Quantcast
Channel: academy awards – News from the San Diego Becks
Viewing all 245 articles
Browse latest View live

The History of the Academy Awards: Best Picture – 2018

$
0
0

I know that you Oscar voters get suckered in for Best Picture but Best Original Screenplay? Really?

The 91st annual Academy Awards, for the film year 2018.  The nominations were announced on 22 January 2019 and the awards were held on 24 February 2019.

Best Picture:  Green Book

  • The Favourite
  • Roma
  • A Star is Born
  • BlackKklansman
  • Black Panther
  • Bohemian Rhapsody
  • Green Book
  • Vice

Most Surprising Omission:  If Beale Street Could Talk

Best Eligible Film Not Nominated:  First Man

Rank (out of 91) Among Best Picture Years:  #30

The Race:  You can go here for a detailed description of the race as it unfolded from late November when the first awards came out up until the day before the Oscar nominations were announced.

The Results:  Reactions on nomination morning are here.

White people solve racism. Again.

Green Book

  • Director:  Peter Farrelly
  • Writer:  Brian Hayes Currie  /  Peter Farrelly  /  Nick Vallelonga
  • Producer:  Jim Burke, Charles B. Wessler, Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly, Nick Vallelonga
  • Stars:  Viggo Mortensen, Mahershala Ali
  • Studio:  Universal (DreamWorks)
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Original Screenplay, Actor (Mortensen), Supporting Actor (Ali), Editing
  • Oscar Points:  300
  • Length:  130 min
  • Genre:  Comedy
  • MPAA Rating:  PG-13
  • Release Date:  2017
  • Box Office Gross:  $84.84 mil  (#36  –  2018)
  • Metacritic Rating:  69
  • My Rating:  ***
  • My Rank:  #68  (year)  /  #385  (nominees)  /  #78  (winners)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Actor (Mortensen), Supporting Actor (Ali)
  • Nighthawk Points:  65

I was in an awkward position regarding this film from the start.  Thanks, in part to my cancer diagnosis, and in part to no desire to go see it, this was the only nominee I had yet to see by the time of the ceremony.  Why did I have no desire to see it?  First, it was directed by a hack director and writer who, sadly, at this point, is now an Oscar winning writer, a description that had already been thoroughly made undistinguished by its inclusion of Akiva Goldsman.  Second, it was about the South during the Civil Rights Era.  That meant more watching racist whites acting awful to decent blacks.  Honestly, I’ve had my fill of this.  People can make whatever films they want, but that doesn’t mean I want to watch them.  At this point, my honest feeling, is that there doesn’t need to be another film about this era unless an actual black director who either grew up there or had his parents grow up there decides to write and direct a film about that personal experience (which, sadly, rules out many of the most talented black directors around including Spike Lee (Brooklyn), Ryan Coogler (Oakland), Ava DuVernay (Compton), Denzel Washington (New York) and Jordan Peele (New York), so unless Barry Jenkins, who is at least from Miami, wants to make a film like this, I’m really over it and you should see the note at the end of this review concerning that).  What’s more, this film suffered from the white savior narrative so clearly that its lead was white, its director was white and the screenwriters were white.  Added to all of that was the controversy that none of the filmmakers bothered to get the actual Shirley family involved and couldn’t even be bothered to mention him in their speeches for Screenplay or Picture (which I am going on reports, since I muted both speeches).

Then there was the story itself.  Racist white guy (with typical racist thing thrown in at the beginning where he throws out the glasses the black workmen in his house drank from), in travels with a black man, learns to overcome racism.  Which actually misses the whole point.  If anyone involved with this film thinks that he overcame his racism, they are sadly mistaken.  As Veronica has mentioned with every blurb on the film, there is a big difference between personal prejudice and institutional racism.  People overcome their own feelings all the time.  In high school I was friends with a man whose views on homosexuals were absolutely reprehensible (this man is now a judge in Orange County) and in college I was friends with a man who is now nationally known for hitting his wife because his wife has gone on to become a congresswoman.  I have always loathed homophobia and yet we were friends and I knew he had a bad temper and a tendency to act without thinking and yet we were friends.  This film is the opposite case.  Tony hasn’t somehow grown to love blacks.  Deep in his mind, he still thinks the same things.  But he has learned to respect and even like this particular black man, so the message of the film is, once again, whites can overcome racism (see also Driving Miss Daisy, The Help and any number of other films, directed by, written by and starring white people).  Which is bullshit.  Tony has now just become the example of the guy who says “I have a black friend”.  There is added irony in that one of the few actual blacks involved in below the line aspects of this film is Octavia Spencer, who, in Hidden Figures, when told by Kirsten Dunst “Despite what you may think, I have nothing against y’all.” responds, perfectly, “I know, I know you probably believe that.”.

And all of that was before I even saw the damn film.  By the time I saw the film, of course, it had won Best Picture in a win that was immediately set up as a comparison to Crash, both in its ham-handed attempts to deal with racism on-screen and because the other nominees were so clearly better.  It’s not really irony but just appropriate that Crash and Green Book have the same metacritic rating and that it’s far below the other nominees (well, most of the other nominees for this film since there were eight instead of five).  Did the Oscar voters actually think this was the best film of the year?  Honestly, I doubt it.  Most Academy voters don’t think that way.  They think about the movie they enjoyed the most, the one that made them feel good.  That’s why people vote for films like The Sound of Music, Driving Miss Daisy, Titanic and Green Book.  They don’t honestly think about whether they were better films than Doctor Zhivago, Born on the Fourth of July, L.A. Confidential or Roma.  They think about how they felt while watching the film, how it made them feel (it made them feel good about overcoming racism because most voters in the Academy are still older and white).  It certainly doesn’t hurt that again they’re voting for a film that condemns racism and makes whites feel like they can overcome racism at the same time that a blatant racist is sitting in the Oval Office.  What’s more, because Don Shirley was such a refined gentleman, the way he instructs Tony on how to look, behave and even speak makes them feel like this is a more balanced story than it actually is.  White man overcomes racism, refined gentleman learns how to become more human.

So what about the film itself?  The film has been decried as Driving Miss Daisy II and that’s not so far off.  Like Daisy, it is not particularly well written and it wasn’t nominated for Best Director.  But, like Daisy, the two main figures in the car give quite good performances (in fact, I think the two performances in this film are actually considerably superior to the ones in Daisy).  Tony, needing a job, drives Don Shirley around the South and eventually learns to respect the man and find himself not hating at least one black man as much as he did at the beginning of the film.  Don Shirley, an accomplished musician who lives a refined life but doesn’t deal much in the way with other people (it doesn’t help that he’s also gay, not that the film deals much with that) and feels a disconnect with what Tony feels should be his own culture (there’s a scene that feels like such a cliche where Tony is jumping around on radio stations and Don doesn’t recognize any of the prominent black musicians like Little Richard, Chubby Checker or Aretha Franklin) eventually learns to be a bit more open and relaxed.  Of course it ends with the two of them having dinner together at Tony’s house, the same place where he was throwing out glasses at the beginning and now welcomes a black man into his house.

The writing of this film was rewarded which is ridiculous, especially in a year with The Favourite and Roma.  It’s full of cliches and there isn’t anything about it that stands out as worthy of accomplishment.  The acting was rewarded and it deserved to be.  Ali might not be my #1 but he gives a performance that is worthy of an Oscar (it’s unfortunate that he’s now won two Oscars without winning a Nighthawk but he’s been close each time) and Viggo rises to the Top 5 of what is a very strong Best Actor category.  In the end, what we have is a solidly acted film that deals with a subject without a whole lot of subtlety and that somehow managed to rise to the top of the Academy’s list.  They’ve made far worse choices in the past and they, sadly, probably will again in the future, though it’s been quite a while since they’ve botched things like this.  But in the end, it’s a solid film, fairly well made and very well acted.  But perhaps someday we’ll realize that Academy voters aren’t really voting for the best film of the year.

Postscript:  So, I watched the film and wrote the review before watching If Beale Street Could TalkBeale is the complete rebuttal to Green Book and should have been nominated instead of it.  It shows how we deal with racism when it is entrenched in the system from blacks who are oppressed by it.  Yet, it does it, not by placing the film in the height of the fight for civil rights but a decade later, when it was supposed to be over and in the north where it wasn’t supposed to have been an issue in the first place.  And in the end, it has an ending that is far more complicated but still can be seen as heartwarming and one that feels much more real for the characters involved.  It doesn’t suggest that this problem is solved, perhaps because it was made by a black filmmaker instead of white ones.

Bunnies, you don’t really want to get that close to Emma.

The Favourite

  • Director:  Yorgos Lanthimos
  • Writer:  Deborah Davis  /  Tony McNamara
  • Producer:  Ceci Dempsey  /  Ed Guiney  /  Lee Magiday  /  Yorgos Lanthimos
  • Stars:  Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, Emma Stone, Nicholas Hoult
  • Studio:  Fox Searchlight
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Actress (Colman), Supporting Actress (Stone), Supporting Actress (Weisz), Editing, Cinematography, Production Design, Costume Design
  • Oscar Points:  350
  • Length:  119 min
  • Genre:  Comedy
  • MPAA Rating:  R
  • Release Date:  2018
  • Box Office Gross:  $34.36 mil  (#81  –  2018)
  • Metacritic Rating:  90
  • My Rating:  ****
  • My Rank:  #1  (year)  /  #65  (nominees)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Actress (Colman), Supporting Actress (Stone), Supporting Actress (Weisz), Editing, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design, Makeup
  • Nighthawk Points:  460

Was All About Eve really a Comedy?  It was after all, the story of a woman at the height of her power, smart, witty and manipulative and a younger, more beautiful woman who comes along, tries to size her up and manages to topple her but with an ending that can not really be defined as sweet.  Here we have a similar story, also with two such women who are smart and beautiful and quick-witted and one of whom starts on top and the other of whom sort of ends there.  And yet, there doesn’t seem to be any question that The Favourite is a Comedy even though the ending, like All About Eve‘s seems in some ways much more tragic than comic.

Sarah Churchill has power.  She might be the most powerful woman in England and in some ways might be the most powerful person in the world as a result of that (and her power stays in her family – her great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson will be the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the second World War and her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson will likely be the next King of England).  But she is a forthright woman.  She has her power because of her intimacy with Queen Anne, the actual ruler, but one who Churchill is a master of manipulating and because her husband is in charge of leading the current war against France (I could explain the historical details but you could just look them up or, since this is England, you could just assume they’re at war with France because for most of the second millennium they were at war with France).  She is the kind of woman who could say, when the queen complains that she heard someone call her fat “Anne, no one but me would dare and I did not.”

Into the lives of both of them comes Abigail Hill.  Abigail arrives in an dramatically unimpressive fashion (she is literally pushed into a pile of shit and then is tricked by the maids of the house into walking directly up to Churchill without being able to clean off first) but she is Churchill’s cousin and has fallen on hard times so she is taken in.  She trudges through as a scullery maid until a moment of chance allows her to help ease Anne’s pain from gout and that is where Abigail begins her dramatic rise.

Rachel Weisz, who plays Sarah Churchill in an impressive performance (to the point where I almost want to declare a tie between the two actresses for the Nighthawk) has described the film as a funnier, sexy version of All About Eve and she is not wrong.  Abigail (put on screen with a magnificent performance from Emma Stone that combines a seeming innocence with a scheming mind and a sexuality that you are never quite certain of but you know is present, all of which combine to win her a third Nighthawk in five years) will discover that the two women are lovers and, ready to rise to the challenge, manages to placate Anne’s physical needs one night when Sarah is otherwise occupied.  Now we are not only witnesses to a battle of wits (“May I ask a question?”  “As long as you realize I am holding a gun.”) but to a battle of physical affection.

Yet, all of this is played out against the events of the world as they unfold and it’s an interesting reminder precisely what makes this so different from All About Eve.  That film focused on two smart, willful women who were trying to make their way but whose careers were, in important ways, defined by their relationships with the men in their lives, be they critic, writer or director.  Anne (played by Olivia Colman, putting on screen the kind of performance that those who have been watching her for years on television always knew she was capable of) is stuck between two women who are much smarter than her but need her in order to survive.  The men are much less lucky.  Be they Lord Godolphin, Sarah’s poor outwitted political ally (he will not get a response to the line “Obviously you have chosen to keep the particulars of your dismissal from me. I shall leave a gap in the conversation for you to remedy that.”), leader of the opposition Harley, who can push women around on a physical level but still be outsmarted by them (“I wish to make a statement to the queen.”  “State it to me.  I love a comedy.  Is there cake?”) or poor Colonel Masham who doesn’t get the wedding night he was planning on, none of the men in this film can hope to match up to the women.

This is the most fascinating, the wittiest, quite probably the funniest film and in my opinion the best of the year.  If there is any actual problem with it is that, looking at the film as a whole, there are no supporting female performances in the film – just three brilliant leads who all should have been acknowledged as such.

Yes, when the 3.0 list of the Top 100 Directors comes out later this year, someone will be moving up quite a few spots.

Roma

  • Director:  Alfonso Cuarón
  • Writer:  Alfonso Cuarón
  • Producer:  Alfonso Cuarón, Gabriela Rodriguez
  • Stars:  Yalitza Aparicio, Marina de Tavira
  • Studio:  Netflix
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Actress (Aparicio), Supporting Actress (de), Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Production Design, Sound Editing, Foreign Film
  • Oscar Points:  395
  • Length:  135 min
  • Genre:  Drama
  • MPAA Rating:  R
  • Release Date:  21 November 2018
  • Box Office Gross:  n/a  –  even though it had a theatrical release, Netflix does not report the grosses from the theatrical releases of its films
  • Metacritic Rating:  96
  • My Rating:  ****
  • My Rank:  #3  (year)  /  #79  (nominees)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography, Foreign Film
  • Nighthawk Points:  225

Cleo Gutiérrez’s worst day is much worse than your worst day.

She’s a maid in the Colonia Roma section of Mexico City, a middle-class neighborhood where she takes care of the four children for her employer, Sofia, while Sofia tries to fake that the father is out of town (really he’s having an affair, something which is almost discovered by the children when they go to a movie that he’s also attending) and tries to fit her monstrously large car into a garage that is entirely too small for it.  Her boyfriend (who wants to be a martial artist and has enough skill when showing off for her while she’s in bed is certainly adept enough not to smack himself in the face with the shower curtain rod he’s using) has knocked her up but when she tried to talk to him about it he refused to acknowledge it and threatened her if she ever spoke to him again.

Now, nearing the end of her pregnancy, she and the children’s grandmother, Teresa, have headed into the heart of the city to shop for a crib.  Unfortunately it is 10 June 1971 and they head right into one of the biggest tragedies in the history of the city, the Corpus Christi Massacre, when student protestors were gathered and instead were brutally beaten by authorities and over a hundred were murdered, mostly by paramilitary groups.  The danger follows them into the store and Teresa and Cleo stand by while a young man is murdered as he tries to flee the violence.  A gunman then stands there, aiming the gun at them and Cleo recognizes the father of her child, the very child whose water breaks just minutes later.  She has been abandoned by the man she thought she loved, though, thankfully, not by the family that employs her.

Making their way through the horrid traffic in the aftermath of the massacre, they finally make it to the hospital and endure the awkwardness of Sofia’s husband suddenly showing up (he works in the hospital) before making an excuse to leave.  Then she is examined and the most horrid words you can imagine come from one of the doctors who is asked to check the baby’s heartbeat: “I don’t hear anything”  Suddenly everything moves into quick speed and slow motion all at once as they do everything they can and in one, brilliant, long static shot, we get the most brutal scene you will see in any film this or any other year, a four minute long birth scene and the confirmation that the baby has been stillborn.  She is asked if she wants to hold the child and she does but not long enough to satisfy her and then the child is gone.  Even though it is dead, she still wants to be holding on because it might have been all she had left and now it is just gone.

The film is autobiographical; the multi-talented Oscar winning director (also functioning as writer, producer, editor and even cinematographer) Alfonso Cuarón has admitted that this is the story of his life in those insane days of his youth.  It’s the story of the maid who loved him even though she was paid for it and who actually saved his life after she had already endured the most horrible day that could possibly be imagined.  Because we’re not done with Cleo and she is not done with life.  In the days after her horrible tragedy, the family takes a vacation to the beach (it’s actually so the father can move out while they’re gone) and Cleo is left to watch two of the children in the ocean but they stray out too far (even knowing she can’t swim) and she has to brave the water to save them.

This is what we have: an extraordinary document of one man’s experience of growing up, of the world he lived in, of the women in his life that helped make him the man he is.  It’s an unbelievable work of art on every level from one of the world’s greatest directors (which the Academy mostly acknowledged except for the idiots in the Editors branch who somehow missed out not only on this, the second best edited film of the year but also First Man, the best edited film of the year).  What film other than this one could be filmed in black and white, star a bunch of no name actors (in spite of that, both the actress playing Cleo and the actress playing Sophia earned nominations and while neither quite makes my Top 5 in what are good years, they were both close), be in Spanish and Mixtec and be released primarily through Netflix rather than theaters and still manage to score an impressive 10 Oscar nominations.

Remakes. You’re doing it right.

A Star is Born

  • Director:  Bradley Cooper
  • Writer:  Bradley Cooper  /  Eric Roth  /  Will Fetters  (based on the 1937, 1954 and 1976 films)
  • Producer:  Bradley Cooper, Bill Gerber, Lynette Howell Taylor
  • Stars:  Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga, Sam Elliott
  • Studio:  Warner Bros
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Actor (Cooper), Actress (Lady Gaga), Supporting Actor (Elliot), Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Original Song (“Shallow”)
  • Oscar Points:  255
  • Length:  136 min
  • Genre:  Musical
  • MPAA Rating:  R
  • Release Date:  2018
  • Box Office Gross:  $215.28 mil  (#11  –  2018)
  • Metacritic Rating:  88
  • My Rating:  ****
  • My Rank:  #5  (year)  /  #152  (nominees)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Actor (Cooper), Actress (Lady Gaga), Supporting Actor (Elliott), Editing, Cinematography, Sound, Original Song (“Shallow”), Original Song (“I’ll Never Love Again”)
  • Nighthawk Points:  360

We’re a good chunk into the film and Jackson Maine, a popular rock and roll star, is blasting his way through another concert in front of what looks to be tens of thousands of fans.  By this point, we already know that Jackson is a fairly hopeless drunk, but we’ve also seen he’s a hell of a rock and roll star and he’s got an eye for talent as well.  One night, desperate for a drink after a show, he walks into what turns out to be a drag bar (he’s told it’s the wrong kind of bar for him and he replies “They serve alcohol?  Then it’s the right bar for me.”) and sees a young woman performing.  She captivates him right from the start, taking the famous “La Vie en Rose” and giving it a vocal performance that Edith Piaf would be proud of.  Intrigued by her (especially once her makeup is off) and especially her voice, and later, when she sings for him in a parking lot as he treats the hand she bruised punching out a cop in the next bar they go to, her song-writing ability (it’s a song she wrote herself), he is more than impressed.  He is blown away.  He knows others will be too.  He sees something in her and he also wants her, so he sends for her, drags her out to his concert and then tries to bring her on stage.  She refuses at first, too beaten down by failure and misery and being told her nose is too big to be successful so he says he’s going out there to sing her song whether she joins him or not.  And he really does, singing a song he barely knows, but has managed to put a guitar lick to, adding in his own lyrics as a counterpoint to the ones she sang for him the night before.  Finally, she can’t take it and she’s out there, scared as can be, but singing because this is her song and it deserves her voice.

By this point, we’re a ways into the film, well past the title coming up on screen, but it would be perfectly fitting if Bradley Cooper (who is doing everything in this film – starring as Jackson Maine, directing, co-writing, co-producing, even co-writing some of the songs) had waited until this moment, when the green light comes up on the young woman, so clearly terrified, but so determined as well, for the title to come up on screen.  Or maybe it doesn’t need to, because in this moment, we can sense something.  The actress, of course, is Lady Gaga, one of the best selling musical artists of our time.  She has been many things in her life but what she hasn’t, up to this point been, is a film actress.  That’s something else she can check off now because in that moment, singing “Shallow”, a song that perfectly captures the moment and is so captivating and brilliant that as I write this, a day after seeing the film, five days after its release, 12 days after the video premiered on YouTube, it is currently at over 23 million views, you can sense that the title has absolutely come true.  A star is born.

The first knowledge that A Star is Born was being remade, yet again, the fourth time by this title, the sixth if you want to count What Price Hollywood and The Artist, did not fill me with relief.  The knowledge that Bradley Cooper, who had become a first-rate actor in films like Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle and American Sniper, was going to be adding writing and directing duties didn’t add any confidence.  Then there was all the hype about Lady Gaga taking the other lead role and given that she is clearly a gifted performer but that her music hadn’t ever much interested me (outside of “Americano” and the fact that she clearly should have won the Oscar for “Til It Happens to You”) didn’t warm me up either.  The Oscar hype had begun long before the film was even made but when it actually got released and started getting rave reviews, that made me interested.  So, I took Veronica on Columbus Day, when she had the day off work but Thomas had school because California doesn’t go into for such crap as Columbus Day, off to the theater, not even thinking about the fact that Veronica had never seen any of the previous versions (except The Artist) and that she wouldn’t necessarily know some of the big points that would hit through the film, including the horrible moment that would clearly come at the Grammys instead of the Oscars like in the first two versions or the ending.

And yet, this film is a marvel.  It is quite possibly as good as any previous version of the film which is saying a hell of a lot since one of them won Best Picture at the Oscars and another is the Nighthawk winner for Best Picture.  Is it because Cooper digs down and gives us the best performance of a career that has already earned him three Oscar nominations?  Is it because Sam Elliot, as the older half-brother, something we only learn about part-way through the film and that brings a perfect measure of sense to the voice that Cooper uses (their argument over the voice and how it is used is one of the best written scenes in the film and one that absolutely didn’t come from any of the previous versions of the film) might finally get the recognition he has deserved for so very long?  Is it because the film never overstays its welcome and earns its running time of well over two hours because of the magnificent songs that begin with the opening shot of the film and continue all the way through to the end of the credits (which we thought worth staying for)?

It is all of these and more, of course.  But perhaps the biggest power of the film is Gaga’s performance.  Through the film, we follow her from a drag club performer, to achieving recognition with a measure of luck (for meeting Jackson) and talent (for her tremendous song-writing) to becoming a star the likes of which she currently is, changing her hair, her look and dropping everything we think we know about her.  Yet, she also comes shining through in that final scene of the film, the moment that has always been so important in the previous versions of the film and which she hits every note that she needs to hit.  And even then, we get the brilliance of Gaga the composer (for the beautiful song being sung) and the magnificent editing in the film as we cut away for a brilliant shot that perfectly complements everything we’ve been listening to and watching.  We’re somehow in the middle of a Golden Era for film Musicals with the likes of La La Land, The Greatest Showman and A Star is Born.

It’s perhaps most telling that when Bradley Cooper decided to get involved in this film, he didn’t feel the need to switch the roles around, that he would take the role of the veteran who was on his way down, unable to conquer his demons and gave Gaga the role that would let her shine through all the way to the final brilliant shot.

If nothing else, we got the happiest Oscar winner ever.

BlackKklansman

  • Director:  Spike Lee
  • Writer:  Spike Lee  /  Charlie Wachtel  /  David Rabinowitz  /  Kevin Willmott
  • Producer:  Spike Lee, Sean McKittrick, Jason Blum, Raymond Mansfield, Jordan Peele
  • Stars:  John David Washington, Adam Driver, Laura Harier, Topher Grace
  • Studio:
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Driver), Editing, Original Score
  • Oscar Points:  255
  • Length:  135 min
  • Genre:  Drama
  • MPAA Rating:  R
  • Release Date:  2018
  • Box Office Gross:  $49.27 mil  (#58  –  2018)
  • Metacritic Rating:  83
  • My Rating:  ****
  • My Rank:  #6  (year)  /  #161  (nominees)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Director, Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Driver)
  • Nighthawk Points:  115

I am an intellectual who reads Faulkner and Joyce which is viewed with some suspicion by my sports fan friends and by my geek friends.  I have, since a young age, been a devourer of comic books and fantasy novels which the intellectuals view with disdain and the sports fans think is lame.  I am a devoted fan of the three major American team sports with a great breadth of knowledge on their history which is rare in either an intellectual or a fantasy geek.  I have a picture which encapsulates all three (you can see the Faulkner and Star Wars collections and I am wearing numerous Red Sox items).  All of this is a way of saying that I at least have a little knowledge of what it is like to be a member of multiple groups that are viewed with suspicion and dislike by the other groups but good lord I have nothing on Ron Stallworth.

Stallworth was a black man in Colorado (a state that is only 4.1% black, one third of the national average) and he wanted to be a police officer.  In fact, he was the first black police officer in the history of the city of Colorado Springs.  He endured racist taunts while working in the records room (“an important job” Veronica yells out) but desperately wanted to work in the field.  Eventually his superiors realized that if they wanted to spy on the local black activists at the university (and they did), then having a black officer who could go undercover would be extremely handy so Stallworth managed to escape the records room (“it’s not an escape, it’s an important job!”) and get out to do field work.  There he meets Patrice, the beautiful president of the black student union and on the way back to her place she is sexually assaulted by a racist officer.

Stallworth is in a tricky place.  His fellow cops for the most part don’t trust him or don’t like him or just disdain him because he’s black (that he’s smarter and harder working than just about all of them doesn’t matter).  The black activists that he is befriending him are a little wary of him and he is wary of them in his own brain because he feels both right and wrong about what he is doing.  He is trapped between two worlds that fear and loathe the other and he doesn’t feel at ease in either one.  But then he takes his undercover work an extra step and decides, over the phone, to impersonate a white man and get himself a membership in the Klan.

Now, suddenly, the new Spike Lee film, to my mind easily the best film he has ever made, takes an interesting twist.  This is a Drama, a true story (certain details are fictionalized and certain ones had to be because certain details about Stallworth’s operation, such as the identity of his partner, have never been released) about a good young cop who made a bold decision (played very well by John David Washington, showing that his father Denzel passed on a considerable measure of talent), a Comedy about what happens when a black man infiltrates the Klan and suddenly needs a white man to play the physical part and he recruits his Jewish partner (played by Adam Driver in the best performance of what is already one of the most fascinating careers currently in film) and a Suspense film about trying to stop a Klan plot to kill some of the young black social activists in town.

All of this works so well because everything is so perfectly balanced.  Lee never overdoes the Comedy but manages to bring it in at the right moments to keep the film centered (it doesn’t hurt that the most outlandish parts of the film – the very premise – are the most accurate) and allows it to keep the Drama and the awfulness of some of the people involved from overwhelming us.  With a great Oscar nominated Score (from Terence Blanchard), first rate Editing and Cinematography and two solid performances anchoring it, it’s nice to finally see Spike Lee not only make it into the Oscar nominations but into the Nighthawk nominations as well.

Then we come to that ending, that brutal reminder that while the world only spins forward, we are still a very long way from where we should be and where the vast majority of us want to be.  Spike Lee knows that we haven’t solved racism, that racism will never really be solved and he wants us to understand how connected the vicious actions of the past are to the brutal moments of the present.  In many other films, those final scenes would seem exploitative but in this one, they have been set up just right and they just serve to remind us that there is work still to be done.

Wakanda forever!!!

Black Panther

  • Director:  Ryan Coogler
  • Writer:  Ryan Coogler  /  Joe Robert Cole  (based on characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby)
  • Producer:  Kevin Feige
  • Stars:  Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong’o, Danai Gurira, Martin Freeman
  • Studio:  Walt Disney Studios
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Original Score, Sound Mixing, Production Design, Sound Editing, Costume Design, Original Song (“All the Stars”)
  • Oscar Points:  220
  • Length:  134 min
  • Genre:  Action (Comic Book – MCU)
  • MPAA Rating:  PG-13
  • Release Date:  2018
  • Box Office Gross:  $700.05 mil  (#1  –  2018)
  • Metacritic Rating:  88
  • My Rating:  ****
  • My Rank:  #8  (year)  /  #209  (nominees)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Jordan), Original Score, Sound, Art Direction, Sound Editing, Costume Design, Makeup
  • Nighthawk Points:  210

Black Panther was already an historic film for a variety of reasons long before the awards season even began.  It was the first film to hold the weekend box office championship for 5 straight weekends in eight years (since Avatar), became the highest domestic grossing comic book film, was the first film to ever sit at the top of the year’s box office charts with a primarily black cast and was, by a long, long way, the highest grossing film ever made by a black director.  It was not the first comic book adaptation with a black title character but it was the first marketed in conjunction with the major comic book companies (Blade had been more stand-alone).  It had the first soundtrack in 16 years to be nominated for Album of the Year at the Grammies.  More importantly than that, it gave hope and inspiration to hundreds of millions of kids around the world that this was a hero they could strive to be.  It was so good and so beloved that it inspired the Academy to make rule changes; just like how in 2009, the Academy, most likely in response to the lack of a nomination for The Dark Knight, expanded the number of Best Picture nominees, the Academy this year took one look and decided that rather than running the risk of having their voters look like fools again, created a (hopefully now discarded) Popular Film award that seemed clearly aimed as a token award for this film.  That they ended up putting the award off and that Disney ignored the Academy anyway and moved forward with a strong campaign for Best Picture (and managed the nomination) doesn’t change the fact that it looked like the Academy was panicking and trying to right a wrong they thought might happen.

Black Panther is not the best comic book film ever made; that designation still goes to The Dark Knight, with its intense vision from Christopher Nolan and the psychotic performance for the ages from Heath Ledger.  But, with a strong storyline, fantastic acting from a great ensemble, one hell of a psychotic villain in its own right and top notch technical work from every department, this is easily one of the best comic book films ever made.  If you want to believe that this is a token award because this was a popular film and because the superhero in question is black, you are welcome to believe that, but you are ignoring the evidence in front of you.

To whom do we owe our greatest allegiance: the people we love or the country that we serve?  When your country does wrong do you stand by the ruler or what is right?  What do we owe to our fellow man when we have the means to make their lives better?  Does being wronged all of your life and placed in a position of weakness give you the right to manifest your anger should you manage to achieve a position of power?  These are not easy questions to answer because they speak of difficult choices.  Yet all of them are deftly addressed in this film, a film that understands difficult choices in the world we live in and that there are no easy answers.  And yet, it doesn’t do this by providing us with a moral treatise but with fully realized characters who are the sum of the experiences, who act, each according to their gifts.

If you somehow didn’t see Black Panther and you are in need of a refresher course, it is the story of T’Challa, a prince in a fictional African kingdom that is graced with the gift of magnificent technology but that disguises itself with a mask to the world.  It is a kingdom steeped in tradition yet more modern than any yet devised. T’Challa does not simply become king by birthright but by acknowledgement of the five different groups of people who inhabit the kingdom and he must actually fight to get the crown.  He is also a superhero, but one who has mostly been hidden from the world until now and though he will become an Avenger, it is this film and the journey that he takes that makes him realize that he can no longer hide himself off from the world.  He will discover that by facing difficult choices, being forced to confront horrible realities about himself, his father and his kingdom and by battling a cousin who only wants to destroy the world that has so long kept him down.

Black Panther works so well, not just because it is exquisitely made, with magnificent, visionary art direction, brilliant music, luminous cinematography and first-rate visual effects, but because the characters are so well realized.  Whether it be a psychopath who has gone over the edge into insanity (Andy Serkis), a man so filled with rage that he doesn’t care who he has to kill (Michael B. Jordan), a woman who loves her country more than anything and will not hesitate to sacrifice anything or anyone to keep it safe (Danai Gurira), a man who knows what honor is and will stand by it when it matters most (Winston Duke), a woman who believes that love and compassion are the answer, even when it means fighting to preserve that (Lupita Nyong’o) or a smart-alecy brilliant young woman who will save the day in so many ways because she knows that science can bring us new answers (Letitia Wright), all of them are well-developed.  The film is an ensemble work, with great direction and a magnificent cast that never once falters.

In short, Black Panther is not just a great comic book movie but a great movie.

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me

Bohemian Rhapsody

  • Director:  Bryan Singer  /  Dexter Fletcher
  • Writer:  Anthony McCarten  /  Peter Morgan
  • Producer:  Graham King
  • Stars:  Rami Malek, Lucy Boynton
  • Studio:  20th Century-Fox
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Actor (Malek), Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing
  • Oscar Points:  250
  • Length:  134 min
  • Genre:  Musical (Biopic)
  • MPAA Rating:  PG-13
  • Release Date:  2017
  • Box Office Gross:  $216.21 mil  (#10  –  2017)
  • Metacritic Rating:  49
  • My Rating:  ***.5
  • My Rank:  #24  (year)  /  #275  (nominees)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Actor (Malek), Sound, Art Direction, Sound Editing, Makeup
  • Nighthawk Points:  105

Ray and Walk the Line were strong films about very troubled musicians.  Both of them focused a considerable amount of time on the private problems of their subjects as they sought to solve their relationship and drug problems that were rooted in their troubled childhoods and how they overcame them and became successful.  Bohemian Rhapsody isn’t that same kind of film precisely because it isn’t designed to be such a film.  Yes, we get hints of the background of Freddie Mercury, of when he still used his birth name of Farrokh Bulsara, struggled against the notion that he was a “Pakie” (his parents were from India but they were Persian in background) and found his place in a band that would catapult him to world fame.  We would also get the struggles in his life, of loving his best friend Mary even if he wasn’t actually romantically inclined towards her, of finding his own sexuality and of his own struggle with drinking and drugs.  But, much to the dismay of some, those things fall into the background of this film.  They were perhaps looking for a different film.  This isn’t that film precisely because this isn’t a musical biopic.  It’s not the story of a life in music like Ray and Walk the Line.  It’s the story of a band.

Bands foster well with creative tension but if they don’t have actual personal tensions they don’t make for a great story.  As much as they are my favorite bands, no one is going to make a movie about U2 or R.E.M. because who wants to make a movie in which four guys get along well for over 30 years?  Queen had the tension of Mercury’s private life as he struggled to become his own man and become a very different man than his parents wanted him to be, how the band worked with and against each other to form music that has endured no matter whether their own label wanted it to be successful, how they rose to the challenge on a day when the entire world was watching and helped make it an artistic triumph as well as a charitable one.

The film works well precisely because of those elements that were honored by the Academy.  Though he narrowly misses out on my own award, Rami Malek gives one hell of a performance as Freddie Mercury, bringing the man vividly to life while not covering over his own shortcomings that lead to his personal failures and strains within the band.  The editing helps bring together the film in an entertaining way, making the most of the music as it comes in and out, fostered by the magnificent sound mixing and editing.  We watch the band grow as a band, finding their own ways to contribute with one of the greatest songs ever for audience participation (and showing why that was done) and one of the greatest bass lines ever recorded.  In the end, of course, most bands will only go as far as their frontman will carry them and Mercury was one of the best precisely because he had an amazing vocal range and could sing like few others could.

This film doesn’t keep to the facts of the story.  That much becomes true very early on when it shows the band on their first American tour in the mid 70’s supposedly singing “Fat Bottomed Girls”, a single that wouldn’t be recorded until 1978.  Likewise, at a party at Mercury’s house we hear “Super Freak” playing in the background before a scene where John Deacon introduces his famous bass line for “Another One Bites the Dust” which was released a year before “Super Freak”.  And if Freddie hasn’t been playing with the band in a while before Live Aid, then how would they even have “Radio Ga Ga”, their song released just a year before, available to play at the concert?  But this isn’t a documentary.  This is a feature film about a band created with the band’s input, showing the story the way the band wanted it told.  Like has been said before, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

This really comes to a head at the end of the film when Freddie reveals his AIDS diagnosis to the band, two years before he even knew he had the disease.  But that comes down to the filmmakers and their decision over how they wanted to make the film.  Yes, Freddie would eventually die of AIDS, but Freddie lived his life to the fullest and that’s the point here.  He gave the band his all and the band responded in kind.  So they wanted to end with the triumph of Queen at Live Aid, a climax to the film that is the perfect summation of what we have already watched.  It is so exquisitely recreated that we went home after the movie and immediately put in the actual Live Aid DVD and it was as vivid as I have ever seen a recreation of a real event on film.  It was the perfect place to end the film, to remind us all that the band, like the film, was all about the music, and that everything else was just the background.

It seems appropriate that this film, which was not loved by critics, would be so loved by audiences.  It would win the Golden Globe, earn an Oscar nomination for Picture, win four Oscars (the only other film to win everything it was nominated for except for Picture while earning at least five nominations is Traffic) and would eventually bounce Solo out from the Top 10 films at the domestic box office while making nearly $900 million worldwide, easily becoming the biggest film of its kind ever released.  But the band itself was the same way.  The Rolling Stone Album Guide gives ** to most of their albums, only gives over *** to one album and describes them as “excessive, decadent, theatrical, androgynous, tasteless, mocking, ironic, self-conscious” yet “Bohemian Rhapsody” is the third-biggest single in U.K. history and the band’s Greatest Hits is the biggest selling album in U.K. history.  The critics have never liked the band and the audiences always have.  It only seems appropriate that the movie about the band would be the same.

Two endnotes.  First, it’s interesting that after director Bryan Singer was fired, Dexter Fletcher was brought in to replace him because Fletcher directed Rocketman, the forthcoming biopic of Elton John (which in some ways I am even more excited about than I was about the release of Bohemian Rhapsody).  Rocketman has gone even farther than Rhapsody in not being a real biopic in describing itself as “based on a true fantasy”.  It’s not a bad idea for how to make a film and given the awards success of Rhapsody, I’m a little surprised they’re releasing the film in May instead of the fall.  The second bit is that this film deals with a man who was vying for life even when his own actions ended up bringing him to death from the plague of the 20th Century.  As I write this, the second person to have ever been cured of HIV has just been announced which means that there finally might be hope for this after all this time.  But also, during the film,  I got a phone call which I didn’t answer and when I could feel from the buzzing in my pocket that they had left a voicemail, I hoped it was a response from a job I had interviewed for.  Instead, it was my doctor calling about a result from my ultrasound which I immediately knew meant I had cancer.  So, that will always be with me – enjoying the life in the music and the performance in this film while, sitting in my pocket, was my own dark knowledge about my own life (which thankfully has been dealt with and I am now cancer-free).  But we strive for life.  That’s the point of life.  That’s what Freddie did and that’s why it’s so great to watch that performance at Live-Aid (even if it incorrectly shows U2 coming off the stage before Queen going up even though Dire Straits appeared between the two), so full of life and magic, doing what they did best – getting that crowd involved and loving what they were hearing.

I didn’t like the film but Bale does give the most convincing portrait of evil on film since Ralph FIennes played Voldemort.

Vice

  • Director:  Adam McKay
  • Writer:  Adam McKay
  • Producer:  Adam McKay, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Kevin J. Messick
  • Stars:  Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Sam Rockwell, Steve Carell
  • Studio:
  • Oscar Nominations: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Actor (Bale), Supporting Actor (Rockwell), Supporting Actress (Adams), Editing, Makeup
  • Oscar Points:  275
  • Length:  132 min
  • Genre:  Comedy (Historical)
  • MPAA Rating:  R
  • Release Date:  2018
  • Box Office Gross:  $47.83 mil  (#60  –  2018)
  • Metacritic Rating:  61
  • My Rating:  **.5
  • My Rank:  #106  (year)  /  #466  (nominees)
  • Nighthawk Nominations:  Actor (Bale), Supporting Actress (Adams), Makeup
  • Nighthawk Points:  75

Let me be upfront for those who have somehow not been able to grasp my political views.  I think Dick Cheney is a reprehensible, malevolent piece of shit.  I think his reign as the power behind the throne (I remember George Lucas, on Colbert, I think, saying that Bush wasn’t the Emperor, he wasn’t smart enough to be the Emperor, that Cheney was the Emperor and I absolutely agreed) was one of the worst things that has happened to this country.  He ruined our international standing around the world, helped drag us into a war that was irresponsible and based on a total pile of lies and his views on torture prove that not only is he a reprehensible person, but one who refuses to listen or learn.  He is all about brutalism and I can’t fathom how he is still alive when his heart, which keeps attacking him, is clearly dark and small and made of coal.

All of that being said, it would seem like I would be the perfect audience for a film like this, a film with all the subtlety of a Michael Moore documentary, which has a viewpoint established very early on and carries through all the way to the end.  This is a biopic about a man where it maneuvers things to make certain that no matter which side of the aisle you are on you can at least find one thing admirable about this vile man (his strong love for his daughters, especially his younger one) only to even undermine that at the end when he gives tacit permission to his older daughter to attack her younger sister’s homosexuality in order to get herself elected in the kind of backwards state that not only continually elected Dick Cheney but also saw the murder of Matthew Shepard.  And yet, the film turned me completely off.

There are certainly things to like in the film.  The main thing is that the film has an absolutely magnificent cast that shines through at almost every point (the one glaring exception is Tyler Perry who isn’t so much bad as he is just there and, first of all, can’t compare to Jeffrey Wright’s small performance in W that was much better and second, because the rest of the cast is so exemplary in their performances).  Christian Bale, an actor who already has a (deserved) Oscar gives what might be his best performance, digging deep to find his inner Cheney (helped along by some excellent makeup work), finding what drives a man who at first doesn’t really believe in anything and later finds that the one thing he believes is that the man at the top should have all the power he wants to take.  Amy Adams, who has already been Oscar nominated twice playing opposite Bale (the first time they disliked each other, the second time they were partners, this time they are a couple, I don’t know how they can get any closer for their next collaboration unless they play two sides of the same person somehow) is a fantastic Lynne Cheney, the one with a deep core of strength that reminds me of Joan Allen’s performance in Nixon except that Lynne really was like this and Pat always seemed in real life like a milksop.  Sam Rockwell, who won an Oscar last year that he didn’t remotely deserve, finds a goofier version of W than Josh Brolin did but it’s just as good and it really cuts to the core of this stupid frat boy who somehow managed to end up with the presidency (though he most assuredly, at least the first time, did not get elected).  There is also the major cast member who hasn’t been getting his rightful due, Steve Carrell, reminding us that much of the horrible path that Cheney would tread through his later years was forged for him by that piece of shit who was first Cheney’s mentor and then his subservient, Don Rumsfeld.

But the filmmakers didn’t really know how to go about making a real film rather than just a hit job.  They decided on a bizarre narrative device and if you can’t figure out the connection then you’ll jump like most of the theater-goers did in my theater unlike myself since it had become clear just before that scene not only what the connection was but exactly what would happen, so I wasn’t surprised at all by the scene clearly designed to make the audience jump.  That last clause was originally a parenthetical but really it is indicative of how I felt about the entire film.  The film was trying too hard to make me hate Cheney (too late); it was clearly designed to be a satirical hit job which is odd since there is little about Cheney’s life and biography that really lends itself to laughter.  And so we end up with this Comedy that doesn’t seem to really know how to go about what it wants to do.

I don’t really know how to sum up how I felt about the film.  I don’t think that the film works on most levels (except for the acting and the makeup and the score which is really well done), that the editing and the narrative device actually undermine the film as a film.  I am glad that this film came out after The Big Short, a film I admired in spite of numerous reasons I would have to dislike it (see the full review) so that I can know that my dislike of this film and my feeling that it doesn’t succeed as a film is because of what the filmmakers tried to do and not because of who they are.  I will just say this – on the point scale where I rate films, it earns 25 total points for its acting.  No other film less than *** has ever earned so many points (in fact, the next highest is Far From Heaven with 17) and only two films less than ***.5 have done so and they were both also Best Picture nominees that I thought were well-acted but over-rated (Judgment at Nuremberg, Mrs. Miniver).


Best Adapted Screenplay: 1984

$
0
0

SALIERI: Mediocrities everywhere – now and to come – I absolve you all. Amen!
[He extends his arms upward and outward to embrace the assembled audience in a wide gesture of benediction]. Scene 19

My Top 10

  1. Amadeus
  2. A Passage to India
  3. The Killing Fields
  4. Under the Volcano
  5. A Soldier’s Story
  6. 1984
  7. The Bounty
  8. The Bostonians
  9. Once Upon a Time in America
  10. Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes

Consensus Nominees:

  1. Amadeus  (264 pts)
  2. The Killing Fields  (232 pts)
  3. A Passage to India  (152 pts)
  4. A Soldier’s Story  (112 pts)
  5. Greystoke  (80 pts)

note:  Amadeus has the highest score without a WGA nomination since 1966 and the third highest ever.  The Killing Fields sets a new high for a #2 finish which won’t be broken until 2008 (after the BFCA comes into existence).  The Killing Fields sets a new high for Consensus percentage for a #2 finish (25.22%) which won’t be broken until 2005.  A Passage to India has the most points for a #3 finish since 1950 and joins The Elephant Man as just the second film to go 0 for 4.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • Amadeus
  • Greystoke
  • The Killing Fields
  • A Passage to India
  • A Soldier’s Story

WGA:

  • The Killing Fields
  • Greystoke
  • The Natural
  • A Passage to India
  • A Soldier’s Story

Golden Globe:

  • Amadeus
  • The Killing Fields
  • A Passage to India
  • A Soldier’s Story

Nominees that are Original:  Places in the Heart

BAFTA:

  • The Killing Fields
  • Another Country
  • Amadeus  (1985)
  • A Passage to India  (1985)

note:  The BAFTAs also nominated Paris, Texas which isn’t an adapted script.

LAFC:

  • Amadeus

My Top 10

Amadeus

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film twice, once as my choice for my Milos Forman Great Director post and then again, of course, for the Best Picture post.  In both of them I talk about how it’s a brilliant biopic, one of the greatest ever made, because it’s not really a biopic at all, but a look at Mozart through the eyes of a man who is a rival (and even much of the that rivalry is fictionalized).  It looks, on every level, as good as any film ever made. It runs through three hours (in the Directors Cut, which I recommend watching on Blu Ray) and never drags.  What’s more, it basically has the greatest soundtrack ever recorded because what can be better than listening to all of that Mozart, who to my mind is the greatest composer who ever lived.  It’s the only time in the decade where the Academy just simply got it right even with two other excellent choices to choose from (A Passage to India, The Killing Fields).

The Source:

Amadeus by Peter Shaffer (1979)

Peter Shaffer was already well known as a playwright when Amadeus opened in London in late 1979, having written Equus, one of the best plays of the decade (possibly the best) and one which had won him a Tony.  This brilliant look at the most brilliant of composers would also win him a Tony and would become the rare adaptation of a Tony winner to also win Best Picture at the Oscars.  I wish I could have seen that original London production (Simon Callow as Mozart, Paul Scofield as Salieri) or even better, the original Broadway production (Ian McKellen as Salieri, Tim Curry as Mozart).  It takes Salieri and uses him as a cipher for us to understand Mozart and his genius, treating him as a petulant star who is simply brilliant than everyone around him.

The Adaptation:

“When we started to pick the play apart for the screenplay, Peter’s courage never wavered. We took four months, and turned the play inside out. One of the challenges was to find a satisfying narrative frame for the story. We wound up with the simple conceit of Salieri’s confession, which sets up the dramatic action of the film in flashbacks. … Once we had the structure, everything else fell quickly into place: we made the priest a young man mouthing platitudes, a fellow mediocrity and a musical layman who had never heard of the old composer because Salieri had been forgotten even while he was still alive, another reason for his self-annihilating rage. In screenwriting, it’s the simplicity that usually takes all the sweat.” (Turnaround: A Memoir, Miloš Forman and Jan Novak, p 259)

If that’s not enough for you, read the 1984 edition of the play (0451128931 – may be a lib binding ISBN), published with the film in full production (it has plenty of stills) in which Shaffer writes a thorough introduction that explains his approach to the film and how he made it different from the play. Anything I could say about the adaptation would be meaningless compared to what Forman says above and what Shaffer says in that introduction.

The Credits:

Directed by Milos Forman.  Original stage play and screenplay by Peter Shaffer.

A Passage to India

The Film:

A brilliant David Lean film and it just misses out once again taking home Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay like his films did in 1957, 1962 and 1965 because it has the bad luck to run up against Amadeus, a film that is at just about the same level on all three but which I rank every so slightly higher in all three.

I have already reviewed this film not once, but twice.  The second time was for my Best Picture project and you can find that review here.  The other one is linked below.

The Source:

A Passage to India by E. M. Forster (1924) / A Passage to India, a play by Santha Rama Rau from the novel by E. M. Forster (1960)

This is a brilliant novel.  I do not rank it as the best of Forster’s works (I have it second to Howards End) but the Modern Library did, ranking it at #24 for the Century.  I do list it as #72 of all-time (and to be fair, my list has a lot more to have to work with because I include books from other centuries and languages) and as such, I have already written a full review of the book and the film which you can find here.

The play, to me, is a good attempt, but flawed. First of all, the book brings such vivid imagery of India to life and the film manages to show it to us while the play is reduced to giving us simply the action of the story.  Also, the play, as I mention below, condenses all of the action into just four scenes and I think it loses a lot of its impact that way.

The Adaptation:

“In the end, Lean did, in fact, crib some material from Rau’s draft so that very probably she was as eligible for a shared screen credit for the Passage screenplay as Carl Foreman was for a shared credit on Kwai.  In view of the liberties that Lean had taken with the book, however, Rau ultimately informed Brabourne that she did not wish to be listed as a coauthor and let it go at that.  She was not inclined to submit the matter to arbitration.  Lean did, however, list her play in the screen credits, along with Forster’s novel, as a source for the screenplay.” (Beyond the Epic: The Life & Films of David Lean, Gene D. Phillips, p 411-412)

I think that is quite ridiculous.  There is almost nothing in the play that hadn’t been in the original novel.  In fact, there is very little in the film that wasn’t in the original novel.  There are a few early scenes that are added on before Mrs. Moore and Adela arrive in India, we get more of Mrs. Moore’s death and a few scenes at the end are altered (Godpole had already left by the time of Mrs. Moore’s death and the arrival of that news is quite different).  The ending of the film is far more optimistic than in the novel, but of course the times had changed and there was no need to have such a pessimistic ending because India had achieved independence.

I actually found the play to be considerably disappointing, compressing the events of the novel down to four key scenes, which also means a lot of added exposition to explain things that happen before or after those scenes.

This is one of the very greatest novel to film adaptations, both in terms of quality of the film, quality of the original source and fidelity to the material.

The Credits:

Directed and Edited by David Lean.  The film is based on the novel by E. M. Forster and the play by Santha Rama Rau.  Screenplay: David Lean.

The Killing Fields

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the best films of the year.  In fact, in a lot of years this would be the best film of the year but it has the misfortune of being released in 1984 which means it comes in third in almost all of the major categories, stuck behind Amadeus and A Passage to India.  There are very few years which can manage a trio of films of this quality.  It is, as I have said before, perhaps the greatest film about Vietnam without actually really covering Vietnam and has much to say about the safety of journalists and the way that America conducted itself in international affairs during the 1970s.  It also has an ending that, if it does not move you to tears, would make me wonder if you have any emotions left inside you.

The Source:

“The Death and Life of Dith Pran; a Story of Cambodia” by Sydney Schanberg, New York Times Magazine (Jan. 20, 1980)

This began as an article written by Sydney Schanberg, the New York Times reporter who is the main character in the film and who was good friends with Dith Pran, the photojournalist that he had to leave behind when the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia and Schanberg was forced to flee back to the States.  After four years of looking for his friend, they were reunited in October of 1979 and this article appeared a few months later, detailing Pran’s journey through Cambodia and his eventual flight to freedom across the killing fields (a phrase that Pran was the first to use).  It was then turned into a book, though that came after the release of the film and indeed mentions the film and its impact.  There is a later book called The Killing Fields itself, but that is simply a novelization of the film by screenwriter Bruce Robinson (I once owned it thinking it was the source material, though to be honest, back then I used to buy movie novelizations anyway).  But, in essence, as mentioned below, the original article (which is not listed as a source in the film itself) is really a side version alongside the screenplay as it was written and isn’t really the source.

