My Favorite Best Pictures

It has its moments (the dialogue...), but overall, I forgive them because I love it so much. Just a great big spectacle!

Just a big grand spectacle. What is often missed in big films like this though is the machinations of human emotions. You're so caught up the visuals that you forget about the characters. This film and its actors don't let you do that here.

Simply one of the most amazing films ever made. Hannibal Lecter sears his way into your memory and never leaves.

One of the best films last year. Scorsese, my favorite director, directs one of his better casts.

Woody Allen's best. The smartest comedy I've ever seen.

The most powerful film I've watched along with United 93. Cinematography and score really stand out.

Old school was never better. It's amazing that a story about an aged actress and the woman trying to replace her could be so riveting. The script is sharp and scathing, talking about the theater but truly ruminating on Hollywood's age discrimination. Bette Davis is self-deprecating, boisterous and hilarious as Margo Channing, the aging stage actress. Anne Baxter is fantastic in the devilish role of Eve. Baxter's not only playing a part, but her character is too and you don't see truly see "her" until the last 15 minutes. After the two main ladies, the rest of the cast is perfectly used, every character feeling very much a part of the film - the script has a balance with the story and its characters that has no rival I've seen. George Sanders is subtly terrific as the theater critic as is Celeste Holme as Margo's devoted best friend. The film may crackle and sizzle, but it's all-around a dark tale, and at it's heart (the final shot in tow), a bit scary when put in perspective.

What an absolutely fantastic, enchanting film that pulls no bs in showing you what the hell of India's slums are like. That it is woven into something as culturally insignificant as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is kind of weird, but at the same time, all the more brilliant. The cinematography and the music are exceptional and the hand of Danny Boyle is seen as a guiding hand that never force feeds you the story, but provides it intriguingly with an array of angles and set-ups. The ending is just one of those moments where you can't hold back the goosebumps (a modern City Lights kind of ending, I like to think).

Half-way through I was wondering why this film was so praised, and then I started to let the film truly sink in, affect me, and I found out why. We're always looking for a good film that will uplift us, make us smile, and so few of those are made now. The ones that try are usually trite and never achieve the depth they want, but this one does, because it's the classic story of the nobody who wins everything and gets girl, it's just done in a brand new, unique, stylish way. Thankfully, this kind of story never gets old.

Probably what was a punch to the gut when the book first came out, the film had to be just as much of a wake-up call to what really goes on in these institutions. The acting is exceptional from everyone. Nicholson finds a way to create an indelible character basically from his own human traits, just emphasized and Louise Fletcher is like a guarded insect whose tics and facial expressions from the effects of her job have long since been retired from the arena of her face. She is a cold, bruising bitch of woman who seems nice, casual at first, but eventually breaks your spirit through remorse, self-pity, and self-loathing. The rest of the cast, from Christopher Lloyd to Brad Dourif to Danny DeVito and even Will Sampson as Chief are an incredibly well-balanced, well-used group. The script and it's story are unflinching: funny, raw, and real all at the same time. It's ending is dark, stoic, and poetic - it haunts me. The film is beautiful not because of how it looks, but because it is truthful, and sometimes that's all we need from a movie.

Quite a dark satirical comedy for 1960. Scathing almost. Yet, some of the comedy is quiet, almost innocent. The pairing of these two is quite compelling. Lemmon alone is reason enough to see it, but the rest is just too good. A classic of its genre.

So enjoyable. The acting, the music, the choreography, the sets, the cinematography - everything here is so thoroughly well done. It is lengthy and you feel it in some parts, but overall, the movie's stamina lasts because its entertaining moments are extremely entertaining. Ron Moody is villainously funny as Fagin, Oliver Reed is truly scary as Bill Sikes, Jack Wild as The Artful Dodger is hilarious and while Mark Lester as Oliver Twist does a good overall job, he can be annoying in parts. Carol Reed deserved his Oscar for The Third Man, but at least he finally got one with this one.

A great caper comedy: Newman and Redford create another lasting duo. The music....the music!

There really is not a beginning as to how to describe how great this film is.

