Number 44: The Departed (Best Picture Ranking)

Considering how over-due Martin Scorsese was not only for an Oscar for Best Director but also for Best Picture, I was afraid that The Departed might be a well-made but ultimately average crime thriller which only took the top prize as a compensation by the Academy. Well, I was glad to learn that I was wrong.

The Departed tells the thrilling story of two men – one is a member of a crime gang and works undercover at the police, the other one is a cop who works undercover in the crime gang. When both discover the other’s existence, they must work hard and careful to expose the other one’s identity before being exposed themselves. Considering that this is a Martin-Scorsese-movie, the story offers a lot of violence but also intelligent character development that keeps the viewers' attention and interest the whole time.

A lot of the credit goes to the outstanding cast. Leonardo DiCaprio has probably never been better than as the undercover-cop who must constantly fear for his life and his identity. Matt Damon isn’t on the same level but he also plays his part with much dedication and his natural charm helps him easily to create a character that is both appealing and off-putting. I never thought that I would ever hear the words ‘Academy Award nominee Mark Wahlberg’ but Marky Mark leaves a memorable expression as the foul-mouthed, hot-headed cop and makes his character much more three-dimensional than the writing allowed him. Martin Sheen adds a lot of dignity to his part and is able to develop the whole relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio in just a few scenes. And special credit goes to Vera Famiga, stuck with an underwritten and banal part that only seems to exist as a sex toy for the two guys but she survives all this with a very layered and human performance. The only weak link in the cast is, surprisingly, Jack Nicholson who seems to have become a parody of himself by now and sleepwalks through this role with all the typical ‘Jack-Nicholson-tics’.

The biggest success of The Departed is that Scorsese constantly keeps the story going and never lets the viewers or the characters truly catch a break. The dynamics of the plot create a wonderful atmosphere and scenes of brutal violence contrast effectively with more quiet moments. The fate of the two central characters becomes extremely captivating, especially Leonardo DiCaprio wonderfully shows how his character seems to come closer and closer to a nervous breakdown. It’s not a very deep story that tackles any social issues but it’s a crime thriller on a very high level in which the characters drive the story instead of the other way around. Special mention must also go to the fantastic use of music.

Scorsese certainly knows what he is doing here and The Departed constantly shows us that few directors have such a talent for this genre than he has. Okay, the final shot of the movie may be one of the worst in his career and is about as subtle as a plane crash but overall, The Departed is a gripping and fascinating look at two characters caught up in extreme circumstances.

Number 45: Dances with Wolves (Best Picture Ranking)

Today, Kevin Costner’s saga about the old West suffers from a bad reputation since he has never done anything else after his praised directorial debut that came even close to the same level of excellence and because he was another actor-turned-director who made Martin Scorsese wait for his first Oscar. Going into Dances with Wolves, I didn’t know what to expect since I usually don’t care for Westerns or Kevin Costner and so was pleasantly surprised that Dances with Wolves is actually a pretty terrific movie.

First, the not so good: Dances with Wolves is a clear product of the early 90s and focuses too much on the stereotype of the ‘noble savage’ or spiritual awakening away from civilization. Also, at certain moments, the movie goes on forever and especially the love story between Costner and Mary McDonnell harms the quality of the movie since it is impossible to overlook the fact that, in a movie that concerns itself with a lonely white man and his life with a Sioux tribe, it was still possible to find a white woman he could fall in love with and it also doesn’t help that the two actors lack the necessary chemistry and are so completely uninteresting when they are together. Kevin Costner also tends to simplify too many points in his story – the aforementioned image of the ‘noble savage’ contrasts sharply with the two-dimensional presentation of the soldiers or the ‘bad’ Indians.

So, Dances with Wolves is not flawless but I give Kevin Costner a lot of credit since he clearly has an eye and the talent for such a grand epic. As a leading man he is satisfying even though not remarkable – his voice-overs may be the best part of his performance. Mary McDonnell is always much better whenever she doesn’t have to play the ‘woman in love’ but most of the supporting players steal the show here. As a director, Kevin Costner may sometimes be too concerned with the length and scale of his movie but he does have a certain instinct for timing and the flow of the story. Underlined by a truly magnificent score, a lot of the scenes of loneliness, of slow meetings, of hunting or of true friendship become both entertaining and touching. The story often lacks subtlety but it’s still a powerful farewell to a lost time and culture.

