The Big Miscellaneous

There Will Be Blood

Gladiator (2000):
What’s It About?: General Maximus (Russell Crowe) cements a victory for the Roman empire, and is rewarded by being named the new emperor-to-be. But the expected emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) finds out, kills his father and Maximus’ family, and tries to kill Maximus himself. Maximus eventually finds himself a gladiator in the coliseum, where he risks his life for the entertainment of the crowd and the new emperor, Commodus, himself. With vengeance in mind, Maximus tries to win the crowd’s favor and his own freedom, and kill the emperor above all.
How Good Is It?: It is in fact great film-making, but I was not all that into it. Phoenix and Crowe turn in swell performances, the effects are really good and the action is pretty impressive. So what prevented me from loving it? Just Braveheart five years previous, and most sword-and-sandals epics. It doesn’t have anything new to add, really, so even though its perfectly proficient, it’s essentially meaningless and forgettable.
Was it Best Picture?: Nah. Again, we already gave the Oscar to Braveheart in 1995, so awarding this is like overkill. My personal choice was and still is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which remains an elegant masterpiece, and unlike just about anything I’ve ever seen. True to form, Crouching Tiger is also still well-regarded, whereas Gladiator doesn’t seem to ever come up. The Oscars have a rich and interesting history, but Gladiator just kind of sits there in the film canon, taking up space.

Father Knows Best

American Beauty (1999):
What’s It About?: Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is in a loveless marriage with Caroline (Annette Bening), and at odds with his daughter Janie (Thora Birch). His new neighbor (Chris Cooper) is ever watchful of his son (Wes Bentley), who in turn falls for Janie. But when Les falls in love (or lust) with Janie’s best friend Angela (Mena Suvari), he has a mid-life crisis, throws caution to the wind, and sets himself up on a path to his imminent death.
How Good Is It?: The suburban rut never looked so good. With huge gobs of fascinating scenes, vastly impressive acting and gorgeous scene composition, American Beauty is one of the most appreciated of recent winners, in that it touches all types of people with a universal theme of isolation. The screenplay may lack a wee bit when it comes to certain things (character names, hackneyed scenarios), but it’s so creative, funny, true and sad that its easy to overlook them. The first Best Picture winner to make it into my DVD collection, it’s nearly impossible to forget, and magical in its own beautiful way.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes, and it ain’t easy. There's the audience favorite Sixth Sense, the critically lauded The Insider and the “we should have given something to Shawshank” follow-up The Green Mile to contend with, but American Beauty, especially in retrospect, wins in a walk. It’s as close to perfect as the Oscars have gotten in a long time.

Madden '98

Shakespeare in Love (1998):
What’s It About?: William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is having a bit of writer’s block while writing his new play, “Romeo and Ethel the Pirate’s Daughter.” This is in addition to money problems, relationship issues, overbearing bosses and the plague. But he finds his muse in Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a noble who is betrothed to an aggressive ass. She pretends to be a man to act in his new play, in turn changing the face of theater in olde England, and literature in the centuries to come.
How Good Is It?: It’s got a great screenplay, but as a film, it feels very slight. In fact, the screenplay is it’s only extremely great aspect. It’s well-made enough, and the acting is good, and the directing (by John Madden) is capable, but were the screenplay not as funny or smart as it was, the film would barely have made a blip.
Was it Best Picture?: No. Saving Private Ryan was a better choice, as was the great Life is Beautiful (which has received a backlash lately, but I still love it). Shakespeare deserved its screenplay win, but a few other wins (actress, supporting actress) make it obvious that the voters were being overly generous. It’s a good film, but it’s not so exceptional that it needed to be lauded.

Cameron Crows

Titanic (1997):
What’s It About?: As if you don’t know.. Upper class Rose (Kate Winslet) is engaged to the obnoxiously stuffy Cal (Billy Zane) and being set up for a loveless marriage. But when she meets lower-class hero Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), he teaches her about life, true love and happiness. Of course, this all happens on the ill-fated Titanic, so their love is gonna have more than the usual problems before long.
How Good Is It?: I said it when I first saw it, and I’ll say it again. Titanic is everything that’s great about the movies. The first 90 minutes is pure chick flick, but there’s enough solid emotion and charisma to make it watchable to guys. Then there’s the last 90 minutes, which presents some of the best CGI terror imaginable. It’s ratchets up the excitement by the minute, and is both extremely watchable, extremely thrilling, and extremely sad (okay, I cried a few times). On the negative side, Zane’s performance gets way too over-the-top before the film ends, and there are a few really obvious and distracting blue screens. But considering the run time exceeds three hours, those few minutes do almost nothing to hamper the rest of the film: a pure artiistic achievement.
Was it Best Picture?: Yep. The competiton was top-notch and probably technically better (L.A. Confidential is absolutely excellent, Good Will Hunting is really good, and The Full Monty is well-made fun) but Titanic leaves them all out at sea for sheer movie magic. From a story and acting perspective, it leaves a bit to be desired, but as a singular three-hour event, it’s pretty much our generation’s Gone With the Wind.

Patient, Indeed

The English Patient (1996):
What’s It About?: A mysterious burn victim who is about to die (Ralph Fiennes) is taken care of by a nurse (Juliet Binoche) as World War II comes to a close. As the man recalls his life before the accident, and his love for a married woman (Kristin Scott Thomas), a mysterious stranger (Willem Dafoe) shows up who has some secrets of his own.
How Good Is It?: It’s okay. It’s very elegant, although the bits of sudden violence (including a great, great airplane shot), sly humor, and credible drama make it feel at least a little like something more than overly-dramatic Oscar-bait. But even that goodwill is chiselled away bit by bit with a run time that’s about twice as long as it needs to be. There are too many characters, and too many sideplots (meaningless or not), that even though I didn’t dislike the movie inherently, I hated that I was stuck watching it for as long as I was. Even worse, it feels that long when watching it – At just over an hour into it, I was sure that there was very little story left to tell.
Was it Best Picture?: No. Hell, even before the Oscars aired, I remember Gene Siskel saying that Fargo was the better movie, but that the snobby Academy couldn’t give it to a movie like Fargo, and would award this one. He was right, of course, and the error of their ways becomes more apparent with each passing year, as Fargo remains a classic, and The English Patient has become a has-been. It’s really too bad.

Rebel Mel

Braveheart (1995):
What’s It About?: After an English Lord kills his wife, Scotsman William Wallace (Mel Gibson) tries to band together his fellow countrymen to fight against English rule. But not only is the king determined to bring him down, so are several Scottish noblemen as well.
How Good Is It?: It’s not overly exceptional, but it is good. It’s biggest asset are absolutely stirring battle sequences, which are amazingly choreographed in their ability to place you right in the middle of the battle, and give you an overview of it at the same time. The rest of the film, though didn’t have as much. Yes, there are some emotional moments, but nothing that would place it above any other movie of similar subject matter. The acting is good across the board, and the production values are also pretty excellent. It’s a good movie, most certainly, and its very capably done. But it’s not really all that exceptional. I should also point out that it suffers from being a smidgeon too long and a whole lot too violent. The tragedy of war is one thing, but there are scenes that really just made me think Mel was trying to shock me, rather than make upset me with brutality.
Was it Best Picture?: I guess. But only by default. Braveheart may not stand as a true classic, but neither would Babe or Apollo 13, the two other front runners. Again, it’s a good movie, but it probably wouldn’t even have been in the top three contenders of last year’s race.