The Adaptation:

Produced David Puttnam had heard the story of Dith Pran and thought it would make a good film.  However, “when David met with Schanberg, he learned that the story was already committed to The New York Times Magazine for an article called ‘The Death and Life of Dith Pran.’  David saw the broad canvas in the subject and a larger theme he has long sought.” (Fast Fade: David Puttnam, Columbia Pictures, and the Battle for Hollywood, Andrew Yule , p 126).  So, while the story was put to print in the magazine and was eventually turned into a book as well, the screenplay was written by Bruce Robinson using the events as they had happened but not necessarily using Schanberg’s actual article as a source.  There is nothing in the film that directly contradicts what was put into print but the article was an article and did not have most of the dialogue that Robinson created.  The key line in the film however (“Nothing to forgive”) is simply a shortened version of the actual dialogue between the two that Schanberg reported in his original article (the book includes a photo from the next day and they really got the look of that camp right).

The Credits:

Directed by Roland Joffè. Screenplay by Bruce Robinson.
note: There is no credit for the source.

Under the Volcano

The Film:

It’s interesting that John Huston stopped writing his films after 1975 because he continued to make films based on great works of literature and he continued to make them very well. What’s more, the writers who did work with him were one-time writers (the writers of Wise Blood never wrote another film though one of the two brothers produced this film, Gallo never wrote another film, his son Tony, who would write The Dead, hadn’t written a film in 17 years and would never write another). But the scripts were fantastic, finding a word through the narratives to the stories (which was not easy for these stories). This is a film I had seen just a couple of times but I rewatched it before doing my Nighthawk Awards for 1984 and bumped it up significantly, landing it in my Best Picture list in what is a great year for the Top 3 and a significantly weaker year once you get past those Top 3. Still, this is a great film (low level ****) with possibly the best performance Albert Finney ever gave on film (I have to watch the verb tense because as I write this, Finney just died less than a week ago).

The Source:

Under the Volcano by Malcolm Lowry (1947)

For years, this was known as a great unfilmable novel (six different people held options on the book before Huston).  I always knew that the film was based on a novel but I didn’t know the esteem in which the book was held until 1998 when the Modern Library published their list and there it was at #11, just behind The Grapes of Wrath and ahead of 1984, I Claudius and To the Lighthouse.  What a shock that was to me and it was thus one of the novels that most intrigued me when I set out to complete my own reading of the list over the course of two years following the publication of the list.  I initially read a library copy but now own an old Penguin paperback (the edition shown in the image and ironically, not for sale in the US according to the back cover) with an image from Diego Rivera’s Day of the Dead in the City.  It’s hard to find a cover of a paperback novel that is more appropriate as this is the story of one drunken man who stumbles his way through the Day of the Dead on his own inevitable journey towards death.  It’s a modernist novel, much of it taking place in the man’s mind as he thinks back on things as he drinks his way towards death or else dealing with his wife and his half-brother.  I have always enjoyed the novel and I think it’s very good (I did it place in my Top 200 but not in the Top 100) but I have always wondered if it ranked so high precisely because it is such a difficult book to read.

The Adaptation:

Apparently Guy Gallo was able to find a way to adapt the book by focusing on the events of the day itself.  By dropping the opening chapter (which takes place a year later) and any of the events in the memories of the characters and just going with the Counsel and his actions and the return of his wife and half-brother and the way all of this leads to his death, he is able to work a masterpiece out of a novel that many had considered to be unfilmable.

The Credits:

Directed by John Huston.  Based Upon The Novel by Malcolm Lowry.  Screenplay by Guy Gallo.

A Soldier’s Story

The Film:

The same day I recorded A Soldier’s Story on TCM to watch it for this project, it aired A Few Good Men just afterwards.  It’s an interesting pair to put together.  Both films were nominated for Best Picture and Supporting Actor at the Oscars, both of them involve the death of a soldier and an officer investigating the crime, both of them were adapted from acclaimed plays by the play’s author and neither of them ended up earning a nomination for Best Director, in each case not the first time the director had been overlooked by the Academy.  The comparisons end there as watching A Few Good Men again made me realize I had not been giving that film its due while watching A Soldier’s Story again was slightly painful.  A Soldier’s Story is well acted but the direction isn’t very strong and what’s more, it has a jazzy kind of score that seems at complete odds with what the film is trying to do and kept taking me out of the action.  It’s still a ***.5 film but I can understand a bit more why Roger Ebert only gave it **.5.  And, of course, in A Few Good Men we know who did the killing but need to find out why, whereas it becomes obvious early on why the man was killed in this film while the question is who did the killing.  And one last thing about this film: I was too young to watch St. Elsewhere so I just have to ask: was there ever a time when Denzel Washington wasn’t clearly intended to be a star? His smoldering intensity in this film threatens to melt the celluloid.

The Source:

A Soldier’s Play: a play by Charles Fuller (1981)

An interesting little murder mystery about who killed a self-hating black sergeant in the south during World War II (the black soldiers are anxious to get overseas and start fighting in the war) lead by a black captain from Washington.  It’s as much about race relations at the time as it is about solving the mystery.  It was a hit off-Broadway and helped kick-start the career of Denzel Washington (he played the same role on stage as he would later on film) a year before St. Elsewhere went on the air.

The Adaptation:

A mostly straight-forward adaptation of the play though some scenes are opened up and given more time (the original play isn’t broken up into very many scenes, allowing past and present events on stage at the same time and in that way aren’t actually that different from the style that Aaron Sorkin would later use in A Few Good Men).  The best change is that in the play, the actual culprit is caught off-stage while in the film, the scene when the culprit is caught and brought in is possibly the best acted scene in the entire film, so I’m glad it was changed.

The Credits:

Directed by Norman Jewison.  Screenplay by Charles Fuller.  Based on his play “A Soldier’s Play”.

1984

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film, years ago, when I wrote about it when writing about the novel (see below).  It’s not a great film, perhaps because the subject matter is just too bleak for that to really work that well on screen (though it could have been satire and I do mention in the review the comparison and likely influence on Brazil which was released the next year).  But it is miles above the original film version (from 1956), has the last great performance of Richard Burton who died before the film was released, a strong performance from John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton and some solid direction from a director who would later earn an Oscar nomination for Il Postino.  It is a solid film version of a great book.  It was honestly a bit depressing to be watching this film in 2019 when it seems every year we end up looking more like Orwell’s bitter vision.

The Source:

1984 by George Orwell (1949)

How great a book?  One of the greatest ever written.  The Modern Library listed it at #13.  I listed it at #17 and my list isn’t restricted to the 20th Century or English Language novels (if it was it would be #11).  It is one of the most important novels of the 20th Century, one that continues to resonate more every single year, especially as the current administration works harder and harder to try and change what happened in the past and try to control the present by controlling the past.

The Adaptation:

A first-rate adaptation that sticks very close to the novel at almost every level.  Far more faithful to the book than the original film version was.

The Credits:

Written and Directed by Michael Radford.
note: The only listing for the source in the opening credits is the pre-title line of “Michael Radford’s film of George Orwell’s”.

The Bounty

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as my under-rated film of 1984.  This film lives in the shadow of the great 1935 version that won Best Picture and the terrible 1962 version that somehow managed to earn a Best Picture nomination.  This version doesn’t have the almost swashbuckler feel of the first film and instead vies for a more historical approach.  It presents a character study between a perfectionist mentor who can’t abide mistakes or slacking and an introspective young man used to getting positive attention who, after six months of an island paradise, can no longer bear the life he’s pushed back into.  This film was completely ignored at the Oscars and by pretty much all the awards groups.  But it’s a very good film that is stock full of great actors (Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier, Liam Neeson, Daniel Day-Lewis), many of them not particularly well known at the time.  The most fair and historically accurate version of the famous mutiny.

The Source:

Captain Bligh and Mr. Christian: The Men and the Mutiny by Richard Hough (1973)

The latest (at the time) in a long line of books about the famous mutiny which started coming out in 1790 as soon as Bligh got back to England and wrote up his own account.  This is a really strong book that focuses on the men themselves, particularly Bligh and Christian and what went wrong between them on what was actually their third voyage together.  The final chapter speculates as to what kind of relationship Bligh and Christian had and while I normally dislike that kind of speculation, Hough makes a very good case for why their friendship might have broken down so completely, a lot of it tied up in the psychology of each man which is well developed throughout the book.

The Adaptation:

I complained a bit in my review of the film that the one weakness was Gibson’s performance (“he seems to have taken the introspection to a new level and it does not make him particularly effective as Fletcher Christian”) but that gets to the heart of the film.  Which choice is better?  The more decisive Clark Gable performance that makes Christian more apt as a film hero or the more historically accurate performance from Gibson that comes straight from the descriptions in Hough’s book?  Either way, they both make for very good films.

Hough’s book covers a lot more than the mutiny itself (it discusses Bligh’s excellent work as a navigator on Cook’s voyages and continues the story back on land after the mutineers are returned to England, the trial, the fall of Bligh’s reputation and what happened on Pitcairn until the last of the mutineers there died) but the film uses a framing device of Bligh at his court-martial (likely a deliberate counterpoint to focusing on the court-martial of the fictional Byam in the 1935 film) and his eventual exoneration in that court-martial to show us the actions of the characters.  Overall, it’s a very good way to adapt a fascinating and good read into a worthwhile film.  This is a time where it’s useful to watch the film and to read the book simply because the book expands on what you are given on film but the film does such a good job dramatizing the events.

The Credits:

Directed by Roger Donaldson.  Screenplay by Robert Bolt.  Based upon the book “Captain Bligh and Mr Christian” by Richard Hough.

The Bostonians

The Film:

The tall lawyer from Mississippi, Basil Ransom, is in Boston to see his cousin, Olive Chancellor.  They are a study in contrasts, other than their handsomeness.  He is the very embodiment of a Southern gentleman in the post-Civil War period, refined, polite, but conservative in his beliefs.  She isn’t from the South and she’s part of the growing liberation movement among females, especially those in the Northeast and even more, especially those in Boston.  He goes about things leisurely, his slow Southern drawl giving him time to think while she explodes into words, putting all of her passions into play.  You would think that because she is played by Vanessa Redgrave (her earned an Oscar nomination for her performance) while he is played by Christopher Reeve that he would be no match for she, but in his quiet polite dignity, he somehow is.  Or maybe it’s because society insists that she’s no match for him that somehow they do become equals.

The two aren’t just cousins, but before long they are rivals as well, though neither would able to admit it.  The prize sought between the two of them is Verena Tennant, the charming young woman who is Olive’s protege.  Olive wants to make use of Verena’s position (her parents are well suited to help the cause), her fiery passion and her speaking talents to help bring more people to the feminist cause.  What Basil wants from her becomes more apparent to both Basil and Verena the more times they meet, complicated by the fact that Verena isn’t quite certain if she wants to take this place in Basil’s life or if she wants to stay with the movement as well as the complication that Olive clearly is in love with Verena and it’s never quite clear how much Verena, Basil or even Olive is aware of this.

This is the work of Merchant Ivory Productions and while the partnership had been around for over 20 years at this point and they had even adapted a classic novel before (tackling Henry James once earlier with The Europeans in 1979), I think this is really the start of what became thought of in the 80’s as a typical Merchant Ivory film.  We have the classic novel (though how classic it is, is, after all, open to interpretation as is obvious below), the great costumes and art direction and the complicated relationships.  This film isn’t quite at the same level of their later, great films like A Room with a View, Howards End or The Remains of the Day and the arguments could be made whether it’s the quality of the source, the performances (Redgrave as I said is quite good while Reeve manages to hold his own without a problem but isn’t outstanding and Madeleine Potter doesn’t really do much more than be the pretty one that is sought after and whose film career reflects this) or just that there isn’t enough here to make a better film.  But it’s a good film and the first step in the start on the way towards greatness.

The Source:

The Bostonians by Henry James (serialized 1885-86, book form, 1886)

“A mind so fine no idea could violate it.”  That’s T.S. Eliot on Henry James which if you’ve never read before it means you’ve never read anything I’ve ever written about Henry James on the blog because I mention the quote literally every time I mention Henry James.  That’s because I agree with the quote and there is no novel by Henry James in which I more agree with the quote than this one.

This is James’ novel about the Women’s Liberation movement and it doesn’t have a single worthwhile idea about the movement.  It’s all just fodder for a story about a love triangle with a Southern gentleman, a Boston liberated woman and the young, attractive woman that they are both in love with, even if only one of them can admit or even understand it.  As always, James has good command of language but he has nothing worthwhile in terms of story or character and the novel is just boring as can be.

It is perhaps notable that James himself at least somewhat distanced himself from the novel while still alive in that it was the “only one of James’s full-length, mature novels not to appear in the author’s revised, definitive New York Edition of his selected novels and stories” (2003 Modern Library edition, Note on the Text) and thus never received an authoritative text or a James authored preface.

The Adaptation:

Like they would become so accustomed to doing, the trio of filmmakers (Merchant, Ivory, Jhabvala), would stick to the core of the story and the dialogue in the text, cutting through the narrative and thus retain a faithful adaptation of the original source while managing to make a 400+ page book in the course of just two hours.  There are definitely minor characters who fall by the wayside but most of them at least get an appearance in the film even if their actions (as are some other actions in the book) are truncated somewhat to focus on the main three characters and the main story of their love triangle.

The most significant change comes at the end and I’ll let James Ivory and his interviewer explain it:

Long: In the novel, when Olive Chancellor is forced to go to the podium of the Boston Music Hall in Verena’s place before a jeering crowd, it is the greatest humiliation of her life, practically a martyrdom.  In the film, however she proves to be moving and persuasive, and one wonders if she may become a public figure in the women’s movement.  Is this what you were implying?
Ivory:  Yes, in a way.  We didn’t want to leave the story on that note – Olive crushed, Verena in tears as she is led away by Ransom.  So we let Olive pick up the torch that Verena had dropped.  (James Ivory in Conversation: How Merchant Ivory Makes Its Movies, Robert Emmet Long, p 160)

The Credits:

Directed by James Ivory.  Based on the novel by Henry James.  Screenplay: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala.

Once Upon a Time in America

The Film:

Lots of films have theories spring up about them.  My best friend insisted upon leaving Mulholland Drive that it had to make sense and would later embrace some theories about the film devoted to having it make sense (which I don’t buy into).  But sometimes theories have some strength behind them, especially when the director acknowledges the theory works quite well.  So let’s look at Once Upon a Time in America, a film that has a varied reputation.

The film has a checkered history.  Leone worked on it for years with different ideas for casts and originally thought of it as two three hour films then decided to make one film at a length of 269 minutes, an unheard of length for a feature film.  It was released at Cannes and across Europe at 229 minutes but the American production company sliced it down to 139 minutes, which wasn’t the primary problem, but also rearranged the film to put it in chronological order, which greatly altered the narrative flow of the film.  The European version got strong reviews and the American version did not.  Today, while it is widely regarded as one of the greatest gangster films ever made yet, even though I have only seen the 229 minute version (three times), I only rank it as a high ***.5 and it landed at #58 in my own list of all-time Crime films.  I think it is well-directed with a really good performance from Robert De Niro in the center role, a solid one from James Woods in the secondary role, a magnificent score and first-rate costumes and sets.  But I feel like the writing lets the film down at times and the film does such a poor job with Elizabeth McGovern as De Niro’s female obsession (I wouldn’t go so far as to call her his love) after doing such a good job with the younger version played by Jennifer Connelly (which has a very bold move with her as she was 12 when she was filmed and the film appears to give us an ass-shot of her which absolutely has to be a body double).

Now, with the writing, we get to the theory behind the film.  The film (after a bit of a false narrative start and the world’s most annoying telephone) begins with De Niro’s character, Noodles, hiding out from men trying to kill him in an opium den.  From there, the film goes back in time, showing us how Noodles became the cold-blooded killer he is today (using younger actors who are part of the reason the film doesn’t reach **** – Connelly is on a completely different level of acting than any of the other young stars and it’s not hard to see that she would become a complete heartthrob (I can say that since she was 16 and I was 12 when I fell for her when she starred in Labyrinth) and an Oscar winning actress) but also eventually moving forward, showing his relationship to his other gang friends, especially Max, who will fake his death and become a Cabinet member). The film moves in time, ranging from the early 20’s to the late 60’s, giving us Noodles’ entire life in crime. But, at the end, we come back to where we began, with Noodles first entering the opium den.

So what have we watched?  Well, the theory, and I rather like it, is that the whole film is Noodles’ hallucinatory vision of his past (which really happened) and his future (which doesn’t).  Leone himself has encouraged this theory and it fits what we have seen on screen.  It explains why the film would come around back to where we began and it’s easy to imagine that what will happen is that actually Noodles will be killed just after the movie ends and most of we saw will never happen.

But part of the reason this theory works is because of the problems with the script.  It’s good enough to sneak into my Top 10 and it does show that the 229 version is the best, if for no other reason than that showing the film chronologically ruins the whole flow (and, of course, kills the theory).  This is a very strong film and a great film for Leone to go out on (he spent years making it, wouldn’t make another and would die just five years later).  But I can’t quite hold it up to the level of the truly great films of the genre.

The Source:

The Hoods by Harry Grey (1952)

Harry Grey wasn’t really a writer.  He was a Russian-American gangster and he likely wrote the book while incarcerated in Sing-Sing.  It does give a portrait of the gangster scene in New York in the late 20’s and early 30’s but it frankly isn’t very good and I can’t imagine why Leone worked so hard to get the rights to the book.  It doesn’t actually do much with its characters and is currently only in-print through what is basically a vanity press.  I can’t recommend bothering with it.

The Adaptation:

Leone and his team of screenwriters (and there are a lot of them) are the ones really responsible for what we see on screen.  They do far more with the characters than the book does.  In fact, the book basically provides the characters of Noodles and Max and almost everything we see on film really comes from the filmmakers.

The Credits:

Directed by Sergio Leone.  Based on the novel The Hoods by Harry Grey.  Screenplay by Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero De Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, Franco Ferrini, Sergio Leone.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes

The Film:

Greystoke is a fascinating but ultimately disappointing film that shows how things with a vision behind them can go wrong.  It is a good film, a mid *** but it had the potential to be so much more than that.

Robert Towne began to make the film when he worked on the script back in the mid 70’s, not long after Chinatown.  In fact, his work on the script and not wanting to turn it over to another director is what ended up with him turning towards direction.  But delays and problems while making his directorial debut, Personal Best, lead to him selling the rights.  Instead, Hugh Hudson was brought in to direct the film, fresh off Chariots of Fire (bringing several cast members with him).  But Hudson lacked a vision for the film.  He also cast Christopher Lambert (who’s a terrible actor but at least works for the physical role and since Tarzan is new to language, the acting is less of a problem) and Andie McDowell (whose performance was so bad that all of her lines were dubbed by Glenn Close).  So now, an idea of going back to the original Burroughs, of making a faithful film that really looked at the distance between civilization and the wilderness was undermined by both the direction and the acting (and Towne was so disgusted by all of it that he removed his name from the film and used his dog’s name as a pseudonym instead – why his dog has such a bizarre name is another story).

But, again, this isn’t a bad film.  With strong performances from both Ian Holm (as the Belgian guide who finds Tarzan and brings him to civilization) and Ralph Richardson (who earned a posthumous Oscar nomination for this, his final film performance, as the aged Lord Greystoke who thought his family line was done when his son was lost at sea), exquisite cinematography and a strong score, the film holds together.

I suppose I could say something about the story, especially if your idea of a Tarzan films comes from the 1930s.  A British man (the heir to an earldom) and his wife are stranded when their ship crashes off the shore of Africa.  They build a home in the jungle but she dies of malaria and he is killed by a gorilla and a female gorilla adopts their infant son and raises it as her own.  Some twenty years later, a Belgian guide finds the now-adult Greystoke heir and after managing to find a way to communicate, brings him back to England and to “civilization”.  But Tarzan and civilization aren’t meant for each other and eventually things go bad for him, in spite of the love of young Jane Porter and of his grandfather.

The film does hearken back to the original Burroughs (see below) and not badly at that.  I wish I could have seen Towne’s vision on-screen (as does Towne).  And for all of its flaws, this is one of the very best Tarzan films (easily) and quite possibly the best and the only one that is really true to its origins.

The Source:

Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1914)

Even though I own this book (Burroughs is a good example of a pulp writer I like and I also have his Princess of Mars) it is clearly a long time since I read it because I had it in my head that this film is a fairly faithful adaptation and while it does hearken back to the original much more so than any other Tarzan film, it is still a far cry away from what actually happens in the book.

This is an interesting book, though very much of its time.  It has some rather whacktastic things going on (multiple maroonings in the exact same place on the African coast, Tarzan traveling all the way to Wisconsin to rescue Jane, the bizarre notion that Tarzan could learn to read on his own) and some problematic issues (backwards views on race and heredity) but Burroughs gives us a great adventure story of the man raised as an ape and his return to civilization.  If he is nowhere in the same league as Kipling, he deals more with the adventure aspects of the story which is what makes it more of a pulp book.

The Adaptation:

The ways in which this returns to the original novel is in Tarzan’s origins (depicted rather faithfully, although they are shipwrecked in the film rather than marooned by mutineers) and his background (being the Greystoke heir) and the character of D’Arnot being the key figure in bringing Tarzan to civilization (in most versions of Tarzan he is completely excised).  But in the book, Tarzan doesn’t return to England, he learns to speak French, not English, he meets Jane in Africa and then finds her in the US and he returns to Africa to escape his mourning for passing on claiming Jane and his birthright rather than because he can not take to civilization and its brutality.  Still, given all the Tarzan films that had come before this one (44 by my count), this goes back to the original source material far more than any previous version.

The Credits:

Directed by Hugh Hudson.  Based on the story “Tarzan of the Apes” by Edgar Rice Burroughs.  Screenplay by P. H. Vazak and Michael Austin.

WGA Nominee

The Natural

The Film:

This was me as a kid: obsessed with baseball.  From 1982 to 1988 I spent any money that didn’t go towards Star Wars figures (through 1984) or comic books (post 1984) on baseball cards.  At a game on April 8, 1989 (Jim Abbott’s debut), I stunned the two guys sitting behind us by rattling off the starting lineup for every single team in major league baseball.  I screamed when the Cardinals lost the World Series in 1985 due to a bad call, put my foot through a door when the Red Sox lost in 1986 on the Buckner play, cursed when the Cardinals lost in 1987 because the Twins had homefield advantage and forever hated Kirk Gibson when he hit the home run in 1988 that broke the A’s as I watched my three favorite teams in baseball lose the World Series four years in a row.  And so came The Natural, surely a movie made for me if any movie was, one all about baseball, with a grand moment at the end that every baseball player dreams of.  I didn’t like it.

I have still never liked the film.  Because my best sports films list wouldn’t even include Hoosiers or The Natural let alone have one at the top does that mean that my list, according to Bill Simmons, shouldn’t count?  No.  It means that sportswriters should perhaps stick to sports and not try to make judgments on films.  What my dislike of the film meant was that even back when I first saw the film, probably in 1986 or so when it would have come to HBO is that I already was beginning to view things in terms of story and quality rather than in emotions.  I felt that the film was flawed because it had a star who was supposed to be a kid and then 35 but was clearly much older than that (he was 48).  I felt that the story was flawed because it relied too much in bringing everything together in a cliche so that the big moment could win the game.  I understand when people get caught up in the moment when the ball flies into the lights and they explode and that magnificent Randy Newman score sends your emotions soaring up towards the heavens with the ball but it doesn’t mean I believe in it.  Does that make my cynical?  No, it just means I have a critical eye that is looking at more than just that moment.

The filmmakers wanted to take a novel that was a parable and a satire and make it into a realistic film.  They wanted to reduce the satire by giving it a happy ending rather than the truly dark, depressing ending that the book had, increase the malevolence of some characters and decrease the flaws in others while also providing a romantic notion that could help lead towards the ending.  That in itself is fine in a film though it makes it a complete betrayal of its original source (see below).  But there is also the problem of the novel being, in essence, a parable.  The film doesn’t want to answer any of the questions that would come up if you treat the subject realistically.  Where has Roy Hobbs been for the last 15 years?  He spent 15 years wandering and suddenly is an instant success?  How does one outfielder make so much of a difference that he can take a last place team in mid-season and turn them into a champion?  Of course, we’re not supposed to take such a realistic view of the film but if you’re going to try and make your film realistic then you have to deal with such questions.

There are things that are done very well in this film.  The costumes and sets look great.  The cinematography is quite good.  The Randy Newman score, as mentioned, is just about the best work he’s ever done for film even including his two Oscar-winning songs.  Glenn Close is solid in a role that is ridiculous.  But the two things that were done before the camera even began to role, the casting of Robert Redford, not just as a 35 year old, but also as a teenager, and the script itself, completely undermine the film and what it tries to do.  If you want to enjoy the ridiculous moment where the ball not only shatters the light but apparently causes some sort of backlash that shatters every light and in which players run the field with burning shards of glass falling down upon them because the score backs up the moment, then by all means, enjoy it.  But don’t think that makes this a great sports movie or even a good movie.

The Source:

The Natural by Bernard Malamud (1952)

The film of The Natural is a study in the mytho-poetics of baseball (see the novel Wonder Boys for that term).  The original novel is a deconstruction of the myths that surround the game and takes many of the darkest moments in the history of the game (and some of the brightest) and twist them around in a way that makes it nothing like the American Dream that so many would like it to be.

Is it the best novel by Bernard Malamud?  No, that would be The Fixer, the novel that won him the Pulitzer.  But as a first novel it was a hell of a solid debut.  I resisted reading it for a very long time simply because I had never much liked the film.  I wish I had read the book first so that I could have simply been disappointed in the film.  The novel in some ways is a baseball fan’s dream, filled with little tidbits of baseball history in some ways crossed with a Grail quest complete with tragic hero who in the end is unable to complete his quest because of his tragic flaw.  Malamud makes the season and the team come to life although he is always a bit too vague in describing what happened during Roy Hobbs’ tenure away from the game and what was able to bring him back.  But, because the story functions on one level more as allegory than an actual serious fictional narrative, we can allow him this flaw in the book because it brings us to where we need to be.

The Adaptation:

Parts of the novel are kept very true on the screen, including the main aspects of most of the characters.  But the film is drawn less in lines of a hero with a tragic flaw that will be his downfall and more in the lines of good versus evil.  To that end, we have a Memo who will poison Roy, a judge who is much more involved in getting the games thrown and a Roy who will not only not blow it but will in fact win the big game and also an actual son with the girl he loved when they were both young rather than just the potential of a son with a woman who has suddenly decided on a whim to come and root for him.

The Credits:

Directed by Barry Levinson.  Based on the Novel by Bernard Malamud.  Screenplay by Roger Towne and Phil Dusenberry.

BAFTA Nominee

Another Country

The Film:

The Brits don’t seem to be able to get over being betrayed.  Or maybe there are more aspects to the men that continue to intrigue them.  It’s been more than 60 years since Guy Burgess and Kim Philby defected (long after they had begun spying) and what an artistic legacy we have because of them, from Cambridge Spies to Tinker Tailor to Another Country.  The original play wasn’t obvious who it was about but the film has no such subtlety about it.  We see Guy Bennett, alone in the Soviet Union as an old man (something Guy Burgess never achieved), explaining his story.  Did he betray his country because he believed in the USSR?  Or because he didn’t believe in England?  Or perhaps because he felt, as a young gay man in a public school, pushed to be a part of society that would never actually accept him and forced to play by rules that he loathed and that made a mockery of his personal values decided to pay them all back.

Two young men form a connection.  They both feel oppressed by the situation they are in, public school boys pushed to follow a model that neither believes in.  Guy is gay, though he is trying to keep it hidden.  Tommy is a Marxist.  The time is England between the wars.  That alone would be enough for an interesting film, no matter the play it was based on.  But we also get two young actors that had both played a starring role in the play (in fact the same role – Guy and in between them Daniel Day-Lewis played the role).  Playing Guy is Rupert Everett, lanky, awkward, in love with the most handsome young man around (another future star – Cary Elwes).  The more intriguing role, Tommy, is played by Colin Firth, fighting back with wit and sarcasm against everything that would keep him down.  The two of them met while working on the film and Firth’s intensity was so pronounced that the two of them ending up taking an extreme dislike to each other and barely speaking for 25 years (they apparently got along during The Importance of Being Ernest and they are never on-screen together in Shakespeare in Love) before finally making a ridiculous St Trinian’s film together and ending their feud (with a great nod in that film to this one: “We’ve met before. In another life.” “In another country.”).

The film didn’t do much business in the States (the IMDb doesn’t even list a U.S. release date but the old oscars.org database had it in 1984) perhaps because the public school experience, so common in plays and films in Britain, is much different in the States.  Or maybe we’re not as obsessed about why a young gay man in Britain would feel the need to spy for the Soviets just to get back at a class system that is much different in this country.  But if nothing else, this is a nice showcase for a number of young actors who would eventually (though certainly not right away) become international stars.

The Source:

Another Country by Julian Mitchell (1981)

This was a hit play when it was first produced in 1981 (with Rupert Everett in the lead in his first starring stage role) and continued to showcase rising young British actors, adding Kenneth Branagh during its run as Tommy, replacing Everett the next year with Daniel Day-Lewis and the year after that replacing Day-Lewis with Colin Firth (it’s too bad they couldn’t have found roles for Branagh and Day-Lewis in the film).  It’s a good play but a bit limited and I imagine the real benefit is as a showcase for good young actors but it has continued to be revived through the years in Britain so it clearly strikes much more of a cord there.

The Adaptation:

The film opens later (with a framing device from the Soviet Union in the 1980s with Bennett telling his story) and earlier (the character who commits suicide in the film is already dead when the play opens though we don’t learn it until the end of the first scene).  Mitchell also changes a number of things in his adaptation of his own play, adding Harcourt as a character (he’s not in the original play) and adding scenes outside the school grounds (the scene with Guy’s mother is only in the film – the original play has no female roles in it at all which perhaps is also a statement on the schools and on Guy and his sexual interests as well).

The Credits:

Directed by Marek Kanievska.  Screenplay by Julian Mitchell.  Based on his original play.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

  • This is Spinal Tap –  Technically should count as adapted because they had already created the characters but the the old oscars.org didn’t list it as such and it’s so brilliantly original, I’m leaving it in original.  So this is really a footnote, not because it belongs here.  Besides, it’s my Original Screenplay winner and if I move it, it takes a Top 5 Adapted that’s at 33 and moves it to 37 while taking an Original Top 5 that’s only at 26 and drops it to 21.  It’s already the weakest Top 5 post-1978 – that change would make it the weakest post-1970 although it would make the Adapted Screenplay Top 5 the strongest between 1951 and 1989.  Would be #4 if I placed it in Adapted and it’s a mid ****.
  • L’Argent –  The old oscars.org didn’t actually count this as adapted (it’s very loosely inspired by the Tolstoy novella The Forged Coupon) so I’m not either.  Again, really just a footnote.  It’s a low ***.5 and would be #8 in Adapted if I placed it there
  • All of Me  –  This film does actually belong here.  It’s a high *** but the script is strong.  Based on an unpublished novel called Me Two.
  • Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom  –  Mid ***.5 prequel to Raiders counts as adapted because of the character of Indiana Jones.  Read my full review here.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Star Trek III: The Search for Spock –  Reviewed in full here because it’s a Star Trek film.
  • Birdy –  Alan Parker adapts William Wharton’s novel with solid results and a good soundtrack from Peter Gabriel.  It doesn’t rank on my Score list for the year because most of the music is actually just reworked music from previous Gabriel songs.
  • Carmen –  Francesco Rosi takes on the Bizet opera, one of several adaptations in 1983-84.
  • The Ballad of Narayama –  A solid *** adaptation of the book by Shichirō Fukazawa and a remake of the 1959 film.
  • My Memories of Old Beijing –  China’s Oscar submission for Best Foreign Film from 1983.  Solid Drama based on the novel by Lin Halyin.
  • Rickshaw Boy –  Chinese Drama from 1982 based on the novel by Lao She.
  • Zappa –  The Danish Foreign Film submission from 1983 based on the novel by Bjarne Reuter.
  • The Terminator –  Should this count?  The Academy didn’t count it but at the time it didn’t acknowledge ripping off Harlan Ellison’s “Soldier from Tomorrow” (a short story and Outer Limits episode) though current prints do.  You can decide for yourself (an issue of The Incredible Hulk would also rip off the episode much more blatantly and Marvel acknowledged it).
  • Cal –  Helen Mirren won Best Actress at Cannes for this Irish Drama based on the novel by Bernard MacLaverty.
  • Confidentially Yours –  The last Truffaut film, sadly.  Based on the novel The Long Saturday Night by Charles Williams.
  • Secret Honor –  One man Robert Altman film with Philip Baker Hall playing Nixon.  Based on the play.
  • Erendira –  Because characters from the story originated in 100 Years of Solitude, this is adapted even accounting for the fact that Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote the script before he wrote the story even though the story was published in 1972 and the film wouldn’t be made until 1983.  Proof that a GGM adaptation can actually work.  Obviously I’ve seen it in the even years since the GGM post.  This was the Mexican Oscar submission for 1983.
  • The Muppets Take Manhattan –  Better than Caper because it doesn’t overwhelm you with Piggy and it has much better songs but still not nearly as good as The Muppet Movie.  The last muppet feature film before Jim Henson’s death.  Adapted only in that the characters already existed.  It would inspire the animated Muppet Babies show which ran for several years and was recently revived.  Look for a pre-TNG Gates McFadden as Dabney Coleman’s secretary.
  • Le Bal –  The French submission for Best Foreign Film in 1983, a Musical from Ettore Scola.  The old oscars.org listed it as adapted but it doesn’t really seem to be.
  • A Love in Germany –  Acclaimed Polish director adapts the novel by Rolf Hochhuth.
  • One Deadly Summer –  This French Mystery, based on the novel by Sebastien Japrisot was one of the biggest French films of 1983.
  • Another Time, Another Place –  Directed by future Oscar nominee Michael Radford (who’s 1984 is above) and based on a novel by Jessie Kesson, this film always makes me think of the U2 song.  I can’t even think of the title without hearing Bono singing the words.
  • Le Crabe-Tambour –  A big film in France from 1977 from director Pierre Schoendoerffer who was adapting his own novel.
  • The NeverEnding Story –  This gets me down to low ***.  I’ll avoid any jokes concerning the title.  The first English language film from Wolfgang Petersen and starring Noah Hathaway (Boxey from Battlestar Galactica), it’s an adaptation of the acclaimed children’s fantasy novel (well, actually, only the first half of the book).  Ironically, the novel was written in German so perhaps Petersen already knew it?  Perhaps I would feel more warm towards it had I seen it as a kid.
  • Vassa –  The Soviet Oscar submission from 1983, based on the Gorky play.
  • Cloak & Dagger –  Now this I did see as a kid – several times in fact.  Was it because I somehow connected to Henry Thomas? (In September of 1983 our family visited Universal Studios and I got to play Eliot on the bike).  Because it stars Dabney Coleman who I have never liked and I can’t understand why I saw it so much.  I considered at one point doing it as an RCM but I just had no desire to sit through the whole thing again.  A very loose adaptation of the same Cornel Woolrich story that was adapted into The Window which I wrote about here.
  • Nights and Days –  Originally aired on Polish television which should have made it ineligible for the Oscars but they nominated it for Best Foreign Film anyway in 1976.  Based on the novel by Maria Dabrowska.
  • Swann in Love –  A German director (Volker Schlondörff) adapts a French novel (the first volume of Proust) with a British star (Jeremy Irons) and a Swedish cinematographer (Sven Nykvist).  The results are less interesting than you would think.
  • The Grass is Singing –  A bit of a bland adaptation of Doris Lessing’s novel.
  • Love Streams –  John Cassavetes adapts the play by Ted Allan.
  • Ake and His World –  Swedish submission for Best Foreign Film based on the novel by Bertil Malmberg.
  • Pessi and Illusia –  The Finnish submission for Best Foreign Film based on the novel by Yrjö Kokko.
  • Mass Appeal –  Jack Lemmon as a priest deals with a young, liberal-minded new deacon assigned to him in this adaptation of the play by Bill C. Davis.
  • Champions –  Based on a non-fiction book, it stars John Hurt but it stars him as a jockey and the film is just meh.
  • Sugar Cane Alley –  French film based on the novel by Joseph Zobel.
  • Dune –  David Lynch took on the task of adapting the novel rather than be subject to Lucas’ whims directing Return of the Jedi.  It’s got moments but it doesn’t really work overall which is why it’s here at a high **.5.  The novel is a Sci-Fi classic.  The remake by Denis Villeneuve will be released next year and given that he’s made two of the best and most fascinating Sci-Fi films of the last several years, it’s something to look forward to.
  • Crackers –  Louis Malle’s remake of Big Deal on Madonna Street is one of his weaker films.
  • Urusei Yatsura 2: Beautiful Dreamer  –  The second film in the series which had been adapted from the original manga series.
  • Phar Lap –  If you don’t know, Phar Lap is a horse, which means I don’t care.  Based on the non-fiction book by Michael Wilkinson.
  • The Family Game –  A 1983 Japanese film based on the novel by Yohei Honma.
  • Las Bicicletas son para el verano –  Film version of the play by Fernando Fernán Gómez.
  • The Pope of Greenwich Village –  Geraldine Page earned yet another Oscar nomination for this film (the weakest of all of them) setting her up to finally win the next year.  Based on the novel by Vincent Patrick.
  • First Name: Carmen –  Godard does Bizet.  Sort of.
  • 2010: The Year we Make Contact –  If you didn’t like 2001, you’ll find this sequel quite boring.  If you did like 2001, you’ll still probably find this quite boring.  We’ve dropped to mid **.5.
  • The Woman in Red –  Gene Wilder remakes Pardon Mon Affaire.  What’s worse, this is the film that Stevie Wonder won the Oscar for, for “I Just Called to Say I Love You” (go to the mall!).
  • Careful, He Might Hear You –  Australian Drama based on the novel by Sumner Locke Elliott.
  • Unfaithfully Yours –  The original Preston Sturges film was not one of his best efforts but to remake it with Dudley Moore?  No thank you.  Down to low **.5.
  • The Razor’s Edge –  Bill Murray tries to go serious in this adaptation of the Maugham novel (and remake of the Oscar winning film from 1946)
  • The Black Cat –  A 1981 Italian film, this is a loose adaptation of the Poe story.
  • Against All Odds –  Another remake, this one of the classic Out of the Past (with Jane Greer even putting in an appearance), at least this one has a great song to go with it, the one that should have won the Oscar.
  • The Return of Godzilla –  Now we’ve hit the ** films.  This is actually the film that was re-edited and released the next year in the States as Godzilla 1985 but like the first Godzilla film, the versions are different enough that I actually list them separately.  Not good but still much better than the American version.  Adapted only in that it has Godzilla.  The start of the Heisei series of Godzilla films which would last a decade.
  • Eureka –  Like many Nicolas Roeg films, not as good as you would think.  Based on the non-fiction book Who Killed Sir Harry Oakes, though quite loosely.
  • Glissando –  The Romanian submission for Best Foreign Film from 1982, based on the novel by Cezar Petrescu.
  • Firestarter –  This is a much worse year for Stephen King adaptations than the year before with this the better of the two.  We’re down to mid **.  To be fair, the book, while immensely popular, wasn’t all that good either.
  • The Little Drummer Girl –  I can’t speak to the quality of the original novel because my le Carré reading only goes through the works I have found in old mass market paperbacks but the film version with Diane Keaton directed by former Oscar winner George Roy Hill isn’t very good.
  • Razorback –  Australian Horror film based on the novel by Peter Brennan.
  • Oxford Blues –  A remake of A Yank at Oxford with Rob Lowe.
  • Missing in Action –  The old oscars.org listed it as adapted presumably because it’s supposedly ripped off from James Cameron’s story treatment for Rambo (which wouldn’t get made until the next year) so Cameron can get ripped off as well.
  • The Hotel New Hampshire –  One of my favorite John Irving books had a humor about it that wasn’t designed for films.  This is directed by another former Oscar winner (Tony Richardson).  Jodie Foster is sexy but the film just can’t capture the book’s whimsy and shouldn’t have tried.
  • The 4th Man –  Paul Verhoeven’s final Dutch film before going to Hollywood for 20 years won several awards but actually is pretty bad.  Based on the novel by Gerard Reve.
  • Oh God! You Devil –  I wasn’t able to see the second film but this third one is bad enough with George Burns returning as God and the Devil.
  • Best Defense –  Willard Huyck’s third film brings together Dudley Moore and Eddie Murphy and it’s just awful (mid *.5).  His fourth one (Howard the Duck) will be even worse and his directing career will be over.  Based on the novel by Robert Grossbach.
  • Joy of Sex –  Technically an adaptation of the popular sex manual.  This is a National Lampoon film that forgot to be funny or sexy.
  • The Lonely Guy –  A Bruce Jay Friedman humor book (The Lonely Guy’s Guide to Life) becomes an unfunny Comedy with Steve Martin directed by Arthur Hiller.
  • Children of the Corn –  The original Stephen King story (from Night Shift) is creepily effective.  The film is terrible, yet much better than any of the sequels to come.
  • The Evil That Men Do –  Oh, joy.  Let’s descend into the utter shit that was the end of the career of director J. Lee Thompson and star Charles Bronson (thankfully not all adapted so not all covered in this project).  This shitty (*) Action film is based on a novel by R. Lance Hill.
  • Where the Boys Are –  Also titled Where the Boys Are ’84, it’s a remake of the original 1960 film but with no joy in it.
  • Cannonball Run II –  The original film is a guilty pleasure, heavy on the guilty but this one is just a mess.
  • Blame It on Rio –  The last feature film from Stanley Donen (though he would live until two months ago) is a terrible Rom-Com with Michael Caine that’s a remake of the French film In a Wild Moment.
  • Conan the Destroyer –  I love the original stories.  There is a lot to recommend the first film.  But this sequel, which adds Grace Jones and Wilt Chamberlain to the cast, is just awful.
  • Supergirl –  I thought at one point about doing this as an RCM but decided since I literally couldn’t remember anything about the film it didn’t belong in that series.  I did just rewatch it for the first time since I was a kid to be certain it was as bad as I thought.  If anything, it was worse.  Helen Slater was decently cast but Faye Dunaway was way over the top and the story was just awful.
  • Slapstick of Another Kind –  If Hotel New Hampshire wasn’t meant to be adapted that’s nothing on Vonnegut.  This version of his novel Slapstick is just awful.
  • Sheena –  Also known as Sheena: Queen of the Jungle, this adaptation of the 30’s comic strip character brings us down to the .5 films.  My thought is less who thought Tanya Roberts should be an Adventure film star and more who watched this film and thought she should be the next Bond girl?
  • Cheech and Chong’s The Corsican Brothers –  Cheech and Chong decide to tackle a Dumas novel.  Seriously.  Well, not seriously in that sense, but not funny either.
  • Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter –  The fourth in the series is also a vicious lie.  It’ll be back next year with New Beginning.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • none  –

A Century of Film: Horror

$
0
0

A Century of Film


Horror


The Genre

What is a Horror film?  And what would have qualified at the beginning of film?  Kim Newman and James Marriott correctly point out in their great book Horror! The Definitive Companion to the Most Terrifying Movies Ever Made, that as cinema was beginning, so was Horror as a genre, with works like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Dracula.  The first “official” Horror film is The Devil’s Castle, a two minute film from 1896.  Frankenstein was filmed as early as 1910 (a 12 minute film which was just recently restored) and Jekyll even before that in 1908.  The Avenging Conscience, a Griffith film based on works of Poe, is one of the earliest American feature-length films, running 78 minutes.

But then we get back to what qualifies as Horror.  Some books and people classify it very broadly, including many films that I wouldn’t include (see list at the bottom) and Silence of the Lambs is often held up as the only Horror film to win Best Picture at the Oscars but I listed it as a Suspense film when I covered that genre.  I consider all Monster films as Horror, from Godzilla films to King Kong films but when I listed King Kong as one of the best Horror films I had numerous dissents that it’s not a Horror film.  The top of my own list includes films that almost no one else considers Horror films, films like Taxi Driver, Trainspotting and A Clockwork Orange but the horrific in them is the only thing that seems to classify them properly.  To that end, my own definition is rather broad but different from many others.

The question continued as the first Horror films started to thrive.  Everyone agrees on the Golden Age of Horror at Universal but what about those films that came before, like the Chaney films Hunchback of Notre Dame and Phantom of the Opera.  Certainly the former is not considered a Horror novel and the latter is questionable but I consider the horrific elements in both to be the overriding aspect.  Chaney’s work would point the way for the explosion of the next decade.

From the Kirk Hammett collection.  For an explanation, see the final book in the Books section.

“The first phase of the sound horror cycle, known as the classic period, lasted from 1931 to 1936, during which years around thirty horror films were produced by the eight majors.”  (Grand Design: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise, 1930-1939, Tino Balio, p 298)  Of course, the bulk of these, and certainly the ones most remembered came from Universal and those are what sparked my actual interest in Horror films and remain among my favorite films in the genre.

But Horror died off in the next decade, with everyone but Universal abandoning it by the wayside.  The genre had mostly faded away and there really hadn’t been good films since the mid-30’s when Abbott and Costello starting meeting monsters and making the whole thing ridiculous.  It would take Hammer Horror and their revival of the original monsters in color to really bring the genre back to life.  At the same time that Hammer was doing that, in America, low-budget films from AIP and Roger Corman were starting to bring some life back into the genre as well, paving the way for a boom from both groups in the sixties.  In the ten year stretch from 1947 to 1956, I have seen 24 Horror films while in the nine years after that, once Hammer and AIP got going, I have seen 158.

The seventies are an interesting mix.  On the low end, Hammer’s output was quite bad, AIP was releasing anything they could find and the Wild Nature sub-genre sought out any animal that could possibly provide terror and several which couldn’t, including rabbits, frogs and worms.  On the other hand, there were The Exorcist and Jaws, two films that not only are among the best ever made in the genre, that not only finally found the critical acclaim that the genre had long been lacking, finally earning Best Picture nominations at the Oscars but also becoming two of the most successful films ever released.

With the 80’s came franchises.  Sequels had been in existence for decades but with franchises like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, you could see the same films coming out every single year.  Sadly, the franchises would generally suck (at least after the first film) but the films kept coming.  No films really rose to the top with the critics and no film was a big box office hit.  It would take until the 90’s to rediscover a critical smash (The Sixth Sense) and films that could again make over $100 million (Interview with the Vampire, Scream, Sixth Sense).

What would happen in the current century is that studios realized that Horror could provide good money on the dollar.  The films would sink fast but they would open big enough to more than cover their costs and so studios kept returning to franchises and the genre itself, getting a big box office winner for a weekend and enough to cover the cost of making the next one.  Before 1992, no R-rated Horror film had ever opened to more than $30 million.  In the 20 years since (1992-2011), 16 films have broken that mark and only one of them (Sleepy Hollow) managed to triple its opening weekend by the end of its box office run and several of them couldn’t even double them.  A true hit was still rare, either with the critics or at the box office but the films continued to stay profitable and many franchises were started or re-started, including the big 80’s franchises (all of which earned reboots in the new century).

Sub-Genres

In essence, almost all Horror films can be easily divided into the Supernatural and the non Supernatural.  But I divide a lot more than that.  And some of the divisions have divisions as well.

Alien Invasion

  • Best Film:  Invasion of the Body Snatchers  (1956)

A sub-genre filled with films that could easily be displaced from Horror.  The entire sub-genre could easily go in Sci-Fi (and, in fact, this same sub-genre will also be in Sci-Fi).  But these are films where the Horror, to me, overwhelms the Sci-Fi aspects.  I only rank five films here better than **.5 – the first two Invasion films, Signs, The Faculty and Mimic.

Animated (Anime)

  • Best Film:  Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust

Of the six Animated films I classify as Horror, only Vampires in Havana isn’t an Anime film.  They are mostly vampire films and mostly aren’t very good.

Anthology

  • Best Film:  Kwaidan

These are films that tell multiple stories, not necessarily as a continuos narrative.  Twilight Zone: The Movie and Tales from the Crypt are well-known examples.  Kwaidan is the only film above *** though Waxworks and Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors are both high ***.  I list 13 films here.

Comedy

  • Best Film:  Gremlins

This could be a lot larger.  But these are films where the comedy is a main aspect of the film, not just Horror films that are funny.  I list 52 films here with only three of them better than ***: Gremlins, Bubba Ho-Tep and The Frighteners.

Corman/Poe

  • Best Film:  Masque of the Red Death

These are the eight films that Roger Corman made for AIP in the early 60’s and are the best films Corman ever made.  All but Premature Burial (low **.5) are mid ***.  The costumes and sets are all nice and the films are in wonderful color.

Found Footage

  • Best Film:  The Blair Witch Project

Honestly, a terrible sub-genre.  It existed before Blair Witch (Cannibal Holocaust is an example) but Blair Witch really kicked it off and then came all the Paranormal Activity films.  I list 7 films that I have seen and they all suck, including Blair Witch which is just high **

Haunted House

  • Best Film:  The Old Dark House

A sub-genre with a long tradition but aside from The Old Dark House and the 1963 version of The Haunting, most aren’t very good.  I’ve got 21 films listed here.

From the Kirk Hammett collection.

Lit Adaptation

  • Best Film:  The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

This one is a bit longer than it might seem.  I classify several thing as just Lit Adaptation (various version of Dorian Gray, for instance) but some authors get specific sub-sub-genres, though aside from Hugo (four versions of Hunchback), the only author with more than three films is Poe (14 films), the best of which is The Avenging Conscience.  There are 29 total films with The Invisible Man and the 1929 Fall of the House of Usher the only aside from Hunchback and Conscience to be above ***.  Poe may make for good films but also for bad ones; of the 29 films listed four of them are below ** and three of those are Poe (the other one is the 1977 Island of Dr. Moreau but I list the 1995 version as Sci-Fi).

Mad Scientist

  • Best Film:  The Man Who Could Cheat Death

There are 28 films listed here and even the best is only low *** but that’s because all of the Frankenstein films are in a different sub-genre as is Island of Lost Souls.

Monster

  • Best Film:  The Host

As will be seen directly below, this sub-genre gets broken down much further.  So what we have here are films with a monster that doesn’t fall into any of the later categories with The Host being the only one above *** and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms the only other one above **.5.  There are 30 films that land here not including all the sub-sub-genres listed below.  The one I won’t list separately below is Monster (Fly) which covers the five Fly films with the 1958 and 1986 versions being high ***.

Monster (Dinosaur)

  • Best Film:  Jurassic Park

Any films in which modern day people deal with dinosaurs.  I list six with Jurassic Park being miles above the others.  But some films like this I have as Adventure films so they don’t actually appear in Horror.

Monster (Frankenstein)

  • Best Film:  The Bride of Frankenstein

There are 23 films listed here with six from Universal and seven from Hammer.  The Bride of Frankenstein and Frankenstein are great films but nothing else is above high *** and no non-Universal or Hammer film is better than **.5.  But the major films are good with the Universal films averaging a 75.83 and the Hammer films averaging a 64.57.

Monster (Gamera)

  • Best Film:  Gamera: Guardian of the Universe

Most people think of Gamera as going with Godzilla but they were made by competing studios (the Gamera films are from Daiei).  The Gamera films are not good (12 films with a high of 47 and an average of 33.83).  I’m not listing it separately here but I also have a Monster (Kaiju) for Japanese Monster films that don’t have either Godzilla or Gamera but I only have three and they are terrible: Mothra (*), The War of the Gargantuas (*) and Rodan (.5).  The middle one is an oddity but the other two were other Tojo films that kicked off the characters on their own but then they were later just dragged into the Godzilla franchise.

From the Kirk Hammett collection.

