Number 74: Gladiator (Best Picture Ranking)

Gladiator was the first anticipated and then celebrated return of those historic epics from the 50s like Quo Vadis? or Ben-Hur. But being a movie of the year 2000, it was even more a spectacle than its predecessors, dropping religious themes and instead focusing on the gruesome battles in the Colosseum.

There is certainly a lot going on in Gladiator – it has a more than competent cast, special effects, an obviously big budget to spend on costumes and the scenery. Inside is the rather simple tale of the desire for revenge, coupled with greed for power, madness and the ability of the rulers to distract the people with the infamous combination of ‘bread and circuses’. But basically all signs of a real plot get buried under the fight scenes in the arena that Gladiator presents as its most valuable aspect. Because of this, I won’t deny that Gladiator is entertaining but it suffers mostly from the fact that it wants to be more than pure entertainment because whatever morality or deeper story Gladiator thinks it contains get constantly sacrificed for the sake of the battle sequences. Gladiator seems to want to accuse the people of Rome for being blind supporters of the bloody spectacles in the arena but it presents these battles in a way that never becomes any sort of statement but as pure entertainment for the audience at home and in the cinema. It could be that it wants to make the audience in the cinema a part of the crowd in the arena but all the blood, the fighting, the feeling of victory rather wants the audience as a part of the fighters, feeling the tension and enjoying the killing. It’s a strange presentation as the movie uses exactly the violence for the same reason it accuses its characters of.

Besides that, the banality of the dialogue and the fact that it constantly puts blood and death at its own center so willingly makes its attempts to appear more serious almost embarrassing. Gladiator is entertaining but nothing more. If it hadn’t tried to be, it might have gotten a better position in my ranking but it fails too often by trying to be more.

The acting in Gladiator is surprisingly strong for such a movie. Russell Crowe’s Oscar win may be debatable but he does know how to carry this story and his combination of sensitivity and strong masculinity makes his a strangely compelling performance. From beginning to end, he is the movie’s strongest asset. It may not be a character performance but it’s a star performance on a very high level. Joaquin Phoenix walks a thin line between good and bad and while there are many who think that he crossed this line too often, I think he perfectly portrayed the insanity of his character without overdoing it. Connie Nelson delivers some nice emotional moments as ‘the woman’ and Oliver Reed and Richard Harris add some welcome experience to the project (on a personal note, it’s so annoying to see German actor Ralf Möller since he uses his minor part in this movie to still present himself as a German who made it in Hollywood and since the year 2000, he starts every public appearance with the words ‘I just talked to Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott’ but, of course, I won’t let my opinion of this annoying guy influence my overall opinion on Gladiator).
The Oscar win for Special Effects is probably the most baffling of its wins since the recreation of ancient Rome couldn’t look more fake. High praise goes to Hans Zimmer for his wonderful score which has already achieved the status of a modern classic – deservingly.

Yes, Gladiator is the result of the work of various very talented people and its as big as it can be while still leaving enough room for the actors to carry the story instead of being overshadowed by it. All this prevents it from being a soulless epic but it never turns into more than good, 2-hour long entertainment. Recommendable, but hardly praiseworthy.

Number 75: Grand Hotel (Best Picture Ranking)

Grand Hotel follows the footsteps of Going my Way and Terms of Endearment as Best Picture winners that aren’t bad in any way but simple too unremarkable to compete for a higher position. Yes, the ensemble of Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, Lionel and John Barrymore and Wallace Berry has not lost its fascination – back then and today it’s exciting to watch these stars engage in betrayal, love, crime and romance in Berlin’s best hotel. But while I enjoy watching these stars from Hollywood’s golden area I always think that I only enjoy it because of who they are – and not because of who they play or what they do.

At the end of the day, my main problem with Grand Hotel is similar to that of Terms of Endearment – in this soap-opera from the 80s, I enjoyed nothing apart from the performances. In this soap-opera from the 30s, I enjoyed some of the performances and most of all, the actors (I make a difference between actors and performances because the level of admiration varies between them – the perfect example is Greta Garbo who is, as always a fascinating screen presence and it’s thrilling to hear her deliver the simple but iconic line ‘I want to be alone’ but, to be honest, this is one of her weakest performances and sometimes she is downright embarrassing. The complete opposite is Joan Crawford whose normally not my favorite but this is one of the most natural and compelling performances of her career).

