Ranking the Best Picture Winners: The Top Five

by Chris Marshall:

Although I now wish I would have done them all at one time, I held off on revealing my five favorite Best Picture winners in the last post. At the time, I didn’t expect it to be another 10 days before I posted them, but, you know, the Olympics happened, and I stopped having any time to do anything else. But now it’s time, at long last, to finish the list.

Ranking the Best Pictures, Part Three: 28-6

by Chris Marshall:

Finally, at long last, we come to the Tier One movies. The best of the best. The cream of the crop. Again, it’s really, really long, so I’m going to get straight into it. The shortest one of these rankings posts is still 500 words longer than the previous longest Oscar Project post, and it’s 1,000 words longer than the average.

In case you missed them, here are links for parts one and two:
Part One: #84 through #57
Part Two: #56 through #29

***

Ranking the Best Pictures, Part Two: 56-29

by Chris Marshall:

I realized a little too late yesterday that these articles are going to be super long, so I’m just going to jump right into the rankings. Tier two movies commence!

In case you missed it, here's part one, which ranks the winners from 84 to 57.

***

Ranking the Best Pictures, Part One: 84-57

by Chris Marshall:

At long last, it’s time for the Ultimate Best Picture Winner List! I’m going to post these over the next three days, 28 movies at a time. Before I get into it, I just want to point out that there were very few of these I disliked. Ok, I probably disliked most of the movies in today’s post, but even those ranked in the 50s and 60s aren’t that bad. They’re just comparatively worse than many of the top-ranked films.

All right, that’s enough of a preface. This post is going to be long enough as it is. Let’s get into it, shall we?

The Oscar Project Coda: Best of the 2000s/Best Decades

by Chris Marshall:

It is so, so strange not having any more Oscar winners to watch. I mean, I guess I could go back and watch all the nominees, but there’s a limit to my masochism. Besides, there are no existing prints of one of the early nominees, so I would always feel like there’s something missing. On the other hand, I am very much looking forward to watching movies that are more fun, more offbeat, and more interesting than the standard Oscar fare.

Most Best Picture winners are obviously high-caliber films, but the Academy virtually never picks anything that comes out of left field. I complained in my last post about people who called The Artist a safe pick. I stand by what I said, simply because by Best Picture standards, it was actually quite a bold choice. But compared to what exists out there in the wide world of cinema, it’s pretty tame.

The Oscar Project #84: The Artist (2011)

by Chris Marshall:

I think the symmetry between the first and most recent Best Picture winners is absolutely perfect. Way back in 1927, Wings became the first film to win the top award at the Oscars, and as it turned out, it was the only silent picture to ever win… until this year.

Yes, in some sense, The Artist is not a true silent film. There are moments of sound and even color in the movie, but I have to imagine it’s the closest we’ll ever get to it again. And in another fitting connection, The Artist was set in 1927, the year Wings came out. I know this symmetry only exists because I happened to choose to do The Oscar Project this year, but it almost seems pre-ordained.

I do have to admit that I prefer this year’s winner to the first one, as much as I’ve defended the quality of some (thought definitely not all) of those early winners. But that’s mostly because The Artist is a very good film, finely crafted and well-acted. It didn’t win because it was a gimmick. I wouldn’t say it was the best movie of 2011—that title goes to Drive, based on what I’ve seen from last year—but it was certainly one of the best.

The Oscar Project #83: The King's Speech (2010)

by Chris Marshall:

It’s hard to believe that I’m at a point in The Oscar Project where I’m watching a movie that I originally saw in a theater in Ohio. While watching The King’s Speech, my main thought was, “Didn’t I just see this?” It has, amazingly, been a year and a half now, but it still seemed so fresh in my memory.

I genuinely enjoyed the film, both this time and the first time, but I also believe it was nowhere close to the best movie of its year. I thought that honor went to The Social Network, and I say that even though I hate, hate, hate Aaron Sorkin. But there’s nothing wrong with The King’s Speech, and it certainly feels like the type of movie that the Academy loves.

It recounts the true story of George VI’s[1] struggle with his stuttering problem and his efforts to overcome it, at least to a great enough extent that he could deliver speeches when World War II broke out. His speech impediment was quite severe, and it was made worse considering how, shall we say, insensitive people were back then. If you look back at the Best Picture winners from the 1930s, you will often see stutterers portrayed as the bumbling comic relief.