Monster (Godzilla)

  • Best Film:  Gojira

Now, to be clear, I list the original 1954 Japanese version of Gojira as a different film from the re-edited Godzilla, King of the Monsters released in the States in 1956.  I happen to love Godzilla films even if most of them are terrible.  It’s really all about that first film and King Kong vs. Godzilla, which I unabashedly love in spite of its flaws.  I have seen every Godzilla film, which, through 2011, includes 31 films (including some films listed twice for very different English language versions) that average a 40.84 (because, while I love them, I know most are terrible).

Monster (Jekyll)

  • Best Film:  Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  (1932)

I’ve seen 11 versions of the classic story ranging in time from 1920 to 1996 and in quality from **** to * (Daughter of Dr. Jekyll).  Probably because Paramount did two early versions and then MGM did one, Universal has never actually done a version of this (though a version of the character has appeared in Universal films).

From the Kirk Hammett collection.

Monster (Kong)

  • Best Film:  King Kong  (2005)

There are seven films here (the Godzilla film is in Godzilla) with two brilliant ones, of course although there are also two terrible ones (King Kong Lives, Kong Island).

Monster (Mummy)

  • Best Film:  The Mummy  (1932)

There are 15 total films including 8 from Universal (5 classic, 3 modern) and 4 from Hammer.  Only two of them are awful, neither from those two studios (The Awakening, The Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy).

Monster (Small)

  • Best Film:  The Phantom of the Opera  (1925)

So any kind of human sized monster, mainly the Phantom (five films) and the Creature from the Black Lagoon (three films).  Aside from the original Phantom, Sleepy Hollow is a ***.5 film.

Monster (Werewolf)

  • Best Film:  The Wolf Man  (1941)

There’s never been a really good Wolfman film though Universal’s original is a very high ***.  Sadly, there have been lots of bad ones among the 23 films listed here with Cursed the worst among them.

Sci-Fi

  • Best Film:  Village of the Damned  (1960)

All of the 36 films here could be considered Sci-Fi films which wouldn’t do Sci-Fi any good since they average a 34.17.  They are mostly movies with a horrific overall feel but with Sci-Fi elements including such overrated films as Shivers and The Thing.

Serial Killer

  • Best Film:  The Black Room  (1935)

I considered calling this “Rural Horror” but that’s not quite accurate.  These are films about a mad killer but don’t really classify as Slasher films.  None of them rise above *** and most of them are pretty bad.  It does include any Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and, in a sub-sub-genre of Serial Killer (Jigsaw) the seven Saw films all of which are terrible.

Slasher

  • Best Film:  Psycho

In total, there are 73 films here but that’s because I’m not going to list separately here the sub-sub-genres of Slasher (Freddy), (Jason) and (Michael) which cover 9, 11 and 9 films.  Psycho is the only **** film though the original Halloween is ***.5 and there are high *** for the original Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream and From Hell.  On the whole, most Slasher films suck (30.27 average), with Freddy (41.00) and Michael (37.44) a bit higher and Jason being truly awful (13.36).

Splatter

  • Best Film:  Silent Night, Bloody Night

Even more gore-filled than Slasher films, these are mostly the work of the untalented Herschell Gordon Lewis.  All seven films listed here combine for a 70.

Stephen King

  • Best Film:  The Shining

This doesn’t include every film made from a Stephen King book, of course, because films like Stand by Me and Shawshank aren’t Horror.  Also, some of them are Stephen King originals for film and some of them are sequels that bear little resemblance to the original King work.  But there are 28 films here with two great ones (The Shining, Carrie), one very good (Misery) and two high *** (The Dead Zone, Christine).  After that, it goes downhill very fast.

Supernatural

  • Best Film:  Don’t Look Now

This is basically a catch-all that included almost all Horror films that weren’t already in sub-genres that at least had a supernatural element to them.  It includes several great films (Don’t Look Now, Ringu, The Sixth Sense, The Others, The Devil’s Backbone) and a number of ***.5 and high *** films.  There are 152 films that end up here.

Supernatural (Religious)

  • Best Film:  The Exorcist

Similar to the previous one, of course, but these are ones where the supernatural elements explicitly deal with religion.  Rosemary’s Baby is a close #2 here and there are other really good films (The Golem, The White Reindeer).  The two big franchises here are The Exorcist and The Omen.  I have 37 films listed here.

Surreal

  • Best Film:  The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

There are just a few films here, films with a totally surrealistic bent: Caligari, the 1962 remake, Carnival of Souls, Eraserhead, A Page of Madness and Taxidermia.

Urban Horror

  • Best Film:  A Clockwork Orange

This list includes films that most other people don’t consider to be Horror (Clockwork, Trainspotting, Taxi Driver, Contagion) but also films where the danger of urban living can be shown.  I have 17 films listed here.

From the Kirk Hammett collection.

Vampire

  • Best Film:  Vampyr

There are two sub-sub-genres to this category listed directly below.  This main category, which are simply straight Vampire stories that don’t use Dracula includes 82 films but the only three above *** are Vampyr, Let the Right One In and Interview with the Vampire.  The vast majority are ** or below and they average just a 41.15.  This category includes the crappy Underworld and Twilight films.

Vampire (Comedy)

  • Best Film:  The Fearless Vampire Killers

I only list six films here, the ones that are explicitly Vampire Comedies.  Fearless is the only one above **.5.  Most Vampire Comedies aren’t very good.

From the Kirk Hammett collection.

Vampire (Dracula)

  • Best Film:  Nosferatu  (1922)

I have 28 films listed here, many of them Universal (7) or Hammer (8).  Many of them can be found discussed in my post on the novel and certainly the best of them are discussed there.

Wild Nature

  • Best Film:  Jaws

Roger Corman sort of began this sub-genre with his AIP films in the late 50’s and The Birds is one of the two great examples (indeed, one of only two films above **.5) but it was in the 70’s that this sub-genre sadly flourished.  Of the 37 films listed here, 20 of them were released in the 70’s and six of those were AIP films.

Zombie

  • Best Film:  The Night of the Living Dead  (1968)

I am not a Zombie fan (with zero interest in Walking Dead) so it’s only my overall love of film that leads to 50 films being listed here (with more directly below).  Three of those are ***.5 (Night of the Living Dead, 28 Days Later, Evil Dead) but well over half are ** of lower.

Zombie (Comedy)

  • Best Film:  Shaun of the Dead

A thriving little sub-sub-genre with eight films listed here, including such very good films as Shaun of the Dead, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness as well as the solid Dead Alive.

Assorted

  • Best Film:  Mulholland Dr.  (Surreal)

Examples with too few films to merit their own sub-genre are Blaxploitation (J.D.’s Revenge), though other Blaxploitation films in the genre have ended up in other sub-genres, Comic Book (DC) for Swamp Thing, Historical for Ken Russell’s Gothic, Roman Polanski’s Macbeth is Shakespeare, two True Crime films (Deranged, The Doctor and the Devils).

The Directors

Dario Argento

  • Films:  11
  • Years:  1972 – 2007
  • Average Film:  44.91
  • Best Film:  Four Flies on Grey Velvet
  • Worst Film:  The Phantom of the Opera

“Operatic seems the best description of Argento’s gifts – he is to the horror genre what Sergio Leone was to the western.  Argento makes film that are larger than life, inflates the violence and thrills, displays a scene-stealing sense of design of style.”  (Horror Film Directors, 1931-1990, Dennis Fischer, p 36)  I have never taken much to Argento’s films.  I see why they have influenced others but don’t much care for them.  I also find it distressing and weird how often he puts his naked daughter in them.

Mario Bava

  • Films:  7
  • Years:  1960 – 1972
  • Average Film:  46.43
  • Best Film:  Black Sunday
  • Worst Film:  Baron Blood

“Few can match his ability to create an atmosphere of terror with only a few deftly placed lights, an appropriate camera movement, and some unsettling sound such as a door banging in the wind.  It is for his ability, and not the often gratuitous violence that marred his later work, that Bava will be most remembered.”  (Fischer, p 81)  Bava started his work in the genre at the top and with the exception of Blood and Black Lace never even came close to it again.

John Carpenter

  • Films:  8
  • Years:  1978  –  2001
  • Average Film:  49.25
  • Best Film:  Halloween
  • Worst Film:  Prince of Darkness

“His best work revolves around people who pull together while struggling against outside forces, asserting their need to determine their own destinies.”  (Fischer, p 142)  Carpenter, even more than Bava started at the top and worked down with his last several Horror films to being utter shit.  Even though I think The Thing is massively over-rated his first four Horror films average a 63.25 and his last four average a 35.25.

Roger Corman

  • Films:  18
  • Years:  1957  –  1990
  • Average Film:  51.11
  • Best Film:  Masque of the Red Death
  • Worst Film:  Attack of the Crab Monsters

“While he has always been dependent on actors who can direct themselves, he has discovered imaginative ways to film on a low budget that makes his works superior to others produced on a similar level.”  (Fischer, p 245)  He mostly stopped with Horror after the Poe cycle was done in 1964 but there is also Frankenstein Unbound.  His late 50’s crap Monster movies are balanced out by the Poe films.  Corman directed 8 Horror films with a rating of 65 or higher, more than almost anyone else.

Wes Craven

  • Films:  15
  • Years:  1972  –  2011
  • Average Film:  45.00
  • Best Film:  Scream
  • Worst Film:  Cursed

“Craven’s energies, however, remain focused on developing new ways to surprise and shock audiences, creating some of the most visceral and dream-like imagery in the entire horror field.”  (Fischer, p 267)  Craven is kind of all over the place with several high *** films (Nightmare, Serpent and the Rainbow, New Nightmare, the first two Scream films) and several that are just utter crap (Last House on the Left, Deadly Blessing, Deadly Friend, Shocker, Vampire in Brooklyn, Cursed), though, to be fair, some of those, both the highs and lows, came after Fischer’s book was published.

David Cronenberg

  • Films:  7
  • Years:  1975  –  1988
  • Average Film:  55.43
  • Best Film:  Dead Ringers
  • Worst Film:  The Brood

“He reminds us that sex is not always viewed with joy and wonder, but sometimes with disgust and revulsion – that human beings can be repulsed as well as enticed by sex.”  (Fischer, p 285)  If you take out The Brood, his average goes up to a 63.67 and his last three Horror films (Dead Zone, Fly, Dead Ringers) average a 76.7.

Guillermo del Toro

  • Films:  4
  • Years:  1993  –  2002
  • Average Film:  75.50
  • Best Film:  The Devil’s Backbone
  • Worst Film:  Blade II

If I considered Pan’s Labyrinth a Horror film and there is a good case to be made there, he would probably easily rank as the greatest director in the genre.  A director of unbridled imagination and talent.

Terence Fisher

  • Films:  17
  • Years:  1957  –  1974
  • Average Film:  64.94
  • Best Film:  The Horror of Dracula
  • Worst Film:  The Horror of It All

“Fisher crafted several horror classics which depended on good craftsmanship rather than flashy shock effects, and he virtually singlehandedly defined the British/Hammer style of horror filmmaking.”  (Fischer, p 397)  There’s more on Fisher here because he was a key to the Hammer Horror films.  He directed nine Horror films at a 65 or more (and four more that earned a 64).  The only bad Horror film he made is ironically also the one he didn’t direct for Hammer.

Freddie Francis

  • Films:  14
  • Years:  1964  –  1985
  • Average Film:  50.07
  • Best Film:  The Skull
  • Worst Film:  Trog

Also mentioned in the Hammer post because he was their key cinematographer and then went on to direct several films (though he directed more for other studios).

Ishiro Honda

  • Films:  15
  • Years:  1954  –  1975
  • Average Film:  41.60
  • Best Film:  Gojira
  • Worst Film:  Rodan

“Somehow it is appropriate that Honda took the world’s biggest fear, atomic destruction, and sanitized it into something loveable.”  (Fischer, p 529)  The king of the Kaiju films with 9 Godzilla films plus four other films in the genre.  He directed most of the best Godzilla films and the bulk of the Showa series.

Roman Polanski

  • Films:  4
  • Years:  1965  –  1971
  • Average Film:  85.00
  • Best Film:  Rosemary’s Baby
  • Worst Film:  The Fearless Vampire Killers

“He has created a number of timeless classics which stand up to repeated viewings, and he deserves respect for his obvious artistic achievements.”  (Fischer, p 613)  His first several films in English were Horror and several others that I don’t classify in the genre have horrific elements.

George A. Romero

  • Films:  11
  • Years:  1968  –  2008
  • Average Film:  46.27
  • Best Film:  The Night of the Living Dead
  • Worst Film:  Martin

“He is not the most accomplished horror filmmaker, but he remains one of the most personal, and when he really cares about a subject, it shines through in his films.”  (Fischer, p 655)  He is over-rated outside of his first great film but his influence is everywhere with the proliferation of Zombie films, all children of his original classic.

James Whale

  • Films:  4
  • Years:  1931  –  1935
  • Average Film:  87.50
  • Best Film:  The House of Fear
  • Worst Film:  Pursuit to Algiers

“Like his Monster, Whale railed against a world that made no place for him.”  (Fischer, p 735)  Whale only made four films but they were so important to the Universal series that really kickstarted the genre and he was so good at making them that his importance to the genre can’t be overstated.

Best Horror Director  (weighted points system)

  1. James Whale  (218)
  2. Roman Polanski  (168)
  3. Stanley Kubrick  (147)
  4. Tod Browning  (120)
  5. Steven Spielberg  (101)

Analysis:  This adds up points on a weighted scale (90-1) for placing in the Top 20 at the Nighthawk Awards for Best Director in any given year.


The Stars

Lon Chaney

There are only the two films that I classify as Horror but he’s so important to the start of the genre on film that he has to go here, plus he’s my favorite Horror actor (I had originally written “easily my favorite” but Cushing and Lee make the adjective inaccurate).
Essential Viewing:  The Phantom of the Opera, The Hunchback of Notre Dame

From the Kirk Hammett collection.

Boris Karloff

The best actor among Universal’s troupe in the Golden Age of Horror.  His career would be long and sometimes not so fruitful but he would always be a fascinating actor and the two great Frankenstein films would not be great without his performances.
Essential Viewing:  Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, The Body Snatcher

Vincent Price

He would bring a sense of dignity to the Corman films and would become a Horror icon even if his acting was never properly respected.  His voice, of course, would be essential to the video of Michael Jackson’s Thriller, which isn’t a feature film, but is great work in the genre.
Essential Viewing:  The House of Wax, The Fly, The Raven

Christopher Lee

The younger of the two essential Hammer stars.  I wrote much about him here.
Essential Viewing:  The Horror of Dracula, The Curse of Frankenstein, The Mummy

Peter Cushing

The older of the two essential Hammer stars and one of my favorite actors ever.  I wrote about him here.
Essential Viewing:  The Horror of Dracula, The Curse of Frankenstein, The Mummy

Bruce Campbell

At the least, one of Veronica’s favorite actors.  I barely knew who he was before I met her but I have met him three times thanks to her.  Wonderfully care-free and fully willing to admit to bad movies (“Tell you what, I’ll turn my back to you, you yell at me what movie you want your money back from.”) and would even do a great Horror television show (Ash vs Evil Dead).  There is no better actor for finding the humor in Horror.
Essential Viewing:  Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness, Bubba Ho-Tep

The Studios

It starts with Universal.  I’ve seen 97 films from 1912 to 1949 that I classify as Horror and 34 of them are Universal films.  No other studio has more than 8.  What’s more, Universal accounts for 6 of the Top 10 in that era.  AIP would come next, just before Hammer and from 1956 to 1979, I’ve seen 86 Horror films from the studio though, with the exception of the Corman/Poe cycle, most of them suck.  Hammer would cover the same era – 42 films that I’ve seen from 1957 to 1979 and a lot of them would be good though the quality would decline badly as time went by.  Some other studios would specialize a bit – Toho would make the Godzilla films, Dimension, through Miramax and later TWC would make several films in the genre and lately, Lionsgate, of all studios (27 films since 2000) has made quite a few.

Countries

I’ve seen a little over 180 Horror films that aren’t in English.  Almost a quarter of them are Kaiju movies and Japan doesn’t just stop with that (there are several Anime as well as Kwaidan and the Ringu films).  Italy is next with over 30 films, many of them either Argento or Bava films.  But Italy has its own type of Horror film just like they do with Westerns (Giallo films).  Spain is the only other country with more than a dozen films.  Germany has very few films (6 from before WWII, three from West Germany) but three of the Top 10 (Caligari, Nosferatu, Vampyr).

Oscar Submissions

Of all the Oscar submissions I have seen through 2011, only eight of them are classified as Horror and only one of those, Kwaidan, managed a nomination.  Italy is famous for Horror films but they’ve never submitted one.  No country has ever submitted a Horror film more than once (that I have seen).  Two of the more recent submissions make the Academy look bad for passing them over (Cronos, The Orphanage).

note:  For the next few lists, any links are to reviews I have written.  Some of them go to the Adapted Screenplay posts that discuss the film and the literary source but don’t actually review the film (but link to places where I had already reviewed the film).  There are a few that are not linked now but will be in the coming months as I get to more of the Adapted Screenplay posts.  The middle list deliberately includes any Horror films I have already reviewed as well as any Horror film I saw in the theater.  I try to include significant films in the middle list.  I have deliberately not included sequels so as to not clog the bottom of the list but I try to include first films in franchises and remakes (as well as originals) for some good comparisons.
note:  Please don’t try to make the following list match up with other lists I have made.  All my lists are fluid and they change.

The Top 75 Horror Films

  1. A Clockwork Orange
  2. Trainspotting
  3. Jaws
  4. The Exorcist
  5. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
  6. King Kong (2005)
  7. Nosferatu (1922)
  8. Taxi Driver
  9. Psycho (1960)
  10. Rosemary’s Baby
  11. King Kong (1933)
  12. Repulsion
  13. The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
  14. Vampyr
  15. The Bride of Frankenstein
  16. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)
  17. The Others
  18. Frankenstein
  19. The Shining
  20. Don’t Look Now
  21. Ringu
  22. The Sixth Sense
  23. The Invisible Man
  24. Black Swan
  25. Dracula (1931)
  26. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)
  27. Let the Right One In
  28. Carrie (1976)
  29. Contagion
  30. The Devil’s Backbone
  31. The Birds
  32. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
  33. Peeping Tom
  34. Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
  35. Hour of the Wolf
  36. The Night of the Hunter
  37. Misery
  38. Jurassic Park
  39. Freaks
  40. The Mummy (1932)
  41. Kuroneko
  42. Shaun of the Dead
  43. Carnival of Souls
  44. The Orphanage
  45. The Golem (1920)
  46. The Avenging Conscience
  47. MacBeth (1971)
  48. Dead Ringers
  49. The Night of the Living Dead (1968)
  50. The Skin I Live In
  51. 28 Days Later
  52. Poltergeist (1982)
  53. Straw Dogs (1971)
  54. Gremlins
  55. Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn
  56. Halloween (1978)
  57. Cronos
  58. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
  59. The Fall of the House of Usher (1928)
  60. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
  61. Bubba Ho-Tep
  62. Sleepy Hollow
  63. The Body Snatcher (1945)
  64. The Frighteners
  65. The Horror of Dracula
  66. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
  67. Kwaidan
  68. Interview with the Vampire
  69. Army of Darkness
  70. The Evil Dead (1982)
  71. The Hands of Orlac
  72. The Host (2006)
  73. The White Reindeer
  74. Bram Stoker’s Dracula
  75. The Company of Wolves

note:  The Top 32 films are all ****.  Films 33 to 73 are ***.5.

Notable Horror Films Not in the Top 75

  • Island of Lost Souls (#76)
  • Scream  (#78)
  • The Wolf Man (1941)  (#80)
  • Eraserhead  (#82)
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)  (#83)
  • The Old Dark House  (#84)
  • The Black Cat (1934)  (#85)
  • The Fly (1958)  (#86)
  • The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)  (#87)
  • The Haunting (1963)  (#73)
  • Dracula (1931, Sp.)  (#91)
  • Gojira  (#95)
  • The Curse of Frankenstein  (#96)
  • The Phantom of the Opera (1943)  (#97)
  • The Gorgon  (#98)
  • The Mummy (1999)  (#99)
  • Masque of the Red Death (1964)  (#100)
  • Shadow of the Vampire  (#101)
  • The Fly (1986)  (#103)
  • The Mummy (1959)  (#110)
  • What Ever Happened to Baby Jane  (#112)
  • House of Wax (1953)  (#113)
  • Cat People (1942)  (#115)
  • King Kong vs. Godzilla  (#116)
  • Fright Night (2011)  (#123)
  • Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932)  (#126)
  • Arachnophobia  (#137)
  • Scream 2  (#141)
  • Dracula: Prince of Darkness  (#148)
  • The Plague of the Zombies  (#154)
  • The Fearless Vampire Killers  (#157)
  • The Raven (1935)  (#168)
  • Let Me In  (#176)
  • The Raven (1963)  (#181)
  • The Phantom of the Opera (1962)  (#184)
  • The Wicker Man (1973)  (#186)
  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)  (#187)
  • Creature from the Black Lagoon  (#201)
  • Village of the Damned (1960)  (#217)
  • Godzilla, King of the Monsters  (#226)
    **.5
  • Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein  (#240)
  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)  (#241)
  • Wolf  (#243)
  • The Lost Boys  (#245)
  • Dracula (1979)  (#266)
  • Suspiria (1977)  (#280)
  • The Ring  (#294)
  • Scanners  (#302)
  • Child’s Play  (#308)
  • Flatliners (1990)  (#319)
  • The Blob (1958)  (#332)
  • Psycho (1998)  (#344)
  • Dawn of the Dead (1979)  (#356)
  • Cat People (1982)  (#358)
  • Fright Night (1985)  (#372)
  • Dorian Gray (2009)  (#388)
    **
  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1956)  (#416)
  • The Bride  (#424)
  • The Wolfman  (#431)
  • The Blair Witch Project  (#433)
  • King Kong (1976)  (#466)
  • The Blob (1988)  (#514)
  • The Man with the Screaming Brain  (#522)
  • Gamera the Invincible  (#531)
  • The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)  (#556)
  • The Thing (1981)  (#570)
  • Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare  (#574)
  • Count Dracula  (#591)
  • Underworld  (#641)
  • The Phantom of the Opera (1989)  (#646)
  • Final Destination  (#650)
  • The Invasion  (#654)
  • Godzilla (1998)  (#658)
  • Blood for Dracula  (#660)
    *.5
  • The Village  (#666)
  • Twilight  (#674)
  • Flesh for Frankenstein  (#681)
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)  (#683)
  • The Last House on the Left (1972)  (#691)
  • Blade  (#697)
  • Piranha (2010)  (#708)
  • Village of the Damned (1995)  (#714)
  • Halloween (2007)  (#740)
  • Paranormal Activity  (#746)
  • Friday the 13th (2009)  (#756)
  • Children of the Corn  (#760)
  • Saw  (#766)
  • The Toxic Avenger  (#776)
  • Pet Sematary (1989)  (#780)
    *
  • Island of Dr. Moreau (1977)  (#786)
  • The Amityville Horror (2005)  (#796)
  • The Phantom of the Opera (1998)  (#815)
  • The Hitcher (1986)  (#819)
  • Blacula  (#822)
  • The Body Snatchers  (#824)
  • The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)  (#830)
  • Phantasm  (#835)
  • The Vampire Bat  (#838)
  • The Amityville Horror (1979)  (#842)
  • The Ninth Configuration  (#847)
  • Friday the 13th (1980)  (#860)
  • The Hunger  (#887)
  • An American Werewolf in London  (#895)
  • Mothra  (#906)
  • The Haunting  (#912)
  • The Last House on the Left (2009)  (#919)
  • Piranha (1978)  (#942)
  • Funny Games (1997)  (#951)
  • Funny Games (2007)  (#955)
  • Antichrist  (#965)
  • Hellraiser  (#967)
    .5
  • Needful Things  (#973)
  • House of Wax (2005)  (#976)
  • Rodan  (#979)
  • Attack of the Crab Monsters  (#1049)
  • Color Me Blood Red  (#1052)
  • Blood of Dracula’s Castle  (#1054)
  • Squirm  (#1058)

The Bottom 10 Horror Films, #1060-1069
(worst being #10, which is #1069 overall)

note:  These 10 films are all the zero star films.  It’s actually quite a lot.  Horror films account for 6.7% of all the films I’ve seen but almost 25% of all the zero star films I’ve seen.

  1. Night of the Ghouls
  2. Horrors of Spider Island
  3. I Drink Your Blood
  4. Manos: The Hands of Fate
  5. Maniac
  6. Captivity
  7. Horror of Party Beach
  8. The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies
  9. Troll 2
  10. The Human Centipede (The First Sequence)

The 10 Most Underrated Horror Films

These are all films that I rate at ***.5 that have never appeared in TSPDT’s Top 1000 (now 2000) or their Top 250 21st Century Films (now 1000) and none of these were in any of the three books that had lists of the best of the genres (Essential Horrors Movies, Best Worst and Most Unusual, Rough Guide).  They are listed here in chronological order.

  1. The Avenging Conscience
  2. The Hands of Orlac
  3. The Fall of the House of Usher (1928)
  4. Kuroneko
  5. Misery
  6. Army of Darkness
  7. Cronos
  8. Interview with the Vampire
  9. The Frighteners
  10. Bubba Ho-Tep

Best Horror Films By Decade

  • 1910’s:  The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
  • 1920’s:  Nosferatu
  • 1930’s:  King Kong
  • 1940’s:  The Body Snatcher
  • 1950’s:  Invasion of the Body Snatchers
  • 1960’s:  Psycho
  • 1970’s:  A Clockwork Orange
  • 1980’s:  The Shining
  • 1990’s:  Trainspotting
  • 2000’s:  King Kong
  • 2010’s:  Black Swan

The Most Over-Rated Horror Films

  1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
    I understand and acknowledge its influence.  But people think it’s actually good and it’s in the Top 200 on TSPDT.  That’s insane.  It’s not good.  It has a bit of style but to claim that it’s great or a better film than Caligari or The Exorcist?  That’s just nuts.
  2. The Thing
    I will take the original any day.  I don’t like what Carpenter did, making it more of a Horror film and I think it’s the weakest by far of his early Horror films.
  3. Suspiria (1977)
    I find Argento to be a mediocre director at best and this film is just a mess.  Yet, it continues to rise on TSPDT.
  4. Dawn of the Dead
    An okay film but a far cry from Romero’s original.  Don’t get what people think is so great about this sequel.
  5. The Blair Witch Project
    This became big because of a very successful marketing campaign but it’s a mess of a film.  Yet, somehow, it’s just outside the Top 1000 on TSPDT just ahead of such Horror films as Shaun of the Dead, Straw Dogs and Godzilla.

The Statistics

Total Films 1912-2011:  1069  (3rd)

Total Percentage of All Films 1912-2011:  6.70%

  • 1912-1929:  14  (6th)  –  3.39%
  • 1930-1939:  41  (5th)  –  2.93%
  • 1940-1949:  41  (9th)  –  3.01%
  • 1950-1959:  86  (5th)  –  5.44%
  • 1960-1969:  144  (3rd)  –  8.31%
  • 1970-1979:  218  (3rd)  –  12.40%
  • 1980-1989:  171  (3rd)  –  8.47%
  • 1990-1999:  132  (3rd)  –  5.64%
  • 2000-2011:  187  (3rd)  –  6.67%

Stars:

Horror deserves a note here because, for the most part, Horror films suck.  The following is the breakdown for Horror films by how many stars they earn.  The number in parenthesis afterwards is the same number for all films I’ve seen to give an idea of how much worse Horror films are.

  • ****:  2.97%  (5.41%)
  • ***.5:  3.90%  (7.08%)
  • ***:  16.13%  (45.08%)
  • **.5:  16.38%  (20.38%)
  • **:  22.24%  (12.26%)
  • *.5:  11.38%  (2.98%)
  • *:  18.17%  (4.08%)
  • .5:  7.89%  (2.18%)
  • 0:  .93%  (.24%)

As you can see, the Horror films are much worse.  Among all films, almost 22% of them are what I consider bad films (** or worse).  Among Horror films, that number is just over 60%.  Horror films account for just 6.70% of all films as noted above, but they account for over 24% in each of the four lowest ratings.  There are just lots and lots of terrible Horror films.  Which, of course, makes the great ones all the better and all the more worth watching.

Biggest Years:

  • 1972:  32
  • 2009:  26
  • 1957, 1971:  25
  • 1974, 2005:  24

Biggest Years by Percentage of All Films:

  • 1972:  18.71%
  • 1974:  13.63%
  • 1971:  13.58%
  • 1957:  13.51%
  • 1977:  13.29%

Best Years:

  • 1932:  3 Top 10 films, 4 Top 20 films
  • 1926, 1933:  3 Top 10 films

Eras:

  • 1957-1990:  Top 5 most films every year

The Top Films:

  • Nighthawk Winner:  1929, 1971
  • 3 Films in the Top 10:  1926, 1932, 1933
  • Top 10 Films:  34
  • First Year in the Top 10:  1926
  • Latest Year in the Top 10:  2010
  • Longest Streak with at least one Top 10 Film:  1931-35
  • Longest Streak without a Top 10 Film:  1946-59
  • Best Decade for Top 10 Films:  1930’s  (10)
  • Worst Decade for Top 10 Films:  1950’s  (0)
  • 4 Films in the Top 20:  1932
  • 3 Films in the Top 20:  1926, 1933, 1968, 1978
  • Top 20 Films:  62
  • Longest Streak with at least one Top 20 Film:  1931-35
  • Longest Streak without a Top 20 Film:  1946-55
  • Best Decade for Top 20 Films:  1930’s  (13)
  • Worst Decade for Top 20 Films:  1940’s / 1950’s  (3)

Nighthawk Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  93
  • Number of Films That Have Won Nighthawks:  33
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  63
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  17
  • Best Picture Nominations:  19
  • Total Number of Nominations:  355
  • Total Number of Wins:  83
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Makeup  (50)
  • Director with Most Nighthawk Nominated Films:  Tod Browning  /  Terence Fisher  /  Peter Jackson  /  Roman Polanski  /  Sam Raimi  /  Steven Spielberg  /  James Whale  (3)
  • Best Film with No Nighthawks:  Psycho
  • Best Film with No Nighthawk Nominations:  Invasion of the Body Snatchers  (1956)
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Drama Nominations:  44
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Comedy Nominations:  8
  • Number of Films That Have Won Drama Awards:  12
  • Number of Films That Have Won Comedy Awards:  5
  • Drama Picture Nominations:  21
  • Comedy Picture Nominations:  4
  • Total Number of Drama Nominations:  117
  • Total Number of Comedy Nominations:  23
  • Total Number of Drama Wins:  21
  • Total Number of Comedy Wins:  14
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Director  (24 – Drama  /  4 – Comedy)
  • Best Drama Film With No Nominations:  The Devil’s Backbone
  • Best Comedy Film With No Nominations:  Evil Dead 2
  • Most 2nd Place Finishes:  Frankenstein  /  Repulsion  (5)
  • Most 6th Place Finishes:  Nosferatu the Vampyre  (3)
  • Most Top 10 Finishes:  The Bride of Frankenstein  /  The Exorcist  (14)
  • Most Top 20 Finishes:  The Bride of Frankenstein  (15)
  • Best Film Without a Top 10 Finish:  n/a
  • Best Film Without a Top 20 Finish:  n/a

Most Nighthawk Nominations:

  1. Frankenstein  –  12
  2. The Bride of Frankenstein  –  12
  3. The Exorcist  –  12
  4. Taxi Driver  –  12
  5. Nosferatu  /  Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)  /  A Clockwork Orange  –  11

Most Nighthawks:

  1. Nosferatu  –  8
  2. Jaws  –  7
  3. Frankenstein  –  6
  4. A Clockwork Orange  –  6
  5. The Exorcist  –  5

Most Nighthawk Points:

  1. Nosferatu  –  525
  2. A Clockwork Orange  –  520
  3. The Exorcist  –  460
  4. Frankenstein  –  445
  5. Jaws  –  445
  6. Taxi Driver  –  445
  7. Dracula  (1931)  –  380
  8. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  (1932)  –  380
  9. The Bride of Frankenstein  –  370
  10. King Kong  (1933)  –  355

Most Drama Nominations:

  1. The Exorcist  –  6
  2. Taxi Driver  –  6
  3. Dracula  (1931)  –  5
  4. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)  –  5
  5. Rosemary’s Baby  /  Carrie  –  5

Most Comedy Nominations:

  1. The Bride of Frankenstein  –  6
  2. Trainspotting  –  5
  3. A Clockwork Orange  –  4
  4. The Phantom of the Opera  (1943)  –  3
  5. The Old Dark House  –  2

Most Drama Wins:

  1. Nosferatu  –  4
  2. Vampyr  –  3
  3. four films  –  2

Most Comedy Wins:

  1. The Bride of Frankenstein  –  4
  2. A Clockwork Orange  –  4
  3. Trainspotting  –  4

Most Drama Points:

  1. Nosferatu  –  330
  2. Taxi Driver  –  295
  3. Dracula  (1931)  –  290
  4. Vampyr  –  270
  5. The Exorcist  –  270

Most Comedy Points:

  1. The Bride of Frankenstein  –  395
  2. Trainspotting  –  370
  3. A Clockwork Orange  –  340
  4. The Phantom of the Opera  (1943)  –  155
  5. The Old Dark House  –  125

All-Time Nighthawk Awards

note:  These are my all-time Top 5 in each category.  But in the Analysis section, I discuss not only how Horror films have done in the Nighthawks but also in-depth discussions of how they have done in all the awards groups.  Films in red won the Oscar.  Films in blue were Oscar nominated.  There are a few lists here that aren’t in my usual Nighthawk Awards.

  • Best Picture
  1. A Clockwork Orange
  2. Trainspotting
  3. Jaws
  4. The Exorcist
  5. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Analysis:  Nosferatu, Clockwork and Jaws win the Nighthawk while 16 other films earn noms and 34 films in total are Top 10 films.  Four films win the Drama award (Nosferatu, Dracula, Vampyr, Jaws) and three win the Comedy (Bride of Frankenstein, Clockwork, Trainspotting).  In total, 21 films earn Drama noms while Gremlins is the only film to earn a Comedy nom but not win.
It would take until the 1970’s for a Horror film to earn a nomination and no film has ever won.  After the four films in the 70’s (Clockwork, Exorcist, Jaws, Taxi Driver) the only two nominees are Sixth Sense and Black SwanThe Exorcist is the only Globe winner while Clockwork, Jaws, Ninth Configuration and Black Swan earned nominations (all in Drama).  While no film has won the BAFTA (though Shallow Grave won British Film), they have embraced Horror more often and earlier starting with The Innocents in 1961 with seven total nominees and three more that earned British Film noms but not Picture.  At the BFCA there have been three nominees: Sixth Sense, King Kong and Black SwanBlack Swan is the only PGA nominee so far.  Only three films have won a critics award: A Clockwork Orange, Macbeth and Trainspotting.

  • Best Director
  1. Stanley Kubrick  (A Clockwork Orange)
  2. Steven Spielberg  (Jaws)
  3. William Friedkin  (The Exorcist)
  4. Danny Boyle  (Trainspotting)
  5. Peter Jackson  (King Kong)

Analysis:  Murnau (Nosferatu), Kubrick and Spielberg win the Nighthawk.  There are another 20 nominees, five of which weren’t nominated for Picture (while Phantom of the Opera is the only Picture nominee not nominated for Director).  Murnau, Dreyer (Vampyr) and Spielberg win the Drama award with 19 other nominees while James Whale (Bride of Frankenstein), Kubrick and Boyle win Comedy with three other nominees (Old Dark House – Whale again, the 1943 Phantom of the Opera, Army of Darkness).
There have been five Oscar nominees with Hitchcock the first, earning one for Psycho, followed by Kubrick, Freidkin, Shyamalan (Sixth Sense) and Aronofsky (Black Swan).  Friedkin won the Globe while Robert Wise (The Haunting), Kubrick, Spielberg, Jackson and Aronofsky earned noms.  There have been six BAFTA nominees: Kubrick, Nicholas Roeg (Don’t Look Now), Spielberg, Scorsese (Taxi Driver), Shyamalan and Aronofsky.  Jackson and Aronofsky are the only BFCA nominees.  The DGA nominees are the same as the Oscars with the addition of Spielberg.  Jack Clayton (The Innocents) won the NBR, Ingmar Bergman (Hour of the Wolf) won the NSFC, Kubrick won the NYFC and Scorsese won the LAFC.

  • Best Adapted Screenplay:
  1. Trainspotting
  2. A Clockwork Orange
  3. The Exorcist
  4. The Shining
  5. Rosemary’s Baby

Analysis:  Five films win the Nighthawk: Nosferatu, Dracula and the top three listed here.  The others are nominated along with nine other films.  Four films have Drama (Nosferatu, Dracula, Vampyr, Exorcist) with 16 other nominees while four films have also won Comedy (Old Dark House, Bride of Frankenstein, Clockwork, Trainspotting) with two other nominees (the 1943 Phantom and Bubba Ho-Tep).
The Exorcist won the Oscar while the 1932 Jekyll, Rosemary’s Baby, Clockwork and Trainspotting have earned noms.  The Exorcist and The Ninth Configuration both won the Globe showing that the Globes love Blatty.  Rosemary’s Baby and Jaws earned Globe noms.  Trainspotting won the BAFTA while Clockwork and Jaws earned noms.  Horror films have done decently at the WGA with eight nominees over the years (but no wins).

  • Best Novel Adapted into a Horror Film:
  1. A Clockwork Orange
  2. Dracula
  3. Notre-Dame de Paris
  4. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
  5. Frankenstein

Analysis:  The first two are in my Top 100 and the other three in my Top 200 with The Picture of Dorian Gray also in the Top 200.  All but my #1, of course, have been made into numerous films.

Best Original Screenplay:

  1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
  2. The Sixth Sense
  3. King Kong  (1933)
  4. The Others
  5. Repulsion

Analysis:  No Horror film has won the Nighthawk but Cabinet, King Kong, Peeping Tom, Repulsion and Taxi Driver earned noms.  The Sixth Sense and The Others are in much tougher years.  Cabinet is the only Drama winner while 11 films have earned noms (including Sixth Sense and Others) though there have been no Comedy noms.
The Sixth Sense is the only Horror film to earn an Oscar nom.  Even with only one writing category, two films have earned Globe noms (Taxi Driver, Sixth Sense).  Sixth Sense, Others and Black Swan all earned BAFTA noms.  Black Swan also earned a BFCA nom.  The only WGA nominees are The Omen, Taxi Driver, Sixth Sense and Black Swan.

  • Best Actor:
  1. Robert De Niro  (Taxi Driver)
  2. Ewan McGregor  (Trainspotting)
  3. Fredric March  (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde)
  4. Lon Chaney  (The Hunchback of Notre Dame)
  5. Jack Nicholson  (The Shining)

Analysis:  Chaney, March and De Niro win the Nighthawk while 10 others earn nominations.  The same three win the Drama award while nine others earn nominations.  Claude Rains (Phantom of the Opera), Malcolm McDowell (Clockwork) and Ewan win Comedy while Colin Clive (Bride of Frankenstein) earns a nom.
March is the only Oscar winner and De Niro the only other nominee.  McDowell and De Niro are the only Globe nominees.  Donald Sutherland (Don’t Look Now), Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws) and De Niro earn BAFTA noms.  There have been no BFCA or SAG nominees.  De Niro won three critics awards (when only four existed) while Jack Nicholson won two for The Witches of Eastwick although those were probably more for Ironweed.

  • Best Actress
  1. Natalie Portman  (Black Swan)
  2. Ellen Burstyn  (The Exorcist)
  3. Kathy Bates  (Misery)
  4. Catherine Deneuve  (Repulsion)
  5. Nicole Kidman  (The Others)

Analysis:  Portman is the only Nighthawk winner while seven others earn nominations.  There are 11 total nominees for Drama with Portman still the only winner and none for Comedy.
Bates and Portman win Oscars while Burstyn, Bette Davis (What Ever Happened to Baby Jane), Sissy Speck (my 6th place finisher for Carrie) and Burstyn again (Requiem for a Dream) earn noms.  Bates and Portman also win the Globe with Davis, Mia Farrow (Rosemary’s Baby), Burstyn (twice) and Kidman earning noms.  Davis and Portman win the BAFTA with Farrow, Julie Christie (Don’t Look Now) and Kidman earning noms.  Portman won the BFCA – the only Horror winner in any acting category.  Portman won SAG while Burstyn (Requiem) earned a nomination.  Burstyn (Requiem) and Portman each won two critics awards while Liv Ullmann (Hour of the Wolf), Spacek and Bates won one each.

  • Best Supporting Actor:
  1. Haley Joel Osment  (The Sixth Sense)
  2. Jason Miller  (The Exorcist)
  3. Boris Karloff  (Frankenstein)
  4. Max Schreck  (Nosferatu)
  5. Willem Dafoe  (Shadow of the Vampire)

Analysis:  Of course the giant irony is that Max Schreck finishes just above Willem Dafoe playing Max Schreck.  Schreck and Karloff win the Nighthawk while the other three along with five others (including Klaus Kinski playing the same role Schreck did) earn nominations.  Schrek and Karloff win Drama with eight other nominees while Karloff earns a Comedy nom for Bride of Frankenstein.
There have been no Oscar winners and the only four nominees are Osment, Dafoe, Miller and Victor Buono (What Ever Happened to Baby Jane).  Buono, Miller, Scott Wilson (Ninth Configuration), Osment and Dafoe earn Globe noms but there are no wins.  There have been no BAFTA or BFCA nominees.  Osment and Dafoe were SAG nominated.  Dafoe is the only critics winner, taking home the LAFC.

  • Best Supporting Actress:
  1. Jodie Foster  (Taxi Driver)
  2. Linda Blair  (The Exorcist)
  3. Ruth Gordon  (Rosemary’s Baby)
  4. Miriam Hopkins  (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde)
  5. Toni Collette  (The Sixth Sense)

Analysis:  Hopkins, Gordon and Foster win the Nighthawk while seven others earn nominations.  They also win in Drama with eight other nominees while Elsa Lanchester (Bride of Frankenstein) wins in Comedy and Kelly MacDonald (Trainspotting) is nominated.
This is by far the best acting category at the Oscars for Horror with Gordon winning and six other nominees: Angela Lansbury (Picture of Dorian Gray), Janet Leigh (Psycho), Blair, Piper Laurie (my 6th place finisher for Carrie), Foster and Collette.  It’s also the best at the Globes with four winners: Lansbury, Leigh, Gordon and Blair as well as nominations for Laurie, Kirsten Dunst (Interview with the Vampire) and Mila Kunis (Black Swan).  Foster wins the BAFTA while Billie Whitelaw (The Omen) and Barbara Hershey (Black Swan) were nominated.  Kunis earned a BFCA nom and a SAG nom.  Foster won the NSFC while Dunst won the BSFC.

  • Best Ensemble
  1. The Exorcist
  2. Black Swan
  3. Taxi Driver
  4. Trainspotting
  5. Rosemary’s Baby

Analysis:  This simply totals up all the acting points that I assign to a film.  With performances landing in the Top 5 of three categories, The Exorcist is the easy winner here.

  • Best Editing:
  1. Trainspotting
  2. Don’t Look Now
  3. A Clockwork Orange
  4. Jaws
  5. Psycho

Analysis:  Four films win the Nighthawk: Nosferatu, Repulsion, Clockwork and Jaws.  There are 18 other films that earn nominations.
Jaws wins the Oscar while five other films earn nominations, four of them Best Picture nominees (Clockwork, Exorcist, Sixth Sense, Black Swan) but the other one being the 1941 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  No Horror film has won the BAFTA though every film nominated for Picture since the Editing award began has been nominated for Editing as well (and no others): Clockwork, Don’t Look Now, Jaws, Taxi Driver, Sixth Sense and Black SwanBlack Swan is the only BFCA nominee.  Jaws won ACE while Willard, Sixth Sense and Black Swan earned noms.  Black Swan won the BSFC.

  • Best Cinematography:
  1. Jaws
  2. The Exorcist
  3. King Kong  (2005)
  4. The Shining
  5. Psycho

Analysis:  The only Nighthawk winners are all early: Nosferatu, Frankenstein and Vampyr.  There have been another 25 nominees, mostly in the 30’s (7) and 70’s (7).
The only two Oscar winners are both from the split days: the 1943 Phantom of the Opera and the 1945 Picture of Dorian Gray.  There have been nine other nominees, only four since the split was done away with in 1967 (Exorcist, the 1976 King Kong, Sleepy Hollow, Black Swan).  Black Swan is the only BFCA nominee.  There have been four ASC nominees: Sixth Sense, Sleepy Hollow, King Kong and Black SwanBlack Swan won two critics awards while Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Dead Man and Sleepy Hollow all won one each.

  • Best Original Score:
  1. Jaws
  2. Requiem for a Dream
  3. Jurassic Park
  4. King Kong (1933)
  5. Psycho

Analysis:  Five Horror films win the Nighthawk: the original King Kong, The Black Cat, Clockwork, Jaws and Taxi Driver.  There are also another 16 nominees.
The only two Oscar winners were back-to-back: Jaws and The Omen.  There have been another 12 nominees, though none between 1943 and 1971.  Jaws is the only Globe winner with five other nominees.  Jaws and Taxi Driver won the BAFTA while Macbeth earned a nomination.  Black Swan is the only BFCA nominee.  Taxi Driver wins the LAFC while Black Swan wins the CFC.

  • Best Sound:
  1. Jurassic Park
  2. Jaws
  3. King Kong  (2005)
  4. The Exorcist
  5. The Bride of Frankenstein

Analysis:  Five films win the Nighthawk with the original King Kong replacing Bride of Frankenstein.  Another 14 films, including Bride earn nominations.
Four films won the Oscar: Exorcist, Jaws, Jurassic Park and the 2005 King Kong.  Another seven films earn nominations, including Bride, the only nomination for a Universal film in the Golden Age of Horror.  Seven films earn BAFTA noms, four of them from 1972 to 1975 with only Jurassic Park between 1975 and 2005.  Black Swan earned a BFCA nom.  Four films have earned CAS noms (Jurassic Park, Sixth Sense, King Kong, Black Swan).

  • Best Art Direction:
  1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
  2. Bram Stoker’s Dracula
  3. Frankenstein
  4. Dracula (1931)
  5. Interview with the Vampire

Analysis:  Eight films win the Nighthawk including all five of my list as well as Nosferatu, Bride of Frankenstein and Clockwork.  Another 21 films earn nominations, almost half of them before 1946 with five more from 1973 to 1980.
Two films win the Oscar: the 1943 Phantom of the Opera (in a small Color field) and Sleepy Hollow.  Only six other films even earn nominations, sadly.  Two films win the BAFTA (Interview, Sleepy Hollow) with seven others earning nominations, a better track record than at the Academy with 40 fewer years of the category.  Black Swan earned a BFCA nom.  Two films have won the ADG (Sleepy Hollow, Black Swan) and two others earn noms (The Cell, King Kong).  Sleepy Hollow also wins the LAFC.

  • Best Visual Effects
  1. Jurassic Park
  2. King Kong  (2005)
  3. King Kong  (1933)
  4. The Lost World: Jurassic Park
  5. The Mummy  (1999)

Analysis:  Nine Horror films have won the Nighthawk, with three early on (Frankenstein, King Kong, Bride of Frankenstein) and then a four decade gap before the others (Exorcist, Jaws, King Kong, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Jurassic Park, King Kong).  Another 18 films have earned nominations.
The later two King Kong films win the Oscar as does Jurassic Park with four other films earning noms including the first two Poltergeist films and Lost WorldPoltergeist, Witches of Eastwick, Jurassic Park and King Kong win the BAFTA with six films earning noms.  The 2005 King Kong wins three VES awards with I Am Legend and Cloverfield earning multiple noms (but no wins) and four other films earning noms.

  • Best Sound Editing
  1. King Kong  (2005)
  2. Jurassic Park
  3. Jaws
  4. Bram Stoker’s Dracula
  5. The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Analysis:  Six films win the Nighthawk with two early (Frankenstein, King Kong) and a four decade gap before the rest (Exorcist, Jaws, Jurassic Park, King Kong).  Another 16 films earn nominations.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Jurassic Park and the 2005 King Kong win the Oscar with Poltergeist and Flatliners earning noms.  The Exorcist and Damien: Omen Part II both win two MPSE awards with Wolfen, The Orphanage and Black Swan winning one each.  In total, 33 Horror films have earned MPSE noms but 28 of those films are since the massive expansion of categories in the late 90’s.

  • Best Costume Design:
  1. Bram Stoker’s Dracula
  2. Interview with the Vampire
  3. Sleepy Hollow
  4. King Kong  (2005)
  5. The Hunchback of Notre Dame  (1923)

Analysis:  Five films win the Nighthawk but only three listed above (Dracula, Interview, Hunchback) with the 1931 Dracula and the 1943 Phantom of the Opera also winning.  There are another 14 films that earn Nighthawk noms.
Surprisingly, only two Horror films have won the Oscar (What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, Dracula), though 10 of the Nighthawk nominees and three of the winners were before the Academy began awarding this category) and two other nominees, one of which The Swarm, is one of the most ridiculous nominations in history (Sleepy Hollow is the other nominee).  It boggles my mind that the costumes in Interview, with 18th Century costumes from New Orleans and 19th Century costumes from France failed to earn a nomination.  Macbeth and Sleepy Hollow won the BAFTA while four others earned noms (including Interview).  Black Swan is the only BFCA nominee.  Sleepy Hollow and Black Swan won CDG awards while Red Riding Hood earned a nomination.

  • Best Makeup
  1. Bram Stoker’s Dracula
  2. The Hunchback of Notre Dame  (1923)
  3. The Phantom of the Opera  (1925)
  4. Interview with the Vampire
  5. Sleepy Hollow

Analysis:  This is one of Horror’s best categories, winning the Nighthawk 15 times including six of the first nine times, though it’s won only once since 1978 and hasn’t won since 1992 (which means neither Interview nor Sleepy Hollow win).  There have also been 35 other nominees with 10 of them since the genre’s last win and nine more times in the 80’s.
Even the category is relatively new at the Oscars, Horror has won four awards (American Werewolf in London, The Fly, Dracula, Wolfman) and earned three other nominations.  No film has won the BAFTA though there have been five nominees.  Black Swan is the only BFCA nominee.  Sleepy Hollow won a MUASG award while The Cell, Requiem for a Dream and Hannibal earned noms.

  • Best Technical Aspects
  1. King Kong  (2005)
  2. The Bride of Frankenstein
  3. Bram Stoker’s Dracula
  4. Sleepy Hollow
  5. Jaws

Analysis:  A tallying up of all the Tech categories.  King Kong easily wins partially thanks to its magnificent effects.

  • Best Original Song:
  1. “Forever May Not Be Long Enough”  (The Mummy Returns)
  2. “Lost in the Shadows”  (The Lost Boys)
  3. “Cry Little Sister”  (The Lost Boy)
  4. “Cat People”  (Cat People)
  5. “Ave Satani”  (The Omen)

Analysis:  Only the first and fifth songs (1976 was a weak year) earn Nighthawk noms.  At the Oscars, “Ben” and “Ave Satani” earned nominations.  “Ben” won the Globe and “Cat People” was nominated.  I honestly don’t even remember the use of “Forever” in the film but the song, by Live, is fantastic.

  • Best Animated Film:
  1. n/a

Analysis:  There are only six films I list here and none of them are above low ***.

  • Best Foreign Film:
  1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
  2. Nosferatu
  3. Vampyr
  4. Ringu
  5. Let the Right One In

note:  Three films win the Nighthawk: Vampyr, Ringu and Let the Right One In (the first two films on the list have to contend with Battleship Potemkin in the combined pre-Oscar Nighthawk year).  The first two films are among nine nominees, grouped disparately (three in the 20’s, three in the 60’s, one in 1979, two in 00’s).  Nosferatu is the very rare film to win Picture but not Foreign Film.
Because many of the very best Foreign Horror Films were from before the awards groups had such an award, Horror films haven’t done very well in this category.  Kwaidan is the only Horror film to ever earn an Oscar nomination.  White Reindeer won the Globe and The Skin I Live In was nominated.  The Skin I Live In won the BAFTA while Let the Right One In was nominated.  Fully half the films ever nominated at the BFCA were in Foreign Film: Orphanage, Let the Right One In and The Skin I Live InLet the Right One In won the BSFC and CFC.

