Pick Your Top 5 Favorite and Least Favorite Best Picture Winners- Page 2

[jnb9872]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 1:09pm

While I'm not surprised at the number of "least favorite" lists Forrest Gump is appearing on (and I don't care I love it), I'm truly loving the number of "favorite" lists Amadeus is on! Good taste (in that particular case), folks.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 2:38pm

I like just about everything about Amadeus except Miroslav Ondricek's cinematography. It's cold, glossy, antiseptic, and ugly. I've considered that that might have been what he and Forman were going for here, taking the joy and gemutlich out of Vienna and the court. But it's exactly the same look they went for in Ragtime and Hair, with, in my opinion, even more misguided effects; they used a similar icky/shiny look for Valmont, where it better served the material, which couldn't change the fact that it's not a very good movie (and certainly pales next Frears' exquisite Dangerous Liaisons).

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 2:38pm

I like just about everything about Amadeus except Miroslav Ondricek's cinematography. It's cold, glossy, antiseptic, and ugly. I've considered that that might have been what he and Forman were going for here, taking the joy and gemutlich out of Vienna and the court. But it's exactly the same look they went for in Ragtime and Hair, with, in my opinion, even more misguided effects; they used a similar icky/shiny look for Valmont, where it better served the material, which couldn't change the fact that it's not a very good movie (and certainly pales next Frears' exquisite Dangerous Liaisons).

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 3:02pm

I agree about the Amadeus love. Very happy to see it!

As for the lighting/cinematography, from what I understand, they were going for a completely natural lighting look. No artificial lamps shining through the windows or coming up through the floors or from behind tables, etc. If it was candlelight, that's all they wanted to see. But they were also shooting in the Czech Republic and Prague, etc., substituting for Vienna, so that also may explain the colder look and natural light.

Keeping it "natural" was very important to Forman. I'm thinking he might have been heavily influenced by Barry Lyndon, where Kubrick wanted the same thing, only John Alcott's (Oscar-winning) work captured the era without looking glossy or cold or anticeptic.

I like the look of Amadeus myself, but not nearly as much as Barry Lyndon.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 3:21pm

By the way, although I've seen them all, over the years, I've decided to watch them again in chronological order. It will probably take me a couple of months, but I've already seen the first three (Wings, Broadway Melody, and All Quiet On the Western Front). I'm up to Cimarron now.

I've got about half of them on Blu-ray and the rest on DVD. The restorations on Wings and All Quiet are truly incredible. It's time for Warner Home Entertainment to step up to the plate with a Broadway Melody restoration on BD!

I wonder what I'll be adding to the collection this year? !2 Years a Slave? Gravity? American Hustle?

Time will tell.

Speaking of time, I'm finding it fascinating to see the advancement of technology and the change in cinematic storytelling from the silent era to early sound, the change in acting styles, direction, etc.

Updated On: 2/10/14 at 03:21 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 3:26pm

The lighting and photography in Barry Lyndon - a movie I don't otherwise like all that much btw - is sublime. It's visionary.

But Ondricek's work reminds me far more of Bob Guccione than it does of John Alcott.

Updated On: 2/10/14 at 03:26 PM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 3:57pm

Favorites
No Country For Old Men
The Silence Of The Lambs
Schindler's List
Amadeus
West Side Story

Least Favorite
Gone With The Wind
The English Patient
Gladiator
A Beautiful Mind
Braveheart

[strummergirl]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 4:37pm

I figured my tastes ran differently but did not think some of my favorites/ones I had the least amount of problems with in the context of their years (we need to remember that in years like 2009 and 2006 were slim pickings for me, personally, so mid-tier Scorsese and Kathryn Bigelow's unassuming art war film were fine choices for me), were among the least favorites.