The doorman of the Grand Hotel exclaims that nothing ever happens but, of course, Grand Hotel wants to make it clear that there is actually a lot happening – if you get to look behind the closed doors. And while I can imagine that it was gripping to look behind the closed doors of Greta Garbo and John Barrymore, the whole movie simply has lost a lot of its luster and once you look past the concept of the star ensemble, there isn’t much remaining.

Greta Garbo’s often too artificial portrayal prevents her to really connect with the audience at the beginning but she improves vastly during her conversations with John Barrymore and their scenes find an innocent and captivating core of two lost, aimless souls who find their lives improved by their unexpected encounter.
Wallace Berry does the best with this thin material but his character always remains underdeveloped and he lacks the presence and the personality to raise his storyline. Lionel Barrymore, bless his heart, certainly gives Kringelein a lot of heart but his constant wondering, awing and complaining makes him very annoying very soon. Joan Crawford easily takes the acting crown in this ensemble but very often even her performance cannot save her character’s lack of depth and interest.

Overall, Grand Hotel doesn’t always know to balance and handle its various story lines in a way that could constantly keep the audience’s attention but instead feels to have constructional defects too often.
Grand Hotel gets most of its benefit from the personality of its actors and some of the performances while the story lines range from dreary to almost engaging. It’s a completely logical choice for the top prize given the time and the newness of star ensembles like this but 80 years later, life is mostly gone from Grand Hotel.

Number 76: Forrest Gump (Best Picture Ranking)

Forrest Gump is probably one of the most interesting winners in this category. Like Rain Main, it can definitely be considered a modern classic – who doesn’t know about life and the box of chocolates, Forrest running or the flying feather? It’s critical acclaim combined with huge financial success should, by all accounts, make this one of the most popular Best Picture winners. But as beloved as Forrest Gump seems to be by moviegoers, the Internet is usually less kind. And I am no difference.
I don’t judge Forrest Gump on its competition at the Oscars. To be honest, I probably haven’t seen Pulp Fiction in 15 years and barely remember it. But even on its own, Forrest Gump is a movie that, for me, is far for perfect. And even far from very good.

First of all, I have to say that I hate Tom Hanks. Yes, I do. Mr. Perfect, Mr. Nice-Guy, the All-American noble everyman. But for some strange reason, his performance is probably still the only aspect of Forrest Gump I truly appreciate. I certainly don’t like the character but I won’t deny that Tom Hanks created something unique and powerful here. I would have thought that watching Tom Hanks playing this simple-minded character for two hours would annoy me to no end, but I am constantly surprised how well he actually carries this picture.

So what is it that makes me put this movie so low in my list?
There are a variety of reasons.
I think what bothers me most is the simple presentation of everything – the glorification of the character of Forrest who (literally) runs through life without ever realizing what he is doing, the simplification of matters like child abuse and war, the denunciation of Jenny and everything she stands for and so on. At the end of Forrest Gump, I always feel like the people who spend so much time running with him through the USA until he finally stops and goes home, leaving them alone and confused – I, too, feel as if I followed him for no particular reason. There is so much happening in his life but it’s all superficial, almost drowning in its own pretentiousness. It seems that everything that is happening in Forrest’s life is thrown together without really ever thinking about why is presented in this way, why the plot goes there and what it ultimately means. The scene when Forrest gives a speech to talk about his opinion on war symbolizes it best – the microphone goes off and his words can’t be heard. It’s an easy why out for a whole movie that wants to say a lot but always goes quiet whenever it actually shouldn’t be.

The whole concept of Forrest meeting famous people may be amusing at the beginning but at some point it becomes weird. Why is Forrest meeting John Lennon? The scene serves no purpose other than remaining the audience that somehow every celebrity Forrest meets dies a gruesome death. And the simple fact that Forrest is the one responsible for the exposure of the Watergate-affair – what’s that about? Forrest is presented as such an important figure to the national history of the USA but the screenplay and the direction only throw these things in as cute jokes.
I also don’t know what to think about the fact that Forrest Gump proclaims that he was a born soldier – do you serve your country best when you don’t have a thought of your own? Does Forrest ever know why he is Vietnam? Do the movie makers even know?
I also strongly dislike Forrest’s work on a shrimping boat. He is unsuccessful so he prays to God and God answers by destroying all the other boats and putting all these men out of business so that Forrest can get rich? Seriously? Maybe I am interpreting too much but the fact that his success is supported by a Gospel choir leaves little room for interpretation…
This all may seem as if I am too focused on a couple of little problems but they represent a whole array of problems that constantly arise during Forrest Gump.
And while I usually love soundtracks put together of well-known songs, in Forrest Gump it all simply feels like a desperate attempt to cover up its own emptiness by throwing as many recognizable events, sounds and sights at the audience as possible.

