The Brilliance of . . . . "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

Jay here.

You can tell so much about a person when they reveal their favorite movies. The stories that each of us connect with explain so much about our personalities. It can be a personal revelation, even when we might not agree with or understand why someone may love one particular film so much, there is a truth hidden in the choice to love it. When my good friend, Matt and I first met in high school when I was 15 and he was 16, one of the first things we connected over was movies. Over the years I would say we have disagreed over our opinions on them almost as much as we have agreed. But despite that we both recognize in the other a kindred love of the medium which has strengthened our friendship over the years.


Matt came up with the idea of these "Brilliance of . . . " columns where we would write four to five reasons about why we think a particular piece of pop culture is brilliant. I thought it would be a great way to start a discussion about our favorite movies.

I have chosen Sergio Leone's epic spaghetti western, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly as my first entry in this series of writings about my personal favorite movies. It is a good as place as any to start, as it illustrates perfectly a type of narrative that I enjoy - the man, or group of people on a quest or mission, traveling to a destination where they will achieve something. It is the pinnacle of the western genre (I know there are a lot of other great ones out there, and many will disagree with me on this), and it is the perfect melding of writing, direction, scoring and performance. Here are five reasons it is a perfect film . . . .

1.) A Director at the Peak of his Career
 

One of the greatest Italian filmmakers of all time, Sergio Leone is often overlooked when people discuss the great directors in the history of cinema. It is probably because he spent most of his career making westerns. But, his movies would redefine the genre and give rise to the commonly titled "spaghetti western", in which Italian filmmakers like himself would produce cheaply made pictures that emulated the classic, popular American ones that took place in the Old West. Filmed mostly in Spain and starring C-list actors from the US, these pictures became cash cows for studios looking to make a quick windfall.

Leone was born into a family steeped in the Italian movie industry. His father was famed director Vincenzo Leone and his mother, Edvige Valcarenghi, a popular silent film actress. Movies were a part of his blood from a very young age. Toiling as an assistant director for years, he finally got his chance to take the helm when director Mario Bonnard fell fatally ill during the production of The Last Days of Pompeii (1959). He finished the movie and would go on to finally direct his first solo feature, The Colossus of Rhodes (1961).

At some point during this period, Leone discovered the films of acclaimed Japanese director, Akira Kurasawa. Like Sergio, Kurasawa was a big fan of the films of John Ford. His samurai pictures all reflected a very distinct western feel, substituting the gun slinging desperados for roaming warriors with katana blades. One film in particular caught Leone's eye, Yojimbo, starring Kurasawa regular, Tishiro Mifune as a traveling samurai who pits two warring clans against each other in order to both free a town from their ruthless control and to make a bit money as well. A Fistful of Dollars was born.

Akira Kurasawa's 1961 epic, Yojimbo, would inspire Leone to pursue making his first "spaghetti western", A Fistful of Dollars in 1964.

The movie was a big hit for Leone and for the sub-genre it belonged to. Unlike previous "spaghetti westerns", Dollars found distribution in the United States through United Artists. It would redefine the genre not only in Italy but in America as well, resurrecting it for a new generation. He would quickly make two sequels to it - For a Few Dollars More (1965) and finally his crowning achievement, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966). By the time he made this third in the later-named Man With No Name Trilogy, he had perfected a way of filmmaking that would make his westerns unique and among the best ever made.

With The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Leone had approximately four times the budget he had of the previous two films. He would put that money to good use by taking an intimate, small-scale story about three men and their quest to find a buried cache of money, and set it against the grandiose backdrop of the Civil War. He very much wanted to be taken seriously as a filmmaker of the same calibers as a David Lean. He melded a pop-art sensibility (just watch those titles) with a bit of pulp violence and the excess of cinema's great epics. This juxtaposition of going both small and large at the same time is mirrored in his tendency to feature intense close-ups of an actor's face along with sweeping panoramic shots of immense landscapes.