It’s mostly the almost poetic beauty that Costner captures in his movie that serves as its biggest success. It’s to his credit that he gives the story time to develop, the whole movie constantly feels as if it wants to say ‘no need to hurry’ and, in this case, this is a welcoming approach. Yes, sometimes the story feels overdone and overproduced, simplified and limited but at the same time there is something about it that makes it seem ‘just right’. It’s a captivating balance between a small, personal story and the grand scope in which it is set.

Number 46: In the Heat of the Night (Best Picture Ranking)

Racism was omnipresent at the Academy Awards in 1967 with In the Heat of the Night and Guess who’s coming to dinner winning several awards. In the Heat of the Night was also the Academy’s choice for the Best Picture, beating out such classics as The Graduate or Bonnie and Clyde. It tells the story of two cops, one black, one racist, who must work together in a small, Southern town to find the murderer of an important, wealthy business man.

In the Heat of the Night is a movie with a very strong and powerful central story – unfortunately surrounded by a lot of mediocrity. In the middle are the two outstanding performances by Rod Steiger and Sidney Poitier. Both actors play the opposite spectrum of human characters and Steiger’s loud and sometimes slightly exaggerated work contrasts wonderfully with Poitier’s understated and restrained performance. The dynamic between these two actors is the motor that keeps the movie going and turns into one of the most interesting relationships ever seen on the screen. It’s easy to see why Rod Steiger won the Oscar since he gives a very domineering performance and his character is also given the bigger arc (that scene in the living room is one of the highpoints of his career) but Sidney Poitier is the unsung hero of this piece as he provides the connection to the audience and has to create a character that is neither too perfect but also clearly superior to his surroundings. So, it’s the development of the relationship between this racist and loud cop from the South and this black, intelligent man from the North which is the main reason why In the Heat of the Night works as well as it does. From their first confrontation scenes to their last goodbye at the train station, both actors perfectly handle their material without overdoing the dislike or the sentiments that could have destroyed the realism.

In the Heat of the Night is a movie that seems to combine two stories in one – one about racism and one about a murder. Both stories are supposed to be intertwined but they actually vary in their quality. In fact, the movie excels in the scenes that hint at the open or hidden racism in the town while the search for the murderer always feels like a last-minute attempt to spice things up. The movie wants to be a traditional ‘Whodunit?` but it gives no time to a clear presentation of the case, to suspects or motives and because of that the end feels rushed and forced into the storyline. During the second half of the movie, when the attentions shifts a little more over to the question of possible suspects, the movie loses a lot of its energy and fascination. Apart from Lee Grant who gives a very moving and memorable performance as the widow of the murdered man, the whole supporting cast from In the Heat of the Night also brings the movie down. I am willing to believe that stereotypical people like them truly exist but it’s the task of a movie to present a more balanced picture. All the cops from the police station make Officer Wiggum and his team from The Simpsons (I can’t believe I am mentioning The Simpsons for the second time in this ranking now) look like true professionals while the various suspects are incredibly over-the-top. In the Heat of the Night wants to be a movie about a murder case and the role of racism but ends up as movie about the role of racism disturbed by an unsatisfying murder case.

Right from the beginning, the use of music and cinematography seems to indicate something very modern but the feeling of the ‘60s’ that dominates the film gives it a rather dated tone from today’s point-of-view. Yes, In the Heat of the Night has many flaws but at the same time it managing to be an incredibly powerful (who can forget the scene when Poitier slaps the suspect?) and gripping experience.

Number 47: Wings (Best Picture Ranking)

There is always some debate about the silent classic Sunrise whenever there is talk about the first Best Picture winner but the Academy officially lists Wings as the first winner in this category.

It was obvious right from the start that the themes War and Musical are right up the Academy’s taste. In their second year, they awarded the mediocre The Broadway Melody while Wings, a saga about combat pilots during World War I, took home the Oscar in the Academy’s first year. Wings also has the honour of being the only silent movie to ever win the top prize – which sets it apart from all the other movies in this ranking. But while it is rather difficult to compare performances from silent movies with those from talkies, a comparison of the movies themselves is not quite so impossible.