  • Best Film (by my points system):
  1. King Kong  (2005)
  2. The Exorcist
  3. The Bride of Frankenstein
  4. Trainspotting
  5. A Clockwork Orange  /  Taxi Driver

Analysis:  A tallying up of all the points in every category.  King Kong, with the best technical numbers overcomes Exorcist’s bigger tally in acting points.

  • Best Film  (weighted points system)
  1. The Exorcist
  2. King Kong  (2005)
  3. Trainspotting
  4. A Clockwork Orange
  5. Taxi Driver

Analysis:  Because acting is weighted higher, Exorcist overcomes King Kong and Bride drops below the other three films.

Best Films With No Top 5 Finishes:

  • The Invisible Man

note:  The only medium **** film to not earn any Top 5 finishes (there are several low **** films that don’t have any).

Worst Film with a Top 5 Finish:

  • Requiem for a Dream

Note:  I have this as a ** film much to the annoyance of many.

Nighthawk Notables

  • Best Film to Watch Over and Over:  King Kong (1933)
  • Best Line  (comedic):  “Shop smart.  Shop S-Mart.” (Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness)
  • Best Line  (dramatic):  “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”  (Roy Scheider in Jaws)
  • Best Opening:  Trainspotting
  • Best Ending:  Trainspotting
  • Best Scene:  the reveal of the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
  • Most Terrifying Scene:  the shower scene in Psycho
  • Most Gut-Wrenching Scene:  the bathtub kiss scene in The Shining
  • Most Heart-Wrenching Scene:  the ending of The Others  /  The Sixth Sense
  • Best Death Scene:  Christopher Lee in The Horror of Dracula
  • Best Kiss:  Miriam Hopkins and Fredric March in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  (1932)
  • Best Use of a Song (dramatic):  “Born Slippy”  (Trainspotting)
  • Best Use of a Song (comedic):  “Don’t Stop Me Now”  (Shaun of the Dead)
  • Best Soundtrack:  Trainspotting
  • Best Guilty Pleasure:  King Kong vs. Godzilla
  • Funniest Film:  Shaun of the Dead
  • Most Terrifying Film:  Ringu
  • Worst Film I Saw in the Theater:  Needful Things
  • Worst Sequel:  Troll 2
  • Worst Remake:  House of Usher  (2008)
  • Worst Film by a Top 100 Director:  The Brood (David Cronenberg)
  • Best Remake:  King Kong  (2005)
  • Best Sequel:  The Bride of Frankenstein
  • Watch the Film, SKIP the Book:  Jaws
  • Read the Book, SKIP the Film:  Dracula 2000
  • Performance to Fall in Love With:  Naomi Watts in King Kong (2005)
  • Sexiest Performance:  Miriam Hopkins in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  (1932)
  • Highest Attractiveness / Acting Ability Ratio:  Jennifer Love Hewitt in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer
  • Best Sex Scene:  Trainspotting
  • Coolest Performance:  Robert Shaw in Jaws
  • Best Tagline:  “Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water”  (Jaws 2)
  • Best Cameo:  Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
  • Sexiest Cameo:  Heather Graham in Scream 2
  • Funniest Cameo:  the doppelgängers in Shaun of the Dead

note:  It doesn’t include categories that are covered in some of the lists above like Worst Film, Most Over-rated Film, Best Ensemble, etc.

At the Theater

By the end of 2011, I had probably seen over 1000 films in the theater at some point or another.  I had certainly been to the movies well over 1000 times.  I saw 19 Horror films in the theater by 2011 (I don’t have to say the end of 2011 because the last one was King Kong in 2005).  Only two of them did I see more than once.  The films, in chronological order: Flatliners, Arachnophobia, Freddy’s Dead, Bram Stoker’s Dracula (twice), Jurassic Park, Needful Things, Wolf, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Interview with the Vampire, Trainspotting (three times), Scream 2, Godzilla, Sixth Sense, Sleepy Hollow, Shadow of the Vampire, The Others (spent much of it walking around where I couldn’t see the screen), Bubba Ho-Tep (meet Bruce event), The Man with the Screaming Brain (another meet Bruce event), King Kong.

Awards


Academy Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  48
  • Number of Films That Have Won Oscars:  18
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  25
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  6
  • Best Picture Nominations:  6
  • Total Number of Nominations:  112
  • Total Number of Wins:  28
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Original Score  (14)
  • Number of Films with Nominations I Haven’t Seen:  0
  • Directors with Most Oscar Nominated Films:  Steven Spielberg  (3)
  • Best Film with No Oscar Nominations:  Nosferatu
  • Best English Language Film with No Oscar Nominations:  King Kong (1933)

Oscar Oddities:

  • The Exorcist is the only film to win one of the major categories (Adapted Screenplay).
  • Only three films, A Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist and Sixth Sense, were nominated for Picture, Director and Screenplay.  The other two aside from The Exorcist won no Oscars.
  • Even though the entire Golden Age of Horror at Universal (1931-35) received just one total Oscar nomination, Universal has four of the six films to win multiple Oscars (Phantom of the Opera, Jaws, Jurassic Park, King Kong).
  • The only two directors to have multiple Horror films nominated in the same category are Steven Spielberg (two Sound wins, a Visual Effects win and nomination) and Darren Aronofsky (Actress win and nomination).
  • The only film with more than one nomination to win all of its nominations is Jurassic Park (3 for 3).
  • A full 8% of all Oscar nominated Horror films are awful (* or lower): Amityville Horror, American Werewolf in London, Ben, The Swarm.  The total Oscar number is less than 1%.
  • A whopping 25% of all Oscar nominated Horror films are bad (** or lower).  The total Oscar number is 6.5%
  • Horror films account for 1.6% of all Oscar nominated films but 16% of all films * or lower and 6.1% of all that are ** or lower.

Most Oscar Nominations

  1. The Exorcist  –  10
  2. The Sixth Sense  –  6
  3. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane  –  5
  4. Black Swan  –  5
  5. seven films  –  4

Most Oscar Wins:

  1. Jaws  –  3
  2. Bram Stoker’s Dracula  –  3
  3. Jurassic Park  –  3
  4. King Kong (2005)  –  3
  5. The Phantom of the Opera (1943)  /  The Exorcist  –  2

Most Oscar Points:

  1. The Exorcist  –  380
  2. The Sixth Sense  –  220
  3. Black Swan  –  215
  4. Jaws  –  190
  5. A Clockwork Orange  –  160
  6. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane  –  140
  7. Taxi Driver  –  140
  8. King Kong  (2005)  –  140
  9. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  (1931)  –  135
  10. The Phantom of the Opera  (1943)  –  135

Critics Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Won Critics Awards:  17
  • Number of Films With Multiple Awards:  8
  • Best Picture Wins:  3
  • Total Number of Awards:  33
  • Category With the Most Awards:  Actress  (7)

Most Awards:

  1. Taxi Driver  –  6
  2. Black Swan  –  6
  3. Hour of the Wolf  –  2
  4. A Clockwork Orange  –  2
  5. The Witches of Eastwick  /  Requiem for a Dream  –  2

Most Points:

  1. Taxi Driver  –  388
  2. Black Swan  –  316
  3. A Clockwork Orange  –  190
  4. The Witches of Eastwick  –  140
  5. Hour of the Wolf  –  137

Most Points by Critics Group:

  • NYFC:  A Clockwork Orange  –  190
  • LAFC:  Taxi Driver  –  120
  • NSFC: Taxi Driver  –  220
  • BSFC:  Black Swan  –  120
  • CFC:  Black Swan  –  120
  • NBR:  Macbeth  –  100

Golden Globes

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  24
  • Number of Films That Have Won Globes:  10
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  12
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  1
  • Best Picture Nominations:  5
  • Total Number of Nominations:  48
  • Total Number of Wins:  13
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Actress  /  Supporting Actress  (7)
  • Best Film with No Globe Nominations:  Trainspotting

Most Globe Nominations:

  1. The Exorcist  –  6
  2. Rosemary’s Baby  –  4
  3. Jaws  –  4
  4. Black Swan  –  4
  5. A Clockwork Orange  /  The Ninth Configuration  –  3

Most Globes:

  1. The Exorcist  –  4
  2. nine films  –  1

Most Globe Points:

  1. The Exorcist  –  395
  2. Black Swan  –  195
  3. Jaws  –  185
  4. Rosemary’s Baby  –  160
  5. The Ninth Configuration  –  160

Guild Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  49
  • Number of Films That Have Won Guild Awards:  9
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  17
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  5
  • Best Picture Nominations:  3
  • Total Number of Nominations:  88
  • Total Number of Wins:  12
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Screenplay  (20)
  • Best Film with No Guild Nominations:  Touch of Evil

Most Guild Nominations:

  1. Black Swan  –  15
  2. King Kong (2005)  –  9
  3. The Sixth Sense  –  7
  4. Sleepy Hollow  –  5
  5. I Am Legend  /  Cloverfield  –  5

Most Guild Wins:

  1. Sleepy Hollow  –  3
  2. King Kong (2005)  –  3
  3. Black Swan  –  3
  4. The Exorcist  –  2
  5. Damien: The Omen Part II  –  2

Most Guild Points:

  1. Black Swan  –  505
  2. King Kong (2005)  –  245
  3. The Sixth Sense  –  205
  4. The Exorcist  –  165
  5. Jaws  /  Sleepy Hollow  –  135

Highest Guild Point Percentage:

  1. The Exorcist  –  12.41%
  2. Jaws  –  10.80%
  3. Black Swan  –  8.65%
  4. Psycho  –  8.59%
  5. Taxi Driver  –  6.39%

The BAFTAs

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  31
  • Number of Films That Have Won BAFTAs:  14
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  18
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  3
  • Best Picture Nominations:  7
  • Total Number of Nominations:  88
  • Total Number of Wins:  17
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Visual Effects  (10)
  • Best Film with No BAFTA Nominations:  Psycho

Most BAFTA Noms:

  1. Black Swan  –  12
  2. A Clockwork Orange  –  7
  3. Don’t Look Now  –  7
  4. Jaws  –  7
  5. Taxi Driver  –  6

note:  A Clockwork Orange is the only film with more than 4 nominations without a win.

Most BAFTA Wins:

  1. Taxi Driver  –  2
  2. Interview with the Vampire  –  2
  3. Sleepy Hollow  –  2
  4. 11 films  –  1

Most BAFTA Points:

  1. Black Swan  –  370
  2. Jaws  –  265
  3. Taxi Driver  –  265
  4. Don’t Look Now  –  260
  5. A Clockwork Orange  –  225
  6. The Sixth Sense  –  160
  7. Trainspotting  –  130
  8. Interview with the Vampire  –  115
  9. The Innocents  –  100
  10. Shallow Grave  –  100

Broadcast Film Critics Awards
(Critic’s Choice Awards)

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  6
  • Number of Films That Have Won BFCA:  1
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  2
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  0
  • Best Picture Nominations:  3
  • Total Number of Nominations:  18
  • Total Number of Wins:  1
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Picture  /  Foreign Film  (3)
  • Best Film with No BFCA Nominations:  The Others
  • Most Nominations:  Black Swan (12)
  • Most Wins:  Black Swan (1)

BFCA Points:

  1. Black Swan  –  375
  2. King Kong  –  95
  3. The Sixth Sense  –  50
  4. Orphanage  –  20
  5. Let the Right One In  –  20
  6. The Skin I Live In  –  20

note:  Of the six films that have earned BFCA noms, half were nominated for Picture and the other half for Foreign Film.

All Awards

Most Nominations:

  1. Black Swan  –  54
  2. The Exorcist  –  21
  3. Taxi Driver  –  20
  4. The Sixth Sense  –  20
  5. King Kong (2005)  –  20
  6. A Clockwork Orange  –  18
  7. Jaws  –  18
  8. Sleepy Hollow  –  13
  9. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane  –  9
  10. Bram Stoker’s Dracula  /  Interview with the Vampire  –  9

Most Awards:

  1. Black Swan  –  13
  2. The Exorcist  –  8
  3. Taxi Driver  –  8
  4. Sleepy Hollow  –  8
  5. King Kong (2005)  –  7
  6. Jaws  –  6
  7. Jurassic Park  –  5
  8. Dead Ringers  –  4
  9. Bram Stoker’s Dracula  –  4
  10. three films  –  3

Total Awards Points

  1. Black Swan  –  1812
  2. Taxi Driver  –  930
  3. The Exorcist  –  865
  4. A Clockwork Orange  –  756
  5. Jaws  –  725
  6. The Sixth Sense  –  661
  7. King Kong (2005)  –  573
  8. Sleepy Hollow  –  377
  9. Rosemary’s Baby  –  299
  10. Trainspotting  –  296

Highest Awards Points Percentage:

  1. Taxi Driver  –  9.13%
  2. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  (1932)  –  8.90%
  3. The Exorcist  –  8.88%
  4. Black Swan  –  8.59%
  5. A Clockwork Orange  –  6.68%
  6. Jaws  –  6.56%
  7. The Sixth Sense  –  3.90%
  8. Rosemary’s Baby  –  3.00%
  9. King Kong (2005)  –  2.98%
  10. The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)  –  2.82%

note:  This is why I do the percentage, because it gives a historical perspective.

Lists

I won’t do a lot of lists because that’s the whole point of TSPDT – they put a ridiculous amount of lists in the blender and come out with the “definitive” one.  Their lists includes lists by genre, so you can always go there and look at their source lists.

The TSPDT Top 25 Horror Films:

  1. Taxi Driver (#15)
  2. Psycho (#25)
  3. The Night of the Hunter (#43)
  4. A Clockwork Orange (#79)
  5. Jaws (#91)
  6. The Shining  (#96)
  7. Don’t Look Now (#130)
  8. Nosferatu (#133)
  9. Rosemary’s Baby (#140)
  10. King Kong (#161)
  11. The Birds (#176)
  12. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (#199)
  13. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (#209)
  14. The Exorcist (#221)
  15. Vampyr (#229)
  16. Freaks (#258)
  17. Night of the Living Dead (#263)
  18. Eraserhead (#278)
  19. The Thing (#286)
  20. Peeping Tom (#310)
  21. Dawn of the Dead (#314)
  22. Bride of Frankenstein (#328)
  23. Eyes Without a Face (#336)
  24. Suspiria (#366)
  25. Carrie (#394)

note:  These are the current (2019) rankings from TSPDT.  There have been a few minor changes with Jaws leaping over The Shining and Caligari moving up above Exorcist as well as Suspiria going up above 30 spots but staying in the same place on this list.  Also, in 2018, The Thing was one spot above Peeping Tom but they both went in opposite directions.  I must say that this list is more skewed against my taste than any other genre.  They must use a lot of Horror lists because their starting list is full of absolute shit Horror films and they have a number of films here that are way too high.

AFI:

The AFI didn’t do a Horror list.  They are fools as I discussed here.

The IMDb Voters Top 10 Horror Films:

  1. Psycho
  2. The Shining
  3. Requiem for a Dream
  4. A Clockwork Orange
  5. Taxi Driver
  6. Trainspotting
  7. The Thing
  8. Jurassic Park
  9. Jaws
  10. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office  (through 2011)

  1. Jurassic Park –  $402.45 mil
  2. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse –  $300.53 mil
  3. The Twilight Saga: New Moon –  $296.62 mil
  4. The Sixth Sense –  $293.50 mil
  5. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 –  $281.28 mil
  6. Jaws –  $260.00 mil
  7. I Am Legend –  $256.39 mil
  8. The Exorcist –  $232.93 mil
  9. The Lost World: Jurassic Park –  $229.08 mil
  10. Signs –  $227.96 mil

note:  This grew slowly.  Prior to 1994, Jaws and The Exorcist were the only films over $100 million.
note:  Jurassic Park, Jaws and The Exorcist were all, at the time of their releases, the highest grossing films ever made.  The Sixth Sense, upon its release, was #10 all-time.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office (all-time, adjusted to March 2019)

  1. Jaws –  $1156.55 mil
  2. The Exorcist –  $998.71 mil
  3. Jurassic Park –  $849.33 mil
  4. The Sixth Sense –  $519.93 mil
  5. The Lost World: Jurassic Park –  $450.68 mil
  6. Signs –  $354.27 mil
  7. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse –  $351.97 mil
  8. The Twilight Saga: New Moon –  $351.35 mil
  9. I Am Legend –  $331.61 mil
  10. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 –  $324.29 mil

note:  It’s odd to not have any films that weren’t on the first list but that just shows how few Horror films made any real money before this century.  The Amityville Horror is next on the list with $310 million adjusted.  It also shows how big films like Jaws (#7 all-time adjusted) and The Exorcist (#9 all-time adjusted were at the time).

Books

note:  As always, not a complete list but just the books I either own or was able to get from the library to write a piece on.  There are a lot more I could have gotten.  Of all the genres, I think far more books have been written about Horror than any other.  Most of them don’t have links because they are out of print but they are easy to find used online.

An Illustrated History of the Horror Film, Carlos Clarens, 1967

I don’t know if this is the first serious study of Horror Films but it is quite well known and deservedly so.  Given that it has obvious limitations based on when it was published, it is very well done and thorough and gives deserved treatment to non English language films as well.  In the history of film writing, this is an important step and well worth reading.

Classics of the Horror Film, William K. Everson, 1974

Somewhere between a serious study of the genre and a coffee-table book, it does take a good long look at a lot of major films and doesn’t skimp on the foreign films either.  It also has a lot of stills.

The Vampire Film, James Ursini and Alain Silver, 1975

Because it was published so long ago and because half of the book is just a filmography, this is really only of use to those who are massive horror buffs or who really want an enormous film book collection.

The Girl in the Hairy Paw: King Kong as Myth, Movie and Monster, ed. Ronald Gottesman and Harry Geduld, 1976

King Kong books seem to want to get in front of a potential trend to get more sales but that means they sacrifice content for it.  The one below was released in 2005 before the Jackson film was done and this one was released in early 1976, several months before the first remake.  This one is really a compilation of all sorts of pieces published about the film during the 40 years since it was released including cartoons, reviews and a lot of stills.  Decent, but not great and it doesn’t have nearly as much on making the film as the later book.

Cult Movies: The Classics, the Sleepers, the Weird and the Wonderful, Danny Peary, 1981

Peary actually wrote three of these books and they are all worthwhile (and I have all of them).  This first one was one I used to get from the library a lot when I was a kid.  It fits into many genres but in Horror better than most with The Brood, Freaks, Halloween, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and King Kong all just in the first half of this first book.  A great look at a lot of films that were cult films for specific reasons.

Horror Film Stars, Michael R. Pitts, 1981

Not a great book but a decent introduction to the major stars of the genre as well as a section in the back for the “bit players”, the actors and actresses who did numerous supporting roles in Horror films.

The Best, Worst and Most Unusual: Horror Films, Darrell Moore, 1983

A good starting point for where to start with Horror films with a couple of caveats.  The first is that the book was published in 1983 so it’s quite outdated now.  The second is that it vastly overrates a lot of big Horror films from 1970 on that aren’t necessarily all that good (it covers almost every major Horror film from 1982, for example).  But it is a nice coffee table book in full color.  It covers 106 films in its Best, another 17 in the Unusual (a lot of which I don’t classify as Horror) and 9 more in the Worst (including two seminal 70s films from Wes Craven, The House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, which I found rather odd although I also don’t have a high opinion of either).

Masters of Horror, Daniel Cohen, 1984

More of a book for younger readers or people just getting started in film.  It is a pretty basic introduction to the major actors in Horror history, mostly the Universal and Hammer stars.

More Classics of the Horror Film, William K. Everson, 1986

A sequel to the first book, published in 1974.  It deals both with films that were left out of the first book as well as covering the rise in Horror films in the decade since the first book.  Like the first one, it has a lot of stills (and at the end, it contains a still for each film covered in the first book so as not to discuss them all again but to at least remind the reader what they were).

Movie Monsters, Tom Powers, 1989

Really just a small book for kids, it gives an introduction to various types of movie monsters (Frankenstein’s Monster, Dracula, Godzilla, etc.) and talks about some of their films.

Hollywood Gothic: The Tangled Web of Dracula from Novel to Stage to Screen, David J. Skal, 1990

A must for any Dracula fan but with one serious caveat: this book is really all about the original 1931 film version of Dracula.  If you care anything about later versions of Dracula, prepare to be disappointed.  But, for focusing on the creation of the novel, its journey to the stage and the screen and everything that went into the original Universal film, it’s hard to beat this book.  Filled with lots of really good stills covering from Stoker all the way through after the film’s production.

Horror Film Directors, 1931-1990, Dennis Fischer, 1991

With the caveat that this book is now almost 30 years old, it is a fantastic resource.  It has a great detailed look at every major director in the genre and a second set of people who are minor directors or oddballs.  There are two things that are especially nice – the first being that Fischer treats Jesus Franco and Herschell Gordon Lewis as pathetic directors with no talent, which I happen to agree with and the second that it contains an annotated bibliography in the back of books on the genre.  Yes, it is an older list, but it is still fantastic.

Cinematic Vampires: The Living Dead on Film and Television, from The Devil’s Castle (1896) to Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), John L. Flynn, 1992

A useful in-depth guide to all of the vampire films made through 1992, with longer pieces devoted to major films and shorter ones to lesser known or B-films.  A worthwhile book that goes film by film rather than trying to do an overall look.  A publication date of 1992 but includes Coppola’s film and some 1993 projects in the works.

Dracula: The Vampire Legend on Film, Robert Marrero, 1992

A cheap, almost vanity press type book that follows the use of Dracula in film through 1992 (obviously designed to be of interest when Coppola’s film came out but released too early to make use of his film).  Don’t bother with this one.  Over half the book is stills anyway.  Go for the previous book.

Cult Horror Films: From ‘Attack of the 50 Foot Woman’ to ‘Zombies of Mora Tau’, Welch Everman, 1993

In a sense almost all Horror films are cult films but this book, obviously modeled on the much better Danny Peary books focuses on smaller films, not critically acclaimed, not major studio films (with some exceptions such as Freaks and the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers).  But it doesn’t try to say that they’re any good and it’s really just a collection of odd Horror films.

Giant Monster Movies: An Illustrated Survey researched and written by Robert Marrero, 1994

Only for true lovers of giant monster movies and even then you could do a lot better.  For all intents and purposes, this is a cheap, self-published book.  It does give a solid look at the films but the quality of the book (and its writing) is pretty poor and I’m stunned that my library system bothered to ever buy this.

Legendary Horror Films, Peter Guttmacher, 1995

A bit of a weak book.  It looks nice, a coffee table book with color stills, but it’s awfully thin, both of terms of page count (just 128) and in terms of content.  It’s just a basic introduction to Horror films and doesn’t even cover the best films in the way that the title would seem to suggest.

Dracula: A Norton Critical Edition, Nina Auerbach, ed., 1997

Not just the novel but also critical writings on the film including various descriptions and essays about the film versions.  Useful as a compendium of film versions of the novel.

Women in Horror Films, 1940s, Gregory William Mank, 1999

This is really kind of a pointless book.  The 1930s book (see directly below) at least covers an era where there were a lot of good Horror films but there were far fewer in the 40s and they mostly sucked and to focus on the actresses doesn’t really give us much to go on.  They are a very weak bunch, both in terms of their total careers and even in their Horror careers.

Women in Horror Films, 1930s, Gregory William Mank, 1999

One of a series of books on Horror films by Mank (he had already done the 1940s book).  It focuses on any actress who might have appeared in a Horror film in the decade and gave a summation of their whole career.  It does try to focus more on what they did in their Horror appearances, even if it was for just one film.

The Evil Dead Companion, Bill Warren, 2000

I have to include this as I own it, namely because of Veronica who was already a huge fan of the films (she worked backwards from her love of Bruce Campbell on Brisco and Xena to loving the Evil Dead films).  Because it’s from 2000 it sadly doesn’t include the show but thankfully that also means it doesn’t include the crappy, pointless remake either.

If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor, Bruce Campbell, 2001

Since we own a signed copy and we went to meet him when the book came out and because he’s a key Horror star, I can’t not include this.  Has a lot of fun anecdotes about making the Evil Dead films with his good friend Sam Raimi (and about his hatred for Raimi’s car, The Classic).  This book is funny and enjoyable but don’t get his second book Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way which is just terrible.  But of course we have a signed copy of that as well.

Horror Films of the 1970s, John Kenneth Muir, 2002

The first of three books by Muir that cover three decades of Horror films (only two of the books are listed here because his latest one, covering the 90s, isn’t at my local library system).  Muir has a pretty broad approach to what qualifies as Horror (which is fine) and we have some different opinions on specific films (Texas Chainsaw Massacre most immediately springs to mind).  But this is a great book that reviews every notable Horror film of the decade with several lists to go with it as well.  Sadly, the cover is a really creepy image from It’s Alive and I had to keep the book facedown so that Thomas wouldn’t see it.  But for any book that covers things more specifically than just covering the entire genre, this is the first book you’ll want to buy.  Very highly recommended for anyone interested in Horror.

Hollywood Horror: from Gothic to Cosmic, Mark A. Vieira, 2003

On the negative side, this isn’t really a comprehensive book.  It really only runs through the 50’s and then discusses the trend of Sci-Fi films and a few seminal films as things were changing.  But on the other hand, it’s a gorgeous coffee book treatment of the Golden Age of Horror with magnificent stills.  If the Golden Age of Horror is your interest, this is one of the best books you could get.

Godzilla on My Mind: Fifty Years of the King of Monsters, William Tsutsui, 2004

Partially a history of the franchise and partially just the recollections of someone who has been obsessed with the franchise his whole life.  Not a bad book but there have been better ones on the franchise.

The Rough Guide to Horror Movies, Alan Jones, 2005

The best place to start as the Rough Guide often is.  It gives a detailed history of the genre, focuses on the major stars and directors and even provides a worthwhile Canon (50 films, only three of which I don’t think are Horror).

Horror Films of the 1980s, John Kenneth Muir, 2007

The second of three books by Muir that cover three decades of Horror films.  Again, Muir includes more films than I do (his Top 15 for the decade includes Aliens and Dressed to Kill) and he is one of those people that massively overrates The Thing.  But, again, it’s a key book for understanding the genre, with complete reviews of a few hundred films and numerous appendices that are quite useful.  Not as recommended as his first book but only because that’s a better decade for the genre.

The Book of Lists: Horror, Amy Wallace, Scott Bradley and Del Howison, 2008

A decent book that has a variety of lists, not just about films, but also literature, television and even music.  Some of the lists are pretty interesting (Anthony Timpone’s Ten Movies I Wish I Never Put on the Cover of Fangoria) but a lot of them are just lists of favorites by fairly random people.  It has a pretty broad definition of Horror and is really only useful for a true Horror buff.

Horror! The Definitive Companion to the Most Terrifying Movies Ever Made, Kim Newman & James Marriott, 2006, rev. 2013

Marriott was a film critic who died young (39) but who specialized in Horror.  Newman, on the other hand, is a published Horror author (his Anno Dracula is uneven but quite fascinating with the rest of the books in the series interesting and worth a look at) and has worked for Empire for some time now as well.  This is one of the best guides to Horror films because it covers the history of the genre as well as spotlighting over 300 individual films with reviews.

The Friedkin Connection, William Friedkin, 2013

Friedkin was a mixed-bag as a director aside from his two classic films but this book is useful because he devotes three chapters to the making of The Exorcist.

English Gothic: classic horror cinema, 1897-2015, Jonathan Rigby, 2015

The revised edition of the classic book covering the history of Horror films in England.  It devotes over 50 pages just to the period since the previous edition was published in 2000.  A fantastic book with a lot of great stills and detailed descriptions of all the major films in the genre made in England.  One of the most vital books for anyone interested in Horror films.

Essential Horror Movies: Matinee Monsters to Cult Classics, Michael Mallory, 2015

The first thing to do is decide whether “essential” means “best”.  If it doesn’t, that excuses the absence of films like The Sixth Sense and The Others while including such crap as The Amityville Horror, Phantasm, Friday the 13th and An American Werewolf in London.  Actually, it still doesn’t excuse excluding The Sixth Sense, which actually earned a Best Picture nomination but this is still a very good coffee-table book with a lot of great color stills.  A must for any Horror buff and still good for even those who aren’t big on Horror.  Just don’t feel the need to watch all of the films and be aware that 9 of their 73 films (yes, 73) I don’t consider Horror.

The Art of Horror Movies: An Illustrated History, Stephen Jones, ed., 2017

A great coffee table book of Horror posters.  If you have any interest in Horror movie posters, you must also try to see any display of Kirk Hammett’s collection.  Yes, the guitarist for Metallica has a massive collection and I was lucky enough to see it at the Peabody Essex a couple of years ago.  There are examples throughout the post and I took a lot more photographs than I posted.

Reviews

The Best Horror Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

The Devil’s Backbone (2001, dir. Guillermo del Toro)

“What is a ghost?  A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and again?  An instant of pain, perhaps.  Something dead which still seems to be alive.  An emotion suspended in time.  Like a blurred photograph.  Like an insect trapped in amber.”

Those are the words that both open and close this film, the film that proved that Cronos was not a fluke and del Toro was in fact a rare talent – a director with a truly original vision who was most interested in Horror as a genre, perhaps because he has an amazing visual eye (you should see his storyboards) and Horror (and Fantasy) most allow him to make use of that talent.  What’s more, he isn’t particularly interested in the present.  Yes, he has made films set in the present but his best films, the ones that really show his vision, are all set in the past.  What’s more this film, like his masterpiece, Pan’s Labyrinth, is set during the Spanish Civil War and shows how people in isolation can tear themselves apart even as a country is tearing itself apart.

Carlos has been brought to an orphanage.  He doesn’t know it yet, but he will be staying there (his tutor has brought him to this isolated, forsaken place because his father has just been killed fighting for the republicans and he needs to leave Carlos behind so he can return to the war even though it is in its final days).  Before he even knows that he’s being abandoned, he is also being tormented by Jaime, the oldest and strongest of the kids who, like all bullies, is really a coward.  In fact, late in the film we will discover that Carlos’ bullying is specifically a response to his greatest moment of cowardice which he can not bury deep enough inside his soul,

The orphanage is out in the middle of nowhere but it hasn’t escaped the war or the carnage.  There is an unexploded bomb in the courtyard, that landed one horrible night and has just sat there since, a menace to everyone.  There is also, as Carlos will soon discover, a ghost haunting the orphanage, a spirit stuck behind and it does indeed seem to be a tragedy condemned to repeat itself.

This film is many things.  It deals with a war, though it’s not really a War film.  It’s a ghost story which makes it Horror by my standards, but it’s also a Mystery, a Suspense film, somewhat a Fantasy and definitely a Drama.  Del Toro manages to seamlessly move between all of those things with a sure hand as he takes down a dark journey of the soul, both of the people involved and the country itself.  Who would have guessed he would so deftly return to many of these same themes with his greatest film, just five years later, and yet, be so different in so many ways all at once.  Perhaps that’s the surest sign of his talent.

The Worst Horror Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombie (1964, dir. Ray Dennis Steckler)

In 1964 we got Dr. Strangelove and A Hard Day’s Night and Mary Poppins but we also got Santa Claus vs. the Martians which is why I haven’t already reviewed this film because sometimes being a zero star film just isn’t enough to be the worst film of the year.  A title can’t tell you everything.  Horror at Party Beach was also that year and the title alone, unlike this film and Santa Claus, you wouldn’t know just from hearing the title that it would be a zero star film.  But sometimes a title can tell you all you need to know.

In this case we have one of the worst titles ever given to a motion picture.  It’s so mind-bogglingly stupid (and so unnecessarily long) that you would think that Ed Wood made the film but he had nothing to do with this which means there are people who somehow manage to pull together enough financing for a film that are as spectacularly untalented as he was.  And just like Wood, Ray Dennis Steckler decided that he should also star in his film because why let his total lack of acting talent stop him from being in the film?  After all, he didn’t let his total lack of any talent stop him from writing and directing the film.

Do you want a plot description?  Is the title not enough for you?  Three friends go to a carnival and one of them is hypnotized by a fortune-teller who deals in the occult and he becomes a zombie.  He doesn’t die, yet somehow he is just hypnotized into becoming a zombie.  Some people then do die and in the end, everything is sorted out except that the main character is killed by the police.  Oh yeah, there are also a series of musical numbers because this film wanted to be the first Horror Musical but even those suck.

Bonus Review

Arachnophobia  (1990, dir. Gary Marshall)

Are you afraid of spiders?  My guess is yes.  There are few people who genuinely have no fear of spiders.  Even those who like and are fascinated by spiders and I am one of those are often still afraid of them.  Of course, I’m not as afraid of spiders as I am of wasps (spiders can’t fly) and I am fascinated by them, so how about films about spiders?  Well, it can still be creepy and terrifying.  Here we get Arachnophobia, a film I didn’t really want to see in the theater because I didn’t really want to see people getting bitten by spiders or being overwhelmed by spiders but we were on vacation and Young Guns 2, the movie we really wanted to see, wasn’t opening until the next day (which means I can tell you that I saw it in South Lake Tahoe on 31 July 1990).  It was a pretty good film, a film that manages to combine Horror and Comedy in ways that many films fail at, in some ways a remake of Kingdom of the Spiders though making up for a lot of the flaws in that film.

Kingdom of the Spiders is a terrible film from the Wild Nature subgenre that was prevalent in the 70s.  It had terrible acting, an utterly absurd premise at its heart and a ridiculously downbeat ending.  Arachnophobia isn’t an award winner for its acting by any means but it provides Jeff Daniels in the role of the nice guy who is afraid of spiders and down on his luck (he moved from San Francisco to a small town up the coast to become the town doctor but then the retiring town doctor changed his mind about retiring and constantly tries to make Daniels look bad when the spiders start killing people and no one is certain why they are dying) and it has John Goodman as the comic relief, the suitably deranged exterminator who is determined to make every spider burn in hell.  Both Daniels and Goodman slide perfectly into their roles and they manage to keep the film anchored in the kind of quality that Kingdom never had.

Then there are the realistic possibilities.  It is true that there is a ridiculous goof at the heart of this film that is necessary to start the plot in motion (that someone suspected of dying of a tropical fever would have his body sent home and then allowed out of quarantine) but it approaches the spiders in a more fictional manner (unlike Kingdom which had tarantulas killing human (which they can’t do) and weaving giant webs (they don’t weave webs)), a fictional species of South American spider that is quite deadly which makes it all the more terrifying (most of the spiders used in the film are actually harmless spiders from New Zealand that just look scary).

There is also, like I said, the ending.  Kingdom of the Spiders didn’t kill everybody off but you know they all will die and it has a horribly bleak ending.  After balancing the drama with Daniels (and his very realistic terror of spiders) and the comedy (with Goodman suitably entertaining) we get an ending that definitely manages to combine a real feeling of terror and some decent comedy and isn’t so damn bleak.  Then we get a nice little laugh at the end when Daniels and his wife head back to San Francisco, glad to get away from the country life that didn’t work so well, only to have their whole apartment shake and a reminder that life in San Francisco has its own problems.

Not Horror Films

My definition of Horror films, as is clear, is not the same as other people.  I often read about how Silence of the Lambs is the only Horror film to win Best Picture at the Oscars and I want to scream “It’s a Suspense film!”  The following is a short list of films I don’t classify as Horror even though they come up on a lot of lists and in a lot of books.  The second list is of films that I didn’t used to classify as Horror and have changed my mind and reclassified them.

A Half Dozen Worthwhile Films I Don’t Classify as Horror Films

  1. The Silence of the Lambs
  2. M
  3. Alien
  4. Diabolique
  5. The Collector
  6. The Cat and the Canary

I Changed My Mind: Films I Now Classify as Horror

  1. The Uninvited  (1944)
  2. The Picture of Dorian Gray  (1945)
  3. The Night of the Hunter
  4. Peeping Tom
  5. The Innocents
  6. Straw Dogs
  7. Requiem for a Dream

Post-2011

All-Time List:

note:  Anything that would have landed in the Top 75 is listed as are some other notable films (specifically several remakes so as to give comparisons to the original).

  • It: Chapter One  (#21)
  • Get Out  (#24)
  • A Quiet Place  (#27)
  • Crimson Peak  (#36)
  • The Woman in Black  (#64)
  • The Babadook  (#68)
  • What We Do in the Shadows  (#71)
  • Under the Shadow  (#73)
  • Bird Box  (#76)
  • Hereditary  (#82)
  • Halloween (2018)  (#138)
  • Kong: Skull Island  (#153)
  • Godzilla (2014)  (#170)
  • Carrie (2013)  (#244)
  • The Conjuring  (#300)
  • Evil Dead (2013)  (#472)
  • mother!  (#475)
  • Poltergeist (2015)  (#573)
  • Flatliners (2017)  (#749)
  • Suspiria (2018)  (#791)
  • The Purge  (#840)
  • The Mummy (2017)  (#892)
  • Dracula (2012)  (#938)
  • Texas Chainsaw (2013)  (#1044)
  • Piranha 3DD  (#1063)

Directors:  Guillermo is now at five Horror films and they average 77.6

Sub-Genres:  A Quiet Place is now the best straight Monster movie.  Post-2011 has seen two of the best Godzilla films, the 2014 Godzilla and Shin Godzilla with Godzilla: King of the Monsters coming next month.  The 2018 Halloween raises the average of the sub-sub-genre by three whole points.  It: Chapter One just loses out to The Shining for being the best Stephen King film.  What We Do in the Shadows is the best Vampire Comedy to date at a low ***.5.

Nighthawks:  Landing in the Top 5 all-time are Get Out (Original Screenplay), Kong: Skull Island (VE), Jurassic World (VE) and Crimson Peak (Costume Design).

Awards:  Get Out would be just the fifth Horror film nominated for Picture and Director at the Oscars, only the second to earn a nomination in Original Screenplay and the first to win the award and only the second Horror film nominated for Picture, Director, Screenplay and a lead acting award after The Exorcist.
Get Out would be the first Horror film nominated for Comedy awards at the Globes, earning Picture and Actor nominations.
Under the Shadow would be the latest Horror film to earn a British Film nom at the BAFTAs.
Get Out would be the first Horror film to win the BFCA Screenplay award and would earn 210 points for second place.
Though several films have earned ADG, VES or MPSE noms, only Get Out and A Quiet Place have earned major guild noms.  Get Out would join Black Swan as only the second Horror film to earn SAG Ensemble and PGA noms while A Quiet Place would be the third to get a PGA nom.  Get Out would be the first to earn an Actor nom at SAG and the first to win the WGA.  A Quiet Place would be just the second to get a SAG nom for Supporting Actress.  Both films earned 8 total guild noms, tied for third most, with Get Out finishing 2nd in points and A Quiet Place finishing third.
Get Out would be the first Horror film to win a Screenplay award at the critics, winning two (it also won two Actor awards).  Hereditary would win an Actress award.  Get Out is now the third highest film at the critics in points though only sixth in percentage.

Theater:  I have seen two Horror films in the theater since 2011: Kong: Skull Island and It.  I went twelve years without seeing a Horror film in the theater.  Yet, this year, I might well see three (Godzilla, It: Chapter Two, Doctor Sleep).

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office  (through April 2019)

  1. Jurassic World  –  $652.27 mil
  2. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom  –  $416.76 mil
  3. Jurassic Park –  $402.45 mil
  4. It: Chapter One  –  $327.48 mil
  5. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse –  $300.53 mil
  6. The Twilight Saga: New Moon –  $296.62 mil
  7. The Sixth Sense –  $293.50 mil
  8. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2  –  $292.32 mil
  9. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 –  $281.28 mil
  10. Jaws –  $260.00 mil

note:  Obviously, the two Jurassic World films earned enough that they bounce I Am Legend and Breaking Dawn Part 1 from the adjusted list.
note:  The two lists (gross, adjusted gross) no longer match up 10 for 10.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1985

$
0
0

Lear: Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow! (III, ii, 1)

My Top 10

  1. Ran
  2. Kiss of the Spider Woman
  3. The Color Purple
  4. Plenty
  5. Prizzi’s Honor
  6. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
  7. The Shooting Party
  8. Fletch
  9. The Falcon and the Snowman
  10. A Sunday in the Country

note:  You may notice that this isn’t the same Top 10 that appeared in my Nighthawk Awards.  That’s because I did some thinking about some of the films and the list was considerably altered.  Both Plenty and The Shooting Party were much stronger than I had given them credit for.

Consensus Nominees:

  1. Out of Africa  (232 pts)
  2. Prizzi’s Honor  (232 pts)
  3. The Color Purple  (120 pts)
  4. The Trip to Bountiful  (80 pts)
  5. Kiss of the Spider Woman  (40 pts)
  6. Agnes of God  (40 pts)
  7. Ran  (40 pts)
  8. The Shooting Party  (40 pts)

note:  This is the first tie in the category’s history.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • Out of Africa
  • The Color Purple
  • Kiss of the Spider Woman
  • Prizzi’s Honor
  • The Trip to Bountiful

WGA:

  • Prizzi’s Honor
  • Agnes of God
  • The Color Purple
  • Out of Africa
  • The Trip to Bountiful

Golden Globe:

  • Out of Africa
  • Prizzi’s Honor

Nominees that are Original:  The Purple Rose of Cairo, Back to the Future, Witness

BAFTA:

  • Prizzi’s Honor
  • Out of Africa  (1986)
  • The Shooting Party
  • The Color Purple  (1986)
  • Ran  (1986)

My Top 10



(Ran)

The Film:

I have already written a full review of this film for my Great Director post on Kurosawa.  In it, I talked about how brilliant it is, the innovative way it makes use of Shakespeare, how I never took to the play and how Kurosawa has never been properly acclaimed for his writing in the way that say Bergman or Fellini was.  So, in essence, that review already did everything I would have wanted to do here.

The Source:

The Tragedie of King Lear by William Shakspeare (1606)

I already wrote a little bit about this here when I reviewed the Kozintsev film version.  I didn’t write much because it seems unnecessary, seeing as how it is one of the most famous and revered plays by the most famous playwright who ever lived.  As I mentioned there and above, I was not a fan of the play when I first read it and it really took this film version to make me realize how good the play could be, which is ironic since it cuts what are to me the two most interesting characters (see below).

The Adaptation:

As mentioned, my two favorite characters in the play, the half-brothers, aren’t in the film at all.  There are other changes as well, such as the combination of Regan and Goneril into a character who seems to stem more from Lady Macbeth and her ambition (plus the gender reversal as in Lear he has daughters and here he has sons).  All of that comes from the fact that even though he had made Macbeth already, making a version of King Lear wasn’t actually Kurosawa’s original intention: “My original intention was not to make King Lear in Japanese. I told the story of Hidetora. And that was when, suddenly, the story of King Lear arose – and the two stories merged with each other, in a certain way that I can’t even explain to myself.” (interview with Kurosawa reprinted in the Criterion liner notes for the DVD).

The Credits:

Directed by Akira Kurosawa.  Scenario and dialogue by Akira Kurosawa, Hideo Oguni, Masato Ide.
note: There is no listed source.

Kiss of the Spider Woman

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the Best Picture nominees although even if I hadn’t, I would have reviewed it as one of the five best films of the year.  Kudos go to the Academy for nominating it in all four major categories and recognizing its greatness.  In my original review, I compared it somewhat to The English Patient, not because both are great films, but because, given the source material (see below), you shouldn’t have been able to even make a coherent film let alone a great film.  That’s ironic because I actually wrote my review of The English Patient for this project the day before re-watching this film for this project.  One interesting thing to ask yourself is what you think has happened at the end of the film.  Do you think Valentin is just asleep in a morphine haze or is he dead?  And if he is dead is that the better option?

The Source:

El beso de la mujer araña by Manuel Puig  (1976)

In my original review, I mentioned the coincidence of being at a bookstore and discussing Manuel Puig with the guy at the register (an Argentine writer had just died although obviously not Puig who died in 1990).  This is one of only two Puig books I have read and both have similar concepts at their core (the love of movies – the other book is Betrayed by Rita Hayworth).  Puig became famous as one of numerous Latin American artists who left their home country in the 70’s or 80’s because of their politics (and fearing for their lives).  This book is almost entirely written in dialogue or reports (from the authorities) and yet it manages to tell a fascinating narrative of two very different men (a gay window dresser and a left-wing revolutionary) sharing a cell and how the gay man’s love for movies gets them through their time together.  It did not actually make my Top 200 but it came really close.

The Adaptation:

Obviously the filmmakers had to decide what the actions on film were going to be because there is no descriptive narrative in the novel.  It’s true that the novel describes the movies that Molina is talking about in great detail but the first movie is The Cat People (which the filmmakers were unable to get the rights to so they created their own) and the second was a Nazi propaganda film (which the filmmakers decided to do their own movie with rather than use an existing one).  Some actions you can get from the dialogue (the love scene, the cleaning up of Valentin when he is sick) and some are described in the police reports (the end).  But the filmmakers do an excellent job of creating an actual screenplay complete with actions from a novel that really doesn’t give them a lot of help with that.  As for the dialogue, though, a lot of it does come straight from the book.

The Credits:

Directed by Hector Babenco.  Based on the novel by Manuel Puig.  Written by Leonard Schrader.

The Color Purple

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the Best Picture nominees for the year.  It is one of those films that kind of bounce back and forth between a high ***.5 and a low **** though it has pretty well settled in at this point at ****.  Unfortunately, at this point, it’s really no longer possible to watch this film in the same way that it was when it was first released.  That’s because a key part of the film is being able to embrace the performances from Whoopi Goldberg (the best of her career by a long way in my opinion) and Oprah Winfrey (a solid performance).  The film is also beautifully constructed, with magnificent cinematography, a fantastic score and a wonderful original song that is the heart and soul of the film.  Spielberg often has been criticized over the years for being an effects director but here he embraces the story and characters and how often do you have three black actresses all nominated for the same film?  (Answer: never except here).

The Source:

The Color Purple by Alice Walker (1982)

Given how far away from any experience I have ever had or ever will, I was surprised when I first read this in college (by choice – it was not assigned in a class) how much I took to this book.  Here’s the story of a poor black woman whose entire narrative consists of letters to God (with occasional letters to and from her sister later in the novel).  It’s a beautifully written novel, the winner of both the Pulitzer and the National Book Award.  Sometimes epistolary novels don’t work that well because you wouldn’t believe that what you are reading is coming from that person (like that person might not keep a diary and such) but Walker does such a magnificent job of giving an authentic voice to Celie, the young woman who is raped by her father, basically sold off to a neighbor (whose children greet her with rocks) and whose sister is sent off to Africa (the novel basically covers the time in their lives when they are separated).  It has a haunting opening (“You better not never tell nobody but God. It’d kill your mammy.” and a beautiful ending (” I don’t think us feel old at all. And us so happy. Matter of fact, I think this the youngest us ever felt.”).

The Adaptation:

While Spielberg endured a lot of criticism for taking a novel full of a lot of dark events and making it light and happy but that’s not really true.  He covers most of the bleakest moments in the book fairly faithfully (especially the brutal opening).  Most of the last 70 pages or so (until the actual ending), dealing with Celie and Shug does get truncated in the film (mostly, I think, for running time and because it limits the narrative) but overall it’s actually a faithful adaptation of the novel.

The Credits:

Directed by Steven Spielberg.  Based upon the novel by Alice Walker.  Screenplay by Menno Meyjes.

Plenty

The Film:

I didn’t remember much about this film in the years after watching it.  It was the film that kept getting paired with other films in my mind.  It was paired with Out of Africa because Meryl Streep was quite good in both films (actually, she’s better here than she is in Out of Africa, something I hadn’t remembered).  It’s paired with The Shooting Party, partially in that I under-appreciated both films and have moved them both up and partially because John Gielgud won his NSFC award for his performances in both films.  And it gets paired with Wetherby because, like that one, it was written by David Hare, even if this was originally one of Hare’s plays and Wetherby is an original script.  The key thing is that the film kept getting paired up when really this film very much deserves to stand on its own and is actually one of the better films of the year leaping from my #17 spot to my #12.

Susan is many things over the years.  When we first meet her, during the war, she is fighting in France, helping a paratrooper out and also having a brief love affair with him.  In the years after the war, she wanders from thing to thing and from man to man.  She meets the man she will eventually marry when he comes to deal with her dead lover (not her husband as had been thought).  She lives with a caustic best friend (played by Tracey Ullmann in her best film performance).  She has a love affair with a very handsome man (Sting, and watching this right after watching The English Patient, I was struck how much Sting and Ralph Fiennes look alike or at least did) in the hopes of having a child though she doesn’t want him involved.  When her husband’s career doesn’t go like either had hoped, she confronts his superior in a very memorable scene (it’s basically Ian McKellen’s only scene in the film – the whole film is full of great actors with Charles Dance getting the largest male role as the husband and John Gielgud getting some very good scenes as a man who worked for the foreign service and is willing to actually speak his mind).

The problem is that Susan is probably quite sick.  This isn’t a typical film portrayal of mental illness where we follow someone on their descent like in The Snake Pit or I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.  Only as time continues to pass, as the years flow by, do we realize that Susan (played by Streep in a masterfully subtle performance that only slowly allows us to realize what is going on) is actually quite ill.  She hides it, probably because she doesn’t even realize it.  She acts on her whims, she moves as her heart and the problems in her mind dictate.  This is the story of one fascinating woman and the bulk of her adult life and we do see it as a complete portrait of her life and what she goes through.  In the war, she had a purpose and she had a lover and nothing again would ever equal what happened during the war.  She can never get that kind of life again, no matter how hard she tries and she does try very hard.

Fred Schepisi is an interesting director who reminds me somewhat of Ronald Neame in that he’s done a lot of very good, very interesting films, many of them adapted, and never seems to get much credit as a director.  This is the start of his films appearing in this project but he’ll have two more in the next three years and it’s a reminder that his films have always been interesting and perhaps he should be looked at more closely.

The Source:

Plenty: A Drama by David Hare  (1978)

This is a fascinating play for the same reason that it would become a fascinating film: because it is a full portrait of a woman who has clearly become sick, yet it doesn’t treat her illness in the same way that most plays or films do.  It gives us her whole life and we can understand what she has gone through in the war and why the rest of her life just feels like a drab nothing after that.  Interestingly enough, when it was first staged in London in 1978 it starred Kate Nelligan and five years later when it was staged in New York, with most of the cast different, it still starred Kate Nelligan.

The Adaptation:

When I first started to read the play and saw that it began in 1962 while the film was beginning in 1943, I actually thought that the play was perhaps going tell the story out of order, but it’s just that the play has that opening scene and then jumps back to 1943 and proceeds in chronological order from there.

It’s interesting how Hare both changes and leaves things alone.  The vast majority of the scenes have considerable changes in dialogue but some are left quite alone.  One key scene, when Susan confronts her husband’s superior, almost every line spoken by Streep and McKellen is straight from the play and almost no lines are cut.  Yet, in the play, after that scene, we jump forward a few months.  The scenes in the film following, with Streep at home acting like nothing happened, with McKellen confronting Dance and then with the big confrontation between Dance and Streep aren’t in the play at all.  They are a fascinating microcosm of the differences between the play and the film.

The Credits:

Directed by Fred Schepisi.  Screenplay by David Hare
note:  As it often the case with playwrights who adapt their own play for film, there is no source credit in the opening credits.