Leone loved to cast actors with one-of-kind features, like this guy, who the director would get as close as possible to with his camera. No filmmaker has captured the landscape of the face like he did.

 Sergio Leone would go on to make several other pictures. Some, like Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America would further cement his legitimacy in cinema history. West, in particular, is another masterpiece in its own right, being his first movie fully funded by a Hollywood studio. But The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was the first film where he got to spread his wings.

2.) Il Maestro -- Ennio Morricone

Arguably, the greatest composer of film music in the history of cinema, Ennio Morricone created one of the most iconic scores of all time with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The sheer scope of his work is staggering as he has scored over 500 movies and television shows. Just take a look at this resume:

The Man With No Name Trilogy
Once Upon a Time in the West
Once Upon a Time in America
Cinema Paradiso
The Mission
Days of Heaven
The Untouchables
Escape From New York
Malena
Bugsy

The list goes on and on. The music he wrote for Sergio Leone's films, in particular, caught the attention with their ability to incorporate voices with loud guitars and sweeping orchestras. From the moment the opening credits assault our eyes with the garish red and white animation that has become so famous, Morricone's music heightens the experience as canon and gunfire blast apart the credits one after another.

This opening sequence is as iconic as many of cinema's other ones like Star Wars, Pulp Fiction or Halloween. Like these others, the reason is the music . . . .

Morricone's score for The Good, the Bad & the Ugly remains one of the most recognizable in film history. You can see it referenced or parodied in any number of other media like commercials, television shows and other movies.

3.) The Good - Clint Eastwood

Before he was internationally recognizable movie star and Academy Award winning director (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby), in the early 1960's, Clint Eastwood was familiar to some as Rowdy Yates on the CBS western series, Rawhide. In late 1963 he was offered the lead role in Sergio Leone's Italian-made western, A Fistful of Dollars, for a guaranteed contract worth $15,000. His "Man With No Name" would become one of cinema's great anti-hero's and foster an archetype that would be repeated time and time again. The Good, The Bad & The Ugly would be his third time playing the character and it remains his most nuanced and complex turn at a role that admittedly is not that terribly complex.

The stoic hero he portrays, called "Blondie" at times in the film, is up against two antagonists that represent more of a challenge than in the previous two movies. One of them, Tuco, actually gets the jump on him and in one extended scene has an opportunity to kill the blonde-haired gunslinger but only luck and circumstance interfere. By the end of the story though, Eastwood will once again get to prove that he has no equal in the very best "Mexican Standoff" scene ever shot. It is the perfect combination of photography, editing, music and action, stretching on so long before the first shot is fired that the tension is nearly unbearable.

Eastwood would go on to cultivate the persona he developed in Leone's spaghetti westerns and become one of the most recognizable symbols of masculinity in movie history. He would also take lessons he learned from working with Sergio Leone and become a great filmmaker in his own right.

 

4.) The Bad - Lee Van Cleef

Seminal character actor and popular bad guy, Lee Van Cleef, broke into Hollywood in the classic 1952 western, High Noon, starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. But he would achieve cult status after Leone would cast him as the villainous, Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad & The Ugly. Cleef had worked with Leone and Eastwood before in the trilogy's second movie, For a Few Dollars More in 1965. In that movie he played one of two main protagonists, alongside Eastwood's nameless hero. For TGTB&TU he would bring a calm menace to his character that would make viewers believe that "Blondie" had met his match for the first time.

As I said before, Leone loved striking faces and you would be hard pressed to find one more dynamic than Lee Van Cleef's. His eyes pierced through the screen like shiny stiletto daggers and that sharp nose gave him a profile that just screamed danger. The opening scene where we see the evil Angel Eyes ride up on an unsuspecting family's home, Morricone's beautiful music playing in the background, is one of my favorite introductions to a character of all time.

Angel Eyes is efficient and ruthless in his pursuit of money. He can gun down innocent children with impunity and also stand back and let his henchmen beat a man for information, while he silently smokes his pipe, content in his wickedness. He remains one of the most underrated villains of all time.