Wings is a movie that easily impresses with its most celebrated asset – the fighting scenes. All the air battle scenes are still thrilling to watch even though they sometimes suffer from the limitations of movie making in 1928. A lot of times the planes are only little black dots, hardly recognizable, and the written titles have to inform the audience about what is going on. Still, most of the time the battle scenes are still as impressive as everything that can be seen in modern movies and later, the whole scope of the war is enlarged when airships and ground troops add the picture. From the cinematography that perfectly captures the atmosphere of the air battles to the use of editing, shadows and close-ups, the fighting sequences in Wings are easily among the most impressive ever captured on film.

Wings is not an anti-war movie. It’s a patriotic story that underlines the greatness of American soldiers (during all the written titles, the American soldiers are always referred to as ‘we’ while the Enemy is always ‘them’). Unfortunately, there was also the need for a plot which is also the biggest weakness of Wings. The love-triangle between two best friends who fight together and a girl from their hometown simply doesn’t work and constantly brings the movie down. Richard Arlen and Charles Rogers do very good work in their parts but Clara Bow, strangely first-billed despite being of secondary importance, is too exaggerated, even for a silent movie, and has basically nothing to do apart from being ‘the woman’. Later scenes in a Parisian bar seem to go on forever – Wings shines during the war sequences but fails in the development and presentation of its main characters. Wings may also be the only silent movie in which the written titles become annoying very soon – there is such a constant harshness in their tone, not just during the war scenes but also before; I never thought written titles could feel so exaggerated but here, they do.

But Wings is surely an exciting movie and improves vastly whenever the story focuses back on the main action. The last part of the movie in which one of the two friends ends up in a German plane puts a moving end to this story without feeling manipulative or corny. And the scenes in the hometown, especially with the family of one of the two heroes, are done very beautifully and build a stark contrast to the wide, light and open shots of the air battles.

Personally, I would have preferred Sunrise to be the first official Best Picture winner since it’s an unforgettable masterpiece and superior to Wings in every way – but this doesn’t mean that Wings isn’t a deserving winner itself.

Number 48: Slumdog Millionaire (Best Picture Ranking)

Slumdog Millionaire won basically every award in sight during all the ceremonies leading up to the Academy Awards and so it was no surprise when it took home an astonishing 8 Oscars. And it’s not hard to see why this movie became such a phenomenon – it’s a moving story told in a very unique style and mixes heartwarming moments with shocking images.

In the middle of the movie is a young man named Jamal who is a contestant in the Indian version of Who wants to be a Millionaire? – and seems to know too many answers considering that he is a poor, uneducated man from the slums. Step by step it is revealed via flashbacks that he knows the answers because of certain events in his past and that he isn’t in the show to win any money – instead, he hopes that by appearing on TV, he will be able to reunite with Latika, the love of his life. Sounds all like a fairy tale and Slumdog Millionaire certainly is – it mixes the brutal realities of life in the Indian slums with the make-believe story of a poor man who, just by luck, is able to win a lot of money and the heart of the woman of his dreams.

The biggest success of Slumdog Millionaire is that it was able to make this fairytale-like atmosphere believable. The fact that Jamal can answer all the questions because of incidents in his part might be a bit exaggerated but it’s acceptable (even though it does stretch credibility a bit too much that the questions fit perfectly to his life in chronological order – but hey, it’s a fairytale!). The early flashbacks are the scenes that not always work – the riot in the slums and later the scenes when the children become beggars certainly show the horrible life in the slums but the exaggerated editing and cinematography in some moments distract too much from the seriousness of the topics and often threatens to turn the whole movie into a MTV-clip (but the scene with the eyes is truly shocking). The movie benefits the most when the grown-up actors play the central parts and Slumdog Millionaire begins to focus more on the love story and the relationship between the two brothers. In regards to the actors, 2008 was one of the years when the Academy Awards made much more sense than the BAFTAs and decided to ignore all the actors. Dev Patel has a goofy charm and is able to carry his sequences but his limited talent is too obvious in various scenes. Freida Pinto is certainly lovely to look at but that doesn’t hide the fact that she has nothing to do in her underwritten part. Actor Anil Kapoor annoyed me to no end during the awards season in 2008 and his unlikable portrayal of the game show host lacks much credibility.