Such an endearing movie. Jessica Tandy gives a performance of such wit and charm, Freeman is wonderful as always, and Dan Aykroyd...who knew?

The one thing I was afraid of going into this film was that Javier Bardem's character had been overplayed as a "great villian." Boy, was I wrong to be worried. To me, Anton Chigurh is the most unnerving character I've seen in a movie since Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. Everything else is perfect as well, but to me, this film is about Bardem and the nihilistic tone his character creates for the audience.

Bardem's performance dominates the film, but Jones, in his subtlety, crafts his second memorable character of 2007, and Brolin is great as the desperate Lewellyn Moss. The direction again is exquisite from the Coens, with terrific cinematography from Roger Deakins, and the sparse atmospheric music creates a beautifully lonely feel. Without longwinded scores, the Coens use accentuated sounds which give aethestic/realistic qualities to their films.

The most amazing part about the Coens is that you don't immediately sense the epic quality of their films; it's sometimes hours or days later that it starts to seep in. Here is another, but this one is much more striking in its immediacy. Through a certain line or character, No Country for Old Men exposes the barest of each human characteristic.

The style and swagger of The French Connection is apparent. Every single element of the film is top notch. You have a strong cast headlined by an amazing Gene Hackman, terrific direction from Friedkin, master class editing, an eerie, atmospheric score, and gritty, naturalistic settings. The story and its suspense build perfectly from its tightly written script and the two major chase scenes, where Popeye chases the bearded Frenchman into the subway, and then him chasing the subway in a car, are both tense, exhilarating and completely satisfying. An expert action thriller and stands as one of the best "genre" Best Pictures.

Exceptional, but I had a bit of problem with the adaptations of the last two books. Not to mention, all three are butt-numbing. Still, film as entity, does not get any better than this.

A classic that has so surpassed it's cult popularity and yet it's still so cool: it's great, that's why. Brando would've been remembered for On the Waterfront, but with The Godfather, he's immortalized.

Even though Selznick greatly interfered with Hitchcock on this, his first American film, it contains every aspect of what we have come to expect as great Hitchcock. The story starts out as a romance and quickly devolves into a thriller as Fontaine's character arrives at the mansion and is immediately faced with the haunting effect of Rebecca, the woman who used to be the lady of the house - a woman who died under mysterious circumstances and whose memory lingers over the place like a dark shroud of the past. The twists and climax are played out to great effect and the story is a perfectly balanced mixture of romance, mystery, noir and thrills. Olivier and Fontaine deliver masterful performances, Olivier's more subtle, while Fontaine is a showcase of inhibitions, naivete, and mixed emotions. Judith Anderson, as Mrs. Danvers, is one of the greatest psychological villains in screen history and George Sanders is devilishly good as Rebecca's favorite cousin. The music is bombastic, but welcomed in the grandiose setting, and the camerawork and visuals throughout are spectacular - terrific photography! This was awarded Best Picture the year after Gone with the Wind and is often forgotten for just that reason. Too bad for such a terrific film.

Undoubtly one of the most fun Best Pictures out there. British to its core, but it contains the expansiveness of American cinema. The cameos ring out from ear to ear while David Niven and Cantinflas render endearing performances. The use of color cintematography and its various pieces of music make it all the more grand. The only complaint I have is that certain scenes feel deliberately long in an attempt to make it have that feel of an epic.

It seems like one of those films that each time you watch, you grow to appreciate it more and more and realize what a truly great film it is. I don't quite believe in its greatness at the moment, but after another watch, I might have to change my opinion.

The script is exceptional and the cast is great. It's a smart romantic comedy; a breed almost non-existent nowadays. Never should've beaten Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture though.

Some people love it, some hate it. I'm in the middle. I don't think it's as good as some people say, but I don't think it's as bad as others says. I do believe one thing: that Tom Hanks is the greatest actor of his generation.