5.) The Ugly - Eli Wallach

Despite the fact that both Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef gave career-defining performances in this film, for me it is Eli Wallach as the mischievous and underestimated Tuco who steals the movie. A perennial character actor who studied under legendary acting teacher, Sanford Meisner, Wallach would make a career out of being a supporting actor. He was one of the very best. Eastwood would later say, "Working with Eli Wallach has been one of the great pleasures of my life."

In many ways Tuco is equally as main a character in TGTB&TU as Clint is. The early scenes which depict the bounty scam he and "Blondie" are partnered up in are hilarious. When Tuco is ultimately betrayed by his partner, one could argue that he is justified in getting his revenge against Eastwood for his ethically ambiguous actions   Also, when he is reunited with his pious and hypocritical brother later in the film, you can't help but feel sorry for this bandit who seems to have been destined for a life of crime.

There is a scene where Tuco crawls out of the desert where "Blondie" had left him for dead. He enters a small town and heads right for the local general store where an old man has a case of old six-shooters waiting to be bought. Tuco is all intimidation with revenge on his mind as he expertly inspects the pistols and tests them in a lot behind the store. Legend has it that Wallach improvised this entire scene with ease, knowing next to nothing about guns and how to put them together. Its one of my favorites in the movie and showcases the skills of an immensely talented performer.

Tuco (Eli Wallach), Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) and "Blondie" (Clint Eastwood) prepare to finally settle all scores in the climactic standoff near the end of The Good, The Bad & Ugly.

So, that's my take on The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, and why it is one of my very favorite movies. Its a perfect thing, created by a number of talented men in the prime of their careers. It was a unique marriage of intimate violence set against the backdrop of an historic war. It deserves to be watched again and again and again . . . .

Alright, folks, now it's Matt's turn to give us another one of his favorite movies and 5 reasons why it transcends beyond a film he simply loves into one that he considers truly great . . . .

Jay Picks the Worst "Best Picture" Winners in Oscar History

Jay here.

I've been thinking about where I went so wrong with my Oscar predictions this year. This year the Academy Awards brought us some highs and lows, but ultimately there were more surprises/disappointments than I remember in recent shows. The biggest awards of the night (Best Picture and Best Director) went to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and his dark comedy, Birdman. It was an upset of sorts because, up until a couple of weeks ago, Richard Linklater's Boyhood was the frontrunner for Oscar gold. I couldn't mask my frustration realizing that once again, this damn show had roped me in again only to piss me off for what feels like the hundredth time. Let me explain, I do not think that Birdman is a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the contrary, I think it is a very good one. It's expertly shot by one of the best cinematographers in the business, Emmanuel Lubezki. It has fantastic performances from an all-star cast doing some of the best work of their careers (Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, etc.). It's a smart and funny examination of the artistic process and one man's descent into a psychosis of attempted creativity.

But I do not think it deserved the "Best Picture" Oscar over Boyhood.

I could submit a litany of reasons of why I feel Linklater's film is more deserving (stronger emotional core, experimental filmmaking at a higher level, no overacting by Emma Stone), but it would simply be one man's opinion. But I promise you, in ten years when folks look back on this year's Oscar winners they will wonder why a movie like Boyhood lost to Birdman. This is not a new phenomenon. There are plenty of films that won "Best Picture" that we now look at in surprise and wonder . . . . how the hell did that win?

But, for every person, like me, that thinks Boyhood should have won there could be one who is satisfied with Birdman's triumph. Ultimately, they are two completely different movies. To say one is better than the other is subjective to be sure. But through the test of time public opinion tends to lean one way or the other and I feel pretty confident that history is on Linklater's side. Who today would proclaiming that John Ford's 1941 film How Green Was My Valley is superior to Orson Welles' masterpiece, Citizen Kane? Well, Ford's picture is the one that ended up taking home the Oscar that year, while nearly 60 years later, Kane is voted the greatest American movie of all time by the American Film Institute (AFI).