What probably is the highlight of Slumdog Millionare are the last twenty minutes which are truly movie magic at its best. The call on the phone, the answering of the final question, the scene at the train station are touching beyond words. But even before that, Slumdog Millionaire is a memorable and unique experience. The whole concept of the TV show, the flashbacks, the love story may sometimes be overdone but it all fits together beautifully. It’s a movie that shouldn’t be taken too seriously as a portrayal of modern India but it succeeds as a modern fairytale (okay, enough with this word!). There is something irresistible about the way Danny Boyle combines all the times and places of the story while keeping the central plot intact. It’s not a flawless movie but it achieves the illusion of being so. Maybe that’s the best way to describe it – a piece of magic that inweaves with reality in front of our eyes and for a moment we can forget that it’s just a trick before some of the flaws become invisible. It’s a movie that is easy to enjoy and easy to be impressed by since the plot, the technical values, the score, the heart-warming qualities all come together so easily.

Number 49: You Can't Take it With You (Best Picture Ranking)

Today, this winner of the Best Picture Oscar is rather forgotten but in 1938, it was popular enough with the Academy to not only win the top prize but also a third Director win for Frank Capra. The movie tells about the eccentric and unusual Sycamore family and their complete opposite, the snobbish and wealthy Kirbys. When Alice and Tony, two young members of these different families, fall in love, things start to get complicated.

You Can’t Take it With You is another one of those typical Capra-comedies. There is a little craziness, a little humor, a little love, a little pathos, a little class differences, a little social messages and the realization that you don’t need money or power to lead a happy, fulfilled life.

The biggest danger that You Can’t Take it With You faced was the central Sycamore family. Every single one of them is presented as eccentric and different as possible. It’s clear that the writing feels very forced in these moments and the script was constantly wondering about how it would be possible to even top those eccentricities with another one. There is the good-hearted and wise Grandpa, the head of the family and maybe, apart from Alice, the most normal member of the family (even though he has some weird ideas about taxes which are also one of the major flaws of the movie since the whole family doesn’t care to pay taxes but they don’t seem to have a problem with living in a country that provides them with everything they need). Then there is the rest of the family: Penny who wants to write a novel and keeps constantly talking and changing the topic at the same time, Essie who dances the whole time, some other relatives who build things in the cellar, a Russian friend who comes around very often and so on (but: the Sycamores are conventional enough to have black servants…). So, all these characters could very easily have become very annoying very soon but miraculously never do. The concept of the Sycamore may become a bit old after a while but all the actors constantly keep up a refreshing and engaging play and that way turn their scenes into very amusing and entertaining moments. On the other side, the characters of the Kirby family may be (apart from Tony) too two-dimensional but Edward Arnold gives a very moving and multi-dimensional performance as the rich man who learns his lessons. In the center of the movie are Jean Arthur and James Stewart who both may be playing the ‘straight’ characters but they actually, too, put a lot of comedy and craziness in their work and that way never get lost in the proceedings – their scene in the restaurant is absolutely delightful.

Like every Frank Capra movie, You Can’t Take it With You is a little too overdone in its message and a little too forced in its attempt to mix social themes with entertainment and the whole solution of the story seems to take a too easy way out. But it was the talent of Frank Capra to always make this work – he has the ability to create movies that could easily be criticized but somehow are simply too pleasing, inspiring, heartwarming but also thought-provoking. His movies always present a combination of themes that shouldn’t work but somehow end up working just right. You Can’t Take it With You is certainly not Capra’s best picture and certainly not his best comedy but it’s refreshing, entertaining and memorable.

Number 50: Out of Africa (Best Picture Ranking)

Out of Africa is one of those big epics that the Academy loves to honor – breathtaking shots of exotic landscapes, a sweeping score, a doomed love story. But: these types of movies usually only get attention from the Oscars if they are done well. And Out of Africa certainly is. Lead by Meryl Streep and her Danish accent, Out of Africa tells the story of writer Karen Blixen – a story of a farm in Africa, an uncaring husband and a tragic love affair.

