur, this film has an engaging, if relatively conventional, plot that makes the rest of the movie worth watching, too.

The film deserves its placement not just for the ballet scene. More importantly, with its visual lushness, story, songs, and choreography, it helped sweep in a huge generational surge in popularity with musicals, with audiences, critics, and awards voters. In the twenty-three Oscar years before AAIP, few musicals had been nominated for Best Picture, and only three – the problematic BROADWAY MELODY, THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, and GOING MY WAY, a movie that doesn’t feel like a musical – had actually won. In the seventeen years following AAIP, five musicals won Best Picture.

The film was nominated for nine Oscars, winning seven. In addition to Best Picture, it also won director for Minnelli, the three mentioned above, score, and editing. It also won two others: the screenplay, which was written by Alan Jay Lerner of MY FAIR LADY fame, and a special Oscar to Kelly for his choreography.

But don’t be fooled by the high ranking of this movie. It isn’t the best musical out there, just simply the best that won Best Picture, and that is only because of its revolutionary choreography. But the reality is, this was not a movie that should ever have won. It beat A PLACE IN THE SUN, and more importantly, the masterpiece A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, which would have been in the top ten on this list had it won.

29/94 THE HURT LOCKER (2009) Three soldiers in Iraq, members of a bomb-disposal unit in Baghdad, struggle against increasingly dangerous conditions in an already dangerous job, hoping to live long enough to finish their final weeks of rotation and go home.

In full disclosure, I have never seen this movie in one sitting, beginning to end. For reasons that will be gone into below, I’ve had to watch in small bite-sized chunks.

This is almost certainly the best of the small breed of movies dealing with this war. It is emotionally visceral, and one spends the film on the edge of one’s seat wondering if the characters will survive. This is made more true due to the death of a soldier almost at the beginning, setting up just how dangerous what they do really is. And watching their stress is unrelenting almost to the end. But what is also captivating is the emotional tie these men develop to their job. Not to each other – though that is also true – but the diffusing of bombs. It becomes such a part of who they are, that it is clear when they go home, it might well be impossible to adjust to life without that thrill-seeking. It is ironic because, like any soldier, they badly want to go home to their families. Yet one of them will choose to return for another tour. It’s all he knows.

Jeremy Renner leads a stellar all-star cast and proves he has the chops to carry a movie on his shoulders. He was nominated for the Best Actor award for his role. The movie also won Best Director (Kathryn Bigelow), Screenplay, Editing, and Sound Editing and Mixing.

The movie got generally excellent reviews, but many military personnel (especially those in similar jobs) decried the exaggeration of the cowboy mentality of the characters in the film, saying the film soldiers would never have lasted.

The film’s besetting sin is its cinematography. It didn’t win but shouldn’t have even been nominated. The filmmakers wanted to go with something that would give the viewer the first-person immediacy of actually being there, so they used “shaky cams” That is rarely a good idea, as it can make the audience ill. Moreover, it is lazy filmmaking because people on the ground, running and looking around, don’t experience the same disorientation and nausea. Either way, it kept me from being able to watch more than a few minutes at a time of the film. It is a much better idea that the viewer be able to see what is happening.

FUN FACT: Director Kathryn Bigelow is the first female director to win an Oscar. The past two years have seen two more women win.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This movie is the lowest-grossing Best Picture among the 94, adjusted for inflation.

28/94 HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY (1941) The story of the Morgan family in a late 19th-century Welsh mining town and the effects of mining on the family and townspeople.

There are not many films I would call “important”. It is a loaded term, more than a little subjective, and can put an undue burden on a film as simply entertainment. This is an important movie, rife with many social themes. While the characters in the film are fictional, the events portrayed played out time and time again in coal countries in Wales and England (and America). One of the themes is family destiny. It was common for sons to follow their fathers into the same work, and Gwilym Morgan has five sons, four of whom work in the mines (the other is still too young). This can have an impact on families if there is a disaster (extremely common in mining work). Another theme is labor safety and wages. The working conditions are dangerous and the mine owners are not willing to pay what such a hazardous job is worth, which in the film leads to a strike, a concept that was only beginning to be popular at the time of the film’s setting. Finally, there is the theme of environmental destruction. What is meant to be a living for an entire town eventually destroys its beautiful valley and sends much of the town away. All of these themes remain very relevant today in many industries. In addition, it is a rare story featuring one of the more important cultural aspects of modern Welsh history.

The film features an outstanding cast, including a young Roddy McDowall, as the youngest son who watches his idyllic childhood end in a dirty town and in tragedy, and Maureen O’Hara, still early in her career.

Nominated for ten Oscars, in addition to Picture, it won for Director (John Ford, his second consecutive and his third of four Oscars), Supporting Actor (Donald Crisp, as the Morgan patriarch), Art Direction, and Cinematography. It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress (Sara Allgood, as the matriarch), Screenplay, Editing, Score, and Sound.

If the movie has a fault, it is that it doesn’t so much occasionally cross over into schmaltz. It occasionally dives right in and takes a swim. It’s a small price to pay.

Sometimes, not-very-good movies win for a variety of reasons, such as being monster box office successes (i.e. GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH) or being considered at the time to be important (i.e. CRASH), among other reasons. But sometimes, as in this case, genuinely great movies win but come in a year when they competed against even greater movies, even masterpieces. HGWMV beat out two of the greatest ever, THE MALTESE FALCON and CITIZEN KANE.

FUN FACT: The movie features Walter Pidgeon as the village pastor (whom O’Hara, the only Morgan daughter, falls in love with). Pidgeon was also Mr. Miniver in the film MRS. MINIVER, thus he was one of the main stars of back-to-back Best Picture winners.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Ford fought to film in Wales, but it was the middle of the war. They couldn’t bring it off.

27/94 CODA (2021) When a teenager, the only hearing member of a deaf family, discovers she has enough genuine singing talent to go to a prestigious singing school [Berklee], she must choose between her newly found dream, and her sense of obligation to her family, who can’t run their fishing boat business without her assistance.

This is a moving coming-of-age story about a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults – though she has a deaf brother as well). And yes, another important film. Its importance has less to do with its plot – though it does raise important questions as to what the responsibilities of a CODA should be – and more with the fact that all deaf characters in the film are played by deaf actors – and that a huge chunk of the dialogue is in American Sign Language.

The film manages to accomplish its goal without a lot of needless sentimentality. The music that accompanies the deaf scenes is kept simple, yet effective. Its writing does a successful job of showing that her family is normal in every way but their hearing, and makes clear any problem is directly related to their choice of job. This helps keep any schmaltz to a low level.

Writer/director Sian Heder had hired Marlee Matlin (the teen’s mother) first and at first, the producers and financiers pushed back on the idea they needed any additional deaf actors. They relented when Matlin said she would walk off the film. That Heder fought for deaf actors in all the deaf roles is commendable. She not only was giving them work but lending much-needed verisimilitude to the film.

The film was nominated for three Oscars and won all three: Picture, Heder’s screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor for Troy Kotsur, who played the girl’s father. The screenplay does, unfortunately, provide few plot surprises; worse, it offers us a few contrived scenes, such as an inspector riding on the boat while their daughter is away, and the inspector doesn’t know they are deaf and naturally it is a disaster. [Because they can’t just simply write things down?] Even as the movie attempts to show how hearing isn’t required for total autonomy, it belies that by putting such scenes in as tired plot devices.

FUN FACT: This is the first film distributed by a streaming service to win Best Picture. It is also the first Sundance winner to win Best Picture.

26/94 ARGO (2012) While Iranian Islamists take sixty-six American Embassy workers hostage – retaliation for the United States offering the Shah asylum – six Americans escape from the annexed American Consulate, and find sanctuary with the Canadian ambassador. Meanwhile, their escape is kept under wraps, while the CIA develops a plan to get them out, hoping to succeed before the Iranians find out the workers have escaped. What they come up with is anything but subtle.