Hanks for the Memories

Forrest Gump (1994):
What’s It About?: Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) is a simpleton from Alabama, who unwittingly finds himself involved in many cultural touchstones from the 50’s through the 70’s, all for the love of one girl (Robin Wright).
How Good Is It?: It’s good. Some would say really good, and they are probably mostly right. Although there are a few unconvincing moments and effects (John Lennon, although to be fair, many of the manipulation effects get a little more obvious with each view), as well as some sequences that really just don’t work (the running), much of the film does shine as a sweet, wholly enjoyable baby boomer fantasy. It feels slight, but that’s going to happen with a ground-level movie about how precious life is.
Was it Best Picture?: This is one of the biggest fights in recent Oscar history, from a hindsight view. My generation was all about Pulp Fiction, whereas my parents were all over Forrest Gump. Then there’s the current #2 on the imdb, The Shawshank Redemption. Pulp Fiction, for all its excellence, was too divisive, with a vulgar and violent script, which turned off the elder voters. But those same people loved Forrest Gump because it spoke to their generation, with compatable excellence. So, did they make the right choice? No. Because Shawshank should have won over both of them, and probably would have satisfied both groups, to an extent. But either way they voted, some group was not gonna be happy.

My Trip Through the Oskars

Schindler’s List (1993):
What’s It About?: As the Nazi's determination to rid Poland of Jews reaches a breaking point, Nazi party member and war profiteer Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) decides to use some of them as cheap labor in his factory. But what starts out as possibly just a money-saving solution turns into a life-saving solution when he uses bribes and his good standing in the party to save more than a thousand Jews from certain death in Nazi death camps.
How Good Is It?: It's great. Ralph Fiennes' turn as the embodiment of evil in Amon Goeth is rattling, Neeson is really good, if not exactly brilliant, in an everyman kind of way, and the rest of the cast clearly has their heart and craft in the best of places. The screenplay is honest, brutal, infuriating and inspirational. Obviously, director Steven Spielberg is a clear master of his craft, and makes the whole movie resonate with truth and sadness. There is not a single moment wasted or a single extra scene that is not used to its true potential. But most importantly, the film is important. It's not a movie that you just throw in and watch sporadically. Although that might help take the edge off of its unsettling and depressing theme, that would completely destroy the whole point of the movie. This is a film to sit down and watch, and ponder and get upset at. It's horrifying in the scariest way imaginable.
Was it Best Picture?: Even before it was announced, there were very few who would have said no. Schindler's List is the embodiment of great cinema, even more so in the 90's where fear and the reality of violence (especially in nonfiction settings) were cultural motivators. Even if the competition was not as weak as it was, there would still be no denying the power and intensity of Schindler's List. It's one of the few Best Picture winners that is an absolute must-see, not only from the film-making aspect, but from the moral obligation one as well.

For a Few Hundred Dollars More

Unforgiven (1992):
What’s It About?: In the old west, Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood) is a former outlaw, having since given up violence and whiskey for the simple family life some years ago. But with his wife dead and his family in dire times, he decides to ride again and kill a few scumbags who got a slap on the wrist for a heinous crime, in order to claim a $1,000 bounty. With his former partner Ned (Morgan Freeman) and an untested youth by his side, he takes off on the expedition, only to find serious resistance from local sherrif Little Bill (Gene Hackman), who runs the town with his own brand of lawlessness and brutality.
How Good Is It?: Woo boy! Eastwood returns to his early western days with style and substance, making a film that could be a sort of sequel to his earlier Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns, only sans the spaghetti. It’s brutal and yet elegant, shining a harsh light on the western mythology, human weakness and the undending cycle of violence. It’s smart and efficient, and a great western, not to mention a great film in general. I loved it.
Was it Best Picture?: So, after loading the 80’s Best Picture winners with snobbery and ennui, the Academy seems to be atoning by choosing films with messages, serious drama and darker sides. In other words, this is not your stuffy 80’s picks. The Academy could have gone with lesser (albeit still good) fare such as The Crying Game, Howard’s End, A Few Good Men or Scent of a Woman, but they made a brilliant if underestimated choice by picking the second western in three years. Unforgiven is a marvel on many levels, and easily one of the best westerns ever made.

Shhhh....

Silence of the Lambs (1991):
What’s It About?: With a serial killer named “Buffalo Bill” on the loose, FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) enlists the help of notorious serial killer and cannibal Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) to solve the case. But Hannibal has a nasty habit of getting into people’s heads, and Clarice’s lack of experience may leave her vulnerable, and Bill’s newest victim dead.
How Good Is It?: It’s not the greatest movie ever made, but it’s really good. Jonathan Demme masters all the strokes of the great psychological thrillers, and there’s few moments that aren’t seeped in every day terror. Most importantly, Hopkins’ Lecter is one of cinema’s greatest villains, and the performance is legendary. Foster also holds her own with the right degree of vulnerability, and the supporting acting is pretty much dead on in creating human and believable characters. But make no mistake, Demme’s knowledgable direction keep the horror real and the suprises coming, and to this day it remains one of the best examples of a perfect thriller.
Was it Best Picture?: Hell yeah. The competition, though not necessarily weak, was nowhere near as strong as Silence, and I do believe that Silence is only the third “horror” film to be nominated (after The Exorcist and Jaws), and the only one to win. It’s also the most deserving of the three, as it’s really a great movie in its own right that just happens to have a deliciously gory and terrifying streak running through it. Horror doesn’t get anymore quality than this, at least not in the last decade.

So Sioux Me

Dances With Wolves (1990):
What’s It About?: During the Civil War, Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is transfered to a post in the western frontier, warding off the Native Americans. But finding the post deserted, Dunbar eventually decides to stave off the loneliness by befriending a neighboring Sioux tribe, where he comes to a better understanding of their ways, falls in love and becomes a “traitor” to his country.
How Good Is It?: Back in about 1991, there was a Far Side cartoon where about three people were gathered in a room for the “Didn’t Like Dances With Wolves Society." Since I first (and last) saw this film in 1991, I considered myself a member of this society. My 16-year belief was laid to rest, though, when I saw it again. I started off a little rigid with Costner’s dull narration, but about halfway through, realized I was actually thoroughly enoying it. Costner’s naïve, wide-eyed and curious character is really just a catalyst for the heart of the movie, a glorious epic about a glorious people, full of wonderful scenes and some nice emotional moments. It’s a great movie.
Was it Best Picture?: Not to beat a dead horse, but heading into it I was ready to say no. After all, both Goodfellas and The Godfather Part III lost to it, as did the good enough Awakenings and the laughable in retrospect Ghost. Yep, that Ghost. But all things considered, this was nice tight race between Dances and Goodfellas. So which should have won? Both are classics, and still highly regarded. And although Goodfellas is considered to be the better now (by far), it’s also more harsh and less friendly. In a perfect world, there would have a Picture/Director split, with Scorsese beating Costner, but Dances beating Goodfellas. Then again, in a perfect world, Goodfellas would have been released a year earlier and kicked the living crap out of Miss Daisy.