Honestly, I think Birdman won because it is a movie about the entertainment business and the eccentric individuals trying to stage a play on Broadway. It has been observed that the Academy tends to sway towards movies that are identifiable to their voters. One could surmise that Birdman fits squarely into that category.

It got me thinking about all the "Best Picture" winners in the past that might have not deserved their win. So, here it is, my list of the worst "Best Picture" winners in Oscar history. Now, when I say "worst" I don't necessarily mean these movies are bad. I just don't feel like they should have won over what I feel are more deserving films in the same category.

1964

My Fair Lady

Directed by George Cukor

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison and Stanley Halloway

The Winner Was:
This now looks like a somewhat controversial win. The film version of the hit Broadway musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner was highly anticipated. It was based on the classic stage play, Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw about an arrogant phonetics professor named Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) who wagers that he can teach a poor, cockney flower girl how to speak proper English and make her into a high society lady.  This was a time when movie musicals ruled the box office and often the awards circuit. Audrey Hepburn was a huge star and the face of the new fashion-conscious modern woman. Here she plays Eliza Doolittle, the flower girl, and because her signing voice was not up to the challenge a professional singer was chosen to perform the musical numbers. Her songs are dubbed. Many think this is what cost Hepburn the "Best Actress" Oscar which instead went to Julie Andrews for her role as the title character in Disney's, Mary Poppins. By the way, Andrews played Eliza Doolittle in the stage version of My Fair Lady but she was passed over for Hepburn because the latter was a bigger star and Andrews, at the time, was only famous on Broadway. She obviously did sing her own songs in Poppins which is a superior movie musical with a better message at its core. My Fair Lady always seemed to me to be overtly sexist. Here we have an uptight asshole in Higgins, a life long bachelor who is nothing short of a tyrant at times to this girl until he molds her into his vision of the perfect woman. I mean, c'mon, his love ballad to her is called "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face". Would this fly today? Meanwhile Mary Poppins was also nominated for "Best Picture". along with the historical drama, Beckett, starring Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole. But the real winner should have been Stanley Kubrick's masterful film, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

What Should Have Won:
Widely considered to be one of the greatest dark comedies of all time, Dr. Strangelove was a satirical look at the Cold War in the 60's at a time when you didn't really make fun of such things. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a very recent memory and atomic paranoia was at an all-time high. Kubrick's movie is still hysterical today, containing one of the very best comedic performances in cinema history as Peter Sellers took on three very distinct roles. It's bleak, funny, smart and is the first movie to make nuclear apocalypse funny. Dr. Strangelove- groundbreaking in so many ways.

1979

Kramer vs. Kramer

Directed by Robert Benton

Starring Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Justin Henry and Jane Alexander

The Winner Was:
As the 70's ended and a new decade approached the days of men and women staying in unhappy marriages ended and divorce became more and more mainstream. Robert Benton's film is about a work-obsessed New York advertising executive named Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman), who is forced to reinvent his life when his wife, Joanna (Meryl Streep), abruptly leaves him and their five-year-old son, Billy. Joanna has decided she doesn't want to be married to Ted anymore and, because of her mental state, she feels that she isn't fit to be a mother to Billy. Ted is forced to be an actual parent to his son for the first time and much of the movie is about his struggle to become the dad his boy needs him to be. Later, Joanna returns demanding custody of Billy and the later portion of the movie concerns the contentious court proceedings as man and wife fight for the right to raise their son. Kramer vs. Kramer seems pretty pedestrian today when you think how common divorce is, but when it was made it was still pretty scandalous for a woman to leave her husband and son in this way. So, in a way, it was kind of unique for its era. But Kramer vs. Kramer is not Apocalypse Now . . . .