Ben Affleck got well-deserved rave reviews for his solid direction of this wonderfully paced edge-of-your-seat thriller with its unexpectedly dark humor. He also stars as the CIA agent who plans out the exfiltration and then carries it out. He is supported by an excellent cast. The wonderful actors who play the six escapees, who do such a good job we can feel their terror, and who find room for some black humor while they are at it. The actors (led by Bryan Cranston), who play Affleck’s government support system. John Goodman and Alan Arkin as Hollywood men with top-secret clearance, who help get the escape plan ready. The film won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Cast, and once again, I find myself bemoaning that the Oscars don’t have an ensemble award.

But the acting and the screenplay are hardly the only strong elements of this film. It has excellent cinematography that matches the emotion of specific scenes. [It was surprisingly not nominated.] It shows excellent technical skill, especially in its sound. Its editing is tight, with nothing wasted, and steadily builds momentum and suspense. Its score is effective and the songs are used appropriately and effectively. Archival footage of the actual Islamic takeover and news segments are also used to effect. It won Oscars for Picture (produced by Affleck, Grant Heslov, and George Clooney), Screenplay, and Editing. It was nominated in most of the categories mentioned above, as well as Best Supporting Actor for Alan Arkin.

Ben Affleck was not nominated for Director, which created a mild sensation. Quentin Tarantino was one of many directors, writers, and actors who believed it was a terrible snub. As for Affleck himself, while admitting to being disappointed, he humorously said, “I also didn’t get the acting nomination,” he pointed out. “And no one’s saying I got snubbed there!” [While giving a very effective performance, Affleck did not stand above anyone else. It was his direction of the rest of the cast that was so good.]

The movie, of course, has its faults. Its lesser fault is a tendency toward overdoing the suspense. The end creates multiple scenes where the six could be caught (and the CIA official that is helping them). It is trying to match the suspense of the opening scene. It largely succeeds, but at the expense of irritating the audience and yanking them out of the story. The Tehran Bazaar scene should have been less severe, and the multiple airport problems reduced by at least one, with at least one other shortened by half.

Its other problem is fairly major. The film got ripped for its historical inaccuracies and for a few other things as well. Many of them are fair assessments, especially given the worry that this film will become part of the event’s accepted (and revised) history. Others are less fair. Others were just flat wrong for the sake of poetic license. Many of the changed details don’t matter that much to most people. The important ones revolve around the film’s perception that only Americans (and really only the CIA and the Hollywood men) were involved in the rescue. That isn’t true. The Canadians helped develop the plan (and unlike what the detractors have said, the film does show the Canadian ambassador actively involved in what is happening). In the movie, Britain is made to look like the bad guys for refusing to harbor the six. In fact, they *did* harbor them until it became clear the Iranians would probably find them, at which point they went to the Canadian embassy. New Zealand was next on the list if the six needed another place; the Kiwis also drove the CIA officer Tony Mendez and the six to the airport. None of this is in the movie. Affleck said he needed to set up that the characters had nowhere to turn, and no one to rely on but Mendez. From a story perspective, that isn’t a problem. But it literally created an international incident, with the New Zealand government issuing an official condemnation of Affleck for lying about the official record. Inaccuracies weren’t the only perceived problem. Among other things, Affleck was heavily criticized for casting himself (mostly Scots-Irish) as the Hispanic Mendez. The actual Tony Mendez ripped back on the criticism. He is a third-generation American, admits he doesn’t speak Spanish, and that he has never identified as Hispanic. There are other complaints that are also exaggerated, incorrect, or don’t tell the whole story.

FUN FACT: According to CIA officer Tony Mendez, Studio Six, the phony production company that was “producing” the phony film, ended up being so convincing that multiple scripts continued to be delivered – including one reportedly from Steven Spielberg (who at the time, would have been between CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and RAIDERS).

25/94 ALL THE KING’S MEN (1949)

Populist Willie Stark rages against the political machines of his unnamed Southern state, only to become the machine himself once in the governor’s mansion. A man who controls every aspect of his destiny soon discovers not everyone can be bought off. This story is told from the point of view of an admiring political reporter.

This is one of the best political films ever made. It is an excellent satire and indictment of populism and the followers of such movements who follow blindly. It is steeped in the consequences of corruption on democracy, themes that continue to resonate today.

Star Broderick Crawford made the most of this role, quite believable both as the underdog who believes he is doing the right thing by routing corruption and as the powerful leader who will seemingly do anything to keep that power. Crawford won the Best Actor Oscar for this role. Mercedes McCambridge won Best Supporting Actress as Stark’s campaign assistant. In addition to its three wins, it was nominated for Best Director and Screenplay (Robert Rossen), Editing, and Supporting Actor (John Ireland, as the journalist).

24/94 THE STING (1973) When a con man pulls a sting (the moment when the play is done and he takes the mark’s money), and he finds that the man behind the money is a dangerous crime boss, the con man flees, and hooks up with an aging con man to pull an even bigger sting on the victim.

The second-biggest draw of the year (THE EXORCIST was the first) was a highly entertaining and very well-put-together film. This is a great con movie, but above all, it is really about the setting and the chemistry between its two main stars, Robert Redford (as the con man in trouble) and Paul Newman, the aging con man. As for the setting, the film positively reeks of atmosphere (in a good way). The costume design, production design, and the music (with a lot of ragtime) all make the viewer feel they are there, like a 3-D effect, almost. The screenplay is clever, filled with plenty of twists, and fun. The cinematography is gorgeous. And the cast is delightful.

The film won seven of its ten nominations: Picture, Director (George Roy Hill), Screenplay, Art Direction, Costumes, Editing, and Score. Its other nods were for Robert Redford as Best Actor, Cinematography, and Sound.

FUN FACT: Marvin Hamlisch’s re-arrangement of Scott Joplin’s music and the popularity of the movie gave ragtime music a renaissance in the 1970s. The movie soundtrack was a huge seller, going to #1 on the Billboard Album chart.

23/94 MOONLIGHT (2016) A heartbreaking three-act look into the life of the Black protagonist, as he deals with an abusive, addicted mother, the lack of a father, and his own confused sexuality.

This is another of what I’d call an important film. It is the first all-Black cast of an LGBTQ film, dealing with issues that the Black community – both in general and in Hollywood – have long ignored. It covers themes of parental figures, survival, sexuality, and Black masculinity. We see the protagonist, Chiron, as a young child looking to a drug dealer as a father figure while the same dealer sells drugs to the mother, a teenager who is discovering his sexuality, but as a bullied student unable to express it, and as a young man who has himself become a dealer and has not recovered from his one experience with love (sex).

Mahershala Ali gives a powerful performance as the drug dealer Chiron looks up to. His straightforwardness and sensitivity in the role is Oscar-worthy and he was indeed rewarded with the Supporting Actor Oscar. Naomie Harris (Moneypenny in the Daniel Craig era) gives her most effective performance as Chiron’s mother, alternately neglectful and abusive, and earned herself a Supporting Actress nomination. The three actors playing Chiron are all good, especially the child.

The film, in addition to Picture and Ali, won for Screenplay (by the director, Barry Jenkins). Other nominations, besides Harris, include Best Director, Cinematography, and Score.

FUN FACT: It is the second-lowest grossing Best Picture, behind THE HURT LOCKER.

22/94 THE ARTIST (2011) A successful French silent-film actor sees his star begin to fall after he is unable to transition to talkies with this accent. This happens at the same time that he lifts into stardom a woman he’s attracted to, and who is in love with him.

Every so often, a film comes along that is almost more about the magic of movies than the story within the film. Such films include SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS, SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN, the brilliant CINEMA PARADISO, and THE FABELMANS, a Best Picture nominee this year. Add one to the list: THE ARTIST. They all bring joy to the viewers and make us love classic cinema all the more.

This movie is a silent film, over eighty years since the silent film era ended. The major plot point deals with the difficulty so many had in transitioning to talkies, often for disappointing voices. And, of course, the rise of new stars, because they had just what the talkies needed.