The Periodically Interesting Table of Sentiments

Driving Miss Daisy (1989):
What’s It About?: Stubborn Jewish widower Daisy Werthan (Jessica Tandy) loses her driver’s license, and is forced to accept Hoke (Morgan Freeman) as her new chauffeur, whether she wants him or not. But, over time, the two become friends and face a handful of life’s obstacles.
How Good Is It?: Obviously based on a play, it’s overly sentimental, a little amusing, and not actually boring. Practically begging audiences not to like it, Bruce Beresford directs the movie with little flair or energy, and were it not for somehwat fun and quirky performances by Tandy and Freeman, there’d be almost nothing to actually make it worth recommending. It’s not a bad movie, not by any stretch, but it’s so slight that I can’t imagine this being anyone’s favorite movie, which is a little odd for a Best Picture winner.
Was it Best Picture?: Err, no? The competiton, was laced with variety, but not very good variety: The equally sentimental but less fun Dead Poet’s Society, Oliver Stone’s heavy handed but not classic Born on the Fourth of July, Oscar-pandering My Left Foot (which may or may not better, I’ve not seen it) and the more fun, more honest Field of Dreams, which would have been my choice. It’s got to say something that Driving Miss Daisy wasn’t even nominated for director (the first time it had happened in at least half a century), and I can’t think that anybody would say it was the best movie this year. I’m guessing that the Academy voted for their top two, and Driving Miss Daisy was the consistent second-place finisher. But, hey, at least it’s a comedy.

Tom Cruise Crazy

Rain Man (1988):
What’s It About?: After hearing of his father’s death, immature Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) is distressed to find that his financial woes will not be solved by the expected inheritance winfall. Instead, he discovers Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), the autistic brother he never knew he had. Being in financial straits, Charlie “kidnaps” Raymond and takes him on a cross country road trip, where they eventually bond, and Charlie grows up.
How Good Is It?: It’s certainly not a bad movie in any respect, even if it’s not all there. Dustin Hoffman’s performance is clearly the most memorable standout in the film, but Cruise also handles himself very nicely. It also has a lot of wonderful little moments. There are enough of them that the film is more than worthwhile, but it still feels a little too forced, a little too flashy, and a little too predictable.
Was it Best Picture?: Maybe. It’s certainly better than Working Girl, a movie I had no use for. And although it’s not as good as Dangerous Liaisons, Rain Man has a certain flair that makes it seem really, really 80’s. As such, it’s a better snapshot of 1988 than Liaisons is, as much as that matters.

Tom Cruise Crazy

Rain Man (1988):
What’s It About?: After hearing of his father’s death, immature Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) is distressed to find that his financial woes will not be solved by the expected inheritance winfall. Instead, he discovers Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), the autistic brother he never knew he had. Being in financial straits, Charlie “kidnaps” Raymond and takes him on a cross country road trip, where they eventually bond, and Charlie grows up.
How Good Is It?: It’s certainly not a bad movie in any respect, even if it’s not all there. Dustin Hoffman’s performance is clearly the most memorable standout in the film, but Cruise also handles himself very nicely. It also has a lot of wonderful little moments. There are enough of them that it makes the film more than worthwhile, but the movie still feels a little too forced, a little too flashy, and a little too predictable.
Was it Best Picture?: Maybe. It’s certainly better than Working Girl, a movie I had no use for. And although it’s not as good as Dangerous Liaisons, Rain Man has a certain flair that makes it seem really, really 80’s. As such, it’s a better snapshot of 1988 than Liaisons is, as much as that matters.

Tokyo Drift

The Last Emperor (1987):
What’s It About?: The story of chinese emperor Pu-Yi (John Lone), who became emperor at the ripe old age of three, The Last Emperor follows him through the ups-and-downs of his reign, including marriage, war between Japan and China, his Chinese betrayal, his lack of actual power and his eventual ruin and prison term.
How Good Is It?: At nearly three hours (I purposefully avoided the nearly four hour Director’s Cut), it’s clearly too long, but my initial reservations were unfounded. Bernardo Bertolucci's epic still manages to be somewhat interesting, if not quite engrossing. A few big and beautiful sequences are probably best seen on the big screen, but the small screen still offers a great deal of emotion and beauty. The performances are good, and although the political aspects are a bit daunting to those unfamiliar, there’s enough drama involved to make it interesting to those who want to stick around. Personally, I probably won’t watch it again, but I’m not upset that I’ve seen it.
Was it Best Picture?: Yeah, most likely. The other nominees were not nearly as epic as this, and include Moonstruck, Fatal Attraction and Broadcast News. I’m guessing that ’87 was not exactly a great year for movies, and given that, The Last Emperor was a great choice. It’s big, beautiful and epic, and Bertolucci’s a respected enough film-maker to take the honors.

Oliver!

Platoon (1986):
What’s It About?: Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) is on a one-year stint in Vietnam, where his respect for life is put to the test. Making this test especially hard is the feud between respectable Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) and the brutal Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger). Despite the very real terror of war all around him, it may just be the war in his own platoon that gets him killed.
How Good Is It?: The first half is great, slathering on the confusion and horrors of war. The second half is slightly less good, though, as the horrors of war are eclipsed by the platoon turmoil, and we start to get an idea of where we are and what is happening, who we can trust and who we need to root for. But it still manages to be enthralling and exciting, albeit for upsetting reasons. Director Oliver Stone more-or-less hits the nail on the head with a screenplay based on his own experiences, and it definitely works. There’s probably not a better or more realistic look at Vietnam.
Was it Best Picture?: Yup. The competition is mostly forgettable, and would certainly not be worthy of taking the title from Platoon. Vietnam is a ripe subject for film-making and statement-making, and it’s been a while since the Academy had honored a movie that at least seemed to take a stand on a controversial subject. In fact, if you don’t count Forrest Gump (which I wouldn’t), Platoon is one of only two Best Picture winners (by my count) to even point a camera at Vietnam.

Out of Patience

Out of Africa (1985):
What’s It About?: Karen (Meryl Streep) is a baroness in a loveless marriage, which is mostly the result of her adulterous husband’s desire to get his hands on the family fortune. When she kicks her husband out of the house, and tries to manage her coffee business and the native Africans on her land, she also falls for the dapper Denys (Robert Redford). But their beautiful relationship is marred by his need to be free, her need to be loved, and his eventual death. Whoops! Did I give that away? Well, accept this as your excuse to not watch it.
How Good Is It?: BORING!!!! A little bit like watching epic paint dry, Out of Africa has some beautiful imagery and a smattering of vaguely interesting scenes, but it’s ultimately a dull chick flick that gives most chick flicks a bad name. The only entertainment I had was in Redford’s oozing charisma, which helped to prevent the film from being unbearable. His performance is as close a reason to watch this film as you’ll get, unless you find dull, Lifetime-esque drama to be somehow exceptional. Actually, it’s very similar to Gone With the Wind, only without excitement, an interesting female lead character and anything even vaguely resembling entertainment. So, if that’s your cup of tea…
Was it Best Picture?: I’ve only seen Witness (which is definitely better), but you’d have a hard time convincing me that either The Color Purple, Kiss of the Spider Woman or Prizzi’s Honor weren’t better as well. If you think Best Picture winners of the 80’s are generally classified as stuffy, pompous and thoroughly non-entertaining films, Out of Africa is easily the posterboy for your argument.

