Author Topic: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon  (Read 45235 times)


  • Guest
Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
« on: February 05, 2009, 03:00:44 AM »
Hope Rich doesn't mind me jumping a little ahead, but I can only start at 1934 and I doubt I'll fit the 20-odd in I have... :tomato:


  • Guest
It Happened One Night (1934) *****
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2009, 03:10:15 AM »
It Happened One Night
5 out of 5

Ellie (Claudette Colbert) jumps from her father's boat to join her recently eloped-with-husband. He soon sets detectives looking her while she tried to cross country to New York, grudgingly helped by down on his luck newspaper man Peter Warne (Clark Gable).

This is the earliest Best Picture winner I have, but it’s a great starting point as it was the first year they were awarded annually and this film the first to win the big five: Picture, Actor, Actress, Script and Director. It’s a wonderful film and I can understand the attention it got. And like all the truly great films, it needed more than it’s fair share of magic to get made. I’ll come back to this later, but put simply for now, and pardon my French, but Claudette Colbert sounds like a bit of a cow.

Not that you can tell on screen. The chemistry between her and Clark Gable is an essential ingredient, making the sophisticated witty script even smoother. This is definitely Capra’s sentimental phase and you should have nothing but a huge grin from start to finish. Gable’s character and style is essential to keep it grounded with a little grit. I think Preston Sturges would have a little more substance to his films a decade or so later, but for pure optimism straight from the bottle, Capra's your man.

They certainly don’t make them like this anymore, although the story does have more than a hint of Overboard about it, mixed a little with Sullivan’s Travels, and Planes Trains and Automobiles of all things. Of course it predates all those, though it holds up wonderfully well. Despite the fast pace, Best Director Capra finds time for several gorgeous shots, especially a motel sequence with moonlight through rainy windows. The only thing I find hard to swallow as I do with a lot of films from this era -regardless of genre- is the ridiculous way women’s emotions can flip from hard-nosed to simpering love-sick fool in mere seconds. The script handles it better than most though and Colbert does convince from start to finish though.

Ah, yes. Colbert. She’s probably the heart and drive of this film in more ways than just her character. Capra set his heart on her, but she demanded twice her normal salary and gave them a four week shoot to do it. A road movie like this in four weeks is astonishing and accounts for much of the quick-fire style. She may even have started a sub-genre, forcing them to work so quick. This might be the first screwball and soon, Howard Hawks would pick up that ball and see just how fast he could make it go with Bringing Up Baby, then His Girl Friday. Colbert almost sabotaged the whole production, yet it sweeps the awards and then everyone’s trying to do the same style! True movie magic.


  • Guest
Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2009, 10:37:48 AM »
Hope Rich doesn't mind me jumping a little ahead, but I can only start at 1934 and I doubt I'll fit the 20-odd in I have... :tomato:

No probs Jon, I started my Oscar marathon Sunday and I will not be viewing them chronologically, just as the fancy takes me



  • Guest
You Can't Take it With You (1939) *****
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2009, 02:38:01 AM »
You Can't Take it With You
5 out of 5

Grandpa Martin Venderhof (Lionel Barrymore) is head of a family of free-spirits who find joy in everything. Their home is under threat by an unscrupulous banker (Edward Arnold), whose son (James Stewart) happens to be engaged to Vanderhof's granddaughter, Alice (Jean Arthur). Not that all of them are quite sure of all those connections!

I have to jump forward four years, but it's Capra (winning another Best Director) again with an early, optimistic run at Fight Club, via The Darling Buds of May! It has a similar message to Capra's other films and the title is so obvious it may put you off, but don't let it. This is essential viewing considering the state of the global economy and Mr. Brown could do worse than listen to Martin Vanderhof. Everyone should watch this. It's an absolute riot, but with a strong message. Like the previous entry, It Happened One Night, the setup is so obvious it could play itself, but Capra and his fantastic cast still find gaps to explore and the heartwarming story nevertheless has a few lines that might make you squirm: "Lincoln said, 'With malice toward none, with charity to all.' Nowadays they say, 'Think the way I do or I'll bomb the daylights outta you.'"