But this isn’t a movie that is simply about the end of the silent era and the advent of talkies. If it was, the movie would be enjoyable but not much more. Instead, this is a movie filled to the brim with movie references just begging for viewers to take the ride with the filmmakers. The history of cinema is the real star here. Among the many references: His downfall and her rise is a tribute to A STAR IS BORN, take your pick of version. Our actor, Valentin, has a chauffeur, who later works for the new star, Peppy. His continued compassion for Valentin is from SUNSET BOULEVARD, as is his pride masked as arrogance. His work with an actress with a terrible voice – and his own attempt to make his first talkie – are reminiscent of SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN. There are also scenes from CITIZEN KANE that inspire this movie: the breakfast scenes with Valentin’s wife, and the collection he must sell off. There is the Bernard Hermann’s score of VERTIGO playing when Peppy drives to save George. [The music was lawfully licensed, not “borrowed”. His dog is reminiscent of Chaplin’s A DOG’S LIFE. When Valentin looks at one of his old movies, it is actually Douglas Fairbanks’ THE MASK OF ZORRO. And so forth, with about twenty or more other fairly obvious references to classic movies.

The movie was technically tweaked to produce the type of film the director was looking for. He shot the movie in a slower frame per second and then ran at normal speed, giving it the look and feel of that era. The cinematography has the same look and feel. The editing also pays homage to the feel of such old movies. Finally, the score, obviously a staple of movies since the talkies began, was an even bigger staple in the silent film era, and the music plays an important role in creating the atmosphere of a silent film.

Finally, there are the lovely performances. Jean Dujardin doesn’t just shine; he leaps off the screen in larger-than-life. Bérénice Bejo is charming, beautiful, funny, and oh so talented. The dog, Jack, played by Uggie, became and overnight sensation and a celebrity for his remaining years. Missie Pyle, Penelope Ann Miller, James Cromwell (as the chauffeur), and John Goodman, as the studio head, round out the excellent cast.

The film received ten nominations, winning five: Picture, Director (Michel Hazanavicius), Actor (Jean Dujardin), Costume Design, and Original Score. It also received nominations for Bejo (Supporting Actress), Screenplay, Art Directions, Cinematography, and Editing.

FUN FACT: The film was the first film in the 4:3 aspect ratio since FROM HERE TO ETERNITY to win Best Picture. It was the first black-and-white film to win since SCHINDLER’S LIST – or, if one doesn’t with to count that for its shots of red – the first since THE APARTMENT to win Best Picture.

21/94 TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE (2013) A free Black man from New York state is kidnapped and sold into slavery. He ends up with an evil owner with no hope of ever being free again, but after twelve years, an encounter with an abolitionist carpenter changes everything.

This is a harrowing tale that shows being from the North was imply no guarantee of freedom. What Solomon goes through is, of course, what so many slaves went through, made worse (because he’s a “civilized” Black man? Because he’s a proud American? The movie leaves the answer to the viewer). A major theme underpinning the movie is the various justifications for slavery, including Christianity, and director Steve McQueen is not afraid of holding everyone under the microscope of responsibility.

This is a film more about the story and the actors than anything else. It was not a technical feat, nor much of a production values movie. It received only two nominations in the area of production, and none on the technical side. It won for Picture, for the Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actress (Lupita Nyong’o, in her breakthrough role as a fellow slave, who is repeatedly raped and beaten by the owner). It was nominated for Director, Actor (Chiwetel Ejiofor (as Solomon), and Supporting Actor (Michael Fassbender, as the primary slave owner). Many other actors deserve recognition for their roles: Sarah Paulson as the wife of the murderous owner. Paul Dano, as a cruel carpenter. Benedict Cumberbatch, who bonds with Solomon (though he doesn’t let him go). And finally, co-producer Brad Pitt, in a small role as the abolitionist who secures Solomon’s freedom.

20/94 ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1929/30) When a teacher gives a patriotic speech about the glory of serving in the German army most of the boys in his class join up. Their romantic views of war are quickly destroyed by the destructive reality they face in the trenches, and they must struggle to survive until the war’s end.

This film was only the third Best Picture, but the second war movie, ironically both about World War I. The story centers around four particular schoolboys and the two older soldiers they befriend. It is based on the novel that was released only months before the film was made.

The story is thematically rich. It is antiwar, showing both the horror and futility of what they are doing. The boys, who go in hating their enemies, learn before long to humanize their enemies, seeing them as in the same situation, if opposite sides. The movie delves into the differing attitudes toward the war between the front-line soldiers and the home front. When the main character, Paul, goes home on leave, he is called a coward by his former teacher and classmates for accurately describing what is going on. He can’t get back to the front quickly enough, so disgusted he is by the very real disconnect people at home are experiencing.

There are wonderfully directed battle scenes, and the cinematography is one of the film’s real strengths. The viewer is in the thick of things, and can’t help but be reminded that this is a very ugly war, with its trench warfare. Ugly, and incredibly easy to be killed in so many different ways.

The movie won four Oscars. Besides Picture, it won for Director (Lewis Milestone), Screenplay, and Cinematography.

FUN FACT: This third Best Picture was the first where its director won the Oscar. For WINGS, its director wasn’t even nominated. For BROADWAY MELODY, the director was nominated but lost. So Milestone gets the honor of being the first Best Director winner.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This year, one of the Best Picture nominees is a remake. It isn’t substantially different from the original — though it does add scenes of the German soldiers and diplomats who ultimately ended the war. The remake is getting deserved great reviews, but part of the reason is that it uses an all-German cast for this German story. The original version did not use any German actors, despite there being many working in Hollywood at the time. [There were many German extras in the film, however, people who had actually fought on the German front lines. What PTSD the filming caused them is anybody’s guess.]

19/94 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934) When the spoiled daughter of a rich newspaper mogul runs away, she meets a reporter who believes her story will be his path to journalist fame. But plans go awry when they begin to fall in love.

This legendary film might be the original romantic comedy. No, not literally. But its success and critical acclaim at the time, and its continued longevity nearly a century later have earned it that moniker. Certainly, for decades, it was the rom-com against which others were compared.

And why not? The movie has great, snappy dialogue, a fun story, and stellar performances from its leads. It also features some truly iconic moments and dialogue that still crop up today in movies. One of them is when the reporter (Clark Gable) is failing to get a car as they hitchhike. So the girl (Claudette Colbert) takes over, lifts her skirt, and a car screeches to a halt. Her humorous response? “Well, I proved once and for all that the limb is mightier than the thumb.” Another classic moment involves a running gag when they use a blanket strung up between beds, to afford each some privacy (especially given the brand new Hays Code). They call it the Wall of Jericho. At the end, they set up the whole contraption, just to tear it down, now that they’re married. When Gable cables her father to tell him that the Walls of Jericho are toppling, her father’s response is, “Let them topple”. [The line is admittedly old-fashioned, as is the sentiment of the father commenting on his daughter’s sex life. It it also still funny.]

It won every Oscar it was nominated for: Picture, Director (Frank Capra), Best Actor and Actress (Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert) and Screenplay.

FUN FACT: The five Oscars the movie won are considered the Big Five: the movie, its director, its screenplay, and its male and female lead actors. This film was the first to sweep them. Since then, only two others have won that honor: ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This film ranks #3 on AFI’s Romantic Comedy list. It is behind CITY LIGHTS and ANNIE HALL (#40 on this list).

STILL ANOTHER FUN FACT: When Colbert won her Oscar, she was boarding a train to New York. A car was sent for her, and the train waited while she was rushed to the venue in her travel clothes, accepted, and was rushed back.

18/94 THE LOST WEEKEND (1945) This story unpacks the life of a severe alcoholic, as he binges during a long weekend. As we hear his story, and his plans to write a book about his alcoholism, we also see him falling deeper and deeper into a health crisis that may end his life before the weekend is over.

This classic screenplay was written by writing partners Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder, with Wilder directing. It doesn’t hold much back, showing us the destructiveness of drinking, and doing it without sentimentality. In fact, the film has its share of humor, the type only people who have dealt with substance abuse and/or mental illness in a family member could appreciate. The film does have an upbeat ending but is tough to watch through most of it.

While most of it was filmed in a studio, a small part was shot in New York for the atmosphere. This includes Bellevue Hospital. The hospital gave permission to shoot there, which is very rare. The cinematography is good, the camera angles and how Milland is filmed show Wilder’s talent.

This is an actor’s movie. Ray Milland gives a sterling performance, backed up with perfect music that sets the mood. There are some performances in movies that must be incredibly difficult to shoot and might leave some of the actor’s self behind. This is one of those roles.