Of course, there have to be some positive aspects or it would have been lower in my ranking. Well, besides Tom Hanks I do enjoy Sally Field as his mother even though I again blame the movie for touching a subject as controversial as a mother sleeping with a man to get her son a place in a better school without addressing it in any way. Robin Wright Penn does the best with her part but her whole character’s arc is sometimes too insulting for words. Does Jenny really believe that the audience in a strip clubs wants to see her perform ‘Blowin in the Wind’? Does she have to face her tragic fate at the end so that the audience knows that its better to lead a life without thinking or questioning anything like Forrest?
While I think that Forrest Gump is a movie that is very often almost offending despite its attempt to be as harmless as possible, it does also have some successful moments. Forrest and Jenny meeting in Washington is a beautiful moment and the reunion between Forrest and Dan Taylor at the end is also quite touching (and Gary Sinise does some good work in an underwritten supporting role). Most of all, it’s the simple story hidden behind the grand exterior that works – Forrest’s undying love for Jenny. This human core of the story works while everything that is constructed around it doesn’t.

I have a lot of problems with this movie and it may seem surprising that I rank it before some other movies but I admit that it also works in some parts and gives some surprisingly touching moments.

Number 77: Terms of Endearment (Best Picture Ranking)

Terms of Endearment is the sentimental story of a stormy mother-daughter relationship that is marked by happiness and tragedy. Like Going my Way, Terms of Endearment falls in the category that I call ‘good, but unremarkable’. Overall, I think the movie does not have much going for it. The stories are nice but nothing that couldn’t be done in an average TV-movie and the ending feels rather forced, as if the movie makers didn’t know how to come to any conclusion and thought ‘Hey, let’s throw in some cancer!’ Apart from that, there is a catchy soundtrack and some funny moments and I won’t deny that James L. Brooks knows how to manipulate the audience – no matter how many times I watch this movie, at the end my eyes are always wet. So, why do I rank this so low? It makes me laugh, it makes me cry, it’s touching and charming. Well, yes, it is all this but a lot of movies achieve this and Terms of Endearment never really leaves this aforementioned feeling of being an average TV-movie behind it. And even the sentimental or comedy aspects of the story don’t come from a brilliant script or clever direction, but at the end, there is only one aspect in Terms of Endearment that is truly outstanding and carries the whole production: the acting.

Terms of Endearment gives showcases to Debra Winger, Shirley MacLaine, Jack Nicholson, Jeff Daniels, John Lithgow and two extremely talented child actors. If this movie didn’t possess such a strong ensemble, nothing would work as well as it does.

This may sound as if great acting isn’t enough for me. Don’t get me wrong, great performances are, for me, the most important aspect of a movie and it really raises the quality of Terms of Endearment but when I judge a whole movie, I just want something more. Sophie’s Choice or Monster are also movies that offer true tour-de-forces from the actors but that doesn’t make them better movies overall. And apart from the acting, Terms of Endearment doesn’t offer more. The ending of the story is only so heartbreaking because Debra Winger has showed such realism in crafting a very human character, the comedy only works because Shirley MacLaine and Jack Nicholson are two veterans who sparkle together. Personally, I get all my emotional connection from the performances and not from the story. That’s why I can easily praise the acting in Terms of Endearment but barely anything else.

The movie simply lacks a certain feeling, it’s interesting while it lasts but, apart from the performances, it doesn’t stay. Most movies make me praise a performance in connection with the picture or as a part of the overall vision, but when I think of Shirley MacLaine’s ‘Give my daughter the shot!’ or Debra Winger’s goodbye to her children, I only think of the actors but never of the movie they are in. One could say that these performances should be in a better movie but on the other hand, these performances make this movie what it is. Without this strong cast, I doubt that the Oscars or the critics had really noticed it because there is so little to notice.