Lionel Barrymore plays Martin, much older than his own years I think, and it's a great role, always played at the correct, but ever changing tone. You fully believe this quietly persuasive and calm gentleman could slide down a bannister any second. James Stewart is another stand-out as you'd expect, but again, much of the work was already done in such a wonderful character. Edward Arnold possibly has the hardest role as the resolution is predictable and for that reason, it was so easy to get it wrong. He doesn't. All the other characters have their moments and fill them well, especially Spring Byington as Penny, making the Vanderhof home a very attractive place to stay. As one character does, just on a whim! The only one who fails for me is Alice's father. You'd never know it. He does nothing wrong and has as much time as the other secondary characters, but whenever something happens regarding Alice, he's just... there. Penny, her mother and Martin are given all the time with her. It just felt a little odd to me. She's getting married, this is her dad, yet he spends all his time in the cellar setting fireworks off!

You may be forgiven for thinking it's a one joke film, but there are several brilliant set-pieces, like the courtroom (with possibly the best judge ever) and the restaurant, with James Stewart seeing mice! It's as subtle as a sledgehammer and it can be a little preachy in an underhand sort of way (Grandpa isn't at all, it's just the overriding message), though no more than the supposedly hip before-mentioned Fight Club, and you really won't mind anyway, they're such a loopy family. That's why Capra is so good. His films are sentimental, but only he can make them feel right. There is no hint of sarcasm or irony, just solid determination that it will all come out ok. Much like Vanderhof's prayer at mealtimes: "...We've all got our health; as far as anything else is concerned, we still leave that up to you."
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 02:57:17 AM by Jon »

Offline Tom

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6247
  • Country: de
    • View Profile
    • Cinematic Collection Viewer
Re: You Can't Take it With You (1939) *****
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2009, 06:19:10 PM »
You Can't Take it With You
5 out of 5

Thanks! Wishlisted!
I have enjoyed "It Happened One Night", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "Mr. Deeds Goes To Town", so I assume I will also enjoy this one.


  • Guest
Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2009, 06:37:09 PM »
Can't fail, Tom. I haven't seen Mr. Deeds. I must get that. I have Lost Horizon, but yet to watch it.

I must post my Preston Sturges reviews. I'm sure you'd like his films too. Very like Capra, with a touch of irony, he made a short run of films in the 40s. The boxset is well worth getting.


  • Guest
Rebecca (1940) *****
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2009, 02:54:43 AM »
5 out of 5

”Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderlay again.”

Rebecca is the story of a young girl (Joan Fontaine) who marries Maxim de Winter (Lawrence Olivier) after a whirlwind romance, but is unsuited to the role of mistress in the imposing Manderlay, especially dealing with the stern maid, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), and a husband still haunted by his first wife’s terrible death.

This, the most un-Hitchcock of Hitchcock films, was a Best Picture winner in a difficult year, coming out against The Grapes of Wrath, Hitch’s own Foreign Correspondent and The Philadelphia Story. The last in particular would have been as worthy a winner, but at least James Stewart got a deserved nod for his role.

As it is Rebecca is an excellent film and I have no issue with its quality. It is elegant, powerful and memorable, one of the very best suspense dramas ever made. But its production was troubled and just who was responsible for the end product very confusing! There’s little in the aesthetics that immediately mark it as a “Hitchcock Film”, but the story is thematically suited to him; jealousy, guilt, mysterious past, deaths and cruelty. And he’d used Daphne Du Maurier’s work before in Jamaica Inn and would again in The Birds. However, she hated the way he treated Jamaica Inn and here is where the problems start.

According to memos from David Selznick on the superb Criterion DVD, he had to step in to make sure Hitchcock produced a faithful script, something he had promised Du Maurier (aside from one moral concession to the Hays Office). I agree with his sentiments on how novels should be adapted (although that does result in mind-numbing, paint by numbers Gone With the Wind!), but he was essentially strangling the director who couldn’t inject any of the traits, including humour, he would become so famous for. Where I stop agreeing with Selznick is how he continued to treat Hitchcock, using spies on set and so forth. No wonder their relationship has been documented before. It’s fascinating!

