194 Responses for "Ben Woulds’ Oscar Ranking"

1. Bill W. March 9th, 2009 at 6:47 am 1

   I didn’t know Cleopatra was a nominee.

2. Joe March 9th, 2009 at 6:54 am 2

   Brokeback the third best nominee of all time??? Atonement above The Godfather??? Whom deemed this remotely credible?

3. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 7:07 am 3

   This list is horrendous! Atonement is WAY too high up.

   -Ben
   http://www.filmexaminer.com

4. chrisw March 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am 4

   Can’t take this seriously.

5. Strange March 9th, 2009 at 7:48 am 5

   He put Departed and Mystic River under Titanic. Nuff said…

6. Strange March 9th, 2009 at 7:49 am 6

   He also thought Mulholland Drive should have been nominated for Best Picture lol and ELEPHANT

7. Dominik March 9th, 2009 at 7:57 am 7

   A very long list.
   If I would be forced to name my 5 favourite “Best Picture”-nominees in award history, it would be:

   1. Chinatown
   2. The Apartment
   3. Taxi Driver
   4. The Last Picture Show
   5. The Godfather, Part II

   Wost ever:
   The Green Mile (disgusting bullshit movie)

8. BenitoDelicias March 9th, 2009 at 8:07 am 8

   while I appreciate things like Network being number 10 out of so many nominees and Fight Club being a desired nominee for 1999, this list is pretty much bullsh-t…

   I mean Brokeback at number 3? It was my number 1 of 2005, but #3 of all time is just ridiculous…

9. Gustavo H.R. March 9th, 2009 at 8:33 am 9

   What a waste of time reading this trash.

10. Adam March 9th, 2009 at 8:41 am 10

    I find it hard to criticize anyone who does something as ridiculously impressive as this. Fantastic work, Mr. Woulds!

    I particularly appreciate the list of Ben’s personal BP nominees for each year. I would love to know where ‘City of God’ (my personal favorite film) would fall on the overall list. In any case, this really is an astounding compilation.

    That said, the most obvious disappointments for me are:

    1. Slumdog > Godfather II. Really??

    2. Atonement at 32? For serious??

    3. The inclusion of the overtly pretentious ‘Memento’ and ‘Fight Club’ as should-have-been BP nominees… Just… ugh.

    Of course, I love a whole lot about this list too, namely:

    1. ‘Beauty and the Beast’ at 55. It’s typically a massively underrated and under-appreciated film.

    2. Major love for ‘Gone with the Wind’ (at #5). I get so annoyed when people refuse to appreciate this film because of racial insensitivity. It’s from a very different time and about a very different time, people!!!

    3. ‘WALL-E’ as BP winner of last year “by far.” Again, I am very curious where it would rank had it been an actual nominee, but since you rank it far ahead of ‘Slumdog,’ I would assume it would fall in the top 50? Whatever the case, I think ‘WALL-E’ will long be recognized as the pinnacle of achievement in animation and as a monumental achievement in storytelling and filmmaking in general.

    Once again, mighty impressive work.

11. Adam March 9th, 2009 at 8:43 am 11

    Sidebar: Awards Daily readers seriously need to take some lessons in etiquette and optimism at the very least. Or try some antidepressants or something. Must everything that is not agreed with be immediately ripped apart?

12. mini March 9th, 2009 at 8:44 am 12

    Yeah Brokeback Mountain Number 3, is just fantastic and necessary

13. screenguy March 9th, 2009 at 8:53 am 13

    Not sure who Ben Woulds is, but this took a lot of work to put together, and I admire the amount of time and energy involved. I also admire someone willing to put their personal opinions out there on the line for others to ridicule, because you know most people will immediately jump on the things they disagree with rather than looking to see where they agree.

    A couple of things I noticed:
    1. The Song of Bernadette is on here twice, at 77 and 75. Maybe you meant to put it at 152 (which would still be generous in my opinion).
    2. 107 should be The Last Command rather than The Last Commandments
    3. 1975: Barry Lyndon; Amarcord; Nashville; One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest; Dog Day Afternoon (Yet, in your big list, Cuckoo’s Nest ranks above Nashville by 41 slots).

    I’m really not getting picky, those are just three things that stuck out to me on my first read-thru. The third one because I’m a big fan of Nashville, and I always look to see where people rank it on lists like this.

14. Hans March 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am 14

    This was a nice read. I also have to give major kudos to the massive achievement of watching every single Best Picture nominee.

15. screenguy March 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am 15

    Anatomy of a Murder is on here twice: 324 and 339, with two different star ratings.

16. w.j. March 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am 16

    Props to Mr. Woulds for taking the extraordinary amount of time to prepare such lists. Obviously, many of his selections are very personal and I/we could argue forever on so many inclusions/exclusions, but it’s interesting just the same.

17. Afrika March 9th, 2009 at 9:46 am 17

    where is THE COLOR PURPLE?????????????????????????????

18. Tim H March 9th, 2009 at 9:49 am 18

    What a great list… kudos the author. Of course I might quibble with The Pianist and Grapes of Wrath being so high, and Gangs of New York so low, but, hey, to each his own, right? And anyone who ranks Sound of Music right next to Apocalypse Now is ok in my book.

19. Ryan L March 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am 19

    I’m sorry, but how can you go out of your way to berate Schindler’s List for being sentimental….then go and rank that pile of crap Life is Beautiful so high????

    Otherwise, decent list.

20. billybil March 9th, 2009 at 10:02 am 20

    I am also very impressed with this monumental project! What an incredible task to have accomplished! Bravo Mr. Woulds!

    First of all – the things I think you got absolutely right!

    I love that GWTW is high on the list – it is a monumental achievement and certainly some of the performances must go down in history as near perfect accomplishments.

    It is also great to see To Kill A Mockingbird so high. I am always amazed at how moving I find this picture everytime I watch it! And it is so scary in the woods!

    And A Place in the Sun is a wonderful, wonderful film – so fascinating. I think Montgomery Clift is really special in this film – a very complicated performance. And he and Taylor are just so damn beautiful, aren’t they?

    Bonnie & Clyde is such a subversive and stunning film. I still can’t believe how much joy I derive from that gang breaking the law like they’re shown. And oh how devastating their end. I remember the first time I saw it I actually cried out during the shooting! I also marvel at how twisted the relationship is – so fascinating and unique for such “stars” to perform. How creepily sexy Beatty was with his flaws.

    I had seen many of Bogart films before I saw Treasure of the Sierra Madre. My God did he shock the hell out of me in that film. Jesus he was so impressive. He seemed to tap a place in himself that was so universally scary. Tremendous performance. And the movie was so unsparing – particularly for the time it was made!

    Apocalypse Now was one of those messy movies that I loved because it was so visually stunning. I also remember watching a Vietnam vet be half carried by his girlfriend out of the cinema after the showing – he was absolutely ashen from the experience. For some people, this movie went beyond devastating.

    And, yes, I agree with Adam as well – Beauty and the Beast is an underrated film. I would rank it even higher on my list. The first time I saw the movie in a theatre it was night and mostly adults and when Belle showed up in her yellow gown a young man (it was NOT a child) actually said “Wow” out loud as if some real gorgeous woman had appeared. I’ll never forget that. We all laughed but we all understood too.

    OK – I won’t keep going or my blog will be longer than his list. But here are a few things with which I strongly disagree:

    Brokeback Mountain at #3! I am glad this movie was made and I think the performances were excellent, particularly Jake Gyllenhaal’s, but this was not a total success for me. I think the initial sexuality was too “accomplished” between 2 men with their backgrounds – certainly on the part of Ledger’s character, if we’re to believe he’s actually a virgin in this way. I think the fumbling and discovery of each other in intimate ways would have added immeasurably to the vulnerability of their story. I also think the need for each other in ways other than sexually was hinted at but not developed enough to establish a truly once in a lifetime love affair. Gyllenhaal was left to imply his adoration and need of Ledger without the audience getting the chance to really experience it. It is a beautiful and courageous movie but it did not move me the way it should have.

    I though Atonement was a fail in many ways. I found it predictable, uninvolving and long. It seemed very cerebral to me – I could understand the issues and compromising situations everyone was facing but I was not moved. Even the end in the bunker seemed psychologically sad (although I knew it was coming) but not emotionally touching. I found this film much like Benjamin Button this year – extremely well made technically but emotionally removed.

    Chariots of Fire is a movie that really annoyed me when it won best picture. Again, from time to time, there are these artifully made films that seem all glowy and emotionally informed but so artfully made that they miss the point for me. When I first saw this film I found it “precious” and I still do.

    Enough – it’s more fun to be positive.

    Congratulations again Mr. Woulds on this work! I very much enjoyed reviewing your opinions.

21. qwiggles March 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am 21

    Very well prepared, yes, but why am I even reading this?
    Ex. Chang is better than Il Postino? Someone needs to rewatch Chang, down to the heartwarming montage when the native village elder is compared to a monkey. Michael Clayton is a cut above Missing and The Thin Red Line? Slumdog > all of Altman? The Reader > The Departed? I could do this all day, as I’m sure you could with my list. So why do it at all?

22. John March 9th, 2009 at 10:18 am 22

    Sorry – who is this guy? Why is there no link to his site?

23. Gusto March 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am 23

    For goodness sake, The Departed is a remake of a highly successful Hong Kong movie. Why will anyone feel proud of a remake, particularly one that pales in comparison to the original. Scorsese has made far better movies than The Departed. The latter was honored merely because the Academy felt it was time to give Marty something. Personally, I would have awarded The Departed just one star for its effort and acting, nothing more.

24. Other Ryan March 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am 24

    I agree with most of his list. Oh yeah.

25. The Natural March 9th, 2009 at 10:33 am 25

    Weird list. Also, some Best Picture winners aren’t bolded (The Last Emperor, From Here to Eternity), and some titles are repeated twice.

26. tony March 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am 26

    impressive put together but i have to disagree strongly on some of the choices, but the list can’t be said to have terrible taste at least Crash was very near the bottom

27. Ivan March 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am 27

    Fine List. Film taste is subjective and so personal. Stop judging something ridiculous just because you disagree.

    I think Henry V wasn´t a best picture nominee. It was only nomianted for best director (Kenneth Brannagh)

28. Ivan March 9th, 2009 at 10:58 am 28

    My rightful nominees of the last decade.

    2008 TDK/Milk/The Reader/Rachel Getting Married/Hunger
    2007 Into the Wild/TWBB/I´m Not There/Am. Gangster/Across the Universe
    2006 Children of Men/Shortbus/The Departed/Half Nelson/V for Vendetta
    2005 Brokeback/The Squid and the Whale/Sin City/Munich/The Constant Gardener
    2004 Eternal Sunshine/Birth/Kill Bill vol. 2/Closer/Spiderman 2
    2003 Kill Bill vol.1/Lost in Translation/Dogville/Love Actually/ X 2
    2002 25th Hour/Punch Drunk Love/The Hours/Adaptation/Bowling for Columbine
    2001 Memento/Mulholland Drive/Moulin Rouge/Tenembaums/Hedwig
    2000 Requiem for a Dream/Almost Famous/Billy Elliot/Dancer in the Dark/Gladiator
    1999 Magnolia/Fight Club/The Matrix/The Sixth Sense/American Beauty

29. Trish March 9th, 2009 at 11:27 am 29

    “452 – The Big Chill”

    Oh come on – that’s a pathetic ranking even below The Goodbye Girl

    Get real

30. Trish March 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am 30

    and you thought “The Notebook” (2004) should have been nominated for an oscar – are you joking?

31. Fidel March 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am 31

    Ivan, I LOVE and completely agree with your choices for 1999 and 2000…those two particular years really hit the nail on the head on what actually made an impact those years. I’ve always thought the inclusion of The Cider House Rules and The Green Mile in 1999 were sort of bland, safe choices and Erin Brokovich and Chocolat just completely idiotic…in the same year as Requiem, Almost Famous and Billy Elliot…unforgivable! Well done, Ivan.

32. Someone March 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am 32

    This list is quite OK. Yeah – I don’t agree with many of Ben’s choices (ATONEMENT isn’t better than NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, GODFATHER II isn’t boring at all, CLEOPATRA (1963) actually is much better than GLADIATOR, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY isn’t the worst movie ever nominated (because BRAVEHEART is) etc.) but I agree with some other choices he made (for example it’s quite obvious – at least for me – that THE DEPARTED is a bad movie and that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is one of the best pictures ever nominated).

33. Mr. 9 March 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am 33

    Very impressive, but there were a couple repeats. “The Way of All Flesh” is a lost film, but parts of “The Patriot” are still floating around – just not a complete film. And some of the early Best Picture nominees only have one known copy to exist, so I wonder how he managed to see them – since anyone who owns them may be rather reluctant to screen such an artifact.

    Just a few questions there, but still a monumental feat that, even if most of us disagree with the rankings, still deserves some quantity of respect.

    To Ivan:

    Laurence Olivier’s “Henry V” was nominated in 1946. The title on IMdB is “The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France,” but I’ve only heard refered to as “Henry V.”

34. BJT March 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am 34

    Congratulations Mr. Woulds on the time and effort you must have taken in compiling this list. And whilst I may have opinions that differ from yours that does not take away from your accomplishment.

    I wish I had the time and money to be able to say I have watched them all as well, I can’t even say I’ve seen all of the nominees from the last 5 years.

    I would however have liked to have seen more commentary, on why you decided to rank, say Babe higher than the Maltese Falcon or why Dangerous Liaisons gets just 2 stars. Perhaps most importantly on why you set out to achieve this task when you no longer consider the oscars to be valid.

35. N8 March 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am 35

    Love the animated films you’d have nominated for Best Picture. I agree with them all (except perhaps Fantasia).

36. Someone March 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am 36

    I can’t understand people who say that CLEOPATRA (1963) is a piece of shit. I love this movie. (Let’s say it’s my “guilty pleasure” but I don’t feel guilty at all).

37. Niles March 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm 37

    Wow this guy needs to get a real job, hahahaha,jk.

38. Julian D. March 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm 38

    Interesting – yes.

    But can one honestly rank films from so many different genres numerically into a list well into 400’s. How does one justify 352 is ‘better’ than 353. A top ten list is difficult enough and some critics are beginning to say it makes more sense to just say these are my 10 favourite films left unranked.

    I certainly prefer a list of 5 favourite films of the year without the need to say these should have been the five nominated films. A highly recommended book is Danny Peary’s Alternate Oscars which selects his favourite film and two lead acting perfomances for each year from 27 – 91. Exceceptionally well written reviews which have led me to discovering mmany missing gems. He also adds, more humbly, a list of other favourite films for each year and sometimes has less than five sometimes more. Although he does title the book Alternate Oscars I read it more as his favourites especially considering his earlier books were on cult films. I only wish he’d update his book.

39. srh1son March 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm 39

    Someone else has a list just like this. They actually picked alternative choices for all the Oscar categories. Check it out. I am in awe.

    http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/the-history-of-the-academy-awards-best-picture-ranked/#more-921

40. streep for oscar! March 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm 40

    some of these are quite appalling!
    how can The Magnificent Ambersons be so high? Has the lost footage been found and assembled into some secret cut that only he has seen, or is it’s ranking based on that studio hack-job?

41. Jason March 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm 41

    it’s impressive that ben has seen all these movies, but song of bernadette ranked over the godfather ii??? clearly, he’s lost his mind.

42. j March 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm 42

    Highlights: All About Eve and BBM so high, Crash so very low.

43. Clayton March 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pm 43

    This is a cool post. I don’t agree with all of it (obviously), but it’s impressive to have seen so many films, and I agree with a lot of the should-be nominees, particularly all the Pixar love.

44. David Lindsey March 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm 44

    Great rankings and interesting alternative lists. I have to agree with many of your choices.

45. hohoho March 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm 45

    This person has no knowledge of filmmaking whatsoever to have ranked JFK so close to dead last. Total failure.

46. Aaron Leggo March 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm 46

    I love movie-watching projects and this particular one is among the most impressive that I’ve come across. That is a huge list and then he not only ranked them, but also gave his own picks for Best Picture nominees throughout years. Great stuff.

    Of course, part of the fun with this kind of thing is agreeing and disagreeing with the choices. I think there are some great picks on there (Gone with the Wind getting big love, Giant being ranked high, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes being picked for Best Picture nominations in 1968), but there are some decisions I completely disagree with.

    I mean, I love Slumdog, but better than The Godfather Part II and The Apartment and The Bridge on the River Kwai? Frost/Nixon ranked higher than Master and Commander? The Sound of Music in the top 50?!?

    There are tons of crazy things going on here, but I think it’s great that Ben did this and that he has put his opinions out there for all to see. I’m sure any film lover will find stuff to agree with and disagree with on this list, but again, that’s part of the fun.

    So a big thank you to Ben for this intriguing project and for encouraging such healthy film debate.

47. Gregoire March 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm 47

    “how can The Magnificent Ambersons be so high? Has the lost footage been found and assembled into some secret cut that only he has seen, or is it’s ranking based on that studio hack-job?”

    Um, even the studio hack-job was pretty magnificent if you ask me!

    Yes, this is a pretty absurd list, but kudos for at least attempting it. But really — Brokeback Mountain, number 3?!

48. Rob Wills March 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm 48

    Ridiculous list and who cares anyway. No way is Crash that low. No way is Brokeback Mountain that high. No way is Grand Illusion the #1 of all time. Good try, though. B- for effort!

49. Rae Kasey March 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm 49

    The Notebook deserved a Best Pic nod???
    Really?

50. Paul Outlaw March 9th, 2009 at 3:13 pm 50

    He mentions six Montgomery Clift films (two in 1948 alone and one in the top 20), so I’m not going to complain about the high ranking of #161.

51. Tufas March 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pm 51

    Actually, as far as perfection goes, Brokeback comes pretty close.

    But who is Ben Would and why are we even discussing this.

    Lists on blogs only make people angry.

    Lets get back to how great Watchmen is.

    T.

52. iggy March 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pm 52

    Wow, Ben. That’s so impressive, having seen so many movies and so many others you have left out (those foreign language ones you mention you have left out) is just so impressive, I think I envy/admire you. Yes, I envy you for having lived so many movie watching experiences that no matter what will stay with you, and for having the ability to analyze every single one and take such an impressive task. Really, I’m speechless.

    Sure, everyone (as other posters mentioned) will have his own choices and probably will disagree with your list. But my most sincere kudos for this.

    I think I can now understand better when you rant about that Crash/Brokeback Mountain affair and other wrong decissions made by the Ampas. Having witnessed it must have been really frustrating for a true movie lover, as your post proves you are.

    Thanks for sharing.

53. mileshigh March 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pm 53

    English Paitent, Shakespeare in Love, and Titanic deserved to be ranked near each other…only at the bottom of the list.

    I have a feeling that if “Brokeback Mountain” won Best Picture, it would have been ranked lower and “Crash” higher.

    With how low “Braveheart” was ranked, this list is a joke.

54. edkargir March 9th, 2009 at 3:50 pm 54

    Chariots of Fire is a no star movie and the worst film to win best picture.

55. Roberto March 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pm 55

    Good work. Anyone, who likes Cinema and follows Oscars, is going to be interested in getting to know other cinephile’s tastes and points of view. It is obvious there will be some choices with which one will agree or disagree. I have not seen all the films nominated. Is there one person in the world who has? Maybe not, but from what I have seen, which is a lot, let me say that my favorite films of all the Best Picture nominated films is “The Godfather”. I also would like to see “Amadeus” among the top 10 of any list. I agree that it is unforgetable one’s reaction the first time one watches “Beauty and the Beast” (well, at least for me). We should not forget that one’s expectations of what a great film, an unforgetable film, should be, depend on those reactions we experienced when we watched those films that make us become cinephiles. That is why I highly admire “E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial”, “Amedeus”, “Raging Bull”, “Tootsie”, “Terms of Endearment”, “The Empire Strikes Back”, “The Elephant Man”, “Ordinary People”, “Back to the Future”. These films made me to become interested in watching movies not only for fun but also for appreciation.

56. Roberto March 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pm 56

    In my opinion, worst film to be nominated in the last three decades: Chocolat.

57. Gareth March 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm 57

    Not really going to comment on the list as its all relative and opinion based. However, I will say (in response to one of the first responses) Mulholland Dr. SHOULD have been nominated for Best Picture. Easily. It never would be, as its too out there for the Academy, but yes, it should have been.

    And just because Memento is intelligent doesn’t mean it’s pretentious.

58. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pm 58

    Wow. Many passionate responses, thanks to most of you for taking the time. But no thanks to those of you who said unnecessarily nasty things. Disagreements of course are fine, and as you can see from my comments I anticipated many, but personal attacks reflect poorly on those of you who lodged them. Unacceptable. And to those of you who were unkind, well, until you have seen almost 6,000 films and all the nominees and have taught film at an Ivy League college and have worked in the industry, shut up. One quick shout-out to nasty HOHOHO: JFK should have been dead-last, if you know anything about how dishonest that film was in its editing. Enough of that.

    As for my mistakes, thanks to those who caught them. My computer crashed and I never proofed the list, mea culpa. I’ll double-check myself at some point, it was hard keeping track.

    Thanks to Adam, Ryan and others who defended me, and who had kind things to say.

    AFRIKA, I thought I had Color Purple, I commented on it in my rant against Spielberg. It is one of my favorite novels, but I felt Steven Spielberg’s heavy direction ruined the movie, and the Academy was correct not to nominate him. It is beautifully acted and put together, but I ranked it low because the schmaltzy music was manipulative and Spielberg villianized Danny Glover (a friend!) to the point where his character became a cartoon. Same with Oprah’s character. She was good (and she was good in Beloved too, despite what crix said) but again, poorly directed.

    SCREENGUY: Thanks re: Bernadette. I’m sure I meant to type something else, it was late last night, I’ll fix it. As for Nashville, I almost ranked it much higher, but I just saw it again and was honestly bored. Its my own personal thing, I’m not a fan of the music, but ultimately I respect the film more than love it. I think I gave it the same number of stars as Cuckoo’s nest, they are peers, in my opinion.

    TIM H: I think The Pianist is more than just a holocaust film. I think it gets to the essence of what it means to want to be alive and to survive. It blew me away, far more than Schindler’s List. And Grapes is the American cinema at its peak, not sure what you hold against it. Not John Ford’s fault the ending didn’t follow the book. As for Gangs of New York, as you can see I’m a huge Scorsese fan, but this movie was just too needlessly bloody for me, plus the great Day Lewis was too Snidley Whiplash twirling his mustache, and I felt no chemistry between Cameron & Leonardo.

    RYAN L: I was hesitant to rank Life Is Beautiful so high for precisely the criticism you lodged, but I remained honest to what I thought. You are right, Life is sentimental, but the difference, to me, is that Life is meant to be allegorical and a fantasy, while Schindler is not. The second half of Life almost ruins the movie, but I found the first half a fantastic, unabashed romance and loved it. Truth be told, my Best Pictures of 1998 were Central Station and The Celebration, followed by Ryan.

    Billybill: Thanks for the nice words. I’m very glad you took the time to write about A Place in the Sun. The cinematography is pique, its a great visually told film. Glad you commented on Beauty and the Beast too. I had the same experience in the theater, and it annoys me how everyone now says that glorified slasher pic Silence of the Lambs was the de facto best of 1991. OK, that’s harsh of me, Silence is artful and Hopkins was great (though a supporting role, 20something minutes of screentime), but its overrated.

    As for our disagreements, well, I liked Brokeback a lot the first time, but it gnawed at me, saw it a second time, and then loved it, elevating it to its #3 ranking. I disagree, I think both the connections they portrayed and the mysteries that remained worked. Same re: Atonement. First time liked it, second time was blown away (and then a third time…other than Wizard of Oz and few others, I never watch films more than once or twice, no time!). Very heartfelt, beautifully told, moved me to tears. I’ll take a minute to comment on my low ranking of No Country: riveting as anything, but the last 20 minutes falls apart (yes, I know, it follows the book so what), and there are many other plot flaws. How did that sole pathetic sheriff capture Javier alone in the first place? It cuts against his invulnerability. Moreover, Josh’s character never would have gone back to the scene of the crime the way he was portrayed in the film… too smart…in the book, not so smart, the great Coen brothers missed that a bit, but it ruined things for me. He should have called the cops from the phone booth and left town. And of course he had to know the guy to whom he brought the water was dead. If not, then again, tell the cops to bring the water.

    Also, the loss of Reds is one of Oscar’s worst flubs, but I still felt Chariots of Fire was an engrossing, riveting film, and not just on account of the music. The scene where Ian Holm sees the flag rise is masterful. Just because it didn’t deserve it, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t good.

    MILESHIGH, that brings me to you. I understand why you think what you did, but no, I truly hated Crash when I saw it over the summer of 2005 in the theater, and I truly thought Brokeback was a monumental piece of cinema on my second viewing (it took me two viewings to get Citizen Kane, 2001 and The Searchers too, among others). LOL re: English, Shakespeare and Titanic. I understand your view. But Shakespeare was smart and literate and funny. Yes, too self-congratulatory and undeserving, but a fun Stoppard take on the bard. Titanic had terrible dialogue and the Academy was right not to nominate the screenplay, but ultimately, I ranked it high because it was an effects film, and on the big screen, wow were those effects awesome. It would have played better as a silent film! As for English Patient, you and Seinfeld agree, it was dull, but I thought the Juliette Binoche portions elevated it. But you’re right, I probably ranked it too high.

    QWIGGLES: I disliked Il Postino. Found it manipulative and sloppy. I agree with you that Altman was a great director, but my faves of his were McCabe and Mrs. Miller (only #3 of 1971 for me, but in my all-time top 100) and The Player (my #1 of 1992). Found Missing dull and over-wrought like most Costa Gavras films, and was very disappointed by Thin Red Line, found it very pretentious. Days of Heaven is my #1 movie of 1978.

    GUSTO and SASHA and others re: The Departed: Scorsese is a god, but The Departed, as Gusto said, was an inferior remake. DiCaprio and Damon gave dull, interchangeable performances. Jack – my all time favorite actor – was way way over the top. The film was twice as long as it should have been. Had Scorsese been given the Oscars he deserved for Raging Bull, Goodfellas and arguably Taxi Driver, then Departed would not have won.

    IVAN: Henry V was nominated for Best Picture in 1946, though it was a 1945 release. The Olivier that is, not the Branagh! Thanks for the nice words though. We disagree on one thing though, I don’t feel film is 100% subjective. Sure anybody’s personal opinion about what they like and dislike is just as valid as anybody else’s. Personally, I liked What’s Up, Doc? more than The Godfathers, which I know is sacrilege and loses me credibility in the eyes of many. However, I think there is a certain objectivity to the “art”. Anyone can prefer Love Story to Citizen Kane, but sorry, Kane is greater, it advanced the arts. We can debate the same over music, art, theater, etc. Besides, without an objective component, then there would be no point in criticism.

    IVAN: Didn’t see Hunger, Across the Universe, Birth, X2. Thanks to your listing, I now have these movies to look forward to, thanks.

    TRISH: I was loving The Big Chill and its soundtrack until Glenn Close told Kevin Kline to go cheat on her. At that point, it became one of the most preposterous movies I ever saw. But that was in 1983, maybe I should try again, with a more tolerant attitude! But maybe you should be more tolerant too. The Notebook is a heartfelt love story beloved by many, that actually gets its portrayal of Alzheimer’s right (my sister is a doctor and so was my dad, I asked).

    MR. 9: Write again if you would like to know how I got access to some of the early films I’ve seen and I’ll tell you privately.

    BJT: Dangerous Liasons: I felt John Malkovich was sneering and terribly miscast. He is supposed to be a charming character, I found him repulsive. I saw Alan Rickman on Broadway in the title role, so perhaps that clouds my judgment, but I think I’m right about what the character is supposed to be like. Babe: such an ingenious, feel-good movie, with a not-so-subtle pro-animal rights message. Just didn’t expect it to be so smart. Maltese Falcon: I rank it pretty high, probably need to see it again, its been 30 years so I probably don’t appreciate it as much as I should. Why do I do this since I hate the Oscars? Because I respect Sasha and Ryan and others on this site, know that others are very into this, and want others willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint to take mine seriously. We listen to teachers because they’ve studied the subject, and I’ve studied this one, so I want to show it so you will engage in intelligent debate (which you do).

    N8: I should have nominated Dumbo and Bambi too but there was no room. Know what you mean about Fantasia, but in the context of its time its pretty remarkable so I rank it high.

    SOMEONE: You’re right, there’s nothing to feel guilty about. Cleopatra can be fun. But its way too long and a disjointed mess. As you likely know, the studio destroyed Mankewicz’s cut, it needs to be restored!

    JULIAN D: Its an approximate ranking. That’s why I rank films under a certain number of stars. My exact order is NOT to be taken seriously, its just in fun. Love the Danny Peary book.

    JASON: I am not a religious person, but The Song of Bernadette sucked me in and moved me. It was beautifully crafted and deserving of its 5 Oscars. For reasons I stated, Godfather II, to be honest, bored me, all 3x I’ve seen it (and I’ve seen it 3x just to see what I’m missing). Yeah, the de Niro scenes are good, but have you seen America America?

    MILESHIGH: Braveheart was (a) ridiculously violent, unless you like watching Mel Gibson get tortured and gutted for 20 minutes, (b) black and white in its portrayal of anyone resembling a human being (especially the crazy Patrick McGoohan king and flaming gay prince he pushes out the window), and (c) historically inaccurate (very much so, even by Hollywood standards). The only film Gibson ever made worth anything was Apocalypto.

    AARON LEGGO: Your nice words are very appreciated. For reasons articulated above, I just don’t get the love for Godfather II. The Hyman Roth hearings go on and on, little new territory is covered. Bridge on the River Kwai has great action, but the dialogue is very badly dated, which is untrue of other 1957 releases. I respect The Apartment very much, just don’t love it, just a personal thing. If you were to rank it in the top 20 films ever nominated, I couldn’t disagree. The Sound of Music: underrated. It is a stage play beautifully opened to the screen, very cinematic throughout. Yeah, schmaltzy, but I’m a sucker for that kind of thing, I admit it.

    IGGY: Yours is the nicest comment of all, and exactly what I was hoping for…not so much the praise in the first two paragraphs, but understanding why someone who knows the history of the Academy and movies the way I do would no longer care about the Oscars after Brokeback lost. You made my day, and this project worthwhile. Thank you. And, if you like, I will send you some of the old “lost” films if you tell me how to contact you.

    Sasha, many thanks for posting.

59. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 5:00 pm 59

    ROBERTO:

    Didn’t see your comments. You are exactly right, it is fun to get to know other cinephile’s tastes and points of view. I follow sites like these because I learn from most members, including about films I’d like to see. I had never heard of the beautiful 1986 “Grave of the Fireflies” until a few years ago when somebody mentioned it on these forums, watched it, and it became a favorite.

    I also find it interesting discussing WHY we like certain films and not others. Like you said, we all have our opinions, but good films merit discussion and dissection, and sometime a second viewing. Like Brokeback Mountain, a film for which I make no apologies for ranking #3, it is the finest portrait of human loneliness and self-loathing I have ever seen, and says tons about our society. However, just in response to a few of your faves, here is why I might not have ranked them as high as you:

    E.T. I was 15 when I saw it. I was loving it, but then looked at my watch (something I never do) half way through when E.T. was supposedly dying. I looked because I knew he wasn’t dying, and felt angry and manipulated that Spielberg wanted me to think he was dying only half way thru the film. Ruined it for me. The bike across the moon is an all-time great visual, and its a fine film, but Spielberg just doesn’t give his audiences enough credit for a little intelligence.