Mo' Zart, Mo' Problems

Amadeus (1984):
What’s It About?: Saliere (F. Murray Abraham) has always dreamed of becoming a composer, and flirts with fame when he becomes a court composer for royalty. Alas, his vague fame is quickly eclipsed by the greatest musician of his, or possibly any, time: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce). Using his power and backstabbing nature when possible, Saliere attempts to ruin, and ultimately, end the life of his competitor.
How Good Is It?: The cast is okay, with Abraham getting emotional enough and Hulce being a big enough jackass to fit the role. But both are easily eclipsed by the beautiful production and one of the greatest soundtracks ever created. It’s a bit overlong, but the great Milos Forman directs knowingly, creating an occasionally funny, occasionally sad and occasionally nightmarish film.
Was it Best Picture?: Yeah. The competition was loaded with Oscar-bait, but Oscar wasn’t biting. If memory serves, Amadeus became a sort of cultural touchstone that lasted at least long enough to give Falco a top ten hit. But that notwithstanding, it’s still a really good film, with fine performances, and of course the aforementioned production and score.

Terms of Enjoyment

Terms of Endearment (1983):
What’s It About?: The relationship between anal mother Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) and her daughter Emma (Debra Winger) is given the chick flick treatment thanks to director James L. Brooks. Also along for the ride are Jeff Daniels as Emma’s husband Flap and Jack Nicholson as Aurora’s womanizing neighbor, who may be just what she needs. Taking place over a decade or two, the film chronicles their love lives and problems, and the friendship between a mother and daughter that can outlast everything else.
How Good Is It?: Very. James L. Brooks is a very good producer/director, and Terms is probably his most lasting movie. Yeah, it’s a chick flick, but it’s a chick flick that made me laugh out loud mutliple times and cry a bit as well. The thing is, Brooks could make just about any type of movie and make it universally appealing, so this chick flick being so should not be suprising. It’s smart, and although it is ethically questionable in parts (especially from a conservative point of view), it’s never rings false or forced.
Was it Best Picture?: Yeah. The competitors were all about the same quality-wise and culturally, with the only possible edge going to The Big Chill just because of it’s soundtrack. But there’s not a moment of screen time that doesn’t feel like a Best Picture winner.

The Gandhi Man Can

Gandhi (1982):
What’s It About?: Mahatma Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) is a simple, stubborn and brilliant social leader who takes passive resistance to new heights in challenging the British for control of India and the rights of its people. This epic film chronicles his ascension from a high-class attorney through his assassination at the hands of those who would seem to follow him anywhere.
How Good Is It?: From now on, let’s just take it as a rule that the Best Picture winners will have great acting and will be really good movies. Taking these things for granted, I will note any deviances, either for better or worse, and just take that comment as the status quo. So ignoring that, Gandhi really impressed me. I was totally anticipating the most boring 3+ hours of film this side of Lawrence of Arabia. And although it’s still a little stiff and stuffy, it’s entirely watchable and (dare I say it) enjoyable. The script kept things appropriately lively, bouncing from one interesting scenario to the next, and it’s generally inspiring to boot. I could not have expected anything more from this movie.
Was it Best Picture?: Probably not, but it’s hard to say. The competition included The Verdict, which is similar in Oscar-ness but probably a little less so. Then there’s ET and Tootsie, two decidedly un-Oscar-y movies that are both modern classics. Ghandi is unlikely to remain a classic for very long (if it even is anymore), but in the 80’s, when the Best Picture category was beseiged by the more snobbish voters, it seems to fit in better. But in the long run, that should be neither here nor there. ET was the best movie of the year. As an interesting side note, there are three people in Gandhi who were in also in the previous winner, Chariots of Fire: John Gielgud, Ian Charleson and Richard Griffiths. I think I sense a conspiracy.

Ennui Are the Champions

In honor of the Oscars this evening, I will be posting a few of these this week.

Chariots of Fire (1981):
What’s It About?: Three friends from Cambridge (Ben Cross and two other guys) end up in the Olympics with the deeply religious Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson), who also happens to be one of the fastest runners in the world. They have their own personal troubles and demons to overcome along the way, while ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ…….
How Good Is It?: The cast is good enough, and the directing is okay, pulling out at least a little tension when there should be at least a little tension. And I was pleased with the music, specifically the beautifully pulsating Vangelis tune as well as a little Gilbert & Sullivan. But this film is pretty dull. Maybe its because it’s set in England and I’d rather root for the States. Maybe its because at its heart, it’s about people who really just want to run. Or maybe its because the film feels like Merchant-Ivory’s version of the generic sports flick. Whatever the case, it’s not bad movie, but its less interesting than, well, any other Best Picture in a long time.
Was it Best Picture?: Nope. Want entertainment? Then try Raiders of the Lost Ark. Want epic filmmaking? Try Reds. In the mood for something deeply moving? On Golden Pond or Atlantic City may be the film for you*. Want something fairly generic and dull? Then you were probably in the Academy in 1981.

*I haven’t actually seen any of the competition except Raiders. If I’m wrong about any of them, I apologize.

"I-I-I-I Am Ordinary People"

Ordinary People (1980):
What’s It About?: Years after the death of oldest son Buck, a family also finds themselves struggling with the attempted suicide of younger son Conrad (Timothy Hutton). And although the father (Donald Sutherland) is trying to get things back to normal, mother (Mary Tyler Moore) isn’t making things easier by remaining emotionless. If you have trouble remembering the plot, I find it helpful to remember this little Sly and the Family Stone inspired lyric: “Buck is the dead one/Who left behind the youngest son/Who can’t stand the stilted mom/Who’s married to Don Sutherland/I-I-I-I am ordinary people.”
How Good Is It?: You can’t argue the quality. The cast is stellar, and there are some times of true strong emotion. But it’s just not my kind of movie. Were I not watching all the Oscar winners in order, I couldn’t imagine having sat through it. Luckily, Timothy Hutton gives a brilliant portayal that helps the movie pass, and his scenes with any of the other cast, including Judd Hirsch as his psychiatrist, pack a great punch.
Was it Best Picture?: Er, no. Ordinary People is one of those films that screams Best Picture to me, as I started to become at least slightly cognizant of the fact that they existed around this time. It’s high quality material to be sure, but the movie that should have won was Raging Bull. Bull is stronger and deeper, but People won because it had that popularity contest feel and was the kind of great movie that audiences wouldn’t be offended by. Personally, I would rather have been more offended.