I appreciate certain aspects, the way Debra Winger and Jeff Daniels create a strong realism as a tense couple while Shirley MacLaine and Jack Nicholson do more comedy while also remaining surprisingly human. The movie knows how to always keep a balance between being real and exaggerated, between comedy and drama. So, yes, Terms of Endearment is certainly recommendable and I don’t want to complain about its win. Actually, even though my ranking is only at position 77, we now already enter the area of movies I appreciate much more than those mentioned so far. Like Going my Way, Terms of Endearment doesn’t do anything wrong but it’s never really special either. I appreciate it for giving a very talented cast the opportunity to shine but it just needed some more interesting aspects besides that.

Number 78: The Greatest Show on Earth (Best Picture Ranking)

When Mary Pickford opened the envelope at the Academy Awards in 1953, she wasn’t the only one completely surprised by the winner inside – The Greatest Show on Earth was and still is considered a major upset and constantly tops various lists covering the worst Oscar winners ever.
As you can see from the position in this ranking, I don’t disagree with the usual dislike thrown at this circus show – but I am still somewhat torn. Yes, this movie is not Oscar-material – not even by a longshot and even a nomination is already ridiculous. But: as a movie itself, as pure entertainment, this is actually surprisingly good. I don’t mean that The Greatest Show on Earth is great – there are many, many flaws in this picture but when it works, it really delivers. The ‘trapeze fight’ between Betty Hutton and Cornel Wilde might be one of the most thrilling moments in any Best Picture winner I have seen (well, since I am afraid of heights, this might have added some suspense for me) and DeMille brought a true spectacle to the screen in every sense of the word. Unfortunately, he often overdid it – The Greatest Show on Earth sometimes takes itself far too seriously which is very problematic considering it’s such a trivial picture. In various voice-overs, DeMille talks about the circus and its artist with welcome respect but at the same time he sometimes sounds so solemn as if he was talking about the President of the USA.

The Greatest Show on Earth is about a circus – but not just about an ordinary circus but rather the most spectacular circus you will probably ever see. There’s not one area in the middle but three and the whole tent seems to be about as long as the racing arena in Ben-Hur. Yes, DeMille clearly fulfilled his purpose – to bring the movie audience as close to the spectacle as possible. So, it you want pure entertainment, then The Greatest Show on Earth is definitely one of the most recommendable Best Picture winners. But don’t try to look closer at it or a lot of the experience will be ruined. This is also the reason why, at the end of the day, The Greatest Show on Earth most certainly is among the weakest winners in this category.

First of all, there is hardly any plot. Or to put it better: there is actually a lot of plot since various subplots are handled and put together but none of them ever even reaches the level of mediocrity. There’s Gloria Grahame and her jealous elephant trainer, Betty Hutton caught between Charlton Heston and Cornel Wilde and James Stewart hiding a dark secret as a cheerful clown – all of these storylines remain very superficial, which works in this kind of movie, but seriously: the plot is always of secondary importance and everyone in this movie knows it.
So, what about the actors? Do they at least lift their material? Well, some do. James Stewart and Gloria Grahame (much more impressive here than in her Oscar-winning turn the same year) easily take the acting crown and actually deliver quite good performances and if they had gotten Oscar nomination, I don’t think I would have complained. Charlton Heston is dependable as always which means he isn’t great but he does what he has to do. Cornel Wilde adds some charm and charisma and gives his performance a playfulness that works very well in the context of the film. Betty Hutton…ah, Betty Hutton…she gets the questionable honour of delivering one of the worst performances that I have seen in any of the Best Picture winners. From her horrible-sounding singing of ‘Come to the circus’ to her shockingly awful line-deliveries, her performance is one big mess that even manages to distract from a movie that isn’t very good to begin with. Of course, she is stuck with a horrible character whose purpose is very often to just state the obvious – DeMille doesn’t seem to think much of his audience as he constantly make sure that even the most obvious plot parts or events are commented on and explained once again.
As successful as some parts of the show are, DeMille also overdid too much here. Some circus numbers go on forever and if that wasn’t enough, he also throws in various parades that seem to last for 10 minutes. The movie wants to be a spectacle but even in a spectacle, sometimes less is more.
The famous train wreck at the end obviously suffers from dated special effects but it actually still manages to be thrilling and can easily compare to modern disaster movies.