    Amadeus: Here is one where I admit my judgment should probably be disqualified. I couldn’t wait to see the film because the play, with Ian McKellen, was the best play I had ever seen and got me into theater. Then I saw F. Murray Abraham, and was appalled. McKellen played Salieri as a ferocious figure capable of waging a war with God, while Abraham played him as a sneaky conniver, but ultimately a very small man. McKellen’s was bigger than life, and I couldn’t escape his portrayal. I have seen Abraham several times in the NY theater and realize he is a fine actor, but felt his portrayal completely undercut the film. Interestingly, everyone who saw the play with whom I spoke agreed with me, and everyone who did not see the play disagreed, so I brought a bias that I can’t escape. I actually ranked it higher than I liked it realizing my prejudice, it probably should be higher.

    I could go on about your other selections but will spare you! Suffice it to say that I agree all are fine films, and now I regret not including Back to the Future as a should-have-been Best Picture nominee in 1985, I almost included it and foolishly didn’t, don’t know why. Thanks again for commenting.

60. limeymcfrog March 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pm 60

    Crash isn’t the worst BP winner, sour grapes from another Brokeback accolyte.

    JFK being that low is atrocious.

    And Picnic deserves to be far lower, in fact last. I haven’t seen all of the films below it, but I’m almost certain it’s the worst film on the list. In no possible way is it better than Braveheart, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, and Finding Nerverland. Whatever those films’ faults, Picnic was one of the most predictable shallow hack jobs I’ve ever seen. A razzie contender.

61. limeymcfrog March 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm 61

    What’s with the Goodbye Girl hate? From the posters as well as its abysmal ranking. A film that dares to be a romantic comedy that happens to be very good and well acted doesn’t fit your “type” criteria. Considering the ridiculous rankings you give to “prestige” films, I don’t doubt that you are the typical academy voter. Glad we agree on Wall-E though.

62. iggy March 9th, 2009 at 6:15 pm 62

    Ben,

    You can contact me any time you want at: ______@/plus the whole gmail thing.

63. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 6:31 pm 63

    Limeymcfrog:

    I’m glad you can read my mind. No, as I’ve said at least twice already, I thought Crash was awful the first time I saw it, and worse the second, before it won. And, as I’ve said, Brokeback blew me away on the second viewing, it visually told its story as well as almost anything I have ever seen and hit a nerve, about how people treat other people, about judgments, and about loneliness. Many think Brokeback is an all-time great film (see the American Film Institute website fan poll, it is second only to Godfather), and many more think Crash is the worst film to win, see articles from Erik Lundegaard and others.

    I’m also glad you are so prescient to know that the films ranked below Picnic are better…without having seen them. Wow that’s arrogant, you are a condescending know-it-all who obviously doesn’t know much of anything. And by the way, if you bother to read my “deserved” nominees of each year, I’m hardly a typical Academy voter, I’ve agreed with their choices only around 15 times or so out of 81. But you know so much more.

    People who criticize with undue harshness and without reason are cowards and usually not very bright.

64. Bette March 9th, 2009 at 6:52 pm 64

    Ben, your lists are remarkable. I agree with most, especially Grand Illusion and Brokeback Mountain towards the top (its not a gay thing, I’m not gay, its just a great movie). Its disgraceful that some personally attack you because they have different taste in films, but you should ignore them, as it reflects poorly on them. You also have made me curious to see certain movies that I have not. Thank you for your work, I hope to see more.

65. ryan March 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm 65

    What the hell is JFK doing at the bottom of the list? Worst than The Towering Inferno? Crash? Are you kidding me?

66. JAB March 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm 66

    The Reader, Benjamin Button, and Frost/Nixon are not better than American Beauty, and Kramer vs. Kramer.

67. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 7:11 pm 67

    RYAN:

    JFK is at the bottom because it is a fundamentally dishonest film, about honesty (the endless Kevin Costner speech at the end confirms that). Early in the movie, Stone uses color footage when Gary Oldman plays LHO, and black and white footage when he uses the real Lee Harvey. The editing is smart and fast, but the filmmaker clearly uses the real thing to distinguish from his hypothesis (which was interesting and who knows, maybe true). However, at some point late in the film, Stone suddenly changes the Gary Oldman scenes so that they too are in black and white – just like the real thing. The film moves quickly, and it took me awhile before I could distinguish, but eventually I realized that I was being tricked into thinking that fake, theory scenes were being passed off as the real thing. Sorry, but that is unacceptable. I was never so angry at a movie, and at the end, I remember my discussion with the friends with whom I saw it: some people realized what I did, others didn’t. Later, there were newspaper articles condemning the film for the same trick. Its the most dishonest film I have ever seen, and regret not placing it last (except that Brando in the Mutiny remake was truly unwatchable). And yes, its even worse than Crash, though its close!

    If Stone had not done that, I would have ranked it somewhere in the middle. I love Stone’s theory, but the film was too much of a mishmash even apart from the foregoing, and Kevin Costner was at his worst, which is saying a lot! I will say, the Academy was clever in nominating Tommy Lee Jones, though it was unexpected. John Goodman should have been nominated for Barton Fink (more than David Paymer too…Goodman was terrifying!).

    Thanks for reading Ryan, and for taking the time to comment.

68. Craig March 9th, 2009 at 7:14 pm 68

    this list is awful.

69. miguel gallego March 9th, 2009 at 7:14 pm 69

    All About my Mother shouldn’t be eligible, since it was only nominated for the foreign film award

70. miguel gallego March 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm 70

    2008:
    -The Dark Knight
    -Wall-E
    -Slumdog Millionaire
    -Benjamin Button
    -Revolutionary Road or The Wrestler
    In this order

71. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 7:23 pm 71

    JAB:

    We disagree. I was a 13 yr old kid when Kramer vs. Kramer was released. I loved it, and I semi-cried. However, even while watching it then, something bothered me: why was the villain the woman? Statistics overwhelmingly showed that most men left women saddled with children, and that it was the women who had to struggle with single parenthood. I always disliked it when Siskel and Ebert trashed a film for telling a story other than the one I wanted to see, but I am guilty of doing the same thing here. Kramer was THE big divorce movie, and it bothered me then, and now, that its the man who suffered and was the hero, when most of the time it was the reverse. I am not accusing the fine filmmakers of sexism, but I do think it had that unintended affect. Had Streep and Hoffman switched parts, it would have been in my top 100. And Streep surrending Justin to Hoffman at the end – after all that – was just too contrived. When I saw the film again years later, I liked it less, and didn’t see much cinematic in it, it could have been a tv movie of the week. And yes, I admit, it bothers me that it swept almost all awards over Apocalypse Now (which got nothing outside Cannes) and Manhattan (not even nominated despite the National Board of Review Best Picture prize).

    American Beauty is trickier. Its one of those love it or hate it, and I hated it, though I understand and respect that many would place it in the top 100 nominated, or higher. First, I love Alan Ball. Six Feet Under is my favorite tv drama series ever, the final episode is the best thing I’ve ever seen on tv. However, I found American self-indulgent, self-conscious, and smarmy. Thank goodness Annette Bening (whom I think is a fine actress) didn’t beat Hilary Swank, her over-the-top breakdown when she can’t sell a house had me cringing (I’m a big firm real estate lawyer, I know a lot of brokers, believe me, she doesn’t resemble any!). The conceipt of Spacey with hot Mena smacked me as pedopheliac (word?) fantasy, not midlife crisis. And the last 20 minutes of the film, with the whole Chris Cooper breakdown, was predictable, cliched, and ridiculous. However, I realize people love the film because of its “feel”, and I truly respect that, I just didn’t get it.

    I don’t rank Button, Frost or Reader all that high, and I wouldn’t have nominated the former two. Button was a poor man’s Forest Gump and the first two hours were pretty bad, but the film eventually took hold of me when he became Cate’s child, and it moved me, despite myself. I was tempted to rank it much higher. Frost/Nixon was smart and solid, but Langella’s performance lost something from the stage, so I penalized it, probably unfairly (but it was riveting on-stage). Ron Howard – not my favorite director – opened up the film nicely, and I found it to be an interesting document of the time, like Milk was of its time, though both lacked in personal human interest for the main characters. The Reader is the most difficult, for many reasons that many on this and other sites have discussed, but ultimately I liked the film on the level of its challenge to the audience to judge whether or not we can unconditionally love the people we love, even if they do terrible things. And Kate was great (though I would have voted for non-nominees Kristin Scott Thomas or Sally Hawkins).

    Thanks for the comment.

72. Jay March 9th, 2009 at 7:29 pm 72

    Amazing list, many great choices at the top and bottom. Of course everyone have their own opinion, but gotta respect it all since you have seen so much and have perspective on which to compare these movies. And, from reading your discussions, you are clearly very smart. Great job, thank you for taking the time.

73. ryan March 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pm 73

    I think I have to write again and defend JFK. Because you blame the editing, and yet you claim it was smart and fast. Does Oliver Stone, Pietro Scalia, and Joe Hutshing use existing and fictional visuals to make their point? Absolutely. This isn’t a documentary. This is a fictional film which essentially reflects the theories of three men: Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, and Jim Marrs.

    Do we know now that their efforts proved to be false? Yes. But that’s because we have more information now.

    However, I feel that since Oliver Stone’s argument was convincing at the time and the ability he has shown in producing his argument into an entertaining and technically brilliant film shows proves that it should be ranked higher.

    If you take the politics out of it or what we know now to be false. I would use this film to teach a class about structure, editing, direction, cinematography, and performance (probably not writing, because the script is actually just a lot of monologues, the movie isn’t on the page like his other films).

    I think you’re letting your personal feelings get in the way of your judgment. And I would say it’s Kevin Costner at his best… which isn’t saying much (though I did like him in Silverado and Fields of Dreams–which I probably would’ve liked with anyone in that role, since I love the movie).

    But the real star of JFK is Oliver Stone’s voice, the editing, the cinematography, and the performances of its actors. Which is more than I can say for many of the films you place above it.

    And not to be a jerk, but I think you are the only person in the world that would say The Towering Inferno is better than JFK, haha.

74. The Natural March 9th, 2009 at 7:38 pm 74

    Talking about dishonest, there’s that misogynistic little piece of trash masquerading as feminist-empowerment art film “The Piano.” Don’t see that one ranked last.

75. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 7:44 pm 75

    CORRECTIONS:

    The Song of Bernadette at 75 and 77 was a typo. Was supposed to be 77. The Mission was supposed to be 75. Best film score ever, and some of the greatest cinematography ever. Fascinating story, only weakness was miscast (but still interesting) De Niro. Glad it won the Palme d’Or. And to Song of Bernadette haters, it beat Casablanca for the first Golden Globe for Best Picture. Maybe that’s going to far, but it is the best of the “religious” movies of the era, very respectful, beautifully acted and filmed. As a non-believer, it captivated me.

    Miguel: You are right about All About My Mother, I wrongly had it in my had it was screenplay nominated (I do this in my head so some of the harsher users should be a little more patient…not you, I appreciate the correction, great catch). So, for 1999, I select either Election or The Straight Story or maybe The Matrix as the 5th nominee. Realize Magnolia is the more popular choice, found it pretentious, and hated those frogs! But PT Anderson certainly did brilliant work on There Will Be Blood so will eventually revisit Magnolia to reevaluate.

    Anatomy of a Murder: Another typo, as I was switching things around, realizing I felt Anatomy was ranked too low. 339 was supposed to be The Dresser, which was brilliantly acted but claustrophobic, much better as a play.

    Thanks to those who caught them.

    P.S. I continue to be stunned by people like CRAIG and their hostile, unconstructive comments. Its one thing to disagree and discuss, its another to just dump and run. If you don’t like the list, walk away or do your own. But get a brain first.

76. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm 76

    RYAN: Thanks for taking the time to discuss JFK with me – that’s the whole point of this discussion, to debate film, rather than trash each other, right? Anyhow, I don’t think I made my point clearly. My disdain for JFK isn’t because of something that happened after the film. For all I know, Stone’s hypothesis is correct. What I was trying to say is that I found it to be fundamentally dishonest for Oliver Stone to trick me. If Oldman was always filmed in B&W, like the real Oswald, then fine, I’d have to distinguish. By filming him initially in color, he is telling his audience that it is theory. When he turns his theory into fact by filming in black and white, knowing well that the footage moves fast and is very difficult to distinguish between the real footage, I find that dishonest, because I – and others – sat there thinking that’s what actually happened. But then of course, by the end, we realize, that’s not what happened…at least not as FACT. That’s my point. Don’t pretend something is real when you don’t know. Had there been no real footage, I wouldn’t be making this argument. Am I clearer in what I’m trying to say?

    As for Towering Inferno, c’mon, didn’t you love the Fred Astaire – Jennifer Jones romance? Or those cheesy Oscar winning effects? Kidding aside, doesn’t it bother you that your beloved Academy nominated Towering over the following: A Woman Under the Influence, Day for Night, Ali: Fear Eats the Soul; Mirror; Celine and Julie Go Boating; Young Frankenstein; Blazing Saddles; Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore; Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz; Amarcord (or was that Best Pic eligible in ‘75?); Harry and Tonto (but Art Carney over Jack & Al??); Claudine; etc. etc.? Heck, I would have picked Earthquake over Towering, at least that had sensurround!

    THE NATURAL: LOL re: The Piano. Guess you didn’t like it. I know a lot of people who hated that film. But I don’t think it was misogynistic, or at least it wasn’t intended to be. I found it pretty captivating and original, albeit hard to watch at times. But I can understand the hate. The music tricked me?

    That reminds me, I neglected to include An Angel at My Table as a should have been nominee for 1991 (also Jane Campion), with a remarkable performance by Kerry Fox. And earlier I realized I should have listed The Learning Tree (by Gordon Parks) as a should have been nominee for 1970.

77. Rimski March 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm 77

    Great work. Even if you don’t agree with all the choices you should respect the amount of effort that has gone into reviewing so many films. Those of you in the early posts (2-5, 7&8) don’t reflect the spirit that this site fosters – maybe you need to put in more effort than simple one liner dismissals.

    Will look forward to reading through the more substantive posts in detail.

78. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 8:09 pm 78

    RIMSKI: Very nice of you. Truth be told, somebody else made a similar list just before the Oscars, and it inspired me to make my own, for myself, for the fun of it. I asked Sasha if she would publish, and she was nice enuf to do it (even though she thinks I completely missed the boat on The Departed and who knows what else!).

    But I appreciate it because the nasty comments really are troublesome to me. I love the disagreements because they are constructive and make me think about my own choices and prompt debate. I might even watch JFK again at some point because RYAN admires it. These lists are not set in stone and are not to be taken so seriously to the point where people who spew bile; this is for fun, not unprompted hatred. To those who condescend and call them trash, you are hostile, ignorant people, make better use of your time.

79. ryan March 9th, 2009 at 8:21 pm 79

    I guess I understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t agree. But I had a different perception of the film when I watched it. I never assumed what was in Black & White was supposed to be “real”. The footage of Kennedy getting shot is in color. All of the Donald Sutherland flashbacks are in black & white. And if I’m mistaken, are the first shots of, let’s call it, “fictional visuals” (I don’t know, I’m making something up) are in black & white.

    I, for one, never felt like I was being “tricked” by Oliver Stone. However, I will say that his use of existing footage and how he was able to incorporate that into his film allowed me to settle in completely the world that was being presented to me. Which is what I expect from a film.

    But we could have this debate forever, so I’ll let you continue on and focus on other people’s positions.

    And come on, is the Academy really “beloved” by anyone? Except by the actual members of the Academy?

80. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 8:25 pm 80

    LOL Ryan. Actually, I know (and represent) a fair number of Academy members, most of them trash their own organization (and rightfully so!). And yeah, we still disagree on JFK, but as I said in a prior post, because you defend it, eventually I will try it again. As you know, its one of those highly controversial films anyway. Thanks.

81. Rimski March 9th, 2009 at 8:29 pm 81

    More than welcome.

    I think there are many good choices on this list, and there are films (even from the past 10 years) that I will now seek out as a result. So for me getting the perspective of fellow film lovers is terrific.

    We have some different choices but hey that’s k. Here are a random bunch of films that I think are brilliant in their own ways. Sometimes it’s more about how a film impacts on us at a particular place in our life – and is nothing more objective than that. In no particular order

    Heavenly Creatures
    Das Boot
    Notti di Cabiria (Nights of Cabiria)
    Hannah and Her Sisters
    Six Degrees of Separation
    Brokeback Mountain
    Requiem for a Dream
    Shortcuts
    Barry Lyndon
    The Ice Storm
    Gerry (yeh I know this won’t be popular!)
    FOTR, ROTK
    The Bicycle Thief
    Donnie Darko
    Into the Wild
    The Thin Red Line

82. Ben March 9th, 2009 at 8:41 pm 82

    RIMSKI: Thanks again, and great list. A few comments:

    Heavenly Creatures: You will see I nominate it in 1994 (barely). Its just that ending is so brutal, so visceral…which is one of its strengths, but so hard to watch. Peter Jackson surely showed himself to be a director to watch.

    Das Boot: Another “rightful” nominee for 1982, a very strong year. To me, a bit long, but it gets better as it goes along.

    Notti di Cabiria (Nights of Cabiria): An all-time great. Since it wasn’t on the Academy’s Best Picture radar for 1957 (by its lack of director & screenplay nods) I didn’t include it, but it was my #3 that year behind A Man Escaped by Bresson and Paths of Glory, and in my top 100.

    Six Degrees of Separation: I should be disqualified from judging this because I almost never films that much after I have seen the Broadway plays. The play was remarkable, robbed of a Tony, so I suspect I would have loved the movie had I never seen the play. John Guare’s work always interests me, Atlantic City was my #2 of 1981 and best original screenplay that year, and his House of Blue Leaves was a great play.

    Requiem for a Dream, Shortcuts, The Ice Storm: all in my top 5 of their respective years, as you see from my lists.

    Barry Lyndon: a masterpiece, my best of 1975, despite very stiff competition.

    The Bicycle Thief: in my all-time top 25. Again, didn’t rank it per Academy “rules”.

    Gerry: I have never seen it! I will move it to the top of my netflix cue (assuming its available) as soon as I log off, based on your recommendation, which I appreciate. If its not on netflix I’ll find it elsewhere. Again, that’s what I love about this type of conversation, discovering fine new films. Thanks!

83. Roger March 9th, 2009 at 9:24 pm 83

    Ben, I want to congratulate you for your list.

    I am a 47 year old University Professor in an Arts faculty in Canada. I lived and studied in France for some time. I also studied German for 4 years and took Spanish courses. In recent years, I travelled extensively on six continents and worked in several Asian countries. All this to say that I am familiar with a wide variety of cultures and have seen lots of films from various origins. Of course, when it comes to films, I have my personal preferences just like everyone else, but nonetheless, I found your list very interesting and I like your choices. My first observation is the position of Brokeback Mountain as #3. I totally agree with you that it deserves to be in one of the top spots.

    Through the years, I’ve seen lots of movies and when I saw Brokeback Mountain for the first time 3 years ago, I really felt that it was a “moment”, that it was a “key moment” in cinematic history. I actually remember thinking to myself: “It will never be the first time again”. Brokeback Mountain is certainly one of the most extraordinary, moving and powerful film I have ever seen. I had read the set of Annie Proulx’s short stories months before the movie came out so I knew the storyline and was familiar with the characters. Nevertheless, I was not prepared for what awaited me. I was floored, crushed, speechless. The film was masterly directed and acted. The pace was slow but always controlled. The cinematography was exceptional and the use of music was minimal, discreet and effective. I returned to the theatre about 10 days later to see it again and interestingly, the emotional impact was even stronger. For days and weeks, I was haunted by this amazing film, in which the most powerful moments are scenes where very few words are uttered, if any. Brokeback Mountain is an exceptional work of art in which silence speaks louder than words.

    I had had a similar feeling when I saw Jane Campion’s “The Piano” (New Zealand) in a film festival. Other films such as “Babette’s Feast” (Denmark), “Wings of Desire” (Germany) and “Au revoir les enfants” (France) also come to mind. I think that in some ways, Brokeback Mountain is an exception in the American cinematical landscape. Though the film utilizes iconic American images and characters such as the Far West & the Cowboy, as you said “It is quiet, poised, and unfolds as virtual cinéma vérité”, and these characteristics are much more common in European and other foreign films. Perhaps Brokeback Mountain was and remains misunderstood in some ways in America. For some, it was perceived as a “political” movie that pushed an “agenda”; I personally really didn’t see it that way.

    Here is an excerpt of a review I read on BBM: “Brokeback Mountain is an extraordinarily special film. One of the most touching love stories in decades, Brokeback Mountain slowly weaves its magic, moving forward at a languid pace and ever so gently working its way into your heart. There’s no rushing into the film, no need to fill every moment with dialogue. Some movies take their time laying the story out and settling over the audience. Brokeback Mountain is one of those films. […] One of the most beautiful love stories to hit the screen in years, Brokeback Mountain is as close to being a perfect film as you can get.” (from “Brokeback Mountain – A Truly Memorable Love Story”, Movie Review by Rebecca Murray, About.com).

    I think the best films are the ones that deal with the human condition and still remain truthful without any artifice. In that respect, I also agree with you regarding “Schindler’s List” and “The Pianist”.

    I don’t think that patronizing and/or preachy movies make great art (…except perhaps for the Hollywood peanut gallery). Brokeback Mountain simply tells a story and touches our hearts like no other film. That’s why it is a unique masterpiece and deserves to be acknowledged as such.

84. qwiggles March 9th, 2009 at 9:33 pm 84

    Fair enough, Ben.

85. Frank J. Avella March 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pm 85

    Anyone who places JFK at the bottom of his list and SHAWSHANK and BARRY LYNDON in the top 25 is on crack…really bad crack…

    Not to mention dissing NASHVILLE!

86. Chris March 9th, 2009 at 11:00 pm 86

    He’s one of those snobs who wanted Wall-E nominated this year.

    The Dark Knight > Wall-E

    Anyways, this guy’s list is eh. Brokeback Mountain is a great movie, but above movies like Schindler’s List and Apocalypse Now? Come on.

87. Chris March 9th, 2009 at 11:05 pm 87

    I just realized this guy actually wanted The Reader nominated. *vomits*

    And for the record, this guy has WAY too much time on his hands.

88. SeattleMoviegoer March 10th, 2009 at 12:00 am 88

    hmmm….
    interesting.
    sorta.
    love the revisionist review of
    Lean’s BRIDGE/KWAI.
    “dated” dialogue?
    let’s go back and lessen the value
    of other classics because the
    characters don’t talk as we
    do now.
    shall we start with Dickens?
    Austen? scripts by Wilder?
    Mankiewicz?
    if you’re to appreciate art at all,
    one must appreciate and
    acknowledge its place in time
    and culture. it’s too easy to be
    flip and snarky…that’s just critical
    laziness.

89. Aaron Leggo March 10th, 2009 at 12:04 am 89

    BEN: Just wanted to say how awesome it is that you’re in here posting and responding to so many of us and keeping this lively debate going.

    I too am fascinated by movie opinions and what makes one person react to a certain movie so positively, while another person can react so negatively. In the end, you can break down cinema into a bunch of separate fields (acting, directing, writing, design, photography) and try to analyze it, almost scientifically, based on an understanding of both history and the way each field operates, but ultimately, it comes down to that intangible thing called magic.

    2001: A Space Odyssey is my favourite movie of all time, but some people hate that movie and call it boring and nonsensical. I don’t like The Sound of Music, but lots of people love that movie. This year, I hated Vicky Cristina Barcelona and it won an Oscar and was on many critics’ top ten lists. I love a lot of Von Trier’s work (especially Breaking the Waves and Dogville), while others cannot stand any of his movies.

    We all have our likes and dislikes, but we can relate to each other because we love cinema so dearly. Trying to make sense of art is a wonderful thing and these debates remind me how much I love cinema and how I much I love talking about it.

90. Keith March 10th, 2009 at 12:25 am 90

    I think its a terrible list (The Pianist at 4?!?!?!?!, Brokeback at 3?!?!?) but I like the high placement of Atonement as well as the love for Wall-E.

91. Someone March 10th, 2009 at 12:28 am 91

    THE READER was one of the best pictures of 2008. Very well acted and intelligent. THE PIANIST is far greater than SCHINDLER’S LIST. The latter is too sentimental (this last scene with Neeson crying was really one of the worst endings ever) and – because of that – too EASY in watching. But I disagree that THE PIANIST is the fourth picture ever nominated. I’m the Pole and we – obviously – love Polanski in Poland but we all think here that CHINATOWN, ROSEMARY’S BABY or KNIFE IN THE WATER are his better works. Actually it’s difficult to compare those movies but there’s something that makes THE PIANIST “not-a-masterpiece”. But it’s really difficult to say what it is.
    And Ben: do you really think that KRAMER VS KRAMER is bad because it’s sexist? Does it really matter when you rate movies? You can also say that GONE WITH THE WIND is racist – but it doesn’t change its greatness (I completely agree that this is the best picture that won the Academy Award – and I agree too that the only one melodrama greater than GONE WITH THE WIND is BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN).

92. Someone March 10th, 2009 at 12:37 am 92

    OK – maybe you don’t accuse KRAMER VS KRAMER of sexism but you want Streep and Hoffman to change their places in the plot. It sounds strange. KRAMER VS KRAMER is very good picture (yeah – it shouldn’t have won with APOCALYPSE NOW but it’s still very good IMO) because it tells a different story than this obvious one about great mother and bad father. I loved it also because of that.

93. Adam B B March 10th, 2009 at 5:18 am 93

    I was curious to find out more about this list, in particular if there are more extensive reviews by Mr. Woulds of these films (like many others who have commented, I find lists interesting but much less satisfying than reading about nuances in a more detailed review). I also wanted to find out more about Mr. Woulds, at which Ivy League school(s) he taught/teaches, where in the film industry he works… you know, to help establish some context. But the only links I could find by doing a Google search for “ben woulds” were for this list.

    Now, this comment is not a challenge to veracity or anything, it’s just an honest inquiry to know more about the author of such an extensive list. Like Mr. Woulds, I feel that dismissive or “cheap shot” comments do a disservice to all and sadly reflect a decline in society’s view of intellectual discourse. But perhaps knowing a little more about the author’s background could help those of us looking to understand his point of view a bit better. And, if there are more extensive write-ups on these films beyond what has already been posted, it would be enlightening to reference these as well.

94. billybil March 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am 94

    Ben – I, too, am impressed by and grateful for your willingness to continue to ‘discuss’ some of the posts in response to your list. So often a blogger shares a heartfelt opinion and it disappears into the ether.

    You have convinced me. I have only seen Brokeback Mountain and Atonement once – in theatres when they first came out. Now, because you say you found more in both films when you watched them a 2nd time, I will make a point of watching each of them again.

    However, I still suspect that if Brokeback Mountain was not about two men, the admiration of this film would not be so high. I think this gets to your point about merit vs. preference in determining the success of a film. I believe many viewers accept less emotional exposure about the lead characters in Brokeback because they are “men”. I believe that if it were a love story between a man and a woman there would be complaints about the inaccessibility of much of the interaction. I fear that everyone goes gaga over the fact that we’re watching homosexual love between 2 handsome, “butch” men and, therefore, accepts that because such men are known for being emotionally reticient, that we should forgive and admire the movie for being emotionally reticent and removed. I am NOT suggesting the characters should be any different in their worlds or even with each other, I’m suggesting the audience’s experience of their love and vulnerability should be greater and that Ang Lee failed to find ways to have his audience experience these truths. But I will give it another try. To be honest, I would love to find it more rewarding the second time.

    One thing I really respect (and love) about your list is that you (who, on top of having seen a shitload of movies, are also a film scholar) are willing to acknowledge and admire a wide variety of films that succeed in their unique genres.

    I actually find it difficult to understand how anyone who knows and loves cinema could not admire a film like THE SOUND OF MUSIC. It’s always baffling to me when movie lovers get caught up in seeming arrogance about certain types of films.

    I so understand your admiration for WHAT’S UP DOC. It is one of the few successful attempts to make a “modern” slapstick comedy and it works so well and plays to everyone’s strengths so effectively.

    Also, how can a film lover not admire THE NOTEBOOK? I don’t understand it. Yes, it’s an unrealistic love story with a rather melodramatic framing device but it is so damn successful at what it does.

    This is why I don’t understand your intense dislike of CRASH. It is an ensemble piece that hits its message over the head in big ways, but it is entertaining, fascinating, complicated and emotionally stirring (when that little girl isn’t shot, how can you not be affected?). Isn’t it another film that accomplishes what it sets out to do with great success?

    Sometimes I can also find it difficult to appreciate movies after I’ve seen the stage play. I particularly found Dangerous Liaisons disappointing for this reason – but not only because John Malkovich was no Alan Rickman. I thought Glenn Close was great at playing the sly manipulator but she was not the passionate woman Lindsay Duncan portrayed onstage. I wish Kathleen Turner had been cast in the role. She could have played both the intelligence AND the sexual passion. I think it would have won her an Oscar.

    Anyway, thanks again for actually reading and responding to people’s input. It shows a genuine interest in other people’s opinions.

95. Proman March 10th, 2009 at 10:25 am 95

    Every frame of Munich is alive. It is a much much better movie than Departed which while entertaining still feels more formulating and smaller in scope and ideas.

    Good film though I won’t deny that.

96. billybil March 10th, 2009 at 10:48 am 96

    Ben -

    Didn’t the shift in tone in WALL-E from the early on earth lyrical sequences to the fat people on the ship slapstick bother you? I found it very jarring. Plus the beauty of the first part only amplified the obviousness of the second.

97. RJGinCA March 10th, 2009 at 12:05 pm 97

    The phrase “opinions are like assholes–everyone has one” fits perfectly to this list–and, critics in general.

    The most important list is the one that YOU make or deem important. Nobody else’s opinon matters.

98. Ben March 10th, 2009 at 12:46 pm 98

    RJGinCA:
    Even though you intend to diss me, I largely agree. Each person is entitled to their opinions, there is no right or wrong to what brings each of us enjoyment, to what makes us happy. However, this is a site about Oscars, which by definition is a site about lists (the nominations are lists), so I make no apologies for posting mine and exposing them to ridicule and/or praise (I happen to think the way in which people respond says a lot about them). Its meant in fun, but its also meant to share, and admittedly, impose opinions, to the extent people are so willing to listen and respond. Don’t we all do that? You see a movie with your wife, and tell her you hated it. She loved it, you debate, because you want to make your points. I feel I know a lot about film having studied it extensively, and love it when people decide my opinion is worth listening to, so they see a movie they might not otherwise have on account of me. I do the same when I learn about movies from others whose opinions I respect, I will be watching Gerry because RINMSKI said to. Maybe I’ll like it, maybe I won’t, but its no different than going to a movie because a critic recommends it, or because the Academy recommends it. And yeah, we all take some lists more seriously than others, based on whether we agree with the person in general for many, but sometimes because we think they know a lot about the subject. We listen to our teachers in school because they have studed a subject extensively, and then we teach when we do the same. I will also not apologize for believing there is some objectivity in judging art. Again, your opinion in what you like or dislike is just as valid as mine (and so is mine against yours), but if someone is gonna tell me that The Towering Inferno is a “better” film as a piece of art than Citizen Kane or Night of the Hunter or 2001, then I’m gonna move on.