Besides the movie, the film won Director (Wilder), Actor for Milland, and Screenplay. It was additionally nominated for Cinematography, Score, and Editing.

FUN FACT: The film shared the Grand Prix Prize at the very first Cannes Film Festival. MARTY AND PARASITE join it as the only three films to win both Cannes’s highest prize and Best Picture. The latter two won the Palme d’Or, which became the highest honor after THE LOST WEEKEND was out.

17/94 THE APARTMENT (1960) An insurance worker, Bud Baxter falls for the elevator girl, Fran, in his office building, unaware that she is his boss’s mistress. When his boss begins asking to use his apartment for meetings with her (an arrangement he has with many work managers), the worker gets the chance to know her better.

Another film directed and co-written by Billy Wilder, this dramedy satire is definitely bittersweet. Both Baxter and Fran (Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine) experience suicide attempts; his before the story begins and hers during the story. Thus the film is as much about burying the past as about falling in love.

The film, taking place at the end of an era, as the fifties and very early sixties were about to give way to new social mores, was considered controversial for its subject matter of infidelity and women’s freedom to sleep to have sex with whom they wished. These are the underlying themes throughput the movie.

Technically, the film was very well-done, with excellent production design. Its actors, of course, were also great, earning nominations for each.

The film won Picture, Director, Screenplay, and Art Direction. In addition to the above nominees, it was also nominated for Supporting Actor (Jack Kruschen as Baxter’s next-door neighbor, a doctor), Cinematography, and Sound.

FUN FACT: Kevin Spacey, a huge admirer of Lemmon’s (and the two also worked together), thanked Lemmon in his acceptance speech for AMERICAN BEAUTY. The older movie had been an inspiration for the more contemporary film.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Shortly after the film came out, color movies became standard. Since it won in 1961, only two black and white movies have won Best Picture: SCHINDLER’S LIST and THE ARTIST.

16/94 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST (1975) When a convict gets himself sent to a mental hospital to avoid hard labor, he finds himself in a battle of wills with the head nurse, as he attempts to encourage rebellion in the other patients.

One of the biggest downer movies ever put to film (yet with its share of humor), it is a brilliant look into two broken systems – the justice system that doesn’t protect its inmates, and mental hospitals, where archaic brutality reigns, and where there is no oversight or consequences over hospital caretakers and their actions.

Jack Nicholson pours heart and soul into convict Randle McMurphy. His sense of humor, his initial playfulness, his later rage, and the horrifying ending, are all handled with near perfection by the skillful actor. Even more brilliant is the performance of Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched, one of the great villains of cinema (AFI has her the fifth-best villain on their 100 Heroes and Villains list). It is one of those roles you believe an actor will find difficult to come back from, but apparently Fletcher had an easy shoot. She was directed to behave as though she doesn’t know she is evil, she is simply trying to help patients and trying to keep control of the troublemaker in their midst. The director (Miloš Forman) saw Ratched as a microcosm of his experience as a Czech citizen in the Cold War: Someone is always there to tell you what to do, with terrible consequences for disobedience.

The other actors are also superb. Brad Dourif as a patient who commits suicide rather than continue on, Scatman Crothers, as the reasonably sympathetic guard, and Will Sampson, as the Chief, who ultimately “frees” McMurphy before escaping – the one who flew the cuckoo’s nest.

The film is technically nearly perfect. It is well-paced and well-edited, has effective cinematography, an iconic score, great production design, the sound. All of it working to create the needed atmosphere.

The movie won Picture, Director, Best Actor and Actress, and Screenplay. It was nominated for most of those other elements.

FUN FACT: This film became the second of three movies to win the Big Five Oscars, after IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT and before THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Japanese director Akira Kurosawa listed this among his 100 favorite films.

15/94 THE DEPARTED (2006) As a Massachusetts State Police rookie goes undercover to infiltrate mob leader Frank Costello’s operation, a man Frank groomed goes undercover in the police department, to spy and report back. When each group realizes they have a mole, the two moles in question scramble to identify each other as quickly as possible, not knowing they are both already linked by the woman they both love.

Every so often comes along a director that is so great that they provide for us multiple masterpieces (I use that term sparingly, as I would the term “Important” and for largely the same reasons). John Ford. Billy Wilder, George Cukor. Alfred Hitchcock. Steven Spielberg. Maybe William Wyler, Howard Hawks, David Lean, and a few others.

Martin Scorsese is one of those directors. He gave us TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, and GOODFELLAS, all legitimately great. All nominated for Best Picture (as was THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, also very good) and all lost to inferior films. This film is lesser by Scorsese standards and yet so much greater than most of what is around it. That is what great filmmaking skills look like.

This movie has it all. First and foremost, there is the story, which is partially based on a Hong Kong film, and partially based on the actual Whitey Bulger mob group. This film is part mobster picture and part thriller. It has multiple twists, though it never strays far from the core of the plot: the two men working to identify each other. It is part love story, part drama, part tragedy. A little of everything. It deals with themes such as abandonment, identity, and guilt. The screenplay won an Oscar.

Second, it has an all-star cast, many of whom have worked with Scorsese before, and many others who seem like they spent their whole careers waiting for the opportunity and promised themselves they wouldn’t screw it up. Leonardo DiCaprio is Billy Costigan, the cop who has gone deep in with the mobster. Jack Nicholson is Frank Costello, the leader of the local mob. Matt Damon (as a rare bad guy) is Sgt Colin Sullivan, Costello’s inside man. The cast is rounded out by Vera Farmiga as the shrink Maddy, love interest to both Billy and Colin; and Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg, and Alec Baldwin, all cops that are part of the team trying to bring Costello down. This is yet another case where the Academy should have a Best Cast Oscar, as they all work together as an ensemble, no piece (in the end) more important than any other. Wahlberg did receive an individual nomination for Supporting Actor.

Technically, while few of these filmmaking elements were nominated, they all complemented perfectly the story that was being told. Cinematography, with different filters for the two story lines. A great score, and some well-chosen songs to accompany specific scenes. Great production values. Effective sound mixing.

The film won Picture, of course, as well as Director for Scorsese, the above-mentioned screenplay, and Best Editing, which threads the story tightly together.

14/94 REBECCA (1940) A man haunted by the death of his first wife (the titular Rebecca) brings home a young second wife, who struggles in the oppressive house and the memories it holds of Rebecca to its various occupants.

This was Alfred Hitchcock’s first Hollywood film, and he never looked back. A relatively faithful adaptation of the famous Daphne du Maurier novel, Hitchcock butted heads with the hands-on producer David O. Selznick. Luckily for Hitchcock and the film, Selznick was away a great deal, finishing work on the troubled shooting of GONE WITH THE WIND, giving Hitchcock more creative control. This is pure Gothic romance, in edge-of-your-seat perfection.

Olivier is handsome, mysterious, and romantic as the aloof Max, sunk in his own memories, yet caring for his new wife, also. Joan Fontaine, still very early in her career, had the far more difficult task of playing the second Mrs. de Winter, as a naïve young woman easily terrified who becomes strong once Max really needs her. Judith Anderson plays Mrs. Danvers, one of the great villains of cinema (and literature). AFI ranks her character #31 on their 100 Heroes and Villains list.

Hitchcock is one of the best directors cinema has ever seen. REBECCA is a movie that like most of his relies far more on lighting, camera angles, reaction shots, and setting, telling his tale more than dialogue ever could. The ultimate show, don’t tell, director. He is not at his best here, but I again use that word masterpiece: it was his first of a small handful. The cinematography, production design, editing, and score are all very strong elements of this movie. As is, of course, the screenplay and direction.

Disappointingly, despite eleven nominations (which led the pack), the film won only two: Best Picture, and Cinematography. Its other nominations were most of the elements I mentioned above, plus Olivier, Fontaine (who would go on to win Best Actress the next year, in another Hitchcock film), and Anderson. As for Hitchcock himself, he received his first and only Best Director nomination. Despite the high quality of so much of his work, including those “masterpieces”, he never received another. [He lost to John Ford for THE GRAPES OF WRATH.]