Prizzi’s Honor

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film because it was one of the Best Picture nominees.  I discussed there my difficulty in trying to sum up my feelings on the film, how I admire its performances and its craftsmanship but how there was something about the film that never quite clicked for me, something that kept it down at ***.5 when many others would have it as a **** film.  I suppose it could be a question of the tone or, like I said, the bizarreness of seeing Nicholson play someone so dumb (he’s good but it’s just weird).  But it is a well-made film and in a year that’s not overly strong for Adapted Screenplay (as opposed to Original Screenplay where it is quite strong) it’s still good enough to make it into my Top 5.  Because it is in the same year as Purple Rose of Cairo, Brazil, Back to the Future, After Hours and A Private Function (which are all original) it has the distinction of earning more Comedy points (355) without a Picture nom (because it wins Adapted, Actor, Actress and Supporting Actress) than any other film in Nighthawk Awards history.

The Source:

Prizzi’s Honor by Richard Condon  (1982)

I was not particularly kind to Condon when I wrote about his The Manchurian Candidate in the 1962 post for this project and 23 years didn’t necessarily add anything to his writing ability.  Watching the film, it’s clear it’s a Comedy but if I had simply read the book, I might have been like Nicholson when he first read the script and not realized it.  It’s just the story of a hitman for a mob family who falls for a woman that turns out to also be a hitman and while they romance, eventually he has to get rid of her for the sake of the family.  It’s not very good and the main character, Charley, is a very dim bulb.  I can’t believe this made as good a film as it did let alone that Condon was able to write several more Prizzi books.

The Adaptation:

Though there are some dialogue differences, the plot of the film follows the book almost exactly from start to finish (it does add the little pre-credits sequence where Charley is born and then sworn into the family) but from the wedding to the final hit and conversation with Maerose, the film is straight from the book.

The Credits:

Directed by John Huston.  From the Novel by Richard Condon.  Screenplay by Richard Condon and Janet Roach.

風の谷のナウシカ
(Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind)

The Film:

Should this film even appear in this year?  Nausicaä was released originally in Japan in 1984 and was a huge success.  The combination of Hayao Miyazaki writing and directing an adaptation of his own anime series (which he had decided to do after the lukewarm reception to his first feature film, The Castle of Cagliostro), produced by his friend Isao Takahata would lead to the formation of Studio Ghibli, the first studio to ever really rival Disney on a creative level as a producer of animated films.  New World Pictures would buy the rights to the film, cut 22 minutes and release it in the States in the summer of 1985 as Warriors of the Wind (though, possibly not in L.A. as the old oscars.org database didn’t list it) and Miyazaki would be so unhappy with the results that he wouldn’t allow any more cuts to his films (the studio sent a sword to Harvey Weinstein when he was considering cutting Princess Mononoke to symbolize the idea of no cuts).  While not technically a Ghibli film, the collaboration between Miyazaki and Takahata has meant that everyone treats it as such (including Ghibli itself which released it on a DVD box set which I own) and it’s beautiful animation of a fantasy world that has been scarred by conflict would set the stage for future Ghibli projects.

Nausicaä, as the title states, lives in the Valley of the Wind, a beautiful, peaceful place.  But just on the other side of the mountains is the Sea of Corruption, an ecological wasteland born of past wars.  A ship will come crashing into her valley, tearing up her life and bringing her into her own wasteland.  She will be the model for many of the heroines who would populate the Ghibli catalog, strong-willed, smart and almost completely fearless.  After watching her father’s murder, she will take up the fight against the invaders.

This film is often held up as one of the greatest animated films ever made.  I personally don’t go nearly that far (I actually have it at mid ***.5).  It has a good narrative and a great heroine but the story-telling is a bit too mundane (the concepts are amazing, held up higher by the magnificent visuals) and we are hit over the head just a bit too much by the social awareness (the film is often held up very high by environmentalists with good reason – it really makes a good plea to save the world).  To my mind, Miyazaki would have to wait until Castle in the Sky to make his first great film.  But this is a very good film, not the least of which because it really kind of establishes the Ghibli look – the vast imaginative landscapes fueled by absolutely first-rate animation.

The Source:

風の谷のナウシカ by Hayao Miyazaki  (1982)

A brilliant manga series that only began in 1982 and would actually continue all the way until 1994.  It would just be the first 16 installments (it was commissioned as a serialized story in Animage) that would constitute the film (originally Miyazaki only did the story with the express agreement that it wouldn’t be filmed) and it would eventually have 59 installments.  It brilliantly showcases both Miyazaki’s imaginative story-telling as well as his amazing illustrative abilities.

The Adaptation:

As I mentioned, the story was actually still ongoing when the film was made and the film only uses the first 16 installments.  While the bulk of the film comes straight from the original manga (indeed, you can pause moments of the film and hold the book up right next to the screen and they are identical except that the film is in color) but because the film needed an ending, the last couple of installments are changed almost entirely so that the film can have an ending.  If you go here you can find a more detailed description of the changes that were made to provide an ending for the film.

The Credits:

Written and Directed by Hayao Miyazaki.  Based on his manga series.
note:  My DVD doesn’t have translated credits, so I don’t what the actual credits say, nor would I have the ability to reproduce them here anyway.

The Shooting Party

The Film:

It’s a country house between the wars.  Oh, wait, my mistake.  It’s a country house before the first war and that’s part of the whole point.  In all of those films set between the two wars you can feel a fragile peace in the air because so many men have been lost and so many will be lost again.  But this is a different era, an era when a Central European count can be courting the daughter of a British aristocrat because war hasn’t torn them apart yet.  There will be lots of young men because their generation hasn’t yet been wiped out.  There are different classes but the tension lies not between the classes but between the generations in the same class.  And just at the edge of all of this is one man who shows another the way that the world is about to change.

There are many different men in this story but there are five key ones who allows us insights into what is going on and what is changing in the world.  The first is Sir Randolph Nettleby, the man who owns the estate where the film takes place.  Sir Randolph is played quite well by James Mason (in his last film role, and he died eight months before the film was released) as a gentleman who sees that the times are changing and that men don’t live by the same roles that he has.  He delivers a line towards the end of the film that really cuts to the heart of the matter and shows the difference between the generations.  Two competing men of the same generation are Lionel Stephens (Rupert Frazer) who is a good shooter but is distracted by his love for the married Olivia and allows himself to be drawn into a relentless competition with Lord Gilbert Hartlip.  Hartlip, played by Edward Fox, is our point man for the declining values in the younger generation, the generation that will have to learn different rules when it goes off to war.  The last two are of a different breed, with Gordon Jackson as Tom Harker, the older man who walks with a limp (was caught in a mantrap) and is known as a poacher (the illegal version of what the gentlemen can do legally) but is also the best beater around (beating the bushes to drive out the game for the men to shoot) and what happens to him provides the scene for tragedy at the end of the film although it’s up to you to decide what the tragedy is.  Also of a different breed is Cornelius Cardew, the pacifist Communist who is morally opposed to the shooting and tries to get it stopped.  He would almost seem like he stepped from a different world if not for the valuable counterpoint he provides to the main story, showing how the peasants around the estate are aligned with the master of the estate in their views on shooting and opposed to Cardew.  Cardew is played by John Gielgud in the best performance in the film which helped win him two critics awards (along with Plenty).

All of this is set against the coming war and what we get at the end might be the tragedy or it might be the way the younger generation acts or it might be the real tragedy of what happens to one of those five.  But this film, a bit slow, but thoughtful and well acted, lets us take time to think about what is happening and wonder if it really was so bad that things changed after all of this.

The Source:

The Shooting Party by Isabel Colegate (1981)

A quite good short (less than 200 pages) little novel about the changing times on a lord’s estate in the waning time before the onset of World War I.  I would say it’s well worth reading, but given all the good performances in the film it’s hard to make the recommendation to read the book when it’s so well encapsulated on film with those strong performances.

The Adaptation:

This is an extremely faithful rendition of the original novel.  So, rather than recommend the book, since the film is so faithful, I would much prefer to recommend the film instead.  It’s not a great film but it is well acted and definitely worth watching.

The Credits:

Directed by Alan Bridges.  based on the novel by Isabel Colegate.  Screenplay by Julian Bond.

Fletch

The Film:

Chevy Chase was never actually a big star in spite of what you might think.  The only film he ever made that landed in the top 10 for the year in box office gross was Spies Like Us, which had Dan Aykroyd also as a star and only ended up in 10th place.  Through the 80’s he was a medium sized star who couldn’t get along with anybody (read Live from New York) and would end up with an overly heightened idea of his popularity and importance (see Which Lie Did I Tell).  I never liked him all that much with two exceptions.  I thought he perfected his role in Caddyshack as the guy who just doesn’t care and thus can be funny and he found the perfect role for himself in Fletch by adding a slight ironic twist to the lines in the book that were somewhat humorous to begin with and became much more so when Chase uttered them.  Unfortunately, of course, he would make terrible, terrible sequels to both films and they helped sink his career.

But there is still Fletch. On one level I shouldn’t like Fletch because Fletch, as played by Chase, is obsessed with the Lakers (which leads to the great daydream: “He’s 6’5″, 6’9″ with afro” and him biting Bill Laimbeer) and I hate the Lakers.  It’s not very well directed and Chase goes through some very silly disguises and as a result some of the scenes are just painful to watch.  But it’s also quite fun in a lot of places as he tries to figure out why a man offers him money to kill him.  He investigates more fully than a lot of film reporters do and he eventually gets to the bottom of the story.

Fletch, in its best moments, is a genuinely funny film, with Chase barreling his way through with equal parts moxie and stupidity.  When he takes an obnoxious man who is rude to the wait-staff at the country club and decides to bill everything to them you smile because they quite frankly deserve it (which leads to the great line at the end “I charged the whole thing to Mr. Underhill’s American Express card. Want the number?” which lead to my RD in college having a band named The Underhills).  You don’t need to see his false teeth or him dressing in a robe and a bald wig; you just want to watch him be carefree and relaxed and figuring things out.

Fletch works, not because Chase is a great comic actor, but because, like Caddyshack, it finally finds a character in which the way Chase so lackadaisically plays works well.  It’s like Fletch is Chase and he just needed to find it out just like he was Ty Webb in Caddyshack.  It’s not a great film but it’s still funny.

The Source:

Fletch by Gregory Mcdonald (1974)

I.M. Fletcher is a reporter who has been working on a story about drugs on the beach in his town (which isn’t named) when a man offers him money to kill him.  This leads Fletch to a completely different story while also trying to finish up his drug story and all of it almost manages to get himself killed from both groups involved.  It’s a straight forward story but with some real humor (Fletcher is pretty irreverent).  It was an immediate success (winning the Edgar Allan Poe award for first novel) and spawned numerous sequels.  It’s a very quick read, mostly dialogue heavy with Fletch recapping everything he’s learned a couple of different times.

The Adaptation:

The main plot comes from the book but the film combines the drug story with the Stanwyk story while in the book those were separate things and though the chief of police (of some town but clearly not L.A. like in the film) does kill Stanywk, it’s because the chief’s trying to kill Fletch (and thinks he has) rather than because Stanwyk has betrayed him.  A lot of the basic plot elements are there but a lot of dialogue and specifics are changed (parents are from Pennsylvania, Alan isn’t a bigamist though he is trying to escape with Sally Ann, he has a kid from both women).

The Credits:

directed by michael ritchie.  based on the novel by gregory mcdonald.  screenplay by andrew bergman.

The Falcon and the Snowman

The Film:

If I were to tell you this is a film about two spies, you would not be expecting what you would end up seeing.  Or maybe I could tell you it’s about two lost souls who are looking for different things, who work together because of a childhood friendship and both end up down a very bad path.  Or maybe the best description these days would be to compare one of them to Edward Snowden, both in his ideals and in the very wrong choices he would make (I’m referring to Snowden’s decision of where to go) and to say that the other is just a drug dealer and abuser at the end of his rope who is looking for the next chance to score and doesn’t realize how very wrong this will go.

In the early 80’s, two of the most talented actors around were Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn.  Hutton had already won an Oscar and in the film Taps, he was the lead young soldier in a film that had both Penn and Tom Cruise in support while Penn was still years away from getting his true recognition as an actor although he also had not yet acquired his reputation as a complete dick.  They are both well suited for their roles.  Hutton plays Christopher Boyce, a smart young man who is a bit lost and ends up working for a CIA fronted company through his father’s intervention (he’s a former FBI man) and, while exposed to classified information, discovers some disturbing things that our government has been doing (this is the 70’s) and decides he has to do something about it.  He ends up confiding in Andrew Daulton Lee, who had been an altar boy with Boyce growing up and has gone on to a rather lucrative career as a drug dealer and who Boyce feels could help him make the connections to getting this disturbing information out to others.  The choice they make is to go to the Soviets.

Boyce and Lee don’t really think this through and as a result, end up manipulated by the Soviets, backed up against a wall and when Lee is accused of a murder of a policeman in Mexico City (where they have been meeting the Soviets) and is tortured, he spills everything and the young men end up exposed and facing the ruin of their lives.  Yet, John Schlesinger, an often under-appreciated director, finds a way to tell this story with fascinating detail and some very fine acting and helps us find the measure of these two men.  It’s not a great film (though if you want a different opinion that does classify it as a great film, read Roger Ebert’s review here) but it is a strong and fascinating one that shows us the measure of one conscience paired with a man who just wants to find the next score.

The Source:

The Falcon and the Snowman: A True Story of Friendship and Espionage by Robert Lindsey (1979)

This is an interesting book about two young men who end up ruining their lives over very different reasons.  The story is mentioned above (while I will mention below the fidelity to real events), about how Boyce ended up handing over classified CIA secrets to the Soviets because he found himself in a crisis of conscience over the actions of his own country and used his drug dealing childhood friend to help him accomplish that.  Lindsey managed to get both men and their families involved with writing the book so he is able to paint a complete picture of their young lives and how they got to the point that they did as well as the actions they took and their consequences.  Since the book is fairly true to life, if you don’t want to spend the time reading the book, you’ll get a pretty good idea of what happened just from watching the film.  If you are more interested in this, Boyce himself would later write a book about it though I haven’t read it.

The Adaptation:

The film stays fairly true to the story.  It does cut most of the first part of the book that details the background of both young men and how they ended up where they were.  The film gives some of that (namely to make you realize why Boyce is called Falcon – because of his love of the birds and training them) but mostly sticks to the events after Boyce starts working for the company that gives him access to the data.  After that, the film does a fairly good job of sticking to the facts while pairing down some of the secondary characters and the family members to focus on the two young men.

The Credits:

Directed by John Schlesinger.  Based on the book by Robert Lindsey.  Screenplay by Steven Zaillian.

Un dimanche à la campagne

The Film:

Monsier Ladmiral is in the twilight of his life.  He’s a painter, though he’s not sure he’s gone the right way about that.  He’s a father but his son only feels his father’s disappointment and his daughter is almost like a force of nature, so he does not feel like a success there either.  He has reached the stage where he wonders what he will be leaving behind.  Will it be children?  Will it be art?

The art is an interesting bit because this film, in some ways, is reminiscent of Renoir’s films, the way that characters will slowly unfold before us (the story itself is rather pastoral as the father and his servant have the company of his son and his family on a Sunday, as they do every Sunday, but which is disrupted by the arrival of the daughter and just in the title I was reminded of Renoir’s Picnic in the Grass) but that really isn’t encumbered by a story (there really isn’t much of one).  Yet, it is Renoir’s father that really hangs over this film, in the art and the style (and even in the poster).

I don’t really know how to write a review of a film in which nothing much really happens, yet is well written with characters who really come to life.  It is a film that you don’t so much watch as just sink into and allow yourself to experience the characters and the visuals for some 90 minutes and emerge on the other side feeling pleased without necessarily knowing how to say why.

The Source:

Monsieur Ladmiral va bientôt mourir by Pierre Bost (1945)

As far as I can tell, this novel has never been translated into English.  It literally translates into “Mr. Ladmiral is going to die”, so I can understand why they were would change that for the film (especially since he doesn’t and I don’t think the title necessarily means that he did in the book either).

The Adaptation:

Without being able to read the original, of course, I can’t comment on the adaptation.  I also didn’t find anything online that commented on the adaptation.

The Credits:

produit et réalisé par Bertrand Tavernier.  écrit par Colo Tavernier, Bertrand Tavernier.  d’après a Mr Ladmiral va bientôt mourir de Pierre Bost, éditions Gallimard.

Consensus Winner

Out of Africa

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film because it won Best Picture in 1985 over four significantly better films.  The reactions to my review ranged from those who said that I just didn’t get the beauty of the film to those that thought I actually let off the film too light.  It’s got great cinematography, great music and really strong performances from Meryl Streep (redundant) and Klaus Marie Brandeur (that should have won the Oscar) but Robert Redford (who had teamed with director Sydney Pollack several times before) just doesn’t work as the love interest and the film’s writing falls flat.  The weakest Best Picture winner of the decade and the win for Adapted Screenplay was even worse.

The Source:

Out of Africa by Isak Dineson (1937)

This is actually quite a beautiful book, a well-written memoir of Karen Blixen’s time in Africa running a plantation.  She has a magnificent grasp of language in her descriptions of what she saw: “The sky was rarely more than pale blue or violet, with a profusion of mighty, weightless, ever-changing clouds towering up and sailing on it, but it has a blue vigour in it, and at a short distance it painted the ranges of hills and the woods a fresh deep blue.”  It does have a colonial mindset but Blixen was far more open-minded about such things than the vast majority of Europeans of her time.  If personally would recommend the book over the film.

Silence Will Speak: A study of the life of Denys Finch Hatton and his relationship with Karen Blixen by Errol Trzebinski (1977)

This is a fairly uninteresting book that looks at Finch Hatton’s life.  It does deal some with his relationship with Blixen but is focused much more on his life and really isn’t all that good or interesting.  The very fact that the screenwriters would go to this book showed that they wanted too hard to push the romance theme in the film.

Isak Dineson: The Life of a Storyteller by Judith Thurman (1982)

This is a decent biography of Karen Blixen although Blixen’s own writings are far more interesting.  I find it hard to ever bother with a book that’s a biography of someone who had already written their own memoirs.  Don’t invite the comparison.

The Adaptation:

Out of Africa doesn’t really provide the basis for the film so much as the title. There is some description of her time with Denys Finch Hatton and it does mention his death (though it is not told to her by her husband nor does she read “To an Athlete Dying Young”, a poem that really doesn’t belong in a description of Finch Hatton and irritates both my mother and I in the film because we care so much about the poem) but very little of what we read in the book is actually on-screen.

Silence Will Speak can’t have been very helpful; it doesn’t really have all that much information that you couldn’t have just gotten from Out of Africa or from the Thurman book.

The Thurman book does provide much more into their romantic entanglement but it still doesn’t give much to the film in way of story and certainly nothing in the way of dialogue.

What’s really clear is that Luedtke really did have to come up with a narrative and dialogue to further the story along and that the sources really only provided blueprints from which he created his screenplay.

The Credits:

Produced and Directed by Sydney Pollack.  Based upon the following: “Out of Africa” and other writings by Isak Dinesen, “Isak Dinesen: The Life of a Story Teller” by Judith Thurman, “Silence will Speak” by Errol Trzebinski.  Screenplay by Kurt Luedtke.

Consensus Nominee

The Trip to Bountiful

The Film:

I can’t decide if this is the type of movie guaranteed to stir up my ire or if I’m overreacting and not allowing for the notion that the film isn’t trying to make me feel a specific way about the lead character but is rather giving a more full-bodied representation of all the characters and that none of them come off very well.

Mrs. Watts lives in Houston with her son and her daughter-in-law.  None of them are particularly happy about the situation.  Mrs. Watts dreams of taking off to go visit the little town of Bountiful where she grew up and where her father’s house still stands.  Her daughter-in-law wants better things in life and doesn’t want to have to worry that her elderly, forgetful mother-in-law will try to sneak off and ruin her afternoons.  Stuck in between them is poor Ludie, who loves his mother but knows her desire is just a fool’s errand and loves his wife but wishes she would make life a bit easier.  All he really wants is some warm milk and a small raise.

None of them are easy to live with, with Ludie the easiest but stuck in the middle of two women who don’t really want to give in to the other and neither of whom is particularly kind about it.  He just wants some quiet in his life, but he’s unwilling to indulge this desire of his mother’s (which could put to bed this notion of her return to her hometown) or to stand up to his wife’s badgering.

The actions of the plot are set in motion when Mrs. Watts does manage to run away and take a bus towards her little town (no bus actually runs to it because it’s essentially a ghost town now, with the last resident having died just the day before).

The role seems guaranteed to win a sympathy (or career) Oscar which is exactly what it did for Geraldine Page and it’s hard to get too upset about it because it’s not like there was a performance that she won over that really strongly deserved the Oscar and of the other four nominees, three already had Oscars and the last would win an Oscar five years later.  But the film just feels too folksy and the characters seem too aggravating.  It’s decently made and Page is good (though not good enough to even make the Nighthawk nominees, let alone to win), but mostly I feel for poor Ludie, standing there in the yard of his grandfather’s house trying to make enough peace so that he doesn’t have to keep resorting to those glasses of warm milk.

The Source:

The Trip to Bountiful: A Play in Three Acts by Horton Foote (1953)

I honestly thought this was a fairly recent play that had done well on Broadway (my brain thinks of it as being similar to Driving Miss Daisy) but this was actually one of Foote’s earlier works, originally written as a teleplay for Lilian Gish in 1953 (and then transferred to Broadway).  It’s a solid enough play with a good solid role for an older actress to sink into but it still presents me with the same problem with all the characters (I do like poor Thelma, the woman whose husband is off in the military who meets Mrs. Watts in the bus station and it was nice that the insanely sensual Rebecca de Mornay got to play at least one more normal acting role on film), that they are all just too aggravating and if they would just give a little, we wouldn’t have a problem to begin with.

The Adaptation:

Foote keeps closely to his original play.  Almost every scene is straight from the play and while it’s directed well enough that it doesn’t quite feel like a filmed play, it definitely keeps to the original lines and structure quite closely with almost nothing added.

The Credits;

Directed by Peter Masterson.  Screenplay by Horton Foote.  Based on his play “The Trip to Bountiful”.

WGA Nominee

Agnes of God

The Film:

Some films that deal with faith, it is brought up that as someone who has no religious faith, I can’t really understand the film or appreciate the film.  Of course, if you have to have religious faith, then the film didn’t do its job properly.  I don’t think it matters what your faith is when it comes to Agnes of God because they simply didn’t make a very good film.  They did get two fairly solid performances in the film though unfortunately they are from Anne Bancroft and Meg Tilly and since Jane Fonda is clearly the lead in the film and the Oscar nomination is the only reason I don’t lump Bancroft into supporting like Tilly where she belongs, it doesn’t do that much for the film.

Agnes is a nun who has just given birth.  And probably murdered the child.  There seems to be some confusion on that front but as things go through the film it becomes clear what happened on that front while the film tries to make it as unclear as possible how she could have gotten that way in the first place.  The film is about a psychiatrist with no faith who is forced to deal with a convent headed by a stern Mother Superior (Bancroft) who wonders if some sort of miracle has happened.  Or at least things out of the purview of the current judicial system.  So it sort of becomes what it felt to me when I read the play – a pale imitation of Equus with a gender reversal but without any sort of depth to it or understanding of what really brought the patient and even the doctor to this point.

This film is never really quite certain what it wants to be.  It seems to be about religion but then it keeps backing away and providing secular answers to what seem to be spiritual questions.  It seems to be about psychiatry but then it keeps wanting to dive into spiritual issues.  It wants to be about justice but does that ever really get addressed?  In the end, we get a drab film with two decent performances that didn’t actually deserve their Oscar nominations.

The Source:

Agnes of God by John Pielmeier (1982)

This is a play about a young nun with no real experience in the world who somehow has been pregnant and had a child and even (probably) killed it.  She must deal with a psychiatrist who must, herself, deal with the stern Mother Superior of the convent.  It is a three woman play with some good weighty roles for females but not a whole lot of depth to it.  In many ways, it feels like a warmed over gender reversed version of Equus.

The Adaptation:

Pielmeier, given the freedom to write the script, really decided to open things up.  He doesn’t just leave the office but massively expands the characters.  It seems to me a key thing in the original play is that the only roles are for females while a number of roles are added that are male, including Fonda’s bosses and various church dignitaries.  It seems odd to take an all-female play and add in male authority figures.  The ending of the original play is also much more vague while in the film, it’s clear we have some measure of a “happy” ending, at least for Agnes herself.

The Credits:

Directed by Norman Jewison.  Screenplay by John Pielmeier.  Based upon the Stage Play by John Pielmeier.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

  • Late Chrysanthemums –  The 1954 Japanese film finally received a U.S. release in 1985.  Directed by Mikio Naruse, based on the short stories of Fumiko Hayashi.  Low ***.5.
  • Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters –  High *** but very well-written and with one of the best scores of Philip Glass’ career and a strong performance from Ken Ogata as one of Japan’s greatest writers in the 20th Century.  Mishima’s Temple of the Golden Pavilion is mentioned here with its film review (Conflagration).  This film also makes use of that book as well as segments from his other works while also telling his story (in black-and-white).

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Colonel Redl –  Low ***.5 Drama from Hungarian director István Szabó whose writing isn’t its strength (the sets, cinematography and lead performance from Klaus Maria Brandaeur are).  Loosely based on the John Osborne play A Patriot for Me.
  • The Company of Wolves –  A rare 75 film from me (the highest of *** which means it doesn’t make my Best Picture list).  One of Neil Jordan’s earliest films, based on a story by Angela Carter (who co-wrote the script with Jordan).
  • To Live and Die in L.A. –  William Friedkin mostly returns to his early form with this taught thriller based on a novel by a former secret service agent.
  • A Chorus Line –  A solid Musical but the lack of songs that interest me keep it from reaching higher.
  • Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird –  Perhaps the only way to make a real Sesame Street film, to have Big Bird taken from the street and the search to get him back.  A good film but it lacks the real adult appeal of the best Muppet films.  We’re into mid *** now.
  • The Wild Duck –  An Australian film starring Jeremy Irons and Liv Ullmann that’s an adaptation of one of Ibsen’s plays.  The play would be filmed again in 2015 (and again in Australia).
  • The Black Cauldron –  It’s fairly good (but without memorable music) but this is the film that almost killed Disney’s animation studio as it made back less than half its cost.  I ranked it at #37 of the studio’s first 50.
  • The Home and the World –  Satyajit Ray adapts a novel from India’s most well-known poet (Tagore).
  • Murphy’s Romance –  Nice Romantic Comedy that managed to score James Garner his only Oscar nomination.  Based on a short story by Max Schott.
  • Young Sherlock Holmes –  It uses Conan Doyle’s characters though it completely contradicts what is written in the actual stories.  Moreover, in spite of good effects, it’s brought down by subpar acting from all of the leads.
  • Oedipus Rex –  Pasolini’s 1967 version of the classical tragedy finally gets a U.S. release a decade after its director was murdered.
  • Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure –  I never liked Pee Wee Herman as a character so I had zero interest in the film when it was first released and only went back and saw it long after because I was a big fan of Tim Burton and wanted to see what he brought to it.  His offbeat direction makes Herman’s schtick tolerable but just barely.
  • Fool for Love –  Robert Altman directs a film version of Sam Shepard’s play with Shepard writing the script and starring.
  • Asterix vs Caesar –  The first Asterix film in almost a decade combines parts of the fourth and tenth books in the series.
  • When the Raven Flies –  The Icelandic submission for Best Foreign Film from 1984 is basically a remake of Yojimbo.
  • MacArthur’s Children –  The Japanese submission from 1984 is adapted from a novel by Yü Aku.  As you could guess from the title it looks at the effects of post-war occupation by Americans in Japan.
  • Memoirs of Prison –  The third submission in a row from 1984, this one is from Brazil and it’s based on the autobiographical novel by Graciliano Ramos about his imprisonment during the 40’s.
  • Les Plouffe –  Well this is still an Oscar submission but this Canadian Drama was actually submitted back in 1981.
  • Wuthering Heights –  Apparently no one ever gets tired of adapting Bronte’s brilliant novel.  This version is from French director Jacques Rivette.  We’re down to low ***.
  • Henry IV –  If you think this is about Hal and Falstaff you’re in for a shock.  This is an Italian film and it’s an adaptation of the Pirandello play about a man who thinks he’s the Holy Roman Emperor.
  • The Holy Innocents –  Spanish film based on the novel by Miguel Delibes.
  • 1918 –  Horton Foote adapts (though doesn’t direct) his own play about the final year of World War I and what was going on in America.
  • So Long, Stooge –  And we’re back to the Oscar submissions from 1984 with this Drama from France based on the novel by Alain Page.
  • Smooth Talk –  A big hit at the 1st Indie Spirit Awards, with 5 nominations.  It’s based on Joyce Carol Oates’ fantastic short story “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”
  • Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome –  Max is back and this time he’s fighting Tina Turner.  If you’re like me, most of what you remember is from Turner’s video for “We Don’t Need Another Hero”.
  • Vision Quest –  The hell with Turner, Madonna’s got a video for this one and her song (“Crazy for You”) is one of the greatest slow dance songs (and legitimate romantic songs) ever recorded.  Plus the soundtrack gave us a great Journey song as well (“Only the Young“).  But every time I watch those videos I have to remind myself that this is the same actress from Last Seduction because Linda Fiorentino seems a different person between those two films.  It’s based on a novel by Terry Davis but the soundtrack is better than the film.
  • Nothing Left to Do But Cry –  My brain wants to hate this because it’s got Roberto Benigni but he co-directs, stars and writes with Massimo Troisi and that helps keep some of Benigni’s worst excesses in check.  Based on a novel by Giuseppe Bertolucci, Bernardo’s little brother.
  • Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins –  Now we hit **.5.  It’s a bad sign to give your film a title that shows it’s designed to be a series when you don’t know if it will be a big enough hit to merit that (it wasn’t).  Mediocre Action film based on a pulp series called The Destroyer, it was designed to be a blue-collar American James Bond series, even using a Bond director (Guy Hamilton) and screenwriter but in a year with a terrible Bond outing this film made less than a third than that one did even if this was the better film.
  • Barry MacKenzie Holds His Own –  Two years after he earned an Oscar nomination for Tender Mercies, Bruce Beresford’s second film, a sequel to his first film, finally hit the U.S. shores.  It’s got Dame Edna, which should say enough.
  • Runaway Train –  Listed as adapted by oscars.org because it’s based on a unproduced screenplay by Akira Kurosawa.  The Globes were fans (Best Picture nom, Best Actor win) but I was not impressed.
  • Here Come the Littles –  Animated film with five different countries involved, based on the book series (and television series).  Distributed by Atlantic Releasing which kind of made a living during the mid to late 80’s with mediocre animated films, often from pre-existing properties.
  • Eleni –  A mediocre (mid **.5) Mystery from former Oscar nominee Peter Yates starring John Malkovich based on the memoir by Nicholas Gage.  I couldn’t find it when I did my Oscar Director project but I found it recently for this post online with Greek subtitles (which is actually relevant given the story – a journalist living in America returns to Greece to solve the mystery of his mother’s death).
  • That Was Then… This is Now –  Based on the sequel to The Outsiders but the only person back from Coppola’s film version is Emilio Estevez (who wrote the film).
  • The Quiet Earth –  A New Zealand post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi film based on the novel by Craig Harrison.
  • Return to Oz –  This sequel to The Wizard of Oz is based on the second and third books in the series.  Fairuza Balk gives her all but the film just doesn’t support her, either with a sense of magic and wonder or with light-heartedness (with no songs, it is a much darker vision).
  • Stephen King’s Cat Eye –  There are three parts to the film and the first two (“Quitters Inc.”, “The Ledge”) are two of the more interesting stories in Night Shift, King’s first collection of short stories.  But the film doesn’t work that well (as is often the case with anthology films).
  • Compromising Positions –  Like Eleni, directed by a former Oscar nominee (in this case Frank Perry) and a film I couldn’t get back in 2012 for that project but I found it online.  An uneven film that Susan Isaacs adapted from her own novel with a mixture of suspense and comedy that doesn’t quite work.
  • Enormous Changes at the Last Minute –  Since this was originally made for television, is directed by three directors that I don’t really know, based on an author I don’t know (Grace Paley), I really don’t know why I’ve seen this but I have.
  • The Jewel of the Nile –  Don’t try to repeat a good thing.  Or if you do, try to get the original director back.  This sequel to Romancing the Stone is directed by Lewis Teague instead of Robert Zemeckis and it’s not very good.  This one also had a hit song (“When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going”) but like the film, the song isn’t that good and what’s worse, it embarrassingly uses the film’s stars as back-up singers in the video.
  • The Aviator –  Nothing to do with Howard Hughes but instead a film with Christopher Reeve about a pilot who crashes in the wilderness with Rosanna Arquette.  Based on a novel by Ernest K. Gann who wrote other books about aviation that were also made into films (The High and the Mighty, Fate is the Hunter).
  • Dead End –  Now we’re down to low **.5.  An Iranian film from 1977 finally getting a U.S. release (which is especially odd when you consider U.S.-Iran relations in 1977 and 1985).  Neither Wikipedia nor the IMDb list it as adapted but the old oscars.org (which is also what put it in this year) did, though I don’t know why.
  • Joshua Then and Now –  Canadian adaptation of the novel by Mordecai Richler which is basically a warmed over retread of his own The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz.
  • Ordeal by Innocence –  An Agatha Christie adaptation that’s not an all-star gala but also isn’t all that good so maybe an all-star gala is the way to go.
  • Godzilla 1985 –  Because they didn’t learn the first time, once again American producers re-edit a Godzilla film (The Return of Godzilla, listed in 1984) and stick Raymond Burr in it, making this a direct sequel to the original film.
  • Insignificance –  When I went to London in 1996 I saw a brilliant play called Hysteria about a meeting between Freud and Dali (in spite of massively reducing my Drama collection over the years, I still have that play).  The person I was rooming with mentioned an earlier play by the same playwright (Terry Johnson) about Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, Joseph McCarthy and Joe DiMaggio all meeting in a hotel room (though it doesn’t use their names) which I read and admired.  This film version, which I wouldn’t see until something like 20 years later just doesn’t capture the feeling of the play as it read on the page.
  • A View to a Kill –  Talk about videos.  As I said in my full review, I didn’t remember anything about it that wasn’t in the Duran Duran video.  That is for the best, of course, since the video is much better than the film itself.  It uses part of the title of an actual Bond story (“From a View to a Kill”) but nothing else other than the established characters from previous films.  By the way, we’re at ** now.
  • The Bride –  Hey, I know, let’s remake Bride of Frankenstein without having remade Frankenstein.  And let’s put Sting in the starring role as the scientist.  And not let him provide any music for it.  What could possibly go wrong?
  • Brewster’s Millions –  Or, even worse, let’s remake a film that’s already been made six times but this time with Richard Pryor.  It was originally a novel by George Barr McCutcheon and I don’t know why it got made so often because none of the versions are all that good.
  • The Secret of the Sword –  Also known as He-Man and She-Ra: The Secret of the Sword.  Released in May by (no points for guessing) Atlantic Releasing, it was the bridge between the two shows – being released in theaters just as He-Man and the Masters of the Universe ended its original run and before the fall debut of She-Ra: Princess of Power.  I didn’t see it until I started covering all animated films a few years ago because I was just slightly too old to be interested in Masters of the Universe (and all my money at the time when the original figures were released in 1982 went, in order, to: Star Wars figures, baseball cards, comic books).  Not good but over 40 points higher than the live-action film that we’ll get to in a couple of years.
  • The Doctor and the Devils –  Even though none of them are actually very good, it seems like every generation gives us a Burke and Hare film.  This one (directed by longtime Hammer stalwart Freddie Francis) is adapted from an original screenplay by Dylan Thomas (you read that right) and has a good cast (Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea as Burke and Hare, or their stand-ins because it doesn’t use their names and Timothy Dalton as the doctor).
  • The Coca-Cola Kid –  An Australian film based on several stories by Frank Moorhouse (who also wrote the script) has a lively, sexy performance from a young Greta Scacchi but a dead one from Eric Roberts that keeps this Comedy from being very good.
  • Fandango –  Kevin Reynolds pulls a George Lucas and remake his student film as a feature film (thus making it adapted).  More importantly, it introduces him to star Kevin Costner (Costner’s first starring role) with Reynolds helping Costner with Dances with Wolves and then Costner starring in Robin Hood, Waterworld and Hatfields & McCoys.
  • National Lampoon’s European Vacation –  The Vacation franchise as a whole really isn’t all that good and this might be the worst of them.
  • Rocky IV –  Speaking of dead franchises.  Yet another film from this year that’s better seen by watching the video for the hit song (“Burning Heart”).  The song is not as good as “Eye of the Tiger” was but the movie’s not as good as the third one so it’s appropriate.  We’re into mid ** now.
  • King David –  A current Bruce Beresford film but it’s not good.  Based, ostensibly on The Bible, this is the story of David (as if you couldn’t tell from the title) starring Richard Gere.
  • Stick –  Burt Reynolds adapts an Elmore Leonard novel, starring and directing.  A decade later, John Travolta will learn the lesson of this and stick to the original much more closely.
  • Perfect –  Speaking of Travolta, he stars in this adaptation of a bunch of Rolling Stone articles on singles picking up each other in health clubs (the poster even uses the Rolling Stone font).  Jamie Lee Curtis has a great body but good lord is it painful to look at it in those horrible leotards.
  • Re-Animator –  A loose (and not very good – we’re down to low **) adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s classic story.
  • Maxie –  Oh, this one is painful with Glenn Close as a woman possessed by a ghost.  Close was Globe nominated (which the film’s Wikipedia page oddly doesn’t mention, focusing instead on its Saturn Award nominations) but she’s not good and the film is terrible.  Based on a novel by Jack Finney (Invasion of the Body Snatchers).
  • The Care Bears Movie –  Amazingly not distributed by Atlantic, this animated film has no value for adults, based on a toy line that was based on greeting cards.  It is, technically, I suppose, adapted because there were two television specials first.
  • Year of the Dragon –  Rushed into production, this adaptation of Robert Daley’s novel was directed by Michael Cimino but co-written by Cimino and Oliver Stone (Stone was offered less money but with the promise that producer Dino De Laurentiis would fund Stone’s screenplay for Platoon which Dino reneged on) is just crap.  Cimino’s first film after he helped destroy United Artists with Heaven’s Gate.  Nominated for five Razzies.
  • Enemy Mine –  Speaking of directors who suddenly decide to suck, here’s Wolfgang Petersen.  From here on out, Petersen will make only one really good film (In the Line of Fire) with most of his work being crap.  Based on the novella by Barry B. Longyear.  We’re into *.5 films now.
  • Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment –  Well, at least the plethora of sequels in this franchise will provide something different among the plethora of crappy Horror sequels at the bottom of these lists.  This is mid *.5 and the franchise only goes down from here.
  • Rambo: First Blood Part II –  This crappy mindless sequel to a good film is not only the worst film nominated at the Oscars this year, it’s the worst since 1981.  Nominated for Sound Effects Editing, it’s the worst nominated film in this category to date (and will be until 1996).
  • King Solomon’s Mines –  We’ve hit * with this remake of a Best Picture nominee (the worst ever remake of a nominee? – quite possibly but I’m not going through all 500+ nominees to figure it out).  What’s worse, it’s directed by a former Oscar nominated director (J. Lee Thompson) though this film is better than the shitty collaborations with Charles Bronson he’s about to start at this time.  The 1950 film had a beautiful Deborah Kerr forgetting how to act.  This one has a much less beautiful Sharon Stone showing she hadn’t yet learned how to act.
  • Silver Bullet –  With Corey Haim and Gary Busey was there a chance this would be a good Stephen King film?  Based on his Cycle of the Werewolf.
  • Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer –  The television show becomes a really bad film.
  • The Warrior and the Sorceress –  Another Yojimbo remake, but this one is a Fantasy film with a hard R rating.  Like most bad films, listed on Wikipedia as “considered by some to be a cult classic.”
  • Red Sonja –  Another terrible Fantasy film.  Just go back and read Howard’s original stories and ignore this terrible attempt to make a feature film of them (although it only uses the characters, not any actual Howard story).  Or go read the Marvel Comics that she is in, most notably this awesome team-up with Spider-Man.
  • Lifeforce –  Terrible (.5 star) films like this are what make me believe the rumors that most of the directing on Poltergeist really was by Spielberg rather than Tobe Hooper.  Awful Sci-Fi Horror film based on the novel The Space Vampires.
  • Friday the 13th: A New Beginning –  Because they couldn’t keep a shitty franchise down, here it comes back.
  • Death Wish 3 –  More mindless vigilantism.
  • Porky’s Revenge! –  Series creator Bob Clark was gone so instead we just get mindlessness without reason.  If you want T & A, you’re better off with a porn film with a plot.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • none

Notes

I don’t consider Clue as adapted (and neither did oscars.org) because it was based on a game and not any actual characters.  Day of the Dead is not included as it doesn’t carry any characters forward from the previous Romero films.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1986

$
0
0

“George had turned at the sound of her arrival. For a moment he contemplated her, as one who had fallen out of heaven. He saw radiant joy in her face, he saw the flowers beat against her dress in blue waves. The bushes above them closed. He stepped quickly forward and kissed her.” (p 66)

My Top 10

  1. A Room with a View
  2. Stand by Me
  3. The Color of Money
  4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
  5. Little Shop of Horrors
  6. Children of a Lesser God
  7. Manhunter
  8. Crimes of the Heart
  9. Aliens
  10. The Name of the Rose

note:  A big drop after the first two – this year is much stronger in Original (Hannah and Her Sisters, My Beautiful Laundrette, Mona Lisa, Platoon, Blue Velvet) than Adapted.

Consensus Nominees:

  1. A Room with a View  (200 pts)
  2. Children of a Lesser God  (120 pts)
  3. Stand by Me  (80 pts)
  4. The Color of Money  (40 pts)
  5. Crimes of the Heart  (40 pts)
  6. Down and Out in Beverly Hills  (40 pts)
  7. Little Shop of Horrors  (40 pts)

note:  The points are so low because of the Globes – see below.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • A Room with a View
  • Children of a Lesser God
  • The Color of Money
  • Crimes of the Heart
  • Stand by Me

WGA:

  • A Room with a View
  • Children of a Lesser God
  • Down and Out in Beverly Hills
  • Little Shop of Horrors
  • Stand by Me

Golden Globe:

  • none

Nominees that are Original:  The Mission, Blue Velvet, Hannah and Her Sisters, Mona Lisa, Platoon
note:  For the first time in the history of the category, none of the Globe nominees are Adapted.  And yes, you read that winner correctly.

BAFTA:

  • A Room with a View
  • Children of a Lesser God

note:  The other three nominees (Out of Africa, The Color Purple, Ran) were all from 1985.

My Top 10


A Room with a View

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film once as a Best Picture nominee for 1986.  It’s really too bad that it had to come out in 1986 where it would end in third place at the Nighthawks behind Hannah and Her Sisters and Platoon.  At least the top two films were both Original and this wins Best Adapted Screenplay with ease at the Nighthawks (and probably did at the Oscars as well).  A lush, beautiful film with magnificent dialogue that is one of the all-time great novel to film adaptations.

One interesting thing is that I often can’t decide which is the better Merchant-Ivory film, Howards End or The Remains of the Day.  Yet, even though I clearly rate Howards End as a better novel than Room (see below), I absolutely think that this film is better than either of the two later films.  Which I suppose just says something about a film in relation to its source material.

The Source:

A Room with a View by E. M. Forster  (1908)

I wondered this time, reading it again, if I under-rated this novel back when I did my Top 100 list and that perhaps it should have made the list.  Granted, it didn’t miss by much and I did include it in my Top 200.  Just look at a paragraph like the one that opens Chapter Two: “It was pleasant to wake up in Florence, to open the eyes upon a bright bare room, with a floor of red tiles which look clean though they are not; with a painted ceiling whereon pink griffins and blue amorini sport in a forest of yellow violins and bassoons.  It was pleasant, too, to fling wide the windows, pinching the fingers in unfamiliar fastenings, to lean out into sunshine with beautiful hills and trees and marble churches opposite, and close below, the Arno, gurgling against the embankment of the road.”

This is a beautiful novel, on which brings to life not only Florence and its countryside but a lazy English manor where the entitled play their tennis and seem oblivious to the rest of the world.  Only Forster’s writing could make me love these people.

I must mention, as I did in my original review, one of my favorite sentences in any novel, which appears on page 115: “Lucy – to descend from bright heaven to earth, whereon there are shadows because there are hills – Lucy was at first plunged into despair, but settled after a little thought that it did not matter in the very least.”

Forster was one of the very best of British writers and it is to literature’s great loss that he only published a handful of novels.  If you have not read them, then you need to do so.

The Adaptation:

There is definitely one moment that is changed in the book.  In the film, when Charlotte arrives to visit the Honeychurches, she discovers the Emersons are living nearby because George Emerson is at the station when she gets off while in the book, she already knows that because of a visit from the novelist, Miss Lavish.  Other than that, almost everything in the film comes straight from the novel.

The Credits:

Directed by James Ivory.  Screenplay: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala.  Based on the novel by E.M. Forster.
note:  Only the Forster credit is in the opening credits.

Stand by Me

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the five best from 1986.  There have been a lot of nostalgia films over the years and what they do with it, looking back at their childhood, including an era soundtrack, can vary greatly.  This is one of the best of them and it has one of the best soundtracks as well.  I think it is probably one of the films that most defines people my age, specifically because it is about boys who are 12 and it was released the summer before I turned 12.

The Source:

The Body by Stephen King  (1982)

What is on the cover of your copy of Different Seasons, and most of the people I have known over the years have had a copy, says something about when you bought it.  My copy, for instance, is old and beat up and has been read numerous times and has four boys highlighted against water and hills because I bought it when Stand By Me was still the big film.  But over the years, of course, it would get Shawshank and Apt Pupil covers as well.  On LibraryThing, it ranks at #33 among King works for how many users have it which stuns me because it’s far and away the King book that is owned by the most people I have known.  All three of them are first-rate novellas that really grip you and pull you in (the fourth story, the one that everybody always gives up reading, has never been filmed).  In fact, I would say that The Body is actually the weakest of the three novellas.  Shawshank has such a great character in Andy Dufresne and the hope of release while Apt Pupil has such an overpowering stench of evil and the dichotomy between the two main characters while The Body is primarily a looking back at childhood with the caveat that there is a dead body involved.

But The Body was an important book in my development as a writer.  It was, I’m fairly certain, the first book I ever read that had fiction within the fiction.  In that sense, it provided me with the notion that you could write something else, written by the narrator and you could even provide fictional details over when and where it was published, something you might have noticed I do in my actual fiction.

The Adaptation:

Almost everything we see in the film was on the page but there are a lot of subtle little changes.  The setting, of course, might be the most famous change, as the film is moved from Maine to Oregon, though keeping the fictional name of Castle Rock (the year is also pushed back from 1960 to 1959, which is strange when you think about since it’s named after a song that wasn’t even recorded until October of 1960).  There are a lot of other changes as well.  The first line is actually the first line of the second paragraph.  The famous last line of the film (printed on the screen) is only the last line of a middle chapter, not the story itself.  The lines in the film are actually better than the lines in the original novella.  The details of the kids’ fates are also different, with the deaths of all of them being described.  And the impetus for the film is the death of Chris while in the book, Gordie hasn’t seen Chris in over ten years because he’s been dead for over ten years.  Several other scenes also differ, like Chris having the gun in the climax, not Gordie or the argument Gordie has with the owner of the general store in the book (wisely left out of the film as that would have been an awkward scene) and the relationship between Gordie and his brother is closer in the film (and it leaves out how much older his parents are).  You read the book and you can hear so many of the lines and it feels like it’s an amazingly faithful rendition but then you’re surprised when you find so many little moments that differ.

One of the most famous scenes in the film also isn’t in the original – namely, the game of mailbox baseball, a scene which I discussed in my review of the film.  In fact, all of the scenes with the older teens were created by the filmmakers and provide a nice counterpoint to the boys’ actions while, reading the story, you don’t find out until quite late that those teens are on their way to the body as well.

All in all, the film is a fantastic example of fidelity to the spirit of the book, no matter how many small details are changed.  It remains one of the best adaptations of a Stephen King work ever filmed.

The Credits:

Directed by Rob Reiner.  Screenplay by Raynold Gideon & Bruce A. Evans.  Based upon the novella “The Body” by Stephen King.
note:  There are no opening credits except the title.

The Color of Money

The Film:

It’s somehow appropriate and yet completely wrong that Paul Newman would finally win his Oscar for The Color of Money.  In a career filled with magnificent performances (he was nominated for nine Oscars and he absolutely deserved those nominations), it’s probable that the best of them was when he played Fast Eddie Felsen the first time, in The Hustler.  But he ran up against the juggernaut performance of Maximilian Schell in Judgment at Nuremberg (and for a long time I had Schell winning as well – it’s tough to pick between the two performances) and he would have to wait and wait and wait – in 1963 and 1982 he gave the best nominated performances but he was up against history and a juggernaut Best Picture winner.  And so, Bob Hoskins’ once in a lifetime performance in Mona Lisa would have to settle for easily winning the Consensus and most of the awards and Newman would finally win his Oscar, the Academy probably figuring that at age 61 they wouldn’t have any more chances to give him the award (not knowing he would earn nominations at age 69 and again at 77).  And make no mistake – Newman is fantastic in his return to the character.  The film itself might not be a classic which actually makes it one of Martin Scorsese’s weaker films but it’s still a very good film, anchored by Newman’s performance, the sexy performance from Mary Elisabeth Mastrontonio, the star-making turn of Tom Cruise (if he wasn’t already a star) and the great soundtrack.

Eddie is hitting up the woman behind the bar, both sexually and professionally, trying to sell his booze.  He’s staking a young pool player (John Turturro in an early role six years after his film debut as a non-speaking extra in Scorsese’s Raging Bull) but the guy keeps coming back for more money.  Still, that’s not enough to get Eddie to turn around until he actually hears the kid he’s losing to do an opening break.  That thunder of noise makes Eddie turn and behold Vincent, a cocky guy who knows he’s on top of the world and doesn’t care who he has to conquer to prove it.  He will intrigue Eddie enough that he will take Vincent on, in spite of the baggage of Carmen, Vincent’s girlfriend who seems willing to use her looks to get whatever she thinks she needs and controls Vincent and thinks maybe she can control Eddie.

There’s a bit of cliche to the story, of the way that Eddie rises with Vincent and then falls again and you know that it will have to end with the two of them facing off against each other, because otherwise what did we come all this way for?  But there are unexpected moments, like when Eddie starts to play a local guy (Forest Whitaker) who it will turn out is a pool hustler who knows exactly how to hustle even a pro like Eddie.  The film received mixed reviews (it’s apparently the only Scorsese film to get two thumbs down) and its nomination for the Nighthawk (and probably for the Oscar as well) in this category is at least partially because it’s a fairly weak year for Adapted Screenplay after the top two films.

The Source:

The Color of Money by Walter Tevis  (1984)

While The Hustler had been an interesting book kind of steeped in pulp writing (I’ve finally read it and finished its piece in the 1961 post), this one lags quite a bit.  It seems like Tevis wanted to return to his biggest success (and maybe sell the film rights) but didn’t really have much of a story to tell.  So we return to Fast Eddie and Minnesota Fats some 25 years later and watch them go on the road together though eventually Fats dies (in a rather badly written scene that Tevis can’t even be bothered to have end the chapter).  It’s a disappointing book and not surprising that when it came time to film it, they would basically abandon the book and just focus on writing a new story for Eddie 25 years on.

The Adaptation:

As just mentioned, the filmmakers basically drop the entire plot of the novel itself and just focused on writing a story about how Eddie becomes a mentor some 25 years after the events of the first film.  It’s a far better story than what was in the book.