    ADAM B B:
    I understand why you want my credentials, though honestly, this isn’t to be taken all that seriously. Somebody else did a similar list the day before the Oscars, it inspired me to do my own. I love making lists, always have, so found it fun to do while in transit. I kind of hoped that the fact I have seen so many films in itself makes me something of an expert, since after all, immersing oneself in anything, with some intelligence, is what makes experts to begin with, be it music or history or literature or whatever. But you want more, and I appreciate the question. But you know, I can say whatever the heck I want and you wouldn’t know the difference, lol. So, in a second I’ll give you the truth, but before I do, I’ll offer to discuss film with you via phone, if you give me your cell # (via private emails of course, not here), so you can see for yourself that I know what I’m talking about and not making this up. We’ll talk too quickly for me to look things up, I am very confident that you that you will see I know all this nonsense by heart within 10 minutes of our conversation if you are willing, so maybe that will make me more “credible” to you. With that said, I have degrees from Harvard and Columbia (like Obama, lol) and Cornell, and taught at Columbia part-time, very low pay! I live in NY. Ben Woulds is a total alias for this website only. However, I do not write complete reviews, time just doesn’t permit, I find it harder and harder to watch movies these days while giving priority to my relationships, family, friendships and work (I am a big firm lawyer). Theater and reading and music and tennis and running and baseball (as an observer) are as important to me as film. I’m not the freak many of you think I am, I just have a lot of extra time to watch movies late at night because I was born not needing that much sleep. That’s the gist, let me know if you want to talk, I’ll check back in later.

99. movielocke March 10th, 2009 at 1:29 pm 99

    The White Parade is only available as a print at UCLA, so hard to see, otherwise, congratulations on seeing all the other films.

    I’ve not seen all, still got about 80 left, but it’s a hell of an effort and accomplishment. I won’t comment on most of your rankings, a lot of this is primarily taste, and I completely understand how a film like Brokeback Mountain can be exceptionally meaningful to people (though I would probably rank it in the 100-200 range, maybe higher) because it is so beautiful and powerful.

    Some rankings truly puzzled me though. I found Imitation of Life to be, probably, the worst nominee of the thirties (Flirtation Walk is a strong contender for that tile though), whereas Five Star Final knocked my socks off, particularly Robinson’s career best performance (imo). Those two, in particular, could be easily flipped for me. I didn’t find anything particularly special in House of Rothschild that would merit it placing so high, I’d have it down in the State Fair level, actually, I’d have it below State Fair which I found to be charming despite it’s apparent and numerous substandard elements.

    I’ve no idea what you saw in Cavalcade that merited it earning such a ridiculously high placement, if it weren’t for Broadway Melody, it would easily be the worst of the winners. I’m curious especially on your rationale for Cavalcade.

    I also appreciate that Nashville is as low as it is, count me as another who finds the film rather boring. the placement of Gosford Park is just about perfect.

    I love that Make Way for Tomorrow is your top film for 1937. There are actually very few films–particularly Hollywood films–that can make the case of being a forgotten masterpiece, often films labeled as such don’t hold up and their reputation was due as much to their obscurity and unavailable stauts as it was to the caliber of the film. But this film is truly remarkable, particularly for the decade, more in line with the sophistication of tone found in Grand Illusion or Magnificent Ambersons than in the more all-audiences approach most of the films made at this time possess. That Ozu later remade it as Tokyo Story is not very well known, but the original stands shoulder to shoulder with the remake, which is a hell of an achievement in and of itself. :-p

100. RJGinCA March 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm 100

     Ben:

     What bothers me about all these lists, is that they tend to be subjective without merit. For many of the people who jump on the critics’ bandwagon for films like Wall-E, Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire, I can list 10 reasons for why I think these films are not worthy competitors.

     I agree with Sasha’s comments about people who dump on films with a simple “I didn’t like it” or “it sucked”. But what intrigues me are the people who love a film without stating what it was that they liked about it. And why they think it’s superior to another.

     For example, all the hysteria surrounding The Dark Knight (which wasn’t nominated for best film , thank you) was a total enigma to me. Despite it’s massive 8 Oscar nominations, so many people felt it was snubbed for th Best Oscar nom–to the point of boycotting the Oscars and belittling the Academy.

     This is why I felt it wasn’t deserving:

     1) Most of the hype for this film was surrounded by Heath Ledger’s death, and as a result, people couldn’t think clearly about the film as a whole (by the way, I thought Heath was terrific and richly deserved his Oscar)

     2) I thought there was very little character development to the characters in the film

     3) There was little to no explanation as why good characters went bad (e.g., Two-Face)

     4) I thought the continuity in the film was lacking. When I first saw the film, I thought the projectionist had mixed up the reels, as the scenes didn’t seem to flow fluidly throughout the film–they seemed very disjointed to me. I hate it when I see a film and it appears that major scenes have been cut from the film, for the sake of time instead of continuity. If any film is begging for a Director’s Cut, this is it.

     5) I thought Batman, the central character in the film, was almost a side-note to the other characters in the film. I can’t even remember a single memorable scene Batman/Christian Bale was in.

     6) There really were no likeable characters in the movie–Batman included. When it comes to a comic book-superhero type action film I really would like to root for someone. I felt numb throughout the entire film. I really couldn’t care less who lived or died, Batman included.

     7) Batman allowed his (ex-) to die. First, they replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal for no apparent reason (Maggie, a great actress was really no better in the role than Katie was–and not as attractive, either), and then Batman allows her to die. What kind of superhero is that?

     Knowing that Heath Ledger had immortalized the Joker forever, why didn’t the filmmakers “clearly” kill him off? Do we really want some other actor playing him (potentially) in the future? It’s another one of those “off-screen” assumptions that leads me to believe that the film had sloppy editing or a poor script.

     9) I thought Morgan Freeman’s and Michael Caine’s characters were underutilized, and not very memorable. These are terrific actors that gave nothing performances. If I were to name some of the best films of their careers, The Dark Knight would not be on either of their lists.

     10) The Academy loves films that have a message. Whether it’s about faith, hope, overcoming poverty, courage, mental brilliance, racial intolerance, ad infinitum, they want a film to “say something” to its audience. I’m not sure what the message of the Dark Knight was. What I saw was a misanthropic, lost, troubled has-been that couldn’t lift himself up far enough to make a difference. Not a film, that I think, was worth rewarding.

     So, Ben, what you’re getting with some of these comments, are people who are grappling as to why you think so-and-so film is better than Godfather I and II, and why Grand Illusion is the best film of all time.

101. S.T. Stevens March 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm 101

     I lose pretty much all respect for the film taste of somebody who considers the third act of Pulp Fiction to be “awful” and best describes the Hyman Roth scenes of Godfather Part II as “boring.”

102. Ben March 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm 102

     S.T. Stevens: Yeah, fine. I have no respect for the film taste of somebody who enjoyed the third act of Pulp Fiction to be anything but awful, and who wasn’t bored by the endless Hyman Roth Senate hearings in Godfather II…especially when they give no back-up for their opinions, and likely have little knowledge of film history and love immature filmmaking like Pulp like so many others not-too-bright. Let’s see your list, fan-boy. [Same to all those who disagree without debate, and who simply drop their condescending two cents without anything constructive to say].

     MOVIELOCKE:
     Another WOW, you really know your stuff. I have to get back to work but I’ll respond later. Again, it is on account of people like you that I am glad I posted my list. Thanks.

     RJGinCA:

     Thanks for taking the time to give such a long and thoughtful response. I happen to agree with you re: Dark Knight. I’m a Batman fan, and was really looking forward to Dark Knight. I liked the film more than you did, but I too was disappointed, mostly for your well-articulated reasons. I especially agree with you on the film’s lack of continuity. And why does the Two Face character dominate the last 1/2 hour of the film and die?

     However, I don’t understand your comment that says “these lists are subjective without merit”. What does that mean? That lists are not worthwhile? Perhaps, then why are you participating in a movie site that is ultimately about lists – the Academy’s, an with 5 nominees in 24 categories and a best?? And the Academy, an organization that thought Greatest Show on Earth was better than High Noon and Singin’ in the Rain, and that didn’t see fit to nominate Vertigo, 2001, The Searchers, etc. etc.?? And are you including the imdb top 250 in your dismissal? Perhaps not, because you like The Godfathers, and so do most, but perhaps you should, because if you look at their daily polls, you’ll discover that a solid one-third of the participants freely admit they aren’t familiar with the works of John Ford or Hitchcock, that they haven’t seen Citizen Kane and Casablanca, and it goes on and on. So sure, lists are subjective, but so what? The fun of it is to present them and debate them and see what other cineastes think. Despite many trashers, there have been many whom agree, and whom even see that I am somebody who knows film, so maybe they’ll even check out some of what I recommend. That’s exactly what we do with critics like Ken Turan and Ebert and AO Scott and so many others, but everybody is a critic nowadays, and that’s the point of publishing such a list. And I certainly don’t see the harm, despite many being so mortally offended…what babies. And equally big babies are those who call me an idiot simply because they liked something that I don’t. You know, everyone used to say Gone with the Wind was the greatest American film. It even beat Citizen Kane at the 1977 American Film Institute survey, and Godfather didn’t make the top 10. Tastes change. Mine match some of the tastes of the time, and not others. Same with yours, re: Dark Knight, and same with everyone’s. If somebody says to me, “but why did you find the third act of Pulp Fiction bad”, then I’ll gladly tell them. I won’t waste my time with people who simply trash my, don’t bother to proffer their own opinions, and move on. But this is a site about Oscars and movies and lists of movies and people’s opinions on movies and Oscars. They are debated endlessly all year long, and ranking all the nominees – not my idea, wish it was, but I’ve seen them – is what this site is about. And you say many jump on crix bandwagons for Dark Knight and Slumdog and Wall-E, but I could say the same about The Godfathers and Pulp Fiction and The Departed and others. But I generally don’t (except to nasty people like ST Stevens) because I take people at their word, if they say they liked something, then who am I to say they don’t?? And maybe they are influenced by what others say, but so what, its still their opinion. Obviously I’m in the majority with the high placement of films like Kane and Raging Bull, and in the minority with low placement of films like JFK and No Country for Old Men, but obviously I knew that going in. That’s the point, we don’t all agree. I have been happy to debate the merits in response to posters like you who are respectful and articulate your reasons for your words, and I respect that back.

     As for the people who are grappling with why I prefer some films to others, just ask. Obviously I can’t give reviews of every single film, I have a day job, lol! But my opinion of Grand Illusion is quite mainstream. Grand Illusion has been ranked as one of, if not the greatest film ever made by American and world critics, directors and film buffs since it was released. For many years it was considered top 10. Around 1990 or so it was probably eclipsed in critical estimation by Renoir’s other supreme masterpiece Rules of the Game. I prefer Grand Illusion. Rules doesn’t come up here because the Academy nominated it for nothing, I’m playing by Academy rules. Grand Illusion is still pretty universally considered one of the top 20-30 films in world cinema by “those who know”, I happen to think that’s too low, and so do others. The first person who ranked all the best picture nominees ranked it #2 behind Sunset Boulevard. Anyhow, the answer to why its so great is, watch it! Watch it twice, and then debate. And google it on the net, you’ll find dozens of essays on its influence, its greatness and more. As for The Godfathers, well, another time.

103. limeymcfrog March 10th, 2009 at 3:45 pm 103

     Ben,

     Spirited argument was intended not insult. I know it was quite an undertaking, no one’s ever going to agree with you on everything and if you make your opinion public then you open it up to criticism.

     And anytime you put Picnic in front of On Golden Pond or Alfie then you get a fight from me…. or just about anyone else who has seen all of those movies. Seriously dude, Picnic sucked. Alot. And just because I haven’t seen “In Old Arizona” or “The Smiling Lieutenant” doesn’t mean I can’t call you out about it.

     Just Remember: Spirited Argument.

104. limeymcfrog March 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm 104

     In terms of Crash

     Plausibility is not an objective yardstick. Implausible things happen in great films all the time, the point is what they reveal about character. It is clear you either didn’t care about the character revelation or that the implausibility was simply too much for YOU.

     Some of your favorite films have massive problems with plausibility, but you forgive those aspects because they are necessary. I hold that the coincidences noted above are necessary for Paul Haggis’s message. You may not like his message or the way in which he conveys it, but don’t act like Crash is an objectively bad film because of it’s implausibility.

105. Ben March 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pm 105

     I will get most of the nasty people out of the way first (tho some are not even worth responding to, like Keith and Frank Avella who simply hate without saying why), then respond to everyone else nice enough to send kind and/or constructive comments:

     CHRIS: Loving Wall-E doesn’t make one a snob. It was the most highly acclaimed movie of 2008 by critics, made over $200m at the box office, and is beloved by many. You are the snob in the way you summarily dismiss my opinions since you automatically think yours are so superior (what makes that so???), without any intelligence or discussion in what you have to say.

     SEATTLEMOVIEGOER: You missed the point. Its not that classic characters didn’t talk then the way the talked now, its that in Bridge, they didn’t even talk then the way they are being portrayed having spoken. I specifically stated that its contemporaries – other 1957 movies – do not have such dated dialogue, such as 12 Angry Men, but you could also say that for other war films released within the same 12 months, like Paths of Glory and Bridges at Toko-Ri. If you look at my other comments, you’ll see I absolutely endeavor to place art in the context of its place and time, from Gone with the Wind to Shawshank. To my ear, Bridge just sounded goofy and dated for its time, which lessens the impact and overall quality of the movie. Films like Paths that are ahead of their time sound good in 100 years. Bridge dated quickly, and saying that doesn’t make one guilty of critical laziness, but it does make you flip and snarky in assuming you know more. Its annoying to read that because I am the first to defend different dialogue and sounds in other films and have on this site before, including for WWII films, I am entitled to say that Bridge’s doesn’t work for me without being summarily trashed by you.

     For the record to those who say I have too much time on my hands, I probably do, but I compiled this list while in transit with my laptop while visiting family and listening to music. I chose to do this instead of reading, since I went myself and had nothing else to do while on the trains.

     OTHERS WHO ARE NICE AND/OR CONSTRUCTIVE:

     ROGER: You truly made my day…my week. Your response alone makes me glad I posted my lists on this site, and I am very grateful. I would love to correspond with you separately, if you write again I am happy to exchange email addresses (I hesitate to post mine here on account of the hate mail from people on this site!). You articulate many reasons for admiring Brokeback beautifully, and I will share your insights with others not on this site, you have a lot to teach all of us. I also happen to agree with you on Babette’s Feast and Au revoir les enfants, interesting they both competed for the foreign language film Oscar, usually the Academy doesn’t nominate the “right” films. Wings of Desire is one o fmy ten or twenty best films of the 80s so we agree there too. The Piano is trickier, I see both the love and hate. Anyhow, I hope you write again so we can talk film directly, I’d love to put you in touch with some people in the arts whom I think you might find interesting. Anyhow, THANK YOU.

     QWIGGLES: Many thanks for taking the time to read and acknowledge another point of view, even if we disagree. Most people are too arrogant to send such an email, it is good of you to have done so (even tho I realize you likely still disagree!).

     AARON LEGGO: Thank you too. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my 10 favorite movies of all-time and I think always will be. The first time I saw it, however, I fell asleep (in my defense it was a midnight show, though I was in college and supposed to be able to stay awake late!). As for The Sound of Music, legend says Christopher Plummer later called it the Sound of Mucus. Love it or hate it, but I think its beautifully done. Breaking the Waves is my #1 of 1996 and top 5 of the 90s (all languages), yet I too dislike other works of his. Thanks for making the point.

     SOMEONE: We have similar tastes. You make a very fair point about Kramer vs. Kramer that I had not sufficiently thought about, and appreciate it. To a degree, I stick to my guns. The analogy to Gone with the Wind is smart, but I don’t think quite fair. The point about Gone with the Wind is that it may be racist by today’s standards, it was not racist by 1939 standards (I repeat, the one person whose respect Rhett wanted was Mammy’s; on the other hand, the monumental Birth of a Nation unfortunately was racist even by 1915 standards, so that’s another discussion). Kramer, however, may not have been sexist, but I feel it told the “wrong” story by 1979 standards. Divorce was becoming more and more prevalent, and women were getting more and more dumped on. It felt – and still feels – wrong to me that the big divorce movie was the one that presented the man’s viewpoint. Had Kramer been but one of many divorce movies wherein the others presented how women were more typically the victims, perhaps I would not feel this way. But you are right, in many ways this is unfair of me, I should judge Kramer more in a vacuum, and in a vacuum, you are right again, it is a well-crafted, well-written, beautifully acted film. Still, I don’t (LOL), because movies are influential and “of their time”, some standing the test of time, others not so much (like Bridge on the River Kwai!). But your point is very well taken and has given me something to think about, so thanks.

     BILLYBIL; Wow to your responses, thank you. Let me start with your second, on Wall-E. Yes, I found the second half of Wall-E a big let-down from the first half. I didn’t find it jarring, I didn’t mind that’s where the story took me (from serene beauty to the silly world of the humans in space), but the second half just wasn’t on the same level as the first. That’s why its not one of my all-time greatest films, though it might just crack my 100 or 150 the next time I compile my list, because even though the second half wasn’t as good, I still found it to be a very clever, very Pixar hoot, and it still told its story with intelligence and great humor. Slapstick can be fun too! I said to me it was my top “eligible” nominee of 2008 by far because I don’t think Slumdog was in the same league, even though I thought it was the second best english-language non-fiction film I saw. Very weak year for great films. The first half of Wall-E so blew me away that it remained my #1, I thought it was visionary. So my 2008 list makes more sense to you, my #2-7 films (with Slumdog at #8), were Edge of Heaven, The Class, Let the Right One In, Trouble the Water, Man on Wire and Waltz with Bashir.

     That you will see Brokeback and Atonement again also makes my day. As you know, some films require a second viewing to “get” them. It took me 3 viewings to get “Rules of the Game”, and frankly I still don’t completely, and far prefer my all-time #1, Grand Illusion, as an equally complex but even more humanistic film of hope and beauty. As for Brokeback not being about two men being a lesser work…well, true, but it was, and you just can’t change that. And while I think I understand your comments about criticizing the film for its emotional reticence, I ultimately (strongly) disagree, that’s what made it work for me, on the second viewing. The film preserves the mystery of love while bringing you beneath the skin of the characters in a virtually unprecedented way in cinema. If you haven’t already done so, please read Roger’s comments about Brokeback a bit earlier than yours. Also, I think you will see I am fairly consistent in my preferences, in that I prefer films that show, rather than tell. My #1 of 1993 is The Remains of the Day (even over Schindler’s List (shame on me, right?, lol)). There’s another film where the main character can’t speak his love, and the attraction between Anthony and Emma remains mostly unspoken. I can give many more examples of the same, but the point I’m trying to make is that in Brokeback, there is a lot more than meets the eye, and it took me two viewings to see that. When you watch again, listen to how Heath starts mimicking Jake in his expressions, the way friends do with another. Heath’s character has no idea he’s even doing it, its just something that comes with familiarity and affection. How often do we realize we are starting to feel strongly about our friends or lovers until one day, we suddenly realize we do? Sometimes we know its happening, but often we don’t. I also disagree that people liked seeing the gay thing. I think Brokeback succeeded with straight audiences despite the gay thing…though I do agree that having two handsome men made a difference, but I think that’s the case with most straight love stories as well, most movies present beautiful people as lovers. I can go on and on about Brokeback but am truly glad you will give it another chance. Same re: Atonement, which is currently on HBO.

     I’m also glad you love What’s Up, Doc? Underrated, right? I’m not a Streisand fan except in that, The Way We Were and Funny Girl, but she was great. And Madeleine Kahn should have won Best Supporting Actress (Eileen Heckart in Butterflies are Free wasn’t in her league!), she wasn’t even nominated. I also have my own personal bests each year and I give an award for best cameo for performances 12 minutes or under. Liam Dunn in Doc had as good a cameo as the judge as almost anybody ever!

     I’m also glad you like The Notebook. People dismissed my opinions completely simply because they hate that film so much. Like you, I don’t see why, I find those people to be cynical. Typically, those people glorify senseless violence in film, they can get their heads around that, but when filmmakers go a bit over the top with love, they are repeled. Too bad for them. The Notebook is a beautifully acted and filmed, the scene with swans was unabashed cinema magic.

     Dangerous Liasons: agree re: Kathleen Turner over Glenn Close. Other than Garp, I’ve never been a Close fan. Kathleen would have been perfect.

     Crash: I had absolutely nothing against it when I saw it upon its release, and was actually hoping to like it (like all films) and thinking I would because I loved Million Dollar Baby (despite its unnecessary black and white manipulations in making Hilary’s family and the guy who taunts the mentally challenged boxer whom Morgan later beats up such over-the-top inhuman characters…they became cartoon villains and diminished the movie, despite its impact). But I’ll keep this short because I can go on and on about why this is a truly bad piece of filmmaking/progaganda (despite its good intentions), and am somewhat tired of doing so. Instead, here is are links to articles by Erik Lundegaard and Ken Turan that briefly articulate some of my reasons. There are many more such articles if you search, as the majority of major critics disliked Crash upon its release, and they explain why in their reviews: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11700333/
     http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-turan5mar05,0,5359042.story

     Also, here is the Crash quiz that circulated the internet after the Oscars: “Which of these events in Crash was the least
     plausible?
     -PM Farhad fires blanks after Daniel tells his daughter about the Magic Cloak.
     -Officer Ryan saves Christine from the exploding car after molesting her.
     -Anthony discovers the Chinese immigrants and saves them.
     -Officer Hanson shoots Peter and burns the car.
     -Maria is Jean’s only friend.
     -Officer Hanson happens to save Cameron from getting shot, after Officer Ryan molests his wife.
     -The Chinese man survives being run over by Anthony and Peter.
     -All of the above.”

     The answer was the last, the film is a well-intentioned mess that hits you over the head with its message from the opening voiceovers (“people CRASH into each other every day”…ugh). The last great Hollywood movie about race relations was in 1989, Do the Right Thing (my #1 that year by a nose over another sentimental fave, Field of Dreams”), but of course the Academy all but ignored it.
     Anyhow, thanks again, I’ve gotta get back to work!

106. Dani March 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pm 106

     I agree, Cabaret is better than The Godfather.

     And Wall-E should have been nominated for BP.

107. Nick K. March 10th, 2009 at 4:40 pm 107

     Say what you will about ‘Schindler’s list’ Sasha, but I feel that Ralph Fiennes was robbed of an Oscar. I actually had the opposite reaction to his character. But hey, difference of opinion I guess.

     I saw Fight Club for the first time recently, and while it was brilliant in parts, I think it was a little sloppy near the final third. But Brad Pitt deserved an Oscar nomination for Tyler Durden. I would say my favorite films of 1999 are Magnolia and Being John Malkovich, but the South Park movie was actually quite brilliant as well.

     Finally, I agree with you 100% about Beauty and the Beast. Deserved that win, so SO much.

108. Ben March 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm 108

     MOVIELOCKE AND LIMEY: I wrote each of you separate, typically long-winded responses but unfortunately I received error messages (“too many messages too fast”) that Ryan kindly tried to retrieve but was unable to do so. Ugh. Accordingly, forgive me for shorter responses to come. (though perhaps those are preferable!).

     LIMEY: “Crash isn’t the worst BP winner, sour grapes from another Brokeback accolyte.” Sorry, but that’s neither spirited nor debate (“discuss”), its just a condescending attack without discussion. The fact I have engaged in long (long) debates with dozens of people who have been kind enuf to respond certainly shows I am not adverse to spirited debate, I anticipated it (see my original comments), I welcome it. However, your subsequent comments about Crash certainly are fodder for debate, and I appreciate you taking the time to post them. First, back to Crash being the worst best picture winner. That is my true opinion, I hated the movie upon its release. I am far from the only person to express that opinion, and that is hardly the feeling only of “Brokeback accolytes”. Crash came in 58th (or so) at the Premiere magazine poll of the year’s movies, of major critics. Most disliked it, some strongly. I don’t know that such a poorly received film was ever a contender for best picture at the Oscars (69 metacritic) until Benjamin Button. Crash is one of only two films that won the Oscar not even nominated for the Globe (since 1943; the other is The Sting, supposedly it split its own vote between comedy and musical), and while absolutely loved by some, it is despised by at least as many (though obviously not the Academy…though I question that too, as Crash was the pro-Prop 8 Academy’s great straight hope to beat gay Brokeback…see my other postings on this site).

     As for your arguments defending Crash, of course I respect them, but I disagree. Good movies show, they don’t tell…and they certainly don’t hit you over the head the way Crash did from its preachy opening voiceover (“we all CRASH into each other every day”…please) to its in your face, we-are-all-bigots-constantly-in-every-single-scene-of-the-film amateurism. Paul Haggis often tends to see things way too black and white. Hilary’s family in Million Dollar Baby were beyond evil and became cartoons; it wasn’t necessary to do that to make Clint more beloved to her. The nasty boxer whom Morgan eventually beat up because he was so incredibly cruel to the mentally-challenged boxer was also a bad cartoon. C’mon, even nazis aren’t portrayed so evil! Half the characters in Crash suffered from the same extremist portrayals. Sandra Bullock’s rich-bitch was so over the top, until of course she suddenly saw the light, that I squirmed everytime she was on screen. I can go on. As for implausibility, well, sometimes its acceptable, and sometimes its not. It depends on the context. Its fine for a fantasy or a light romance; it is not fine for a film that is supposed to be steeped in gritty realism (as Haggis himself has said the film was meant to be). There were ten too many coincidences in Crash, that undercut the very important messages against intolerance it intended to convey. It made me laugh, and didn’t mean to. And but for the great Thandie Newton, there were no characters, just caricatures (sp?). Even Don Cheadle came off as a one dimensional wimp. And Oscar nominated Matt Dillon – robbed of a nomination for Drugstore Cowboy – had one of the most ridiculous characters of all. An unrepenting bigot all his life no matter what he previously encountered, who made Clint in Gran Torino look like Martin Luther King, finger-f*cks poor Thandie, acts like a nazi to her, but then, later, in 10 million people met-area LA, he just happens to be the cop to pull Thandie out of the fire, and repents on the spot. He wasn’t sorry when he semi-raped her the day before. I’m sorry, it was just preposterous from start to finish. And again, I hated it when I saw it, not because it won (I hate the Academy because it won, not Crash…and not Paul Haggis, who graciously before and after the Oscars said Brokeback should have, he didn’t have to say that unless he meant it).

     The other thing I’ll say is that you really really hate Picnic. LOL. I saw it many years ago, barely remember it, so freely admit it may be worse than I remembered or understood when I saw it as a kid. Of course I have seen these 400+ films over the course of 30 years, so remember some better than others. My rankings were not meant to be taken so literally (hence the star ratings with films grouped therein), but of course with a grain of salt. Many of these films were ranked high or low based upon a memory of my feelings about them many years ago. Its an inexact science at best, meant to foster “spirited debate”. LIMEY, you certainly presented that in your subsequent emails to me, and I appreciate it.

     NICK K: I agree, the last part of Fight Club was weakest. But it is also the most unexpected. I liked it better the second time, you might want to give it another try if you haven’t already. And very good call on South Park, I loved that, and should have short-listed it for 1999. Or maybe not…too much Satan, and not enough Eric Cartman, right? But those songs, wow. One of the funniest things I’ve seen.

     DANI: Great minds…thanks!

     MOVIELOCKE: Gonna respond again via separate email.

109. RJGinCA March 10th, 2009 at 5:25 pm 109

     Ben:

     You are to be admired for seeing all of the films you list. Most people have not and many merely echo critics opinions or critical mass, which is why I get so annoyed with the “bandwagon” effect. That is what I mean when I say that “lists” tend to be subjective without merit. You are the exception, having seen the films you list, and that alone gives you more credibility than most.

     Yes, I can easily pull up the Top 250 on the Imdb and claim righteousness. Most of the films on there I have seen (with the exception of about 5), and I think the vast majority are pretty darn good films. But ranking film is always a difficult task, and what you see as terrific (or lousy) in one film, may be completely missed by someone else.

     I tend to look at films as an entire package: the script/storyline, the acting, the cinematography, the pacing/editing, and the level of interest it maintains or holds throughout the film. If any of those elements are missing, I tend to be a little too…………..critical.

     That is why I find fault with a lot of films. I thought “No Country For Old Men” had a beginning, a middle and no end. As a result, I considered it a work in progress, and in my opinion, wouldn’t have even nominated it for best film. “There Will Be Blood” had all of the elements I listed above, including an incredible performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. It was, in my opinion, the most “complete” film I have seen in a long time, and if 30 years from now, it ranks up there along with Citizen Kane–I would not be surprised!

     As for the “Crash” debate, I considered it brilliant satire, and considered it more than the sum of its parts. The first time I saw it I thought it was the Best Picture of the Year, and the Academy agreed with me. I thought it came together brilliantly, and the contrivance was over-shadowed by the message.

     Wall-E had a great beginning, but lost momentum halfway through the film, and in my opinion, never recovered. It ultimately was a yawner. Film Critic Rex Reed once said that the worse crime a movie can commit is to be boring. Sad to say, I found Wall-E pretty much a total bore.

     Slumdog Millionaire never should have won the Academy Award for Cinematography–is was very grainy and blurry at spots, which was overshadowed by its tight, snappy editing and lost by its unique camera angles. Nonetheless, it was a gritty film to look at, and I found the cinematography for Benjamin Button significantly superior in scope and vision than Slumdog. Similarly, I thought the Bollywood number at the end of Slumdog was out of character with the rest of the movie, which was overall, pretty depressing.

     The Reader was the only film of the 5 nominated this year for Best Picture that hit me emotionally (and I’m a guy and rarely get choked up during movies). Yet, everyone got all upset that it was even in the running. Isn’t it the mark of a great film to get you involved in the characters, and move you emotionally? Isn’t that what great filmmaking is all about–to take you out of your ordinary existence, and move you to a different place or time or space?

     Nitpicking yes. But I can’t help but walk away from some of these so called “masterpieces” and feel that people need to really start thinking for themselves–instead of buying into the hype and the marketing campaigns…

110. Ben March 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm 110

     MOVIELOCKE:

     Wow. You know your stuff, and appreciate you taking the time to discuss some old movies with me, in which most people here have little interest, which makes me all the happier to find you. So:

     Imitation of Life: LOL that you despise it. I disagree. I think it is one of the first two talkies to treat African -Americans with at least a modicum of respect (Vidor’s Hallelujah! – my best of 1929 – is the other), the first to treat women in the work-force as equally intelligent to men, and to deal with the terrible ramifications of racism on a personal level. I think for those reasons it was very ahead of its time, and I admit I’m a sucker for melodrama, it got to me. Yeah, the funeral is over the top, but you can feel the loss.

     Cavalcade: As I mentioned in an earlier post to Limey, I freely admit that I haven’t seen some of these films in 20-30 years, and don’t remember them that well. Cavalcade is one of those films. I vividly remember the lovers standing on the boat, planning their life, changing position, and the word “Titanic” being revealed (so sad), and I remember thinking and feeling it was a moving survey of that time. I always love being transported to world of which I know nothing, especially when those worlds once may have existed, and that’s what I took from it. I may have been too young to realize its not great cinema, but ranked it as high as I did based on what is no doubt faulty memory – all our memories are faulty. They show the film on Fox Movie Channel a lot (and Time Warner gives it 4 stars), I’ll watch again to prove you “right”, lol. But I hope you hear what I’m saying, in that these rankings are only approximations, based on many years of movie-going and perceptions at any given time.

     Five Star Final is another I don’t remember that well, and I ranked it low because I pretty much drew a blank on it. Despite my memory lapses, my memory is pretty good (I know all this nonsense by heart, including all Oscars and major nominees etc.), so when I draw a blank, I rank low. Probably unfair, but I am very eager to watch it again based on your recommendation. Edward G. Robinson and Joseph Cotten are, in my opinion, the two finest actors never to even be nominated for an acting Oscar, and both are all time favorites. To say Robinson was at his peak says a lot, I’ll watch it, thanks for the recommendation!