Even if it's not the envelope pusher it was back in 1979, divorce now being such a regular event, Kramer vs. Kramer is still a very competent drama full of terrific (and Oscar-winning) performances. There's nothing here that's going to bowl you over immediately. It's by no means, a "Wow!" kind of film, something that strikes you right off, but what you have here is intelligent filmmaking, with craft attached to it, and heart.

What is impressive with the film is its reluctance to takes sides. We are given the father's point of view throughout the whole film as he struggles to being an only parent and having a job. (Dustin Hoffman and the boy, Justin Henry, have exceptional chemistry.) Streep's character returns in the latter part of the film because she wants her son, and now she is this liberated, stabilized woman who know can have her son back in her life. But throughout the trial, even though you are supposed to hate her, because we've been with Hoffman's character the whole time, we can see how both parents are equally fit to raise the child on their own; we can see both points of view. So, even though the courts decide in Joanna's favor, it is the last scene when she gives that custody back to Ted that we see the what it is at the heart of the film. Neither sex is more fit to raise a child, it is only dependent upon the situation in which the family is in. Strong, almost divisive commentary for a time in which women's lib. was in its peek.

And the true-life villain here... the child custody proceedings.

Classic, but I feel like it hasn't stood the test of time that other films have.

Aaah, Capra... almost no one does it better. If this ain't perfect, it's pretty close. Gable's wisecracking slayed me. Proves that almost every romantic comedy from 1934 on owes its debt to this film.

Great dark humor. Not as good with repeated viewings.

Great film, but I hate the ending being so fatalistic. Didn't deserve Best Actress

A prestige drama no doubt, this is an actor's film, but Redford's austere direction is able to keep the film lively enough visually. Some images do feel rigid, but its emotional core is so resonant that the writing and acting overcome anything it may lack visually. To see these actors play out this story of depth of loss is engrossing

Sutherland and Moore deliver wraught performances as the parents of a lost child and another who deals with the guilt of that death. Moore is particuarly good showing off a darker side to her acting. We can feel the emotional distance from her from the very beginning; she's a monster in her own way. Sutherland is an overcaring dad, but loves his son dearly and the struggle of balancing his son's needs and his wife's wants is impressively handled psychologically by Sutherland. His character could have most easily been the most stereotypical, but put in his hands, it's an impressive performance. Hirsch as the balls-out psychiatrist plays him hard-nosed, but caring, and as the catalyst towards Hutton's character's recovery, really helps keep the film grounded. As well, Alvin Sargent's script is terrific, asking the most out of each actor, while keeping the film on the darker side of emotions and the psyche and not allowing it to run over into some ham-fisted drama or sentimentality.

Finally, it is Timothy Hutton who gives the film it's soul. Without this layered performance of such dark depths, of struggle, pain, and hope, I do not think the film would have won Best Picture. Though virtually a leading role, Hutton deservedly won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for a role that was quite demanding for someone so young. He makes his pain our pain and we get to know his innerworking and what he is struggling with and trying to overcome, all through this myriad of versilimitude. It is impressive to watch.

You can tell though, with its feel though, it hasn't aged well.

5 Stars it deserves because it's a great big giant spectacle and what it did and still does for film.

Everything it was built up to be. A giant spectacle picture that deserved the Oscars it got. I love the subtle tie-ins of Christ throughout the film and then shows His great impact on Judah Ben-Hur when the film culminates in the crucifixion. The chariot sequence is amazingly filmed, the editing shines here, and is amazing to watch. While I do not enjoy Wyler's direction, there are so many other amazing aspects here. The costumes, the set design, the cinematograpy, and especially the music and special effects are all fantastic. The acting is good enough from everyone, although Heston does feel stiff at parts. And the writing does feel uneven.

Overall, it lives up to its hype as one of the "biggest" films ever.

A brilliant film in ideology; makes you question yourself. Technically is very good as well, but the script w/ its enormous cast struggles to meet and fulfill all the emotional climaxes.

A great film that shows the horrors of a war on the human psyche. (Who knew I could like Charlie Sheen.)

To me, this film has shown better with age, and while I'm still not the biggest Eastwood fan, I love that this is a very typical Western, full of all its stereotypes (in a good way), but with a modern kick to it and it makes for a fantastic film. Good ol' revenge at its best.