Oscar-winner Sidney Pollack brought all this to life with a lush and sometimes a little overproduced movie that obviously enjoys its own length and opulence. Out of Africa does never really uses its screen time to explore the characters since the story itself is rather simple and the characters go through an unsurprising and expected arc but instead the movie uses every opportunity for long shots of the African landscapes, for a slow growth of a new love – to sum it up, Out of Africa takes time to develop more quiet and little moments, to show a love affair embedded in the African environment. That way it becomes the kind of movie that can easily bore a lot of viewers while captivating the others.

Meryl Streep gives a beautiful performance as the central character, a woman who finds herself in Africa. Out of Africa thankfully doesn’t focus on her love life completely but takes just as much time to show her own inner growth, her fight for her farm and her way of life. Robert Redford gives an adequate performance and he is nice to look at but never truly achieves a level of greatness but the chemistry between the two actors works just right. Interestingly enough, even though Out of Africa is usually remembered as a love story, the whole movie never truly feels like a typical romance – the love between Karen and Denys appears more intellectual than physical, their long talks or the famous hair-washing scene only underline that the attraction between those two seems to be both deeper but also more superficial at the same time than most other movie-love stories. On the one hand, there seems to be a deep spiritual connection between these two souls but for some reason they never truly seem to belong together. It’s a love that appears ‘meant to be’ but fleeting at the same time. Because of this, Out of Africa’s approach to this clichéd plot is rather refreshing and prevents the whole concept from becoming too schmaltzy and from dominating the movie in any way. The love between Karen and Denys never feels like the main reason for the movie’s existence but Out of Africa always lets Karen’s other feelings and determinations shine, too.
In the supporting role of Karen’s husband, Klaus Maria Brandauer gives an intriguing portrayal of an unlikable character.

Out of Africa truly manages to capture the feeling of an exotic and unknown country and keeps a nice balance between the plot and the characters on the one side and the technical values on the other. It also doesn’t concern itself with too serious topics – themes like war, the colonies, the supposed superiority of the Europeans over the natives are never truly touched which works well in the context of the way the film is presented.

Overall, it’s a beautiful and engaging picture that tells a simple story in an opulent way.

Number 51: Gigi (Best Picture Ranking)

There are two movies among the Best-Picture-winners which I found positively strange and awkward the first time I watched them. Gigi is one of those (the other one hasn’t been mentioned yet). As you can see, my opinion has obviously changed by now even though Gigi is still one of the most unusual movies in this category.

The Academy was certainly in the perfect mood for Gigi in 1958 and turned it into the biggest winner ever, awarding it 9 Oscars, breaking the record of Gone with the Wind, From Here to Eternity and On the Waterfront. Certainly an impressive achievement (even if it was broken only one year later when Ben-Hur took home 11 trophies) but it’s not hard to see why Gigi swept the technical awards. The whole movie is just gorgeous to look at, from the opulent art direction to the splendid costumes and the beautiful cinematography. Of course, some wins may have been slightly exaggerated – there is nothing too remarkable about Gigi’s editing, especially because it sometimes makes the annoying mistake of showing a certain action (like a person opening a door) only to show the exact same thing after a cut from another angle. The score of Gigi may not feature any true, well-known classics like other musicals but most of the songs are still delightful – ‘It’s a bore’, ‘The night they invented Champagne’, ‘Say a Prayer for me tonight’, ‘I don’t understand the Parisians’, ‘She is not thinking of me’, ‘I remember it well’ or the title song ‘Gigi’ are both endearing and clever. Then there is the infamous ‘Thank heaven for little girls’ which is maybe the biggest flaw in Gigi – it’s hard to say if people in 1958 really appreciated the sight of an old man singing about little girls while smilingly watching a maybe five-year old girl next to him but by now it’s only scary. This also leads to the fact that the character of Lachaille and the performance by Maurice Chevalier should have been left on the cutting room floor – in 1958, he may have been the most praised cast member but his aging womanizer has not aged well, in more ways than one.