What Should Have Won:
Frances Ford Coppola, along with screenwriter John Milius, had been developing his dark, modern-day adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness for years. Actually, George Lucas was supposed to direct it, but Star Wars happened and that pretty much changed everything. Coppola's battle to get Apocalypse Now in the can have been well documented (watch the brilliant documentary Hearts of Darkness), but all that pain was worth it as this movie remains, along with Terrance Malick's The Thin Red Line, the most cerebral film about war ever made. A true decent into madness, Coppolla's tale of Captain Willard's (Martin Sheen) mission to assassinate the rogue Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) is brilliant on almost every level. It nearly killed its director and leading man during production and is still considered a masterpiece of filmmaking about war. Who thinks Kramer vs. Kramer is a masterpiece?

1980

Ordinary People

Directed by Robert Redford

Starring Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Judd Hirsh and Timothy Hutton

The Winner Was:
Robert Redford was one of the biggest, most recognizable actors of his generation when he directed his first movie, the dysfunctional family drama, Ordinary People. A moving study of what happens to a family when the older son of two brothers dies, tragically, in a sailing accident, the movie mostly concerns itself with how a family that can't communicate effectively deals with grief. Timothy Hutton won an Oscar as well for his role as the depressed and suicidal younger son, Conrad. Ordinary People is a very good film about a family dealing with loss. That same year Martin Scorsese also had a movie nominated for "Best Picture" . . . .

What Should Have Won:
Raging Bull may be the best biopic ever made. The life of boxer Jake La Motta is brought to the screen in all its ugliness by beautiful black and white photography. Robert De Niro had wanted to make this movie for years and finally convinced Scorsese to make it. Now it is often cited as the legendary filmmakers best work and usually finds itself at the top of most lists that rank movies of the 80's. De Niro did win the Oscar for "Best Actor" as he masterfully depicted La Motta's violent, hot tempered nature as he destroys pretty much every relationship he has in his life. A visceral film that depicts how one man's demons destroy him and how once he hits bottom he finds some semblance of a soul. Raging Bull is Scorsese at the peak of his abilities and De Niro's career-defining performance. Maybe Redford bought the Oscar, I don't know.

1994

Forrest Gump

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, Mykelti Williamson and Sally Field

The Winner Was:
Forrest Gump was a cultural phenomenon that in some ways has not aged well. Tom Hanks won his second "Best Actor" award in a row for playing the slow-minded Alabama man who lives through some of our country's most memorable historical milestones. From teaching Elvis how to dance, meeting JFK, to surviving the Vietnam War, Forrest's life story is both inspirational and moving. He loves only one woman his entire life and becomes a millionaire by investing in Apple Computers well before anyone knew about them. Call me a cynic but I've always felt there was an underlying, subversive message at the heart of Forrest Gump. It's a movie where the hero is a simple man who just "goes with the flow" of time. Everyone around him, though, is punished for making choices in their lives that don't subscribe to what normal, everyday society supports. Some examples would include Forrest's lifelong love, Jenny (Robin Wright) who becomes a hippy, has multiple lovers and gets involved with drugs. She turns her life around when she has Forrest's son, only to pay for her earlier life by succumbing to a disease that is never fully explained but many think might be HIV. Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinese) loses both of his legs in Vietnam and returns home to become a drunk, disillusioned vet who rails against God. But once he "makes his peace with God," he is redeemed and given metal legs and a wife. Only Forrest, who just goes through life without making any waves, is rewarded with everything he could want. Call me crazy, I just can't get past the subliminal messaging of this beloved "Best Picture" winner. Looking back though, there were actually two movies that now many agree are clearly better . . . .

What Should Have Won:
Quentin Tarantino broke through in 2004 with his unique brand of movie making in Pulp Fiction. Released on moviegoers like a shot of adrenaline, Pulp Fiction was fresh and original. Here we have three crime stories that interweaved in a non-linear narrative filled with dark humor, surprising violence and unforgettable characters. John Travolta re-booted his career and a talented character actor named Samuel L. Jackson become a household name. Pulp Fiction single-handedly ignited a new wave of independent filmmaking that would explode in the 90's and suddenly studio's were turning their attention towards smaller pictures and taking chances that they never would have before. The significance of Pulp Fiction's impact on the movie business in the 90's cannot be quantified and it stands the test of time as a wholly original film bursting with style and technique. Frank Durabont also gave us The Shawshank Redemption in 2004, which I also think is superior to Forrest Gump in almost every way. It is the highest rated movie on IMDB and was Matt's and my pick for best movie of the 1990's. It was not a success at the box office but found its audience on TV and through DVD rentals. It was also nominated for "Best Picture" but was lost in Gump's wake. Now, who thinks Shawshank deserves to be ignored today?