     House of Rothschild: I didn’t think I ranked it that high, but I liked it a lot, against low expectations. I only saw it for the first time a few months ago. I found the banking traumas of the film to be interesting considering what’s going on today, but I also enjoyed the family dynamics, and the typically theatrical performance of “Mr.” George Arliss. It transported me, and I thought was solidly crafted, especially the art direction.

     The best for last: Make Way for Tomorrow. I am very happy that you chose to site this as an underrated film, in the hope that some of the participants on this site seek it out and watch it based on both our recommendations. When Leo McCarey won the 1937 Oscar for Best Director for the wonderful Awful Truth, he famously said “thanks, but you gave it to me for the wrong film”. He was right, Make Way is one of the most incisive studies of old age, and how we treat the old in America, ever filmed. It is the hardest I have ever wept at a movie, and in my all-time top 25 (including foreigns and documentaries). So is masterpiece Tokyo Story and, another old-age related classic, Ikiru (by Kurosawa for those who might want to seek it out). Films like these expose well-meaning On Golden Pond for what it is: manipulative dribble (sorry Limey).

     Thanks again for writing, I’d love to talk more if you are interested. I’d gladly send you to a website where you can find some of those 80 or so nominees you haven’t seen yet too, for very low reasonable prices (I have zero personal interest in it). Also, I hope you give Brokeback Mountain another chance, it was a film that got me the second time, not the first. Rarely has a film’s text matched its visuals so perfectly, rarely has a film gotten into the skin of its people.

111. Ben March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm 111

     RJG in CA:

     Another WOW, thanks for your comments and spirited debate. We agree on The Reader, Slumdog’s cinematography, and No Country for Old Men. Right re: the latter, no ending. And, as I said in earlier posts, problems with the set-up. Riveting action to be sure, but that’s not enough. We also agree on There Will Be Blood. It was my #1 of 2007 until about a week ago when I saw Atonement again on HBO, and wept, for the first time at a movie in about 3 years. Blood is probably still my #1 despite my high Atonement ranking, part of me did what I did because I feel Atonement is unfairly maligned (good for the Academy for ignoring the guilds and at least nominating it). But Blood has its flaws too (like virtually all films), to me the biggest of which was a bit of pretentiousness. Still, it was riveting, and now that you raise it, I realize I ranked it too low. Probably much too low.

     We very much disagree on Crash, see my other posts. Paul Haggis did NOT intend his film to be a satire, he has said so. Most people who love Crash were very moved and even cried. Few see it the way you do. I think the problem is that it was unintentionally funny. And if you compare it to Haggis’ other work, I think you’ll agree that you might have read something into it that wasn’t there…Haggis is not a subtle filmmaker, which good satire typically requires. And, as I’ve said elsewhere on this site over the years, the Academy didn’t vote for Crash, they voted against Brokeback. Every Academy member with whom I discussed this (between 15-20) regret it.

     We also disagree with Wall-E. I agree the second half is inferior to the first, but I didn’t find the movie boring for a minute. It was typically Pixar-frenetic and funny.

     As for IMDB, well, you are an exception to the IMDB rule, you really are. Look at their daily polls over the next few months, I predict your jaw will drop at how admittedly unfamiliar most participants are with basic American cinema. I’m not talking about the obscure artsy stuff. Just the other day, they asked whose films people preferred among the 3 directors to win 3 or more, John Ford, William Wyler or Frank Capra. These are 3 of the first 5 directors to win the American Film Institute Life Achievement award, and very mainstream thru the 20th Century. Over 1/3 of respondents said they weren’t familiar with any of these directors!! C’mon! The imdb 250 is a good reflection of what mostly young male testosterone America thinks, and of course that has value in itself, but it just can’t be taken seriously as a reflection of the greatest movies on the whole, and in the eyes of cineastes, critics, or even the industry. I say that as someone who logs onto imdb daily and loves the site for its incredible search engine. Also, even though I’ve had this debate with others, I am telling you, it is easy to vote multiple times, and I know for a fact that many people do, especially for things like the Star Wars and LOTR trilogies.

     Guess that’s it for now. You are not nitpicking at all, your comments are what make film debate interesting. Thanks.

112. Marcin March 10th, 2009 at 7:31 pm 112

     235 – ‘the hours’??!!

     Sorry, but this is first ten.

     But list is interesting.

113. Roger March 10th, 2009 at 7:49 pm 113

     Ben,

     Thanks for your kind words and interesting insight on all these films.

     I don’t intend to interfere too much in the “Crash” debate because I think it would mean giving that film and the Oscars too much importance. I can perhaps say that up to this day, I still can’t understand how such a shocking upset could actually happen, especially after “Brokeback Mountain” had garnered virtually every “Best Picture” award prior to the Oscars. Rarely does such a strong consensus occur… and yet! In any case, at least, I can reassure you that if Crash made you laugh, you are not alone. It had the same effect on Katrina Onstad of the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) as she mentioned it in her review posted right after the release of Crash in early May 2005, 10 months before Crash’s infamous & questionable win at the Oscars. (@ limeymcfrog: this means that her view was not an expression of “sour grapes from another Brokeback acolyte”).

     “Crash is tiring. (…) It is a movie of lists — lists of stars and racial epithets and disasters. Sandra Bullock plays the ANGRY WIFE of an aspiring politico (Brendan Fraser) who is mean to their Mexican-American maid. Matt Dillon is an ANGRY COP who is mean to the black bureaucrat (Loretta Devine) mishandling his dying father’s care. Thandie Newton is an ANGRY UPPER-CLASS WIFE whom the ANGRY COP harasses for being black; she, in turn, meanly and ANGRILY accuses her black husband (Terrence Howard) of being an Uncle Tom.”

     “While its air of self-importance and the sheer number of tragedies that befall the characters will probably place Crash beyond critical reproach, IT IS ACTUALLY A RATHER SILLY FILM. Another list: After the white cop-black woman molestation, the anti-Arab vandalism, the near-shooting of a dark-skinned five-year-old girl — CAN THERE BE MORE? YES! THERE IS ALWAYS MORE PAIN! — a van appears, and it is filled with Cambodians who are about to be sold as slaves. RARELY HAVE I LAUGHED SO HARD AT HUMAN TRAFFICKING. (…)”

     “Crash wants to be good. (…) And yet, for all its high-mindedness and melodrama, in the end, CRASH DELIVERS A SESAME STREET MESSAGE: we are all the same. And we are all assholes…”
     (CBC.ca – Movie Review by Katrina Onstad, May 6, 2005)

114. Tim H March 10th, 2009 at 7:58 pm 114

     Ben:
     I very much enjoyed your original post, as well as the spirited and lively discussions it has inspired these past two days.
     A few observations:

     Milestone’s remake of “Bounty” is indeed pretty awful and deserving of its low rank. However, I stumbled across it a few months ago and was hooked. I must admit I had no plans of watching it all the way thru; in fact I had not seen it since it was shown in two parts on Sunday and Monday Nights at the Movies during my Junior High days (and on a black and white tv) and I recall not liking it very much even then. Anway, I was curious to see it in HD and to check out one of the few Brando performances with which I wasn’t too familiar. The movie is a mess, but a big beautiful widescreen mess and one I wish I had been around to see during its road show premiere back in ‘62. It may even be one of my new guilty pleasures. There’s little to recommend it (except for Surtees’ cinematography which is, as one might expect, gorgeous) but the fun of watching Brando, Howard, Richard Harris, et al, chewing the scenery and poop decks amidst storm sequences and exotic extras makes for a fine way to spend three hours.

     Your championing of “America, America” and “Make Way for Tomorrow” inspired a quick click over to NetFlix. I was surprised to find that “A,A” has never been released on DVD (except for a Non-US format). I think it’s been shown on TCM, so I will be on the look-out for it over there.

     I know that life is short, but if you have two hours to spare, I’d encourage you to watch “Cavalcade” again. You might not rank it quite so high. It’s not terrible, but when you think it beat “42nd Street” and “….Chain Gang” (not to mention “King Kong” which wasn’t even nominated), it goes down in my book as the first year when the Academy really, truly got it wrong. Others will be quick to disagree, citing their contempt for “Broadway Melody” a few years earlier… but I can actually live with that one winning Best Picture, since that was all about the timing, the advent of sound, MGM’s and Mayer’s dominance of all things Hollywood, etc. Also, the way the Academy was splitting the years, it won for 1928-29 and the competition wasn’t exactly memorable … still, much better and far more influential musical films –”Hallelujah” and “Applause”– arrived shortly thereafter and were snubbed.

     I certainly agree with you on the merits of the ‘34 “Imitation of Life” (plus the fact that it features a smart and radiant Claudette Colbert before she went and got all mannered and Greer Garson-y on us by the decade’s end). However, I prefer Sirk’s remake, probably because of Juanita Moore’s quietly devastating performance.

     Also, I wasn’t questioning your love for “Grapes of Wrath” and its placement among your top ten. We agree that it’s a fine (and important) film. It’s simply not among my alltime favorites (altho I will suggest that Henry Fonda was robbed of the Best Actor Oscar; his loss to James Stewart — who should have won about a dozen Oscars for OTHER films — was most unfortunate).

     I see some Resnais, Truffaut and Lelouch films, all of them deserving high praise…. but no Godard? Have you seen “Contempt” ?? If not, someone who clearly loves movies as much as you do should really check it out. It crept into my own top ten this past summer.

     Again, thanks for a terrific post, as well as the generous and gentlemanly follow-up.

115. Rich March 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pm 115

     Everyone has a right to their opinion but this list is ….whack LOL…..Brokeback Mountain in the Top 5???? I think not

116. jnow March 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm 116

     To each his own, i guess. The list is kind of absurd. Brokeback wasn’t even the best of 2005, and that was one of the worst years of cinema ever. And I know some people dislike Titanic, but I’m sorry, “The Reader” should be near the bottom of the list, and certainly not ahead of Titanic. It’s a disgrace the film was even nominated for best picture over films like “The Wrestler” and “The Dark Knight”.

     And I love that some people “assume” Shakespeare in Love is not a good film, because it beat out “the best war movie ever”. Saving Private Ryan had good battle scenes, but the film is all bark and no bite. Hollow.

     Though, kuddos for having the balls to rank Cabaret at 25 and Godfather in the 50’s. Poor Cabaret… a masterwork of a film, that has been overshadowed by the “history” of the Godfather. People forget that in the tally that year hat Cabaret with 8 oscar WINS, and Godfather with 3. I believe thats the record for the most wins without a best picture win.

117. Zach March 11th, 2009 at 12:33 am 117

     The Visitor for Best Picture? I’m already done.

     It just goes to show that you can see more or fewer movies than anyone else and have no more valid an opinion.

118. Rimski March 11th, 2009 at 1:57 am 118

     Wow it will never cease to amaze me how vociferous some people are with the “you are wrong” line. There is no science to this. It’s simply one guy’s subjective view. It just so happens that I broadly agree with his perspective, but even if I didn’t I would never be so crass (and lazy) to simply write him off with a one liner, and return to the smug reassurance of my own importance and superiority. What is it that gives us the right to be so disrespectful of others simply because we are communicating virtually? Come on…..

     I don’t think Ben would argue that the composition of this list is anything more than a reflection of how each of us respond to a film at a particular point in our lives. I mean I thought L’ultimo bacio was a brilliant film – but hey I broke up with someone the day before I saw it, so not sure how I’d respond to it today.

119. Rimski March 11th, 2009 at 2:03 am 119

     billybil: I think Brokeback is extremely powerful because of its exploration of suffocating repression (both interior and exterior). It reflects both the role of men, and their place at that time perfectly I believe – as a result it is extraordinary sad to watch.

     When you watch it again I encourage you to consider how everything in Ennis’ life contracts and is reduced. The movement from expansive to increasingly contracted space over the course of the film is a beautiful visual metaphor for the slow ebbing away of his spirit. The contrast of the location where he met Jack and where he finishes the last scene is stunning.

     Ben: In terms of Gerry I warn you now. I have a particular interest in films that I feel explore alienation and psychosis. Hence one reason I love the Thin Red Line, and why I love Gerry. It is not obvious to view Gerry this way. And I think if you read it fairly straight it might not do it for you. But it provides a great aural and visual landscape to reflect on that point when someone moves from sane to beyond. When I first saw it I thought of Gerry # 2 as an alter-ego of Gerry # 1. But hey I have a obscure way of thinking about things sometimes.

     I want to add two more films to my list from yesterday that I forget.
     One is Touching the Void. The second is Get Carter. Jesus Michael Caine has played some good roles – and this is one of them.

120. Chris Price March 11th, 2009 at 5:00 am 120

     Holy shit this is the wordiest talkback I’ve ever seen on this site.

     I wanna play the Fantasy Five BP nominees! I’ll do the last 20 years I guess:

     2008 – The Dark Knight/WALL-E/Slumdog Millionaire/Waltz With Bashir/The Wrestler
     2007 – There Will Be Blood/Once/The Diving Bell & The Butterfly/No Country For Old Men/Michael Clayton
     2006 – Children Of Men/The Lives Of Others/The Departed/United 93/Volver
     2005 – Munich/Brokeback Mountain/A History Of Violence/Hustle & Flow/Match Point
     2004 – Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind/Before Sunset/Million Dollar Baby/Sideways/The Sea Inside
     2003 – City Of God/LOTR Return Of The King/American Splendor/Lost In Translation/Mystic River
     2002 – Adaptation/Talk To Her/LOTR The Two Towers/Y Tu Mama Tambien/The Pianist
     2001 – Waking Life/Memento/Mullholland Dr./LOTR The Fellowship Of The Ring/The Royal Tenenbaums
     2000 – Requiem For A Dream/Almost Famous/American Psycho/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon/Before Night Falls
     1999 – Fight Club/American Beauty/Magnolia/The Sixth Sense/Being John Malkovich
     1998 – The Truman Show/A Simple Plan/Rushmore/Life Is Beautiful/American History X
     1997 – Boogie Nights/L.A. Confidential/The Game/Titanic/Gattaca
     1996 – Fargo/Trainspotting/Shine/Breaking The Waves/Jerry Maguire
     1995 – Toy Story/The Usual Suspects/Braveheart/Twelve Monkeys/Babe
     1994 – Pulp Fiction/Quiz Show/Ed Wood/The Shawshank Redemption/Forrest Gump
     1993 – Schindler’s List/Groundhog Day/Dazed & Confused/Short Cuts/Fearless
     1992 – The Player/Unforgiven/Reservoir Dogs/Chaplin/The Crying Game
     1991 – Beauty And The Beast/Boyz In The Hood/Barton Fink/The Silence Of The Lambs/JFK
     1990 – Miller’s Crossing/Goodfellas/Misery/Edward Scissorhands/Awakenings
     1989 – Do The Right Thing/Glory/Crimes And Misdemeanors/My Left Foot/Back To The Future 2 (fuck yeah)

121. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 5:09 am 121

     Last word on Crash(I did this way too much in 2005): It’s the very contradictions that you note as its flaws that makes the people who love the movie love it. That such potential for good and evil exists in us all and that racial divisions are just an excuse for several terrified people to behave poorly. Your reaction is a very common one (and not invalid) but you have to understand that on the one hand you criticize the film for being simplistic but then you poopoo the complications as being too coincidental. It’s frustrating for those who genuinely like the movie.

     Picnic: Watch it again, for free or on Netflix. I thought “It’s got William Holden. I love William Holden. And Kim Novak’s good. Rosalind Russel. The play won a pulitzer. At worst I thought it would be a competant but conventional romantic melodrama.

     But the dialogue is inane. People speak their character types several times

     (actual lines from Picnic)

     Rosalind Russel: I guess I’m just a spinster schoolteacher!

     Kim Novak:I’m tired of being the pretty one

     Susan Strasburg: She’s the pretty one, I’m the smart one.

     It has the plot of a third rate bodice ripper, and the script reads like one. Roger Ebert’s review says what I try to say much better, but he was a little kinder. Still, it’s the worst film I’ve seen that was nominated for Best picture, and I’ve seen 250 of the films on your list.

     Thanks for taking the time to respond to us and thanks for giving us this debate topic in the downtime.

122. Erik Beck March 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am 122

     Well, even though it is late in the game and probably no one will read these comments at this point, I feel the need to chime in for a few reasons.

     First, someone already linked to my list http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/the-history-of-the-academy-awards-best-picture-ranked/
     so I don’t feel like I’m pimping my blog by mentioning it again.

     Second, Ben mentioned that he did this in response to a previous list, which I assume was mine.

     But Ben, I wanted to respond to a few things on here.

     1 – I won’t nitpick anything for being picked too high. I have found that movies are often an intensely personal thing. That is one of the things that has made Ebert the foremost film critic – he talks about how it relates to him. So, I can understand you having Brokeback as #3 (hell, it’s my mother’s favorite film) and Grand Illusion as #1 (I had it at #2 – both on the list and all-time).

     I am surprised at how low you put certain films though. I read your reasoning for JFK, though I don’t agree with it, but I am still stunned that you consider Braveheart a better film than Dangerous Liaisons. Or that you think Born on the Fourth of July or The Big Chill are bad films.

     2 – It really would have been in your best interest to check your list before you sent it out. It only allows people to nitpick it further when you have lots of typos, re-list films (in different places) and such (including having the **** rating twice).

     3 – I didn’t actually put my list on the site. I sent the link to Sasha and asked her if she was interested in putting it up (which she did and I am very grateful as traffic on my blog increases six fold when she does that. I am so not exaggerating that number.) But I checked everything before I put it up and added years and such. But I also said who I was. Hell, my blog even tells you exactly where I live. Which bring me to the next point.

     4 – I have always believed that the best response to a list is to make your own list. I responded to the Modern Library 100 Best Novels list by reading them all and making my own list (can be found on my blog). I responded to the Academy by seeing the Best Picture nominees and ranking them (in the individual History of Academy Awards Best Picture pages, I list my nominees for each year). So when people attacked my list, I didn’t feel the need to defend it (I was surprised that people attacked me for having The Crowd so low, which also happened on the Criterion forums, but not for having Nashville and Shane so low, which is what I expected to be attacked over). I’ve already made my list. That’s my defense. People can say what they want, but if they don’t want to go through the effort to make their own list in response, well, I don’t care then.

     I’m actually surprised that since Sasha linked to my site more people commented here than on my actual site, perhaps because all comments on my site must be approved. But I basically approve anything. The approval is there because I write about my son and won’t tolerate nasty things said about him.

     The only comment here I responded to was when someone got nasty and suggested I had too much time on my hands and I replied that since I have been laid off from one job and had my hours drastically cut back at my other one, I had a lot of time on my hands.

     But you have gotten quite extreme in your comments. Your opening salvo essentially said “I have a degree from the Ivy League and I’ve taught there so fuck you, my list is good.” That’s not really helpful. I’m quite open about who I am and what I have watched and read. I use my real name. You’re using a pseudonym and saying rude things. I just find that rather curious.

     The fact of the matter is, you put up your list on someone else’s site and have gotten quite nasty with many of the things people have said. They have their opinions. If they don’t want to go through the effort of making their own list, then screw them. People can feel free to disagree. Sasha linked to my list fully knowing that I had a picture of Benjamin Button with the phrase “weakest Best Picture nominee since 1999.” She knows we disagree on it and she still linked to it and I am grateful. I’m grateful that people comment, even when they disagree. But if you’re going to hide behind your degree and a pseudonym while being condescending to people, don’t expect them to have nice things to say.

     I hope you all come to my site and read all my lists http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/tag/lists/
     That’s why they’re there. Feel free to comment. I approve almost all of them even those that disagree. And feel free to add a link to any of your own lists. Because I leave you all with this quote:
     The human animal differs from the lesser primates in his passion for lists of “Ten Best”. ~ H. Allen Smith

123. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm 123

     MARCIN:
     I probably underrated The Hours. It just missed my top of 2002 because the Meryl Streep-Ed Harris sections rubbed me the wrong way. I also thought Julianne Moore should have won the Best Actress prize for both Far From Heaven and The Hours (she had more screen time than Nicole Kidman). I saw The Hours immediately after The Pianist, the latter blew me away like almost nothing I had ever seen, so again, I am sure I underestimated it, and thank you for writing to say so. I’m also glad you wrote because truth be told, most people would disagree with you that The Hours belongs in the top 10, just like most disagree with me that Cabaret is better than The Godfather, or of my very high placement of Atonement and other films. It just goes to show to each his own, we like what we like!

     ROGER: THANK YOU for posting both your own opinion of Crash and for posting Katrina Onstad’s. I never saw her review, its nail-on-the-head. And while you are right, myself and others give the Oscars too much importance by dignifying the debate, I can’t help myself, because its the reason I no longer watch: the Academy voted AGAINST Brokeback because of its gay themes, some have admitted as much, and that is just unacceptable. If you think I’m long-winded here, search my other postings on this site about the overwhelming evidence as to the real reasons why Brokeback lost, and consider if you still want to give the Academy your valuable time. Since so many still do, I feel compelled to expose the truth. And for the record, my comments on this are not intended as a criticism against Limey or anyone else who loves Crash; that is individual prerogative. It is strong, I think very convincing criticism against the Academy in how they violated every precedent in the book not to honor Brokeback for Picture, the only Oscar that still really “counts”.

     TIM H: Many thinks for your kind words, I sincerely appreciate them. Very interesting re: Mutiny on the Bounty. I’ll definitely give it another try the next time it is on, and try to view it less seriously, as the guilty pleasure you describe. Other than it being a mess, what really got me about it was Brando’s performance. In my opinion, Brando should have won lead for Streetcar, Waterfront, Last Tango, and supporting for Godfather, more than any other actor. However, I would not have even nominated him for anything else, except Viva Zapata. Like everyone else I think he is one of the greatest screen actors, yet I think that he was awful in more films than he was great. His accent in Mutiny had me squirming from start to finish, I just couldn’t get past it.

     Bigger thanks for checking out Make Way for Tomorrow and America America, despite their lack of availability. When I am home tonight, I have to remember to post a great site where you can get copies of these and other great hard to find films, at fair prices, and usually in good shape. I have no financial or other interest in the site. But you checking out these movies makes me glad I posted, that’s the point, to share opinions and recommendations with others. America America just made the Cahiers du Cinema controversial but interesting list of 100 greatest films in world cinema (Godfather II did not), check it out.

     I responded to someone else re: Cavalcade so won’t say much, except to say I will watch again and suspect I will agree with you. Yeah, King Kong, Duck Soup, Fugitive all blow it away. I hear what you are saying about the Academy getting it very wrong for the first time with Cavalcade, but they got it very very wrong in 1931 not honoring City Lights, which is in the opinion of many, myself included, one of the 10 or 25 greatest films ever made. Also thanks re: commenting on Imitation of Life: you know your stuff. Yeah, Juanita was amazing, but Lana was, well, Lana!

     You certainly know your stuff. I absolutely would have Godard films in my top 5 many years, but if you take a look at my “rules” – which were intended to name only foreign films that were on the Academy’s radar for Best Picture, in that they were nominated for director and/or screenplay – then nothing by Godard was eligible. Contempt is my #3 film of 1963 behind only 8 1/2 and The Leopard, but again, the Academy never heard of them, lol (though probably largely true). Breathless challenges for my #1 of 1959, Two or Three Things I Know About Her is in my top 5 of 1967, etc. Man, if we were to really get into it, how the Academy compeletely ignored all-time great filmmakers like Robert Bresson (Au Hasard, Balthazar and A Man Escaped both in my all-time top 50), Andrei Tarkovsky (Andrei Rublev in my all-time top 15, Mirror in my 100), etc. etc., then we could take all day. Again, thank you for your great postings.

     I am afraid of losing these emails so will respond to others shortly. Thanks.

124. daveylow March 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pm 124

     These lists are meant to stir conversation. I would never have rated My Fair Lady so high, especially since Gigi is actually a better piece of filmmaking. I also would never rank Network in the top 10 of anything.

     But we all have our opinions.

125. Julian D. March 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm 125

     Hi Ben:

     I need to apologize as I did notice your star ranking after I made my posting. The star ranking and the top five choices by year are a marvelous film source especially once I read your highly analytical and knowledgeable comments in your follow-up discussions. I even don’t mind the sequential ranking now that I realize that they were grouped. Looking through your top fives I find myself agreeing probably 80 – 90 % with your choices of the films – in that they were among the top oscar worthy films of the year (not necessarily my top five but nevertheless extremely strong choices). I’m really glad in your response to BillyBil, where you listed your 2 – 7 choices for 2008, that you made it clear that your oscar Best Pic nominations list was drawn from the films that would have been considered by the academy rather than from the full body of films at large.

     Personally, I very disappointed that the independent film market is struggling right now with indy branches of major film companies regularly being dropped or phased out. I read a comment from one major film house executive saying he’d rather make $100 million films with the chance to make $200 million than make $5 million films with a chance to make $10 million.

     All of the great deserving films you suggested in your 2 – 7 list were small independent films that got little play in most markets and no play in smaller towns/cities. In Canada we have a film organization called the film circuit http://www.filmcircuit.ca that is affiliated with the Toronto Film Festival and screens mostly indy films in 200 communities across Canada while at the same time supporting the Canadian film industry and local communities causes. I run one called the Ancaster Film Fest http://www.ancasterfilmfest.ca and have been delighted that we’ve been able to bring the older demographic back to the theatres as they have been ignored by the major movie houses. Our archive shows the 60 + films we’ve screened over the past five years and though I’ve not always been able to screen my top choices I’m pretty pleased with the selection and many would make my top ten of each year.

     I hope that people who comment on sites like this about why a film is the best or what the best films of the year are take time to catch the smaller indy films that deserve to discussed up there with the big boys. This also includes foreign language films and documentaries.

     I think your elucidating discussions will encourage many (me included) to continue to reach back to catch many of the the great and landmark films from the past that we may have missed. There are so many wonderful, thought-provoking and entertaining films out there as there will hopefully continue to be in the future.

     Thanks so much.

     Hope to talk to you further.

126. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 2:19 pm 126

     RIMSKI: You continue to be one of the kindest, most generous people on this site, and I am very grateful that you have taken the time to post. Its not just because we happen to have similar tastes, but because you are kind enough to call out many others on their smug rudeness. I appreciate it, you are a gentleman. I also think you beautifully articulated some of Brokeback’s merits to BILLYBIL.

     As for Gerry, well, I was going to write to you anyway, beause I watched it last night on netflix (its on instant, but I have it connected to a big screen). I loved it. Van Sant is very adept at handling alienation in general (Idaho, Drugstore, Elephant), I really got into Gerry. We actually don’t agree on everything though, LOL, I didn’t like Thin Red Line, found it to amorphous and even pretentious. Its another film I probably missed the boat on and should see again, Days of Heaven is my #1 of 1978 (by a nose over In the Year of 13 Moons).

     Finally, thank you again for the recommendations. Get Carter is a gem, I still can’t believe they remade it with Stallone, but I’ve never seen Touching the Void, but now I absolutely will.

     CHRIS PRICE: Great lists! Every film you named was in my overall top 10 of their given years except Dark Knight (top 20), Hustle & Flow (didn’t get it), Royal Tenenbaums (just not a fan of their sensibilities), Gattaca, Magnolia, Chaplin (but Downey Jr. should have won!), Misery (felt it was over the top), Back to Future II (lots of fun though), Reservoir Dogs (not a Tarantino fan) and, of course the atrocious JFK (lol). It makes me feel good to agree on so many movies with you, that’s like 80% agreement rate or so. You have some real sleepers that its great you noted, like Match Point (my #6, a Globe nominee for Picture), Amerian Splendor (also my #6, LA Film Crix Best Picture), Waking Life (amazing animation, my #6 or #7), American Psycho (great pick, most people trashed it, also in my top 10, with a Best Actor nod to Bale – though in light of recent tabloid news perhaps he was playing himself, lol), Trainspotting (more Danny Boyle; voted the #10 British movie ever at the British Film Institute), Ed Wood (in my top 5 english language of 2004, knocked out by Red, Depp was robbed of a nod), Fearless (again, top 10, Bridges robbed),
     and Miller’s Crossing (love those Coens). We might even agree more if we played by the same “rules”; I prefer yours, you nominate anything, but I didn’t include films like Volver (my personal #2 of 2006 behind #1 Water) because the Academy didn’t nominate them for Pic, Director or Screenplay…therefore not on the Academy’s picture radar, I chose to give the Academy the benefit of the doubt. Anyhow, great stuff.

     LIMEY: LOL (for real) re: Picnic. I’m at the point where I’m virtually salivating to see it and hate it. Yeah, that dialogue sounds pretty awful. As an aside, somebody else criticized me for criticizing the dialogue in Bridge on the River Kwai. I stand by my criticism. Sure, not as bad as Picnic, but even for the 1950s, and even for something set during WWII, the dialogue just doesn’t hold up (whereas it does for other similar films that I mentioned in my previous post). And, Limey, as for Crash, if you have time, please see some of the postings between #100 and this one (including Roger’s post of Katrina Onstad’s review). While I sincerely respect what you are saying in terms of your own feelings about the film, I just didn’t get that at all from Crash, I got what Katrina and Roger and others got out of it, which wasn’t too good (lol). And please know that I watched Crash three times – more than I have watched Brokeback Mountain (twice) in an attempt to understand. Ultimately, we’re just never gonna agree on this one, and of course that’s fine, all opinions on what we like and dislike are equally valid. I trash Crash if confronted, but never trash it when I initiate postings, as I realize there is a vocal minority that loves it, and I respect that. I only trash the Academy for choosing it over Brokeback and, not because I prefer Brokeback, but because of the reasons why Brokeback lost. I hope you check out my older postings on the topic if you have time. I also hope you do what CHRIS PRICE just did, list your rightful nominees as far back as you’d like to go, your opinions interest me. Thanks.

     RICH: Re: Brokeback being in the top 5. You think not, fine. I do, and so do many others. Check out the American Film Institute fan poll, you’ll see that only The Godfather got more votes. And several critics and websites (like cinemateque) also have it among their greatest films, not just Oscar nominees, but world cinema. It still has the most Best Picture awards of any film for a single year despite the Oscar loss (yes, not even Slumdog or No Country won as many, even though both did better at the guilds – non-Best Picture prizes), and, quite simply, it is my opinion. Its easy to call others whack when you disagree, but what are your top 5? Quite frankly, I doubt they will hold up as well as mine. In their time, people who said that Citizen Kane and Vertigo and their ilk were all-time greats were called whack, look at them now. Bluntly and false modesty aside, I’ve seen enough and know enough about film to know a good film when I see one. You don’t like it, fine. I didn’t love The Godfather (sacrilege!) but I still gave it **** and ranked it in my top 60 because I appreciate its merits. Maybe if you give Brokeback another chance you’ll see its merits, but, to quote you, I think not. JNOW agrees with you but I don’t attack him because at least he provides discussion. JNOW, I disagree with everything you on The Reader, Titanic, The Wrestler and Dark Knight as well! Oh well. Thanks for the nice words re: Cabaret vs. Godfather. You are correct, 8 wins (ncluding Best Director) without best picture is the record.

127. Anuj Shelat March 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm 127

     “virtual cinema verite”

     Define. And why does Brokeback apply?

128. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm 128

     DAVEYLOW: Many agree with you on Gigi, but it gave me cavities watching, so syrupy saccharine sweet, just not my sensibilites. My Fair Lady has definitely fallen in critical esteem as well, but I continue to love it…Rex, Audrey, that score are all wonderful, even if Cukor’s direction is a bit lackluster during the final 1/3. But can we agree that neither deserved to win Best Picture against the likes of Vertigo, Touch of Evil and Dr. Strangelove??