The Oscar Project #82: The Hurt Locker (2009)

by Chris Marshall:

In 2009, a war film once again won Best Picture, and like all the previous winners, it focuses on a small group of individuals rather than providing any broader context for the events depicted. This time around, our protagonists are members of a bomb squad in Iraq, faced with the extremely dangerous task of defusing IEDs.

We spend an extensive period of time with three different characters, but the true focus of the film is on William James (Jeremy Renner), who takes over as head of the squad when the previous leader (Guy Pearce) is obliterated by a remotely detonated bomb[1]. James seems like a normal enough guy at first, but it soon becomes apparently that there is something a little off about him. It’s as if he cherishes the thrill of his job.

That’s a positive characteristic in many occupations, but when your job entails a significant risk of dying every time you do it, it can be a little unsettling, especially if you are one of the guys with the duty of protecting him. Making matters worse is that James is not much of a communicator, going so far as to remove his headset during one mission.

The Oscar Project #81: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

by Chris Marshall:

On the surface, a movie about trivia seems like it would be perfect for me. I’ve virtually dedicated my life to the pursuit of becoming a great trivia player[1]. Then again, Slumdog Millionaire is no more about playing trivia than No Country for Old Men was about finding a briefcase full of money. It’s a love story, and the game show plot is only a contrivance to facilitate the real point of the film.

Jamal Malik finds himself on the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” and stuns the world (well, at least India) by advancing all the way to the final, 20 million rupee question. The buzzer sounds, though, meaning he will have to wait until the next night to see the question. Immediately after walking out of the studio, he is arrested on suspicion of cheating.

Why does he seem so suspicious? He’s from the slums and has extremely little formal education. How, then, could he possibly advance so far when doctors, lawyers, and professors can’t advance past the 16,000 rupee question? After some rudimentary torture at the hands of the police, he explains how he knew each answer.

The Oscar Project #80: No Country for Old Men (2007)

by Chris Marshall:

Even though it is starkly different from most of their earliest movies, No Country for Old Men is one of the finest Coen Brothers films. It takes a very serious, somber tone, but it would be a mistake to say there are no laughs; they are just of a much different variety than typically seen in their past work.

But that makes sense. This is by no means a comedy—Cormac McCarthy has never been considered much of a jokester. Instead, its goal is no less than to personify Evil in the character of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Is he human? Is he a monster? Some combination of the two?

He actually reminds me in many ways of Leonard Smalls, the biker from Raising Arizona. They both seem to appear out of nowhere and take joy in killing the innocent. Even animals aren’t spared. Smalls blows away a rabbit and a lizard as he rides down the highway; Chigurh shoots at a crow with his shotgun. Both of them seem, paradoxically, more and less than human simultaneously. Chigurh appears completely unfazed by pain. Even he’s limping or otherwise physically impaired, his face betrays nothing.

The Oscar Project #79: The Departed (2006)

by Chris Marshall:

At this point in The Oscar Project, it’s hard to summon up much excitement about the last few films. It has nothing to do with their quality—all the remaining movies range from good to great—but rather the realization that there’s nothing new left to watch. The true point of this endeavor was to give me motivation to watch all the Best Picture winners I’ve never seen, and now that there are none of those left, it feels like I’m just going through the motions.

That’s not to say I won’t finish; I would have to be a crazy person to quit at this point, something I have no intention of doing. But it is true that I’m more looking forward to the Director/Franchise/Genre of the Week posts than I am the last few Oscar winners, simply because those are all movies I haven’t seen before.

That’s enough navel-gazing for one post, though. Let’s move on to the film. The Departed is a very good movie, both in terms of its technical merit and how enjoyable it is to watch. I don’t, however, believe it achieves the same level of greatness as some of his previous films that were unfairly passed over for Best Picture, such as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas.

The Oscar Project #78: Crash (2005)

by Chris Marshall:

My first draft of this post consisted of just one word: “Garbage.” Maybe that’s a little too uncharitable, but it summed up my feelings immediately after watching Crash. That being said, though, in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I was already biased against the film before going into it, simply because of all the negative criticism I’ve read about it over the past few years.