Bill(y) and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979):
What’s It About?:  Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) loves his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) and child Billy (Justin Henry), but he’s pretty much married to his job at an advertising agency.  But when Joanna suddenly leaves him and Billy, Ted must learn to be a real father to a child who he doesn’t seem to know.  Over time, their bond strengthens, and they learn to find real comfort in each other, and just when things have seemed to settle down, Joanna comes back into their lives and tries to get custody of Billy.  But who’s the child better off with now?
How Good Is It?:  It’s decent, although not exactly great.  As one should expect, the performances are excellent, the writing is honest if not engaging, and the directing is simple and understated.  It makes a lot of leeway in the child-custody battle as well, bringing light to an (at-the-time) uncomfortable topic and situation.  But it didn’t age as gracefully as one would hope.  The no-longer-taboo element of divorce seems overly complicated by today’s standards, although the film’s emotional grounding is still good enough to hold up around it.  It’s heartfelt enough, but I just can’t see a market for it in the present day. 
Was it Best Picture?: Most film buffs would say no.  Competitors All That Jazz, Apocalypse Now and Norma Rae have all faired as well if not better in the pop culture consciousness, and most people would probably prefer Apocalypse Now these days.  At the time, they may have made the correct choice, but it’s the 20/20 hindsight that would prove them wrong.  Kramer vs. Kramer is certainly a decent movie, but it’s essentially too basic.  On the other hand, I personally prefer it to the last half of Apocalypse Now and probably to All That Jazz an Norma Rae, neither of which I have seen, and none of which I particularly want to, either. However, I don't think it's even close to being as good as the underrated Breaking Away, although that doesn't seem like much of a Best Picture winner either.

Oh Deer!

The Deer Hunter (1978):
What’s It About?:  Michael (Robert De Niro) is the ringleader of a group of friends, including Nick (Christopher Walken) and the recently married Steve (John Savage). Soon Vietnam calls, though, and the three take off to fight for our country.  But it turns out that they won’t be able to return to the lives they knew when they get home, if they make it back at all.
How Good Is It?:  About two years ago I rented this from the library, and was very impressed with what I saw, until I realized that the DVD was skipping entire sections at a time.  I ceased watching it then, bought it, and just watched in completion for the first time.  It wasn’t as good as I had hoped.  It turns out that although the DVD was skipping, it wasn’t skipping as much as I thought – the movie just makes those jumps sometimes.  It’s slow (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing) and there’s a distinct sense of directorial pretension.  On the plus side, the acting is fantastic and there are a handful of brilliant and tense scenes.  The thing is, when its good, its great.  But it’s not as good as often as I had hoped.
Was it Best Picture?: I guess.  The competition was again lame, but this is also the kind of movie that the Academy loves.  And it is good and probably deserving.  And that’s all I have to say about that.

What's It All About, Alvy?

Annie Hall (1977):
What’s It About?:  New York comedian Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) and free spirit Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) find themselves in an on-again-off-again romance.  In the meantime, their story is punctuated by flashbacks, asides and a handful of oddball characters.
How Good Is It?:  It’s one of the best comedies ever made.  There’s a lot of heart to the story, but with emphasis is on the killer one-liners and hilarious situations.  It also manages to be hilarious in both intellectual and base ways.  Plus, it is well crafted, even though it looks a little shoddy, which was probably at least partly intentional.  Essentially it is masterpiece, from a director at the peak of his ability and with a lot of Hollywood approval.
Was it Best Picture?: That’s interesting.  The two best films of the year were this and Star Wars, hands down, and neither of them are your standard Best Picture type.  Given, I haven’t seen any of the other competitors, but I can barely remember their names even having just looked at the year’s nominations.  And despite the fact that I prefer Annie Hall to Star Wars, I can’t help but think this was the wrong choice.  Star Wars is iconic, whereas Annie Hall is sweet.  This must have been one of those cases where the Academy honored somebody they’ve appreciated for years (Woody Allen) as opposed to the upstart young director (George Lucas) they’ve just met.  Then again, at the time, they must have had high hopes for Lucas, whilst feeling that Allen may never be as good again.  Plus, Annie Hall is closer to the standard Best Picture winner than Star Wars is.   In that way, I understand the choice, and I’m certainly not going to complain about it

Yo Adrian! Watch Me Pull a Rabbit Out of My Hat

Rocky (1976):
What’s It About?:  Philadelphia nobody Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) finally gets a chance to prove himself when is picked to fight heavyweight champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers).  But between his love for new girlfriend Adrian (Talia Shire), acquaintances he doesn’t know he can trust, and ability he may not believe in, he has to work up the courage to try and go the distance. 
How Good Is It?:  Like First Blood, a film that started off strong and fell into generic sequel madness, it’s easy to forget that the original Rocky is not some cockamamie film. It possesses a certain care for truth and characters that the later films left by the wayside.   For proof of this, check of the trailers for the sequels as they appear on this disc.  You’ll see what I mean (if you’ve forgotten).  That’s not to say Rocky is great.  But it’s certainly good enough, especially when you consider its decently strong pop cultural impression it left behind.  It’s handled with quality and care, whilst not shying away from grit and honesty.
Was it Best Picture?: However, that's a no.  The Academy may have been wary about skipping Stallone this year (rightfully), as he’d never be this good again.  I haven’t seen Bound For Glory, and All the President’s Men is good but not all that lasting.  But there’s the whip-smart Network, which was certainly a better choice, and Taxi Driver which was the absolutely correct choice.  Yup, the Academy missed the boat on this one.

Insane in the Membrane

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975):
What’s It About?:  Randall Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is a social misfit who gets himself sent to a mental hospital as a way of getting out of prison.  But what seems to be easy time is made difficult by the anal Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) and a kind of friendship with the local residents (including Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd and Brad Douriff, to name a few). 
How Good Is It?:  Part hilarious but mostly brilliantly dramatic, One Flew Over is another testament to the greatness of 70’s cinema.  Director Milos Forman has a lot of great material to work with, and allows a constant stream of underlying themes to permeate the film.  The acting is also undeniably brilliant, with strong performances by the two leads and convincing portrayals from the supporting cast.  There is very little in this film that isn’t excellent in one way or another.   
Was it Best Picture?: Yes, but like the year before, it wasn’t an easy win.  The incredible Dog Day Afternoon and the pop culturally shattering Jaws were both contenders this year, as were Barry Lyndon and Nashville, two films which I haven’t yet seen, but would be more than willing to.  If I had to pick an alternate winner, Dog Day Afternoon would be it, as it’s a great, great film, but even then, it was only the second best movie of the year after One Flew Over.

I Love the 70's Strikes Back

The Godfather Part 2 (1974):
What’s It About?:  Both a sequel and a prequel, The Godfather Part 2 follows Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) as he wrestles with his family and his other family, in addition to following a young Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) as he goes from regular family man to one of the most influential men in New York.
How Good Is It?:  It’s just a tad short of The Godfather and that’s a hell of a compliment.  Director Francis Ford Coppola hasn’t skipped a beat in bringing us the saga of the Corleone family, and it helps that the film in no way feels like a cash-in of the first.  In fact, it’s hard for me to imagine there being just two films in the series, let alone one.  The acting is top notch again, and the film is alternating thrilling and sad, scary and lovely.  It doesn’t get much better than this, and when it does, it’s The Godfather Part 1.   
Was it Best Picture?: Yes, which is a feat in and of itself.  Okay, one of the competitors was The Towering Inferno, but it was also up against The Conversation and Chinatown. It was a hell of year to be an Academy voter, but ultimately they made the right choice.