Everything about this film version of Pygmalion is perfect. I started watching this knowing that the stage version had Andrews, but quickly forgot as Hepburn enthralled (who cares that she didn't sing the songs...). Rex Harrison steals the show as Henry Higgins, and with a perfect blend of humor, drama, subtle romance, along with great songs and costumes, this is a Best Picture that is actually worth watching.

"There is a strange sort of reasoning in Hollywood that musicals are less worthy of Academy consideration than dramas. It's a form of snobbism, the same sort that perpetuates the idea that drama is more deserving of Awards than comedy." - Gene Kelly

...But this one took home six Oscars including Best Picture

The plot is thin, no doubt, but the lengthy, beautifully choreographed dance sequences showing Kelly as a fantastic showman make up for it. The film is rapturous and witty (Oscar Levant as pianist Adam Cook), and shows Paris to be the purveyor of the arts and love. The best aspect of the film was incorporating Kelly's character, the artist and his love for painting, into some of the musical/dance numbers (most notably the title symphony/ballet). The cardboard painted sets are the perfect backdrop for the 17 minute final sequence as, of course, this would be the exact backdrop his dreams would have, of paintings. Not to mention, this is where the cinematography truly shines. Set design and costume design are great, too and the Gershwin tunes, throughout, are terrific, as always.

I'm not a huge fan of musicals, but I grew up on this one.

A fine character-study of a film. The film is timeless because it's about the common man and the common man's adversity which is mirrored fictionally in Terry Malloy's struggles against his union (not to mention, it is metaphorically Kazan's response to his handing over names during Senator McCarthy's hearings). Every single scene is beautiful (fantastic b&w cinematography). Hardly an ounce of the film feels out of place or misused. Brando creates a character out of nothing. What could've been an over-used, one-dimensional character is transformed into the everyman. He represents all of us: the down-and-out, the one that had the chance, the one that can still make something of himself and Brando invokes on us the need to root for him with a perfectly-balanced and gritty performance. Eva Marie Saint is terrific in her first role and Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, and especially Karl Malden are all terrific supporting cast members. As well, Elmer Bernstein's music caters to the film. It is ready to explode at any moment, just like the film, and does bombastically so at certain moments.

Two specific scenes stand out: the scene where Terry confesses to Edie that he had her brother set up. The scene's dialogue is overshadowed by the noise of the dock. It's not important what he's saying, or what she's saying in response, we know in general how the scene will play out. That the loud noises are overshadowing is simply brilliant; it conveys how much of an emotional scene it is, but also allowing for the reality of the shipyard town to be inserted in the film. Even the music is overshadowed by these sounds. It is such a marvelously inspired scene!

The other scene is, of course, the notorious "Contender" scene. It's just two great actors in a perfect tete-a-tete. So much is conveyed verbally and visually in this scene, it's no wonder it's become the landmark scene it has. It seems, really, the crux of the film, everything the film stands on, and also what sets up the climax and conclusion.

At the end of the day, you can look for flaws in the film, and there really doesn't feel like there is one. It's almost perfect in a quiet way. A fine American film which deserves the recognition it's gotten.

Watching it again, really showed how great Dustin Hoffman is in this film. No one can get the eccentricities of this disease totally correct, but Hoffman is completely engrossing, wholy touching and terribly funny. The film still, is just mediocre, but I've come to appreciate it more, even with some of its technical miscues.

This 1969 winner of Best Picture is very bleak, but it's a visceral experience in the underbelly of New York in the 1960's. What makes the film great is the performances of Voight and Hoffman and the friendship of their two central characters. Yet, I cannot help but feel the film has some excesses (it feels like there are some superfluous moments in the story) and without these superbly written characters the film would just have been seen as a showy, controversial film without any heart or soul.

It's harder to get into than the original, but may actually be a better film.