Still, Hitchcock did find some room to show off, especially in the later sections and there are some extraordinary moments; the tension at a ball is unbearable and the confession scene outstanding. Such an unavoidably talky scene is made very exciting by the camera moving as if re-enacting the past. Manderlay, the building is similarly a character in its own right (not my words, as that was the intention), at once threatening and welcoming to the young bride. The pressure on her is tangible, not least from the terrifying Mrs. Danvers. Hitch makes her one of cinemas classic villains and even manages to sneak a hint of lesbianism past the Hays Office.

Without the attraction of a Hitchcock working at full power for at least the first half, we must turn to the cast and they do not disappoint. Aside from stone faced villain Judith Anderson, Lawrence Olivier is marvellous, which is no lazy complement. He’s one of the greatest actors ever, but more suited to stage and has been known to devour sets and co-stars alike! So it’s to his credit he keeps his performance in check and has a great chemistry with the timid and nervy Joan Fontaine. This is one of my favourite female roles. She’s absolutely lovely and conveys both the nervousness and later, the steel, the character needs. Other stand-outs include George Sanders who just couldn’t be any smoother or despicable. By the way, the DVD includes Hitch’s typical comments on other actresses testing for Fontaine’s part. ”More suited to the part of Rebecca…”, I think one said. Bear in mind we never see Rebecca! ;)

Essentially this is a ghost story, except Du Maurier’s wonderful story and Hitchcock’s brilliant staging generates a haunting without an actual spirit. Don’t watch it as an early example from one of cinemas greatest directors, but as one of the best adaptations of book to film, an exemplary display of screen acting, and as the immensely satisfying drama it is.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 02:58:28 AM by Jon »


  • Guest
Casablanca (1943) *****
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2009, 07:09:46 PM »
5 out of 5

There are two types of film fan in the world; those that need a synopsis of Casablanca, and those that do not. If you do, watch the film instead. You owe yourself that much.

I’m not going to waffle too much about this because there is no point. There aren’t enough superlatives to describe one of cinemas greatest moments. It’s a war-time thriller, with romance, comedy and music in perfect balance, delivered by a screenplay with dozens of one-liners and wonderful unforgettable characters played by a cast at the top of their game. I said Joan Fontaine in Rebecca was one of my favourite female roles and straight away I follow it with another. Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa. Obviously Bogart’s Rick is the reliable centre-point, but I wonder if Claude Rains as Louis might be the secret ingredient? Such a charming villain!

I often speak of the magic of movies and this is a perfect example. No-one set out to make a classic. It was a studio film, one of 50 in any given year and called Casablanca simply because an earlier movie had been so successful called Angiers. Angiers? Never heard of it!  ;)

Some say this is the best screenplay ever and they may be right, but the script, based on an un-produced play, wasn’t even finished to the point Bergman had no idea who her character was actually in love with. That classic ending like everything else was written on the fly. That it is in many ways the equal of the meticulously engineered Citizen Kane proves that there are no rules in movies. Just be in the right place at the right time and it’ll work. Easy!  :laugh:

If you like it, you’ll love it, and it’ll get under your skin and never leave. It’s been a huge influence on cinema for the past 60+ years.

I’d never noticed before, but I’d say that includes Star Wars. Stop laughing! The atmosphere is a given- desert town, multi-national refugees, threat of an Empire. But switch Laszlo for Luke and Rick for Han, then tell it from Han’s perspective and you’re on the right track. It’s the pacing and editing, especially so entwined with the music that finished it for me. There is a shot near the start of a plane landing and it felt just like Star Wars.  :shrug:
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 07:13:47 PM by Jon »


  • Guest
All About Eve (1950) ****
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2009, 10:41:57 PM »
All About Eve
4 out of 5

Actress Margot Channing (Bette Davis) has a dedicated fan in Eve (Anne Baxter) who she gives a job to out of pity. But it soon becomes clear that there is far more to Eve’s ambition. And just how far will she go, whoever gets hurt?

1950 and there is a wind of change. So far all the winners I’ve reviewed have been rather typical of the output from Hollywood in this period. But now studios are aware of the threat coming from TV and maybe they’re being braver, more self-critical. The result is All About Eve, willing to cast a very sharp look at showbusiness and nominated for a record breaking 14 Oscars, winning 6. So the biggest winner in this marathon so far is the only one to try and bite the hand that feeds it. It may be set in the theatre world, but its target is obvious.