     I am surprised you seem to dislike Network. I think it challenges for the greatest American screenplay, not just because it was prescient, but because it is so sharp, so funny, and so devastating. The acting is amazing – William Holden gave the performance of his career, including Sunset Boulevard – and Lumet’s direction is razor sharp, his vision is uncompromising. The film is brilliantly edited (the I’m as mad as hell thunder storm alone) and shot, and it has so much truth to tell about our government and corporate America in Ned Beatty’s one scene alone. To me, this is one of the few movies that is above reproach, I am curious what you have against it. If you prefer Taxi Driver or All the President’s Men, that’s different, those are also superb films, but it sounds like you dislike Network, am I wrong?

129. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 2:56 pm 129

     ANUJ SHELAT:

     Cinema verite means a movie that shows ordinary people in actual activities and situations that don’t feel like they are being controlled by a director. Two of the most acclaimed films of 2008 by world critics were Wendy and Lucy, and Flight of the Red Balloon, by the great Taiwanese filmmaker Hsiao-hsien Hou (who did City of Sadness, which I had to buy to finally see, it is considered by world crix to be the best of 1989 and one of the 100 greatest in world cinema, per the 2002 Sight & Sound crix/director poll). Personally, I had huge problems with an early plot development in Wendy and Lucy, and I was kind of bored by Flight, but I digress. As for Brokeback, some scenes clearly felt directed (like Heath exploding and hitting the guys at the 4th of July thing as fireworks went off and he posed), while others felt more natural, more cinema verite, like we were eavesdropping, the entire time on the mountain itself, until Randy Quaid also eavesdropping brought the director back into the picture. Or the dinner scene where Jake defends himself. Or the first 10 minutes of the movie, where they are in the parking lot, waiting to apply for jobs. There are many more examples, it is best you judge for yourself.

     Many critics reward movies that are so-called cinema verite, as it is acknowledged by most that total naturalism is very difficult to create. Some great directors like Martin Scorsese do the opposite, showing their hand at every turn. For a brilliant man like Scorsese, it often works, because he creates a sense of excitement, bigger than life images jumping off the screen that successfully impart his story. Other great directors are the opposite and prefer to remain in the background and are not as flashy. Most American directors currently prefer to be “players” and show their style, as current conventional criticism often leads them to being given the lofty title of “auteur”. I think this is a big mistake in mainstream current film criticism, and that the emperor has no clothes, everyone following the voice of a few for fear of being wrong and losing their jobs. Its a safe tactic because current mainstream popular opinion (in America) also prefers flashier films than quiet ones, as evidenced by box office and imdb rankings (though the latter is dominated by 20something males; but they are a very important, powerful box office faction, and influential in determining what films get made).

     Hope this helps a bit, thanks for posing the question.

130. billybil March 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm 130

     Once again, bravo to Ben (and to Shasha) for putting forth a list that has sparked so much interesting interaction! I love it! And I’m learning stuff too!

     YES BEN – LET THE RIGHT ONE IN – It was one of the best of the year fo rme. I was truly surprised several times during that film and that doesn’t happen often enough in cinema. What an exciting film to watch!

     And Ben, drawing a connection between REMAINS OF THE DAY and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is perfect for me because it points out the very problem I had with BROKEBACK. I was extremely moved by REMAINS OF THE DAY; I felt the reticence keenly and sincerely bemoaned the ramifications of that reticence. This DID not happen for me when I saw BROKEBACK – I was not moved, merely cognizant of the dilemmas that were being presented. Some of this might have been due to my high expectations for the film so when I watch it again I will try for an open mind.

     And thank you RIMSKI for your endorsement and very insightful suggestion regarding the visual manifestations of Ennis’s journey. I will certainly keep an eye out for those when I watch again.

     My God, Ben, thanks so much for reminding me of Liam Dunn in WHAT’S UP DOC (and providing me with the actor’s name!). He really was wonderful, wasn’t he? Those are the sort of cameo supporting performances I wish were acknowledged in some way.

     I agree with you about DO THE RIGHT THING. That was a film that blew me away and deserved far more recognition than it received. In some ways, it did out CRASH CRASH, didn’t it? And in a real accessible way.

     But I will add this about CRASH. First off, I’ve had several “heated” conversations about the fact that I don’t see any real indication in CRASH that Matt Dillon’s character had a change of heart. I think he continued to be a racist, asshole from start to finish – that was one reason I found the rescue of Thandie Newton so moving – a man doing his duty, responding to emergency, despite his bigotry.

     And, yes, it is a movie that is shamefully contrived – so much so that it moved all the way into reality again for me. Every person I’ve every known has had moments when they couldn’t believe how things just happened. When you consider a huge city like L.A. how many times might such contrivances be happening all at the same time for different individuals?

     And I think limeymcfrog gets close to the reason I found/find the movie immensely entertaining. I don’t care about the message. Even you, Ben, admit the message is delivered and done with in the first line of the movie. It is the experience of the movie that I found so entertaining – the audacity of contrivance, the black & white of the situations, and then the way certain actors were allowed to embody those simplistic moments so emphatically. I truly enjoyed Shaun Toub angry performance, I really loved Michael Pena’s warm scene with his daughter on the floor of her bedroom, I relished how vicious Thandie was with Terence Howard, I even got a sincere kick out of Ludacris and his attempts at cool, and I thought Terence Howard handled his transformation beautifully. And for those actors who weren’t so great, none of them were on screen that long and most of them were really nice to look at. That may sound superficial but the overall experience of the film for me – the contrivance, the over-the-topness, the humor (intended or not) made for a truly exciting, fascinating, interesting experience at the movies. It was almost like opera.

     Although I may not go quite as far as RJGinCA about WALL-E, I think I feel closer to his opinions than yours. I did get bored with the “Pixar frenetic” predictabilty of the 2nd half of WALL-E. I find that I have very little forgiveness when a movie promises me real magic and then lets me down (this gets back to my comments in a previous entry about BENJAMIN BUTTON too).

     Your question about whether “we” want to continue to give the Academy our valuable time is a pertinent one. However, for most people, except for the very well informed, it is THE historical record of movie excellence. So, for that reason alone, I think it is, and should continue to be, worth our valuable time.

     I got into some heat a few weeks ago when I tried to convince people that it was more appropriate to honor Meryl Streep with her 3rd Oscar (for the sake of historical accuracy regarding her stature and accomplishments to date) than it was to give Kate Winslet her 1st. You see, I was making the mistake of not arguing that Meryl was the BEST PERFORMANCE this year, but seeing the award more as an indication of prominence and accomplishment over a period of time.

     Well, as you can imagine, people were outraged that I wouldn’t use my opinion that Meryl was “better” than Kate, or Melissa, or Anne, or Angelina, as to why I felt she deserved the Oscar. But, as so many people have noted regarding the responses to your list, it is all so subjective. (Besides, many of us might feel that the “best” performance was not even nominated this year – Kristen Scott Thomas anyone? Or Sally Hawkins?). It is all so subjective and interesting if people will share respectfully, openly, and with some thought behind it.

     Thanks again, Ben (and Sasha)! I’ve reallly enjoyed these exchanges.

131. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pm 131

     I will Ben, but first I’ll give you my breakdown of where I would place the films on this list. It’s not a numeric ranking, rather a grouping…

     1 star

     Picnic

     2 stars

     Gangs of New York
     The Accidental Tourist
     Places in the Heart
     Driving Miss Daisy
     The King and I
     Coming Home
     The English Patient
     Titanic
     Shakespeare In Love
     The Guns of the Navarone
     The Reader
     The Aviator
     Gosford Park
     Suspicion
     MASH
     Prizzi’s Honor
     Raging Bull (Blasphemy, I know)

     2 ½ stars

     Fatal Attraction
     Seabiscuit
     A Beautiful Mind
     A Soldier’s Story
     Born on the Fourth of July
     You Can’t Take it With You
     Gladiator
     Romeo and Juliet (68)
     The Queen
     The Green Mile
     Babel
     The Music Man
     Frost/Nixon
     Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
     Moulin Rouge (52)
     Forrest Gump
     All the King’s Men
     Mutiny on the Bounty
     Sounder
     The Godfather III
     Fiddler on the Roof
     Mississippi Burning
     In The Heat of the Night
     Ghandi
     Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
     Slumdog Millionaire
     Out of Africa
     The Last Emperor
     Apoclalypse Now
     A Place in the Sun

     3 stars

     Scent of a Woman
     Finding Neverland
     A Thousand Clowns
     Dangerous Liaisons
     Ghost
     Chocolat
     Erin Brokovich
     Four Weddings and a Funeral
     The Fugitive
     Elizabeth
     Jerry Maguire
     Master and Commander
     The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
     Awakenings
     Bugsy
     Apollo 13
     Hannah and Her Sisters
     Good Night and Good Luck
     Ray
     Jaws
     The Hours
     Sense and Sensibility
     An American in Paris
     Shine
     Witness
     The Crying Game
     In the Name of the Father
     Patton
     The Color Purple
     Mildred Pierce
     Gaslight
     The French Connection
     The Sting
     The Piano
     Raiders of the Lost Ark
     Elmer Gantry
     The Little Foxes
     Milk
     The Philadelphia Story
     Oliver
     Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
     My Left Foot
     The Sixth Sense
     The Graduate
     Rocky
     The Adventures of Robin Hood
     Quiz Show
     LA Confidential
     A Man for All Seasons
     Rebecca
     The Sound of Music
     The Deer Hunter
     It’s a Wonderful Life
     Atonement
     Field of Dreams
     Sunset Boulevard

     3 ½ stars

     A Few Good Men
     Kramer Vs. Kramer
     Juno
     The Thin Red Line
     Anatomy of a Murder
     Missing
     Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
     Dead Poets Society
     Michael Clayton
     Chicago
     In the Bedroom
     The Caine Mutiny
     Grand Hotel
     The Departed
     The Insider
     Little Miss Sunshine
     Traffic
     Deliverance
     Coal Miner’s Daughter
     Amadeus
     Munich
     The Lion in Winter
     Becket
     Lost In Translation
     Platoon
     All The President’s Men
     Letters From Iwo Jima
     Ben-Hur
     The Elephant Man
     Million Dollar Baby
     Saving Private Ryan
     One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
     Broadcast News
     Beauty and the Beast
     Reds
     Cabaret
     The Pianist
     Brokeback Mountain

     4 stars

     Crash
     On Golden Pond
     All That Jazz
     Good Will Hunting
     Marty
     Mystic River
     Lenny
     The Exorcist
     Silence of the Lambs
     E.T.
     Star Wars
     The Goodbye Girl
     Dog Day Afternoon
     My Fair Lady
     Taxi Driver
     Unforgiven
     A Streetcar Named Desire
     12 Angry Men
     There Will Be Blood
     Chinatown
     Casablanca
     To Kill a Mockingbird
     The Grapes of Wrath
     The Wizard of Oz

     4 ½ stars

     JFK
     Rain Man
     As Good As it Gets
     Witness for the Prosecution
     Capote
     The Two Towers
     The Verdict
     West Side Story
     The Hustler
     Life Is Beautiful
     Ordinary People
     No Country for Old Men
     Terms of Endearment
     Moulin Rouge! (‘01)
     Secrets and Lies
     Five Easy Pieces
     Fellowship of the Ring
     The Best Years of Our Lives
     A Clockwork Orange
     The Last Picture Show
     Treasure of the Sierra Madre
     Citizen Kane

     5 stars

     Braveheart
     American Beauty
     Sideways
     Pulp Fiction
     Return of the King
     Fargo
     Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
     The Apartment
     Godfather I
     Godfather II
     Schindler’s List
     Double Indemnity
     Dr. Strangelove
     Good Fellas
     Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
     The Shawshank Redemption
     On the Waterfront
     Lawrence of Arabia
     Network
     All About Eve
     Gone With the Wind

132. Someone March 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm 132

     limeymcfrog: Anyone who thinks that MASH deserves only two stars, BRAVEHEART deserves more than two stars and that CRASH is better than BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN can’t be serious.

133. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm 133

     08 – Wall-E, The Wrestler, The Dark Knight, Doubt, In Bruges
     07 – No Country for Old Men, Away from Her, There Will Be Blood, Lars and the Real Girl, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
     06 – Children of Men, United 93, Little Miss Sunshine, The Departed, Pan’s Labyrinth
     05 – Capote, Munich, King Kong, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck
     04 – Sideways, Vera Drake, Kill Bill vol. 2, Hotel Rwanda, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
     03 – Return of the King, American Splendor, Mystic River, Finding Nemo, Monster
     02 – Adaptation, About Schmidt, Road to Perdition, The Two Towers, The Pianist
     01 – Moulin Rouge!, Amelie, Fellowship of the Ring, Monster’s Ball, In the Bedroom
     00 – Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, High Fidelity, Quills, Traffic
     99 – American Beauty, Magnolia, The Insider, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Being John Malkovich,
     98 – Life Is Beautiful, A Simple Plan, The Thin Red Line, Elizabeth, Primary Colors
     97 – Good Will Hunting, As Good as It Gets, Amistad, Boogie Nights, Donnie Brasco
     96 – Fargo, Sling Blade, Secrets and Lies, Lone Star, The Birdcage
     95 – Braveheart, Dead Man Walking, Rob Roy, Richard III, Sense and Sensibility
     94 – Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, Hoop Dreams, Heavenly Creatures, Four Weddings and a Funeral

     And that’s the last year I can say with any real certainty. I’ve seen alot of films, but not enough from each year to render a true opinion.

134. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm 134

     Someone,

     I am serious. That’s my opinion.

     Don’t forget, I gave Raging Bull 2 stars as well which should have me burned at the Fanboy “Martin Scorcese can’t be wrong” stake. I understand it isn’t popular, but I’ve watched alot of films and I like what I like.

135. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm 135

     BILLYBIL:

     Another wow to your response, thank you very much for it. You’ll forgive me for not saying much about Crash. All I will say is that in my eyes, you are giving too much credit to a bad film. The 3 time experience of suffering thru it didn’t help. I agree about the performances you selected as being good, but few were fully developed human beings, the way they were in say, oh, I don’t know, Brokeback, LOL. And Crash also had those awful performances by Ryan Phillipe and Sandra Bullock and Brendan Frasier and others. I’ll stop – I’m Crash’d out. Of course I respect your opinion and see you respect mine, which is greatly appreciated. I am also very glad you will try Brokeback again.

     As for Wall-e, I was never bored. Even though it was predictable, it didn’t matter that we knew where they were going, it was the ride in getting there, which to me was a hoot (as opposed to other journeys that were preposterous and contrived that I won’t name, LOL). Its an interesting discussion though: does one amazing part of a film make up for a less inspired other part of a film? For me, it did for Wall-e. Part 2 was good enough to maintain interest and respect for the writing and animation, while Part 1 was visionary. Your analogy to Button is spot-on too. There, again, for me, the first two hours were almost as unwatchable as Crash, but then, something happened during the last 40 minutes, Brad became Cate’s child, and I was unexpectedly moved.

     We have one strong disagreement, the Academy is not the historical record of movie excellence. It is the historical record for what the Academy and movie industry in general were thinking at the pertinent times, but the true best of most years were rarely selected. And other organizations have done much better, like New York crix (they got Kane & Grapes & Treasure & Streetcar & High Noon & Lion in Winter & Clockwork & Cries & Whispers & Nashville & All the President’s Men & Reds & Hannah & My Left Foot & Goodfellas & Quiz Show & Fargo & LA Confidential & Saving Private Ryan & Traffic & Mulholland & Far From Heaven & Brokeback & United 93 & others, all better than the Academy’s choices). LA, much younger, since ‘75, got things like Raging Bull, E.T. (not a personal fave but even Richard Attenborough just said its better than Gandhi), Do the Right Thing & Goodfellas & Pulp Fiction & Leaving Las Vegas & Secrets and Lies & The Insider & Crouching Tiger & Letters from Iwo Jima & There Will Be Blood & Wall-e (and like N,Y LA Confidential & Ryan & Brokeback & others), all better than the Academy’s selections. I can go on with other organizations that have better lists and records. Any group with Greatest Show on Earth (not Singin’ in the Rain or High Noon) & Around the World in 80 Days (not The Searchers) and Cimarron (not City Lights) and Oliver! (not 2001) and many many others just can’t be considered definitive.

     Moreover, in my strong opinion, even the Academy got it “right” every year, they are still not worth my time, when many of their (mostly senior) members openly state they won’t even watch the overwhelming Best Picture front-runner because “John Wayne would roll over in his grave”. Fine, that’s their bigoted prerogative, but then don’t vote!! The Academy governors didn’t utter a peep while all this was going on, and even denied it, even when confronted with printed facts of these awful statements from their members. The Academy members whom I am lucky enough to know have ALL admitted this to me (between 15-20) and some to the media. An organization is not responsible for the opinions of all its members, but it has an obligation to speak out when those members are espousing hate, or at least distance themselves (e.g., “these are not our opinions, and any members who don’t see all the nominated films – for goodness sake, at least for Best Picture – cannot vote in that category” would have been nice). I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: had those people said they wouldn’t watch Dreamgirls or another major contender where African-Americans played a major role (because George Wallace or some KKK members would roll over in their graves??), I strongly believe there would have been a major outcry, and rightfully so. Had they said they wouldn’t watch Schindler or Pianist because Hitler or other nazis would roll over in theirs, again, a huge outcry, and rightfully so. I am not equating John Wayne with those people (my personal best actor choice for 1956 for The Searchers), but I equate their use of his name as being all-american and anti-gay validates the analogy. And, unfortunately, the Academy has always been guilty of political conservatism, costing deserving films like Citizen Kane, High Noon, Reds, Do the Right Thing and others Best Picture prizes. But with Brokeback, it was never so blatant, in-your-face, and unapologetic. And never was a film more “supposed to” win based upon precursors (plus box office among nominees plus cultural zeitgiest sttus), nothing in its league ever lost before or since (Private Ryan is close but not quite, another discussion for another day). Again, this is not about preference, it really isn’t, as I hadn’t personally agreed with the Academy more than once or twice in the prior 20 years, its about overwhelming evidence of very bad politics and bigotry. I’ve been saying this for years, few paid attention, but since Prop 8 passed, to my great pleasure I have gotten a few dozen emails from people (mostly from other sites) suddenly saying that maybe what I am saying is true after all. It is. I’m not happy about that, I loved the Oscars, but not no more!

     Thanks again for the great response. Oh, and I totally get what you are saying about the great Meryl. I disagree, mainly because I think she gave one of her worst performances in doubt and shouldn’t have been nominated (in earlier posts I too select Kristen & Sally as the best of the year), but from a “supposed to” win perspective, I see your point. I think there’s an equally strong argument to be made for give-Kate-an-Oscar-on-the-6th-nomination (a la Deborah Kerr & Thelma Ritter), but certainly Kate Hepburn got late career recognition since she went only 1-9, until she had to get more, too bad it was for Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, whe was the least worthy nominee. And surely Ingrid Bergman got #3 because she was Ingrid, even she said she should have lost to Valentina Cortese (she was right). But this is further fodder for my contention that the Academy is NOT the standard bearer of excellence, only industry thinking.

     LIMEYMCFROG:
     Awesome! Thanks for taking the time to do this! Obviously we have very different taste in film, but we agree on a lot too, and its very interesting. Too bad this thread is probably almost used up. You should ask Sasha to post you under your own thread, and then you’ll see how I felt when people start viciously, mindlessly attacking you for (a) your 2 star rating of Raging bull, (b) your 2 1/2 star rating of Apocalpyse Now, (c) your 4 1/2 or 5 star ratings of Braveheart, American Beauty, Life Is Beautiful, Ordinary People, and Gone with the Wind, and so so much more that you won’t even expect! Again, I appreciate you taking the time to post, and I will revisit Terms of Endearment (currently on HBO daily) based on your recommendation. Will you revisit Brokeback based on mine, lol (don’t ask me to revisit Crash, 3x is 3x to many).

136. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pm 136

     LIMEY:
     Nice lists for 94-08. We agree more than you might think! I loved In Bruges, top 10 of ‘08 and best original screenplay. Rather than go movie by movie, I’ll just say that the only films, in my eyes, that you truly overrate because they just aren’t that good are Doubt, Crash, Primary Colors and Rob Roy. Not bad! I’m sure you can name several that I loved (like Raging Bull) that you hated, but remember, its not like I liked Picnic, I just didn’t rank it last, lol. Particular kudos re: Away from Her, Donnie Brasco and especially Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, which should have been in my top 5 for ‘07, I simply forgot to list it (I was on a train and doing it all by memory so forgive me). I forgot the others too, though they don’t quite crack my top 5.

     SOMEONE: I agree with your film opinions 100%, but I’ve defended myself, and now I defend LIMEY: of course these are his opinions, to be respected, just like anyone elses. And obviously he knows his stuff and has seen a lot. He even debates the awful Crash with intelligence, which is more than I can say for Ebert (I had a 30-50 email debate with him after the Oscars; he truly couldn’t defend the Academy – he admitted that to me by the very end – and he had little substantive to say about the film’s (dubious) merits (sorry), unlike LIMEY and BILLYBIL, who gave intelligent reasons). We shouldn’t say things like “you can’t be serious” and “awful”, because even though we are all strangers, it can make us feel badly, and there’s no point. Of course disagree, but say why, and say what you like instead, so we can learn from you. Thanks.

137. Someone March 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm 137

     OK, sorry. I shouldn’t have written this. But i trully hate BREAVEHEART (IMO the worst movie ever nominated for the Academy Award – or at least the worst I have seen) and I love BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. But don’t get me wrong. I liked CRASH. I think it was a really good entertainment. It was well acted and very well directed. Even more – it was touching and made me cry two or three times. But this was only an entertainment. And BROKEBACK is a masterpiece. And that’s the HUGE difference.

     BRAVEHEART is boring, homophobic and trivial. It’s poorly acted (Gibson has one look for the entire movie) and poorly directed (even the battle scenes aren’t engaging). There’s really nothing good that can be said about this movie. That’s why I cannot understand why people think it’s better than any other historical Hollywood movies. Even the worst of them are at least spectacular so they can be a good entertainment (BRAVEHEART can’t).

138. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pm 138

     Thanks, I have posted before and know what it’s like to defend your post. My most recent was the poorly worded trivia contest, and I’ve done a few before in previous years.

     Ordinary People could be an emotional response. It’s not a film I thought I’d love, but I do. There’s a quiet agony in Hutton’s and Sutherland’s performance and… I don’t know what else to really say. It really resonated with me and I suppose that’s what makes one love a film even if it’s not objectively a better made film. You should give it another watch, and if that last speech Sutherland gives to Mary Tyler Moore doesn’t give you a little ache, then I guess it simply means something different to you.

     That’s true with all of the films in my 5 star group. You could sit me down and show me everything wrong with those films, but the fact is I won’t care. Braveheart, Life is Beautiful, and American Beauty are some of the films that helped me fall in love with cinema. How can one be truly objective? Why spend time tearing down art that was at least good enough to inspire me?

     Whereas I found Apocalypse Now and Raging Bull to be technically mind-blowing, but there was nothing in the story that really moved or disturbed me. My problem with Raging Bull is that I find Jake Lamotta’s story blandly odious. I don’t like him, I find nothing in him worth rooting for or even pausing to look at. So Marty’s pacing and Thelma S.’s headspinning edits were wasted, in my mind, on a completely undeserving topic. Apoclaypse Now has some great moments, but I never got a sense of what it amounted to… I thought it was Coppola trying to be Kubrick (I can hear people swearing at me right now)

     I’ll give Brokeback another whirl… It was a film that I had such anticipation for. I LOVE Larry McMurtry. I LOVE Ang Lee. I liked it, but I just thought the movie was a little… obvious. In a hair splitting way, but still…obvious. Maybe I didn’t look close enough.

139. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pm 139

     geez, we disagree about those battle sequences someone. I can still feel the impact when both of those armies hit each other. I saw that copied in films for at least a decade afterwards. Different strokes.

140. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 6:00 pm 140

     Someone:

     My problem with MASH is how utterly dated I felt the humor was. I got the basic gist; people confronted with death seek out bizzarre and often cruel and sadistic forms of entertainment. I felt Altman was too comfortable and accepting of this. I felt a bit like I did when my asshole fratboy roomate horribly insulted his girlfriend and expected me to laugh along with him. Not a good movie experience however artistically valid. I’m one of the few that prefer Catch 22 to MASH (although I’m not particularly fond of Catch 22 either).

141. JAB March 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pm 141

     @ Ben:
     wasn’t that part of the point of Kramer vs. Kramer? That it wasn’t the man leaving the woman with the child? That it was the reverse of the norm? I do have to agree that had the movie focused on Meryl taking care of the son i would’ve loved the movie even more, my biggest qualm with the movie is how little screentime she has, but then again, the movie wouldn’t have functioned as well with her there throughout.

142. john stevenson March 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pm 142

     463 – JFK
     462 – Scent of a Woman
     461 – Fatal Attraction
     459 – The Towering Inferno
     457 – Crash
     455 – The Alamo

     Amongst my all-time favorite movies. I think there is a taste gland missing from cineastes that keeps them from enjoying good populist entertainment. I wonder why Academy-junkies often lack this taste bud when the Academy so clearly has it in spades. (I’m quite happy that I have it, too.)

143. billybil March 11th, 2009 at 8:31 pm 143

     Oh Ben, I do thank you for being so considerate and respectful of other people’s opinions and taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.

     And I thank the others who have added such fascinating and well thought out comments to this thread. A special shout out to limeymcfrog for creating his own list and sharing his top 5 of each year opinions. Also very fascinating and wonderful to review. THANKS!

     I do want to try to finish my contributions to this thread with a quick followup on my point about the Oscars. I agree, they do NOT reflect the best, most informed opinion about the “best” in any year of cinema and I do explore the awards handed out by the organizations you mention and many others to get a sense of quality in current film making. BUT, I was trying to point out that, whether we like it or not, the percentage of people who actually bother (or know) to see beyond the Oscars each year is minimal. I guess I’m silly but in the case of Meryl (and a few other people who I feel really need some historical acknowledgment for the masses) I want them to get the appropriate Oscar recognition so that, in the future, even little Bill from Podunk, Ohio will know that these particular talents really deserve (demand) his attention. Not that many people get the opportunity to have people like you and the others on this site who obviously know, have studied, watched, and thought about movies for years to guide their choices. So for those less exposed people, artists like Meryl Streep need to shine above most others in the most widely recognized arena of awards (for movies: the Oscars) so that their talent and accomplishments are priorities for viewing and exploring by the vast majority of even remotely interested people in the future. Convoluted sentence but I hope it makes my point.

     Again, thanks Ben and Shasha for starting a couple of days of really interesting reading.

144. Tim H March 11th, 2009 at 8:38 pm 144

     Ben:
     Do not, on my account, commit to rewatching the Bounty remake. Life’s too short! And after all, I saw it again quite by accident.

     Good point re: City Lights and Cimarron. I’ll certainly give you that.

     As for your best picture choices, we absolutely agree on 1966 thru 1978. That’s quite a streak (altho’ I may have to select My Night at Maud’s over MASH, but it’s a close call)

     Limeymcfrog:
     I liked your list; curiously we don’t agree on a single top five for 2002 (a very good year indeed; most of your choices, esp 2Towers and Perdition would certainly be in my top ten)

     Picking the best picture of each year is easy (perhaps I should say picking my personal favorite of each year is easy); picking the top ten is often difficult (except for the occasional clunker year like 1995 when it’s actually chore to do so). Narowing it down to five is tougher.
     Here’s what I came up with this evening. An asterisk indicates my choice for best pic (rarely in sync with the Academy)

     2008 *Milk/The Reader/ Revolutionary Road/ The Dark Knight/ Happy-Go-Lucky or In Bruges

     2007 *Assassination of Jesse James…/ No Country for Old Men/ There Will Be Blood/ The Diving Bell and the Butterfly/ Atonement

     2006 *The Lives of Others / Volver/ United 93/ Casino Royale/ Little Children

     2005 *Brokeback Mountain/ Munich/ The New World/ A History of Violence /The Constant Gardener

     2004 *Vera Drake/ Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind / The Motorcycle Diaries /La Mala Educacion/ Kinsey or Closer

     2003 *LOTR: The Return of the King /Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World/ Elephant/ Lost in Translation/ Mystic River

     2002 *Far From Heaven/ The Hours/ Y Tu Mama’ Tambien/ Habla con Ella / Chicago

     2001 *Gosford Park/ Moulin Rouge!/ Mulholland Drive/ LOTR: The Fellowship of the Rings/ Black Hawk Down or Lagaan

     2000 *Almost Famous/ Amores Perros/ Crouching Tiger…/ Billy Elliot/ Sunshine

     1999 *Topsy Turvy/ All About My Mother/ The Insider/ The Talented Mr. Ripley/ American Beauty

     1998 *The Thin Red Line/ Saving Private Ryan/ Out of Sight/ Gods & Monsters /Elizabeth

     1997 *Boogie Nights/ LA Confidential/ Titanic/ The Ice Storm / The Sweet Hereafter or In & Out

     1996 *Fargo/ Secrets & Lies/ Lone Star/ The English Patient/ Evita/

     1995 *Sense & Sensibility/ Dead Man Walking/ Apollo 13/ Babe/ The Usual Suspects

     1994 *Pulp Fiction/ Ed Wood/ Queen Margot/ Quiz Show/ The Madness of King George

     1993 *Schindler’s List/ The Age of Innocence/ Short Cuts/ The Remains of the Day/ The Wedding Banquet

145. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 9:46 pm 145

     So much to respond to since I last logged on. What a pleasure to have to respond to only one rude and, to be blunt and equally rude, stupid person, which I’ll get out of the way quickly:

     JOHN STEVENSON: Well aren’t you wonderful. Obviously not. Hope I don’t encounter you again.

     EVERYONE ELSE: Many thanks for continuing this discussion and for posting great thoughtful responses, whether we agree or not.

     SOMEONE: It takes a big person to recognize he/she might have been a bit out of line on something, it is very good of you to have done so (re: Limey). Thank you. As for movies, I largely agree with you about Braveheart. Like Crash, its one of the few Oscar winners that actually got a lot of bad reviews upon release and was a surprise contender. But forget reviews, I think you are right in what you say. Still, it had some fine and rousing production values, and wasn’t boring, unlike some of the films I found worse. But I can totally see you picking it as worst, I’m sure you are not the only one. And personally, I despise Mel Gibson’s politics. I have never met him but am fairly confident he is not a nice person! I admit that has an adverse effect on how I view his films, though I did like Apocalypto.

     LIMEY: OK, so what does LIMEYMCFROG mean? Don’t get me wrong, I love it, but is there a reference? Its not the Warner Bros frog who only sang in private, is it? Anyhow, Ordinary People: totally get it, and mostly agree. But there isn’t anything “cinematic” to me, I would have given it an Emmy for Best Special, but as a big screen film, I don’t think Redford did enough with it, it could have been a stage play. Oh, I know, that comes off very snobby, but its not intended to, some of the best stuff I have ever seen was on tv (lots in fact), and Redford is a very fine director, Quiz Show was in my top 3 of 1994 and I loved River Runs Thru It even though it didn’t quite make my top 5. Sutherland absolutely deserved a nomination for Ordinary though, and also for supporting for Pride & Prejudice. Underrated actor.
     Nicely said about the films that helped you fall in love with cinema. Right: for each of us, some films don’t need to be defended, they just hit you, whether they are cinematically brilliant or flawed or whatever (even Towering Inferno & Alamo & all those others for hostile John Stevenson…though yikes, I really don’t get those at all…but that’s his right).