I can't help but give it 5 stars! Everything about it is so finely tuned. Everything! So expertly crafted. Set over 3 hours and 47 minutes, the script is so pure, so balanced in its storytelling. It has to be one of the best scripts every written! (Although, I did feel a little removed from the story, it never totally engrossed me, but I imagine that might be different with second and third viewings). It never once feels like it lags, as almost all long films do at some point or another.

The performance from Peter O'Toole is masterful. It is a nuanced, marvelously layered performance and it is truly a disaster he has never won a competitive Oscar. This was probably his best chance and they gave it to an actor in Gregory Peck they probably felt was overdue (which he was) and it was their last best chance to honor him; they, of course, would surely be able to give O'Toole one with a long career ahead of him. And, O'Toole has been nominated 7 more times for the Leading Actor award, but no statue has come his way. What a shame this is on the Academy! (But, then again, they never honored Hitchcock either.) The rest of the well-known is cast is perfect. Omar Sharif is terrific as Ali, and Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, and Claude Rains all provide exceptional supporting roles. They are so good, they never once feel like they're inserted just because they are great actors and the roles needed to be filled.

Films like this, like Ben-Hur, like Gandhi just do not happen today. The massive sets, the massive amounts extras are substituted for CGI, which is okay, but it really does render films emotionally mute, in some respects. There's a reason why the battles, even just the visuals here are much more SATISFYING than say in Lord of the Rings. Thusly, the set decoration is impeccably done and was much more complicated back in this time in film. The actors and the film crew suffered to make this picture, filming it in most of the real places in which T.E. Lawrence was himself. Today, with these kind of pictures, actors are able to use green screens and the CGI setting and extra characters are inserted. It's just not as "real" as it once was.

The photography is spectacular here. Filmed in Super Panavision 70, it amazingly conveys the harsh depravity of the desert and the lonely toll it takes on its inhabitants. Yet, it is, at the same time, beautiful, and you cannot help but fall in love with it the way Lawrence did. David Lean does such a great job of capturing this! They decided to be as honest as possible with the setting, and this is why the photography and the picture are so successful.

The music, too, is just as grand. But with a picture like this, the music cannot afford to be subtle. It is big and loud, but conveys a prominent theme which is immediately recognizable, and yet it is beautiful and contains geographical sensibilities which only adds to its prominence. A great score.

While the story did not totally engross me, every other element of the picture did. It is a labyrinth of a film and it is no wonder that it has inspired so many. It is hard to believe that David Lean has made something so big as this and something so small as Brief Encounter, and yet both are as emotionally satisfying as anything I've seen. A great director should be able to achieve both the great and the small and while Encounter is his private masterpiece, this is his Sistine Chapel. Nothing like this will ever be repeated in film! Nothing!

The impressive element of the film is the way they manage to bring what feels like a series of vignettes together (and the cast), in the end, forming one story. The cast is incredible with a great many screen legends gracing this picture. Both Greta Garbo and Joan Crawford are luminescent imbibing the picture with both bite and grace. While I don't think it's a stand-out among the Best Picture crowd, it's a fine film and I can see why it's held in high regard for such an early picture.

Great movie although I don't think it's Best Picture Oscar material.

Not the most impressive of Best Pictures, but there are certainly some very good things. Great performances (enjoyed Ian Holm and Ian Charleson immensely), nice, albeit adequate direction and a resounding score (which kinda gets in the way now) make it worth watching at least once. (I'll admit it's good, but it's not one I'm drawn to like some other BP's.)


And, no matter how you feel, this has got to be maybe the only mainstream film in which Christianity has not been presented in a didactic fashion. Shows that a man can be willing to sacrifice for his beliefs even when it hurts not only him, but his country.

A parent film of sorts to Platoon, Deer Hunter shows how war can have a myriad of effects. De Niro is great as usual, Streep gives a beautifully quiet performance, but Christopher Walken blows you away. The fim's one downfall is its length.

Connelly is rapturous and once again, Crowe give a great performance (better than Gladiator's Oscar win). The twist is beautifully handled and the film, while stretching the truth, give us insight into the heart of a troubled man.