1996

The English Patient

Directed by Anthony Minghella

Starring Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe and Kristin Scott Thomas

The Winner Was:
Anthony Minghella's epic adaptation of Michael Ondaatje's novel of the same name is a sweeping historical romance. Taking place during World War II it tells the tale of a young nurse (Juliette Binoche) who tends to the badly burned body of a mysterious plan crash victim (Ralph Fiennes). The man recounts his past through flashback and we learn about his love affair with another man's wife and the tragic consequences of their passion. Sounds like a movie tailor made for Oscar, right? You wouldn't be wrong, but The English Patient is neither engaging or unique in any significant way. Sure, it is well made, but the story is pretty pedestrian and looking back one has to wonder why the Academy thought it was so great. I remember this being one of the first times I realized that the Oscars often had little to do with what was actually the best film, but more to do with marketing and popularity. It was pretty aggravating, especially with a Coen Brothers masterpiece nominated as well . . . . .

What Should Have Won:
Fargo was Joel and Ethan Coen announcing to the world that they were two of the most original and talented filmmakers around. Sure, they had made several excellent movies (Blood Simple, Raising Arizona and Millers Crossing) already, but Fargo was the picture that exploded them into mainstream success. A dark and twistingly funny story about a down-on-his-luck car salesman (William H. Macy) who hires two criminals (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) to kidnap his wife so he can collect the ransom from his wealthy father-in-law. Of course, everything goes horribly wrong when one of the kidnappers kills a police officer and an unlucky family who happen to catch them in the act of transporting their captive. Enter one of the most unlikeliest heroes in Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand), a local cop whose homespun ingenuity helps her slowly unravel the case. Fargo blended comedy and crime in a perfect marriage that had audiences both laughing at the funny Minnesota accents and cringing at the moments of shocking violence. McDormand would go n  to win "Best Actress", deservedly so and the Coens would go on to become one of the most celebrated voices in American cinema and The English Patient is not even discussed in the same breath as their quirky, brilliant look at the stupid actions of desperate men and the underestimation of one very pregnant and very smart woman.

1998

Shakespeare in Love

Directed by John Madden

Starring Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Ben Affleck and Judi Dench

The Winner Was:
This one is often cited as one of the clearest examples of when the Academy got it wrong, and today people scratch their heads and wonder how did John Madden's little film about the inspiration of William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet win the "Best Picture" Oscar in 1998. The answer: Harvey Weinstein. Miramax launched one of the most aggressive marketing campaigns for Shakespeare in Love that had ever been seen, and through the sheer force of money and influence, they did it. Shakespeare in Love is not a bad movie at all. Smart and cleverly written, it's fun to watch and Paltrow is very good in what would be a career-defining role for her, but c'mon, this not a "Best Picture" winner. Today, almost everyone looks at the other movies in this category and thinks . . . . really?

What Should Have Won:
Steven Spielberg's WWII epic, Saving Private Ryan is now considered one of the greatest war movies of all time. The opening scenes where the Allied troops land on the beach at Normandy, France is still cited as one of the most shocking and accurate depictions of war violence ever shot. Despite the large scope of its battle scenes, Saving Private Ryan is really a very intimate movie that explores the value of one life in a war where lives are lost by the hundreds every day. There are not many movie buffs out there who would now say Shakespeare In Love deserved its win. In fact, I would also submit that another WWII film, The Thin Red Line, is also more deserving, as it was nominated too this year.