The Credits:

directed by Martin Scorsese.  based upon the novel by Walter Tevis.  screenplay by Richard Price.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film, writing about it when I covered Star Trek in my For Love of Film series.  It’s easily one of the best of the Star Trek films, the one time that a Trek film really manages to find the humor and characterization at the core of the series (because the plot, with it’s lack of a villain, allowed for such).  It’s a great example of what happens when you have a cast that has been together for a long time and you just allowed them to play off each other (see the truck scene between Kirk and Spock for the best example of this).

The Source:

Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry  (1966)

I don’t think it’s really necessary for me to write anything more here than I already have.  You can see my reflections on the original series, which gave us these characters here and you can go to my list for the For Love of Film posts on the film series here.  I also wrote some when I covered Star Trek II for this series here.

The Adaptation:

This film, as I said, does a great job of diving into the characterization of the bridge crew that we have grown to love and allows them a lot of great character moments.  It also fixes the biggest problem from Star Trek III by dumping Robin Curtis quite quickly, whose Saavik was terrible and ran counter to how the character was developed in the second film.

The Credits:

Directed by Leonard Nimoy.  Based on Star Trek, Created by Gene Roddenberry.  Story by Leonard Nimoy & Harve Bennett.  Screenplay by Steve Meerson & Peter Krikes and Harve Bennett & Nicholas Meyer.

Little Shop of Horrors

The Film:

You may think of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken as the guys who were the backbone of the Disney Renaissance that began with The Little Mermaid and continued with Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin (and The Lion King without them) but they had a bit of a darker side as well.  Ashman, in particular, decided to take an old AIP film made quickly and on the cheap that had a dark but comedic vision and turn it into a stage musical (not a Broadway one – see below).  What’s more, he gave it a dark ending and wanted to take that whole vision and move it to film.

Let’s start with the title and the way it gets perfectly infused into the title track, sung by a wonderful trio of female singers (all named after 60’s girl groups).  We’re headed into horrors and terrors as the song makes clear.  Before too long, we meet the disturbing plant, Audrey II and we start to realize that it feeds on blood.  There is something very weird going on here but with the music and the goofy but compelling performance from Rick Moranis and a strong supporting cast (I really can’t bring myself to praise Ellen Greene’s performance since hearing her voice for me is like fingernails on a chalkboard) we’re able to go along with it, even when the deaths start coming.

Even accounting for the darker moments in their Disney work, this is a far cry from that kind of material.  First, we have the abusive boyfriend, a sadistic dentist with one of the most hilarious songs ever written for the stage and played brilliantly by Steve Martin (this is absolutely how I feel about dentists).  When death comes for him through his own idiocy, are we really going to complain when his body is fed to the giant plant?  But what about when the plant starts getting stronger and making more demands?  How are we supposed to feel then?

This film is fascinating, not the least of which, because of the multiple DVD versions, you might not have any idea how it’s going to end.  As mentioned below, there are two very different endings to this film and honestly, they both work.  One of them is the original dark vision from the stage and it brings a horrifyingly cynical view of the world (and, honestly, that final song goes on a bit too long) but for those who are more like a typical audience, you can still find the original version as well and that will give you something more of a happy ending even with a little bit of a dark overtone to it.

This is, like it was on stage, a highly inventive and innovative musical.  Outside of “Dentist” I don’t really love any of the songs and Greene’s voice just kills me.  But it’s well-written, is dark and funny and has a magnificent supporting cast.  It’s definitely not for everyone, but then again, the best movies rarely are.

The Source:

Little Shop of Horrors: A New Musical, book and lyrics by Howard Ashman  (1982) based upon the film by Roger Corman  /  The Little Shop of Horrors, screenplay by Charles B. Griffith, produced and directed by Roger Corman  (1960)

This is a rather brilliant stage musical derived from the original film.  It uses much of the original film, with some significant changes (fewer people die in the ending of the original, surprisingly enough) that was the first real showcase of the team of lyricist Howard Ashman and composer Alan Menken.  It does contain “Dentist”, one of the funniest songs ever written for the stage.

The original film is, to my mind, easily the best non-Poe adaptation that Roger Corman ever made.  Almost nothing else even comes close.  It’s the dark but funny story of a weird plant nurtured by a poor schmuck named Seymour Krelboyne that feeds on human blood.  However, this leads to darkness and death as Seymour discovers when he accidentally kills a man but then feeds the man to the plant who grows even bigger.  Seymour accidentally kills the sadistic dentist whose order he ruined (unlike the musical where Seymour just lets the dentist die after not being able to bring himself to kill him) and feeds him to the plant as well.  That does bring in a couple of cops who are investigating the case (and who give voiceover narration) but that’s the least interesting part of the film.  The most interesting part, of course, is an early film appearance from Jack Nicholson as a masochistic patient who visits the dentist (brilliantly reprised by Bill Murray in the 1986 film although this is just darkly funny in the original whereas the 1986 film adds a new level to it because the masochistic patient is facing off against a sadistic dentist).  Eventually all this will lead to Seymour confronting his plant.  This film works not just because of the sense of horror that Corman gives it (in spite of having to film it really quickly and cheaply, even for him) but of the dark sense of humor pervading throughout the whole film.  Many of Corman’s films don’t really have any humor (or are camp which isn’t funny) and it’s that dark humor that really makes this film so much better than most of Corman’s non-Poe output.

The Adaptation:

When you first start watching the film, for about the first 10 minutes there is not a single line different from the stage version and the film.  Eventually some changes do start to kick in and there are five songs from the stage version that aren’t in the film (“Don’t It Go to Show Ya Never Know”, “Closed for Renovation”, “Mushnik and Son”, “Now (It’s Just the Gas)”, “Call Back in the Morning”).  “Closed for Renovation” is replaced by “Some Fun Now” and “Now (It’s Just the Gas)” is cut because the scene with the masochistic patient (played brilliant by Bill Murray) that was in the original Corman film is placed into the film instead (it wasn’t in the stage version).  There is also the added song “Mean Green Mother from Outer Space”.  In the original released version of the film, the reprise of “Somewhere That’s Green” is cut and replaced by a reprise of “Suddenly Seymour”.  That’s because, as mentioned above, there are two endings.  In the originally filmed ending, which was a massive bomb at previews, they used the stage ending, in which both Audrey and Seymour die and the plants take over the world.  It was such a bomb at previews (as Frank Oz later pointed out, on stage you can do that because the actors come out immediately after the play is over and you know they’re not dead but in film, it just leaves you bummed out) that they rewrote the ending for the happy ending where Seymour and Audrey get married though it has the dark overtone with the small little plant in their year.  However, if you watch the Director’s Cut DVD, you will actually get that originally filmed ending (with Paul Dooley in the role played by Jim Belushi in the released version because Dooley wasn’t available to reshoot the ending) that matches the original ending from the stage almost exactly (though I’m betting the final song didn’t go on nearly as long).

The Credits:

Directed by Frank Oz.  Based on the musical stage play, Book and lyrics by Howard Ashman, Music by Alan Menken.  Lyrics by Howard Ashman.  Screenplay by Howard Ashman.

Children of a Lesser God

The Film:

As I wrote in the original review when I covered this as one of the Best Picture nominees, there is definitely an AfterSchool Special feel to this film (look what it’s like to be deaf!).  But, while some of the writing never rises above that level (in spite of being adapted from a Tony winning play in part by the original playwright) the acting takes it to a higher level.  The acting, in fact, especially from the two leads, is magnificent.  Matlin hasn’t done a lot of acting but it’s clear that she had the talent and if the roles had been made available and she’d been willing to do it, she could have been a powerhouse.  But that’s actually part of the point, because there aren’t many roles for deaf actresses and I will give kudos to Mark Medoff (who recently died) for writing the part and making certain that on stage and in the film it was a deaf actress who played the part.

The Source:

Children of a Lesser God: A Play in Two Acts by Mark Medoff  (1979)

Medoff knew a deaf actress named Phyllis French and he wrote the play specifically for her.  It’s an interesting play because Sarah, the main female character, at times refuses to communicate in any way except through sign language and that can’t necessarily be translated for those in the audience, meaning that the context of what is saying has to be conveyed by the actions and by the reactions of James, the other main character.  But, once we get outside of the deaf aspect, the play is fairly average, the romance between two people who have a hard time because one of them is angry and stubborn and not used to having a loving relationship.

The Adaptation:

Medoff used quite a bit of dialogue and actions from the original play but he also made a considerable number of changes, most notably that James and Sarah actually get married in the play and they aren’t by the end of the film (though they are getting back together after a breakup in both).  The film greatly increases the role of Mrs. Norman (leading to Piper Laurie’s Oscar nomination) and of course one of the key scenes in the film (the love scene in the pool) is entirely absent from the play.

I will also point out a scene that’s in the film but not the play where James and Sarah go to a party with other deaf people.  One of the people in that scene is Linda Bove.  Bove is probably, outside of Matlin, the most famous deaf actress of all-time, certainly to my generation for playing Linda on Sesame Street, the highest profile deaf role for an actress for years until this play and film.  In that scene, there is a pennant on the wall from Gallaudet University, a famous university for the deaf outside of Washington (the school in the actual play and film is fictional) and Bove’s alma mater.

The Credits:

Directed by Randa Haines.  Based on the Stage Play by Mark Medoff.  Screenplay by Hesper Anderson and Mark Medoff.

Manhunter

The Film:

Sixteen years after this film was released, it would be remade.  That version, with a considerably better cast and the added attraction of bringing back Anthony Hopkins again as Hannibal Lector (spelled correctly this time) was much, much more successful (this version made $9 million and that one made $93) but I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people who actually think that Red Dragon is a better film than Manhunter.  Given all the reasons that the remake should be better (and in some ways is), it’s really got to all be about the director.  The remake was directed by Brett Ratner, a not particularly talented director while this one was one of the early films from Michael Mann when he was still known mostly for Miami Vice and before he became such an acclaimed film director.

I first discovered this film sometime in the early months of 1991 after the release of Silence of the Lambs.  My brother told me there was actually an earlier book in which Lector appeared (noting that it was referenced in the novel) and that it had been made into a really good film called Manhunter.  So I watched the film and thought it was good, though I didn’t think Brian Cox, while good, could compare anything to what Anthony Hopkins had done with the character.  Still, it was a powerful and effective thriller, following Will Graham, a talented FBI investigator pulled out of retirement to help stop a serial killer.

There are some distinct flaws to the film.  First, it has a soundtrack that is out of kilter with the film to the point that it is almost distracting, a typical synth score reminiscent of the music that had been on Mann’s show.  Second, it has a villain (Tom Noonan) whose performance can’t really match up to the intensity of William Petersen (giving perhaps his best performance as Graham), Dennis Farina (as Peterson’s boss who drags him back in to the life) and Cox (who really does quite well with the Lector voice even if the film spells it Lecktor for some reason).

But the film is effective in how we follow Graham, sticking to him until late in the game before we finally meet the villain, watching how Graham works and getting to the point where he finally realizes what the connection is between the two killings.  Mann brings a suitable sense of his style to the film and it really keeps you moving and guessing right up until the final moment.

Manhunter is a very good film but I think it got both rediscovered a little when Silence was released and then lost in the shuffle again since Silence is so vastly superior only to be rediscovered again when Red Dragon, even with all those great actors (Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Philip Seymour Hoffman) couldn’t surpass what the original film had already done.  It is still sitting there, a shining little gem from the early career of a director who would soon go to be acknowledged as a great director with films like Last of the Mohicans and The Insider.

The Source:

Red Dragon by Thomas Harris  (1981)

Harris had written a successful thriller in 1975 called Black Sunday.  Then in 1981 he published this novel.  I wonder if he was planning to do more with Will Graham, who is the main character in the book.  But, something must have made him decide that it was Hannibal Lector, the sociopathic, cannibalistic serial killer that Graham had caught before the book even began (he’s a minor character in the book who Graham goes to for help though Lector ends up setting up Graham to be hurt and almost killed) who was the really interesting character.  He would bring back Lector in his 1988 sequel Silence of the Lambs and the success of the film made it inevitable that Lector would be the key to Harris’ fortunes from there on out.

This is an effective thriller, one of the few books in the genre I have kept over the years (though Silence is another).  It’s not a great book because Harris focuses too much on the psychosis of the main villain, Francis Dollarhyde and it was actually the right move to decide to focus on Lector for Silence (even if the post Silence books are simply awful – he badly needs a good editor but by then he had become too powerful and basically wouldn’t consent to anyone editing his books).  The edition I have, bought sometime in 1991 or so is actually the version on the right, thus the sticker on the front of the book (which is also on mine).

The Adaptation:

Most of what we see on film is straight from the book including almost all of the dialogue.  There are some timing changes (in the book, for instance, they crack the code and move Graham’s family earlier) and in this version, there is much less use of Dollarhyde.  It cuts down on his actions (see note below) and turns the false ending of the book into the real ending of the film with Graham shooting Dollarhyde and completely excising the actual ending of the book (which would be used in the remake).

One last note that is more personal for Veronica.  In the book, Dollarhyde travels to New York and eats the actual Red Dragon painting by William Blake after attacking two museum employees.  That scene is not included in this film but is included in the remake.  At SAA, the national archivists organization, there is a person who for years did a feature called “Archives in the Movies” that he would show at the national conference which Veronica used to go to every year (I went once as well).  It included the scene from the remake and Veronica noted that every time she would go you could tell from the reactions if there were people in the crowd who had never seen the feature or the film itself and they were always more shocked by him eating the painting than by his attacking the museum employees.

The Credits:

Directed by Michael Mann.  Based on the novel Red Dragon by Thomas Harris.  Screenplay by Michael Mann.

Crimes of the Heart

The Film:

So, the filmmakers were looking at the original Henley play and they were required to get Lenny (“a thirty-year-old woman with a round figure and face”), Meg (“twenty-seven”) and Babe (“twenty-four . . . she has an angelic face and fierce, volatile eyes”).  They are all sisters.  So, of course, they got Diane Keaton (40, without a round figure or face), Jessica Lange (37) and Sissy Spacek (36 and not with what I would call an angelic face or even fierce, volatile eyes), none of whom look remotely like the other two.  Yet, somehow this film actually works.  Maybe it’s because all three of them were already Oscar winners.  Maybe it’s because they had a good play that managed to play to their strengths with Keaton playing a bit of a wallflower, Lange playing the Hollywood failure and Spacek playing the smalltown Southern girl who’s gotten herself into a sticky situation.

Crimes of the Heart is a Comedy that doesn’t really have a whole lot to be comedic about.  Spacek is in jail (actually she gets bailed out) for shooting her husband in the stomach after he discovered her affair with a local 15 year old boy who also happens to be black.  Lange is returning home in response to this and her life is a wreck and she immediately starts in on an affair with the local doc whose life she already kind of ruined once before.  Lenny can’t get a man and seems destined to die alone, waiting on their grandfather who doesn’t seem to have the good courtesy to die himself.  Indeed, one of the funniest scenes in the film works precisely because it is so unfunny in its circumstances.  Lange, after her night out, proclaims that their grandfather will have to cope with her behavior and she doesn’t care if the shock of it throws him into a coma.  Except that she doesn’t know that he’s already in a coma and the fact that he is just causes the other two to burst out laughing because they don’t know what else to do.  But almost as funny is an attempted suicide which keeps failing.  It’s a more light-hearted version of a scene that ended in tragedy in Reuben, Reuben but works much better here and I don’t want to explain precisely what goes wrong because it’s best left for you to see it and enjoy it.

Bruce Beresford isn’t a great director (I ranked him at #141 out of all the directors ever nominated for an Oscar) but he has a warm, human touch, which is perhaps why he tends to get such good performances out of his actors.  It didn’t hurt that he had a good, funny, warm script to start with here and that’s why this is one of his best films, even better, to my mind, than his Best Picture winner (Driving Miss Daisy) or Oscar nominee (Tender Mercies).

The Source:

Crimes of the Heart: A Play by Beth Henley  (1979)

A warm, funny play about some dreadfully unfunny things.  This is a solid portrait of three very different sisters in the same Southern family that reunite when one of them shoots her husband in the stomach.  The play had a rough start (it took Henley a while to finally get a production of it going and it only happened because it won a prize that someone else submitted it for) but then it took off and ended up winning her the Pulitzer Prize.  In the original 1979 production in Louisville, Lenny was played by Kathy Bates and that is perfect casting for her description.

The Adaptation:

As is so often with the case when a playwright adapts their own play (unless it’s Neil Simon who won’t leave well enough alone), almost all of what we get on film is what was originally on stage.  You can easily read along with the play while watching the film.

The Credits:

Directed by Bruce Beresford.  Screenplay by Beth Henley based on her play.

Aliens

The Film:

I am often hard on James Cameron.  He has directed two of the highest grossing films of all-time, neither of which I thought deserved to make so much money and he won Best Director for a film that was massively over-rated.  He’s a terrible script-writer but he has an interesting imagination (the stories in the film are often much better than the scripts) and he is a good director at times with a very good visual eye and a good notion of what will be popular.  You would have an interesting debate if you asked people what Cameron’s best film is with possible answers including Terminator, Terminator 2, Titanic and Avatar and possibly even The Abyss.  Well, my answer, obviously, is Aliens, a film that has to live with being a sequel to a better film (a truly visionary film directed by a truly great director) but that becomes interesting and great in its own right, at least in part because it decides to be so different from the first film.

As mentioned in my review of Alien (see below), while all of the films in the series are Sci-Fi films, that film was also at heart a Horror film.  This film is not.  Yes, there are elements of Horror and it is still, at its core, a Sci-Fi film, but what it really is, is an Action Film.  Or you could even say it’s a War film.  Alien focused on one creature being hunted down while it was also hunting the people hunting it and trying to kill it.  This is combat.  There is not one creature but masses of them and all of them kill with ease and regularity and even killing them does not make you safe, because depending on how you do it, you will than have their acidic blood splash on you.

Aliens would set a standard that would be maintained through the rest of the series.  At the end of the first film, we thought we had an ostensible happy ending, that Ripley had managed to kill the creature and escape.  But soon after this film starts, we know that the happy ending of the first film is really kind of a lie (which is nothing compared to what will happen to the happy ending of this film in the third one), that the planet where the alien was picked up has now been colonized and that they have lost communications with the colonists.  Ripley has finally been found after 57 years in stasis and she’s recruited to go with a group of marines (I almost wrote platoon but there’s not enough marines to qualify) to wipe out the aliens.  Of course, that won’t be as easy as it sounds, especially when it turns out one of the people on the mission has lied about why he is going and wants to bring one back (no points for guessing it was Paul Reiser – I have never liked or trusted him and he’s the reason why I never watched Mad About You).

Aliens has long been a film I have greatly enjoyed.  It has great action, has a great character at its core with Ripley (earning Sigourney Weaver a deserved Oscar nomination – a rare thing in this genre no matter whether you consider the genre of this film to be Sci-Fi, Action or War) and it brings in other interesting characters as well to replace the ones we lost.  Lance Henriksson’s Bishop is a fascinating android, so different from the cold Ash in the first film (and will be well used in the next film as well as he was in this one given Ripley’s experiences with Ash from the first film) and Michael Biehn, while he was never a great actor, had an aura of charisma and cool that works perfectly for Corporal Briggs (like the way when the ship is coming down to the planet and most of the marines are nervous and twitchy and he’s just taking a nap).  Of course, the technical achievements of the film are great, from the sound to the visual effects (a deserving Oscar winner) to the score (which, given that it was composed by James Horner, shouldn’t surprise me that I hear similarities to his magnificent score from Star Trek II).

Aliens is a rather relentless film, never letting up once it puts the pedal down.  But it rewards you whenever you watch it.  I recommend watching the extended edition because it provides more characterization and really makes you feel for what Ripley has gone through (it includes information about her daughter).  And hey, it’s good enough that it actually makes my list in spite of being written by James Cameron.

The Source:

Alien, directed by Ridley Scott, screenplay by Dan O’Bannon, story by Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett

I have already reviewed this film, of course, because it is my #1 film of 1979, still sitting there after all this time, keeping Apocalypse Now out of the top spot.  It is, at once, a brilliant Sci-Fi film (one of the best of all-time), Horror film (probably the best of all-time) and a Suspense film.  It has brilliant effects but it knows to use those to support the story and the characters, not the other way around.  It’s worth remembering that in this film, Ripley does the correct thing, refusing re-entry to the others when Hurt has been injured by the alien and if they had just let him die rather than bring him aboard, none of the rest of the horrible events would have happened.  In fact, that brings up another point.  Veronica, who has adamantly refused to watch this film for years recently read a description of it that went as such: “No one listens to the woman so everyone dies except the woman and her cat” and said that if I had just described it that way she would have watched it years ago.

The Adaptation:

This is the continuing story of Warrant Officer Ripley.  She was given a happy ending at the end of the first film (survives the creature, escapes in the pod) but the start of this film flips that with her having been in suspended animation for 65 years and missing her daughter growing up and even dying.  What’s more, she discovers that the company has sent people to colonize the world where the alien was first encountered.  So, nothing here contradicts the first film and we get more characterization of Ripley, continuing from the strength of will she showed in the first film to survive.

The Credits:

Directed by James Cameron.  Screenplay by James Cameron.  Story by James Cameron and David Giler & Walter Hill.  Based on Characters Created by Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett.

The Name of the Rose

The Film:

There has been a mysterious death in a closed society and so a detective is sent for.  He arrives and immediately starts to trying to work his way through the potential suspects (which is most of the people he is dealing with, as is usually the case in such stories), figure out why the person has been killed (or killed himself, as the case will turn out to be, although you could still say he was killed) and how to stop the killer from killing again (there’s a notable lack of success here as the bodies start piling up).

Of course, what makes this story a bit different is that the closed society is an isolated monastery full of monks and that it’s the 14th Century.  William of Baskerville (yes, deliberately named to invoke Sherlock Holmes) is the kind of brilliant man who can make immediate inferences and find his way to the solution.  That’s good because it will turn out there’s not only a confusing storyline to get through but there will also be a literal labyrinth once William is able to make his way into the forbidden library that is the cause of all the problems.

The novel had been long and dense and complicated because Eco is so many things at once (see below) and so there were questions over what kind of film could be made out of it.  It’s a solid film, namely because as William, we have Sean Connery providing one of his best and most entertaining performances in years (a warm-up to his Oscar winning performance of the next year – although, if you watch Trainspotting and agree with Sick Boy you will think that “The Name of The Rose is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory”).  But, while he is supported by a bevy of character actors (including Ron Perlman, William Hickey and F. Murray Abraham) and he’s got a young Christian Slater along as his novice, it’s really Connery that has to get us through the film.  Things become complicated just once too often and you find yourself exhausted by the end of it, wondering if arguing theology or solving the mystery is the real goal.  The film’s director is Jean-Jacques Annaud, who has long been good with his visuals but has been weaker in story-telling so having the densely plotted Eco novel to go with really helps the film in the end.  But really, it’s all about Connery.

The Source:

Il nome della rosa by Emberto Eco  (1980)

Eco was already well established as a literary critics and professor of semiotics when he published this, his first novel, at almost 50.  Like some of his later novels (the ones I’ve read are Foucault’s Pendulum and The Prague Cemetery), his first novel is densely plotted with a lot of language to get through (he was a professor of semiotics after all and I imagine it’s just as complicated in Italian and was probably a pain to translate).

It’s the story of a mystery at an Italian abbey in 1327 with William of Baskerville (Eco admits the name was designed to invoke William of Occam and Sherlock Holmes) called in to help solve the mystery.  What it ends up being is a murderous monk who feels that laughter is the tool of the devil and wants to kill all those who have seen Aristotle’s work on Comedy and in the end, the book is destroyed (which works perfectly since it’s lost and has been for centuries).  To have the whole thing come down to theology and literary theory is rather appropriate.

Eco’s books are difficult to get through but this one was actually a massive seller right from the start and made his name as a writer.  I used to own it, having read it years ago, then got rid of the book, later tried to read it again with a library copy and couldn’t get into it and then have just now read it again for the second time in full.  It’s a good book but a difficult one and you really have to realize what you are getting into, something that mixes the mystery genre with a lot more complicated concepts (philosophy, theology, semiotics, literary theory) then you would ever see in such a genre book and I can’t imagine that anyone would actually shelve this in Mystery.

The Adaptation:

The original book covers a period of seven days but it was always going to have to be cut.  The cuts come right at the start (at the start of the book, William meets other monks as he goes up to the monastery and explains to them where the horse they are looking for will be found without having seen it, a very Holmes-esque deduction) and the film really cuts anything ancillary and holds tight to the plot.  Luckily, with Eco, there are so many other things going on, that it makes it easier to cut.  Still, Annaud always knew he wasn’t getting the whole thing on the screen and thus we get the credit below: “a palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel”.  For those who don’t know, a palimpsest is “a manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain” which is perfect because it describes the film that Annaud has made and is kind of a literary critic joke for Eco.

The Credits:

Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud.  A Palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s Novel.  Screenplay by Andrew Birkin, Gerard Brach, Howard Franklin, Alain Godard.

WGA Nominee

Down and Out in Beverly Hills

The Film:

I think it’s clear that Paul Mazursky was an auteur director.  He didn’t have much of a visual eye, but he had a rather unique voice and it was easy to distinguish a Mazursky film from other films.  Unfortunately, it is often distinguished to me in that they are Comedies that I don’t think are as funny as others seem to find them, say less about the human condition than Mazursky thinks he is saying and just aren’t as good as I was lead to believe.  This film is all the more ironic because it, in some ways, has the least of Mazursky’s voice, in that the plot comes from a play and a film but also some of the most of Mazursky’s voice because of the ways in which he makes changes to attack the American upper class (see below).  What’s more ironic is that one of Mazursky’s films continues to rise in my estimation every time I see it (you can read about that when I get to 1989) while the rest of them continue not to budge.

Jerry is a drifter.  It’s not really believable that he would be drifting like this through Beverly Hills or that there are alleys and chain link fences in Beverly Hills where he could just wander in and try to drown himself in a swimming pool, but that’s the movie we’re given.  He has decided to do this because his final friend, a dog, has left him in favor of a woman who is willing to give him some treats.  Jerry is rescued by Dave, the owner of the palatial home in a move you wouldn’t see coming.  You might have thought some of the satire would go towards how the members of the household would delay and try to get someone else to save the man, but no, we have to save him so we can move forward with the plot.

What the plot does is attempt satire at the rich of America, at the way they waste their lives, at how little they value anything.  Before too long, Jerry will be shaved and cleaned and living with Dave and his family, seducing, not only Dave’s wife, but also his mistress (their Mexican maid who he will also help turn from the loyal help into a budding revolutionary who doesn’t want Dave, not because she has Jerry, but because she has had eyes opened to the exploitation of the working class) and even his daughter.  The problem is that the targets seem all too easy and Mazursky hits them exactly in the ways you might suspect he would.  I expect satire to have some bite and there’s no real bite.

The film is certainly decently made.  Some of the film can be quite funny and while Richard Dreyfuss is the only actor who earns any points from me, Nick Nolte as Jerry and Bette Midler as Dreyfuss’ wife both fall well into their roles.  But, like so many Mazursky films, I expected more than I found.

The Source:

Boudu Sauvé Des Eaux by René Fauchois  (1919)

Like mentioned before, I have not been able to read the original play because I can’t find a translation into English.

The Adaptation:

Obviously none of the original dialogue is going to be in the film since this film is not only in English but also set in Beverly Hills with the bum trying to drown himself in a swimming pool instead of the Seine and being rescued by upper class nitwits rather than a bourgeois bookseller.  He still does seduce the housemaid but instead of being prepared to marry her at the end (and marrying her in the original play and instead causing havoc in the original film version), when the father finds out he has slept with his daughter, it throws off a whole party and then the bum leaves everyone behind.  If Fauchois didn’t like what Renoir did with the original film version, he sure wouldn’t have liked this.

The Credits:

Produced and Directed by Paul Mazursky.  Based on the Play “Boudu Sauvé Des Eaux” by René Fauchois.  Screenplay by Paul Mazursky & Leon Capetanos.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

  • none

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Angry Harvest –  Best Foreign Film Oscar nominee from the year before (from West Germany, though with a Polish director) based on a novel by Hermann Field and Stanislaw Mierzenski.
  • The Fly –  David Cronenberg continues his road upward with this solid remake of the 1958 Horror film which was based on the short story by George Langelaan.
  • The Children of Noisy Village –  Made after his My Life as a Dog but that film will be in next year’s post, this is a film from Lasse Hallström based on books by Astrid Lindgren (who also created Pippi Longstocking).  We’re already down to mid ***.
  • Otello –  Placido Domingo takes on the role of the Moor in Franco Zeffirelli’s return to Shakespeare (sort of – it’s really Shakespeare via Verdi).  Oscar nominated for Costume Design and BAFTA and Globe nominated for Foreign Film.  Pretty solid for opera, which is not to my taste.
  • The Great Mouse Detective –  Nice Disney Animated film based on the book series Basil of Baker Street which takes off from Sherlock Holmes.
  • The Mosquito Coast –  Harrison Ford again teams up with Peter Weir and again gives a really good performance but this time is ignored by the Oscars perhaps because the film is so damn dour.  Based on Paul Theroux’s novel about a family that moves to Central America.
  • Night on the Galactic Railroad –  Anime film based on the well known Japanese Fantasy novel by Kenji Miyazawa, the first of several Miyazawa works to become anime films.
  • Heartburn –  I don’t like biographical criticism so I don’t have to think of Nicholson and Streep playing Carl Bernstein and Nora Ephron but simply the characters in this film based on Ephron’s novel, even if her novel was autobiographical.  Given the star power and that it was directed by Mike Nichols the film should be better than mid *** but it’s not.
  • El Amor Brujo –  Carlos Saura finishes his dance trilogy with this film adapted from an early 20th Century ballet.
  • On Valentine’s Day –  Horton Foote writes a sequel to his play (and film) 1918.
  • Desert Hearts –  I realize it’s a key Lesbian film because at the time there basically weren’t any others but it’s still just a solid *** romance.  It was not the impetus for The Bechdel Test which first appeared in a 1985 strip of Dykes to Watch Out For but it at least passes the test.  Based on the novel Desert of the Heart by Jane Rule.
  • Kaos –  A 1984 film from the Taviani brothers that makes use of Pirandelli stories.
  • Native Son –  A solid film version of one of the all-time great novels.
  • Ronia the Robber’s Daughter –  More Astrid Lindgren.  This Adventure film was adapted by Lindgren herself from her own story at the age of 78 and was Sweden’s Oscar submission in 1985.
  • 52 Pick-Up –  Not as good as the late 90’s Elmore Leonard adaptations but this one, directed by John Frankenheimer is way better than Stick from the year before.  Would have been better if Roy Scheider had better co-stars than Ann-Margret and Vanity.
  • Asterix in Britain –  Animated film version of the eight book of France’s big comic book character.
  • A Man and a Woman: 20 Years Later –  We hit low *** with the return of the same director and stars from the Oscar winning original but without the real magic.  Yet, apparently all three have made a new sequel which just premiered at Cannes (actually, as I type this it won’t premiere for another week) even though they are all now in their 80’s (kind of like Bergman’s Saraband but I doubt it’s nearly as good).
  • Time to Die –  Gabriel Garcia Marquez originally wrote the script back in the 60’s and it was made into a film then and a television series in 1984 before this Colombian submission to the Oscars in 1985.
  • Dust –  Two Nobel Prize winners in a row as this film, the 1985 Belgian Oscar submission is based on the novel In the Heart of the Country by J.M. Coetzee.
  • ‘night, Mother –  A brilliant Pulitzer winning play by Marsha Norman that I read in college but somehow, in spite of strong performances from Sissy Spacek and Anne Bancroft, the power never comes through on film.
  • Duet for One –  Based on the play by Tom Kempinski, if this seems somewhat (but only somewhat) familiar it’s because it’s based on the life of Jacqueline du Pré, the same cellist that Hilary and Jackie is based on except it doesn’t use her relationship with her sister.
  • Turtle Diary –  Harold Pinter is the writer (adapting a novel by Russell Hoban) and it has Glenda Jackson, Ben Kingsley and Michael Gambon but it still never rises above low ***.
  • The Karate Kid Part II –  Same director and stars (though it dumps Elizabeth Shue for a prettier Japanese actress) but it doesn’t have the same magic.  What it does have is a solid Peter Cetera song that earned an Oscar nomination and you can forget watching the film and just watch the video instead.  My sisters watched it about 1000 times each after we taped it off MTV.
  • About Last Night… –  When Sexual Perversity in Chicago was first staged in 1974, David Mamet was a little-known playwright but by the time it was filmed as About Last Night… he was an Oscar-nominated screenwriter and Pulitzer Prize winner.  Not his best work and not helped with Rob Lowe and Demi Moore in the lead roles.
  • Brighton Beach Memoirs –  On the other hand, Neil Simon was America’s most famous living playwright when he started looking back and began what would be his Eugene Jerome trilogy with all three plays on Broadway before this, the first film was made.  Not Simon’s best work and it might have worked better with Matthew Broderick taking his Broadway role instead of Jonathan Silverman though who knows because Broderick wouldn’t make Biloxi Blues (the second play) a better film and Simon would use Silverman as Eugene in the third play on Broadway.
  • Doña Herlinda and Her Son –  Mexican adaptation of the novel by Jorge López Páez.
  • The Berlin Affair –  Down to mid **.5 with Liliana Tavian’s adaptation of the novel Quicksand by Jun’ichirō Tanizaki.
  • The Lightship –  Big drop down to low **.5 with Jerzy Skolimowski adapting the novella by Siegfried Lenz.
  • 8 Million Ways to Die –  Hal Ashby had fallen far from his heyday of the 70’s when all of his films were major films and this would be his final film, an adaptation of the Suspense novel by Lawrence Block.
  • Psycho III –  The story isn’t much by the performance by Anthony Perkins (who also directed this time) continues to keep this franchise from sinking into the pits like so many other Horror franchises.
  • Absolute Beginners –  We’ve reached the ** films now.  This look at late 50’s London complete with appearances from 60’s celebrities Ray Davies and Mandy Rice-Davies (ironically no relation) still can’t rise above being bland.
  • From Beyond –  For the second year in a row, Stuart Gordon adapts a Lovecraft work into a bad film.
  • Heathcliff – The Movie –  I actually had a couple of Heathcliff books when I was a kid because over the years I have had a very large number of comic strip collections (which even today, having gotten rid of several strips still takes up over a bookcase thanks mainly to Doonesbury and Peanuts though I also have complete runs of Bloom County, Calvin and Hobbes, Dykes to Watch Out For, Boondocks, Stone Soup, Far Side, Foxtrot and K Chronicles – if I ever get another For Love of Books post done it will definitely be on one of the complete collections).  The problem is that, even though Heathcliff came first by several years, because Heathcliff is a single panel strip without real characterization, it seems like a weak retread of Garfield (a strip I have never collected though when I was younger I didn’t have to – going through old Christmas photos recently I had forgotten how much my older brother was into Garfield) so a movie doesn’t really have much to recommend it.  What’s more, the movie (distributed by Clubhouse Pictures, the short-lived family division of Atlantic Releasing, who specialized in these lower budget animated films in these years) is really just an anthology of seven episodes from the television series.  Long story short (too late, I know), it’s not worth watching.
  • Extremities –  On the one hand, it’s a reflection of a real dearth for women’s dramatic roles in 1986 but still, the Globes could have gone with Jane Fonda in The Morning After (who would earn an Oscar nomination) or Helena Bonham Carter in A Room with a View.  But no, they nominated Farah Fawcett for this tepid (mid **) film based on the off-Broadway play by William Mastrosimone.
  • The Transformers: The Movie –  I wasn’t too old for Transformers (I watched the show though not with regularity) but in a sense I was too poor.  Or my parents didn’t just waste money on us and the toys themselves were expensive (far more than a Star Wars or GI Joe figure and after using money on those or on 35¢ packs of baseball cards (ah, the good old days) or 75¢ comic books (seriously, the good old days) I didn’t have cash to spend on a Transformer) and so I never owned any which means when the movie came around I didn’t care enough to see it until almost 30 years later when covering all animated films.  I know it made my college roommate cry when he saw it in the theater when Optimus Prime died.  I will say that I cared enough about the show and GI Joe (which I did buy the figures and watched with regularity which is strange given my views on the military but I think it was more that the figures were the same size as Star Wars figures and the comics had some really great characterization thanks to Larry Hama’s writing) that in late 2008 or early 2009 while at a movie and seeing trailers for both the second live action Transformers film and the first GI Joe film I did turn to V and say “I feel like my childhood has just been raped.”  Anyway, long story short (too late again), the film isn’t very good but it’s way better than what Michael Bay would do in the live action versions.  Pathetic that this was the last film role for both Orson Welles (died in late 85 and Scatman Crothers (died a couple of months after the film’s release).
  • Betty Blue –  I appreciate the eroticism in the film but it’s just not very good (and the acting is awful).  Based on the novel by Philippe Djian, it earned Globe and Oscar noms for Best Foreign Film and I can’t agree with that in any way.
  • Where the River Runs Black –  With way too much plot (just read the Wikipedia description) and wasting a pre-China Beach Dana Delaney as a nun, this film, based on the novel Lazaro by David Kendall is just way too slow and boring.
  • The Clan of the Cave Bear –  Jean Auel is a popular writer but she’s also a pretty awful person.  When I worked at Powells we had an event with her and everyone was miserable.  Even her own publishing rep said “I know, we hate her too, but the book is a big deal and she’s a local author and you have to have this event.”  I’ve never actually read her books but this was a huge seller.  The film is not good though.
  • The Adventures of Mark Twain –  Another crappy Clubhouse / Atlantic Releasing animated film, this one making use of multiple Twain works.
  • Poltergeist II: The Other Side –  Crappy sequel to the very effective first film.  Most famous for the line “They’re back.”
  • Maximum Overdrive –  “Trucks” was not one of Stephen King’s better stories in Night Shift and he decided to direct this himself which didn’t help.
  • 9½ Weeks –  Claimed as both a novel and a memoir, I don’t know what the original source material is like but the film has some eroticism but also some pretty bad acting from Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke and was proof that Adrian Lyne was not a good director even before Fatal Attraction.
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge –  We drop from mid ** to mid *.5.  Originally released in late 1985 but Oscar eligible in this year, the sequel didn’t have Wes Craven’s involvement, instead directed by Jack Sholder (who would later do a fine job with one of HBO’s first original films, By Dawn’s Early Light).  I definitely can’t blame Craven for not wanting to be involved in this mess but I guess I also can’t blame New Line since Craven made a film that was even worse (six films down).
  • Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation –  The original wasn’t good but this sequel is even worse.  Not distributed by Atlantic but instead by major studio Columbia.
  • The Adventures of the American Rabbit –  This little terrible animated film based on characters created by Stewart Moskowitz was an American-Japanese co-production.  Distributed by Clubhouse / Atlantic.
  • La Cage Aux Folles III: The Wedding –  The first was funny.  The second was not.  This is just awful.  Unlike the first two, not directed by Édouard Molinaro, so I didn’t see this during the Oscar director project.
  • Blue City –  If you thought Judd Nelson and Ally Sheedy were bad in St. Elmo’s Fire (you were right) wait until you see them in this adaptation of a Ross Macdonald novel.
  • Shanghai Surprise –  If Madonna is going to be in a film she should at least give us a good original song but she doesn’t even do that.  What’s worse, she’s opposite her then husband Sean Penn and they’re both just awful.  I was rather surprised to realize this terrible (low *.5) film was based on a novel (Faraday’s Flowers by Tony Kenrick).
  • Deadly Friend –  Wes Craven’s Horror film for 1986 just barely creeps into *.5 and is almost ten points worse than the Nightmare sequel he passed on.  Based on the novel Friend by Diana Henstell.
  • Tai-Pan –  Director Daryl Duke had directed star Bryan Brown in The Thorn Birds (which starred Richard Chamberlain who was in the mini-series of James Clavell’s Shogun, another of his Asian Saga of which this novel was the second part no matter whether you read them in writing order or the order in which the books are set) but just didn’t have enough time to tell a proper story on film instead of the expanded use of a television mini-series (which had also been effective for Shogun).  Of Clavell’s work, I have only read King Rat for this project and have skipped his other books, partially because they’re so damn long and partially because of their value system (see Ayn Rand).  The OCD part of me wants to own all six books and have them on a shelf with matching covers and the dates on the side (you can see three of them like that here) but the part of me that has values and ethics says fuck Clavell.  So I’ve only seen the film and it is a gigantic mess.
  • GoBots: Battle of the Rock Lords –  Well, they were cheaper than Transformers but I still didn’t buy them.  I was going to write “less expensive” rather than “cheaper” but I think cheaper is more apt here.  GoBots came out first but they were lame and no one liked them or their show.  Their film (the last film released by Clubhouse / Atlantic and the last animated film released at all by Atlantic) is just a disaster.
  • Cobra –  Mindless Stallone Action film based on the novel Fair Game by Paula Gosling (later filmed under that title which I haven’t seen but given it stars William Baldwin and Cindy Crawford is probably just as bad).
  • Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives –  Another bad entry in a bad franchise.
  • King Kong Lives –  I’ll repeat what I said in my review of the 1976 King Kong: “if you find that it’s airing on television, then go ahead and give in for a couple of hours.  There are much worse ways to spend the time.  Like watching King Kong Lives, for instance, the hideous sequel to this film.”
  • Police Academy 3: Back in Training –  It kept making money (#17 for the year, higher than Peggy Sue Got Married, The Fly or Little Shop of Horrors) so they kept making them.
  • Howard the Duck –  Actually rewatched this recently because I hadn’t seen it in over 30 years.  Just as bad as I thought.  Maybe worse.  A bizarre film to even be made but I thought the same thing 30 years later with Guardians and that totally worked.  To be fair, I also don’t like the comic character who is supposed to be satirical but I don’t think works.  Just look at the reversal since this point.  At this point, Superman had already three films with a fourth on the way and soon Batman would rule the multiplex but this was the first Marvel feature film and it would take almost 15 years before X-Men and just over 15 years for Spider-Man but now DC is kind of floundering with their theatrical plans and Marvel rules the box office.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • none  –

For the record, as I will do from now on, as I have been comparing all sorts of eligibility lists, the highest grossing film from this year (according to Box Office Mojo) that is both adapted and that I haven’t seen is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (#83 for the year at $8.02 mil).  It is the only adapted film in the Top 100 for the year that I haven’t seen.

A Century of Film: Actor

$
0
0


A Century of Film

Actor

Lead actors, of course, have been a part of film since its history began and certainly since feature films began.  Even then, there was a great range to them.  The three greatest actors of the Silent Era were a clown, a Horror star and a man who would so straight Drama: Chaplin, Chaney and Jannings.  All three of them proved that you didn’t have to be a matinee star to be a great actor though many of the stars who would arise in the first decade of the Sound Era, stars like March, Howard, Gable and Cagney proved that it didn’t hurt if they liked how you looked either.

An award for Best Actor began in the first year of the Oscars and it went to Emil Jannings for two roles, one of which is now lost.  The New York Film Critics would start their own award in 1935 with the NBR catching up in 1945.  The Golden Globes began with Best Actor in their first year (1943) but it took the BAFTAs a few years before they added acting (though they added two categories).  Strangely enough, it would take all the way until 1994 before SAG finally giving out their own awards.

Today, it’s the premiere award, of course, among actors.  Yes, there would be great actors like Richard Burton and Peter O’Toole who would never win no matter how many nominations they received or stars like Cary Grant who struggled to even earn nominations (and wouldn’t for his best work).

There is no real male equivalent to Meryl Streep.  There is Jack, of course, and he will dominate many of the lists.  But Jack is basically retired now and didn’t do much after the age of 60 (when he won his third Oscar) while for Meryl, turning 60 barely slowed her down and Meryl won her first Oscar at age 30 and was already rising up the lists while it would take Jack until the age of 32 just to rise out of the B-movies he had been working in for a decade to become a star.

note:  A note on the years.  Because I use the Academy calendar for all of my awards but often have people asking about the actual release year of a film, any film with two dates listed, the first is its original release date and the second is the year it was Oscar eligible and thus Nighthawk eligible.  Down below, I only use one date when referencing awards and that’s the year the film was eligible for that award, which might not be its original release year or its Oscar year, depending on the award in question.

note:  Critical Acclaim.  That’s a phrase I will use below several times.  So that I don’t have to keep repeating what it means, it’s based on the Consensus Awards that I do.  My feelings don’t play into those awards except by the percentages I assign.  70 points for a win, 35 for a nomination.  100% for the Oscars, SAG, BAFTA, NYFC, LAFC, 90% for the BSFC, CFC, NSFC, 80% for the BFCA, NBR, 70% for the Globes.  Then, I calculate percentage of the total points.  That’s because in 1943 (the first year of the Globes) there were 329 total points and in 2011 there were 1505 total points, so the percentage of the total points is the best way to account for historical changes in scores.  So, the performance with the highest percentage of the year’s total points has the most critical acclaim under the definition I am using.

My Top 5 Actor Performances in Film History:

  1. Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951
  2. Peter O’Toole, Lawrence of Arabia, 1962
  3. Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
  4. Jack Nicholson, Chinatown, 1974
  5. Robert De Niro, Raging Bull, 1980

The other 9 Point Performances (chronological by Nighthawk eligibility):

  • James Stewart, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 1939
  • Henry Fonda, The Grapes of Wrath, 1940
  • Orson Welles, Citizen Kane, 1941
  • Humphrey Bogart, The Maltese Falcon, 1941
  • James Cagney, Yankee Doodle Dandy, 1942
  • Humphrey Bogart, Casablanca, 1942/1943
  • Ray Milland, The Lost Weekend, 1945
  • James Stewart, It’s a Wonderful Life, 1946
  • Humphrey Bogart, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948
  • William Holden, Sunset Blvd., 1950
  • Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront, 1954
  • Orson Welles, Touch of Evil, 1958
  • Takashi Shimura, Ikiru, 1952/1960
  • Jack Lemmon, The Apartment, 1960
  • Paul Newman, The Hustler, 1961
  • Gunnar Bjornstrand, Winter Light, 1963
  • Rod Steiger, The Pawnbroker, 1965
  • Richard Burton, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, 1966
  • Warren Beatty, Bonnie and Clyde, 1967
  • Peter O’Toole, The Lion in Winter, 1968
  • Marlon Brando, Last Tango in Paris, 1972/1973
  • Al Pacino, Serpico, 1973
  • Jack Nicholson, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1975
  • Al Pacino, Dog Day Afternoon, 1975
  • Robert De Niro, Taxi Driver, 1976
  • Robert De Niro, Raging Bull, 1980
  • Warren Beatty, Reds, 1981
  • Tom Hulce, Amadeus, 1984
  • William Hurt, Kiss of the Spider Woman, 1985
  • Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, 1988
  • Daniel Day-Lewis, My Left Foot, 1989
  • Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs, 1991
  • Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven, 1992
  • Daniel Day-Lewis, In the Name of the Father, 1993
  • Anthony Hopkins, The Remains of the Day, 1993
  • Nicolas Cage, Leaving Las Vegas, 1995
  • Ralph Fiennes, The English Patient, 1996
  • Ian McKellen, Gods and Monsters, 1998
  • Kevin Spacey, American Beauty, 1999
  • Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom, 2001
  • Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York, 2002
  • Adrien Brody, The Pianist, 2002
  • Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood, 2007
  • Sean Penn, Milk, 2008

note:  I rate all aspects of film on a 9 point scale.  They also correspond to the 100 point scale for Best Picture.  Films above *** (76-99) all land on the scale.  1 point is for 76-79, just worth mentioning.  2 points is for 80-83, a weak mention, 3 points is for 84-87, near great, 4 points is for 88-89 (which is ****), a solid nominee, 5 points is for 90-91, a very solid nominee, 6 points is for 92-93, a weak winner, a 7 points is for 94-95, a worthwhile winner, 8 points is 96-97, the kind of winner you can’t complain about even if it’s not your #1 choice and 9 points is for 98-99, the very best of all-time.  The above list are my 9 point films for Actress through 2011, listed chronologically.

Best Performances All-Time by Decade:

  • 1920’s:  Lon Chaney, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, 1923
  • 1930’s:  James Stewart, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 1939
  • 1940’s:  Orson Welles, Citizen Kane, 1941
  • 1950’s:  Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951
  • 1960’s:  Peter O’Toole, Lawrence of Arabia, 1962
  • 1970’s:  Jack Nicholson, Chinatown, 1974
  • 1980’s:  Robert De Niro, Raging Bull, 1980
  • 1990’s:  Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs, 1991
  • 2000’s:  Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood, 2007
  • 2010’s:  Colin Firth, The King’s Speech, 2010

Best Performance All-Time by Age:

note:  Age is based on subtracting the year they were born from the year the film was originally released.  I’m not going to try to figure out when the birthday is or when the film was made.

  • pre-teen:  Daniel Radcliffe, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, 2001, 12
  • teenager:  Jamie Bell, Billy Elliot, 2000, 14
  • 20’s:  Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951, 27
  • 30’s:  Peter O’Toole, Lawrence of Arabia, 1962, 30
  • 40’s:  Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957, 43
  • 50’s:  Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs, 1991, 54
  • 60’s:  Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven, 1992, 62
  • 70’s:  Victor Sjostrom, Wild Strawberries, 1957, 78
  • 80’s:  Erland Josephson, Saraband, 2003, 80

Best Performance All-Time by Genre:

  • Action:  Gene Hackman, The French Connection, 1971
  • Adventure:  Humphrey Bogart, The African Queen, 1951
  • Comedy:  Jack Lemmon, The Apartment, 1960
  • Crime:  Warren Beatty, Bonnie and Clyde, 1967
  • Drama:  Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951
  • Fantasy:  Jim Carrey, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 2004
  • Horror:  Robert De Niro, Taxi Driver, 1976
  • Kids:  Gregory Peck, The Yearling, 1946
  • Musical:  James Cagney, Yankee Doodle Dandy, 1942
  • Mystery:  Jack Nicholson, Chinatown, 1974
  • Sci-Fi:  Hugh Jackman, The Fountain, 2006
  • Suspense:  Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs, 1991
  • War:  Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
  • Western:  Humphrey Bogart, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948

note:  Adventure, Fantasy, Mystery and Suspense have the same film that Actress did for this list.