     I was 14 when I saw Raging Bull. It totally blew me away. When I left the theater with my old buddy Arthur, who was also very into movies even so young, I expected him to be equally floored. He hated it. I raved about it, and he just looked at me and said, “fine…but why was that movie even made?” Its an interesting question, and we could debate that quite a bit, but I do understand his question, as it is relentless down on a horrible person. I strongly disagree, its one of my top 10 from the Academy and top 50 ever, but I see Arthur’s and your viewpoint. That’s the thing…just because most cineastes and non-cineastes admire it, it doesn’t mean everybody has to!! I’m not an advocate of Godfather II (even though its in my top 100 Oscar films and I still give it ***1/2), I don’t rank it in the top 10, so I’m crucified. That’s ridiculous. Yeah, if somebody gives Citizen Kane or Grand Illusion or yes, Brokeback Mountain, only one or two stars, then I’m gonna tell them they don’t understand movies. But I’m not gonna tell them they didn’t have the right to be bored or otherwise dislike any of those films, taste is one thing, while judging “BEST” – the Academy’s self-appointed job – is another matter.
     Most of all, you made my day for saying you’ll try Brokeback again, you show a very open mind, and make these discussions worthwhile for being willing to revisit something on which you were lukewarm. I have never heard anybody call it obvious before, if anything, the opposite. For example, people complained that the tent scene made no sense…how did Jake know he could jump Heath without getting beaten up? I actually had the some question the first time I saw the film, though I didn’t mind it, I chalked it up to the mysteries of love (straight or gay). But on the second viewing, it made a lot more sense. I didn’t find anything else obvious about it. Even Pulitzer winner Annie Proulx said she was pleasantly taken by surprise by how the film quietly showed the devasting effects of prejudice on the women who love closeted gay men, something she didn’t include in her story. Again, it was a movie that showed me what it had to say, it didn’t hit me over the head. I’ll stop, I’m trying too hard!

     JAB: Very fair point. I’m not sure. You may be right. But I didn’t feel that when I saw it. When did Robert Benton make that point? Sure, Dustin Hoffman couldn’t cook, the man couldn’t handle it at first, but too me, that felt like a cliché. And of course the man eventually became the ideal parent, so by then, it felt like the woman was somewhat of a villain. Yes, Benton redeems her at the end, but she still comes off as a flake, and it feels too little too late. But again, you make me re-think my position. Its probably unfair of me to project all of the divorce on this one story…though at the time, that’s what this movie was made into, THE movie about divorce. But, on the other hand, that’s not the movie’s fault, that’s just about its reception. Anyhow, I appreciate your smart comment, and I will watch Kramer again, its been 30 years anyway. I stubbornly doubt I’ll find it to be the amazing visual experience I considered Manhattan and Apocalypse Now to be (despite the latter’s pretentiousness), not to mention my other personal best that year, The Tin Drum, The Marriage of Maria Braun, and my overall #1, Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker – none of which I considered eligible for this posting if you read my preface), but one never knows.

     BILLYBIL: Continued thanks to YOU for being so kind as well, I appreciate it. And of course for your thoughtful responses. I’ll be brief for a change, because I actually agree with everything you said about perceptions of the Oscars, Meryl Streep, etc. Still, I think that Meryl’s 15 nominations make the point to most that she’s pretty darned awesome. But we could get into a discussion another time about the many great artists with few or even no nominations, like Edward G. Robinson, Joseph Cotton, Myrna Loy, etc. I happen to think that those at the very top of the Oscar nomination heap – Meryl, Jack Nicholson, Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis and Laurence Olivier – are all very deserving. On the other hand, others like Cary Grant, James Cagney, Irene Dunne, and a dozen or so others are in their league, yet with a fraction of their nominations and/or wins. Or look at someone more contemporary like Gena Rowlands. Only two nominations despite so many great performances. Ellen Burstyn was excellent in Alice, but Gena gave an all-time great performance in Woman Under the Influence. But Gena, like her husband John Cassavetes, was a Hollywood outsider, not part of the club, and not properly acknowledged. Things like that bother me much more than 15 nominated/2 win Streep. OK, so I wasn’t short.

     TIM H: LOL re: Mutiny. I like guilty pleasures as much as the next guy. If King Kong vs. Godzilla were to re-emerge on tv, I’d switch to it in a heartbeat. As for My Night at Maud’s over MASH, yeah, absolutely, but as I’ve said elsewhere (so forgive my redundancy), I didn’t deem My Night at Maud’s eligible for my list. I tried to play by what the Academy members most likely actually watched. My rules were that I would only consider foreign-language films that the Academy nominated for Picture, Director or Screenplay, the traditional Best Picture indicators and most important awards. I’d love to snob-out and include many of my true, overall Best Pictures for many years, like Persona in 1967 or The Seven Samurai in 1954 or Rashomon in 1951 or L’Atalante in 1934 or The Passion of Joan of Arc for 1968 or Andrei Rublev for 1966 or Yellow Earth for 1984 or Raise the Red Lantern for 1991 or a bunch of others, but it seems likely that most Academy members didn’t see those movies upon their release, so I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. They don’t deserve it.
     Also, I love your lists of best pictures nominees for 1993-2008, thank you for posting them!! You make me regret not selecting Assassination of Jesse James for 2007, it was a tough call for me, but its an outstanding film (San Francisco Film Crix Best Picture choice). Vera Drake is another of those in my top 10 of its year that could have easily made the top 5. My sensibilities happen to mirror yours quite a bit, though I was not a fan of Little Children, The Thin Red Line or American Beauty, but that’s about it, quite a match. I am very happy you have Sunshine in your top 5 too. Very underrated. The Globes nominated it for Best Picture, part of my argument that the Globes have repented (lol) and have had finer, more interesting nominees than AMPAS for about 15 years now. Yes, they get to nominate more, but I’m looking at dramas only. Their nominations of Breaking the Waves, Mulholland Drive and History of Violence alone gives them credence (and they didn’t even nominate Crash…I just can’t help myself). Best of all, for me, I never saw Lagaan, so I now have another film to look forward to, thank you! P.S. Queen Margot is another great film, but again, “not eligible” by my rules for this. Your rules are better, it was a great film deserving of a nomination.

     Again, thanks to each of you.

146. Ben March 11th, 2009 at 9:56 pm 146

     P.S. Wasn’t 1994 a remarkable year for movies? The foreign-language releases I think were strongest since the 1960s: Satantango, Chunking Express, Queen Margot, Red, Before the Rain, Burnt by the Sun, Through the Olive Trees, L’America, and another in my top 5, Wild Reeds by Andre Techine. Incredible. And in America, The Shawshank Redemption has become one of the most beloved films in American cinema; Ed Wood is a deserved cult favorite; people are still discovering the compelling, disturbing Heavenly Creature; and Quiz Show and Madness of King George gave us two of the most intelligent, literate screenplays ever written (Alan Bennett is a remarkable writer, the movie of History Boys didn’t do justice to his play, please see the play if the opportunity arises). As I’ve said before, I am not an advocate of Pulp Fiction, I agree with Robert Redford that it was from the “immature school of filmmaking” and often silly, but I also am aware that’s my minority opinion. Pulp is as revered now by most as it was 15 years ago, with no let-up in sight, and its enormous influence is undeniable (though I would contend not so much in a good way, but whatever). As for the Academy’s favorite, Forest Gump, well, they ain’t looking so good…yeah I admired the technical wizardry and the film’s ambition, and certainly there were some good things about it, but far too much was a cringefest, from life is like a box of chocolates to the 20 minute cross country trek to Tom & mother Sally being and looking the same age to its over-simplification, and therefore diminishment, of history. And even if one likes Gump – which for the umpteenth time of course is fine – can one really say its in a league with these other movies as works of art (other than its visual effects)???

147. Rimski March 11th, 2009 at 10:46 pm 147

     Haha funny you mention 1994 Ben. I agree entirely. There are so many films from 93/94 that I think are amazing. I was living in Indonesia at the time and I was starved of good films (cinemas mostly showing very popular stuff, and when a film like Philadelphia was shown much of the ‘boring’ dialogue was cut lol). If you can believe I went and saw Sister Act II at the cinema and thought it was a highlight lol. While Forrest Gump was a major disappointment for me, this was a time when I saw and loved Farewell My Concubine, The Remains of the Day, The Age of Innocence, Heavenly Creatures, The Piano, Six Degrees of Separation, Husbands and Wives, among many others. Lovely that you mentioned Wild Reeds Ben – I thought it was a beautiful film, and would like to see again. Queen Margot a personal favourite, which has held up well. Disagree with you on Chungking Express, but am prepared to have another look.

     Returning to Australia in 95 to a great period in Australian cinema. Alas I think many of these small gems rarely make their way to North America. Films like Head On, The Interview, Dead Heart, Idiot Box are well worth a look if you ever come by them.

     Thanks to the writer who mentioned Volver. Such a beautiful film, I think one of Almodavor’s best, and one where I think Cruz shines.

148. limeymcfrog March 11th, 2009 at 11:40 pm 148

     LOL, limeymcfrog is a nickname created out of racial slurs that correspond to my name. Alden is my first name and it is an English name (Limey) Blake is my middle which is Irish (Mick) and my last name is Michels which, although I anglicize its pronunciation, is French (Frog). I was thinking about it on a road trip and said all three outloud and loved the sound of it. Very Green. This was during college and I simply created it as my online monicker. I like it because it’s cute but a little bawdy at the same time.

     Re: Brokeback
     This may sound bizzarre coming from a straight, happily married man, but I actually wanted more stuff like the tent scene. If anything I thought Brokeback was too chaste, too distant from this supposedly wonderful romance that we barely get to see. That was my chief complaint along with the slightly threadbare plot that is all told in the films original trailer. There was a something missing from the story that I just couldn’t put my finger on. I remember watching another film from that year, Mysterious Skin, and wishing that Brokeback had the moxy of Mysterious Skin or that Mysterious Skin had the production values of Brokeback. Either way, those memories are four years old and came out of the mind of one who was expecting nothing less than true greatness. Maybe no film would have lived up to my expectations.

     RE: Ordinary People
     Well it’s not Raging Bull in terms of being cinematic, but while it wasn’t as visually oriented I still felt it was a good subject for a film because of the isolation of Hutton’s character. Certain films are woefully uncinematic. Many plays fall into this trap: Driving Miss Daisy should have been a very good Showtime Original Production. The King and I with its almost stationary camera and massive set just lays there. I didn’t get the same sense from Ordinary People. The cinematic element at work in my mind is identification, your supposed to see the world through young Mr. Hutton’s eyes. It’s a bland, burgeouis place with little comfort for the greiving…

     RE: Pulp Fiction
     Would In Bruges have been made if not for Pulp Fiction? Besides simply liking the film (and also being one of the movies that made me love movies) I love that it is a genre exploitation film that fills the base desires and yet still reaches beyond toward something higher. Tarantino is a bit like Steven King that way; stuff whose subject matter bespeaks crap but (when they are at their best) uses our response to such satisfying material to touch upon something deeper.

149. billybil March 12th, 2009 at 8:22 am 149

     OK – I know I indicated I was finishing my thread before but I can’t help but thank limeymcfrog for being so succinct about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.

     “If anything I thought Brokeback was too chaste, too distant from this supposedly wonderful romance that we barely get to see. That was my chief complaint along with the slightly threadbare plot that is all told in the films original trailer. There was a something missing from the story that I just couldn’t put my finger on.”

     YES YES YES – that was what I was ineptly trying to say when I wrote about it not being accessible enough and that IF it wasn’t a movie about 2 butch men who are “supposed” to be reticent, people would have been squawking that it didn’t deliver the emotional goods. I think many people were just so generous with this movie because it was daring and artfully made. THANK YOU LIMEYMCFROG! (I’d only get to be limeymc – but most of the time that’s been enough!)

     I will also admit…

     “those memories are four years old and came out of the mind of one who was expecting nothing less than true greatness. Maybe no film would have lived up to my expectations.”

     I will watch it again.

150. Michael March 12th, 2009 at 11:54 am 150

     Amazing list, amazing knowledge. Kudos for having the bravery to list Brokeback Mountain and The Pianist at the very top, they belong.

151. Bem March 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm 151

     RIMSKI: You have lived in some amazing places. I am curious as to what you do. And, of course, I continue to think you have great taste since it
     agrees with mine so often, lol. But I know you are a nice guy based upon your kind and generous emails. As for movies, I was stunned when the great
     Farewell, My Concubine lost the Oscar to the ** Belle Epoque. Well, I was and I wasn’t, pundits were saying it might happen, but at the time, I foolishly
     gave the Academy far too much credit. I just saw Head On for the first time less than two months ago and was blown away, a great movie. However, I
     never even heard of The Interview, Dead Heart and Idiot Box, so am psyched to discover them, and will endeavor to do so asap. Many thanks for the
     recommendations – Gerry was a darn good one, waiting for Oblivion to arrive – no doubt these are too.

     MICHAEL: Thank you too for the kind words.

     LIMEY: Love the origins of limeymcfrog. Hilarious. Re: your Brokeback comments (and to BILLYBIL as well): Not bizarre at all. I felt similarly after the first viewing, I really did. Something about Brokeback gnawed at me though, so I went back to the theater (something I virtually never ever do) and am very glad I did. I think you will “forgive” the lack of more tent-type-stuff on the second viewing, the film really doesn’t need it. And I also don’t think you’ll think the plot is threadbare; actually, the emotional journey that all of them go thru is fully-realized and quite epic. But to both of you: great romances aren’t necessarily in the sex scenes or in the kissing; they are in the hearts of the characters. Most of the great romances give us characters who wear their hearts on their sleeves. Not so with Heath’s character in Brokeback, so it is a bit more difficult to get inside. That is exactly right for that character. Jake’s starts similarly but breaks down thru the film. Remember, these are men, and macho men, and in Rocky Mountain west America. Believe me, the passion, their intense passion, is very there, on the screen, it just doesn’t burst off. That’s partly what makes it so great, it is not obvious to them, and not to the audience, until it is. Most people loved Brokeback and often got it the first time, probably because they too had similar tent-like experiences in their lives, but if not, mainly because of the film’s last half hour. I was not one of those people. But I was the second time, because once I was able to relax knowing the plot and what would happen, I could better see the many nuances dropped by Ang Lee and the characters, the body language, the increasingly matching verbal language. I understood better their unrest, and desire to be elsewhere. These men did not lead hot and heavy Gone with the Wind/Casablanca type lives, theirs were of quiet desperation. But the love is palpable, its there, and having gotten to see how much you guys know about movies and how otherwise sensitive you are, I am confident you will get it the second time. Watch in silence without the kids around! And thank you both again for having the open mind to watch again.

     Re: your Ordinary People comments: well said, and once again I agree, I just didn’t feel that Redford opened the film up sufficiently. Too much reliance on archetypes. But I do think it is a very good movie, just not up to some of the other superb 1980 releases (but in my top 10). This is where it really comes down to personal taste too, as I do not think that the selection of Ordinary over Raging Bull is one of the 10 worst Oscar choices ever (as most do), just like I don’t think How Green over Kane was one of the 10 worst choices ever, because the winners may not have been in the same class as the films that should have won, but they were still very fine films in their own right. Agreed re: Driving Miss Daisy too.

     Re: Pulp Fiction: As I’ve said, I respect the influence Pulp Fiction has had on American cinema. I do think In Bruges (a much better movie) would have been made without Pulp because Martin McDonagh is a very original mind (I see all his plays on/off Broadway, just saw the incredible Cripple of Inishman last week), but that’s me splitting hairs: yes, many films would not have been made without Pulp. However, most people don’t acknowledge that Pulp just isn’t
     as original as its given credit for. Tarantino himself acknowledges the very strong influence of Hong Kong cinema, and films like Taking of Pelham 123. And for me, the viewing of it was a somewhat unpleasant experience. Everybody was just “too cool” for me in act one, the film was so self-consciously hip and proud of
     itself. I perked up in act 2 when Travolta re-entered, I thought that was brilliant, and I thought the entire act was great, Willis (not my fave) was never better. But
     then, endless, tedious, self-indulgent act 3. I can’t speak to your analogy to Stephen King because I have never read any of his books (have only seen the movies), but I think I know what you are saying. The Academy erroneously ignored most of Hitchcock thru the years because the subject matter of most of his films wasn’t classic Academy grandiosity, but Hitchcock was one of the great directors because he took ordinary murder stories and touched on something deeper (to quote you) within our psyches, he made us see the dark side of ourselves. Tarantino’s work just doesn’t do that for me in the slightest. I think many people (not you) are too taken in by gimmicks, the great score, the novelty of seeing then has-been Travolta dance again, but I just don’t feel the film has intrinsic lasting value in itself. Again, I know I’m in the minority, just like The Godfathers (though I see much more artistic merit in the Godfathers).

152. billybil March 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm 152

     I know, I know, I said I was done but I can’t stand it.

     I made the point myself that the characters were macho men who needed to appear (“be”) reticient in their passion and affection BUT that that didn’t give the movie makers “permission” to shortchange the emotional experience for the audience. (Again, REMAINS OF THE DAY is a perfect example of where the film makers did not diminish the viewer’s experience despite how reserved the characters were.)

     The reason I agreed with limeymcfrog that maybe more physical interaction was needed is because witnessing a growth in the emotional intimacy of their sexual relations would have been the best way to allow the audience to experience the change in the relationship toward something truly vital and earth shattering for each partner. (Particularly Ledger’s character, since I think Gyllenhaal was given more opportunity to express his desire for Ennis.) I believe it is fairly well documented that, for macho men, sex is the only area where intimacy ever gets “let loose”, hence that is why it can become so vitally necessary for some men (a man like Ennis, for instance). I think the characters and the story in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN are all right on – the film makers just didn’t make it accessible enough for the audience. We needed to experience these macho men being more vulnerable with each other so that we could identify their vulnerability and associate it with the most vulnerable relationships in our own lives. The macho men needed to become us for the film truly to be great. God, if this had been better accomplished, then the movie really would have delivered on its promise and anyone with a heart would have been devastated by the experience.

     And I know you keep saying watch it a second time (and I will) but, I now realize that, to me, if a movie requires a second viewing to be really appreciated, then it is flawed.

     Movies are a medium of immediacy. It has only been recently that people have been able to fairly easily go back and watch a movie over and over again and, I suppose, that may be slowly changing the medium itself. But movies “move” and most are still made for the now and if I, plus intelligent and sensitive viewers like yourself, have to go back to watch a movie a second time to really “get” it, then I think it messed up.

     Of course it’s wonderful to go back and admire the artistry in motion pictures; to celebrate the challenging, intricate and sophisticated aspects of a film (and I encourage everyone to expose themselves to such experiences). But, the bottom line, if it didn’t fully transport you the first time around, the movie didn’t deliver on its promise.

     I’m quite sure you’re going to disagree – I think anyone who has seen so many movies and can write so perceptively and intelligently about them is obviously someone who loves to look beyond the now into the intricacies of the art – so we’ll agree to respectfully disagree.

     Regardless, once again, thanks for helping me reach more clarity for myself.

153. Adam Smith March 12th, 2009 at 2:51 pm 153

     This list was already pretty ridiculous (though an admirable undertaking, no doubt), but I realized I could not take it seriously when he said that V for Vendetta should have been nominated for Best Picture.

154. Ben March 12th, 2009 at 3:39 pm 154

     BillyBIL:
     I think that Brokeback is just as successful as Remains of the Day in conveying emotion. There was actually more physical interaction in Brokeback than Remains, but I suppose that is besides the point. The audience experiences these macho men being vulnerable and close with each other most of the film. Being the Marboro Men they are, they don’t say much, but when they speak, they agree. They bond with the crazy sheep-hearding experiences. They bond over their bad treatment. Jake jumps Heath and Heath is free at last. After that, they run around naked thinking they are alone. BUT, they are still both very ashamed of their relationship, and nonetheless hold back from each other. When the summer ends, they depart a bit coldly as Heath is off to marry Michelle, but Jake looks back with extreme sadness, and Heath gets sick in an alley way because his body knows that he might have just destroyed his life. When they are apart, each is clearly antsy and unhappy, and they are not good husbands – although initially they both try. They meet again years later, yet not a moment of emotional time has lapsed between them. They see each other, and these dead men are resurrected. They explode, their emotion is palpable. From there on, they continue to live their lives of lies, but Jake has trouble doing that after awhile, while Heath needs to grin and bear it. They both start imploding, so Jake acts out – at Heath, when they see each other. Remember, Heath still can’t even admit he’s gay, despite years of trysts with Jake, his relationship is just one of those things. But Heath’s body once again knows better, and he continues to implode. At the same time, the visual imagery of the film shrinks and shrinks until he winds up in a trailer, just as his heart shrinks, but just as his heart cries out for Jake. And its too much for Jake to take, he has to find somebody else, even though he loves Heath. I know you know all this, but I have honestly never seen a film better tell its story – this story – in both a visual and literate way, and I think I got most of it the second time I saw it. It moved me enormously, far more than I ever expected, since I didn’t think such a relation between two men could move me so. But it did, because throughout the 2 ¼ hours, I really, truly got to know these two people in a way rarely conveyed in film. Yes, much of their time was apart, but their emotional lives were parallel the entire time. Parallel, but also converging to their eventual tragic collision. The self-loathing was palpable, but so was their affection for one another, when they finally got to be together. Like you said, had the macho men become us, the film would have been great: to me, and I am pleased that for many many others, exactly that happened, these macho men did become me, and I got it, and was overwhelmed. And their differences from we snooty cineastes weren’t just that they were macho, they really were different people entirely than almost anybody I am acquainted with….but eventually, I knew them very well, and I felt for them more than any other characters in cinema. You know, I think its one of those things, either one feels it or one doesn’t, like with any romance.
     As for the second time thing, you raise a very interesting point. Of course you are right, movies are a medium of immediacy. However, in my experience, it really does take me two viewings to really get the truly great ones, because while often deceptively slow and/or simple, like Brokeback or 2001, they are usually very complex. It actually took me three times to get Citizen Kane and 2001, which is why I saw them three times, because I knew the “flaw” was in me, that I wasn’t getting something. Those films, like Brokeback, drew me back in. I liked Brokeback very much the first time, but I was also confused. I didn’t get the tent scene, and it distracted me. There are other examples of that, and my mind was racing, which distracted me from the emotions that were slowly but very surely unfolding before me. I think the great movies are often like the great literature that way. I’m reading and reading, then suddenly, I realize, I had better go back 50 pages and read again, because I didn’t quite get it. Why should movies be that much more immediate than books? After all, its much easier to go back and drop 2 hours on a movie than heaven knows how many on re-reading a great book, and we also get great experiences out of reading great books, moment to moment (as an aside, I read Cormac McCarthy’s The Road over the summer, holy mackerel was it amazing (the film’s release was postponed), it was as moment to moment as any movie I’ve ever seen except maybe Raging Bull and City of God). Ultimately, with Brokeback, 2001 and Kane, the second viewing was a richer experience, and I decided the flaw was in me, not in the films or filmmakers. Despite what I am saying, I do see your point, but its not that I wasn’t transported the first time with these movies, its just that I realized that it was me who missed something, so I went back, and was transported that much more.

     Great talking with you, and thank you too for helping me do the same thing that you kindly say I am doing for you in your last paragraph, I am learning a lot.

     ADAMSMITH: Go blow, you arrogant…
     [not that its worth mentioning, but V for Vendetta got mostly great reviews and has become a major cult film; its not just a guilty pleasure (yeah, it is), its also beautifully crafted and fully realized, as good as Dark Knight for the genre; there are movie buffs who are even voting for it for the AFI Top 100 over at their website; I'm not one of them, but I admire it a heckuva lot more than The Departed, The Queen or Babel]

155. Someone March 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm 155

     I know that my list will be shocking for almost everyone but I put it here anyway: The best pictures of the last 15 years (I haven’t seen Almost Famous and Shine):

     2008: The Dark Knight; Slumdog Millionaire; Milk; The Reader; Wall-E;
     2007: No Country For Old Men; There Will Be Blood; Ratatouille; Zodiac; Into the Wild;
     2006: United 93; Little Children; Little Miss Sunshine; Letters from Iwo Jima; Borat Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (oh, yeah!);
     2005: Brokeback Mountain (by far); Munich; Transamerica; A History of Violence; Crash (sorry, Ben)
     2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; The Incredibles; Closer; Hotel Rwanda; Sideways;
     2003: The Return of the King; City of God; Mystic River; Lost in Translation; House of Sand and Fog;
     2002: The Hours; Adaptation; Chicago; Y Tu Mama Tambien; The Pianist;
     2001: The Fellowship of the Ring; Moulin Rouge; Memento; Mulholland Drive; The Others;
     2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Requiem for a Dream; Billy Elliot; Quills; Traffic;
     1999: Being John Malkovich; American Beauty; Magnolia; The Sixth Sense; Boys Don’t Cry;
     1998: Gods and Monsters; The Truman Show; Shakespeare in Love; Pleasantville; Elizabeth;
     1997: Titanic; Boogie Nights; The Ice Storm; LA Confidential; Deconstructing Harry;
     1996: Breaking the Waves; The People vs. Larry Flynt; Secrets & Lies; Fargo; Trainspotting;
     1995: Dead Man Walking; Seven; Sense and Sensibility; 12 Monkeys; Toy Story;
     1994: Pulp Fiction; Quiz Show; Heavenly Cratures; Forrest Gump; Red.

156. Tim H March 12th, 2009 at 6:07 pm 156

     Billybil:

     You are one of the most passionate posters here and I so enjoy reading all of your comments; I would say I agree with most of what you say. However, I must respectfully disagree with this statement:

     ……..And I know you keep saying watch it a second time (and I will) but, I now realize that, to me, if a movie requires a second viewing to be really appreciated, then it is flawed…….

     I believe that great movies are meant to be seen again and again; each viewing will bring something new to you simply because you ( are taking something new to the viewing, that is new life experiences, changes in attitudes, ideals, politics, etc.

     This past year I have been revisiting a lot of films I loved during my “formative years” as a movie fan (college to mid twenties) and I have discovered that most of them, when now seen with the lexperiences of my 52 years and a lifetime of watching and reading about movies good and bad, that many of these films are even richer and much more satisfying than they were the first time around. Sure, I’ve “dropped in” on a lot of them over the years, watching a segment or two here and there on TCM and the old AMC… but last summer I started a serious return to the “big movies” of my life (in many cases with the great assistance of the Criterion Collection and a lot of excellent film writing/criticism that is now easy to access.)

     This all began with my rediscovery of “Bonnie and Clyde” and has continued with many second (and third) viewings of old favorites that proved to be even more enriching the second time around:
     “Barry Lyndon”
     “A Man and a Woman”
     “The Conformist”
     “8 1/2″…
     “The Searchers”
     “Children of Paradise”
     …the list goes on. Sure, I know that many of these films are your basic Top Ten favorites, but believe me, they are just as rewarding now as the day they were made.
     Again, the film may be great from the get go, but it’s what you bring to it, at different points in your life (whether a few months, or a few decades later) that has an impact.
     Incidentally, “Bonnie and Clyde” took me to a bunch of Godard I had never seen which steered me to the movies of Melville for the first time ever. I can’t wait to see these movies again in another ten years or so.

     Again, I love your comments. I agree with almost everything you have shared. Take care.

157. Zach Heltzel March 12th, 2009 at 7:09 pm 157

     That’s an insufferably terrible list.

158. billybil March 12th, 2009 at 8:12 pm 158

     Oh Ben and Tim, I do very much appreciate your input (and, of course, your very kind words). I LOVE that the three of us, and others on this site, can discuss these cinematic experiences with perception, passion and sincere attempts at honesty.

     Tim H – I totally DO get the fact that where we are at any given moment in our lives will influence our ability to experience art and that, of course, a person’s ability to fully appreciate art is hugely influenced by the extent of their previous exposure to art. I am so glad that you are rediscovering cherished films and finding new wonders. You inspire me to attempt the same.

     And not to sound too sappy, but I find it wonderful that the 3 of us (and others) are willing to explore these issues like this and, hopefully, expand our appreciation for the vast variety of possible responses amongst us.

     Ben, I think we all owe you a great deal for the level of sharing that has taken place during this thread. Your willingness to be so thorough and respectful in your responses to people on this site established the tone and parameters for such open and heartfelt communication. Thank you so very much for that. In my opinion that was an even greater contribution to all of us then was your remarkable accomplishment in viewing so many movies and your informed and thoughtful sharing of your insights regarding those viewings.

     I am now looking forward to exploring the issue of “now” vs. “revisiting” movies more than ever and this is particularly due to you, Tim H. I am very grateful for your clarity and personal sharing on this issue. And Ben, after reading your beautiful recounting of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, I know the movie can’t help but resonate for me in more personal ways than it did before. That, my friends, is the magic of words and the gift given to others by those who are willing to share their sincere perspectives. And that, my friends, reflects the higher end of what is possible within online blogs.

159. john stevenson March 12th, 2009 at 9:28 pm 159

     BEN: No, you are not so lucky, and yes I am pretty wonderful, but no, I’m not stupid. I just have a different taste palette from yourself. And looking at the post which brought your rudeness out in spades, I can’t exactly see what was so horribly rude about it. Other than committing the heinous act of saying that I quite liked THE ALAMO, SCENT OF A WOMAN, FATAL ATTRACTION, THE TOWERING INFERNO, and CRASH.

     If you post a list to be discussed, then that is what will happen. Someone is going to like the movies you list at the bottom. Call them stupid for supporting those movies and you just look stupid yourself. Aim a little higher, please.

     As for my comment about the “populist taste gland”, I don’t think that’s a huge revelation that cineastes tend not to like the TITANICS, the GUMPs, the GHOSTs, the ROCKYs and the DANCES WITH WOLVES. As I quite love all of these, I will be quick to sing their praises, even if it flies in the face of cineastic taste.

     In defense of each of these:
     JFK–Does it really matter whether Oliver Stone is nuts or not? A combination of passion and technical expertise like this is rarely seen.
     SCENT OF A WOMAN–One of those movies that is popular to bash amongst Oscar circles. My guess at the reason is that over-the-top is often misconstrued for bad. Yet this film contains a terrifically entertaining central character who is intermittently scary, funny, pathetic, mystifying, and sad. The words are great, the scenes are great (the Ferrari, the tango, the suicide attempt). It’s got a crowd-pleasing ending which seems to be a crime these days. Al may have been in greater films, but what other movie gives him a chance to do his thing quite like this?
     FATAL ATTRACTION–Occasionally, there is a combination of cast, director, and material that rise to be more than the sum of its parts, and this is such a case. The story is simple yet plausible (OK, up until the final act), the hero behaves not in the manner that a hero should but in the manner that sadly many of us might, the director finally has the story that is perfectly suited to his style of filmmaking. Yet it is the villain who resonates most strongly in this one. Perhaps as much as the hero’s story is a cautionary tale about infidelity, so is the villain’s arc a warning against the dangers of loss of control. And as for the ending, it is an American story; the original ending which apparently played quite well in Japan would have fallen flat here in the States. We want justice and retribution and a big closing number; the movie wouldn’t have worked without it.
     THE TOWERING INFERNO–One can’t defend this. If you like big disaster movies, this is the mother of them all. If you don’t, LENNY and THE CONVERSATION were good movies that year. For me personally, this was Steve McQueen’s best. BULLITT was a great car chase, but little else. GREAT ESCAPE and MAGNIFICENT 7 were terrific, but somehow he seems like a contemporary guy to me. THE SAND PEBBLES was that respectable my-only-Oscar-nomination movie which many movie stars get but rarely seems to have them at their essence. Maybe it’s just me, but a 120-foot fire just seemed like the perfect foil for the king of Cool.
     CRASH–Once upon a time, evil Whitey was the holder of all racism. It’s a multicultural world now, and everyone’s playing along. Racism is simply human nature, part of us all, sometimes egregious, sometimes subtle. The racist is not a two-dimensional villain, and the person who experiences prejudice from one source may unthinkingly express it in other directions. “Message” movies have never been popular with cineastes; the films of Stanley Kramer are not exactly beloved by Oscar enthusiastes. The presence of the message obscures the presence of quality filmmaking somehow. In all my years of watching movies, there are a few films which stand out in their ability to affect an audience… STAR WARS, TITANIC, BRIAN’S SONG, PHILADELPHIA, DIE HARD… CRASH is one of these: the scene where Matt Dillon pulls over the couple, the scene where he rescues the woman from the crash, the scene with the gun and the child. When a movie works an audience like those scenes did, it seems blind to discount the film altogether.
     Great cast, great writing, great editing.
     And led to one of the funniest Oscar-nominated song performances ever!
     THE ALAMO–Terrific, riproaring Western that was obviously a labor of love for its star. Big Hollywood historical epics of that era have an insane scale that is just totally unlike todays CGI epics. SPARTACUS, BEN-HUR, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and this are the best and I love ‘em all.