Favorites:
All About Eve
Rebecca
The Best Years of Our Lives
On the Waterfront
No Country for Old Men
The Apartment
The Godfather Part II

Least Favorites:
American Beauty
Braveheart
Around the World in 80 Days
A Beautiful Mind
Crash
Driving Miss Daisy
Out of Africa

Rep unfairly maligned or Oddly forgotten:
How Green Was My Valley
Oliver!
Shakespeare in Love
The Last Emperor
Rocky- Well, blame Stallone for the sequels but I don't know, it wasn't like Taxi Driver had a shot that year

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 4:47pm

Favorite:
West Side Story
My Fair Lady
The Sound of Music
Oliver!
The Godfather Part II

Least:
American Beauty
Braveheart
Slumdog Millionaire
Annie Hall
Chariots of Fire

[canmark]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 4:59pm

FAVORITE:
Gone With the Wind
West Side Story
The Sound of Music
My Fair Lady
The Sting

LEAST FAVORITE:
Million Dollar Baby
Braveheart
The Departed
The Artist
A Beautiful Mind

[Wildcard]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 4:59pm

FAVORITE:
Chicago
Schindler’s List
Amadeus
The Sound of Music
Gone with the Wind

LEAST FAVORITE:
Hurt Locker
Crash
The English Patient
Unforgiven
Platoon

[Patronus]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 5:48pm

Favorite
1. Casablanca
2. All About Eve
3. Forest Gump
4. The Silence of the Lambs
5. Titanic

Least Favorite
1. Crash
2. Crash
3. Crash
4. Crash
5. Crash

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 6:29pm

Is CRASH the worst Best Picture winner ever? I haven't seen AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS though.

Strummergirl, I also don't get the SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE hate. I think comedies are unfairly maligned. I rewatched it a couple weeks ago and was again pretty into the uniqueness of Tom Stoppard's screenplay and the seamlessness of the cast. I also find both Gwyneth Paltrow and Judi Dench to be quite wonderful and deserving.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 9:24pm

I haven't seen it (besty, you've seen 'em all, care to chime in here?) but my understanding is THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH is a woeful film, and has long been the proverbial stain on the Best Picture mantle.

...also, I kinda liked CRASH. It's so broad-strokes, but some of it worked for me like gangbusters. It's just that it won over BROKEBACK that casts it in an unfortunate light that's difficult for many to look past. I don't think it's great, but I don't think it's embarrassing.

Likewise, any disdain I have for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (and there isn't much, I'd give it a solid 8/10) is that it beat SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, one of the most viscerally affecting films of the last 20 years.

Updated On: 2/10/14 at 09:24 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 10:38pm

Around the World in 80 Days and The Greatest Show on Earth aren't bad films. They're just not outstanding. I would call them both "okay."

They both have spectacle. "80 Days" sets up a premise of a gentlemen's bet in a London club, then sets out on essentially a travel log adventure. As they travel from country to country, there are dozens of cameos by well known stars (at least well known to the mid '50s). I always maintained that it won because pretty much every member of the Academy was in the movie. Considering the scope of the film and the number of stars in it, you would think it would be more interesting or exciting, but it's not. It just sort of chugs along until it reaches the finish line. The end. Does it suck? No. Is it a good film? Barely. It's "okay."

The infuriating part to me, and the reason I think it's gotten a rap as a "terrible" film is because pretty much all four films it competed against could have easily won, and in my opinion all four are better films. I would place it FIFTH on the list of nominees, which were The Ten Commandments, The King and I, Friendly Persuasion, and Giant.

Ah, well.

The Greatest Show on Earth is another one that doesn't really go anywhere. It's a "backstage" story of a circus. The "spectacle" is the circus, but for me, those scenes go on way too long. Endless circus stuff. The backstage "drama" is really soap opera cliches at best. Again, it's got a lot of stars in it, but the parts aren't great (except for James Stewart, who is never out of makeup as a clown). Overall, it's not bad, but it's not memorable either.

It beat out Moulin Rouge, which is one of my favorites from the '50s. Also High Noon, Ivanhoe (just as big of a snooze as the winner), and The Quiet Man.