Apart from Chevalier, the cast of Gigi is actually pretty terrific. None of them was nominated for an Oscar which does make sense since none of them truly stands out but the chemistry is just right and all actors know how to balance the silliness of the plot with a more dramatic approach to their characters. Leslie Caron in the title role is much more charming and appealing than in An American in Paris and makes Gigi a true dreamer, a little crazy, a little naïve, scared and insecure but joyful and happy, too. Louis Jordan is very loveable as Gaston who thinks that he must lead a life of pleasure and love affairs but soon finds out that he wants nothing more but a loving relationship. Hermione Gingold is also a joy to watch as the exhausted, overprotective but also misguided grandmother while Isabel Jeans often steals the show as Gigi’s aunt who collected kings like other people stamps.

The most unusual thing about Gigi is easily its plot. The story of a young girl that is brought up to become a mistress certainly sounds rather tasteless but at the same time it’s a clever story of young people rebelling against the plans of the elders. Gaston does not want to lead the life of Lachaille while Gigi lacks all the ‘talents’ to become the mistress of a rich man. Obviously, there are a lot of elements in the story that seem to come right out of My Fair Lady – considering that the people behind these two musicals are the same and My Fair Lady was a huge hit on Broadway while Gigi was filmed, this is not surprising. The fact that, in the end, Gigi and Gaston ruin the plans of everyone around them by falling in love makes the whole story much more clever and three-dimensional than it is usually given credit for. In some ways, Gigi is constantly presenting rather annoying or disturbing themes but then turns around and shows a different or modified view and so opens them up to new interpretation.

Overall, Gigi is certainly not for everyone and the lightness, the strangeness of the plot and the characters make it easy to understand why there is a large amount of dislike in regard to this winner but there is a lot to enjoy in Gigi and even more to find out.

Number 52: The Life of Emile Zola (Best Picture Ranking)

The Life of Emile Zola doesn’t enjoy a very high reputation among Oscar followers so I was prepared for the worst when I gave it a first try and was surprised how great I actually considered it – an opinion strengthened by a second viewing.

The movie tells about the life of French author Emile Zola and particular his involvement in the Dreyfus affair. The Life of Emile Zola is obviously not a high-budget production – the sets often don’t look fully convincing and a lot of shots seem to come from a B-movie but the story and particularly the actors raise the whole concept and turn The Life of Emile Zola into a very interesting and surprisingly effective motion picture. In the middle is Paul Muni, again playing a real-life person, who wonderfully catches all the aspects of the young and the old Emile – especially his big speech in court is an unforgettable moment in which the importance of the words and the performance of the actor work in perfect harmony. Joseph Schildkraut won himself a well-deserved Oscar for playing the ill-fated Alfred Dreyfus – his performance is both haunting and moving and he makes the most of his little screen time. It’s surprising to see the usual scheming and evil Gale Sondergaard in the standard part of the loyal and suffering wife but she, too, got the most out of her material and perfectly hid her usual manipulative screen presence behind the face of a worried woman.

Overall, The Life of Emile Zola tries to mix a lot of social issues into one picture, from the poverty in the streets of Paris to inhuman working condition right to the betrayal of Alfred Dreyfus by his superiors – and surprisingly, this works very well. The balance between a commentary on society and entertainment constantly works and the movie offers a strong combination of moving, provoking and thoughtful scenes and ideas. It’s the classic theme of a few people against the machinery of the government, against an overpowering enemy. The fact that the people of Paris are turned into a one-dimensional mob that seems to be a easy manipulated and ready to riot the streets as the citizens of Springfield in The Simpsons is unfortunate but it somehow works to emphasize the fight of Zola for justice.

What works also very well is that The Life of Emile Zola does not only focus on the Dreyfus affair but is more interested in the youth and early work of Zola, too. The scenes with a young prostitute whose story inspires him to write his first book create a fitting entrance to the story of Zola’s life. Later, he is also thankfully never turned into a saint and he only reluctantly begins to involve himself in the case of Alfred Dreyfus – but once he is convinced of his innocent, he fights as hard as he can. The scenes in the courtroom may be too simple in some ways – it is always clear who are the good and who are the bad guys, there is nothing in between but again, the movie somehow makes it work and it’s both gripping and devastating to watch Zola fight for justice.