FUN FACT: The supporting actor and actress Oscar categories were added in 1936. Since then, REBECCA is the only film to win Best Picture, but win no award in acting, directing, or writing.

13/94 THE FRENCH CONNECTION (1971) Detective Popeye Doyle and his partner Cloudy chase down a drug ring of smugglers. Literally and figuratively.

Director William Friedkin was a new breed of director, in a style called the New Hollywood, which actually wasn’t a single style, but a mixture of ways that didn’t follow the old studio system. This film was (arguably) the first Best Picture winner by one of these young directors.

He filmed this action movie in documentary style, with the camera seeming there by accident, like a security camera catching the movie’s action, allegedly inspired by the movie Z. Friedkin makes use of the setting of New York to such a degree, New York becomes a character in its own right. The Oscar-winning cinematography gave the city a gray dinginess appropriate to it’s setting. Tight editing gives us a highly charged and suspenseful ride, a difficult proposition given the movie is part mystery, too. The editing won an Oscar.

Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider as the two cops give iconic performances. It was Hackman’s first starring role, and he comes out swinging. The rest of the case is more than serviceable, but it really is true these two carry this movie. They were both nominated for Oscars; Hackman won.

Of all the well done attributes of this movie, none surpasses the chase scene, maybe the most famous car chase in cinematic history. The director of photography slowed down the speed to capture the chase, then sped it back up, making the car look like it was going far faster than it actually was (tricks to every trade). Some accidental collisions added verisimilitude to the scene, and certainly leaving the audience on tenterhooks.

Besides picture and the awards mentioned above, Friedkin won Best Director.

FUN FACT: Both Brad Pitt and director David Fincher have cited this movie as having a huge influence on the making of SEVEN. Spielberg has stated it influenced his film, MUNICH.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Yet another film that Akira Kurosawa has on his 100 favorite movies list.

12/94 IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967) When a Black detective on vacation in Mississippi is mistakenly arrested for murder and robbery, he stays to work the case with the racist police chief.

Rod Steiger (as the Chief) and Sidney Poitier (the detective) give two of the greatest performances on film, helped along by a strong story and great chemistry between the two leads (they reportedly got along famously). This is just a fantastic mystery.

The film came out only a year or two after heated debate occurred before and after civil rights legislation had been passed, and only months before Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Thus, the history of these events is indelibly tied into the movie, in a way that wouldn’t have happened had it been made later. Such was the immediacy of what was going on that Poitier was nervous about filming anything in the south. This undoubtedly added an edge to his performance. But it is Steiger, as the brash Chief whose reluctant respect of Tibbs gets the better of him and eases his racism (at least toward this one man) that won the Best Actor Oscar.

This neo-noir is helped considerably along by its screenplay and its editing, both of which won. Norman Jewison, despite his fine directing, though nominated, did not win. He lost to Mike Nichols for THE GRADUATE.

FUN FACT: One of the great classic lines of cinema is said in this movie, after the Chief asks what the detective is named and calls him “boy”. The response: “They call me MR. Tibbs.” AFI ranks that #16 on their list of famous movie quotes.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: There’s a scene in the movie where Gibbs is slapped. The screenplay as originally written had To be just take it. Poitier argued that in the heat of the moment, Gibbs would instinctively struck back. He persuaded Jewison to his side. The slap caused a wee sensation.

11/94 ALL ABOUT EVE (1950) When an aging Broadway star takes young fan Eve Harrington under her wing, Eve ruthlessly grows in power, usurping her elder both on stage and in society.

This is a satire of celebrity and power. It is also about the place of women in society, post-war. A strong theme running through the film is how women constantly undermine one another, in small ways.

It has an all-star cast, with Bette Davis as the aging Margo Channing, Anne Baxter as Eve, and a supporting cast that includes George Sangers, Celeste Holm, Thelma Ritter, and an unknown Marilyn Monroe. The entire cast gives the kind of ensemble performances that would require a Best Cast Oscar to honor. But certainly Bette Davis’ performance stands out, and to a lesser degree, Anne Baxter. The women competed against each other for Best Actress and lost. George Sanders *did* win in the Supporting category. Holm and Ritter, who also competed against each other and lost. This Sanders was the only one of the five who won.

The exceptional screenplay was based on an actual story related through another party to director Joseph Mankiewicz. The screenplay won, as did Costume. And Mankiewicz for Director. Six Oscar wins out of twelve nominations.

FUN FACT: This is one of a handful of movies that garnered five acting nominations. Two different categories had competing actors in them. None of them won.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: AFI rates Bette Davis as their number two female American screen legend. They selected this film to highlight, a film she is arguably more associated with than any other in her long, illustrious career.

10/94 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962) In the middle of World War I, the British army sends a junior officer to Arabia – due to his familiarity with Arabic and native Bedouin tribes – to liaise between the British and the Arabs against the Turkish. Lawrence proceeds well past his instructions, and in his time in the Ottoman provinces learns to love the desert, the Arab leaders, and the Bedouins.

Back at #70, I commented that OUT OF AFRICA was perhaps the most beautiful movie ever filmed – with certain competition for that moniker. LAWRENCE is the main competition. It is a lush, sweeping epic, with its Panavision widescreen and its gorgeous cinematography. Unlike the other film, this one has a riveting story, as well. And at nearly four hours – including an intermission — it remains the longest film to win Best Picture, besting GONE WITH THE WIND by mere minutes.

David Lean, one of the best directors in the business, specialized in epic stories and filmmaking, He was influenced by John Ford’s style and reportedly watched THE SEARCHERS for ideas on camera shots. He frequently used cutting-edge technology, much as James Cameron would later do. This includes Panavision cameras, using spherical lenses instead of the normal widescreen anamorphic ones, though the result to the viewer is the same. Because of the technical drawbacks to using the spherical, Lean did a great many long takes and relatively few quick-cut scenes. This style of shooting opened up that panoramic vista even more. The movie was filmed in Jordan and southern Spain, over a 15-month period, a long filming schedule in those days.

Composer Maurice Jarre, a long-time collaborator of Lean’s, wrote the stirring and iconic score, so very effectively used, and became a bestseller on LP. The cinematography was also a critical darling, as was the editing, which tightness managed to make the movie feel shorter than it actually was. The movie has well-respected production design, as well.

The large cast won rave reviews nearly across the board. Peter O’Toole gives a nearly flawless performance as Lawrence, with a perfect blend of awe and arrogance. Omar Sharif, as his companion in the fighting, is also stellar. Other performances worth noting are from Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, and José Ferrer – who later said it was the best performance he ever gave.

The screenplay, by Robert Ball, with credit also given to Michael Wilson for early drafts, was not among the more stellar aspects of the film. Though nominated, it received criticism for over-exploring certain subplots, under-exploring some of its themes, and above all for its inaccuracies. Despite its faults, however, it not only has a fairly seamless story, but works with some clear themes. This includes how anesthetized someone can gradually become to war violence, going from uncomfortable to gradually enjoying; identity, as the British Lawrence “goes native”, and the dichotomy about what he feels his responsibilities are toward Britain vs the locals.

The film was nominated for ten Oscars, winning seven: Picture, Director, Art Direction, Cinematography, Editing, Score, and Sound. The other nods were for O’Toole, Sharif, and the screenplay.

FUN FACT: This movie is yet another on Akira Kurosawa’s top 100 list.

9/94 BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957) When British POWs in Thailand are forced to build a bridge between Thailand and Burma to aid their Japanese captors, the officers decide they will build, and then destroy the bridge, a task made more difficult by the pride the Allies are taking in their work.

Yet another David Lean epic, this one taking place in the Second World War. It was the highest-grossing film of 1957 and both a critical and awards smash. Most of what is said above regarding LAWRENCE could be said here, especially the tight editing, cinematography, the equally iconic score (here by Malcolm Arnold), and the actors, especially the seminal performance of Alex Guinness in the defining role of his career, and very effective performances from William Holden, Jack Hawkins, and James Donald, among others. The beautiful landscapes in this film are in Sri Lanka (Ceylon at the time of filming). The story is a highly fictionalized account of a real event.

Another long movie – nearly three hours – this is an exciting and ultimately tragic adventure. It is patriotic without being overbearing about it (or only a little overbearing). It feels far shorter than it actually is.