The Actors

Fredric March

The first truly great actor of the Sound Era and thus the Awards Era.  He would eventually win two Oscars.  He would earn five Oscar nominations in all.  He would be first place in Nighthawk points from 1937 to 1939 and then again briefly in 1946.
Key Films:  A Star is Born, The Best Years of Our Lives, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Spencer Tracy

Though I have never been a fan of Spencer Tracy and his understated his acting, there’s no getting around his importance in this category.  He was the first to win two Best Actors Oscars and he did it in back-to-back years (even if neither choice is a good one).  He would earn 10 Oscar nominations in all, all in the lead category, which still leaves him in 1st place for the Best Actor category even after all this time.
Key Films:  Boys Town, Captains Courageous, Bad Day at Black Rock

Laurence Olivier

The premiere theatrical actor of his generation or, really, any generation.  Lots of actors have been knighted over the years but Olivier was the first one ever to be made a life peer (thus he is Lord Laurence Olivier).  He brought Shakespeare to the screen in resplendent fashion as both an actor and director and earned nine lead Oscar nominations.
Key Films:  Hamlet, Henry V, Richard III, Wuthering Heights

Marlon Brando

Brando didn’t invent the method and he wasn’t even the first major method actor on screen (Montgomery Clift had him beaten there) but he brought a new level of intensity to screen acting.  His iconic work as Stanley Kowalski didn’t win him the Oscar but it was the first of a still-record four straight Oscar nominations that did culminate in his first Oscar and he would earn a second one 18 years later.
Key Films:  A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, Last Tango in Paris, The Godfather

Paul Newman

The ultimate combination (among males) of stunning good looks and incredible acting ability.  Newman continued to rack up Oscar nominations for years (four in a decade then two more almost 15 years later) before the Academy finally gave him an Oscar, not realizing he would be back for another nomination just before turning 70.
Key Films:  The Hustler, Hud, The Verdict, The Color of Money

Dustin Hoffman

Hoffman helped herald in a new generation of actors with their intense devotion to the method, an almost anti-Hollywood generation that would rebel against the system before finally settling in to get their awards, which in Hoffman’s case includes two Oscars and five other nominations.
Key Films:  Rain Man, Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate, Kramer vs. Kramer

Jack Nicholson

As mentioned above, Jack toiled in B-movies for the likes of Roger Corman for almost a decade before earning his first Oscar nomination (in supporting).  While earning three straight nominations in the 70’s and winning an Oscar, Jack also proved he wasn’t too egotistical to take the back seat and he would earn his next two nominations in supporting (including a second Oscar) before going back for four more lead nominations including a third Oscar, just the second male to win three and the first with a supporting Oscar to win two lead Oscars.
Key Films:  Chinatown, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Five Easy Pieces, As Good as It Gets

Robert De Niro

De Niro exploded out of the gate, winning a supporting Oscar, then earning two nominations before winning his lead, all in just seven years.  He continued to be an important lead for the next decade before coming back with back-to-back Oscar nominations at the start of the 90’s.  Later in his career, he has taken an interesting turn and proven that he can actually do Comedy as well, earning a Globe nom for Comedy.
Key Films:  Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, GoodFellas

Denzel Washington

Denzel came out of television, working on St. Elsewhere and then earning a supporting Oscar nom before winning an Oscar in supporting.  After that came the lead roles, including two performances that people thought would win him that lead Oscar before he finally did win that lead Oscar (for one of the worst performances of his career).
Key Films:  Malcolm X, The Hurricane, Training Day

Daniel Day-Lewis

The most intense and devoted actor of this generation.  Day-Lewis appeared on the scene in supporting performances then graduated quickly to leads and then won an Oscar at the age of 32 for My Left Foot.  Since then, his lead roles have been few and far between but that wouldn’t stop him from a performance that won basically everything but the Oscar before winning his second lead Oscar.
Key Films:  There Will Be Blood, My Left Foot, Gangs of New York


The Academy Awards

Summary:

This was one of the initial categories at the 1st Academy Awards, of course, with Emil Jannings winning the Oscar for both The Last Command and The Way of All Flesh (the only lost film with an Oscar winning acting performance).  Some of the bigger MGM stars would win early Oscars (Lionel Barrymore, Wallace Beery) but Fredric March was the first major actor to win.  In 1936-37, we would get the first revenge win (in 36, Paul Muni beat Spencer tracy, in 37, the opposite), Tracy would become the first back-to-back winner in 37-38 and he and Muni would lead in points until 1945.  But, after March and Gary Cooper leading for a stretch, Tracy would eventually take over for good.

The Oscars liked the under-stated actors like Tracy (10 noms, 2 wins), Cooper (5 noms, 2 wins) and Gregory Peck (5 noms, one win) with all three of them earning noms three years in a row at various points.  But they also would embrace the method actors when they arose, giving Brando four straight noms (the only actor in history), three to Montgomery Clift and back-to-back posthumous noms for James Dean.  But they never really decided what they preferred with the top three point totals going to an under-stated studio actor (Tracy), the foremost theatrical actor (Olivier) and an actor of the New Hollywood who wasn’t method but could react to it (Nicholson).

Indeed, though Nicholson wasn’t the first of the new generation to earn a nomination (Beatty and Hoffman were both nominated three years earlier) or even the first to win (Hackman was, even if he was a few years older), he would become the best and the biggest of a celebrated group that arose in the 70’s (which also included De Niro and Pacino).  What’s more, they were all willing to do smaller roles as well with Nicholson, De Niro and Hackman all winning supporting Oscars as well.

Eventually a younger group would rise up and again it was a mix of the under-stated (Tom Hanks) and much more intense actors (Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Penn), all of whom have won multiple Oscars.

Multiple Nominations:

Like with all acting categories, a film can earn multiple nominations in this category.  Until 1953, the only films to earn multiple nominations were The Mutiny on the Bounty (the only film with three, none won) and Going My Way (one won and the other was really supporting), two complete oddities.  Since 1984, no film has managed multiple nominations.  But from 1953 to 1984 there were three films that won the award and earned a second nomination and seven films that earned two nominations but with neither winning the award.

Directors:

George Cukor is often thought of as a female’s director because of how many Oscar winning and nominated performances he directed but he is the only director to direct 3 Oscar winning Best Actor performances (The Philadelphia Story, A Double Life, My Fair Lady) and he directed 7 total nominees.  He is matched there by Stanley Kramer who was notable for doing it with just 5 films, the only director to twice have multiple nominees (Judgment at Nuremberg, The Defiant Ones).  Sidney Lumet, who never won an Oscar, has the record with the most nominations (8) though only one winner.  Three other notable directors directed 2 winners and 6 total nominees each (Zinnemann, Wilder, Scorsese).

Sequels:

Three sequels have earned nominations.  The first time, Bing Crosby was nominated for a role where he already won an Oscar (The Bells of St. Mary’s), the second time Al Pacino was nominated for a role where he had been nominated in supporting previously (The Godfather Part II) and the third time Paul Newman won the Oscar for a role he had only been nominated for the first time (The Color of Money).

Genres:

Not dominating as much as in the female acting categories, but still dominating, Drama accounts for 61.29% of the nominated films and 61.63% of the winners.  Comedy is the only other genre over 7% of the nominees of 9% of the winners (13.40% of the nominated films, 10.47% of the winners).  Fantasy, Kids and Sci-Fi have never won the award and the latter two only have one nominee each (as does Action, but that film (The French Connection) won the Oscar).  Suspense and Horror also only have one winner each.  Only five genres have more than two winners: Drama (53), Comedy (9), Musical (7), War and Western (4 each).

Best Picture:

Actor and Picture have gone hand in hand since almost the beginning with 27 films winning both awards.  More importantly, there have almost always been nominations of the two.  From 1966 to 1980, every Best Picture winner was nominated for Actor and from 1957 to 1980 the only three Picture winners not nominated for Actor were Musicals (Gigi, West Side Story, Sound of Music).  Of the 85 Picture winners, 54 at least earned a Picture nomination.  What’s more, only 21 of the Actor winners weren’t from Picture nominees.  There have been a total of 215 films nominated for both awards and only in 1927-28 and 2006 were none of the Best Actor nominees from a Picture nominee.  In four years, all the Actor nominees came from Picture nominees, though only once, in 1966, did they match 5-5 (in two years, 1942 and 1943, there were 10 Picture nominees and in 1964, two of the Actor nominees came from the same film).

Foreign Films:

Ten performances from Foreign films have earned Oscar nominations but sadly, only Robert Benigni has won the award.  Six of the films were Italian and Marcello Mastroianni has been nominated three times and Javier Bardem twice.

Single Nominations:

53 films have earned an Actor nomination but no other nominations with only five of them winning the award, spaced out considerably (1928, 1950, 1968, 1987, 2006).  Since 1930, the only years with more than two nominees that were their film’s sole nomination was 2006 when there were four and 1987 when there were three.

Other Categories:

By far the biggest overlap with another category is Picture with 215 films nominated for both, followed by Director (187) and Adapted Screenplay (165) with nothing else over 150.  Surprisingly enough, no film has ever won both Actor and Sound Editing.

The Academy Awards Top 10:

  1. Spencer Tracy  –  385
  2. Laurence Olivier  –  350
  3. Jack Nicholson  –  350
  4. Marlon Brando  –  315
  5. Paul Newman  –  315
  6. Dustin Hoffman  –  315
  7. Jack Lemmon  –  280
  8. Peter O’Toole  –  280
  9. Frederic March  –  245
  10. Gary Cooper  /  Tom Hanks  /  Sean Penn  –  245

note:  Of the actors listed above, all but O’Toole have an Oscar and all but Olivier, Newman and O’Toole have two.

Top 5 Oscar Winners:

  1. Alec Guinness  (The Bridge on the River Kwai)
  2. Robert De Niro  (Raging Bull)
  3. Anthony Hopkins  (The Silence of the Lambs)
  4. Jack Nicholson  (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest)
  5. Daniel Day-Lewis  (My Left Foot)

Worst 5 Oscar Winners:

  1. Wallace Beery  (The Champ)
  2. Denzel Washington  (Training Day)
  3. Spencer Tracy  (Captains Courageous)
  4. Warner Baxter  (In Old Arizona)
  5. Roberto Benigni  (Life is Beautiful)

Worst 5 Oscar Nominees:

  1. Richard Dix  (Cimarron)
  2. Jackie Cooper  (Skippy)
  3. Wallace Beery  (The Champ)
  4. Maurice Chevalier  (The Love Parade)
  5. Brad Pitt  (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)

10 Best Performances Not Nominated for an Oscar:

  1. Humphrey Bogart  (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
  2. Orson Welles  (Touch of Evil)
  3. Takashi Shimura  (Ikiru)
  4. Gunnar Bjornstrand  (Winter Light)
  5. Humphrey Bogart  (The Maltese Falcon)
  6. Orson Welles  (Chimes at Midnight)
  7. Charlie Chaplin  (Modern Times)
  8. Peter Lorre  (M)
  9. William Holden  (The Wild Bunch)
  10. Johnny Depp  (Ed Wood)

5 Most Acclaimed Performances to not Win the Oscar (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Burt Lancaster, 1981, Atlantic City
  2. Laurence Olivier, 1946, Henry V
  3. Bob Hoskins, 1986, Mona Lisa
  4. Bill Murray, 2003, Lost in Translation
  5. Ralph Richardson, 1952, The Sound Barrier

note:  Richardson managed that without even earning an Oscar nomination.
note:  I didn’t count four performances that would have landed on this list between Hoskins and Murray when there were only two awards, for people who won the NYFC and earned an Oscar nom but not the win: Paul Muni (1937, The Life of Emile Zola), James Cagney (1938, Angels with Dirty Faces), James Stewart (1939, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), Charlie Chaplin (1940, The Great Dictator).

5 Least Acclaimed Performances to Win the Oscar (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Al Pacino, 1992, Scent of a Woman
  2. Charlton Heston, 1959, Ben Hur
  3. William Holden, 1953, Stalag 17
  4. Art Carney, 1974, Harry and Tonto
  5. Tom Hanks, 1993, Philadelphia

5 Least Acclaimed Performances to Earn an Oscar Nomination (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Tommy Lee Jones, 2007, In the Valley of Elah
  2. Ed Harris, 2000, Pollock
  3. Clint Eastwood, 2004, Million Dollar Baby
  4. Edward Norton, 1998, American History X
  5. Laurence Fishburne, 1993, What’s Love Got to Do With It

5 Most Acclaimed Performances to not earn an Oscar nomination (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Ralph Richardson, 1952, The Sound Barrier
  2. Steve Martin, 1987, Roxanne
  3. Paul Giamatti, 2004, Sideways
  4. Spencer Tracy, 1953, The Actress
  5. Steve Martin, 1984, All of Me

Top 5 Oscar Years:

  1. 2002  (Adrien Brody (The Pianist)Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt))
  2. 1993  (Tom Hanks (Philadelphia)Daniel Day-Lewis (In the Name of the Father), Anthony Hopkins (The Remains of the Day), Liam Neeson (Schindler’s List), Laurence Fishburne (What’s Love Got to Do With It))
  3. 1982  (Ben Kingsley (Gandhi)Paul Newman (The Verdict), Dustin Hoffman (Tootsie), Jack Lemmon (Missing), Peter O’Toole (My Favorite Year))
  4. 2007  (Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)George Clooney (Michael Clayton), Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd), Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises), Tommy Lee Jones (In the Valley of Elah))
  5. 1979  (Dustin Hoffman (Kramer vs. Kramer)Peter Sellers (Being There), Roy Scheider (All That Jazz), Jack Lemmon (The China Syndrome), Al Pacino (And Justice for All))

Top 5 Oscars Years by Oscar Score:

  1. 2002  –  100  (Adrien Brody (The Pianist)Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt))
  2. 2007  –  100  (Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)George Clooney (Michael Clayton), Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd), Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises), Tommy Lee Jones (In the Valley of Elah))
  3. 1979  –  100  (Dustin Hoffman (Kramer vs. Kramer)Peter Sellers (Being There), Roy Scheider (All That Jazz), Jack Lemmon (The China Syndrome), Al Pacino (And Justice for All))
  4. 2009  –  100  (Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker), Colin Firth (A Single Man), George Clooney (Up in the Air), Morgan Freeman (Invictus))
  5. 2010  –  100  (Colin Firth (The King’s Speech), Jeff Bridges (True Grit), Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Javier Bardem (Biutiful), James Franco (127 Hours))

note:  The difference between this list and the previous one is that the first one is a flat total based on my 9 point scale.  In this one, it’s comparing my top five performances to the ones the Oscars actually nominated.  So, in the first one, it’s how good are the nominees.  In this one it’s how good are the nominees compared to who else was eligible. I listed them in descending order of how good I think the Top 5 are, since they all have the same score.  Actually, the last three even have the same score, so they went chronologically.
note:  Also, a perfect score of 100 doesn’t guarantee that those are also my nominees.  My #5 might have the same score as an actress who was nominated.
note:  There is a sixth perfect 100 – 1978, but it has a lower overall score for the 5 nominees than these five years.

Worst 5 Oscar Years:

  1. 1928-29  (Warner Baxter (In Old Arizona), George Bancroft (Thunderbolt), Chester Morris (Alibi), Paul Muni (The Valiant), Lewis Stone (The Patriot))
  2. 1929-30  (George Arliss (Disraeli), George Arliss (The Green Goddess), Ronald Colman (Bulldog Drummond  /  Condemned), Lawrence Tibbitt (The Rogue Song), Maurice Chevalier (The Big Pond / The Love Parade), Wallace Beery (The Big House))
  3. 1930-31  (Lionel Barrymore (A Free Soul), Adolph Menjou (The Front Page), Fredric March (The Royal Family of Broadway), Jackie Cooper (Skippy), Richard Dix (Cimarron))
  4. 1931-32  (Fredric March (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), Wallace Beery (The Champ), Alfred Lunt (The Guardsman))
  5. 1945  (Ray Milland (The Lost Weekend), Gene Kelly (Anchors Aweigh), Gregory Peck (The Keys of the Kingdom), Bing Crosby (The Bells of St. Mary’s), Cornel Wilde (A Song to Remember))

Worst 5 Oscar Years by Oscar Score:

  1. 1928-29  –  12.5  (Warner Baxter (In Old Arizona), George Bancroft (Thunderbolt), Chester Morris (Alibi), Paul Muni (The Valiant), Lewis Stone (The Patriot))
  2. 1929-30  –  25.0  (George Arliss (Disraeli), George Arliss (The Green Goddess), Ronald Colman (Bulldog Drummond  /  Condemned), Lawrence Tibbitt (The Rogue Song), Maurice Chevalier (The Big Pond / The Love Parade), Wallace Beery (The Big House))
  3. 1930-31  –  40.0  (Lionel Barrymore (A Free Soul), Adolph Menjou (The Front Page), Fredric March (The Royal Family of Broadway), Jackie Cooper (Skippy), Richard Dix (Cimarron))
  4. 1931-32  –  41.2  (Fredric March (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), Wallace Beery (The Champ), Alfred Lunt (The Guardsman))
  5. 2001  –  54.1  (Denzel Washington (Training Day), Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom), Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind), Will Smith (Ali), Sean Penn (I Am Sam))

Oscar Scores by Decade:

  • 1920’s:  70.8
  • 1930’s:  68.8
  • 1940’s:  75.0
  • 1950’s:  80.8
  • 1960’s:  80.8
  • 1970’s:  91.5
  • 1980’s:  88.6
  • 1990’s:  84.6
  • 2000’s:  87.1
  • 2010’s:  98.6
  • All-Time:  83.7

Top 5 Films to win the Oscar (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. The Godfather
  2. The Bridge on the River Kwai
  3. The Silence of the Lambs
  4. Raging Bull
  5. The Best Years of Our Lives

Worst 5 Films to win the Oscar  (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. Training Day
  2. Scent of a Woman
  3. Charly
  4. The Champ
  5. True Grit

Worst 5 Films to earn an Oscar nomination (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. Cleopatra
  2. I Am Sam
  3. Love Story
  4. Training Day
  5. Sling Blade

Years in Which the Worst of the Nominees Won the Oscar:

  • 1937  –  Spencer Tracy (Captains Courageous) over Fredric March, Paul Muni, Robert Montgomery, Charles Boyer
  • 1938  –  Spencer Tracy (Boys Town) over Leslie Howard, James Cagney, Charles Boyer, Robert Donat
  • 1968  –  Cliff Robertson (Charly) over Peter O’Toole, Alan Arkin, Alan Bates, Ron Moody
  • 1969  –  John Wayne (True Grit) over Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole
  • 1974  –  Art Carney (Harry and Tonto) over Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Albert Finney
  • 1992  –  Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman) over Clint Eastwood, Denzel Washington, Stephen Rea, Robert Downey Jr
  • 1998  –  Roberto Benigni (Life is Beautiful) over Ian McKellen, Tom Hanks, Nick Nolte, Edward Norton
  • 2001  –  Denzel Washington (Training Day) over Tom Wilkinson, Russell Crowe, Will Smith, Sean Penn

Oscar Oddities and Tidbits:

  • Emil Jannings, The Way of All Flesh, 1928
    • One of the two films Jannings wins the initial Oscar for is the only lost Oscar winning performance.
  • Wallace Beery, The Champ, 1933
    • Finishes one vote behind Fredric March.  Academy declares a tie.  Read more here.
  • Spencer Tracy, Captains Courageous, 1937
    • The first “revenge” winner, in that he lost the previous year but won this year over the previous year’s winner (Paul Muni).
  • Spencer Tracy, Boys Town, 1938
    • The first repeat Oscar winner.  Also, the first actor nominated three straight years.
  • Gary Cooper, Sergeant York, 1941
    • The seventh NYFC winner but the first to also win the Oscar (the first six all earned noms but lost).
  • Barry Fitzgerald, Going My Way, 1944
    • Nominated for both Actor and Supporting Actor for the same performance (rules changed after this to prevent it) – wins the latter
  • Ray Milland, The Lost Weekend, 1945
    • The first sweep winner of four awards (in the first year of the NBR).
  • William Holden, Stalag 17, 1953
    • The last winner to date with no other nominations (and indeed, the last winner without at least a Globe nom).
  • Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront, 1954
    • The first (and only) four straight nominee.
  • Ernest Borgnine, Marty, 1955
    • The first sweep winner of 5 awards.
  • Yul Brynner, The King and I, 1956
    • The only Globe – Comedy / Musical loser to go on to win the Oscar.
  • Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
    • The second sweep winner of 5 awards and the last sweep winner until 2006 because of the addition of new awards.
  • Jack Lemmon, Save the Tiger, 1973
    • The last winner with no other wins.
  • Jack Nicholson / Al Pacino, 1973-75
    • The only stretch of three straight years with the same two nominees.
  • Jack Nicholson, Chinatown, 1974
    • The first actor to win more than two awards but then lose the Oscar (winning four awards).
  • Bob Hoskins, Mona Lisa, 1986
    • Wins 6 of 7 nominations, including Globe.  Fails to win the Oscar.  Sets new Consensus record for losing Oscar.
  • Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman, 1992
    • First actor nominated for lead and supporting in same year (other than Fitzgerald’s oddity); wins the former.
  • Bill Murray, Lost in Translation, 2003
    • Crushes Consensus record for most points without winning the Oscar.
  • Colin Firth, The King’s Speech, 2010
    • The second “revenge winner”, this time beating Jeff Bridges.

Kudos to the Oscars – the best post-1949 performances nominated by the Oscars but no one else

  1. Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951
  2. William Holden, Sunset Blvd., 1950
  3. William Holden, Stalag 17, 1953
  4. Humphrey Bogart, The Caine Mutiny, 1954
  5. Montgomery Clift, From Here to Eternity, 1953
  6. Kirk Douglas, The Bad and the Beautiful, 1952
  7. Alec Guinness, The Lavender Hill Mob, 1952
  8. Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby, 2004
  9. Paul Newman, Absence of Malice, 1981
  10. Montgomery Clift, A Place in the Sun, 1951

The BAFTAs

Summary:

The BAFTAs didn’t give out acting awards for the first few years.  They began in 1952 with four awards, split by gender and split into British and Foreign.  With no supporting awards, many performances deemed supporting by other groups would be pushed into the regular category.  In the Foreign category, the BAFTA would not be so far away from the Oscar with five winners the same and most Oscar winners earning a BAFTA nom at least.  Marlon Brando would dominate by winning the first three awards.  In the British category, the BAFTA would mostly focus on distinguished British film actors who were completely ignored by the Oscars including Kenneth More and Jack Hawkins and giving three awards to Peter Finch years before he would win his posthumous Oscar.

In 1968, the BAFTAs would drop the distinction between the two categories and add Supporting Actor as a category and set the number of nominees at four where it would stay, with a couple of exceptions, until 2000.  In this category, they would be very much, for the first decade, about awarding an actor for multiple performances; of the first eight winners, six of them were for multiple performances.  That seemed to finally break in 1976 when two actors were nominated for multiple performances (Dustin Hoffman, Walter Matthau) but neither won the award.  After that, there were two oddities (1982, with five nominees, 1983 with two winners) but the rest of the years were just four nominees and one winner.

After 1982, they also became more consistent with the Oscars, though there would be issues because of different eligibility years and the occasional British actor would win the award without even an Oscar nomination (John Cleese in 1988, Hugh Grant in 1994, Robert Carlyle in 1997, Jamie Bell in 2000).  Since 2000, no BAFTA winner has failed to earn an Oscar nomination and most actors have won both awards.  Since 1992, Bill Murray and Mickey Rourke are the only Americans to win the BAFTA without winning the Oscar.

Genres:

Drama  (53.68% noms, 60.00% winners) and Comedy (18.80% noms, 21.18% winners) account for over 70% of the nominees and 80% of the winners.  Kids and Sci-Fi have never had a nominee and Action, Fantasy and Horror have never had a winner.  And the numbers above only account for the films – Drama actually has one more winner (Julius Caesar won British and Foreign awards) plus eight films that earned two nominations without winning and another six films with a winner and a nominee.

Best Picture:

A whopping 22 films have won Picture and Actor.  Before 1968, 12 films won both with eight of those also winning the British Film award.  After the drop to one Actor category in 1968, things stayed strong for a while (9 films in the first 20 years) but after that it dropped off with only three films winning both in the 90’s and none in the 00’s though the last two years have revived it with both The King’s Speech and The Artist winning both.  The King’s Speech is notable as the first film since the current British Film award was established in the early 90’s to win Picture, Actor and British Film.  While no film won both Picture and Actor in the 00’s, seven of the films that won Actor were Picture nominees and overall, 36 films have been nominated for Actor and won Picture.  There have been another 112 films nominated for both awards.

Multiple Nominations:

Because of the long stretch (1952-1967) of the British Actor and Foreign Actor categories there are a lots of films that earned multiple nominations (also because there was no supporting category at the time and many performances that might have been deemed supporting were nominated as lead).  Julius Caesar is notable for being the only film to win both awards.  Prior to 1968, there were 19 films nominated for multiple performances with eight of them winning an award but since 1968, only seven films have done it with only three winning an award (Network, The Killing Fields, A Fish Called Wanda) and only one film earning multiple nominations since 1988 (21 Grams).  It’s also notable that of those seven films, four of them (Killing Fields, Fish, 21 Grams, Hannah and Her Sisters) earned a nomination for a performance that earned an Oscar nomination (in three cases actually won the Oscar) in supporting.

Single Nominees:

Of the 367 films nominated for Actor (30 more than Actress), only 71 of them earned no other nominations (23 fewer than Actress).  Ten of those films won the award though since 1967 it’s only been three with two of those (Downhill Racer, Pete n Tillie) being part of an actor winning the award for multiple films.  The only completely single performance to win the Actor award is Kiss of the Spider Woman.  In addition, the idea has mostly gone away with no film earning that single nomination between 1985 and 1999, then four in a row from 1999 to 2002 then none since.

Foreign Films:

The Foreign Actor category that existed from 1952 to 1967 was mostly filled with American actors rather than performances in foreign language films.  There were, by my count, 23 films during that stretch and only three winners came from those films (Gervaise, Divorce Italian Style, Yesterday Today and Tomorrow) though Seven Samurai and Inspector Maigret both earned multiple noms.  Since the drop of the split category, there have been nine nominees with only one before 1987 and then usually every few years since.  Cinema Paradiso and Life is Beautiful won the award and Jean de Florette earned two noms.

Other Categories:

Picture is the category that most often lines up with Actor by a long, long way with 201 films nominated for both.  Because I list Screenplay as one category at the BAFTAs that is the only other category over 100 match-ups with 166 total while Actress lines up exactly 100 times.  Sixteen films have won both Actor and Actress, almost half of them during the years when there were multiple Actor and Actress categories and only three films managing it since 1983 (Silence of the Lambs, American Beauty, Lost in Translation).  Eight films have managed to win Picture, Actor and Actress, three of them before there was a Director category (Room at the Top, The Apartment, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf), two of them failing to win Director (Educating Rita, American Beauty), two of them winning Director but not Screenplay (Sunday Bloody Sunday, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and one winning the big five (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid).

The BAFTA Top 10:

  1. Peter Finch  –  420
  2. Jack Lemmon  –  350
  3. Marlon Brando  –  315
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  280
  5. Dustin Hoffman  –  280
  6. Michael Caine  –  280
  7. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  280
  8. Sidney Poitier  –  245
  9. Dirk Bogarde  –  245
  10. Spencer Tracy  /  Albert Finney  /  Anthony Hopkins  –  210

The BAFTA Top 5  (British Actor, 1952-1967):

  1. Peter Finch  –  280
  2. Laurence Olivier  –  245
  3. Dirk Bogarde  –  210
  4. Kenneth More  –  175
  5. Jack Hawkins  /  Trevor Howard  /  Alec Guinness  /  Richard Attenborough  /  Richard Burton  –  140

The BAFTA Top 5  (Foreign Actor, 1952-1967)

  1. Marlon Brando  –  245
  2. Jack Lemmon  –  245
  3. Sidney Poitier  –  245
  4. Spencer Tracy  –  140
  5. Paul Newman  /  Marcello Mastroianni  /  Rod Steiger  –  140

Top 5 BAFTA Winners:

  1. Peter O’Toole  (Lawrence of Arabia)
  2. Alec Guinness  (The Bridge on the River Kwai)
  3. Jack Nicholson  (Chinatown)
  4. Anthony Hopkins  (The Silence of the Lambs)
  5. Jack Nicholson  (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest)

Top 3 BAFTA Years  (British Actor, 1952-1967)

  1. 1963  (Dirk Bogarde (The Servant), Albert Finney, Hugh Griffith (Tom Jones), Tom Courtenay (Billy Liar), Richard Harris (This Sporting Life))
  2. 1966  (Richard Burton (Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf / The Spy Who Came in from the Cold), Ralph Richardson (Doctor Zhivago / Khartoum / The Wrong Box), Michael Caine (Alfie), David Warner (Morgan))
  3. 1960  (Peter Finch (The Trials of Oscar Wilde), Alec Guinness, John Mills (Tunes of Glory), Richard Attenborough (The Angry Silence), Albert Finney (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning), Laurence Olivier (The Entertainer), John Fraser (The Trials of Oscar Wilde))

Top 3 BAFTA Years  (Foreign Actor, 1952-1967)

  1. 1967  (Rod Steiger (In the Heat of the Night), Sidney Poitier (In the Heat of the Night), Orson Welles (Chimes at Midnight), Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde))
  2. 1955  (Ernest Borgnine (Marty), Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura (Ikiru), James Dean (East of Eden), Jack Lemmon (Mr. Roberts), Frank Sinatra (Not as a Stranger))
  3. 1960  (Jack Lemmon (The Apartment), Burt Lancaster (Elmer Gantry), Fredric March, Spencer Tracy (Inherit the Wind), Yves Montand (Let’s Make Love), George Hamilton (Crime and Punishment U.S.A.))

Top 5 BAFTA Years  (4 Nominees, 1968-1998):

  1. 1993  (Anthony Hopkins (Shadowlands), Anthony Hopkins (The Remains of the Day), Daniel Day-Lewis (In the Name of the Father), Liam Neeson (Schindler’s List))
  2. 1980  (John Hurt (The Elephant Man), Peter Sellers (Being There), Roy Scheider (All That Jazz), Dustin Hoffman (Kramer vs. Kramer))
  3. 1989  (Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot), Dustin Hoffman (Rain Man), Kenneth Branagh (Henry V), Robin Williams (Dead Poets Society))
  4. 1981  (Burt Lancaster (Atlantic City), Robert De Niro (Raging Bull), Bob Hoskins (The Long Good Friday), Jeremy Irons (The French Lieutenant’s Woman))
  5. 1985  (William Hurt (Kiss of the Spider Woman), F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus), Harrison Ford (Witness), Victor Banerjee (A Passage to India))

Top 3 BAFTA Years  (5 Nominees, 1999-2011):

  1. 2002  (Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York)Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt))
  2. 2005  (Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote)Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain), Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener), David Strathairn (Good Night and Good Luck), Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line))
  3. 2011  (Jean Dujardin (The Artist), George Clooney (The Descendents), Gary Oldman (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), Michael Fassbender (Shame), Brad Pitt (Moneyball))

Years in Which the Worst of the Nominees Won the BAFTA:

  • 1961 – Brit  –  Peter Finch (No Love for Johnnie) over Dirk Bogarde
  • 1963 – Brit  –  Dirk Bogarde (The Servant) over Albert Finney, Hugh Griffith, Tom Courtenay, Richard Harris
  • 1964 – For  –  Marcello Mastroianni (Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow) over Sterling Hayden, Sidney Poitier, Cary Grant
  • 1965 – Brit  –  Dirk Bogarde (Darling) over Rex Harrison, Michael Caine, Harry Andrews
  • 1967 – For  –  Rod Steiger (In the Heat of the Night) over Orson Welles, Warren Beatty, Sidney Poitier
  • 1968  –  Spencer Tracy (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner) over Trevor Howard, Nicol Williamson, Ron Moody
  • 1990  –  Philippe Noiret (Cinema Paradiso) over Robert De Niro, Tom Cruise, Sean Connery
  • 1992  –  Robert Downey Jr (Chaplin) over Daniel Day-Lewis, Tim Robbins, Stephen Rea
  • 1998  –  Roberto Benigni (Life is Beautiful) over Tom Hanks, Michael Caine, Joseph Fiennes

Kudos to the BAFTAs – the best performances nominated by the BAFTAs but no one else:

  1. Takashi Shimura  (Ikiru)
  2. Orson Welles  (Chimes at Midnight)
  3. Alec Guinness  (Tunes of Glory)
  4. James Dean  (Rebel Without a Cause)
  5. Bob Hoskins  (The Long Good Friday)
  6. Ralph Fiennes  (The End of the Affair)
  7. Tony Curtis  (Sweet Smell of Success)
  8. Henry Fonda  (12 Angry Men)
  9. Daniel Day-Lewis  (The Last of the Mohicans)
  10. John Mills  (Tunes of Glory)

note:  Very different from the Actress list which was mostly foreign and had no Americans.  Here we have four Americans plus an Irish actor in a Hollywood production.  Dean kind of deserves an asterisk because the Oscars nominated him for East of Eden instead and the Globes didn’t have nominees that year, but rather just a winner.

The BAFTAs Being Different

  • David Niven, 1958, Separate Tables  –  Niven, a British actor, wins the Oscar, Globe and NYFC but doesn’t earn even a nom from the BAFTAs.
  • 1965  –  Because of eligibility differences and two BAFTA categories, four of the five Oscar nominees (Lee Marvin, Rod Steiger, Oskar Werner (though for a different film), Richard Burton) win the BAFTA while Laurence Olivier, playing Othello, doesn’t earn a nomination.
  • 1970  –  Dustin Hoffman wins the BAFTA in part for Midnight Cowboy while his co-star, Jon Voight, who won the NYFC and NSFC and earned Oscar and Globe noms isn’t even nominated.
  • George C. Scott, 1970, Patton  –  Wins five of the six awards, the first actor to win all three critics awards, loses BAFTA.
  • Jon Voight, 1978, Coming Home  –  Wins five awards including the Oscar; fails to even be nominated at the BAFTAs.
  • Dustin Hoffman, 1980, Kramer vs. Kramer  –  Wins five awards, pushed into next year in BAFTA eligibility and loses.
  • Robert De Niro, 1981, Raging Bull  –  Wins six awards, pushed into next year in BAFTA eligibility and loses.
  • Haing S. Ngor, 1984, The Killing Fields  –  After winning the Globe and Oscar as supporting, Ngor wins the BAFTA for lead.
  • Michael Caine, 1986, Hannah and Her Sisters  –  After winning the Oscar and earning a Globe nom for supporting, Caine is BAFTA nominated as a lead.
  • Kevin Kline, 1988, A Fish Called Wanda  –  After winning the Oscar for supporting, BAFTA nominated as lead.
  • Jeremy Irons, 1990, Reversal of Fortune  –  British actor, wins 6 awards including Oscar, doesn’t even earn BAFTA nom.
  • Nicolas Cage, 1995, Leaving Las Vegas  –  Kept from the first perfect 10 for 10 sweep by losing the BAFTA.
  • 1997  –  For the only time in history, none of the Oscar nominees receive a BAFTA nom.  Last time to date that BAFTA winner (Robert Carlyle) receives no other nominations.
  • Benicio del Toro, 2003, 21 Grams  –  Earns SAG, BFCA and Oscar noms for supporting, BAFTA nom for lead.
  • Denzel Washington, career  –  Has never earned a BAFTA nom



The Golden Globes

Summary:

The Golden Globes are known for their split into two – Drama and Comedy / Musical.  That wasn’t actually always the case, as all their awards until 1950 were just one category (Actor).  Even then, things weren’t how they were now.  From 1943 to 1948, there was just a winner (although all were from Dramas).  In 1949, there was a winner and a nominee.  Starting in 1950, they were split into Drama and Comedy, though in 1951 for Comedy and in both from 1953 to 1955, there were no nominees, only winners.  After that, with a few exceptions (most notably 1962 and 1963), there would be five nominees in each category.

Multiple Nominations (Films):

Seven films have won Actor and earned another nomination, four in Drama (In the Heat of the Night, The Godfather, The Dresser, Amadeus) and two in Comedy (The Fisher King, In Bruges).  Of those seven, three of the Drama winners went on to win the Oscar and all eight Drama actors earned Oscar nominations (though one was in supporting) while in Comedy, The Fisher King earned a nomination while In Bruges got nothing.  The Sunshine Boys actually won Best Actor twice in a tie and one winner earned an Oscar nom while the other won the Oscar in supporting.  Another 13 films have earned multiple nominations for Actor without a win for either, five in Drama and seven in Comedy.  Of the five in Drama, two earned both Oscar noms (The Defiant Ones, Midnight Cowboy), two earned a single nom (Sons and Lovers, Lawrence of Arabia) while the last earned only a single nom but actually won the Oscar (Kiss of the Spider Woman).  Of the 14 performances in Comedy, they combined for one Oscar nom: The Odd Couple.

Multiple Nominations (Actors):

Jack Lemmon was the first Actor to score two nominations in one year, earning two Comedy noms in 1963 (Under the Yum Yum Tree, Irma La Douce) in a field with eight nominees.  In 1966, Michael Caine became the first to snag noms in both categories with Alfie and Gambit while Dustin Hoffman did it in 1969 (Midnight Cowboy, John and Mary).  In 1992, Tim Robbins became the first Actor to beat himself winning Comedy (The Player) and earning a second nom (Bob Roberts) while Tom Hanks the next year won Drama (Philadelphia) while earning a Comedy nom (Sleepless in Seattle).  Billy Bob Thornton earned noms in both in 2001 (The Man Who Wasn’t There, Bandits) which was ironic given how good his performance was in Monster’s Ball.  Leo earned multiple Drama noms in 2006 (The Departed, Blood Diamond) and Johnny Depp did it in Comedy in 2010 (Alice in Wonderland, The Tourist), the latter presumably because the Globe voters lost their minds which they would do again the next year because Ryan Gosling deserved a Drama nom for Blue Valentine but not a Comedy one for Crazy Stupid Love.

Genres:

Ah, the joy of what you consider a specific genre.  There have been 286 films nominated in the Comedy / Musical category with 254 of them being classified by me as either a Comedy or a Musical and only, thankfully, one of them as a Drama (Diary of a Mad Housewife).  But in Drama, there are 311 films, 9 of which I consider Musicals and a whopping 22 that I have as Comedy.  While I am more open on the Musical categorization (it includes three winners – Amadeus, Shine, Crazy Heart), there are also five Comedies that win the Drama award (Cyrano de Bergerac, The Actress, Forrest Gump, The Truman Show, About Schmidt – even Jack said it was a Comedy after he won).  There is also Around the World in 80 Days which won Actor – Comedy but Picture – Drama.

Best Picture:

Like with Actress, the lead categories line up with Picture a lot more at the Globes, of course, because of the Drama / Comedy distinction for both.  But it’s especially true in Actor.  In Comedy, 23 films have won Picture and Actor and in Drama, the number is 25, including a five year streak from 1964 to 1968.  In all, 90 Best Picture winners at the Globes (out of 135) have at least earned an Actor nomination (43 Comedy, 47 Drama).  From 1956 (when nominees in all categories became the standard) to 1995, only one year had no Actor nominees among the Picture winners (1986), though it has become at least an occasional occurrence since then (1995, 2006, 2009).  Slightly more than half of all the nominated films in both Comedy and Drama also earned Picture nominations.  The most prevalent was Comedy in the 70’s – only 14 films earned an Actor nomination without a Picture nomination and oddly, one of them (All That Jazz) actually earned a Picture nom at the Oscars.  In three years, every Comedy Actor nominee came from a Picture nominee (1959, 1973, 1975) and it happened in Drama in 1960, 1972 and 1997 though I should point out that in most of those years at least one film with two nominees.

Foreign Films:

In the mid 60’s, there were four Foreign Comedy films with nominees including back-to-back winners in 1962 (Divorce Italian Style) and 1963 (Il Diavolo).  But, after 1967, there have only been three nominees and all of them were in Drama (A Special Day, Before Night Falls, Mar Adentro).

Single Nominations:

There have been 143 films nominated for Actor and nothing else (far fewer than the 203 for Actress).  Of those, 20 won the Globe (12 Drama, 8 Comedy).  But 11 of them were by 1959 and then only four more from 1987 to 2001 before becoming more frequent starting in 2005.  Since 1956 (when nominations became the standard) the only year where both Actor winners had no other nominations was 1987 (Wall Street, Good Morning Vietnam).  Wall Street and Last King of Scotland are the only films to do this at the Globes and the Oscars

Other Categories:

With 335 overlapping films, Picture is by far the biggest category to join with Actor.  Director (179) and Actress (154) are the next highest overlapping categories.  Only three films have managed to win Actor and Actress in Drama, all of them in a four year stretch (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Network, Coming Home – and all three won both Oscars as well) but a dozen films have done it in Comedy with only As Good as It Gets repeating it at the Oscars.  Foreign is by far the category with the least overlap (17, but a lot of those were the “English Language” Foreign category).

The Golden Globes Top 10  (Drama):

  1. Al Pacino  –  420
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  385
  3. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  280
  4. Tom Hanks  –  245
  5. Gregory Peck  –  245
  6. Jon Voight  –  245
  7. Dustin Hoffman  –  245
  8. Paul Newman  –  245
  9. Peter O’Toole  –  245
  10. eight actors  –  210

The Golden Globes Top 10  (Comedy / Musical):

  1. Jack Lemmon  –  455
  2. Johnny Depp  –  350
  3. Walter Matthau  –  315
  4. Robin Williams  –  280
  5. Dustin Hoffman  –  245
  6. Michael Caine  –  210
  7. Jack Nicholson  –  210
  8. Jim Carrey  –  210
  9. Danny Kaye  –  175
  10. Cary Grant  /  Peter Sellers  /  Dudley Moore  /  Steve Martin  /  John Travolta  –  175

The Golden Globes Top 10

  1. Jack Lemmon  –  665
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  595
  3. Dustin Hoffman  –  490
  4. Al Pacino  –  455
  5. Peter O’Toole  –  385
  6. Tom Hanks  –  385
  7. Johnny Depp  –  385
  8. Robin Williams  –  350
  9. Walter Matthau  /  Robert De Niro  /  Michael Caine  –  350

Top 5 Globe Drama Winners:

  1. Alec Guinness  (The Bridge on the River Kwai)
  2. Jack Nicholson  (Chinatown)
  3. Robert De Niro  (Raging Bull)
  4. Peter O’Toole  (The Lion in Winter)
  5. Jack Nicholson  (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest)

Top 5 Globe Comedy Winners:

  1. Jack Lemmon  (The Apartment)
  2. Peter Sellers  (Being There)
  3. Bill Murray  (Lost in Translation)
  4. Dustin Hoffman  (Tootsie)
  5. Jack Lemmon  (Some Like It Hot)

Worst 5 Globe Drama Winners:

  1. Anthony Franciosa  (Career)
  2. Jon Voight  (Runaway Train)
  3. Al Pacino  (Scent of a Woman)
  4. Alexander Knox  (Wilson)
  5. Gregory Peck  (The Yearling)

Worst 5 Globe Comedy Winners:

  1. Tom Ewell  (The Seven Year Itch)
  2. Richard Harris  (Camelot)
  3. Danny Kaye  (On the Riviera)
  4. Ray Sharkey  (The Idolmaker)
  5. Robin Williams  (Mrs. Doubtfire)

Worst 5 Globe Drama Nominees:

  1. Jon Voight  (The Champ)
  2. Brad Pitt  (Legends of the Fall)
  3. Tom Tryon  (The Cardinal)
  4. Gregory Peck  (MacArthur)
  5. Al Pacino  (Scarface)

Worst 5 Globe Comedy Nominees:

  1. Johnny Depp  (The Tourist)
  2. Rex Harrison  (Doctor Dolittle)
  3. Tom Ewell  (The Seven Year Itch)
  4. Richard Harris  (Camelot)
  5. Edward Albert  (Butterflies are Free)

10 Best English Language Post-1955 Drama Performances Not Nominated for the Globe:

  1. Orson Welles  (Touch of Evil)
  2. Marlon Brando  (Last Tango in Paris)
  3. Clint Eastwood  (Unforgiven)
  4. Tom Wilkinson  (In the Bedroom)
  5. Orson Welles  (Chimes at Midnight)
  6. Kenneth Branagh  (Henry V)
  7. Kirk Douglas  (Paths of Glory)
  8. Kenneth Branagh  (Hamlet)
  9. Jeremy Renner  (The Hurt Locker)
  10. William Holden  (The Wild Bunch)

10 Best English Language Post-1955 Comedy Performances Not Nominated for the Globe

  1. Peter Sellers  (Dr. Strangelove)
  2. George C. Scott  (Dr. Strangelove)
  3. Harrison Ford  (Raiders of the Lost Ark)
  4. George Clooney  (Out of Sight)
  5. Ewan McGregor  (Trainspotting)
  6. Jeff Bridges  (The Big Lebowski)
  7. Kenneth Branagh  (Much Ado About Nothing)
  8. Kevin Costner  (Bull Durham)
  9. John Cusack  (Say Anything)
  10. George Clooney  (Three Kings)

note:  Certainly some of these wouldn’t have been considered Comedies by the Globes but how did they miss both Strangelove performances?  Also, in 1998 the Globes nominated Robin Williams for Patch Adams rather than Clooney or Bridges.

5 Most Acclaimed Performances to not Win the Globe (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Burt Lancaster, Atlantic City, 1981
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis, My Left Foot, 1989
  3. Sean Penn, Milk, 2008
  4. Robert De Niro, Taxi Driver, 1976
  5. Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs, 1991

5 Least Acclaimed Performances to Win the Drama Globe (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Jim Carrey, The Truman Show, 1998
  2. Omar Sharif, Doctor Zhivago, 1965
  3. Anthony Franciosa, Career, 1959
  4. Jon Voight, Runaway Train, 1985
  5. Denzel Washington, The Hurricane, 1999

5 Most Acclaimed Performances to not earn a Globe nomination (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Laurence Olivier, Henry V, 1946
  2. Bing Crosby, Going My Way, 1944
  3. Ralph Richardson, The Sound Barrier, 1952
  4. Marlon Brando, Last Tango in Paris, 1973
  5. Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker, 2009

note:  I won’t do a least acclaimed for this because it’s just going to be five very recent performances that earned no other nominations, since there are so many points available nowadays..

Top 5 Globe Years  (Drama):

  1. 1972  (Marlon Brando (The Godfather)Al Pacino (The Godfather), Laurence Olivier, Michael Caine (Sleuth), Jon Voight (Deliverance))
  2. 2002  (Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt)Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Leonardo DiCaprio (Catch Me If You Can))
  3. 1984  (F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus), Tom Hulce (Amadeus), Sam Waterston (The Killing Fields), Albert Finney (Under the Volcano), Jeff Bridges (Starman))
  4. 2007  (Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)George Clooney (Michael Clayton), James McAvoy (Atonement), Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises), Denzel Washington (Eastern Promises))
  5. 1995  (Nicolas Cage (Leaving Las Vegas)Ian McKellen (Richard III), Anthony Hopkins (Nixon), Sean Penn (Dead Man Walking), Richard Dreyfuss (Mr. Holland’s Opus))

Top 5 Globe Years  (Comedy):

  1. 2004  (Jamie Foxx (Ray), Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), Paul Giamatti (Sideways), Kevin Spacey (Beyond the Sea), Kevin Kline (De-Lovely))
  2. 2002  (Richard Gere (Chicago), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Hugh Grant (About a Boy), Adam Sandler (Punch Drunk Love), Kieran Culkin (Igby Goes Down))
  3. 1989  (Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy), Jack Nicholson (Batman), Steve Martin (Parenthood), Billy Crystal (When Harry Met Sally), Michael Douglas (The War of the Roses))
  4. 2007  (Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd), Tom Hanks (Charlie Wilson’s War), Ryan Gosling (Lars and the Real Girl), Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Savages), John C. Reilly (Walk Hard))
  5. 1988  (Tom Hanks (Big), Bob Hoskins (Who Framed Roger Rabbit), John Cleese (A Fish Called Wanda), Robert De Niro (Midnight Run), Michael Caine (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels))

note:  The Top 5 Drama years are much better than the Top 5 Comedy years.  The #1 Comedy year is way below even the #5 Drama year.

Worst 5 Globe Years  (Drama):

  1. 1977  (Richard Burton (Equus), Marcello Mastroianni (A Special Day), Al Pacino (Bobby Deerfield), Henry Wrinkler (Heroes), Gregory Peck (MacArthur))
  2. 1952  (Gary Cooper (High Noon), Ray Milland (The Thief), Charles Boyer (The Happy Time))
  3. 1959  (Anthony Franciosa (Career), Richard Burton (Look Back in Anger), Joseph Schildkraut (The Diary of Anne Frank), Charlton Heston (Ben Hur), Fredric March (Middle of the Night))
  4. 1964  (Peter O’Toole (Becket), Richard Burton (Becket), Fredric March (Seven Days in May), Anthony Quinn (Zorba the Greek), Anthony Franciosa (Rio Conchos))
  5. 1956  (Kirk Douglas (Lust for Life), Karl Malden (Baby Doll), Gary Cooper (Friendly Persuasion), Burt Lancaster (The Rainmaker), Charlton Heston (The 10 Commandments))

Worst 5 Globe Years  (Comedy):

  1. 1961  (Glenn Ford (Pocketful of Miracles), Richard Beymer (West Side Story), Fred Astaire (The Pleasure of His Company), Bob Hope (Bachelor in Paradise), Fred MacMurray (The Absent-Minded Professor))
  2. 1957  (Frank Sinatra (Pal Joey), Maurice Chevalier (Love in the Afternoon), Glenn Ford (Don’t Go Near the Water), David Niven (My Man Godfrey), Tony Randall (Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter))
  3. 1990  (Gerard Depardieu (Green Card), Johnny Depp (Edward Scissorhands), Patrick Swayze (Ghost), Richard Gere (Pretty Woman), Macauley Culkin (Home Alone))
  4. 1976  (Kris Kristofferson (A Star is Born), Gene Wilder (Silver Streak), Mel Brooks (Silent Movie), Peter Sellers (The Pink Panther Strikes Again), Jack Weston (The Ritz))
  5. 1980  (Ray Sharkey (The Idolmaker), Paul Le Mat (Melvin and Howard), Walter Matthau (Hopscotch), Tommy Lee Jones (The Coal Miner’s Daughter), Neil Diamond (The Jazz Singer))

Top 5 Films to win the Globe – Drama (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. The Godfather
  2. Chinatown
  3. The Bridge on the River Kwai
  4. On the Waterfront
  5. Raging Bull

Top 5 Films to win the Globe – Comedy  (based on quality of film not the performance)

  1. Some Like It Hot
  2. The Apartment
  3. Lost in Translation
  4. The Fisher King
  5. Four Weddings and a Funeral

Worst 5 Films to win the Globe – Drama  (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. Scent of a Woman
  2. True Grit
  3. Wilson
  4. Runaway Train
  5. Career

Worst 5 Films to win the Globe – Comedy  (based on quality of film not the performance)

  1. Camelot
  2. Cat Ballou
  3. Borat
  4. Mrs. Doubtfire
  5. Scrooge

Worst 5 Films to earn a Globe nomination (either) (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. The Tourist
  2. Patch Adams
  3. Cleopatra
  4. Doctor Dolittle
  5. Love Story

Years in Which the Worst of the Nominees Won the Globe:

  • 1959 – Drama  –  Anthony Franciosa (Career) wins over Richard Burton, Charlton Heston, Fredric March, Joseph Schildkraut
  • 1992 – Drama  –  Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman) wins over Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Robert Downey Jr
  • 1993 – Comedy  –  Robin Williams (Mrs. Doubtfire) wins over Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks, Colm Meaney, Kevin Kline

Kudos to the Globes – the best performances nominated by the Globes – Drama but no one else

  1. Kirk Douglas, Detective Story, 1951
  2. Forest Whitaker, Bird, 1988
  3. Leonardo DiCaprio, Revolutionary Road, 2008
  4. Al Pacino, The Godfather Part III, 1990
  5. Liam Neeson, Michael Collins, 1996

Kudos to the Globes – the best performances nominated by the Globes – Comedy but no one else

  1. Robert Preston, The Music Man, 1962
  2. Johnny Depp, Ed Wood, 1994
  3. John Cusack, High Fidelity, 2000
  4. Bob Hoskins, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, 1988
  5. George Clooney, O Brother Where Art Thou, 2000

We Agree on the Film but Not the Performance – films that earned Oscar and Globe noms for different performers

note:  Only listed if they nominated different performers in the same category.

  • 1978:  Laurence Olivier nominated for the Oscar, Gregory Peck nominated for the Globe  (The Boys from Brazil)
  • 1990:  Robert De Niro nominated for the Oscar, Robin Williams nominated for the Globe  (Awakenings)

Globe Lists:

  • Best Combination Winner (Drama / Comedy):  1960  (Burt Lancaster (Elmer Gantry) and Jack Lemmon (The Apartment))
  • Most Lopsided Winner (Drama over Comedy):  1980  (Robert De Niro (Raging Bull) over Ray Sharkey (The Idolmaker))
  • Most Lopsided Winner (Comedy over Drama):  1959  (Jack Lemmon (Some Like It Hot) over Anthony Franciosa (Career))
  • Worst Combination Winner (Drama / Comedy):  1969  (John Wayne (True Grit) and Peter O’Toole (Goodbye Mr. Chips))

Globe Oddities:

  • 1956:  Yul Brynner wins the Oscar but loses the Globe – Comedy / Musical to Cantinflas who was from a film (Around the World in 80 Days) that won Picture – Drama
  • 1959:  With the chance to give all in on Ben-Hur they give the Drama award to Anthony Franciosa for Career, one of only four Globe – Drama winners not to earn an Oscar nom
  • 1964:  Peter Sellers is nominated but for The Pink Panther instead of Dr. Strangelove
  • 1965:  Rather than reward Rod Steiger for The Pawnbroker, the Globe goes to Omar Sharif, another of the four Globe – Drama winners not to earn an Oscar nom
  • 1985:  The globe goes to Jon Voight instead of William Hurt, the only award Hurt is nominated for but doesn’t win
  • 1999:  The Globes bypass the Kevin Spacey – Russell Crowe race by awarding Denzel Washington

The Broadcast Film Critics Awards  (Critics Choice)

Summary:

The Actor award was one of the initial BFCA Awards that began in 1995.  Of the early winners, only Ian McKellen won for two performances (Gods and Monsters / Apt Pupil).  Russell Crowe was the big guy, winning three straight awards (99-01) while only Day-Lewis and Penn have managed two wins aside from him.  Starting in 2003, the BFCA has generally aligned with the Oscar, though they still don’t always agree.