Scripted by Joseph Mankiewicz, brother of Herman who wrote Citizen Kane, it follows that films flashback method of framing and although not as smooth, there’s a tangible air of regret and nostalgia from the start as we are introduced by voiceover (George Sanders’ Addison DeWitt) to the small cast of characters whose lives were turned upside down by the manipulative Eve, who will stop at nothing to achieve stardom. Amongst them is Bette Davis as Margot Channing, a 40-year old actress, holding onto fame. It is a monumental performance, captivating and forceful. There are no actresses today who could handle a similar part with as much relish and vigour. Her put-downs are legendary in a film that whizzes along with fantastic, poetic dialogue.

The rest of the cast are frequently, if not consistently, her equal, especially Celeste Holm as Karen. For me, the only weakness was actually the title character. It’s not the wonderful Anne Baxter’s fault, but I felt her opening and very important scene in Margot’s dressing room was unconvincing. It’s the same Eve we see at the end, but with just a funny hat and overcoat to show us how poor she is. Mind you it’s still a great scene and Thelma Ritter is wonderful in it. You may know her similar character in Rear Window. She doesn’t have anywhere near enough time for my liking, but she was still Oscar nominated. The male Best Supporting Actor winner was George Sanders, who is simply marvellous as the venomous critic.

It’s a very cynical story, but the line between on and off screen is very blurred. Bette Davis had been in the wilderness for a couple of years and comes back to a part of an actress fearing her career is over. And the phenomenally gorgeous Marilyn Monroe in her first, brief, role plays a starlet manipulating men to give her auditions. Pretty much what she actually did! Manipulating men is the order of the day in this very female orientated story. It wouldn’t have worked with predominantly male characters though, simply because Hollywood has an awful record for treating older actresses. Mind you, it's the perfect showcase of talent here. The performances as a whole are fantastic.

It’s audacious and entertaining, frequently funny, if a little obvious. I think it’s more of an important film for when and why it was released, as much as standing on its own merits, which are, nonetheless, remarkable.

"Curtain down, the end"
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 10:46:59 PM by Jon »


  • Guest
On the Waterfront (1954) *****
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2009, 02:07:28 AM »
On The Waterfront
5 out of 5

Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) works in the mob-controlled waterfront, perpetuated by a culture of silence. Guilty over his small part in the death of another worker, his conscience comes under pressure from the man’s sister (Eva Marie Saint) and a priest (Karl Malden). On the other side, his brother Charlie (Rod Steiger), who is the boss’s right-hand man. To testify is the right thing to do, but the last thing he can do.

It’s interesting doing this marathon in order because you see the change in attitudes from the Academy, along with the shift in styles from the filmmakers. The whole Film Noir movement seems to have been ignored (although there haven’t been any Westerns yet either and Hollywood was built by the cowboys), but On The Waterfront is nevertheless a child of those European influenced times and directed by Elia Kazan, who made classic noirs Boomerang and Panic in the Streets. It’s another do-the-right-thing story like Casablanca, but grittier and with a more tangible threat, especially for the times, with an understated score from Leonard Bernstein to match. The Academy seems to be looking a bit further now, away from typical studio fare. And is this the first Method actor to be honoured?

When you start taking an interest in film, certain accepted facts will come to the surface pretty quickly and there should be a healthy tendency to be cynical, block out the hype and make your own mind up. Is Citizen Kane really the greatest film? Or The Godfather? Is Marlon Brando really the greatest screen actor of all time? On this evidence and others, emphatically yes. I didn’t enjoy A Streetcar Named Desire and struggled to understand the appeal of that performance, but I had no such trouble here. He is truly magnificent. The “I coulda been a contender” speech stands out for a reason. Even within the film, it’s so passionate and driven, where Terry is otherwise awkward and, quite frankly, a bit thick. It’s the moment we really understand him just as he starts to understand himself. It’s such a well-rounded, real character.

It wouldn’t be any good without sparring partner Rod Steiger, who is often unfairly forgotten, particulary in that scene. He’s Brando’s equal and there’s no doubting the conviction. Also forgotten is Karl Malden, whose rousing speech at the dockside is another stand-out. All this was written by Budd Schulberg whose screenplay is very challenging for the times, asking hard questions and giving even harder answers. The rest of the cast is very good too, with Eva Marie Saint in the only prominent female role. Makes a change, this whole marathon has been very girly up until now!