The film was nominated for eight Oscars, winning seven. Its one loss was for Best Supporting Actor for Sessue Hayakawa, the Japanese commander Saito. It won Picture, Director, Best Actor, Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, and Score.

FUN FACT: BRIDGE is widely considered to be one of the best films ever made. AFI named it their 36th best movie. The British Film Institute put it at #11 for the greatest British film. (It was, incidentally, a joint American and British production.)

ANOTHER FUN, IF SAD, FACT: The two scriptwriters had been blacklisted during the McCarthy hearings and had fled to London to be able to continue working. The author of the novel was listed as scriptwriter and took home the Screenplay Oscar. Only years later, after they died, was that rectified.

8/94 SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) When an FBI trainee is tasked with assisting in finding a serial killer, she seeks the assistance of another serial killer, a cannibalistic psychiatrist who is far more dangerous – and who finds himself drawn to the young woman.

One of the greatest horror movies ever made, with tense suspense throughout, this became the first horror film to ever win Best Picture.

This movie is notable for its gender roles, gender-based violence, and LGBTQ themes. On the gender side, Clarice (Jodie Foster) is effectively the only woman among a sea of men (agents, cops, doctors, even a manipulating serial killer), and a young trainee at that. That she is working to save a female victim is not lost on the viewer. And, of course, it isn’t just the woman she is attempting to save; it is about all the other victims, all of them female. All of whom were literally and figuratively skinned of their femininity. That leads to the other main theme, the issue of Buffalo Bill as a potential trans individual and the backlash on that portrayal from members of the LGBTQ community. It is a complex issue. On the one hand, both the film and its source material are very clear that people wanting trans surgery must undergo a psychological evaluation to determine a variety of factors, not least that they *are* genuinely trans. Lecter’s point is that Buffalo Bill is a troubled man who is acting out as a trans individual, but who actually isn’t. It seems a very reasonable premise. On the other hand, especially in the current era, with the community under so much attack, it is clear that perception is also important, and the film may not have aged as well as one would want.

This is definitely a film about its story, the deft directing, and the acting performances. The director, Jonathan Demme, finesses brilliant performances from his cast, including its two leads, Foster, and Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, as well as Scott Glenn, Ted Levine, Anthony Heald, Kasi Lemmons. He also weaves together the elements into a tightly-edited cohesive whole, that keeps the viewer glued from beginning to end. The movie’s score is also effective, wonderfully complementing the story without overwhelming the scenes.

The film was nominated for seven Oscars, winning what is commonly known as the Big Five: Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay. It is the third and latest to have that honor, following IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT and ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST.

FUN FACT: When Hopkins was approached, he thought the title indicated a kids’ story. When he read the script, he said it was the best part he’d ever read. He modeled Lecter’s voice in part on the HAL 9000, the computer’s voice from 2001. Meanwhile, Foster lobbied for her role, a passion project.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This film has a slew of honorary appearances. It ranks #65 on greatest movies, #5 on thrillers, #6 for Hero (Clarice) and #1 villain (Lecter). It has continued to appear regularly on other entities’ best of lists, as well.

7/94 SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993) When Oskar Schindler opens his factory in the early days of World War II, he joins the Nazi Party, staffs the factory with Jews – and then begins saving as many Jews as possible, when he realizes what is going on. In the meantime, a genuinely monstrous SS officer arrives to build a death camp.

Is this Spielberg’s magnum opus? Possibly. Certainly, a very strong argument can be made for it, as he had by then mastered all the technical aspects of filmmaking and he was already known as a director who understands the humanity in his characters. In putting them together here, he created something very special and nearly perfect. That it came only a few years after Spielberg had really connected with his Jewish background for the first time, and wanted to make a Holocaust film to honor that, added a personal element to the movie.

There were a series of deliberate choices to separate this from his previous works. Spielberg chose a more documentary-style way of filming over a linear story, and his director of photography used a hand-held camera throughout most of the filming. He also avoided the type of shots that he had used in so many past films, including a lot of zooms, etc. Finally, and most obviously, he filmed in black and white. This choice was based on the idea that documentaries of the era were almost exclusively in black and white. [It is also a metaphor for the darkest era of the 20th century.] There are few images of color in the film. It opens and closes with candles lit for Sabbath, indicating the light going out in society and returning at the end of war. Then there is the red. A young girl, whom we see walking along in a bright red coat. Later, Schindler sees the coat on a cart full of dead Jews. The implication is horrible and tragic. By using the coat, Spielberg personalizes this young girl in a way no other victim really is. It also gives the viewer a specific victim to weep over, and someone the viewer wants justice for. Spielberg has stated the coat also represents the rest of the world’s refusal to do anything about the Holocaust, red being a color no one could possibly miss. John Williams composed the score, but the real music is just a very soft piece set to violin, performed by Itzhak Perlman. (By the way, Perlman, like many of the crew, is Israeli).

The actors were well-chosen and gave stellar performances. Neeson, a veteran actor who wasn’t very well-known, gives a sensitive portrayal of a pragmatic man who only slowly comes to realize what is happening around him and must make a moral choice. Ben Kingsley as his Jewish assistant/clerk. Ralph Fiennes – in his first major international role – is both chilling, and (to be honest) sometimes funny as the terrible Amon Göth, A young Embeth Davidz as Helen Hirsch, a Jewish girl who draws the constant attention of Göth.

It would be easy to make this film pure dark melodrama and certainly it has its share. But part of the film’s genius is that it has a gallows’ humor to it, a survival skill not only for its victims, but its viewers. In the same vein, the movie largely avoids sentimentality, at least until the reunion ending, when it pours out. It is difficult, however, to eschew Spielberg his choice, when he wanted to pay tribute to the survivors and the actors are clearly emotional as well.

The film was nominated for twelve Oscars, winning seven: Picture, Director, Screenplay, Score, Editing, Cinematography, and Art Direction. The other nominations were for Costume Design, Makeup, Sound, Best Actor (Neeson), and Best Supporting Actor (Fiennes).

FUN FACT: While Spielberg was filming this movie, he was doing post-production on JURASSIC PARK. These two movies, both released in 1993, have acted as bookends to Spielberg’s career. JURASSIC PARK took over as the highest-grossing movie (until TITANIC), obviously therefore his most successful movie, which remains true. SCHINDLER is his most acclaimed film. Spielberg has never quite been able to duplicate either the box office or respect since then.

A (NOT) FUN FACT: The crew experienced several cases of antisemitism during the making of the movie.

YET ANOTHER FUN FACT: AFI names this movie on many of its lists. #9 on Best Movies, #13 Hero (Schindler) and #15 Villain (Göth), #3 on epic films, among others.

6/94 SPOTLIGHT (2015) When a new managing editor takes over at the Boston Globe, he urges the “Spotlight” team – a group of investigative journalists who spend months researching a news story before they publish – to focus on reported sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the Boston area. What they find is explosive, the abuse both much larger in scope than they expected, but also repeated coverups by the Church and high-level civilian Catholics.

Hollywood and movie fans so often love big sweeping epics. Certainly, Oscar does. Nothing wrong with that, so long as they are well done. But sometimes, simple pictures work best. Those without any special technical distinction, no gorgeous cinematography, just a strong, riveting story and great acting. This is that film.

It is also one of those films I dare to call important, dealing with a subject that isn’t covered in Hollywood, and a real life event many may have forgotten, or hadn’t known the extent of. Thus, the film also acts as a news source.

This movie tells the true story of the Globe’s Spotlight team, and the many months the four-member team spent researching this terrible story – with a few weeks off post 9/11 to work on that instead. All lapsed Catholics, they don’t believe the story is truly terrible until case after case after case surfaces and a web of horror unfolds.

Director Tom McCarthy treats the delicate topic sensitively, but he doesn’t turn from it, instead he looks at it directly in the face. This is a very unsentimental look at this news event and investigation. The finished product makes it not only the sixth best on this list, but one of the greatest movies ever filmed. Certainly, it deserves to join the ranks of the best of the best of other newspaper films such as ABSENCE OF MALICE, THE POST, ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, and CITIZEN KANE. [Two of those, like SPOTLIGHT, are true stories).