160. Michelle March 12th, 2009 at 11:09 pm 160

     What a thread! This is the most intelligent discussion I have seen about film in a long time. Kudos to Ben, not just for his lists (which are terrific, go Brokeback #3!), but for initiating these discussions, and to those like Billybil and others who participated in them in an intelligent way. Great reading.

161. Tim Chandler March 13th, 2009 at 12:33 am 161

     This is a tremendous project to have undertaken, and many kudos to you sir for having done it!

     All I have time to comment is: there are a lot of people on this site who love a movie for its artistic merit, and slam others for disliking those films, because they feel that if a film has artistic merit that somehow, an opinion against simply must be wrong. They place artistic merit above anything else in these arguments, and I just think that putting the sensory experience of what your body tells you about a film second is appaling.

     Sure, when I watched Wall-E, I could see how influential, how beautiful, how awesome it was. Anyone with a notion of cinema’s history should be able to see the film’s merits. Those merits can’t be arguwed against. But, if someone saw those same things, but tells me “I just didn’t care for it, it didn’t work for me and I was bored” I don’t see how they are wrong. If they know their history, but still weren’t moved by the film, how can I honestly tell them they are wrong? It’s a guttural thing!

     That’s what makes lists like this one cause such reactions among us cineastes; there are lots of films placed in unorthodox rankings because Ben followed his gut, and that’s exactly what one *should* do! Those of you posting that “since movix x is ranked so low, this list is shit” really get to get emotional with your films. Yes, merit is good. Yes, artistry is important, and influence on future filmmakers, etc. But nothing should ever be placed above what your mind tells you when you watch a film! If Ben sees Brokeback as a #3 movie, that’s how much the film moved him.

     Now, the trouble is in trying to be the defender of the list. As some have pointed out, one film is lowered due to schmaltz, but another equally schmaltzy film is rated high, etc. For each reason given as to why film x is rated high, that same factor can be found in a film ranked low (a problem when a list has so many hundreds of films on it!). And it is dangerous to make alist based first and foremost on your personal reactions and feelings, but then try to defend based on merit, because no matter how hard you try, combining the arguments can ring false. I fear that sometimes, merit is used to bolster a love, and somewhat suppressed to bolster a hate.

     Either way, an awesome list, an awesome read, and mostly awesome responses. what a way to kill time until the Oscars come around again!

     Thanks,
     Tim

162. Stefan March 13th, 2009 at 7:12 am 162

     BEN: My full respect. I am impressed not only by your list, but also by the substance of your replies and the detailedness of your analysis. I share some of your comments, but I also strongly disagree with some others. I would be interested on your comments on the following:

     1) What is your reason for classifying FATAL ATTRACTION as you did?

     2) Why do you believe DRIVING MISS DAISY being superior to BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (apart from the latter being directed by Oliver Stone… )?

     3) Although I agree that 1994 was an excellent year of moviemaking, I am somehow surprised that you rank QUIZ SHOW on #68, what I would consider a rather mediocre movie and much worse than Forrest Gump (which would not have been my favourite of this year either).

     4) Can, please, anyone tell me what THE WIZARD OF OZ makes so particular? Honestly, I have no idea….

     5) I am also surprised about you high appreciation for A PLACE IN THE SUN over A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE? Why is that? Acting cannot be the decisive item, can it?

     6) On your alternative list of 2000, I am surprised to find SUNSHINE, which was, according to my opinion, a rather trivial movie.

     7) I am still waiting for a convincing argument that GLADIATOR is deemed as sub-average Best Movie picture. According to my honest opinion it is one of the best epics ever filmed. I would be happy to deliver more arguments on that.

     My rather provocative statement is that the hight acclaim of FIELD OF DREAMS is directly linked to the love for baseball. Since I am not a baseball fan (I am in good company with most Europeans), I regard FIELD OF DREAMS as being far from Oscar material. Your opinion?

     9) I appreciate ranking THE PIANIST on #4. I also tend to believe that THE PIANIST is the better movie in comparison to SCHINDLERS LIST. Nevertheless: only #69? Behind CHARIOTS OF FIRE? Behind BROADCAST NEWS? And even behind THE SOUND OF MUSIC? 3 Movies I never understood why they were nominated as Best Picture?

     I would be happy about a few comments from you.

     Best regards

     Stefan

163. Stefan March 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am 163

     Sorry for bothering again, but I get carried away…..

     I admit that I am not the biggest Martin Scorsese fan, but I respect his work and he was overdue for his Oscar in 2007. However, I personally must say that I truly loved Departed. I found the plot and the dialogue working extremely well and Leonardo and Matt performing very convincing and very effective. The editing was great, overall, a very intelligent and well-done movie. I have greater problems with GOODFELLAS. Sorry for being blunt, but Joe Pesci was more a caricature than a character. The story was boring, the timing slow, and, worst of all, I could not develop the slightest interest in the characters. Perhaps I have to watch the movie again, but the decision for DANCES WITH WOLVES against GOODFELLAS has all my sympathy.

     I won’t carry on with JFK, because everything is said and I disagree. I would just like to drop some words regarding JAWS. Richard Dreyfus was the wrong actor in the right role, agreed. Re Robert Shaw: Not the actor was the cartoon, but the role. And Robert Shaw delivered this role in excellence. He made a 2D-role 3D. Yes, I was moved by his monologue. And the shark may have been a recognizable dummy. But the camera perspective made it forgettable, as you couldn’t see the shark for most of the time. And it worked. The feeling of uncertainty when swimming in open water, I got it when I watched JAWS 20 years ago for the first time… Many memorable moments in a 2 hour movie, more than other directors create in their lifetime.

164. Ben March 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm 164

     SOMEONE: Love your Best Picture lists!! Great calls especially on Ratatouille, Zodiac, Borat, The Others and Quills, which I didn’t even think of. But you’ve gotta see Almost Famous, it captured my sense of my youth better than any film I’ve ever seen and is in my all-time top 100. I thought Kate Hudson was gonna because a top actress after it, I was pretty wrong with that one! Frances McDormand should have won supporting. Its just a wonderful script with a very beautiful feel that matches the music, from Simon & Garfunkel’s America to Elton John’s Tiny Dancer, in that incredible bus scene. Thanks again for all your postings and great lists!
     MICHELLE: Thank you for reading and for the kind words!
     TIMH: I echo your comments re: BillyBil, he is passionate, smart, and I am enjoying learning from what he has to say. I feel the same about what you have to say, and agree with you on second viewings (and much else), I think you said it beautifully, far better than I tried to in an earlier post. As for some of your specifics, second viewings for 8 ½, Barry Lyndon and The Conformist are absolute musts, they get richer each time. But I want to focus on Children of Paradise, one of my top 10 movies of all time. Children blew me away the first time I saw it. It was one of those experiences I didn’t think could be repeated, and I never thought I’d watch it again, the memories were vivid, and I didn’t want them tainted, as sometimes second viewings can diminish the experience (as you know). Finally, I had to, because it was the only way I could get a friend to watch it, I had to go again. I found myself both remembering almost every scene of the film, but I simultaneously found myself watching an entirely different film. I couldn’t understand why, until I realized it was because I was 20+ years older, my perspective changed, and I could appreciate it in a different way. And then I realized, it wasn’t just being older (and wiser?), but it was because my smart-alecky self just didn’t fully understand the film the first time, even though I was sure I did. There are so many nuances and tangents that ultimately enhance the main romance that I realized, of course, how could I possibly have seen it all just once, Marcel Carne has given us so much to see. This was about 5 years ago, I haven’t watched it again since, but I know it will be better the eventual third time. The one thing I did do, however, is tape that last 7 or 8 minutes, which I have probably watched about 20 times since. I like listing things, I always have, and Children of Paradise ranks as my #2 or #3 ending of all-time (#1 City Lights; its competitor for #2 Sunset Boulevard; others in top 5 are Cinema Paradiso and Casablanca, then Grand Illusion, etc.). The last thing I’ll say on the topic is, to those who are not familiar with Grand Illusion, my all-time #1 (and Orson Welles and Woody Allen’s and many many others) is watch it – but twice. At least. Thanks again TimH.
     TIM CHANDLER: I very much appreciate your posting and your defense. I agree with every word, and think you said it beautifully. I hope, that from my numerous long-winded postings, that I am not just giving you lip service, but that I truly feel that everyone else’s personal opinions are just as valid as mine, there is no right or wrong to what we like or dislike (too bad so many others on this forum thing their opinions are so much better though). And when I say I agree, that includes your paragraph on the trouble with lists like mine: absolutely right. In my own judgment and rankings, I try to “enforce” a minimum standard of artistic merit. I howled at much of There’s Something About Mary, it’s a personal guilty pleasure comedy, but I can’t list it for 1998 because much of it’s a mess. On the other hand, while I appreciate the brilliant cinematography and editing of JFK, I cannot forgive the film’s dishonesty and rank it at the bottom. To me, that film’s artistic merit means nothing because honesty in filmmaking trumps it. I knew full well going into this endeavor that I am a minority opinion on JFK and that most disagree (including cineastes), but that’s my prerogative, because I bring my own subjectivity to my list. And I knew that Brokeback at #3 would bring great approval from some but strong criticism from others, the accusations of sour grapes at the Oscars would fly and they did…and I freely admit I do have sour grapes at the Oscars. But that’s not why I ranked it #3. As someone who knows a lot about movies, I know that its artistic excellence meet the threshold to put it in the top group. The other guy who posted his ranking of all the 470+ Best Picture nominees ranked Brokeback #40 or #41, which is also a pretty darn good ranking, but he didn’t get the flack because the top 10 or 20 are fairly sacred, and I ranked the Godfathers lower (horrors!). But like you said, it moved me, and it moved many, so I don’t apologize, as its certainly in the upper echelon of well-made films (even Crash supporter Oprah said so!…oh man I can’t believe I’m quoting Oprah, I must be desperate). But like you said, once you operate on a certain level, it becomes subjective, its guttural.
     As for the schmaltz factor, well, I will defend it by saying that sometimes schmaltz is appropriate for the story, and sometimes its just…schmaltz. I don’t think schmaltz is appropriate for a holocaust film like Schindler’s List, that’s what Spielberg brought to parts of it, and that’s why I didn’t rank it in my top 50 or as my #1 of 1993 (before some attack me – assuming anybody is still reading after 165 posts on this thread! – look at where I ranked it, I still liked it, for goodness sake…unlike a vocal group of Holocaust survivors who didn’t, in no small part on account of schmaltz). On the other hand, a goopy romance like The Notebook – yes, in my top 5 English-language films of 2004, and probably in my top 10 overall for 2004) – calls for schmaltz, because it is an unabashed, old fashioned romance. That is its world. Like it or don’t like it, fine, but I was transported and happened to like it. It felt honest. Sure some of the plot stretched things a bit, but that’s the genre. The acting was uniformly superb, and the while the filmmaking wasn’t absolute top tier, it was certainly second tier. And some of those images, like the swans, were just beautiful. Of course I realize others disagree, fine, but its not like I’m saying Porky’s III deserves consideration as “best”, I’m talking about an A-list film that hit a nerve for my personal sensibilities. On the other hand, I admit that I liked Beaches too, but I could never rank it in the top 10 or 20 of 1988, because the film was a mess with little artistry by the filmmakers themselves, it offended my visual sense, so in my judgment, as a film experience, it was diminished. But I liked it anyway, what can I say? Anyhow, I hope I’m not coming off as too defensive, I don’t mean to be, because I ultimately I agree with you, there are inconsistencies that one can never explain, because those inconstancies lie in the human heart…how’s that for schmaltz?? Thanks again for your wise observations.
     STEFAN: Thanks for your kind words, and for both of your great posts, you are no bother!! So:
     FATAL ATTRACTION: The most talked about film of 1987, and a cultural zeitgeist. Also a sexist preposterous abomination (lol, though I mean it, in my eyes only of course). This is an Oscar film, with boiling the rabbit and way-way-over-the-top crazy-nut FEMALE Glenn Close coming back from the dead after being drowned with a knife? And that rollercoaster scene, yikes. When somebody adequately explains to me why this was movie was better as a movie than Friday the 13th Part 5, as a piece of cinema, then maybe I’ll move it one notch higher (over Crash, lol). Yes, I understand, it hit a nerve for many, but most crazy people aren’t shrill screaming psychopaths like Glenn Close. And when they are, they are in Psycho. But the difference is, Glenn Close was supposed to be that everyday woman seemingly nuts but quietly crazy. She was way further over the cuckoo’s nest than Jack from the beginning.
     DRIVING MISS DAISY vs. BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY: First, I rank Daisy pretty low too, neither had any business being nominated for Best Picture. Second, I do NOT blanketly hate Oliver Stone movies, although I admit I must seem to. I rank Platoon fairly high, and would have ranked it higher had the Berenger/Dafoe characters not been so simplistic black & white good vs. evil, I like characters with nuance. Also, Nixon was in my top 10 of 1995, and Midnight Express (Stone’s script was in my top 5 of 1978 and my choice for adapted English-language screenplay). I was also impressed by Natural Born Killers, which most hate. It just so happens that the two Stone films I couldn’t stand where embraced by the Academy (and most other precursor organizations). As for why, well, truth be told, I saw both in 1989 and don’t remember many details about Born in order to present what I would hope would be an intelligent argument. I just remember having sat there thinking I was being bashed over the head with his message, that Tom Cruise was entirely unconvincing as being anybody but Tom Cruise, and that I was extremely disappointing after the fine Platoon. As for Daisy, at which I occasionally cringed, I remember being moved at the end despite what came before, ultimately I felt their friendship, and thought it was a nice movie. Not much of an answer, sorry, but its been 20 years over two films that are not favorites. But its to the Academy’s disgrace that they chose nice safe not-particularly-cinematic Daisy over incendiary masterpiece Do the Right Thing, the film that truly dealt with race relations in the real world of 1989, as opposed to the Daisy bubble world of the past. But of course, the Academy has always been conservative, I resent how they pretend to be otherwise by choosing something like Daisy under the guise of liberalism. Its just cynical of them. Kudos to the LA Film Crix for selecing Thing as Best Picture, nobody else did.
     QUIZ SHOW: Rob Morrow was weak, but I saw no other flaws. I found the script to be a highly literate, brilliant metaphor for the end of a once innocent America, another generation Gone with the Wind. Watch it again. And kudos to the NY Film Crix for selecting it Best Picture. Of course it had no chance at the Oscars, no box office.
     A PLACE IN THE SUN over A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE? Both are superb films, and you are in the majority. I “defend” my choice, Place told its great story through images and highly original close-ups and mood lighting, while Streetcar’s story was more dependent upon its equally great story and astonishing acting. And while I love Vivien Leigh, doesn’t her performance kind of come off as a bit too stylized? Also, Streetcar has just never been my favorite play (though in my opinion, Williams’ The Glass Menagerie is one of the 3 greatest American plays and certainly the most poetic), so that’s just subjective. And while Kazan was a superb film (and especially theater) director (so they say, I wasn’t around yet!), I preferred George Stevens, as you can see by my high placement of Giant and Shane as well. To me, these are all films that screamed out for the big screen, as opposed to Streetcar, which could pass on tv. Both are in my top 100.
     SUNSHINE: I didn’t find it trivial at all. It was about a self-loathing family in search of an identity through the turbulence of 20th Century Hungary. Szabo brought great skill to a difficult script, and Ralph Fiennes was my personal Best Actor of 2008, with a nomination for Jennifer Ehle for supporting.
     GLADIATOR: You loved Gladiator, and I respect that, and I’m not going to try to talk you out of it. Unlike other films that I have torn apart, I understand why somebody might love Gladiator. And I thought the opening battle sequence was superb. It just didn’t work for me, I’ll leave it at that (but if you push me I’ll respond the next time, LOL).
     FIELD OF DREAMS: I’m a big baseball fan but that’s not why I loved it. I loved it because of the father-son relationship that unfolded, one of the most heartfelt ever filmed. The film was also a mystery, and I was taken for the ride. And I saw it with my late father, and he cried, and I cried. I’m gonna stop so I don’t cry now.
     THE PIANIST: LOVE it that you also loved The Pianist and deem it superior to Schindler. See my earlier comments on why I don’t rank Schindler that high. I’ll also add that (a) I thought Fiennes gave a great performance but his character trivialized the Nazis since the character was a crazed psychopath shooting people like targets, whereas the real nazi atrocities were often committed by very ordinary people (as shown in The Pianist), (b) the characters were not very memorable, (c) as usual, Spielberg used highly sentimental music to turn my chokes into sobs, which is why I didn’t sob, because I don’t like being manipulative, and the story sure spoke for itself, (d) etc., along those lines! CHARIOTS OF FIRE: Never should have beaten Reds, but still a smart, inspiring, rousing film, with great history, and beautifully filmed. It used images to tell its story too. Ian Holm alone in the hotel room watching his flag rise from a distance is cinema magic. And before I’m accused of being a hypocrite since the most memorable element of Chariots to most was its music, it was the WAY in which it was employed in Chariots vs. Schindler that elevated Chariots but diminished Schindler for me (a bit, I’m not trashing it as much as I seem, its pretty!…but again, Spielberg manipulates, I don’t think he deals with adults well, and I don’t think he trusts his audiences and scripts enough). BROADCAST NEWS: Brilliant script, brilliant acting. I probably ranked it too high because it didn’t need the big screen the way other films do (so in some ways it could have been a tv film), but what can I say, I thought it was so so smart. THE SOUND OF MUSIC: THE textbook example on how to open a stage play and turn it into a piece of cinema. The Alps were as important a character as any of those oh-so-perfect kids. I commented on Sound earlier, its certainly not for everyone, including Christopher Plummer (“The Sound of Mucus”), but for whatever its goopy flaws (which I don’t think are, I think they fit the story), it was beautifully filmed, edited, directed, etc.
     Stefan, I need to get back to work, I will get back to you when time permits re: your second email. THANK YOU for your terrific conversation and willingness to hear my points of view.

     BILLYBIL: I intentionally saved you for last. You could not be kinder. I took a lot of flack over my posting, much of it immature and unnecessarily unkind. YOU and some others made me feel infinitely better about it, and ultimately good that I participated. I am genuinely enriched by getting to know you a bit thru this thread, and I can’t thank you enough. I hope there is more to come.

165. Ben March 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm 165

     STEFAN:
     THE DEPARTED and GOODFELLAS: I thought the pacing and editing of Goodfellas were thrilling. One minute they are making the sauce, the next minute they are burying dead bodies. To me, the film was a rollercoaster ride from start to finish, and easily the best gangster film ever made. I grew up in an affluent neighborhood, but an unusual one, in that it had its share of old money bluebloods, but new money gangsters started flooding in when I was around twelve or so. Goodfellas (as opposed to the Godfathers) captured what these people were like. As for Pesci, I see and respect your point, it is an absolutely fair interpretation if one’s sensibilities go that way, and I have certainly accused many acclaimed performances of being carictures in my book. But for me, Pesci was riveting and brilliant. He straddled the line, but he felt frightening and real, again, I knew people like that. Well, not quite like that in terms of the extreme outbursts, but people who were boiling and bubbling under the surface, ready to explode at any minute (heck, there are some lawyers at my white shoe law firm like that too!). Yes, I can see how you might say Pesci was over the top, but remember, he was supposed to be a crazy bad guy, he was defined that way, a true Kiss of Death or Psycho-type psychopath. And, he was there for nervous comic relief as well. He encapsulated the insanity of the world that Liotta and the rest of them lived in, and I thought it worked, big-time (but it didn’t for Glenn Close, she just came off as a harsh shrill female, I felt the script and Adrian Lyne’s direction were downright misogynistic…and yes, one can have a crazy-nut female without being misogynistic, think the superb B movie to end all B movies, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?). As for The Departed, well, I saw the original, so I confess perhaps it tainted my view of Departed, because the Hong Kong version is so much better, so much better paced. I don’t know what to say re: Leonardo & Matt, I thought both were bland and forgettable and could just as easily have switched roles. I couldn’t stand Oscar nominated Marky-Mark, such a self-conscious in-your-face cutesy performance. And, as I’ve said, Jack – one of my very favorite all-time actors – had everything but the pitchfork and Hitler mustache. That movie theater scene was repugnant. The only person who engaged me in the film was Vera Farmiga, who should have been nominated for Down to the Bone, and that leads me to the worst thing about the film for me, was that I found it draggy and boring until the 15 minutes. And that’s rare for me with Scorsese, I didn’t like Gangs either, but I was never bored. But I can’t disagree with you on one important thing, the movie was very well done. It just didn’t work for me. Oh, and as for Dances with Wolves, I liked it, but I thought it should have been an hour shorter. And that Costner – who did a good job directing – should have cast somebody else in the lead, there’s a guy who just can’t act (and yet I love several of his movies, like Field and Bull Durham and No Way Out). The biggest problem with Dances is that while the canvas was beautiful and memorable, the characters and story just weren’t.
     …..
     JAWS: You are probably right about Robert Shaw because he was an excellent actor (especially in Man for All Seasons), so I was probably too harsh, thank you for pointing it out. Still, I didn’t find the performance to be 3D, despite the strong likelihood that you are correct in that he improved on the script. But it still came off as preposterous, I thought I was watching Treasure Island meets Captain Crunch (and I felt that way when I first saw it when I was 9 or 10, so this is not just the snob in me talking). As for the feeling of uncertainty, I thought Spielberg blew it. When the music didn’t play, you knew nothing was going to happen. And when it did, then maybe something was about to happen, so I woke up, but couldn’t get too excited because virtually nothing ever did, until that grotesquely fake ending. As for the memorable moments, well, again, not to me. Yeah, when I gave it a second try a few years ago I remembered the skull popping out under water, but so what, any hack director could have created that moment based on the script (I’m not calling Spielberg a hack, I’m just saying that it wasn’t particularly brilliant). I could go on, I just think its wildly overrated, at least in part because people bring their fear of sharks to the film. I love swimming in the ocean, but I don’t go out far and don’t think about it, what can I say. But I do think one thing about Jaws was memorable, John Williams’ brilliant, most original score of his career, and one of the best in cinema. But again, I felt Spielberg went to the well and cried wolf far to often throughout the film, which had the effect of numbing me, both times I saw it. I have found many other thrillers far more thrilling.
     Stefan, thanks again for corresponding with me, you are passionate and smart and obviously love movies, which is what this is about!

166. Dirk March 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm 166

     Thanks, Ben.

     I enjoyed your list and reading many of your comments.

     I similarly rank 8-All About Eve, 10-Network, and 14-To Kill a Mockingbird highly.

     Wouldn’t you agree that 99–Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’s Michelle Yeoh played a role that no other actress EVER could have played so well–with the role’s combination of athletic grace and quiet yet potent emotion (an eerie combination of physical and emotional power)? Wonderful meeting of actress and role surrounded by a magical film.

     132-Howard’s End should actually read, “132-Howards End,” without the apostrophe. Huge fan of the film and the Forster novel; it should actually just be read! The film–Emma’s devastating!

     I thought 423-Dangerous Liaisons was an entertaining hoot. The actor was good: the character was sexy and charming with his conquests hiding his truth from them; the actor though did well, revealing the smarminess and disgust and even warped love the character actually felt to the audience. Fine high-wire work with the dramatic irony.

     3-Brokeback Mountain is a special film, heartbreaking.

     Thanks, again, Ben. Good day.

167. john stevenson March 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm 167

     FATAL ATTRACTION:”…a sexist preposterous abomination”
     Because the villain is a woman? Does this make FEAR with Mark Wahlberg sexist for casting a male in the psycho lover role? Or does the fact that the movie hinges upon a very male fear (that one quickie is going to haunt you) make it sexist? While Alex Forrest is intensified for dramatic effect, surely the existence of an emotionally unbalanced lover is not unheard of in the real world? Apparently, Glenn Close didn’t think it was so bad. She said at the time that it was the best role she’d gotten so far, the first one to let her play the entire emotional spectrum (crazy roles have a way of doing that). The villain is always a choice part, wouldn’t it be more sexist to keep women out of these roles?

     “This is an Oscar film, with boiling the rabbit and way-way-over-the-top crazy-nut FEMALE Glenn Close coming back from the dead after being drowned with a knife?”
     I see you liked BLUE VELVET. Surely Frank Booth’s nitrous inhalant was as out there as the boiled bunny. Yet was the boiled bunny really so implausible? Insane obsessive behavior tends to escalate, and killing the pet is not an unheard of way to threaten. Was it just that “boiled bunny” lends itself to alliteration that it’s a problem? It certainly was memorable. As for Glenn popping up out of the bathtub… it is an American horror movie. Why should it be faulted for that?
     Over-the-top does not automatically equal bad. The assumption is that in life everyone is muted and subdued, in total control of their emotions, and lacking in panache and insanity. Also, as I think through the great movie villains, I can’t think of many that didn’t go over-the-top at some point. As one very financially successful filmmaker once said: “Nobody pays to see under-the-top.” (Of course, it was Joel Schumacher defending artistic choices on Batman and Robin, so I’ll concede this point to you.)

     “When somebody adequately explains to me why this was movie was better as a movie than Friday the 13th Part 5, as a piece of cinema, then maybe I’ll move it one notch higher (over Crash, lol).”

     OK. Friday the 13th, Part V, sets up tommy as the main character, then oddly abandons him halfway through, just bringing him back at the end for a quick scare. Fatal Attraction, on the other hand, is too interested in its two leads to let them off the screen at all.
     Friday the 13th is the sort of movie where the only entertainment, if it could be called that, is seeing what garden implement will next be rammed through what part of the human body. Also, we get the questionable thrill of seeing mentally challenged people and blonde bimbo barebreasted females eviscerated. Plus lots of breasts. FATAL ATTRACTION gives us sex and violence, but in a manner orchestrated to tell a story, not encourage God or aliens to destroy us.
     In Fatal Attraction, a woman who has been throttled underwater stands back up. It’s a good shock, and it is within the bounds of reason. I don’t remember exactly how the kids think they kill “Jason” in this one, but then they stand around like goofballs until he comes after them again, and since Jason wasn’t actually the killer in this one, there’s no reason why he should be able to do this!
     Whatever failings Adrian Lyne has as a director, nobody has ever accused his movies of not being stylish. The director of Friday the 13th part V had no redeeming aspects as a director, and absolutely no sense of style.
     FATAL ATTRACTION beats FRIDAY THE 13TH PART V in a cakewalk. Please move it up one on your list.

     Yes, I understand, it hit a nerve for many, but most crazy people aren’t shrill screaming psychopaths like Glenn Close. And when they are, they are in Psycho. But the difference is, Glenn Close was supposed to be that everyday woman seemingly nuts but quietly crazy. She was way further over the cuckoo’s nest than Jack from the beginning.

     Actually, she was pretty normal in the beginning, masking some extreme emotional problems. You’ve never met a person who seems exciting, then you gradually realize there’s something not healthy going on there? Incidentally, I know plenty of shrill screaming people who aren’t necessarily psychopathic, but definitely are unpleasant, so I don’t see why this makes her so far out of the bounds of reality. By the way, the killer in PSYCHO wasn’t shrill at all, and Jack in Cuckoo’s nest wasn’t actually crazy, so neither of these are good comparisons.

     Ultimately, it’s a seminal film and a classic. And filmwatching is all opinion anyway, so I’m not in any way marginalizing your view of the picture, just passionately stating mine. But not only would I say it deserved its nomination, it has aged quite a bit better than its fellow 1987 Best Picture nominees of MOONSTRUCK, BROADCAST NEWS, HOPE AND GLORY, and THE LAST EMPEROR.

168. billybil March 13th, 2009 at 9:21 pm 168

     Right back at you, Ben, right back at you. xo

169. SeattleMoviegoer March 13th, 2009 at 11:55 pm 169

     very interesting conversation that proves,
     as it should, that movie love is purely subjective.
     everyone is an expert.
     here is a little film directed by Bennett Miller (Capote)
     that was supposed to be part of this year’s Oscars
     but was cut for time.
     it demonstrates the power of opinions when it comes
     to movies.
     i emailed it twice to Sasha but she wouldn’t post it.
     enjoy:

     http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid10620644001?bctid=13928505001

170. Jesus Alonso March 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am 170

     I’d just say: LOL.

     I pass on comment on such list, sorry.

171. limeymcfrog March 15th, 2009 at 6:39 am 171

     Ben – Just saw “A Place in the Sun” and I have to disagree with your assessment of it. The section in the middle involving Shelly Winters and Loon lake and the investigation creeping closer and closer…. that section was wonderful, but I found the end to be rather rote and the beginning to be a bit unimaginatively filmed. So, for me it’s a movie with a great section that sort of goes off the rails. three stars on my list.

172. Ben March 15th, 2009 at 8:12 pm 172

     First, let me get the negative out of the way, briefly:
     JESUS: You condescendingly sneer that you are too good to comment, but you did by virtue of your snotty remark, moron. And to all the people who just said nasty things about even discussing such a list, then why are you on this site?? The point is to discuss Oscars; Oscars are about movies; you all give your opinions of movies, year by year, nominee by nominee. What deserved it, what didn’t deserve it, what would you vote for. If you used your brains for a minute you’d realize this is no different, just a big opinion poll on purportedly good films since they were recognized by the Academy. I’m glad you didn’t tell us your favorites, I couldn’t care less, the opinions of nasty stupid people mean nothing to me.

     Now:

     SEATTLEMOVIEGOER: Thanks for sending the link, but for some reason it doesn’t open for me. Am curious. In any event, of course what you said is true, movie love is entirely subjective, but I do believe that movie artistry contains many objective components. Films like Kane and 2001 indisputably advance the art. But again, like you said, if somebody just doesn’t like them, of course that is their prerogative, there is not right or wrong. On the other hand, if they call those bad films, well, then I’d strongly differ. Another converstion for another day perhaps. I appreciate you taking the time to comment and post the link.

     DIRK:

     Thanks for the kind words and great post. I agree re: Michelle Yeoh, a unique performance. She was one of my own best actress nominees that year, along with my winner Bjork (Dancer in the Dark), Marcia Gay Harden in Pollack (she was lead!), Kate Hudson for Almost Famous (also lead), and Laura Linney (You Can Count on Me). Most cineastes think Ellen Burstyn gave the year’s best performance in Requiem for a Dream, but I found her to be over the top, I felt her acting (especially re: her overly thick accent), she was my #6, I realize I’m in the minority. Great call re: Michelle Yeoh though.

     I’m also in the minority re: Dangerous Liasons, your opinion is by far the more accepted. We all like our own judgments, but I realize my own is often tainted when I’ve seen the Broadway show first. Alan Rickman was so charming and Malkovich – who was my personal best supporting actor of 1993 for In the Line of Fire, so I like and respect him – just ruined Dangerous for me with his not-so-charming, more leacherous take. I entered the film with a biased, perhaps I should see it again. But I doubt I’d feel differently. I just saw the play again less than a year ago, it was revived on Broadway, and once again the leads gave interpretations that made more sense to my personal aesthetic. I’m not a Glenn Close fan either, I find her to be a shrill actress, except in her debut, Garp, in which I think she was wonderful.