Despite being so bleak, it's also pacy and watchable. Despite controversy over his own telling-tales episode which may have influenced his take on the story, Elia Kazan crafted an outstanding film, with or without Brando. With, it became exceptional.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 02:26:29 AM by Jon »


  • Guest
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) *****
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2009, 01:50:46 PM »
Bridge on the River Kwai
5 out of 5

British prisoners are forced to build a bridge for the Japanese, but their commanding officer (Alec Guinness) has an unusual attitude. Meanwhile, an American successfully escapes and is recruited to a commando team tasked with destroying it.

At last! Colour! Cinemascope! Sub-text! This is a very different beast to the previous entries in this marathon. David Lean’s first epic is also far more complex than you may think. Epics have a habit of being rather predictable, ticking off the various elements of their particular story in a determined fashion.

The story is straightforward enough, but it’s actually about the absurdity of warfare and protocol there-in. It’s frequently funny though played serious and never feels absurd like Dr. Strangelove. As an anti-war film it works just as well as Kubrick’s.

Alec Guinness is amazing as the loopy Colonel Nicholson and his scenes with Sessue Hayakawa as the camps also probably loopy Colonel Saito are wonderful as he breaks the Japanese officer’s resolve with sheer stubbornness. Afterwards Saito is more subdued, but their continued relationship is strangely touching as Nicholson rewards him by not only agreeing to work on the bridge, but to also completely redesign it and make it better! They both become so trapped in their isolated existence that they completely lose any sense of proportion.

In the midst of all this is William Holden, who manages to escape to a brief life of luxury where a secret is uncovered and he’s forced to join a team of British commandoes to return to the bridge and destroy it. That he is absolutely essential to the mission and then spectacularly not is just one of the many ironies underlining just how daft warfare can be, especially when they’re observing ranks and procedures to a fault.

The story has upset some people for several reasons. The original bridge really was built by British prisoners, but they actually did everything they could to slow the production down and never willingly helped the Japanese (this is shown early on at least). Also, thousands upon thousands died building the bridge at the hands of Japanese brutality, yet here they have a fairly easy time of it, relatively speaking. Finally the bridge was destroyed, but not until much later. So it’s easy to see why it’s thought as trivialising an awful event.

However I think those complaints are unfounded as they rather miss the point. And the true story can be just as absurd. After all, no matter how brutal the Japanese really were, the real people on whom Saito and Nicholson were based became close friends after the war and despite the best efforts of the prisoners, the bridge was completed just the same.

At over two and a half hours, it impresses by never losing pace. It’s one of the most intelligent and original war films ever made.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 02:26:00 AM by Jon »


  • Guest
Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2009, 02:03:26 AM »
Well, I tried, really I did. I was going to commit to Ben Hur, but I just didn't have four hours to spare in one sitting. Especially as I definitely wanted to see Lawrence of Arabia, a far better way to spend those four hours.  :bag:


  • Guest
The Apartment (1960) *****
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2009, 02:25:29 AM »
The Apartment
5 out of 5

C. C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) has an apartment, but he rarely gets chance to use it in the evenings. His colleagues use it regularly for affairs, while promising him promotions. His boss (Fred MacMurray) gets to hear of it and joins in, taking his current “ring a ding ding” Fran Kubelik (Shirley Maclaine). Unfortunately Baxter is very fond of Fran himself…

This is a very good film indeed from Billy Wilder. I adore Some Like It Hot, but this is more ambitious. That said, I do struggle a little with Jack Lemmon’s character and the premise; he’s such a wimp! No-one can possibly be that gullible.

However, that premise allows for a wonderfully performed and subtle screenplay that just can’t be ignored. It could so easily fall one way into farce or the other way into mawkish sentimentality, but it keeps the balance perfect throughout, especially in a late sequence where comedy is abandoned entirely for a hard-hitting dramatic twist that will leave unprepared viewers reeling. That it can go so dark and come back, all the time feeling absolutely authentic, is a testament to the first rate cast and writing.