The Godfather Sandwich

The Sting (1973):
What’s It About?:  Two Chicago con men in the 1930’s (Paul Newman and Robert Redford) decide to get revenge on mean and nasty crime boss Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), after he kills one of their mutual friends.  But with the cops, the FBI and a notorious hitman are after them, it might be more difficult than they think.
How Good Is It?:  Breezy fun.  In fact, it’s probably the most fun and enjoyable Oscar winner thus far.  Newman and Redford give nice charismatic performances, the script is witty and wise, and its got a sweet sense of nostalgia, owing much to the cute Norman Rockwell-esque title cards.  It’s a well made, charming, and easily memorable film.
Was it Best Picture?: Probably.  It beat out the even more nostalgic American Graffiti, and the excellent Exorcist , but with good reason.  It’s more adult than Graffiti and more family-oriented than Exorcist.  It feels slight, especially being sandwiched between two Godfather films, but it works wonders anyway. It’s like the white stuff in an Oreo cookie.  And truth be told, its even fared better than Paper Moon, Serpico, or any of the other modern classics that weren't nominated the same year.

The Rest of the Horse

The Godfather (1972):
What’s It About?:  Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) is the head of the Corleone mafia.  Sonny (James Caan) is the temperamental eldest son.  Fredo (John Cazale) is the geeky black sheep.  Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) is the family lawyer, although he’s not technically related.  And Michael (Al Pacino) is the youngest son, a war hero who decided long ago not to get into the family business.  From there, it’s a gangland drama about family, duty, revenge and paying the ultimate price.  Actually, the story’s more complicated than I make it seem here, but there’s no way to sum it up in the little space I allot myself.
How Good Is It?:  In my opinion, which I have held since I first saw this film ten years or so ago, this is easily one of the two best films ever made.  The other one is The Godfather Part 2, which I’ll get to soon enough.  The acting is top notch (including the supporting players).  The screenplay is perfect, making every act of violence resonate, allowing the drama to get hold of you, and creating an atmosphere of sheer horror and utter fear grounded with a nostalgic and loving environment.  Francis Ford Coppola directs the film with a perfect pace, and paints a canvas of epic proportions that remains deeply emotional and wonderfully dirty.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  And yes.  Ignore the fact that it was up against the pretty good Deliverance and the overrated Cabaret.  I would say this deserved the win if it was up against Citizen Kane, Casablanca and just about any other movie you can name. This is what cinema is all about.

* My favorite Godfather joke was one of Letterman’s Top Ten Hollywood Secrets or something, which was “Marlon Brando ate the rest of the horse.”  That kills me.

Sacre Bleu!

The French Connection (1971):
What’s It About?:  New York detectives Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider) stumble across what could be a major drug ring, but may be up against criminals who are too smart for them.  But that won’t stop Doyle, who’s questionable methods are second only to his raw determination.
How Good Is It?:  It’s most known for a killer car chase sequence, but it may have left an even more important legacy: the good guy cop, who’s not too far off from being a bad guy.  The set pieces are good, and the film is definitely gritty and brash.  It’s also very enjoyable, and a great action film, that’s one of the most legitimately artsy action films ever made.
Was it Best Picture?: Maybe, but probably not.  The problem is that for all its greatness, The French Connection just doesn’t feel very Oscar-y. It’s a deserved classic, certainly, but it just doesn’t have the prestige that normally comes with Best Picture winners.  The competition included A Clockwork Orange, which is also a great movie, although arguably even less Oscar-y.  The other contenders were Fiddler on the Roof, The Last Picture Show and Nicholas and Alexandra, of which at least the first two are decently esteemed, although I have never seen any of them. Okay, so maybe there’s just no better choice for the honors.

Lawrence of Arabia For the Common Man

Patton (1970):
What’s It About?:  General George S. Patton (George C. Scott) is a brash but brilliant general during World War II that finds that fighting the Nazis is much easier and more fun than fighting his own personal flaws.  His temper and his tongue get very close to keeping him out of the war he feels destined to prove himself during.
How Good Is It?:  It's like Lawrence of Arabia for the common man.  It’s got a solid performance by Scott in the lead role, some beautiful battle sequences and a few very funny moments.  But it also leaves David Lean’s more artistic flourishes by the wayside in favor of a grittiness and ugliness.  I think I prefer Patton to Lawrence, if only for it’s comparatively short run time, although neither is really the kind of movie I’d feel obligated to watch otherwise.
Was it Best Picture?: Most likely.  MASH and Five Easy Pieces are the main competition, with Love Story and Airport being decidedly odd choices.  But none of them have the epic quality and stiff-upper-lipness of Patton.  This was probably the right choice.

Oh Hell Yes They Are

Midnight Cowboy (1969):
What’s It About?:  Joe Buck (Jon Voigt) is a Texan who moves out to New York City to be a professional gigolo.  Rico “Ratso” Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) is a scam artist, squatter and pick pocket who decides to act as Buck’s manager.  Although their dreams may never reach fruition, they both have a lot of ambition, even if they don’t know how to achieve it.
How Good Is It?:  Sweet.  Voigt and Hoffman turn in stellar performances, with Voigt’s taking the simple route, and Hoffman chewing scenery to great effect.  There’s also a singularly great screenplay, which when teamed with director John Schlesinger, allows a lot of emotion and underlying themes to bubble to the top despite what is mostly superfluous dialog. In all, it’s a haunting and entertaining trip through lost souls in a city that lives off of them.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes, and thank God.  Cowboy is a gritty and sadistic film which perfectly counteracts the Academy’s attempt to go soft the year before.  The competition included the greats Z and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but Cowboy was there to herald the decade to come.  It’s also a psychological slap in the face, as Oliver! was the last Best Picture to be rated G, and Cowboy was the only Best Picture winner to be rated X.  If that doesn’t indicate the changing world around them, I don’t know what does.

Maybe the Times Aren't a-Changing So Much After All

Oliver! (1968):
What’s It About?:  Little orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) starts off in a dismal workhouse for orphans, is sold to a despicable family, is taken in by a gang of pickpockets led by Fagin (Ron Moody), finally finds a good home, and is kidnapped and brought back to the gang by the despicable Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed).  At this point, he might as well change his name to Oliver Baudelaire.
How Good Is It?:  It’s about 75% awkward.  On the plus side, Ron Moody turns in a fantastic performance, Oliver Reed eventually gets to turn in a decent performance, and the production design is great.  On the negative side, Mark Lester looks and acts like a marionette, doesn’t have a very good voice, and is nowhere near good enough to lead the picture. Something about Jack Wild as the Artful Dodger made me want to give him a good wallop.  The musical numbers are sporadic, and unnecessary (although some are pretty memorable), but director Carol Reed piles so much busy choreography on top of them that it loses coherence, and makes the words a little harder to understand.  It tries to be family-friendly and lighthearted yet grim, even going so far as to include a bludgeoning death.  The film was two worlds colliding in several ways, and it just left an unpleasant taste in my mouth.
Was it Best Picture?: A quick look at the nominations for the year shows me that the more endearing classics of ’68 were The Producers, Bullit, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes and Rosemary’s Baby, none of which were nominated for Best Picture (which is fine, since few of them have that Best Picture aura). So, the competition was lacking.  I still can’t help but feel, however, that the Academy was trying to backslide into the happy-go-lucky winners of yesteryear and they picked a bad movie to do it with.