So, The Greatest Show on Earth offers a lot – fun, excitement, a feast for the eyes and the ears (and Bing Crosby and Bob Hope also visit for a second) but it neither fulfils its own purpose with perfection (for a movie that wants to entertain, it often does quite the opposite) nor is this the kind of movie that should be associated with an Academy Award. It has its moments but is too weak compared to most other movies in this category.

Number 79: The Broadway Melody (Best Picture Ranking)

I would have liked to see the audience of The Broadway Melody on opening night – they probably ran out of the theatre, covering their bleeding ears. No, not because of bad singing or horribly quality but simply because – there is SOUND! And not just a bit but a lot! Right in the first scene, the movie makers throw sound at the audience from all directions. It’s an agency and there are people talking, singing, making noise, playing music instruments – so that even the last row of the theatre will get it.

Okay, now let’s get serious. The Broadway Melody gained its place in movie history by being the first talkie, the first musical and the second movie overall to win the top prize from the Academy. And the question is: why?
I won’t lie to you – I was entertained by The Broadway Melody. In parts. Bessie Love gives a surprisingly modern and fresh performance and her sassy characterization made me chuckle more than once – now, if she only had had a better part because The Broadway Melody surely doesn’t allow her to go too far.

The movie suffers from various problems which don’t have anything to do with the transition from silent pictures to sound – actually, it made the change rather competent and never appears to be a ‘first try’ in this new technique. But with all the excitement over the possibility of actually having people talk and sing, somebody seemed to have forgotten the story.
The Broadway Melody is mostly proclaimed as a musical even though musical numbers are rare – and very often it’s just the same song, repeated over and over again. It combines the classic ‘backstage-story’ of newcomers trying to find success in show business and an obligatory love triangle which feels very dated today. Both aspects of the story have its share of problems.
The backstage-story most of all suffers from a gigantic problem which, for some reason, nobody ever brings up – the fact that the Mahoney-sisters are awful. Their number 'Boy Friend' which they repeat again and again and walk across the stage awkwardly makes you wish for the good ol’ times when movies were silent. Most other musical numbers also lack live and creativity but the number 'Wedding of the Painted Doll' is actually really good. During the second half of the story, the musical sequences become rare as the movie begins to focus on the love triangle between the two sisters Hank and Queenie and Eddie, played by Charles King. Unfortunately, the story soon loses luster – mostly because of the dislikeable characters. Eddie is engaged to Hank but spends the whole movie lusting over her younger sister Queenie without ever feeling bad about it. Queenie on the other hand is clearly attracted to him, too, but doesn’t want to ruin her sister’s life and so begins an affair with an older business man. From this moment on, Hank and Eddie spend the rest of the whole movie being angry at Queenie while she is angry at them. This all results in the same conversations again and again, repeated just as often the main musical numbers.

Considering that this is a movie that wants to show all the hard work that goes into being a star, the movie takes a rather perplexing attitude towards Queenie who becomes a star in her first number by standing motionless on the stage. When all the others tell her how great she was, it does feel a bit…weird.
The most amusing aspect of the movie are probably the clearly gay costume designer and his fight with the clearly lesbian woman backstage. Okay, maybe not amusing but rather…surreal?

Overall, The Broadway Melody does provide some entertaining moments and performances – if only the story itself had been more captivating. The ending is actually very surprising for the time but this doesn’t stop the fact that, overall, The Broadway Melody has not aged too well.

Number 80: Going my Way (Best Picture Ranking)

It’s maybe surprising to see this movie so far down on my list. Going my Way is the kind of movie barely anyone talks about, a forgotten winner in this category but at the same time hardly anyone seems to have a problem with it. It’s a sweet and innocent story about priests, singing children, men fighting for their country – basically everything the Academy was looking for at the end of World War II.

I thought for a long time about this movie and its position in my ranking because on the one hand, it is kind of cruel to put it so low because there isn’t anything I dislike about it – but there is also almost nothing I do like.
I think that Bing Crosby’s performance is the best aspect to explain my opinion: he is nice, he is harmless, he doesn’t do anything wrong – but that doesn’t mean that he is great in any way. And this is basically also true for anything else about Going my way. Everything is just so…unremarkable. Okay, there is Barry Fitzgerald – he gives a wonderfully charming and amusing performance as the old, stubborn priest and he is definitely the shining part of this movie. But apart from him, nothing ever goes beyond being ‘adequate’.
The story itself is so incredibly sugar-coated and done in the most innocent way that could never offend anyone but if you don’t care for singing children and a kind-hearted priest, then you are lost with Going my Way.