This is an actors’ film, and it doesn’t disappoint. This is yet another movie where the Academy really needs a Best Cast Oscar. It did win the SAG award for Best Cast, quite deservedly so. First, there are the four excellent performances of the Spotlight members: Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, and Brian d’Arcy. Then there’s the two editors, played by Liev Schreiber and John Slattery. Toss in the performances of the three main lawyers: Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, and Jamey Sheridan. And finally, toss in the shrink that is consulted (Richard Jenkins), the Cardinal (Len Cariou), and a Catholic civilian willing to cover nearly anything up to protect the Church (Paul Guilfoyle) and you see one of the best ensemble casts ever. Nobody puts a foot wrong.

The film won a litany of awards, but surprisingly didn’t do all that well at the Oscars. It was nominated for six Oscars and won two: Picture and Screenplay. Its other nods were for Director, Best Supporting Actor (Ruffalo), Supporting Actress (McAdams), and Editing.

FUN FACT: The film was not without its detractors, but they were few. If anyone thought the Catholic Church or high-ranking members in the United States would be negative, they’d be wrong. Several Cardinals, bishops, and priests publicly stated the film had gotten it largely right.

5/94 THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946) Three men from different social classes and three different branches of the military, must readjust to civilian society postwar.

Army Sergeant Al (Fredric March) was a banker before the war, with a wife and two grown children; he must now battle alcoholism even as he returns to the bank. Air Force Captain Fred (Dana Andrews) was a working class soda fountain operator who married Marie right before shipping out. For years, Marie has taken the money he earned, and had a good time, while forgetting about him. He suffers from PTSD now and feels no urge to get better work than the soda fountain job he once held. Navy petty officer Homer (Harold Russell) was a middle-class high school jock that was dating his neighbor, but has lost both his hands in a war injury, and now believes his girlfriend will no longer want him. Each of these stories crosses over into the others, in very well-edited and meaningful crossovers.

This is a – yes, I’m saying it – another important film. The men returning from World War II had a very difficult time adjusting to civilian life. Women had held their jobs during the war, and weren’t always happy to give them up and return to being housewives. The US was in a socioeconomically different place postwar. And, of course, as with any war, there were permanent injuries to deal with, memories they had to grapple with, relationships to try and salvage, and so forth. Returning home and pretending the past years hadn’t happened and just being normal was difficult for many.

When producer Sam Goldwyn read an article about such men, he wanted to make a film about them. Director William Wyler, who had flown combat missions, wanted at least one actual veteran in the movie for realism. Wyler also had other ways to create the realism he wanted. The actors were encouraged to buy their own clothes. Smaller sets were constructed. These things created a naturalism among the actors that might otherwise have been lacking. When he found out about an aircraft boneyard, Wyler had that added to the script as a plot point for one of the three men. It acts as both a trigger and potential cure for him. The scene is a powerful one, as if the war itself is now a ghost, and Fred haunted by it, a metaphor of his PTSD. [It also serves as a reminder that these planes were built for one purpose. Now that purpose is done, they are of no further use and scrap. However, while in real life, they were scrapped, here they provide the supplies of new housing, as well as new jobs.] There were also two technical achievements that helped the story. The cinematography used was deep focus. This allows for objects to be clear whether near the camera or farther away. There are several scenes where action is playing out, while we see other characters’ reactions in real time.

At the end of the day, what makes this movie work so well is the unsentimental screenplay and the actors’ performances. The story doesn’t bemoan what is happening to these men, it just records it. And the film doesn’t so much end on a happy note, which might be a bit much, instead choosing to end on a hopeful note. As for the actors, they succeed in showing a disconnect to their former lives. Russell, of course, had served and been injured. March, while serving in World War I, had not served in this more recent war. And Andrews hadn’t served in the war, either. While that may have made their job more difficult, it was one that proved no problem for them. The supporting cast also gave superb performances. These include Myrna Loy as Al’s wife, Teresa Wright as his daughter, and Virginia Mayo as Fred’s wife.

The movie was enormously popular, perhaps showing how much it was needed – and why it is an important film. Even today, after each war, veterans experience difficulty reintegrating, keeping it relevant. It was not only the biggest box office draw of 1946, but it was also the biggest box office draw since GONE WITH THE WIND. It was nominated for ten Oscars and won nine. Its only loss was for Sound. It won Picture, Director, Best Actor (March), Supporting Actor (Russell), Screenplay, Editing, Scoring, an Honorary Award for Russell, and the Thalberg Award to Samuel Goldwyn for putting the needed project together.

FUN FACT: While Russell was nominated, he was not an actor and they believed he would lose. So, they arranged the Honorary Oscar. Of course, he *did* win, and became the only person to win two Oscars for the same role. Decades later, he famously sold one of them to pay for his wife’s medical needs. The Oscar was sold to a producer, who later donated it back to the Academy. Russell kept the Honorary Oscar.

A PERSONAL FACT: On a personal countdown, this movie would also be in the top ten. I’ve loved it since childhood.

4/94 ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) A former prizefighter (now a longshoreman) named Terry witnesses the murder of a man about to testify – against the very man who caused the end of Terry’s boxing career. He makes the decision to testify himself, with the help of the victim’s sister and a local priest, and against the advice of his own brother, who is the killer’s lawyer.

Yet another movie considered one of the greatest movies ever made, this movie deals with themes of unions, specifically the very real violence in unions, labor racketeering, and family. It is also a true story. In addition, this film features one of those watershed performances that becomes so influential for future actors. Quite simply, Marlon Brando, the greatest method actor in history, gives the greatest performance of his career. It was really this role, not A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, that influenced nearly all the actors of the 1970s on. And the main actors who worked with him – Eva Marie Saint, Karl Malden, Rod Steiger, and Lee J. Cobb, all give great performances of their own. Nearly every scene becomes its own acting class.

This film also benefitted from a strong screenplay, excellent scene setups (photography), cinematography, editing, and score. They are each used to evoke mood and to not interfere with the story.

The movie was nominated for ten Oscars. It won eight: Picture, Director, Actor (Brando), Supporting Actress (Saint), Screenplay, Art Direction, Cinematography, and editing. It was nominated for Score, and three actors competed against each other for Supporting Actor, none of them winning: Malden, Steiger, and Cobb.

FUN FACT: AFI lists this movie at #8 for their list of greatest films, #22 in film scores, and #23 for Hero (Terry Milloy). It has made many other lists of best movies ever. So has the taxicab scene between Brando and Steiger, which regularly rates as one of the best scenes ever filmed.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: The role of Terry had originally been promised to Frank Sinatra, a Hoboken native. From the beginning, Kazan wanted Brando and when he secured him, they had to break the news to an angry Sinatra. He then demanded to play the priest, only to find out Malden had already been cast. This event almost certainly soured Sinatra against Brando. Only months later, as they made GUYS AND DOLLS, the two notoriously didn’t get along well, with Sinatra taking frequent pot shots against Brando. In that movie, Sinatra had wanted to play Sky Masterson, and had to “settle” for Nathan Detroit.

YET ANOTHER FUN FACT: This is the movie that Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese, Anthony Hopkins, and Jack Nicholson, among others, cited as being a prime driver behind their choice of career.

3/94 CASABLANCA (1943) Cynical Rick Blaine owns a nightclub in Casablanca in the midst of World War II. When his old flame Ilsa shows up, she asks for help in getting her resistance-leader husband out of the country, with Nazis and French collaborators on the hunt after him.

If GONE WITH THE WIND is the most famous movie and CITIZEN KANE considered the best, CASABLANCA is likely the most beloved film. It’s story has become so iconic, with so many famous quotes, and that famous song, that to some degree it has become a parody of itself, the victim of its own success.

The film came out less than a year after the United States entered the war (and Hollywood was pumping out propaganda films). Such films met with differing amounts of success. This one struck a chord perhaps due to the romance, or perhaps because the cast was so strongly international in flavor, a reminder of how many exiles lived in the US and how many peoples were fighting the Germans. Or maybe it is simply because the actors portrayed so much realism.