     Howards End: Thanks for the correction! Read the book shortly before I saw the film, probably another error. I’ve been waiting for Howards End to be on tv for years so I can revisit, but with your recommendation, I’ll netflix it soon. I vividly remember the first 30 minutes or so with Vanessa Redgrave, it was magical, but I also remember feeling the pacing slowed a bit too much. Really looking forward to seeing it again. Thanks again Dirk!

     LIMEY: I’m surprised we disagree on Place. Yeah, the beginning starts conventionally, but I thought the end was superb. Stevens retains the novel’s ambiguity while siding with Clift, with the tension building and building. Liz Taylor was terrific, she really felt for him, I think its a magnficently filmed, riveting story. Different strokes, but thanks for commenting in constructively, and glad you gave it at least three stars, which isn’t too bad!

     BILLYBIL: And to you too. Many thanks.

173. Rimski March 16th, 2009 at 1:57 am 173

     Well Ben one terrific outcome from this discussion is that I have signed up for the Australian version of netflix. Far less complete than the US service but still most of the films listed in all of these lists are available. With the unavailable films mostly from the 30s and 40s periods. Oh well. Although inexplicably The Remains of the Day is unavailable (huh???) and as usual Hannah and Her Sisters is not (it’s hard to get in oz!).

     Anyhow was going to suggest that perhaps you might like to post your top 20 all time favs. I’ll take a look at any I haven’t seen before. It will be interesting to see if our general alignment of taste – The Thin Red Line notwithstanding – continues to hold up.

174. Stefan March 16th, 2009 at 1:12 pm 174

     BEN: Interesting to see that we are colleagues. “heck, there are some lawyers at my white shoe law firm like that too!”. So true, so true…. LOL. That makes two of us working in the wrong business , but being aware that a solid financial background is necessary to cultivate one’s passion.

     Many thanks for your well-balanced and most detailed and most respectful reply. Also many thanks for your kindness, and I absolutely agree with you: loving movies is what it’s all about! Therefore, I feel invited to continue our inspiring conversation and I just wanted to share some thoughts with you and the other aficionados, whose comments were also very interesting for me. I am not an English native speaker, so please forgive me if some thoughts are not delivered to the extent that I would wish them to be.

     LA GRANDE ILLUSION: A very original and unexpected choice. I admit that I have not seen it yet, but as a consequence of this thread I just ordered the DVD. I am very curious.

     FATAL ATTRACTION: I am not so far away from John Stevenson. I believe that FATAL ATTRACTION worked very well as a thriller. The particularity was that an everyday encounter with an attractive woman triggering a moral misstep turned into a nightmare. A man is pulled into a hurricane which he cannot control due to a short moment of weakness. Zeitgeist? Perhaps, but the development of the story was executed very carefully, with the villain very slowly turning into a maniac. I am sure that you notice the difference to a natural born psychotic with a hockey mask… I found the actors all performing very well and far away from overacting. For example I particularly liked the scene where Glenn Close is visiting the apartment of the couple and is introduced by Anne Archer to Michael Douglas. Very subtle and very chilling. Well, the end… A bit too much George Romero and too less Hitchcock. The opposite would have been for the movie’s benefit. Apart from that, a movie being referred to in SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE cannot be that bad..

     In the end I believe that 1987 was not such a particularly good movie year, with the best movies not being considered for movie prizes, such as Full Metal Jacket, The Untouchables, Wall Street and Angel Heart (yes, actually).

     DRIVING MISS DAISY vs. BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY: It is a time that I saw both movies, and I should see both again. As you all know, some movies keep or extend their magic, others, well, don’t, and others are perceived entirely different. I found DRIVING MISS DAISY very boring and unimpressive, but I was drawn into BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY for its intensity. I respect your opinion about Tom Cruise, and he is one of the very few actors about which I am uncertain either to classify him as genius or as one of the worst actors of all time. I strongly dislike him in THE COLOR OF MONEY, RAIN MAN and in COCKTAIL (trash as trash can). On the other hand, seeing him in MAGNOLIA and JERRY MAGUIRE was a remarkable improvement. In BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY I was surprised about his versatility and his lack of vanity, however, it would have been interesting to see a different actor in the same role. So I think that it is fair to say that the movie works due to the direction rather than due to the actors. I agree with your opinion regarding DO THE RIGHT THING. I would also say that DO THE RIGHT THING or GLORY or DEAD POETS SOCIETY would have deserved more to win.

     GIANT and SHANE: Absolutely agreed. Although it contains my least favourite performance of James Dean. SHANE is simply beautiful.

     FIELD OF DREAMS: Hum… It is true that the father-son-relationship works. I am also very sensitive for such subjects due to personal experiences which are irrelevant in this context. However, I still think that there are more realistic and more appropriate approaches, e.g. IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER and EAST OF EDEN.

     GLADIATOR: Please feel pushed…..

     I liked the acting and the strong presences by all the main supporting actors (well, except Ralf Möller). I believe that Russell Crowe and, even more, Joaquin Phoenix did a great job, embodying ultra-hero and ultra-villain without creating caricatures. But more than that I was impressed by how the dialogues and the story were developed. Apart from the scene with Russell Crowe being captured, which was a story transition which came too quickly and was presented in a rather trivial and simple way, I found that the movie created an atmosphere which is hard to escape and dialogues which simply forced one to listen. Because the characters in GLADIATOR are WHAT they say and HOW they say it, not what the characters DO, very unusual for an action-based movie. Yes, JP kills Richard Harris, but we begin to dislike him, because he wants to sacrifice animals for his father’s victory (“Release the animals”, Harris replies). JP threatens his sister by telling her the metaphoric story of the “industrious bees”. RC is “good”, because he tells Harris the story about his wife and his farm. And so on. The story is told through dialogues without being blithering. Accompanied with a beautiful score and a great cinematography, what else would you want? Therefore, my personal #1 of 2000, ahead of CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, and ALMOST FAMOUS.

     SCHINDLER’S LIST vs. THE PIANIST: Now we are entering thin ice…. First of all, I must mention that in Germany, movies about the Holocaust are perceived very differently, than in the US. Such movies are not regarded, considered and valuated as movies, but in the light if and how the movie copes with the historic background. I have not read a single review in Germany which would have dealt with the specific film language of SCHINDLER’S LIST. The movie was examined with regard to its effect on the audience, which was immense, and with regards to its moral contents. The result: unanimous praise. According to my opinion, Schindler’s List comes very close to a masterpiece… if the last 10 minutes would not have ruined the movie. Liam Neeson breaking down, crying for 5 minutes “Why didn’t I save more” is a travesty, destroying the dignified and powerful handling of the subject. No I did no take offense by the score, I found Ralph Fiennes immensely convincing in his portrayal, and I still regard SCHINDLER’S LIST as one of the best 25 movies of all time. But the last scene utilized a club for a cheap effect. And the same happened at the end of “Saving Private Ryan”. Almost identical shots. Unnecessary climax of dismay, where, in both movies, a more subtle and quieter ending would have been much more appropriate.

     CHARIOTS OF FIRE/GOODFELLAS/BROADCAST NEWS/THE SOUND OF MUSIC: Well, I am willing to give them all a new chance. But my first impressions were less than convinced.

     BRAVEHEART: I strongly disliked the torture scene. I loved the movie. Not Gibson’s strongest work, I also prefer APOCALYPTO, but I loved the passion and the desperation of the plot line. And I found Patrick McGoohan brilliant. And the way he controlled each scene he was in with his eyes. Very moving, very convincing. History, well… If I want an accurate historical description of the past, I watch THE PASSION… Ah, well…

175. Stefan March 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm 175

     Now interested in my Top 5? I want to restrict that to up to the last 20 years, because I have simply not seen enough movies in the years before to give a qualified judgment, and I want to exclude 2008, because I still try to catch up by DVD. Sorry, my job…

     2007: INTO THE WILD, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, SWEENEY TODD, LARS AND THE REAL GIRL, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (and I will defend Persepolis against Ratatouille to death)
     2006: CHILDREN OF MEN, THE DEPARTED, BLOOD DIAMOND, PAN’S LABYRINTH, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND
     2005: THE CONSTANT GARDENER, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, KING KONG, MUNICH, CRASH
     2004: HOTEL RWANDA, SIDEWAYS, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, THE INCREDIBLES, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
     2003: MYSTIC RIVER, LOVE ACTUALLY, MASTER AND COMMANDER, LOTR-ROTK, LAST SAMURAI
     2002: THE PIANIST, MINORITY REPORT, GANGS OF NEW YORK, ADAPTATION, IRREVERSIBLE
     2001: MOULIN ROUGE; LOTR-FOTR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, MEMENTO, MULHOLLAND DRIVE
     2000: GLADIATOR, CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, ALMOST FAMOUS, QUILLS, TRAFFIC
     1999: THE SIXTH SENSE, THE GREEN MILE, FIGHT CLUB, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, SLEEPY HOLLOW (and I mean it!)
     1998: LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, THE BIG LEBOWSKI, AMERICAN HISTORY X, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
     1997: L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, TITANIC, BOOGIE NIGHTS, THE FULL MONTY, MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING
     1996: LONE STAR, THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT, FARGO, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, TRAINSPOTTING
     1995: BRAVEHEART, HEAT, TWELVE MONKEYS, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, APOLLO 13
     1994: THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, PULP FICTION, FORREST GUMP, ED WOOD, THE LION KING
     1993: SCHINDLER’S LIST (still!), IN THE LINE OF FIRE, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, GROUNDHOG DAY, PHILADELPHIA
     1992 (The worst year in movie history): THE PLAYER, TOYS, ALADDIN, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, BASIC INSTINCT (again, I mean it!)
     1991: THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, JFK, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, CAPE FEAR, THE FISHER KING
     1990: DANCES WITH WOLVES, CYRANO DE BERGERAC, PRETTY WOMAN, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, THE GODFATHER PART III
     1989: DO THE RIGHT THING, DEAD POETS’ SOCIETY, CINEMA PARADISO, GLORY, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
     1988: A FISH CALLED WANDA, MISSISSIPPI BURNING, GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES, DANGEROUS LIAISONS, GORILLAS IN THE MIST
     1987: FULL METAL JACKET, THE UNTOUCHABLES, ANGEL HEART, THE EMPIRE OF THE SUN, THE LAST EMPEROR

176. Nick K. March 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm 176

     I’m sorry Stefan, but any list with ‘Love Actually’ for BP loses any credibility with me. I like the movie, but Best Picture? Come on now.

     Though I do agree that Persepolis was better than Ratatouille.

177. Ben March 16th, 2009 at 2:37 pm 177

     STEFAN: Wow wow wow. I don’t even know where to begin, and since I don’t have sufficient time right now, I won’t, except to say love your passionate responses and challenges and love your lists. Will reply in the next couple of days as soon as I can, please bare with me. Also, thank you for being such a gentleman. And your English is letter perfect. One quick thing though, please know that my lists are based on Academy “radar”: I only included foreign-language films if the Academy nominated them for Picture, Director or Screenplay. For example, Grave of the Fireflies is my favorite of 1986 (you have 1988; not sure which is right, different sites say different things), but I don’t include it because I didn’t deem it “eligible”, since without those nominations, most Academy members likely never heard of it (at the time). More later, thanks again.

     RIMSKI: Netflix is a good thing. I resisted for a couple of years, but now I’m glad I have it. About to put it on hold with the warm weather finally approaching NYC, but winter approaches Australia, right? Anyhow, you asked me for my all-time top 20, I’ll give you my 50, in approximate order.

     1. Grand Illusion
     2. The Passion of Joan of Arc
     3. Citizen Kane
     4. Brokeback Mountain
     5. The Pianist
     6. City Lights
     7. Children of Paradise
     8. Gone with the Wind
     9. 2001: A Space Odyssey
     10. The Wizard of Oz
     11. Rashomon
     12. Tokyo Story
     13. Andrei Rublev
     14. Au Hasard, Balthazar
     15. The Battleship Potemkin
     16. Napoleon (Gance)
     17. A Man Escaped
     18. The Bicycle Thief
     19. La Strada
     20. M
     21. Make Way for Tomorrow
     23. Sunset Boulevard
     24. All About Eve
     25. Wild Strawberries
     26. Ikiru
     27. The Grapes of Wrath
     28. Notorious
     29. Network
     30. Raging Bull
     31. Intolerance
     32. Wuthering Heights
     33. Lawrence of Arabia
     34. To Kill a Mockingbird
     35. Some Like It Hot
     36. City of God
     37. Greed
     38. The Night of the Hunter
     39. The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek
     40. The Searchers
     41. Sunrise
     42. Vertigo
     43. The Third Man
     44. The Crowd
     45. Spring Summer Fall Winter…Spring
     46. Paths of Glory
     47. Breathless
     48. Ballad of a Soldier
     49. Underworld (Von Sternberg)
     50. Jules and Jim
     Runners-up (interchangeable with others): The Earrings of Madame de, Pather Panchali, Our Hospitality (Keaton), Diary of a Lost Girl, Raise the Red Lantern

178. GFH March 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm 178

     Better do this when the Academy completes 100 years of existence. And yes, there are tons of laughable positions in this list… I agree with a few tidbits, but mostly it wasn’t half-useful to me.

     I have a “from Best to Worst” list of the BP nominees in this decade only. But I prefer to keep it to myself.

179. Stefan March 17th, 2009 at 4:31 am 179

     NICK K.: Well, personal taste and credibility are not necessarily two terms which are inseparably connected. I stand by my opinion, praising LOVE ACTUALLY rather than defending it.

     According to my opinion, the film undertakes the efforts to juggle with about 10 different balls. Several films do. But rarely, another film succeeds to the same extent. All different stories are so different in their premise and their starting position, however, all of them (or most of them, I could have done without the UK teenager coming to the US) compliment each other finely. All stories have just one subject in common: love. And all stories vary this subject inventively, very differently, but to the greatest effect and resulting in a lovely mixture. The transitions were all performed very smoothly, and I liked the way, how all story lines proceeded parallely, without one story getting lost (or one ball being dropped, if you prefer that comparison). The script contains humourous and tragic elements, is not afraid of denying some characters a happy-end, and takes them all seriously. And I found most of the stories particularly moving. In addition, the movie contains (according to my opinion) more memorable scenes than most of the other movies in 2003. Keira Knightley watching her wedding video (pure magic); Emma Thompson opening her christmas present (what a performance, emphasized by Toni Mitchell’s “I’ve looked at love from both sides”); the school performance; Hugh Grant knocking on every door; the first and the final airport clips; the final scene in the bar in Portugal (schmaltz? yes! but who cares?). I could name several more. After all a close-to-perfect composition. Not the best movie in 2003, but among the top 5, yes. And, to my opinion, better than several other highly acclaimed 2003-pictures, sorry LOST IN TRANSLATION and COLD MOUNTAIN.

180. limeymcfrog March 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm 180

     Love to see Night of the Hunter and Rashomon on someone else’s list.

181. Ben March 17th, 2009 at 1:11 pm 181

     STEFAN:
     Hey. I am realizing that I probably just won’t have time this week to properly respond to your well-reasoned points of view, my sincere apologies. With the time I have, I will focus instead on your lists. Before I do, a relatively brief responses: (a) Grand Illusion really isn’t an original choice at all, many have declared it the greatest film of all time (including Orson Welles), it is rarely out of the top 30 in world’s greatest films rankings (by organizations like Sight & Sound and their ilk), it used to rank even higher (top 10, even #1); (b) I skipped John Stevenson’s postings because he was rude, so I can’t comment; but even based on your arguments, to me, Fatal Attraction was a grade D thriller; Glenn Close popping up with the knife after being drowned was what I expect from Wes Craven, not the Academy; and yeah, I know she didn’t start out with a “hockey mask”, but the way she played it, we saw it coming a mile away; and you said it beautifully, too much George Romero, not enuf Hitchcock; reasonable minds differ…I’m sure I would forgive it more if it wasn’t an Oscar movie (by the way, love Sleepless, Meg is a friend and client!); (c) Tom Cruise ain’t no genius, that’s a fact!; Jerry Maguire is his finest hour, he should do more light comedies; (d) love the fantasy approach of Field, felt it was appropriate for the story it told; agree re: In the Name of the Father, great film until the last quarter, the Emma Thompson court room stuff diminished it for me (not Emma’s fault); agree re: East of Eden, Globe winner, not even Oscar nominated; (e) Gladiator: wish I had the time to debate, you make all good points. I had problems with the dialogue, felt it was over-wrought, and felt the story went on way too long, and the ending was mush; fine production values like you said, but I just wasn’t into it, would be willing to see it again, didn’t think it was bad, just not that good; (f) Schindler: watch “Fateless”, and especially the DVD extras, in which the Nobel prize winning author/screenwriter explains far better than I ever could why he disliked Schindler; Fateless is an excellent film too; obviously by its high rank I liked Schindler too, but was not blown away by it, it was more about the canvas than the people from my perspective. On the other hand, The Pianist was about more than the Holocaust, it was about what it means to want to live, to just be human; I’ve never been more blown away. And people were people in the Pianist, even the Nazis were mainly faceless, ordinary people doing terrible things, which is much more powerful than portraying everyone as psychopathic monsters (via the Fiennes character). The Nazis who pushed the man in the wheelchair out the window were shadowed; terrible acts, we don’t know the people behind them. We actually only know one nazi, Thomas Kretschmann (sp?), and while he too is about to perpetrate an atrocity on Brody – and no doubt he has done so to many others – we learn that he is actually human, which I think is crucial in remotely attempting to understand something as overwhelming, word-defying awful as the Holocaust, and genocide in general. Agreed re: Schindler & Ryan, Spielberg just can’t help himself; (g) Braveheart: truly disliked the entire movie from start to finish, and HATED the Passion more than any film I have ever seen. I’ll leave it at that!
     Your Top 5:
     Just wasn’t moved by Into the Wild, realizing many were. Emile Hirsch didn’t connect to me. Didn’t deem Pan’s Labyrinth eligible for my top 5 on this thread since it wasn’t up for director or screenplay, but it was in my top 5 of 2006; loved Last King of Scotland, it just missed my list; loved The Incredibles, though it eventually felt a bit long to me; many love Love Actually; I wasn’t among those that did, but you shouldn’t have to defend yourself to snide NICK K, but you articulate your admiration for the film superbly; Last Samurai: couldn’t stand it because I didn’t buy Tom Cruise in the role for a second; had the lead been better cast it might have been excellent, superb production values, story, etc.; LOVE that you have The Pianist as #1 of 2002; Irreversible not eligible by my “rules” for the thread but that 10 minute rape scene made me ill, which it was supposed to, but still ruined the film for me; I think we have the same 5 movies for 2001, love that; like your choice of Quills; saw Geoffrey Rush in the Broadway revival of Exit the King the other night, what an actor (Susan Sarandon co-stars); Sleepy Hollow was a magnificently photographed film and was a lot of fun, not a personal fave, but I totally see it; THE BIG LEBOWSKI is a great choice, as you know, it has become a huge cult favorite; same with American History X; Rupert Everett should have been nominated for supporting actor for My Best Friend’s Wedding, seeing him next week in the Broadway revival of Blithe Spirit with Angela Lansbury, always liked him, especially in Harold Pinter’s Comfort of Strangers (Helen Mirren & Christopher Walken were great); do I have Lone Star in my top 5 of 1996? I think so, it was superb; have you seen Breaking the Waves? If not, you should!; I forgot about Groundhog Day for 1993, I have revised my list to make it my #4 or #5, my bad; not a fan of Philadelphia, didn’t ring true, hated the voiceovers; I hated Cape Fear, that too wasn’t much better than Friday the 13th to me; liked the original; liked Cyrano a lot, again, not on the Academy’s Best Picture radar so didn’t include; same re: Cinema Paradiso, love it, top 5 endings ever, in my top 3 of 1989; in this week’s EW, Julia Roberts just called Pretty Woman a bad movie, she’s right, lol; Empire of the Sun had great sections but also very overwrought manipulative sections, typical of Spielberg, e.g., I remember squirming back 1987 when Christian Bale re-entered the barracks and everyone saluted him as the John Williams music blasted, that music just shouldn’t have been there and ruined the moment; Spielberg doesn’t trust his stories and actors to convey the power necessary for his audience to feel, he feels compelled to lay it on thick, which I can’t stand.
     What a run-on, my apologies, I’m racing since time is limited and I’m at work. Separate paragraph for 1992, we disagree. I thought 1992 was a bad year for great movies (none, with The Player coming closest), but a very good year for good and very good movies: the underrated funny and moving A League of Their Own; the melodramatic but still powerful Lorenzo’s Oil; like you said, Aladdin and Glengarry and Basic Instinct (a thriller that respected its audience’s intelligence much more than Fatal Attraction); the nicely paced, lyrical A River Runs Through It; the highly literate, brilliantly acted Howard’s End; Eastwood’s slow but ultimately powerful Unforgiven, with its quietly told anti-violence message and great editing and acting (and that line, “it’s a helluva thing killing a man, you take away all he’s had or ever will have”…strong stuff, and very true beyond the obvious); Woody’s razor-sharp Husbands and Wives, with the great Judy Davis unbelievably denied an Oscar; the well-acted, interesting Passion Fish; the fun Sister Act (it wasn’t “Best Picture” material but it was a hoot, I thought); Downey’s brilliant turn as Chaplin (a movie in serious need of editing, but worth it for Downey); Spike Lee’s uneven but strong and fascinating Malcolm X, just as good as this year’s Milk as a biopic in terms of conveying the sense of an era (and better in conveying the subject’s personal life); and Last of the Mohicans, in which the great Daniel Day-Lewis was miscast, but had one of the best scores I’ve ever heard, and a riveting final half hour that made up for the rest. The nominations of A Few Good Men and especially Scent of a Woman were abominations, there were other choices. I’ve never seen Toys, but now will on your recommendation.
     STEFAN, again, sorry for giving sketchy responses, and continued thanks for your lists and ideas, I am enjoying them immensely.

     GFH: I wish you kept your entire posting to yourself. What a snide comment. And who are you to decide when the right time for people to discuss their lists is? Amazing arrogance from you and a shocking number of others on this website.

182. Ben March 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm 182

     LIMEY:

     I just posted to Stefan and saw you wrote in the interim. Good to hear from you as always! As you know, Rashomon and Night of the Hunter are on many/most lists of world’s greatest movies. Night just got ranked #2 (behind Kane) at Cahiers du Cinema, an amazingly high finish that I never would have predicted, though I certainly predicted it to be in their top 100. Zero Oscar nominations, not even for Mitchum, the best performance of his career, not even for Gish, who I thought gave the best supporting actress performance of the decade. As for Rashomon, world crix and directors have had it in the top 10-20 (at worst) almost since its release, even the usually xenophobic Academy recognized it with an honorary award before the existence of the foreign-language category, good for them. Of course they subsequently missed Seven Samurai (also considered in the world top 10-20 by most/all major polls), Ikiru (the world top 50 or 100), and other Kurosawa greats like Throne of Blood, Redbeard and Hidden Fortress. Dersu Uzala won in 1975, but it is not one of his greatest works, and not in the same league with that year’s true ignored masterpiece, Mirror by Andrei Tarkovsky (zero nominations, and I know for a fact that the great 1983 Swedish entry The Sacrifice was passed over). And then, in 1980, they wisely nominated Kagemusha and Truffaut’s The Last Metro (while foolishly ignoring Berlin Alexanderplatz and Mon Oncle d’Amerique, both ineligible per the Academy’s foolish foreign-language rules), but then gave it to the good but not-in-the-same-league Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. I should have given up the Oscars years ago.

     Anyhow, thanks again for commenting, curious about your all-time favorites.

183. Stefan March 18th, 2009 at 3:11 am 183

     BEN: Many thanks for not being sketchy at all. My warmest regards to Meg, she was never better than in SLEEPLESS, and I forgive her for IN THE CUT, just for being in SLEEPLESS, surely one of my all-time favourites in the Romance Sector….

     I would love to go in greater detail, and I will later (possibly tomorrow, after my clients are satisfied), but for this time being, just let me say that I enjoy your comments and sharing your background knowledge a lot. Hopefully more of this in the future.

     Just let me say one word to TOYS: I think that from all my listed favourites, this one is the hardest to defend. When I saw it in 1992, it just felt right. I haven’t seen it since, and if I would, I cannot exclude running away screaming. But then, I loved it. Period.

     As a lawyer, I understand that you hesitate to give away your contact details, and I am also reluctant to do so, in particular as my last name is quite unique. Once I have found a way to let you know, I’ll let you know. For now, if you should come to Frankfurt/Germany, you should mention that in one of your posts.

184. Rimski March 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am 184

     Hey thanks for the top 50 list Ben – much appreciated! I have Tokyo Story scheduled amongst others. I’ll let you know here or elsewhere what I think of them.

     BTW A few great french films that are largely overlooked on this discussion, include The Piano Teacher, the trois couleurs films (in particular red), La Haine, and the great À ma soeur.

     rod (aka rimski)

185. Ben March 18th, 2009 at 3:07 pm 185

     ROD/RIMSKI: Hey. Nice to know your real first name! I’d love to give you mine but not on this thread, too many haters! Yeah, would absolutely love to see your 20 or 50 or 80 or whatever greatest. Always loves lists like that from fellow movie lovers. Also, I absolutely agree that many French (and other) films are very overlooked in this discussion. It is intentional. My hope was to show people the Academy’s poor track record by playing by their rules. I would have loved to have selected Spring Summer Fall Winter…Spring as the Best Picture of 2004 but it just wasn’t on the Academy’s radar, most likely never heard of it, and I would have been accused of elitism (among many other things). So, at the very beginning of this thread, I wrote that I would only include foreign-language films that the Academy actually nominated for Picture (7 out of 81 years, not too good!!), director or screenplay, since most best picture nominees get those nods as well. With those nods, it meant that most of the Academy had to have seen those movies, and at least they heard of them. Red is among my top 5 of 1994 because it got a director nomination. The rest of the films you have mentioned (I have seen them all and agree they are superb) just weren’t noticed by the Academy. It shows that they rarely find the very “best”, but I didn’t think it prudent to get into that here. I thought that showing that Fanny and Alexander and 8 1/2 among other all-time masterpieces were actually noticed by the directors and writers branches yet still somehow not nominated for Best Picture would make most people realize that the Oscars are not to be taken seriously as an indicator of excellence. I am very pleased that many people see that, but of course many don’t, I think they choose not to. Oh well. Continued thanks for the great correspondence.

     STEFAN: Right back at you. I very much respect for you and your opinions, and thank you for your kind words. And if you ever come to NYC, we must figure out a way for us to hook up. I wish we could exchange emails here, let’s figure out another way to do it. And I look forward to watching Toys as soon as time permits.
     >>>

     It looks like this thread is winding down…thank goodness in many ways. It has been startling to me how many empty-headed, mean-spirited people felt compelled to drop their two cents without any substance behind their assertions, and run. On the other hand, it has been wonderful to meet up with people like the two of you and many others (you know who you are if you are if reading!), from both the perspective of discussing movie opinions, and of simply corresponding with kind, intelligent people. So, if I don’t say it later (assuming there is more to respond to late), sincere thanks to each of you, it has been invigorating, and I now have a lot of movies to see thanks to each of you. I won’t be participating in this site again until at least January of next year if at all, solely to bring the Academy’s conservatism and homophobia and poor track record to people’s attention as they make their judgments on whether or not to watch (which people absolutely do, people didn’t watch this year on account of The Dark Knight snub, despite higher ratings), so to those who would like to stay in touch, let’s figure something out. Thanks!

186. Ryan Adams March 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm 186

     SeattleMoviegoer, That link to the Bennett Miller short won’t play for me. Do you have another link? I’d like to see it.

     This has been a great topic, Ben. So ripe with responses, I’ve been happy to stand back and watch you harvest what you’ve planted.

     Anybody who wants to get in touch with Ben privately but feels shy about posting an email address can contact me and I’ll relay your info so you can correspond, ok?

187. Ben March 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm 187

     RYAN:

     That is very generous of you. Of course I know you will give my email address only to the smug ones who have only negative things to say! I suspect most people are done with this thread so you probably won’t get too many requests, but again, it is kind of you, I appreciate it. Also, I am sure I’m not the only one who is curious to learn your favorite films? Has the Academy done right by you, lol? Thanks.

188. Ryan Adams March 18th, 2009 at 5:42 pm 188

     no no, Ben. Since this topic is your realm, the supplicants must apply to have their email info offered to you. Not vice versa. I’ll pass along anyone’s email who asks, and Ben can decide who’s worthy

     

     To answer your question, and extending the metaphor, I have a relationship with the Academy like Sir Thomas More had with the court of King Henry VIII. I want to be a friend, but I’m too often stunned by their heresy and abused by their betrayals.

189. Ben March 18th, 2009 at 10:12 pm 189

     LOL Ryan (for real). I agree, though I have given up on being their friend, since I have learned they are no friend of mine! Thanks again.

190. Gilbert March 20th, 2009 at 4:06 pm 190

     Ben, this is an amazing list. Of course I don’t agree with everything, nobody ever does, but obviously you know your stuff incredibly well, and I get a feel for your film sensibilities, which are intelligent and humanistic. Your Top 10 is great too, not a clunker in the bunch, all in my Top 50. I have also enjoyed reading much of the conversation among you and others, though there is so much there it is hard to read it all having just discovered this thread. Thank you for it, for the insight, for the entertainment! Oh, and like you, I do not watch the Oscars anymore after the Brokeback Mountain snub, you are right on about why it lost, right-wing political conservatism from some, cowardice from others.

191. SeattleMoviegoer March 21st, 2009 at 12:04 am 191

     ryan, ben:

     here’s the Bennett Miller Oscar film
     that didn’t make the show.
     it showcases a lot of famous faces
     giving their opinions
     (as we all love to do)
     about our favorite art form.
     it was originally on the vf.com site (vanity fair).
     enjoy!

     go to
     http://www.radicalmedia.com

     and use the menu on the left.
     choose Entertainment…
     then select Academy Awards.

192. Ben March 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm 192

     Thanks Gilbert, very kind of you.

     And thanks Seattlemoviegoer. I think the Academy made the right decision not to show the Bennett Miller short, lol.

193. Bing147 May 28th, 2009 at 1:12 am 193

     My only real complaint… I mean, I disagree with a LOT of it, there’s plenty he has in his top 100 that I think are garbage and plenty in his bottom 50 that I think are great, but my main problem is his logic for excluding the vast majority of foreign films from his top 5s that should have been nominated. Ya, the Academy may not have seen them, but I bet most of the Academy also didn’t see a lot of the small indie films he lists. Does he think the average Oscar voter saw Elephant? Its just inconsistent. Me, I’m at 358 nominees right now, still a bit over a hundred to go. I’ve seen them all back through the 80s, all but 5 in the 70s, then it gets a bit dicey… missing 14 in the 60s, 8 in the 50s, 25 in the 40s (they nominated more in many years, 70 nominees this decade), 49 in the 40s (first decade I’ve seen less than half) and I’ve only seen 2 of the nominees in the 20s.

194. Matt June 29th, 2009 at 9:40 am 194

     Ben,

     Wanted to ask about East Lynne? I’ve been looking for this (along with other 3 you haven’t seen). Would love any suggestions on where to locate this one.

     Great job on this list. Obviously disagreements with some choices, but then, I’m sure you’d disagree with parts of my version of the same list. I’m trying to do this with picture, direction and acting awards. I have all but 14 of the nominees from all the categories.

     Thanks,

     Matt