The Times They Are A-Changing

In the Heat of the Night (1967):
What’s It About?:  Philadelphia homicide detective Virgil Tibbs’ (Sidney Poitier) brief layover in Sparta, Mississippi is indefinitely extended when he is first accused of a vicious murder, then asked to help solve it.  His constant head-butting with local police chief Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger) is probably the least of his problems, as the racist tendencies of the locals goes from merely annoying to dangerously lethal.
How Good Is It?:  Very.  The performances by the two actors are good, as is the direction and the knowledgeable screenplay.  It’s gripping and poignant, whilst remaining sublime and unobvious.  However, the key to this movie is that not only does it end the first half of my trip through the Oscars, but also marks a fine turning point in the winners themselves.  I’m inclined to believe that the Production Code was either on its way out or nonexistent.  The film has a deep underlying grittiness to it, and marked a change toward a more adult, less intentionally epic, brand of Best Picture.  The seventies were still a few years away, but the spirit was starting to kick in.
Was it Best Picture?: Ouch!  It’s hard to deny it the glory, but it was up against the I’ve-been-told-classic Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, the iconic The Graduate and the superb Bonnie and Clyde.  No matter who won this year, someone was going to be upset.  But in the end, they made the socially responsible choice.  And hey, at least it wasn’t the other nominee, Dr. Doolittle.

Does That Include Frankie Valli?

A Man For All Seasons (1966):
What’s It About?:  Sir Thomas Moore (Paul Scofield) is an English statesman who runs into serious problems when he refuses to acknowledge Henry VIII’s (Robert Shaw) marriage to Anne Boleyn.  His above-average knowledge of the law protects him for a while, but, as history tells us, if you butt heads with a King, your likely to lose yours.
How Good Is It?:  This is one of the last Best Picture winners that I walked into with no preconceived notions, and it’s actually pretty good. It certainly looks and feels like a PBS Masterpiece Theater selection, although that’s not necessarily a bad thing unto itself.  But it also has two great performances to boot: Shaw is a loud, raucous and instantly memorable Henry VIII, while Scofield is witty, noble and ultimately sad Moore. The film is generally engaging on its own, whilst remaining infuriating and yet fulfilling.
Was it Best Picture?: Um… I don’t know.  I haven’t seen any of the competition, but the list includes the likes of Alfie, The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  All in all, it’s certainly good and capable enough to believe that it was the year’s Best Picture.  I should also admit that I’ve never really had much of an interest in seeing the aforementioned three, so I guess it’s got that going for it.  And finally, it’s one of the more overlooked Best Picture winners, so that helps to cancel out any possible bad feelings that it won.  In the end, I’m pretty cool with it and its status in filmdom.

"It's a Von Trapp!"

The Sound of Music (1965):
What’s It About?:  Maria (Julie Andrews), failing as a nun, is hired to be a governess to hard-boiled ex-Navy captain Gale Von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) and his seven children.  As she gives the kids a healthy dose of music, happiness and play, she also teaches him a thing or two about love.  In the process, he falls in love with her and she with him, but danger lurks on the horizon as the Nazi party starts to push its way into the Austrian homeland.
How Good Is It?: After watching E.T. in theaters a few years back, my friend Sean mentioned that there comes a time in a movie lover’s life where you start to fell that the classic directors like Spielberg and Hitchcock are overrated.  This is mainly due to the “familiarity breeds contempt” concept, in that we become so accustomed to the directors that having not seen their definitive classics in some time, we take them for granted and forget how great they truly are.  The Sound of Music was kind of like that to me.  Having seen it numerous times during childhood, I was neither excited nor fearful about watching it again, choosing instead to view it with the predisposition of having it be over-rated.  But it’s actually not; In fact, it’s very well deserving of its classic status.  For a musical, it handles harder themes like fear and love capably, and feels less like a musical than a credible drama about love and honor with some good musical numbers.  The acting is certainly good and believable, and it does manage to be funny, heartwarming, nostalgic, tense and fun in equal parts. 
Was it Best Picture?: Yes.  It’s only real competition was Dr. Zhivago, which I haven’t seen, but I can only assume that I would rather watch Music than another over-long David Lean epic.  And despite the basic problems that all musicals inherently face, Music comes through with honors.  It’s a totally good movie.

Growing Accustomed to the Musical

My Fair Lady (1964):
What’s It About?:  On a bet, Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) decides to take cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) under his wing and teach her to talk better and fit into royal society.  While musical numbers ensue, Higgins may prove himself to be too self-centered and unfeeling to notice that Eliza might think of him as more than a tutor, and he may think of her as more than a student.
How Good Is It?: It’s a by-the-numbers musical, but it’s cute enough and with good enough songs to elevate it to musical art.  The cast is enjoyable and the direction is capable if not very impressive.  Actually, there’s very little flair, but its at least interesting in that when the songs are being done, there’s rarely lively choreography to go along with it.  It’s not a song-and-dance film, as much as a song-and-walk around film.  It’s also a tad too long, but it’s not as daunting as some other films I can think of. 
Was it Best Picture?: No.  Sure, it was the safe choice and the one that most Academy members felt best about picking.  But alas, My Fair Lady beat out Dr. Strangelove for the top spot.  On the other hand, Dr. Strangelove may be the better movie (by far), but it’s also less Oscar-y than Lady. So, you can make your own conclusions about who deserved to win, but if you take the title “Best Picture” seriously, then anything but Strangelove is just plain wrong.

(Push) The Envelope Please

Tom Jones(1963):
What’s It About?:  Tom Jones (Albert Finney) is a bastard, literally.  Raised by an English squire, he prefers to eschew things like manners and religion for frequent rollicking with local girls.  And just as he gets close to the love of his life, he is booted from his home and forced to fend for himself in the real world, with lots of titillating adventures.
How Good Is It?: Lame, at best.  On the positive side, this is like a trumpet heralding the arrival of the sixties.  The words “bastard” and “damn” are bandied about freely, sex is more than hinted at and the film loves mocking authority.  But whereas that’s not necessarily a bad thing, that’s pretty much its only thing.  Very few jokes are funny, and yet the film certainly thinks that its hilarious and never misses a chance to ham it up.  It’s British, bawdy for the sake of being bawdy, and it looks kinda smudgy.  In other words, how do you feel about Benny Hill? 
Was it Best Picture?: Couldn’t be, could it?  You know I'm not the biggest fan of Lawrence of Arabia, but I can’t think that following it with Tom Jones is anything but an insult.  Both How the West Was Won and Cleopatra lost to Tom Jones, and although I haven’t seen either of them, I can’t believe I would be as unimpressed with them as I was with this turkey. 