I very often don’t care for children in movies – my friends and I always complain about ‘the annoying movie-kids’, as well call them – and Going my Way does provide a couple of them. It’s just hard to appreciate when a movie tries to present some kids as good-for-nothing troublemakers but two minutes later they sing soprano with Bing Crosby.
The movie also fails to captivate the audience with a secondary plot about a young girl and her boyfriend, mainly because the two actors are incredibly pale and because…it’s just not interesting.
The better parts of the film involve Bing Crosby and Rise Stevens as an opera singer who used to be in love with him. Their scene in her dressing room, in which she talks and talks without knowing that he became a priest, is done very beautifully and especially the look on her face when she finally realizes provides the movie finally with some more intriguing moments that hint at more beyond the sugar-coated surface.
The chemistry between Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald is also very engaging and in their scenes, a lot of the sentimentality works, mainly because Barry Fitzgerald knows how to be sentimental without appearing to be. The whole theme of the movie unfortunately very often gets lost – Going my Way seems to want to present the struggle of modernity vs. traditions, of new ideas vs. old thinking but these aspects never truly develop.
Since Going my Way is about singing children – what about the music? It’s mostly done very nicely, Bing Crosby’s voice is one that is somehow always exciting and boring at the same time and the kids do a good enough job. But am I the only one who is almost angry about the lyrics of ‘Swinging on a Star?` The most captivating moment comes when Rise Stevens performs as Carmen but it’s hard to credit Going my Way for Bizet’s music and I find it also rather strange for how long this opera sequences goes on.

As I said, it’s hard to criticize the movie in any way because there is nothing that’s really bad about it (and it’s again a step up from Rain Man) but at the same time it’s just not good either.
It’s an adequate, sentimental story with mostly adequate performances and an adequate direction but too often the movie becomes paper-thin and loses its focus. I just expect more from a movie that won 7 Oscars.

Number 81: Rain Man (Best Picture Ranking)

Rain Man is a movie that definitely has its share of admirers and one might even call it a modern classic since the plot, the performances and various scenes have become an integral part of movie history. Personally, I simply think that it’s a movie that is not for everyone…at least of all, me. It’s that combination of annoying characters, Dustin Hoffman’s monotonous performance, Tom Cruise’s usual stuff, an uninteresting plot and a kitschy solution that keeps me from enjoying it.

I know that people can probably find a lot of inspiration and warmth in watching Tom Cruise change from a cold-hearted, money-grabbing yuppie into a caring and loving brother but personally, I couldn’t care less, because the pairing of these two central characters makes it impossible for me. Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman lack the necessary chemistry for this story and both actors seem more concerned with their own work instead of creating a believable relationship. I understand the point of Dustin Hoffman’s performance and I am sure that he portrays his character in the right way but he can’t stop me from sensing a constant awareness in his acting, an arrogance in his acting choices that constantly wants to draw attention to himself. I have seen other movies with autistic characters who felt real and believable but Dustin Hoffman is too often like fingernails on a blackboard.

I am also never sure what the movie wants to say – is Raymond some kind of supernatural superhero? Is his autism supposed to be great because he can count quickly and learn all the names in the phonebook?

The direction of the story lacks too much imagination for such an imaginative story – Levinson doesn’t seem to be able to decide if he wants to be over- or underwhelm the audience and so keeps pushing in both directions, often at the same time. Rain Man is also not an overly serious drama but it isn’t a comedy either – again, Levinson wants it both but it takes some skill to handle these two aspects. In the case of Rain Man, this concept failed completely since the movie makers try to get most of the comedy out of things that lay the dramatic foundation. This lead to the fact that the dramatic moments are never as gripping as they could be (the only really affecting moment comes when Charlie and Raymond talk in the bathroom about their past) while the comedy moments feel rather awkward and out-of-place.

The whole story of Rain Man feels incredibly forced and not like a true flow – Charlie kidnaps his brother, conveniently his girlfriend leaves, conveniently they can’t take the plan…bingo, a road-trip that gives Charlie the time to discover his inner softie.