Incidentally, MGM was totally "over" Gene Kelly and his gigantic ego after An American in Paris won the Best Picture award the year before. They put all of their Oscar campaign money behind Ivanhoe that year, a "sword and sandal" movie that scored a bunch of nominations. Sadly, as a result of this decision, Kelly's film "Singin' in the Rain" got the shaft. They didn't promote it, and it wound up with a whopping two nominations (Jean Hagen and Musical Score) and it won nothing. Yet "The Greatest Show On Earth" won Best Picture.


I would put both of these films (Greatest Show and 80 Days) toward the bottom of my overall list, but there are far worse "misfires" that won the top award (see my Least Favorites).

These films weren't misfires so much as they were just plain dull. And other films were much more deserving.

EDIT: I should add that my info about the publicity push for Ivanhoe while ignoring Singin' in the Rain is not conjecture on my part. I got it straight from the horse's mouth when I had a long conversation with one of the heads of Publicity at MGM, during the 1950s. Their funds became limited during this shaky time at the studio, so they made ruthless strategy decisions like this every day.

Another interesting one: he told me they were all set to do a heavy push on Brigadoon in 1954. The studio spent an enormous amount of money on it, shooting it all on hugely elaborate sets, rather than locations in Scotland. But there was another musical that became a huge sleeper hit, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers. It had a fraction of the budget, and was considered a "smaller" release for MGM. This guy told me he remembers when he got the call to pull all of the "Oscar push" campaign for Brigadoon and put the time and money behind Seven Brides (which ultimately received a Best Picture nod). So that kind of juggling happened a lot.

Updated On: 2/10/14 at 10:38 PM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 10:50pm

The Greatest Show on Earth actually did things with its all-star cast. Also, that spectacular train crash. Around the World in 80 Days never quite felt anything more than, 'Oh, this famous person is here now'. I have not seen any of TGSOE's except High Noon- which I can only say is it at least inspired Howard Hawks to make the superior Rio Bravo a few years later.

I'd also stick up for An American in Paris but it's reputation ricochet'd back into good standing. It beat A Streetcar Named Desire and A Place in the Sun which I am sure where most of the complaining came from. I don't know, those two films seem exactly like the kind that would split votes. Of the musical winners though, An American in Paris is near the top for me, personally.

80 Days beat another DeMille spectacle, The Ten Commandments and also the long, sprawling, Texas epic Giant. Also the musical, The King & I. Only film I have not seen was Friendly Persuasion. I have a soft spot for Giant. I don't care how nuts it is for Hudson, Taylor, and Dean to be in that aged make-up or the actual visual of Liz Taylor playing Dennis Hopper's mother. I don't care about the length. It never felt like a slog to me at all. It felt like it was about a changing America. That would've been my choice.

Shakespeare in Love had a lot Harvey Weinstein arm-twisting behind the scenes and while those opening moments of Saving Private Ryan are second to none, it gets a little too interested in tugging heart strings. Plus SPR had The Thin Red Line as competition that may have split votes as a WWII picture, albeit an incredibly different kind of war picture from Malick who had broken a near 20 year absence.

[Melissa25]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 10:55pm

Favorite
"The Silence of the Lambs"
"The Sting"
"The Godfather Part II"
"West Side Story"
"All About Eve"

Least Favorite
"The Last Emperor"
"A Beautiful Mind"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Chariots of Fire"
"Braveheart"

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/10/14 at 10:57pm

strummergirl--I agree with you about An American In Paris. I think it deserved to win, and it was a huge gamble to end any movie where there is no dialogue for the last 20 minutes of the film.

But it was considered a dark horse because of A Place in the Sun and Streetcar. And unfortunately, when An American In Paris won, it turned Gene Kelly into a monster of ego (he was already pretty up there, but this made him into a tyrant---just ask Debbie Reynolds). So Singin' in the Rain got the shaft. It was already a hit, but MGM decided other movies (like the sucky Ivanhoe) were more worthy of a push. Such a shame. Politics everywhere!