Most of all, The Life of Emile Zola shows how a few people can use their power and influence over the people and the press and turn them into almost mindless marionettes who are wiling to believe everything they are told. Like Gentleman’s Agreement, The Life of Emile Zola may be more admirable for its ideas and ambitions rather than its actual execution but The Life of Emile Zola benefits from a stronger story and a tighter presentation. And the final scenes of Joseph Schildkraut, his reaction to his freedom and his appearance before the army are extremely moving.

The Life of Emile Zola is not among the most celebrated winners in this category and it’s easy to see that one can find it dull and lifeless but, for me, it’s a strong and well-made drama.

Number 53: Ben-Hur (Best Picture Ranking)

The mother of all epics, winner of a record 11 Academy Awards, the true definition of the word ‘spectacle’ – Ben-Hur has certainly achieved a legendary reputation and even 50 years later, it’s still a must-see for movie fans everywhere. Is it a flawless classic? Certainly not but it provides a lot of fascinating moments and scenes.

The title role is famously brought to life by Charlton Heston. His is a curious performance. On the one hand, he could be compared to Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind since both of these actors carry a massive production and a huge epic basically alone on their shoulders. Does that mean that both performances are on the same level? Again, certainly not. Vivien Leigh brought complexity, fire and energy to her part like no other actress could have and she also had the ability to keep Gone with the Wind alive and interesting for the entire running time. Charlton Heston plays a much simpler character, driven by desire for revenge, while not always being able to keep the movie on the ground and often getting lost in the production and his performance also cannot prevent a certain slowness that haunts Ben-Hur from time to time. But Charlton Heston’s performance is also curious for another reason: as long as one focuses on the movie itself, Charlton Heston is very serviceable, even good, but the moment one puts all the attention on his performance, his overall lack of charisma and acting talent become suddenly very obvious. It’s an interesting case of a performance that works perfectly fine in the context of the film but seems strangely insufficient judged on its own (Jane Fonda in Coming Home is another example for me). Hugh Griffith won an Oscar for playing an Arab sheik and the question is: why? He is entertaining and provides some laughs but fails to be either impressive or memorable, especially compared to the stand-out performance from Ben-Hur by Stephen Boyd who should have been the one walking away with an Oscar (at least he won a Golden Globe). His is a supporting performance that dominates the whole movie and steals every scene while never feeling dominant or attention-seeking. None of the female performances in Ben-Hur impress very much.

The overall story of Ben-Hur seems to be the predecessor of Gladiator – the story of a man who seeks revenge for the sorrow brought to him and his family. Ben-Hur is mixed with various religious themes – in fact, people on imdb even ask if a non-religious person can enjoy this movie. Well, I have to say that the religious motives don’t bother me – until the end when it all becomes too much. The birth of Jesus at the beginning or Ben-Hur meeting him are done rather beautifully and somehow religion perfectly fits into this big epic without appearing to be propaganda. Only at the end, the screenplay and William Wyler exaggerated it – after the chariot race the whole movie develops a feeling of ‘should be over in 5 minutes’ but it goes on for over another hour and the crucifixion of Jesus and the sudden healing of Ben-Hur’s mother and sister seem to come from another movie altogether. This long, overdone ending period of the movie is also the reason why Ben-Hur didn’t get a higher position. But before this downfall, Ben-Hur is a pretty terrific epic.

The story works just fine and never feels unnecessarily long but instead all characters and the plot get their chances to develop themselves quite nicely. Charlton Heston may have not been aware of the gay undertones in the story but, to be honest, the only way to make his first scene with Stephen Boyd more gay would have been to let them have sex right on his desk. The later scenes on the galleys are also thrilling and the whole plot constantly flows along without any interruptions. Of course, the highlight of Ben-Hur is the famous chariot race – and it’s one of the few scenes in movie history that is as good as its reputation. From the magnificent opening score to the sensational race, this is a magnificently done action sequence that a movie like Gladiator could only dream of.

Overall, a strong and memorable epic that maybe won a few Oscars too many but entertains wonderfully.