In its straightforward ways, the film All Quiet on the Western Front touches on the age old question of war: Why should they send us out to fight each other? If they threw away these rifles and these uniforms you could be my brother..., Lew Ayres' character Paul Baumer speaks to a foreign soldier he has killed. He's saying we are human beings, who happen to be in opposing countries that want us to kill each other... and why? The film asks, when you get right down to it, why is there even respect for it, for the fact that their might be 25,000 men being killed in one day, all in the name of strategy? And they're replaced like any other commodity in war - guns, bullets, tanks. People are sacrificed for the strategical will to win, to control, to take over.

The dialogue feels static now, but is still powerful and meaningful in its sentiment. The film is even more magnificent in its visuals of war and the middle war scene where the camera matches the visual rhythm of the machine gun and its victims is an unholy and arresting sight. We follow one pair of boots as it goes from one young soldier, to another, and another, with each owner being killed. We see Paul spend the night in a bunker with the man he killed laying in front of him. We see young, unadulterated kids, looking wide-eyed and eager at the soldier they see before them, only wanting to emulate his every move and wear his uniform and then rail against the truth of the battlefield he speaks to them. We see the higher ups sit around the table and laugh and argue over strategy, while have no understanding of the front lines. And we hear the bombshells piercing in the battlefield scenes; they are so sharp, so loud, it's like they're crashing right around us. But we also see light moments, of camaraderie among the men, and the enjoyment these German soldiers take in some French farm girls, and some touching moments, where the light at the end of Catholic hospital corridor turns from darkness to sunlight. The film may be a bit rough to look at, but it fully encompasses the soldier's experience, has truly great camerawork, some brilliant cinematography for such an early film, and Lew Ayre's leading performance is stupendous.

The film's final two scenes: of a soldier reaching for a butterfly and being killed, and a shot of infantry soldiers looking back while they march superimposed over a shot of gravestones ring in the final haunting notes of the film.

In my opinion, this film is saying the same thing that Wilfred Owen's poem Dulce et Decorum Est does, that while war is a necessary evil man sees fit to use, it is not the beautiful thing it is shown to be at times. It is not something to be glorified and made beautiful just to recruit young soldiers, but is more like horror show filled with gore, death, and sadness that rips apart men's bodies and psyches. Its story's path refused to follow the conventions of the time, and thus it stands among the great films in its genre, as well of all film, and holds up just as strongly today as it did almost 80 years ago. Its scope, both on the battlefield and in the human mind has hardly been paralleled since.

I loved it the first time I saw, but it's softened over time. It's a movie I tend to forget about when I talk about my favorites.

I never understood why people liked this film. Queen Latifah was the best part, and she was hardly in it. Still, I can't deny the effort put into it.

Kevin Costner isn't my favorite actor, but you can tell he puts everything of him into this film and for the most part it works. What you have though is a labor of love that turns into a long, tedious film, at best. Still, I can't deny that it's pretty good.

I tried really hard to enjoy this film and at the end of the day, all I could get out of it was the acting. As a book, this kind of story can be done a lot better, 360 degrees, but when put to screen, it becomes pure, weepy, melodrama - albeit, maybe the best kind of melodrama, but still melodrama at heart... I don't know, it just doesn't seem right when you can tell the film is trying to make you cry (and laugh) at each turn, in turn.

It is MacLaine and Nicholson who are the two most enjoyable characters, for we can see MacLaine's character visibly turn throughout the course of the movie, and Nicholson helping her get there. Winger is stoutly in her role and I think handled it better than a lot of actresses would have.

The two most effective scenes, I felt, were where MacLaine's character asks to get in bed with her daughter and, at the end, where Winger's character's death bed talk wither her children. One, hilariously touching, the other, wrenching at its core. That, to me, showed to the two sides to the film best. But I've seen other films which have melded drama and laughter together a whole lot better.

I don't know, I just can't enjoy a film whose sole purpose is to go out a buy a year's supply worth of tissues. I don't think that makes a Best Picture winner, I think it's more on the lines Lifetime Premiere Movie.
(Oh, and what it is with 80's movies and their music...? It was awful here; it killed any good moment the movie had.)