But I’m pretty sure I never would have liked this, even if I went into it totally blind. I’m not against “message films” in principle, but I prefer not to be bludgeoned over the head with that message. There is literally not a single scene in this movie that can’t be boiled down to one of the following formulae: two people of different races being racist toward one another or two people of the same race talking about how bad racism is.

The thing is, that’s not a bad message at all. The problem is that it’s not a new or insightful or useful message. This is something that everybody knows already. I’m not claiming that racists don’t exist; they do, and they’re terrible. Most of the time, though, racism doesn’t take the blatant, overt form on display in Crash. The characters in this movie just openly hate people of other races.

The Oscar Project #77: Million Dollar Baby (2004)

by Chris Marshall:

For years I had virtually no interest in seeing Million Dollar Baby, and I don’t know why. It’s (kind of) a boxing movie, it has Clint Eastwood in it, and it was almost universally beloved by critics. But for whatever reason, I could just never summon up enough enthusiasm to watch it.

That was a mistake. Like Unforgiven before it, Clint Eastwood again delivered a magnificent film, buoyed by the performances of its three stars: Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and most importantly, Hilary Swank. Swank was only five years removed from her breakout performance in Boys Don’t Cry, for which she won Best Actress. This time, as the up and coming boxer Maggie Fitzgerald, she would win it again. Freeman, for his role as retired boxer Scrap Iron Dupris, finally won his first Academy Award.

So yeah, I really liked this movie, even though a great deal of its last act has been spoiled for me many times over. I won’t reveal it here, except to say that a sense of dread hung over me the entire time I was watching. I knew it was going to happen, but I didn’t know when, so every fight was tinged with anxiety.

The Oscar Project #76: The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

by Chris Marshall:

Return of the King posed a unique problem for The Oscar Project. It is only the second sequel to win Best Picture—The Godfather Part Two being the first—but this time, neither of its predecessors took home the top prize. Although I had seen all of the films at least once before, I hadn’t watched them since soon after they came out in theaters.

For this reason, I was a little concerned that I would be totally lost upon re-watching Return of the King. As it turned out, though, I remembered enough for it to (mostly) make sense, and I think it works pretty well as a standalone movie anyway. Obviously it is greatly enhanced by seeing the first two in the series, but I feel like it would be mostly comprehensible to a newbie.

I try to tread lightly when discussing The Lord of the Rings because I am by no means an expert. As I mentioned, I’ve seen the movies only once or twice each, and I’ve never read any of the books. The only Tolkien I’ve read at all is The Hobbit, and it doesn’t help much with these films. Therefore, I just want to say that everything I write should be viewed in light of that admission.

The Oscar Project #75: Chicago (2002)

by Chris Marshall:

2002 marked the first time since Oliver![1], a full 34 years earlier, that a musical won Best Picture. Because I’m not much of a musical aficionado, I was perfectly fine with that long gap. And Chicago, while competently executed, didn’t blow me away, certainly not enough to make me pine for the golden era of the genre.

For one thing, it’s one of the least plot-driven musicals to have won the top prize. Not counting the ending credits, the film only lasts an hour and 47 minutes, which is already short by Best Picture standards[2]. Take away the song and dance performances that were basically stand-alone vignettes—not a negligible portion—and you’re left with a very small amount of time that’s devoted to story.

I’m not saying that the songs in musicals should always or necessarily exist to further the plot. That’s not the case. But in this situation, I didn’t like the songs enough to justify taking me away from the film for so long. It’s not that they were bad or that I actively disliked them. It’s just that they seemed forgettable, not in the same class as the musical numbers in The Sound of Music or even West Side Story.

The Oscar Project #74: A Beautiful Mind (2001)

by Chris Marshall:

A Beautiful Mind is at times brilliant and at times schmaltzy, but it’s always interesting. I think that might have more to do with the subject of the film himself rather than Ron Howard’s directing, but either way, I like this movie, despite its many imperfections. Even though I was frustrated with it on a number of occasions, it was easy enough to overlook those flaws.

I first saw it over a decade ago shortly after reading the book, written by Sylvia Nasar, which I also enjoyed immensely. The film is a loose adaptation of the biography, which covers John Nash’s early life, work, descent into madness, and recovery in much greater detail. I think Howard’s decision to narrow the scope of the book was the correct one; schizophrenia is difficult to portray on-screen, so using more tangible representations of Nash’s hallucinations was the right call.