Lawrence of Anasthesia

Lawrence of Arabia (1962):
What’s It About?:  T.E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) is a British soldier in World War I who helps the Arabs unite and fight back against the Turkish oppressors.  And although Arab independence is his passion, he starts to go through serious emotion duress as a result of his situation.
How Good Is It?: There are quite a few exceptional scenes both emotionally and visually, and O’Toole gives a brilliant performance.  No doubt as a result, the film is very critically praised and adored.  So, if you are a critic, it’s a must-see.  If not, then I hope you like semi-complicated political stories.  The problem is that the subject matter is completely and utterly unimportant to me, and the running time (at damn near 4 hours) is utterly ridiculous.  The movie takes place over multiple years, and sometimes feels like it’s being done in real time. 
Was it Best Picture?: Okay, yes.  To Kill a Mockingbird was one of the contenders, and although it is also very highly considered, those in the know love Larry.  And who am I to say they’re wrong?  Hell, I have the complete Friday the 13th series in my collection, so I obviously have some issues with liking quality.   

Hitting the High Notes, and Other Gang Related Issues

West Side Story (1961):
What’s It About?:  The Jets, as led by Riff (Russ Tamblyn), are a gang at “war” with the Sharks, a Puerto Rican gang led by Bernardo (George Chakiris).  When Riff gets ex-Jet Tony (Richard Beymer) to help them get a rumble organized, Tony falls for Maria (Natalie Wood), Bernardo’s sister. Un-approved of and cross cultural romance ensues.
How Good Is It?: One of the inherent problems with musicals is that they almost never do justice to drama.  There’s a certain dispension of belief required to think that people in the middle of a tragedy will break into song.  This fact seriously mars West Side Story, especially in the beginning when two semi-dangerous gangs prove their prowess through ballet and beautifully choreographed tiffs.  But eventually the drama does succeed due to good performances and heightened tension.  But from a musical standpoint, there are some wonderful classic songs, interesting sets and great sequences.  For a musical, it’s pretty top-notch.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes, especially when you consider that Oscar has been overly friendly to musicals in the past, and in the next few years would be even more so.  The main competition was The Hustler, which is a great movie in its own right, but West Side Story was a destined-to-be classic.  It’s a pretty good movie, but it’s a great musical.

Mac(Laine) and Me

The Apartment  (1960):
What’s It About?:  C.C. “Bud” Baxter (Jack Lemmon) is a soft-spoken accountant who loans out his apartment to his company’s bosses for their affairs.  This also puts him on the fast track up the corporate ladder, thanks to his “assistance” to company head J.D. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray).  But when it turns out that Sheldrake’s newest fling is Baxter’s crush (Shirley MacLaine), Baxter has to choose either his job or the pursuit of his dream girl.
How Good Is It?: It’s pretty good, and probably great.  When I first saw this years ago, I was very disappointed, mainly because it was billed as a comedy, and it didn’t strike me as actually being funny.  Being able to see it again without that bias, I found it to be a good mix of comedy and drama.  The performances, direction and screenplay are all excellent, and the movie is certainly funny and engaging.  But if you haven’t seen it, DO NOT expect it to be a comedy.  It’s really too somber to be all that funny, although there are a handful of funny moments and lines.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes.  Even without such lame competition for the top spot, the film is a great example of good film-making, and another way of honoring director Billy Wilder.

Ben-Hur, Done That

Ben-Hur (1959):
What’s It About?: Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a Judean shortly after the Romans conquered and took over.  His old friend Messala (Stephen Boyd) is the new governor for the Roman empire in Judea.  When Ben-Hur refuses to finger some local resistance, the bond between them is broken.  Then: Ben-Hur is convicted of a crime he did not do by Messala.  He is stuck in the galley of the Roman fleet.  He befriends a Roman general.  He becomes the general’s son.  He goes back to Judea to find his mother and sister.  He races Messala in a chariot race.  He finds out that his mother and sister are not dead, but lepers.  He “resigns” as the general’s son and again vows to take down the Roman empire.  He finds Jesus and converts.
How Good Is It?: It’s not as bad as I anticipated, but not as good as I hoped, either.  It’s ridiculously overlong, throwing in every little thing it can think of.  And the beginning drags and drags.  However, eventually the spectacle starts to emerge and the drama gets more interesting, and the whole thing more or less comes together.  Director William Wyler knows his way around the high drama and the action, but when they aren’t available, the rest of the film hangs like a dead fish, almost begging you not to care.  As a side note, despite the “A Tale of the Christ” tagline, the film is less about Jesus Christ than Gigi was about Gigi.  But if you trimmed the fat from the film (concentrating more on the front half), you may end up with a leaner, but better, film.
Was it Best Picture?: Wyler had a few moments in the spotlight before, having also won Best Director for Mrs. Miniver and The Best Years of Our Lives, two movies that I very much prefer over this one.  So what would have been wrong with honoring Anatomy of a Murder or (the un-nominated) Some Like It Hot.  Ben-Hur is good.  I may even believe it if someone told me it was really good.  But I can’t believe it was either “great” or “best.”

I'm Bored, Too

Gigi   (1958):
What’s It About?: Gaston (Louis Jordan) is a finicky and bored millionaire who finds his only true happiness with the lower-class Gigi (Leslie Caron) and her grandmother.  While Gigi trains to become a proper woman, Gaston realizes (under pressure) that he actually loves her.  Oops! Did I give away too much?
How Good Is It?: This was described to me as both “the most ‘eh’ Best Picture winner” and a fairly bad movie.  It more or less lives up to expectations.  There’s nothing really wrong with it, but there’s nothing really right with it either.  The musical numbers are generally energetic and fun, but the story is singular and dull.  Director Vincente Minelli knows what he is doing, but the material gives him almost nothing to do with it.  There’s just nothing here.
Was it Best Picture?: Not likely.  Although the competition was fairly forgettable (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof being a possibly notable exception), if Gigi was the best the year had to offer, they probably should have just skipped the Oscars that year.  It’s benign, at best.

The Guiness Book of World Wreckers

The Bridge on the River Kwai  (1957):
What’s It About?: Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) is a stubborn and by-the-book British commander who finds himself and his men in a prison war camp, where they are forced to build a bridge to help the Japanese army.  Commander Shears (William Holden) is an American soldier who has escaped from the camp, only to be asked to go back and destroy the bridge.  But what happens when Nicholson takes too much pride in his work?
How Good Is It?: It’s great.  I saw this film years ago, and the end left me absolutely stunned.  Because I knew what was coming, it didn’t hit me as hard this time, but it still packs a hell of a kick.  The performances are all great (most notably Guinness), the production is fantastic, and it is immensely watchable.  I have no complaints whatsoever.
Was it Best Picture?: Yup.  I’ve seen 12 Angry Men, and 12 Angry Men is great.  But it lost to Bridge and deservedly so.  Bridge on the River Kwai is an epic par excellence, and handing the award to anyone else would have been insane.