I am also incredibly annoyed with the only female character in the story whose purpose I still haven’t figured out. She’s angry with Charlie for treating his brother so badly – and leaves? Only to come back later and to share an awkward scene with Raymond in an elevator? The fact that Valeria Golino almost sleepwalks through her performance doesn’t help the credibility of the character either…

The movie wants to create the comfortable aura of ‘feel-good’ while touching your heart and make you feel like it made you think but it’s all too superficial and poorly constructed. It also wants to create too much magic in the character of Raymond as if the audience couldn’t have accepted him otherwise but that way the whole story loses its concept and everything is lost once they get to Las Vegas and the story makes one mistake after another.

The movie does have some good moments and an interesting concept and it is a vast improvement compared to Cimarron and Cavalcade but still possesses too many problems to get a higher position. 

Number 82: Cimarron (Best Picture Ranking)

Another early winner, another movie title with a ‘C’, another big epic – and another big disappointment. I’ve said in my review of Cavalcade that it was a close race for the last place in my ranking – and Cimarron was always a hot contender because there are more things that bother me about this movie than in Cavalcade but I decided that Cimarron also has some positive aspects that helped it to ‘reach’ number 82.

So, let’s start with the good things: first, unlike Cavalcade, Cimarron is more successful in being what it wants to be – a Western. It manages to create a sometimes even interesting atmosphere which is mostly helped by the wonderful production values – especially the Art Direction is fantastic and the way the movie presents the slow change from uncivilized outback to a big city is overall very impressive. As for the acting – the movie mostly suffers from the same problems as Cavalcade which means a lot of dated and over-the-top performances but the characters still become more memorable and distinctive. Irene Dunne made the wise choice to underplay her part to the maximum and that way became the only performance that is still worth seeing 80 years later – too bad for her that her character is the most uninteresting of the whole movie.
And, of course, what’s easily the most lasting aspect of the story is the opening sequence, the land rush in Oklahoma in which apparently hundreds of horses and carriages race across the prairie. The scene itself doesn’t really feature anything remarkable from a technical point-of-view but the cameras capture the spectacle thrillingly. And the movie even has a very unusual following scene when a woman pretends that her horse broke its legs and asks Yancey Cravat, the hero of the picture, to shoot it – only to steal his own horse moments later. It’s a highly promising beginning to what appears to be a gripping story – but the downfall begins right away.

This wonderful opening is followed by a scene of a black boy sitting in a chandelier above the dining table of his masters – and, of course, he falls down just a few moments later and begins to apologize in a way that tells the viewer ‘Yes, them blacks surely is stupid, but, hey, at least them is funny!’ The whole presentation of black characters makes Gone with the Wind’s Prissy look a rocket scientist – and later, that young boy goes out during a shooting in the streets to save Carvet’s children and gets shot during the process. But don’t think anybody notices it or cares about it.

But the most unbearable aspect of Cimarron comes right in its center – in the form of both Yancey Cavet’s character and the performance by Richard Dix which may be one of the most overblown, presumptuousness and over-the-top performances the Oscars have ever seen. And all this fulsomeness is invested to create one of the most despicable and dislikeable characters in movie history but who is constantly presented as a true hero. Yancey is a man who takes his wife out in the prairie, a life that clearly doesn’t please her but don’t think he cares about it for one second. Later, he comes to her in the middle of the day to ask her to start a completely new life in another prairie – and when she can’t decide in the time span of 2 seconds, he goes without her. For five years. Yes, five years. And when he comes back, everything is back to normal. Oh, but first he goes to court to defend a woman his wife has tried to get arrested (okay, in this case, Yancey is actually on the right side but the whole presentation of this marriage, of Yancey’s carelessness for everything that doesn’t concern his life and his wishes is so aggravating that it makes you want to throw something at the TV). Later, he leaves again but he and his wife meet again for the final scene of the movie which may break a new record in awfulness and horrible line-delivery.

While Cimarron may be able to create a captivating atmosphere, the whole story itself lacks every kind of entertainment value. So, Cimarron is definitely great to look at and does have some interesting scenes. But the whole content of the story, the central character and the ridiculous exaggeration of so many aspects make it almost as unbearable to watch as Cavalcade.