For the uninitiated, the film version of A Beautiful Mind is about John Nash, the economist and mathematician responsible for many breakthroughs in game theory, particularly what is now known as the Nash equilibrium. More specifically, it’s about his struggles with schizophrenia and his eventual, near-miraculous recovery, after which he is awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

The Oscar Project #73: Gladiator (2000)

by Chris Marshall:

This isn’t necessarily a complaint, but I feel like I watched Gladiator just a few days ago, except back then it was called Braveheart. That might seem like a strange statement, since they’re set over a millennium apart, in different parts of Europe, and have very different storylines. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it just seemed like there was a sameness to them.

Both films feature lots of extra bloody and gory swordfights, and the main character in each is seeking, at least in part, to avenge a loved one’s death. Yes, those are characteristics that a lot of different movies have, but these in particular have a similar “feel” to them. Maybe it’s because they both star a huge action star who’s not so well liked in real life. Maybe I’m just crazy.

Nevertheless, taken on its own, I thought this was a highly enjoyable film. Normally I don’t care too much about the brutal fight scenes, but these were well crafted, and unlike, say, The Hunger Games, the edits and camera movements didn’t happen so fast that I couldn’t keep up with what was going on. That’s a huge pet peeve of mine in many modern action movies.

The Oscar Project Interlude #7: Best of the 1990s

by Chris Marshall:

Well, the 1990s are finished. This decade in The Oscar Project took place during a time of major change in my life. I watched the first movie of the decade in somebody else’s apartment in Columbus, Ohio, because my power was out, and I watched the last while lying in bed in Smithville, Mississippi. It’s kind of hard to imagine that I wrote the first post of this series two and a half months ago when I should have been paying attention in my hierarchical linear modeling class at Ohio State.

It’s been quite a ride. When I first started in late April, I’d seen 21/84 of the winners, or 25%. Now I’ve seen 80/84, or 95%. By Tuesday, I will have seen every single one of them, which I bet very few people are able to say. There have been some really bad movies, though not as many as I expected, and some extremely good ones, many of which completely took me off guard.

The Oscar Project #72: American Beauty (1999)

by Chris Marshall:

When I first saw American Beauty shortly after it came out, I thought it was really something special. I thought it had something deep and profound to say about the world. As I’ve grown older, though, I’ve come to decide that’s not the case. It’s just a movie about a bunch of awful people doing a bunch of awful things.

Now, that’s not to say that the characters have no redeeming value. Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey), effectively the main character, has moments where he’s funny and makes sense, but I think the movie’s overall message that it’s acceptable to completely give up on caring about life is problematic. Of course, I admit I could be misreading the point of the film.

Lester’s wife, played by Annette Bening, is made out to be totally terrible, and she pretty much is. His daughter Jane (Thora Birch) is the angsty, misunderstood teenager who finds in her new neighbor (the gamekeeper from The Hunger Games) somebody to accept her. He’s wise and world-weary, but he also sells drugs to earn vast sums of money. And his dad is an evil, homophobic Marine who has Nazi paraphernalia. It’s all quite dysfunctional.

The Oscar Project #71: Shakespeare in Love (1998)

by Chris Marshall:

Poor Colin Firth. Shakespeare in Love marked the second time in three years that one of the Brothers Fiennes stole his wife (or fiancée) away in a Best Picture winner. In The English Patient, he played Geoffrey Clifton, and his wife had an affair with Count Laszlo, played by Ralph Fiennes. Here, his fiancée Viola, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, falls in love with the Bard, who is played by Ralph’s younger brother Joseph.

It was a rough couple of years for Colin, but he’ll bounce back in a big way in a little over a decade when he gets to be a king. Being a king is cool, even if you do have a stuttering problem.

Joseph has not achieved the same level of fame that his older brother has, but he’s still got a very solid list of acting credits. Most impressive is that Shakespeare in Love was only his second screen credit—not a bad start to his career[1]. Paltrow, who I normally don’t like at all, even came across as very likeable here. I worried that my feelings about her in general would cloud my judgment about her performance, but I thought she was quite good.