Updated On: 2/10/14 at 10:57 PM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 2:06am

Re: the great Shakespeare in Love/Saving Private Ryan debate - I would have given it to Saving Private Ryan, though I agree that the award would be almost entirely for the first 20-30 minutes of the moving which are visceral, thrilling and shocking. The remainder is the usual sentimental goo that Spielberg loves. I swear, I feel like I should get tested for diabetes after most of his films.

A bit surprised to see No Country for Old Men on so many "least" lists. While I do think that year, the prize should have gone to the near perfect There Will Be Blood, I found No Country to be one of the Coen Bros most wildly entertaining and ambitious films and was pleased to see them and the film so well received over the usual heartstring-pulling, triumph-over-the-odds, teachable-moment, teary Oscar bait.
Updated On: 2/11/14 at 02:06 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 7:45am

re: Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan --- I'm for Shakespeare all the way. I agree that the first 20 minutes of Private Ryan are excellent, but the movie falls into a cliche after that. It's not even as good as many similar films that came before it, such as The Longest Day or Battleground, etc. Shakespeare in Love was a unique movie in so many respects. The more time that passes, the more special it has become to me. A brilliant achievement from start to finish.

As for No Country For Old Men, I have a problem with Coen Brothers movies in general. I think they (as filmmakers) look down their noses at humanity too much. Their creative "POV" comes across as arrogant and mean-spirited. In short, their films turn me off, almost uniformly. In addition to that, I found too many stumbles in No Country, and I thought the ending was terrible.

I haven't watched it in a while (I've only seen it twice), but maybe when I get to it in my "Great Oscar Best Picture Watching Marathon" in the next couple of months, I'll be able to go into more detail. I'm still in the 1930s right now .... with Grand Hotel and Cavalcade up next! (It's fun and fascinating watching these in order!)

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 7:54am

Another movie that is "down there" for me, but not quite low enough to make the "bottom five" is Chariots of Fire. Painfully slow and dull, although it has a few good moments.

And just like An American In Paris (running against A Place in the Sun and Streetcar), it won because of a split in the top two films going into the race. Chariots was up against On Golden Pond and Reds, both of which were in the "tight race" for Best Picture.

That's the last time I remember being truly shocked (and there was a gasp) when the winner was announced. It was a dark horse, third-place choice by nearly all "experts" and fans alike that came out with the top prize.

It would be as if Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, and American Hustle lost this year to Nebraska. It was that much of an upset. In my opinion, that much of a "surprise" hasn't happened since 1981.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 8:21am

I know the Coens may never win everyone over which is why the No Country for Old Men is still one of the starkest Best Picture winners. They never have done well with the Academy up until that point and the general rule of thought that, not saying this is true, to win these things to appeal to the Academy you have to suddenly dilute your work for accessibility. The Coens won for one of their darkest films, if anything turning up their style to 11 and dripping a lot of arsenic into their film. It's one of those strangely nice stories that over time artists can be recognized while retaining who they are.

Then again, 2007 was a dark year in nominees. There Will Be Blood, Michael Clayton, and Atonement. Juno was the light one, almost an antidote for the other set of nominees (and the weakest nominee but that has nothing to do with lightness vs. darkness). It's hard to tell who was #2. Hindsight has it as There Will Be Blood vs. No Country for Old Men. If it were those two films, it has to be one of the darkest BP match-ups since Chinatown and The Godfather Part II.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 8:41am

It isn't the "darkness" that turns me off about the Coen brothers work, strummergirl. My choice that year would have been the brilliant (and very dark) There Will Be Blood. As I said, it's their arrogant POV and (what seems to me to be) a general mean-spiritedness toward the human race. It's a huge turn-off to me in nearly all of their films. No Country was no exception.

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 8:44am

For me, the worst best picture was The English Patient, which won over the brilliant Fargo.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 8:52am

^ A good friend of mine said the title of the movie was perfect.

It's in "English," and you have to be very, very "patient."