 

2000

Gladiator

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou and Richard Harris

The Winner Was:
Ridley Scott brought back the "Sword & Sandals" epic in a big way with Gladiator, a nod to old school movies like Spartacus and Ben-Hur. Russell Crowe won his first Oscar for "Best Actor" for what I consider to be his least demanding role. Looking back now there isn't really much about Gladiator that deserves to be celebrated. The story is pretty typical and while the battle scenes are well done, it doesn't excel in this area like Mel Gibson's, Braveheart or Michael Mann's, Last of the Mohicans. Also, it pains me to say this since I am a fan, but Joaquin Phoenix's breakthrough performance as the evil, usurping emperor, Commodus, is laughable at times. It's a true master class in overacting. Thankfully, he has proven that this role was just a fluke.

What Should Have Won:
Ang Lee delivered the most successful foreign film ever made and blended a kung-fu, historical epic and romance movie into one. That movie was called Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and even today it stands up. It's fight scenes play out more like elaborate dance choreography and the performances are all stellar, blending the usual overdone emoting that tends to grace kung-fu films with more subdued and internalized feelings. Its a beautifully shot and moving epic that elevated a niche genre like the martial arts film into both art house and box office success.

2001

A Beautiful Mind

Directed by Ron Howard

Starring Russell Crowe, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany and Christopher Plummer

The Winner Was:
Oh, where do I begin with this one? Ron Howard's biopic of mathematician, John Nash (Russell Crowe) was billed as the story of one man's struggle with schizophrenia and how the enduring love of his wife helped him overcome his mental illness. Howard's film is moving and well made. The problem is how far it goes stretching the truth. First, Nash and his wife Alicia (Jennifer Connelly)divorced in real life and were separated for many years. So, the touching love story we see in the movie could be seen as contrived. Second, Nash also had a number of homosexual relationships that the producers decided to ignore. Why? Were they afraid of muddying the appeal of their main character if mainstream audiences couldn't connect with a man who was attracted to both men and women? They say they didn't want his homosexuality to be connected to his schizophrenia in any way, but you be the judge. Regardless of the reasons we are left with a whitewashed story of a man who truly led an interesting life. Another example of Hollywood's fear of challenging the audience too much.

What Should Have Won: 
Most would probably think that Peter Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy got enough accolades when 2003's, Return of the King swept the Academy Awards like a typhoon, winning a ton of Oscars, including "Best Picture". But, I submit that if you are only going to give the gold statue to one installment of Jackson's masterful fantasy films, then the wrong one won. The Fellowship of the Ring is the crown jewel in what is already three great movies. It feels more personal and intimate than the later pictures, and it deals with what is an exorbitant amount of exposition in a flawless way. There are fewer characters and Jackson really gets to take his time really developing them. Sure, things get much bigger and the battles grow in enormous, ass-kicking size in The Two Towers and Return of the King, but this first installment feels more like a perfect marriage of drama and fantasy in one gorgeous package.

2005

Crash

Directed by Paul Haggis

Starring Matt Dillon, Michael Pena, Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Terrance Howard and Thandie Newton

The Winner Was:
I just don't get it and I can't tell you how many people I've encountered who agree with me. Crash isn't even a good movie, much less a "Best Picture" winner. It is the perfect example of the "Oscar Bait" film. Crash has a lot to say about society, and maybe its message is a good and important one. But its clunky to me and its agenda is right in your face with little flair or creative ingenuity. I don't have much else to say about it other than . . . . why?

What Should Have Won:
Ang Lee was robbed again of a "Best Picture" win when his unconventional western love story was passed over for Crash. Brokeback Mountain is a beautiful movie in so many ways and I cannot wrap my head around how it didn't win. Jake Gyllenhaal and the late Heath Ledger delivered touching and believable performances of two men who hide their romantic relationship from their wives, family and society in general for decades. I can make a solid argument that Ang Lee is quietly become one of our greatest working filmmakers The trifecta of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain and Life of Pi alone make him worthy of consideration.


So, that's it. My choices for the worst "Best Picture" winners of all time and the films that should have won. Thought of any that I missed? Or maybe you disagree with me? Feel free to comment . . . .