Director Michael Curtiz shot the entire film on the studio lot, and had as much detail as possible to give the impression of exotic Casablanca. The parrot is real; the plants are real, the accents of visitors to the club are real. The film was made in sequence, which almost certainly helped the actors develop chemistry as the story was unfolding (that wasn’t the reason for the sequential filming, just a happy result).The cinematographer and director of photography used different lenses for different characters. No filters were used for most of Rick’s scenes with his cohorts and the French police, representing the reality of what was happening, as well as Rick’s cynicism. His scenes with Bergman early on have him in the same light, but as their romance picks up, a softer filter was used for Rick. All of Bergman’s shots used a gauze filter and light that accentuated her complexion, her sparkling eyes, and the sadness of her character. The final scenes used some film noir lighting, [Contrary to what people think, the fog at the end was not meant to be romantic or film noir. It was meant to help hide the small aircraft that was used in place of the larger craft Ilsa and Viktor are supposed to be on. Pragmatic production.] The editing weave the elements of the story in a way that builds the romance and the suspense, and brings home the immediacy of what is happening in the story.

While technically extremely proficient, it is the story and the actors that make this movie. The screenplay, filled to the brim with memorable dialogue, is a story about how ordinary people rise to the occasion, a message viewers needed then. The dialogue is sometimes clichéd, and it is to the credit of the actors and their talent, that some lines don’t come across as hackneyed. Bergman simply shines in her role, a perfect mixture of dreamy and urgent. Bogart brings quite a bit of his Sam Spade cynicism to this movie, yet he also shows a warmth, a romantic side, plus the pragmatism of his everyday life. Peter Lorre and Sidney Greenstreet are both brilliant, and help bring levity to some situations, without being in any way comic relief. Paul Henreid is serviceable, if very earnest. But the best performance is arguably given by Claude Rains, as Louis, the French prefect of police. Rains is vastly amusing in his role, with perfect line delivery, a great combination of disgust with the Nazis, pragmatism, and competency. He also has wonderful chemistry with Bogart. When they have their famous exchange that closes the film, one believes they understand they are ultimately on the same side of things, even if life will return to normal (war normal).

The film has proved influential and its title, some of its quotes, and situational plotlines are used in other films across genres, from the mid-40s to the present day, from comedies to dystopian thrillers. Examples include A NIGHT IN CASABLANCA, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, and LA LA LAND.

The film won three Oscars from eight nominations: Picture, Director, and Screenplay Its other nods include Bogart for Best Actor, Rains for Supporting Actor, Cinematography, Editing, and Scoring. The song As Time Goes By would almost certainly have been nominated, save it was not written for the movie, putting it out of contention.

FUN FACT: Many of the extras and even of the lead actors were exiles or refugees. During the filming of the duel of the anthems, several refugee actors broke into tears.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: I mentioned the numerous famous quotes, above. Long ago, a friend and I actually counted the better known ones. The total was a few dozen.

YET ANOTHER FUN FACT: This film is the most broadcast film in television history, going back to the point raised at the top.

2/94 THE GODFATHER PART II (1974) As we see Michael Corleone grow in power, as the expense of his family, we see his father Vito’s story from his young life in Sicily, his immigration to America, and his criminal beginnings as a young married man in Manhattan.

This prequel/sequel tells two stories, weaving through brilliant writing and editing the rise of Vito (played here by Robert De Niro in the role originated by Marlon Brando) and – if not the fall – the growing problems Michael (Al Pacino) cannot seem to avoid. The sequel, like the first, relies heavily on themes of loyalty, family, morality. But here, the idea of family is really put to the test as his wife, his only surviving brother, Fredo, and his adopted brother (and consigliere), Tom (Robert Duvall) all become estranged from Michael. This stands in stark contrast to a young Vito, married and already with two sons as he embarks on his career, where he quickly builds loyalties. It is not by accident that these two characters are roughly the same age, again suggesting a rise and fall mentality. [Furthermore, it is interesting to watch a young Vito and see what his youngest son will become, and reminded Vito never wanted him in the business.]

In filming the first movie, director Francis Ford Coppola was constrained as he was an unknown, and the producer had a lot of influence. In this film, Coppola, now established as a filmmaker, was given far more freedom, including producing the film himself. He called all the shots.

Other than the core cast, most of the actors were different and most do the kind of efficient acting required by an ensemble cast. Nevertheless, the challenges to Al Pacino and Diane Keaton as their story develops further in this film required more demanding performances and both delivered. Keaton, known more for her comedy roles, barely puts a foot wrong as the wife who struggles with the knowledge of what her husband does, until she cannot take it anymore. As for Pacino, he gives perhaps the finest performance of his career. Also giving an even better performance than the original was John Cazale as Vito’s middle son Fredo, who always wants to prove himself and gain respect. Cazale, especially in the scene where Michael confronts him, gives the kind of performance taught to acting students. Then there is De Niro, early in his career, who with this role cemented himself overnight as one of the best actors in the business.

Technically, the film is also brilliant, especially with its production design and cinematographer. Its story is arguably better than the original, by virtue of not being based on prior material. Thus, the screenwriters (Coppola and Godfather author Mario Puzo) had the freedom to explore the characters more, and they take full advantage. The score, while not on the level of the first film, nevertheless is very effective in setting the tone.

The movie received eleven nominations and won six: Picture, Director, Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, Art Direction, and Score. The other nods were for Best Actor (Pacino), Supporting Actor (De Niro beat fellow co-stars Michael Gazzo and Lee Strasberg for the Oscar), Supporting Actress (Talia Shire) and Costume Design.

FUN FACT: John Cazale made only six movies (the last was archival footage) before he died. Every single one of his movies was nominated for Best Picture. Three won.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Marlon Brando won the Oscar playing Vito in the original and Robert De Niro won playing Vito in this. It is the only time in Oscar history that two actors have won Oscars for the same role.

1/94 THE GODFATHER (1972) Don Vito Corleone, the head of one of the New York Mafia’s Five Families, struggles to hold onto power when members of another Family decide he must go. With Vito badly injured from an assassination attempt, and his eldest son and heir, Sonny, too hot-headed to effectively lead (and later being killed), it is up to Vito’s youngest son Michael to avenge Vito and Sonny, and to take over the business, consolidating power in the hands of their family – in complete opposition to everything his father wanted for him.

This is the greatest Mafia movie ever made, with and excellent story that has some excellent themes of loyalty and family, some of the best acting work ever put to screen, and a technically brilliant filming. Inexperienced director Francis Ford Coppola was chosen to direct because it was believed using an Italian would bring some realism.

One of the choices Coppola and his cinematographer made was to eschew modern technology and use older cameras and filters for an older feel in the film. They used no zooms, and very few long shots. They set up each scene almost as though it was a stage play and filmed that, then moved on to the next scene. They used different filters for the New York scenes, the scenes when Michael is in Sicily, and the Hollywood scenes, each creating a separate mood. He used real props where he could, including the horse’s head. The production design and the costumes, while nothing groundbreaking, were part of the believability of the story and the actors move through the sets and costumes like they’d been there their whole lives. Then there is the music, one of the most iconic ever, with its violin strains and nostalgic edge. The editing done with finesse, weaving the stories and making the three-hour run time feel like nothing.

This film features some of the greatest acting ever seen on screen. Marlon Brando, who lobbied for the role of Vito, gives his best performance in nearly a decade, and probably since ON THE WATERFRONT. He reminded everyone why he was and still is considered the film father of method acting. He is matched by the rest of the cast: Pacino as Michael, James Caan as Sonny, John Cazale, as the sweet but useless middle son, Fredo, Diane Keaton as Michael’s girlfriend, Robert Duvall, and so on. They are just quite simply ALL so very good.

This is a movie whose every part, AND the sum, make it a masterpiece. There is always debate about which movie is actually better. While the second one almost never beats out the first in rankings, it is better to think of them as a single whole.

It was nominated for nine Oscars and won three: Picture, Actor (for Brando), and Screenplay. Its other nods include Director (Coppola, who lost to Bob Fosse), Caan, Duvall, and Pacino, all for Supporting Actor, Costume, Editing, Sound, and Score.

FUN FACT: It features on many of AFI’s lists. #2 on Quotes (I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse), #1 gangster film, and #5 for film scores.