Jack Lemmon is great, somehow making his utter wimp of a character funny and moving. Shirley Maclaine is less showy, but she’s incredible at being sparky and vunerable at the same time. By the way, the picture on the cover is the moment one of the best lines is delivered... ;)

Calling this a romantic comedy seems to sell it short and under false pretences.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 02:28:03 AM by Jon »


  • Guest
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) *****
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2009, 03:21:43 AM »
Lawrence of Arabia
5 out of 5

T. E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) is a romantic, enigmatic idealist, who doesn’t seem like the sort to become a hero. A legend even. But that’s exactly what he becomes when he unites the Arab tribes against the Turks. At first appalled by their brutality, he comes to love the people and the desert. The politics of the situation might just break him though.

The epic to judge all others by and one of the most magnificent films ever made. I said when reviewing The Bridge on the River Kwai that epics tend to be sort of predictable, but David Lean’s film had found an interesting angle to play instead. Here Lean has fashioned a more typical telling of a largely true story, but his hero is so much larger than life and so perfectly played by Peter O’Toole that it still manages to challenge and enthral in equal measure across its huge running time.

My favourite film of all time is Dances With Wolves, but it’s taken a long time for the penny to drop that that story has much in common with Lawrence. :bag: An idealistic officer joins the natives, helping them to fight their cause and risking becoming one himself, while failing to uphold the policies of his own people. It doesn’t stand much more comparison than that, if only because Lawrence has the support of the British army (albeit with ulterior motives perhaps) and returns home eventually.

The cinematography is the best you’ll see, taken for the most part from the actual locations. Today they’d cheat with CGI, but you’d miss the fantastic shot of Omar Sharif riding in from a mirage about one mile away. The shots are simply gorgeous and what widescreen and colour film was made for. O’Toole’s sharp blue eyes and blonde hair are such a contrast to the landscape and the blood, in one particularly harrowing sequence, one of the best battle scenes ever.

Historical accuracy is pretty close apparently, but it isn’t a blow-by-blow account and Sharif’s character never even existed. He’s essential though as he embodies the country, its morals and its reactions to this incredible man (embodied by his tearful comment when he agrees he is Lawrence’s closest friend, but he doesn’t love him; he fears him). Other supporting characters are played with similar skill, including Lean regular Alec Guinness. Much as I love Star Wars, it is truly a travesty that he is best remembered for that role.

Also a possible travesty is O’Toole missing the Oscar for Best Actor. It’s a crime softened by knowing it went to cinematic icon Atticus Finch, but still, this is lightning captured in a bottle, not just a performance. It’s about the man more than the events and Lawrence was a fascinating character. O’Toole captures all of Lawrence’s qualities, good, bad and possibly a couple he never had! All contrive to present a very complex, often downright arrogant, man who doesn’t seem to belong anywhere. He even has a feminine grace, further complicating the image.

For all Lean’s skill in the huge sequences, it’s his ability to capture the smaller moments that perhaps impress most, especially when Lawrence was beaten at the order of Jose Ferrer’s Turkish officer. Lean suggests what actually happened without being explicit. Neither shall I, but suffice to say it changed Lawrence dramatically.

That change brings about the perfect moment for an intermission! This isn’t just Lean pressing pause to allow the audience to ease some life back into tired arses. When the film returns, it is with new perspectives. It’s almost a different film with a powerful new angle. I felt that Lawrence was now suffering from being taken advantage of and everyone would have to realise the consequences.

Anyone who wishes to understand cinema at its most pure and powerful should watch this film. And get no closer to an answer! It was a massive undertaking, yet everything is note perfect, from cinematography, to performances and right down to Maurice Jarre’s haunting score. It’s an absolute gem. 


  • Guest
Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2009, 03:26:16 AM »
Good grief. I don't half go on!  :bag: And I know I'm throwing full marks around like sweets, but these really are some of the greatest films ever made. Of course, the Academy often gets it very wrong, but that's why I didn't buy those! Otherwise this marathon would be a bit more balanced... :training: Hopefully Richie will keep going with some of his more abrasive (and usually wrong :devil:) comments.

I'm going to have to watch something incredibly shit soon as an antidote. Time to blow the dust off Last House on the Left or Judge Dredd, I reckon! ;)