Number 83: Cavalcade (Best Picture Ranking)

I always think it’s much harder to decide what movie or what performance will be the last in your ranking instead of the first. There is something so cruel about putting someone or something at the last place and in a lot of cases, it actually makes the contender look worse than it really is – after all, a ranking is about comparing and a movie can still be very good even though 82 others are better. But to be honest – Cavalcade isn’t very good. It’s not even partly good.

The battle for the last place was between this one and the movie on number 82. The movie on number 82 has actually more things I dislike than Cavalcade but it also has some redeeming qualities while I fail to come up with one thing about Cavalcade that is really praiseworthy. In my Best Actress Ranking, I have already shown a tendency to dismiss a lot the earlier Oscar winners – but this has surely nothing to do with them being old, I love old movies, but I just think that in its early days the Academy simply didn’t cover itself with glory when picking the winners.

Cavalcade tells the story about the Marryot-family, rich and happy people in England before the turn from the 19th to the 20th century, and of their servants, the Bridges. Their lives are touched by the Second Boer War, the sinking of the Titanic and the First World War.
Well, what is there to dislike? On paper, it sounds like a perfect movie for me – English history, historical events, a grand epic! But the outcome is probably the most lifeless, dated, staged, uninspired, clichéd and superficial movie this category has seen as a winner – which is also the reason for the last place.

Cavalcade is unfortunately not interested in its characters but only in finding a way to combine various well-known historic events (but never uses them in any way to tell the story). All the characters keep such a distance from the viewer that none of their stories become in any way emotionally or intellectually involving. When certain characters die, it’s neither touching, nor moving nor anything else and it doesn’t even seem to bring the story ahead. Everything that happens to the characters is reduced to being part of an historical event. Of course, there are exceptions like the fate of Mr. Bridges but even that feels like an unnecessary subplot – or better, almost the whole movie feels like an unnecessary subplot. Even more, the death of characters does not only avoid to touch the story – it doesn’t even seem to concern the other characters (but it gives the almost unbearable Una O’Conner a chance for some over-the-top reactions). Cavalcade has its eyes clearly on its goals – present British history but it’s almost shocking how random and unfocused everything is forced together. Cavalcade uses its main players to present the story while remaining uninterested in them at the same time – this concept could only fail.

Another reason why the characters keep such a distance is also the simple truth – the shockingly unsatisfying cast. I haven’t been kind to Diana Wynyard in my review of her performance, but the truth is that she is still the most impressive player – to be more accurate, she is the most impressive of the adult players since the kid actors actually manage to be the only breath of fresh air. Una O’Connor gets to deliver various histrionic hysterics (no other way to put it) while Clive Brook and the actors who play the adult children are as bland and lifeless as Diana Wynyard’s laser-eyes. Unfortunately, not a single member of the cast shows any sign of chemistry with any other member of the cast. Especially the second half, that focuses more on one of the Marryots’ son becomes almost intolerable slow.

But just as much fault for the movie’s failure goes to the predicable script and the unimaginative direction. While every scene suffers from heavy-handed dialogue that might have sounded good on a theatre stage and a lifeless presentation, nothing symbolizes the problems of Cavalcade more than the infamous Titanic-sequence in which the two actors are actually forced to speak dialogue about the possibility of death and the question of regrets (these two characters aren’t Jack and Rose swimming in ice water, these are two happy people on their honeymoon). The whole scene feels so forced upon the audience as if Noel Coward and Frank Lloyd feared that only one moment of the movie could feel meaningless (in their eyes). Everything in the story is as subtle as a plane crash – Cavalcade reeks with a feeling of self-importance and superiority but all those monologues and dialogues only reveal the simple truth that, as much as Cavalcade thinks it has to say, it doesn’t say anything at all. Nothing about the time it presents, nothing about the lives of its characters, nothing about the past or the future. Cavalcade fails as a human drama because it lacks personalities, it fails as a political drama because it has nothing to say and it fails as a historic drama because it never even begins to explore the possibilities it had. Oh, and why are there so many endless, out-of-place musical numbers? It couldn’t be to extend the running time since the 110 minutes already feel like 1100 minutes…

My whole opinion of the movie might have been changed if there had at least been one, just ONE interesting aspect – may it be one performance, a certain scene, clever dialogue, memorable images. But it doesn’t offer any of that.

As it is, out of all the winners in this category, Cavalcade is the only one that gives no reason to recommend it to anyone.