  • Lowest Critical Acclaim for a BFCA Winner:  Kevin Bacon, Murder in the First, 1995
  • Highest Critical Acclaim for a BFCA nominee:  Bill Murray, Lost in Translation, 2003
  • Lowest Critical Acclaim for a BFCA nominee:  Viggo Mortensen, The Road, 2009
  • Highest Critical Acclaim for a BFCA snub:  Adrien Brody, The Pianist, 2002
  • Best Performance by a BFCA snub:  Adrien Brody, The Pianist, 2002
  • Best BFCA Nominee Not Nominated by Any Other Group:  Viggo Mortensen, The Road, 2009
  • Worst BFCA Winner:  Kevin Bacon, Murder in the First, 1995
  • Worst BFCA Nominee:  Sean Penn, I Am Sam, 2001

Top 5 BFCA Points:

  1. Russell Crowe  –  280
  2. Sean Penn  –  175
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  140
  4. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  140
  5. Ryan Gosling  /  George Clooney  –  140

The Screen Actors Guild

Summary:

The SAG Awards began in 1994, rather late in the game for guild awards.  From the start, they agreed with the Oscar winner (every year except the streak of 01-03) and have agreed with most Oscar nominees (at least 4 nominees in all but three years, all 5 nominees in five years).  They did give the award to Benicio del Toro in 2000 when he would win the Oscar in supporting.  There has been no dominant actor with Daniel Day-Lewis the only one with multiple wins and no actor with more than four nominations (compare to Streep’s eight in Actress).

  • Lowest Critical Acclaim for a SAG Winner:  Johnny Depp, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, 2003
  • Highest Critical Acclaim for a SAG nominee:  Bill Murray, Lost in Translation, 2003
  • Lowest Critical Acclaim for a SAG nominee:  Philip Seymour Hoffman, Flawless, 1999
  • Highest Critical Acclaim for a SAG snub:  Gene Hackman, The Royal Tenenbaums, 2001
  • Best Performance by a SAG snub:  Johnny Depp, Ed Wood, 1994
  • Best SAG Nominee Not Nominated by Any Other Group:  Tim Robbins, The Shawshank Redemption, 1994
  • Worst SAG Winner:  Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful, 1998
  • Worst SAG Nominee:  Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, 2008

The SAG Top 5:

  1. Russell Crowe  –  175
  2. Sean Penn  –  175
  3. Tom Hanks  –  140
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  140
  5. 9 actors  –  105


The Critics Awards

Summary:

The New York Film Critics would begin handing out Best Actor in 1935, the first year of their awards.  The first six NYFC winners would all be Oscar nominees though none won the Oscar followed by five straight winners who won the Oscar.  It would take until 1952 for a non-Oscar nominee to win the award and 1977 for it to happen again.  Warner Bros would do well early on, winning half of the first 10 awards.  The National Board of Review gave their first award, in 1945, to Ray Milland who also won the NYFC, Oscar and Globe.  After back-to-back agreement in 1945-46, the NYFC and NBR wouldn’t agree again in back-to-back years until 1970 and 1971 and never again since.  The National Society of Film Critics would begin in 1966 and unlike with Actress, would mostly stick to English speaking actors with just three foreign winners.  The NSFC would agree with the NYFC in its second year (Rod Steiger) but there wouldn’t be agreement among all three groups until 1970 with George C. Scott.  The LA Film Critics would begin in 1975 and the next year, Robert De Niro would win the NYFC, LAFC and NSFC.  However, it would take until 1995, after the Boston and Chicago critics had begun as well before someone would even win the first four awards in the same year and that year Nicolas Cage would win all six, something that would happen again in 2006 with Forest Whitaker.

Multiple Wins:

Cage and Whitaker are the only winners of all six awards.  Prior to that, five actors won both awards when there were only two and George C. Scott won all three in 1970 when there were still only three.  Bill Murray (2003) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (2005) each won five of the six awards.

Multiple Films:

In the very first year, the NYFC gave their award to Charles Laughton for two films (Mutiny on the Bounty / Ruggles of Red Gap).  Since then, the NFYC has done it six times (twice for Jack Nicholson), the NBR has done 12 times (including for James Mason in 1953 for four films) while also splitting the award between two actors from the same film twice (Kiss of the Spider Woman, Awakenings), the NSFC has done it five times, the LAFC seven times (including for Michael Fassbender in 2011 for four films) and the BSFC once.

Foreign Films:

While the Actress award has thrived on foreign performances (23 of them winning 36 awards), it’s pretty rare for Actor.  Victor Sjostrom won the NYFC in 1959, Per Oskarson won the NSFC in 1968, Gerard Depardieu won the NSFC in 1983 for two films and Javier Bardem won both the NSFC and NBR in 2000.  That’s it.

Single Awards:

Through 2011, 212 films had won a critics award for Best Actor.  Of those, 106 only won an award for Best Actor, though 26 of them won multiple awards.  Of those films, 22 won two awards.  The last four films are Kiss of the Spider Woman (three awards, with two of them from the NBR for different performances), Awakenings (even more complicated – three awards, two of them from the NBR for different performances and the last shared with another performance by the same actor from a different film), The Apostle (three awards) and Last King of Scotland, which swept all six awards but didn’t win anything else.

Other Awards:

Doing the math above, you’ll realize that 106 films won Best Actress as well as at least one other award in another category.  Picture is the award that comes up the most with 65 films winning at least one award each for Picture and Actor followed by Director (47 films).  Fourteen films have won multiple awards in both Picture and Actor with Leaving Las Vegas (six Actor wins, two Picture wins), The Social Network (three Actor, six Picture) and The Hurt Locker (three Actor, five Picture) the biggest.  Only two films have ever won multiple awards for both Actor and Actress (Silence of the Lambs, Leaving Las Vegas).  Actor has been paired with every critics award, even Animated Film (thanks to George Clooney winning part of his Best Actor from the NYFC for Fantastic Mr. Fox).  The three films that get the fewest of their critics points from acting (less than 5% in each case – far less than the Actress equivalents) are GoodFellas, Schindler’s List and Pulp Fiction which won only one Actor award and were massive critics favorites.  Of the eight biggest films at the critics awards all-time, seven of them won at least one Actor award (all but L.A. Confidential) while none of them won an Actress award.

The Critics Top 10 (raw total):

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  910
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  840
  3. Robert De Niro  –  630
  4. Burt Lancaster  –  420
  5. Jeremy Irons  –  420
  6. Nicolas Cage  –  420
  7. Forest Whitaker  –  420
  8. Gene Hackman  –  420
  9. nine tied  –  350

Best by Group

  • NYFC:  Alec Guinness  (The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957)
  • LAFC:  Robert De Niro  (Raging Bull, 1980)
  • NSFC:  Jack Nicholson  (Chinatown, 1974)
  • BSFC:  Nicolas Cage  (Leaving Las Vegas, 1995)
  • CFC:  Nicolas Cage  (Leaving Las Vegas, 1995)
  • NBR:  Alec Guinness  (The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957)

Worst by Group

  • NYFC:  John Geilgud  (Providence, 1977)
  • LAFC:  Denzel Washington  (Training Day, 2001)
  • NSFC:  Eddie Murphy  (The Nutty Professor, 1996)
  • BSFC:  Denzel Washington  (Training Day, 2001)
  • CFC:  Billy Bob Thornton  (Sling Blade, 1996)
  • NBR:  Richard Basehart  (14 Hours, 1951)

10 Best Performances that Didn’t Win any Critics Awards (post-1966):

  1. Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, 1988
  2. Peter O’Toole, The Lion in Winter, 1968
  3. Ralph Fiennes, The English Patient, 1996
  4. Richard Burton, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, 1966
  5. Tom Hulce, Amadeus, 1984
  6. Warren Beatty, Bonnie and Clyde, 1967
  7. Warren Beatty, Reds, 1981
  8. John Hurt, The Elephant Man, 1980
  9. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator, 2004
  10. Robert De Niro, The Deer Hunter, 1978

5 Most Acclaimed Post-1966 Performances to not Win a Critics Award (based on Consensus Awards percentage):

  1. Peter Finch, Network, 1976
  2. Dustin Hoffman, Midnight Cowboy / John and Mary, 1969
  3. Jean Dujardin, The Artist, 2011
  4. Michael Caine, Educating Rita / The Honorary Consul, 1983
  5. Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, 1988

Least Acclaimed Performances to Win the Critics by Group

  • NYFC:  Jennifer Jason Leigh, Georgia, 1995
  • LAFC:  Liam Neeson, Kinsey, 2004
  • NSFC:  River Phoenix, My Own Private Idaho, 1991
  • BSFC:  Colin Farrell, Tigerland, 2000
  • CFC:  Michael Shannon, Take Shelter, 2011
  • NBR:  Campbell Scott, Roger Dodger, 2002

note:  Basically, because of the larger total amount of Consensus points the more recent you get, these are all the most recent examples of a winner with no other Consensus points.

Most Critically Acclaimed Performance Snubbed by a Critics Group:

  • NYFC:  Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote, 2005
  • LAFC:  Jack Nicholson, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1975
  • NSFC:  Robert De Niro, Raging Bull, 1980
  • BSFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood, 2007
  • CFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis, My Left Foot, 1989
  • NBR:  Burt Lancaster, Atlantic City, 1981

Critical Oddities:

note:  These are the performances that won multiple Critics Awards but failed to earn nominations from any of the awards groups.

  • Jeremy Irons  (Dead Ringers, 1988)
    • NYFC, CFC
  • David Thewliss  (Naked, 1993)
    • NYFC, NSFC

Going First Has Disadvantages – The NBR Being Different:

  • 1954  –  they award Bing Crosby while everyone else agrees on Marlon Brando
  • 1962  –  they award Jason Robards for two performances, one of which is not very good (Tender is the Night) and one of which is really supporting (Long Day’s Journey Into Night)
  • 1969/1972  –  after not rewarding Peter O’Toole for either Lawrence or Lion in Winter, they give him the award for both Goodbye Mr. Chips and Ruling Class
  • 1986  –  they award Paul Newman instead of 4 critic winner Bob Hoskins showing they are as sentimental as the Oscars
  • 1991  –  they declare Anthony Hopkins supporting in Silence of the Lambs (to be fair, so do the BSFC)
  • 2007  –  they award George Clooney instead of the dominant Daniel Day-Lewis
  • 2008  –  they award Clint Eastwood, the only award that doesn’t go to Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke (except for Globe – Comedy)
  • they have never awarded Daniel Day-Lewis


The Nighthawk Awards

note:  Because my awards go, retroactively, all the way back through 1912, there are a lot more nominees and winners than in the other awards.

Multiple Nominations (Films):

It would only take until 1935 for a film to win Actor and earn a second nomination (Mutiny on the Bounty) and it has happened four other times (Dr. Strangelove, Sleuth, Amadeus, GoodFellas).  Notably, the only film of those to do that at the Oscars chose the other actor as the winner.  Seven films have earned multiple nominations without a winner, three of which did it at the Oscars (From Here to Eternity, Midnight Cowboy, The Dresser), one of which had one of the actors win the Oscar (Network), one of which only had one of the actors nominated (In the Heat of the Night) and two of which had neither actor nominated (Tunes of Glory, Return of the King).

Multiple Nominations (Performances):

In my very first year (the combined year of 1912-26), Lon Chaney wins the award (Hunchback) and earns two nominations (Phantom, The Penalty) while Emil Jannings is nominated twice (Faust, The Last Laugh).  In 1941, Bogie earns two noms (Maltese Falcon, High Sierra) followed by Kirk Douglas in 1951 (Ace in the Hole, Detective Story).  James Dean wins (Rebel) and earns a nom (East of Eden) in 1955 while Daniel Day-Lewis is the only other to do that (1993 – In the Name of the Father, Age of Innocence).  Anthony Hopkins in 1993 (Shadowlands, Remains of the Day) and Billy Bob Thornton in 2001 (Man Who Wasn’t There, Monster’s Ball) are the others who manage two nominations.

Directors:

Seven directors have directed at least seven actresses to a Nighthawk nomination.  Howard Hawks is 0 for 7, Kurosawa is 1 for 7 and Lumet is 2 for 7 while Chaplin is 2 for 7 all for his own performances.  At the top of the list are John Huston (1 winner among 8 noms), Billy Wilder (3 winners among 9 noms) and the astounding results from Marty (9 films, 10 nominations, 5 winners for 4 different actors (De Niro twice, Liotta, Day-Lewis, Leo).

Sequels:

Al Pacino is the first to earn a nom for a sequel (for which he won the Nighthawk in supporting for the original) and then he would earn another nom for the third film.  Then come the two nominations for Return of the King (Elijah Wood, Viggo).  Christian Bale also scores a nomination for Dark Knight.

Genres:

Drama does dominated the wins (57.65%) and nominations (51.42%) but not nearly to the extent that it does in other categories with Comedy way behind in both wins (11.76%) and noms (16.11%).  War is just above 7% of the wins and Crime is just below 7% of the noms but no other genre is above 5% in either.  Kids (0) and Sci-Fi (2) are the only genres with less than 6 noms and they join Fantasy as the only genres without a win.

Best Picture:

While only a dozen films have won both Picture and Actress, there have been a whopping 33 to take both Picture and Actor though only two each in the 70’s and 80’s and only The Aviator since 1999 with no streak longer than three years (62-64).  Another 24 films win Picture and earn an Actor nomination.  The longest streak of Picture wins with at least an Actor nom is nine (30-38) while there are only two three year streaks without (75-77, 07-09).  In total, of the 422 films nominated for Actor, over half of them (226) earned a Picture nom as well, a good 100 more than for Actress.

Foreign Film:

There have been seven foreign language performances to win the Nighthawk, the same as Actress but with far greater language diversity.  In order, they are French (Albert Dieudonne, Napoleon), German (Peter Lorre, M), Russian (Nikolai Cherkasov, Ivan the Terrible Part I), Japanese (Takashi Shimura, Ikiru), Swedish (Gunnar Bjornstrand, Winter Light) and then German again (Klaus Kinsi, Aguirre the Wrath of God).  In addition there are 28 other performances that earn nominations which are mostly from Kurosawa films (6), Bergman films (4) or French films (8).

Single Nominations:

Only one film wins the award with no other nominations (Last King of Scotland, which did the same at the Oscars, guilds and Globes).  Aside from that, there are just 26 other films that earn the single nom for Actor with four of them being films that actually won the Oscar but not the Nighthawk (Wall Street, Reversal of Fortune, Ray, Capote).

Other Categories:

Director actually crosses over in one more film (227) than Picture (226) while Adapted Screenplay is also over 200.  Every major category crosses over at least 100 times with only Visual Effects, Makeup, Song, Foreign Film and Animated Film (no crossover) less than 100 and even most of those are more than 50.

My Top 10

  1. Humphrey Bogart  –  385
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  385
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  385
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  350
  5. Paul Nemwan  –  350
  6. James Stewart  –  315
  7. Charlie Chaplin  –  315
  8. Orson Welles  –  280
  9. Robert De Niro  –  280
  10. Dustin Hoffman  –  280

My Top 10 Drama

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  455
  2. Humphrey Bogart  –  385
  3. Laurence Olivier  –  350
  4. Paul Newman  –  350
  5. James Stewart  –  315
  6. Orson Welles  –  315
  7. Jack Nicholson  –  315
  8. Robert De Niro  –  315
  9. Fredric March  –  280
  10. Marlon Brando  /  Anthony Hopkins  /  Ralph Fiennes  –  280

My Top 10 Comedy

  1. Charlie Chaplin  –  560
  2. Cary Grant  –  420
  3. James Cagney  –  385
  4. Woody Allen  –  315
  5. Johnny Depp  –  315
  6. Alec Guinness  –  280
  7. George Clooney  –  280
  8. Fred Astaire  –  245
  9. Jack Lemmon  –  245
  10. Bill Murray  –  245

My Top 10 Weighted Points

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  615
  2. Paul Newman  –  575
  3. Laurence Olivier  –  533
  4. James Stewart  –  526
  5. Fredric March  –  517
  6. Humphrey Bogart  –  492
  7. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  483
  8. Henry Fonda  –  477
  9. Dustin Hoffman  –  462
  10. James Cagney  –  432

note:  This based on a scale from 20-1 based on Top 20 placement at the Nighthawks.  A win is worth 70 points in Actor, a 20th place finish is worth 1 point (if the list goes a full 20).

My Top 10 Absolute Points List:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  958
  2. Paul Newman  –  863
  3. James Stewart  –  706
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  699
  5. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  687
  6. Dustin Hoffman  –  681
  7. Henry Fonda  –  664
  8. Robert De Niro  –  661
  9. Al Pacino  –  610
  10. Jack Lemmon  –  609

note:  This is a point scale based on their performance points, not where they finished in the year.

Top Absolute Points by Decade:

1912-1929

  1. Lon Chaney  –  277
  2. Emil Jannings  –  227
  3. Charlie Chaplin  –  157
  4. Erich von Stroheim  –  95
  5. Buster Keaton  –  60

1930-1939

  1. Fredric March  –  356
  2. Leslie Howard  –  349
  3. James Cagney  –  243
  4. Paul Muni  –  218
  5. Clark Gable  –  183

1940-1949

  1. Humphrey Bogart  –  383
  2. Cary Grant  –  296
  3. James Stewart  –  278
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  262
  5. Henry Fonda  –  235

1950-1959

  1. Alec Guinness  –  400
  2. Kirk Douglas  –  358
  3. James Stewart  –  315
  4. Marlon Brando  –  304
  5. William Holden  –  262

1960-1969

  1. Toshiro Mifune  –  470
  2. Richard Burton  –  339
  3. Paul Newman  –  331
  4. Burt Lancaster  –  278
  5. Sidney Poitier  –  278

1970-1979

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  357
  2. Al Pacino  –  313
  3. Dustin Hoffman  –  288
  4. Gene Hackman  –  253
  5. Robert Redford  /  Woody Allen  –  235

1980-1989

  1. William Hurt  –  279
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  278
  3. Paul Newman  –  261
  4. Jeremy Irons  –  261
  5. Harrison Ford  –  217

1990-1999

  1. Ralph Fiennes  –  349
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  331
  3. Clint Eastwood  –  330
  4. Johnny Depp  –  322
  5. Robert De Niro  /  Denzel Washington  –  314

2000-2011

  1. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  453
  2. George Clooney  –  436
  3. Sean Penn  –  305
  4. Russell Crowe  –  287
  5. Christian Bale  –  271

Years in Which an Actor Exceeded 115 Absolute Points:

note:  I don’t include the all-encompassing pre-Oscar year of 1926 with all of Lon Chaney’s performances that get lumped together (but which are mostly from different years) but I do include the Toshiro Mifune films that get lumped together because of when they arrived in America.

  • James Stewart  –  1940  –  131  (The Philadelphia Story  /  The Shop Around the Corner  /  Destry Rides Again)
  • Humphrey Bogart  –  1941  –  122  (The Maltese Falcon  /  High Sierra)
  • Richard Widmark  –  1950  –  131  (Night and the City  /  No Way Out  /  Panic in the Streets)
  • James Stewart  –  1950  –  123  (Harvey  /  Winchester 73  /  Broken Arrow)
  • Kirk Douglas  –  1951  –  140  (Ace in the Hole  /  Detective Story)
  • Alec Guinness  –  1952  –  122  (The Lavender Hill Mob  /  The Man in the White Suit  /  The Card)
  • James Dean  –  1955  –  131  (Rebel without a Cause  /  East of Eden)
  • Henry Fonda  –  1957  –  140  (12 Angry Men  /  The Tin Star  /  The Wrong Man)
  • Toshiro Mifune  –  1962  –  139  (Throne of Blood  /  The Lower Depths  /  Sanjuro  /  The Important Man)
  • Toshiro Mifune  –  1963  –  122  (Stray Dog  /  The Bad Sleep Well)
  • Peter Sellers  –  1964  –  122  (Dr. Strangelove  /  A Shot in the Dark  /  The Pink Panther)
  • Robert De Niro  –  1990  –  122  (GoodFellas  /  Awakenings)
  • Daniel Day-Lewis  –  1993  –  148  (In the Name of the Father  /  The Age of Innocence)
  • Anthony Hopkins  –  1993  –  148  (The Remains of the Day  /  Shadowlands)
  • Billy Bob Thornton  –  2001  –  139  (The Man Who Wasn’t There  /  Monster’s Ball)
  • Sean Penn  –  2003  –  131  (Mystic River  /  21 Grams)
  • Leonardo DiCaprio  –  2006  –  122  (The Departed  /  Blood Diamond)

Top 5 Films to win the Nighthawk (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. Sunset Blvd.
  2. Bonnie and Clyde
  3. Chinatown
  4. Touch of Evil
  5. Casablanca

Worst 5 Films to win the Nighthawk (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. Champion
  2. The Last King of Scotland
  3. Educating Rita
  4. Napoleon (1927)
  5. The Last Command

note:  The first four are all ***.5 and the last is a **** film.  Just the way it has worked in this category.

Worst 5 Films to earn a Nighthawk nomination  (based on quality of film not the performance):

  1. A Free Soul
  2. The Boys from Brazil
  3. Anne of the Thousand Days
  4. The Keys of the Kingdom
  5. Disraeli

note:  A Free Soul was #5 on the Actress list.  It is the only ** film and Boys is the only **.5.  The others are all mid ***.

Top 10 Shakespeare Performances (original Shakespeare language):

  1. Orson Welles, Chimes at Midnight, 1965/1969
  2. Laurence Olivier, Richard III, 1955/1956
  3. Kenneth Branagh, Henry V, 1989
  4. Kenneth Branagh, Hamlet, 1996
  5. Laurence Olivier, Henry V, 1944/1946
  6. Laurence Olivier, Hamlet, 1948
  7. Ian McKellen, Richard III, 1995
  8. Orson Welles, Othello, 1955
  9. Kenneth Branagh, Much Ado About Nothing, 1993
  10. Juri Jarvet, King Lear, 1971/1977

note:  Jarvet is speaking in Russian but still using the Shakespeare (as opposed to Kurosawa’s films).

Top 5 Tennessee Williams Performances:

  1. Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951
  2. Paul Newman, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, 1958
  3. Karl Malden, Baby Doll, 1956
  4. Richard Burton, The Night of the Iguana, 1964
  5. Paul Newman, Sweet Bird of Youth, 1962

Top 5 Royal Performances:

  1. Peter O’Toole, The Lion in Winter, 1968
  2. Colin Firth, The King’s Speech, 2010
  3. Charles Laughton, The Private Life of Henry VIII, 1933
  4. Nigel Hawthorne, The Madness of King George, 1994
  5. Richard Burton, Anne of the Thousand Days, 1969

Top 5 Singer Biopic Performances:

  1. Joaquin Phoenix, Johnny Cash, Walk the Line, 2005
  2. Jamie Foxx, Ray Charles, Ray, 2004
  3. Val Kilmer, Jim Morrison, The Doors, 1991
  4. Laurence Fishburne, Ike Turner, What’s Love Got to Do With It, 1993
  5. Gary Busey, Buddy Holly, The Buddy Holly Story, 1978

Top 5 Performances from Ingmar Bergman Films:

  1. Gunnar Bjornstrand, Winter Light, 1963
  2. Victor Sjostrom, Wild Strawberries, 1957/1959
  3. Erland Josephson, Scenes from a Marriage, 1973/1974
  4. Gunnar Bjornstrand, The Seventh Seal, 1957/1959
  5. Max Von Sydow, Hour of the Wolf, 1968

Top 5 Performances from Alfred Hitchcock Films:

  1. Robert Walker, Strangers on a Train, 1951
  2. Laurence Olivier, Rebecca, 1940
  3. Joseph Cotton, Shadow of a Doubt, 1943
  4. Cary Grant, Notorious, 1959
  5. Anthony Perkins, Psycho, 1960

Top 5 Performances from Akira Kurosawa Films:

  1. Takashi Shimura, Ikiru, 1952/1960
  2. Tatsuya Nakadai, Ran, 1985
  3. Toshiro Mifune, Stray Dog, 1949/1963
  4. Toshiro Mifune, Throne of Blood, 1957/1962
  5. Tatsuya Nakadai, Kagemusha, 1980

Top 10 Performances from Sidney Lumet Films:

  1. Rod Steiger, The Pawnbroker, 1965
  2. Al Pacino, Serpico, 1973
  3. Al Pacino, Dog Day Afternoon, 1975
  4. Paul Newman, The Verdict, 1982
  5. William Holden, Network, 1976
  6. Richard Burton, Equus, 1977
  7. Peter Finch, Network, 1976
  8. Henry Fonda, 12 Angry Men, 1957
  9. Ralph Richardson, Long Day’s Journey Into Night, 1962
  10. Albert Finney, Murder on the Orient Express, 1974

Top 10 Performances from Martin Scorsese Films:

  1. Robert De Niro, Raging Bull, 1980
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York, 2002
  3. Robert De Niro, Taxi Driver, 1976
  4. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator, 2004
  5. Ray Liotta, GoodFellas, 1990
  6. Robert De Niro, GoodFellas, 1990
  7. Daniel Day-Lewis, The Age of Innocence, 1993
  8. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed, 2006
  9. Paul Newman, The Color of Money, 1986
  10. Robert De Niro, The King of Comedy, 1983

Top 5 Performances from Billy Wilder Films:

  1. William Holden, Sunset Blvd., 1950
  2. Ray Milland, The Lost Weekend, 1945
  3. Jack Lemmon, The Apartment, 1960
  4. William Holden, Stalag 17, 1953
  5. Kirk Douglas, Ace in the Hole, 1951

Top 5 Performances from William Wyler Films:

  1. Fredric March, The Best Years of Our Lives, 1946
  2. Laurence Olivier, Wuthering Heights, 1939
  3. Kirk Douglas, Detective Story, 1951
  4. Laurence Olivier, Carrie, 1952
  5. Walter Huston, Dodsworth, 1936

Top 20 Self-Directed Performances

  1. Orson Welles, Citizen Kane, 1941
  2. Orson Welles, Touch of Evil, 1958
  3. Warren Beatty, Reds, 1981
  4. Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven, 1992
  5. Orson Welles, Chimes at Midnight, 1965/1969
  6. Laurence Olivier, Richard III, 1955/1956
  7. Kenneth Branagh, Henry V, 1989
  8. Kenneth Branagh, Hamlet, 1948
  9. Laurence Olivier, Henry V, 1944/1946
  10. Laurence Olivier, Hamlet, 1948
  11. Charlie Chaplin, Modern Times, 1936
  12. Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator, 1940
  13. Woody Allen, Annie Hall, 1977
  14. Kenneth Branagh, Much Ado About Nothing, 1993
  15. Charlie Chaplin, City Lights, 1931
  16. Charlie Chaplin, The Gold Rush, 1925/1926
  17. Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby, 2004
  18. Gene Kelly, Singin’ in the Rain, 1952
  19. Orson Welles, Othello, 1952/1955
  20. Warren Beatty, Bulworth, 1998

The Full List of Nighthawk Winners and What Other Awards They Won or Were Nominated For

  • 1912-26:  Lon Chaney, The Hunchback of Notre Dame
  • 1927-28:  Emil Jannings, The Last Command  (Oscar)
  • 1928-29:  Albert Dieudonne, Napoleon
  • 1929-30:  Lew Ayres, All Quiet on the Western Front
  • 1930-31:  Charlie Chaplin, City Lights
  • 1931-32:  Fredric March, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  (Oscar)
  • 1932-33:  Peter Lorre, M
  • 1934:  William Powell, The Thin Man  (Oscar)
  • 1935:  Charles Laughton, Mutiny on the Bounty  (NYFC, Oscar)
  • 1936:  Charlie Chaplin, Modern TImes
  • 1937:  Fredric March, A Star is Born  (Oscar)
  • 1938:  Leslie Howard, Pygmalion  (Oscar)
  • 1939:  James Stewart, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington  (NYFC, Oscar)
  • 1940:  Henry Fonda, The Grapes of Wrath  (Oscar)
  • 1941:  Orson Welles, Citizen Kane  (Oscar)
  • 1942:  James Cagney, Yankee Doodle Dandy  (Oscar, NYFC)
  • 1943:  Humphrey Bogart, Casablanca  (Oscar)
  • 1944:  Charles Boyer, Gaslight  (Oscar)
  • 1945:  Ray Milland, The Lost Weekend  (Oscar, Globe, NYFC, NBR)
  • 1946:  James Stewart, It’s a Wonderful Life  (Oscar)
  • 1947:  Nicolai Cherkasov, Ivan the Terrible Part I
  • 1948:  Humphrey Bogart, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre  (NBR)
  • 1949:  Kirk Douglas, Champion  (Oscar)
  • 1950:  William Holden, Sunset Blvd.  (Oscar)
  • 1951:  Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire  (Oscar)
  • 1952:  Gary Cooper, High Noon  (Oscar, Globe)
  • 1953:  William Holden, Stalag 17  (Oscar)
  • 1954:  Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront  (NYFC, Oscar, Globe, BAFTA)
  • 1955:  James Dean, Rebel without a Cause  (BAFTA)
  • 1956:  Laurence Olivier, Richard III  (BAFTA, Oscar)
  • 1957:  Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai  (NYFC, NBR, Oscar, Globe, BAFTA)
  • 1958:  Orson Welles, Touch of Evil
  • 1959:  Victor Sjostrom, Wild Strawberries  (NBR, BAFTA)
  • 1960:  Takashi Shimura, Ikiru  (BAFTA)
  • 1961:  Paul Newman, The Hustler  (BAFTA, Oscar, Globe)
  • 1962:  Peter O’Toole, Lawrence of Arabia  (BAFTA, Oscar, Globe)
  • 1963:  Gunnar Bjornstrand, Winter Light
  • 1964:  Peter Sellers, Dr. Strangelove  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1965:  Rod Steiger, The Pawnbroker  (BAFTA, Oscar, Globe)
  • 1966:  Richard Burton, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf  (BAFTA, Oscar, Globe)
  • 1967:  Warren Beatty, Bonnie and Clyde  (Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1968:  Peter O’Toole, The Lion in Winter  (Globe, Oscar)
  • 1969:  Orson Welles, Chimes at Midnight  (BAFTA)
  • 1970:  Jack Nicholson, Five Easy Pieces  (Oscar, Globe)
  • 1971:  Gene Hackman, The French Connection  (NYFC, NBR, Oscar, Globe, BAFTA)
  • 1972:  Michael Caine, Sleuth  (Oscar, Globe)
  • 1973:  Marlon Brando, Last Tango in Paris  (NYFC, NSFC, Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1974:  Jack Nicholson, Chinatown  (NYFC, NSFC, BAFTA, Globe, Oscar)
  • 1975:  Jack Nicholson, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  (NYFC, NSFC, NBR, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1976:  Robert De Niro, Taxi Driver  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1977:  Klaus Kinski, Aguirre the Wrath of God
  • 1978:  Robert De Niro, The Deer Hunter  (Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1979:  Peter Sellers, Being There  (NBR, Globe, Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1980:  Robert De Niro, Raging Bull  (NYFC, LAFC, BSFC, NBR, Oscar, Globe, BAFTA)
  • 1981:  Warren Beatty, Reds  (Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1982:  Paul Newman, The Verdict  (Oscar, Globe)
  • 1983:  Michael Caine, Educating Rita  (BAFTA, Globe, Oscar)
  • 1984:  Tom Hulce, Amadeus  (Oscar, Globe)
  • 1985:  William Hurt, Kiss of the Spider Woman  (LAFC, NBR, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1986:  Bob Hoskins, The Color of Money  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, BAFTA, Globe, Oscar)
  • 1987:  William Hurt, Broadcast News  (BSFC, Oscar, Globe)
  • 1988:  Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man  (Oscar, Globe, BAFTA)
  • 1989:  Daniel Day-Lewis, My Left Foot  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1990:  Ray Liotta, GoodFellas
  • 1991:  Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs  (NYFC, BSFC – supporting, NBR – supporting, CFC, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1992:  Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven  (LAFC, Oscar)
  • 1993:  Daniel Day-Lewis, In the Name of the Father  (BSFC, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 1994:  Johnny Depp, Ed Wood  (Globe)
  • 1995:  Nicolas Cage, Leaving Las Vegas  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR, Oscar, SAG, Globe, BAFTA)
  • 1996:  Ralph Fiennes, The English Paient  (Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, Globe)
  • 1997:  Ian Holm, The Sweet Hereafter
  • 1998:  Ian McKellen, Gods and Monsters  (LAFC, CFC, NBR, BFCA, Oscar, Globe, SAG)
  • 1999:  Kevin Spacey, American Beauty  (CFC, Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, Globe)
  • 2000:  Michael Douglas, Wonder Boys  (LAFC, Globe, BAFTA)
  • 2001:  Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom  (NYFC, Oscar, BAFTA, SAG)
  • 2002:  Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York  (NYFC, LAFC, CFC, BAFTA, SAG, BFCA, Oscar, Globe)
  • 2003:  Bill Murray, Lost in Translation  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, BAFTA, Globe, Oscar, SAG, BFCA)
  • 2004:  Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator  (Globe, Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, BFCA)
  • 2005:  Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain  (NYFC, Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, Globe, BFCA)
  • 2006:  Forest Whitaker, Last King of Scotland  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, SAG, BFCA)
  • 2007:  Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, CFC, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, SAG, BFCA)
  • 2008:  Sean Penn, Milk  (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, Oscar, SAG, BFCA, BAFTA, Globe)
  • 2009:  Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker  (NSFC, BSFC, CFC, Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, BFCA)
  • 2010:  Colin Firth, The King’s Speech  (NYFC, LAFC, CFC, Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, SAG, BFCA)
  • 2011:  George Clooney, The Descendents  (NBR, BFCA, Globe, Oscar, BAFTA, SAG)

The Full List of Nighthawk Drama Winners (if they didn’t win the Nighthawk Award itself)

note:  No listing of other awards – it takes a long time to type.

  • 1931:  James Cagney, The Public Enemy
  • 1934:  Leslie Howard, Of Human Bondage
  • 1936:  Leslie Howard, The Petrified Forest
  • 1938:  James Cagney, Angels with Dirty Faces
  • 1942:  Ronald Colman, Random Harvest
  • 1964:  Tatsuya Nakadai, Harakiri
  • 1979:  Dustin Hoffman, Kramer vs. Kramer
  • 1983:  Robert De Niro, King of Comedy
  • 1984:  Albert Finney, Under the Volcano
  • 1987:  Michael Douglas, Wall Street
  • 1994:  Ralph Fiennes, Quiz Show
  • 2000:  Jamie Bell, Billy Elliot
  • 2003:  Sean Penn, Mystic River

The Full List of Nighthawk Comedy / Musical Winners (including those that won the Nighthawk Award itself – those are in red)

note:  No listing of other awards – it takes a long time to type.  The films in bold also won the Actress award in Comedy / Musical.

  • 1926:  Charlie Chaplin, The Gold Rush
  • 1928:  Charlie Chaplin, The Circus
  • 1929:  Buster Keaton,  Steamboat Bill Jr.
  • 1930:  Erich von Stroheim,  The Great Gabbo
  • 1931:  Charlie Chaplin,  City Lights
  • 1932:  Groucho Marx,  Horse Feathers
  • 1933:  James Cagney,  Footlight Parade
  • 1934:  William Powell,  The Thin Man
  • 1935:  James Cagney,  A Midsummer Night’s Dream
  • 1936:  Charlie Chaplin,  Modern Times
  • 1937:  Cary Grant,  The Awful Truth
  • 1938:  Leslie Howard,  Pygmalion
  • 1939:  Melvyn Douglas,  Ninotchka
  • 1940:  Charlie Chaplin,  The Great Dictator
  • 1941:  Robert Montgomery,  Here Comes Mr. Jordan
  • 1942:  James Cagney,  Yankee Doodle Dandy
  • 1943:  Claude Rains,  The Phantom of the Opera
  • 1944:  Cary Grant,  Arsenic and Old Lace
  • 1945:  Gene Kelly, Anchors Aweigh
  • 1946:  Robert Donat,  Vacation from Marriage
  • 1947:  Charlie Chaplin,  Monsieur Verdoux
  • 1948:  Spencer Tracy,  State of the Union
  • 1949:  Fred Astaire,  The Barkleys of Broadway
  • 1950:  James Stewart,  Harvey
  • 1951:  Gene Kelly,  An American in Paris
  • 1952:  Alec Guinness,  The Lavender Hill Mob
  • 1953:  David Niven,  The Moon is Blue
  • 1954:  James Mason,  A Star is Born
  • 1955:  Henry Fonda,  Mister Roberts
  • 1956:  Yul Brynner,  The King and I
  • 1957:  Frank Sinatra,  Pal Joey
  • 1958:  Gunnar Bjornstrand,  Smiles of a Summer Night
  • 1959:  Jack Lemmon,  Some Like It Hot
  • 1960:  Jack Lemmon,  The Apartment
  • 1961:  James Cagney,  One, Two, Three
  • 1962:  Robert Preston,  The Music Man
  • 1963:  Albert Finney, Tom Jones
  • 1964:  Peter Sellers, Dr. Strangelove
  • 1965:  Jason Robards, A Thousand Clowns
  • 1966:  Alan Arkin, The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming
  • 1967:  Dustin Hoffman, The Graduate
  • 1968:  Zero Mostel, The Producers
  • 1969:  Paul Newman, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
  • 1970:  Alan Arkin, Catch-22
  • 1971:  Malcolm McDowell, A Clockwork Orange
  • 1972:  Charlie Chaplin, Limelight
  • 1973:  Robert Redford, The Sting
  • 1974:  Gene Wilder, Young Frankenstein
  • 1975:  Walter Matthau, The Sunshine Boys
  • 1976:  Giancarlo Giannini, Seven Beauties
  • 1977:  Woody Allen, Annie Hall
  • 1978:  Warren Beatty, Heaven Can Wait
  • 1979:  Peter Sellers, Being There
  • 1980:  Peter O’Toole, The Stunt Man
  • 1981:  Harrison Ford, Raiders of the Lost Ark
  • 1982:  Dustin Hoffman, Tootsie
  • 1983:  Michael Caine, Educating Rita
  • 1984:  Tom Hulce, Amadeus
  • 1985:  Jack Nicholson, Prizzi’s Honor
  • 1986:  Dexter Gordon, ’round Midnight
  • 1987:  William Hurt, Broadcast News
  • 1988:  Bob Hoskins, Who Framed Roger Rabbit
  • 1989:  John Cusack, Say Anything
  • 1990:  Bill Murray, Quick Change
  • 1991:  Robin Williams, The Fisher King
  • 1992:  Tim Robbins, The Player
  • 1993:  Kenneth Branagh, Much Ado About Nothing
  • 1994:  Johnny Depp, Ed Wood
  • 1995:  Hugh Grant, An Awfully Big Adventure
  • 1996:  Ewan McGregor, Trainspotting
  • 1997:  Jack Nicholson, As Good as it Gets
  • 1998:  George Clooney, Out of Sight
  • 1999:  George Clooney, Three Kings
  • 2000:  Michael Douglas, Wonder Boys
  • 2001:  Gene Hackman, The Royal Tenenbaums
  • 2002:  Nicolas Cage, Adaptation
  • 2003:  Bill Murray, Lost in Translation
  • 2004:  Jim Carrey, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
  • 2005:  Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
  • 2006:  Aaron Eckhart, Thank You for Smoking
  • 2007:  Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd
  • 2008:  Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges
  • 2009:  George Clooney, Up in the Air
  • 2010:  Paul Giamatti, Barney’s Version
  • 2011:  Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Ten Best Performances Not to Win the Nighthawk:

  1. Humphrey Bogart, The Maltese Falcon, 1941
  2. Al Pacino, Serpico, 1973
  3. Anthony Hopkins, The Remains of the Day, 1993
  4. Jack Lemmon, The Apartment, 1960
  5. Adrien Brody, The Pianist, 2002
  6. Al Pacino, Dog Day Afternoon, 1975
  7. Fredric March, The Best Years of Our Lives, 1946
  8. Michael Caine, The Quiet American, 2002
  9. Paul Scofield, A Man for All Seasons, 1966
  10. George C. Scott, Patton, 1970

5 Best Years:

  1. 2002  (Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York), Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Tom Hanks (Road to Perdition))
  2. 1951  (Marlon Brando (A Streetcar Named Desire), Humphrey Bogart (The African Queen), Kirk Douglas (Ace in the Hole, Detective Story), Robert Walker (Strangers on a Train))
  3. 1993  (Daniel Day-Lewis (In the Name of the Father), Anthony Hopkins (The Remains of the Day, Shadowlands), Daniel Day-Lewis (The Age of Innocence), Liam Neeson (Schindler’s List))
  4. 1996  (Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient), Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet), Daniel Day-Lewis (The Crucible), Ewan McGregor (Trainspotting), Chris Cooper (Lone Star))
  5. 1960  (Takashi Shimua (Ikiru), Jack Lemmon (The Apartment), Alec Guinness, John Mills (Tunes of Glory), Burt Lancaster (Elmer Gantry))

5 Best Drama Years:

  1. 1951  (Marlon Brando (A Streetcar Named Desire), Humphrey Bogart (The African Queen), Kirk Douglas (Ace in the Hole, Detective Story), Robert Walker (Strangers on a Train))
  2. 1993  (Daniel Day-Lewis (In the Name of the Father), Anthony Hopkins (The Remains of the Day, Shadowlands), Daniel Day-Lewis (The Age of Innocence), Liam Neeson (Schindler’s List))
  3. 1996  (Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient), Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet), Daniel Day-Lewis (The Crucible), Chris Cooper (Lone Star), Liam Neeson (Michael Collins))
  4. 1974  (Jack Nicholson (Chinatown), Al Pacino (The Godfather Part II), Gene Hackman (The Conversation), Erland Josephson (Scenes from a Marriage), Dustin Hoffman (Lenny))
  5. 1989  (Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot), Kenneth Branagh (Henry V), Tom Cruise (Born on the Fourth of July), Kevin Costner (Field of Dreams), Matt Dillon (Drugstore Cowboy))

5 Best Comedy Years:

  1. 1998  (George Clooney (Out of Sight), Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski), Jim Carrey (The Truman Show), Warren Beatty (Bulworth), John Travolta (Primary Colors))
  2. 2003  (Bill Murray (Lost in Translation), Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Paul Giamatti (American Splendor), Peter Dinklage (The Station Agent), Ewan McGregor (Big Fish))
  3. 1988  (Bob Hoskins (Who Framed Roger Rabbit), Forest Whitaker (Bird), Kevin Costner (Bull Durham), Tom Hanks (Big), William Hurt (The Accidental Tourist))
  4. 1964  (Peter Sellers (Dr. Strangelove), George C. Scott (Dr. Strangelove), Rex Harrison (My Fair Lady), James Garner (The Americanization of Emily), Peter Sellers (A Shot in the Dark))
  5. 2004  (Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), Paul Giamatti (Sideways), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Danny Huston (Silver City), Bill Murray (The Life Aquatic))

Top 5 Sixth Place Finishers:

  1. Tom Cruise, Jerry Maguire, 1996
  2. Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt, 2002
  3. Martin Sheen, Badlands, 1974
  4. Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line, 2005
  5. Kenneth Branagh, Much Ado About Nothing, 1993

The Best Actor By Finish in The Respective Years

  • 1st  –  Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951
  • 2nd  –  Humphrey Bogart, The Maltese Falcon, 1941
  • 3rd  –  Michael Caine, The Quiet American, 2002
  • 4th  –  Burt Lancaster, Elmer Gantry, 1960
  • 5th  –  Robert Walker, Strangers on a Train, 1951
  • 6th  –  Tom Cruise, Jerry Maguire, 1996
  • 7th  –  Kevin Costner, A Perfect World, 1993
  • 8th  –  Tom Hanks, Philadelphia, 1993
  • 9th  –  Brendan Gleeson, The General, 1998
  • 10th  –  Javier Bardem, Mar Adentro, 2004
  • 11th  –  Ben Kingsley, House of Sand and Fog, 2003
  • 12th  –  Erland Josephson, Saraband, 2005
  • 13th  –  David Thewliss, Naked, 1993
  • 14th  –  Mathieu Amalric, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, 2007
  • 15th  –  Denzel Washington, Philadelphia, 1993
  • 16th  –  Clint Eastwood, Absolute Power, 1997
  • 17th  –  Christian Bale, Batman Begins, 2005
  • 18th  –  Dylan Baker, Happiness, 1998
  • 19th  –  Mario Van Peebles, Baadasssss, 2005
  • 20th  –  Frank Langella, Starting Out in the Evening, 2007


Consensus Awards

Most Awards (not including the Nighthawk):

  • Forest Whitaker, Last King of Scotland, 2006  –  11  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR)
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote, 2005  –  10  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR)
  • Nicolas Cage, Leaving Las Vegas, 1995  – 9  (Oscar, SAG, Globe, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR)
  • Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood, 2007  –  9  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, CFC)

Most Awards Points:

  1. Forest Whitaker, Last King of Scotland, 2006  –  700
  2. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote, 2005  –  630
  3. Nicolas Cage, Leaving Las Vegas, 1995  –  609
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood, 2007  –  581
  5. Bill Murray, Lost in Translation, 2003  –  546

Highest Awards Percentage (post-1942):

  1. Ray Milland, The Lost Weekend, 1945  –  63.64%
  2. Paul Lukas, Watch on the Rhine, 1943  –  57.45%
  3. Laurence Olivier, Hamlet, 1948  –  49.09%
  4. Bing Crosby, Going My Way, 1944  –  47.62%
  5. Nicolas Cage, Leaving Las Vegas, 1995  –  45.96%

Performances That Won the Oscar, BAFTA and Globe (1952-1994):

  • Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront, 1954
  • Ernest Borgnine, Marty, 1955
  • Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
  • Lee Marvin, Cat Ballou, 1965
  • Paul Scofield, A Man for all Seasons, 1966
  • Rod Steiger, In the Heat of the Night, 1967
  • Gene Hackman, The French Connection, 1971
  • Jack Nicholson, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1975
  • Peter Finch, Network, 1976
  • Richard Dreyfuss, The Goodbye Girl, 1977
  • Ben Kingsley, Gandhi, 1982

Performances That Won the Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, SAG and BFCA:

  • Geoffrey Rush, Shine, 1996
  • Jamie Foxx, Ray, 2004
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote, 2005
  • Forest Whitaker, Last King of Scotland, 2006
  • Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood, 2007
  • Colin Firth, The King’s Speech, 2010

note:  the following lists only count 1945 on, after the NBR added a fourth award to the mix.

Consensus Blowouts  (Winners over 40%, no one else over 20%)

  • 1945:  Ray Milland (The Lost Weekend) at 63.64%, no one else above 9.09%
  • 1948:  Laurence Olivier (Hamlet) at 49.09%, no one else above 14.55%
  • 1970:  George C. Scott (Patton) at 44.95%, no one else above 7.80%
  • 1980:  Robert De Niro (Raging Bull) at 44.36%, no one else above 13.91%
  • 1995:  Nicolas Cage (Leaving Las Vegas) at 45.96%, no one else above 7.92%
  • 2005:  Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) at 41.18%, no one else above 14.87%
  • 2006:  Forest Whitaker (Last King of Scotland) at 43.61%, no one else above 14.95%

Consensus Top Two  (Two both over 25% or over 20% post-1967, within 5% of each other)

  • 1947:  Ronald Colman (A Double Life) over William Powell (Life with Father), 30.91% to 27.27%
  • 1985:  William Hurt (Kiss of the Spider Woman) over Jack Nicholson (Prizzi’s Honor), 29.43% to 28.37%
  • 1997:  Jack Nicholson (As Good as it Gets) over Robert Duvall (The Apostle), 23.89% to 21.11%
  • 2009:  Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) over Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker), 22.42% to 20.63%

note:  In all four of these cases, the Oscar made the difference for the winner.
note:  In 1947, Michael Redgrave (Mourning Becomes Electra) is a close third (23.64%).
note:  In 2009, George Clooney (Up in the Air) is a close third (18.16%).

Consensus Wide Open Field  (No one over 20%, all five above 10% – see chart below for the five actresses)

  • 1987, range from 19.61% to 11.11%, includes four Oscar nominees

Consensus Chart

note:  The chart below I imported from Excel and I hope it isn’t too confusing.  It’s about as big as I could make to still have it fit.  I only include names because if an actress earned points from multiple films, I counted them together.  I also couldn’t get the borders to copy over, so it’s as readable as I could make it.
note:  There might be errors below because I changed the formula during the process.  If you see mistakes, please don’t point them out.  This list was not originally made for public viewing and I didn’t care if the names were spelled right so please don’t point that out either.

Year Actor AA GG crit BAFTA SAG BFCA RT WT N W % Rk
1928 Jannings, Emil 105 105 105 2 1 50.00% 1
1928 Barthelmess, Richard 70 70 70 1 1 33.33% 2
1928 Chaplin, Charlie 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 3
1929 Baxter, Warner 70 70 70 1 1 33.33% 1
1929 Bancroft, George 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1929 Morris, Chester 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1929 Muni, Paul 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1929 Stone, Lewis 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1930 Arliss, George 105 105 105 2 1 33.33% 1
1930 Chevalier, Maurice 70 70 70 1 1 22.22% 2
1930 Colman, Ronald 70 70 70 1 1 22.22% 2
1930 Beery, Wallace 35 35 35 1 0 11.11% 5
1930 Tibbett, Lawrence 35 35 35 1 0 11.11% 5
1931 Barrymore, Lionel 70 70 70 1 1 33.33% 1
1931 Cooper, Jackie 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1931 Dix, Richard 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1931 March, Frederic 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1931 Menjou, Adolphe 35 35 35 1 0 16.67% 2
1932 Beery, Wallace 70 70 70 1 1 40.00% 1
1932 March, Frederic 70 70 70 1 1 40.00% 1
1932 Lunt, Alfred 35 35 35 1 0 20.00% 3
1933 Laughton, Charles 70 70 70 1 1 50.00% 1
1933 Howard, Leslie 35 35 35 1 0 25.00% 2
1933 Muni, Paul 35 35 35 1 0 25.00% 2
1934 Gable, Clark 70 70 70 1 1 50.00% 1
1934 Morgan, Frank 35 35 35 1 0 25.00% 2
1934 Powell, William 35 35 35 1 0 25.00% 2
1935 Laughton, Charles 35 70 105 105 2 1 42.86% 1
1935 McLaglen, Victor 70 70 70 1 1 28.57% 2
1935 Gable, Clark 35 35 35 1 0 14.29% 3
1935 Tone, Franchot 35 35 35 1 0 14.29% 3
1936 Huston, Walter 35 70 105 105 2 1 37.50% 1
1936 Muni, Paul 70 70 70 1 1 25.00% 2
1936 Powell, William 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1936 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1936 Cooper, Gary 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1937 Muni, Paul 35 70 105 105 2 1 37.50% 1
1937 Tracy, Spencer 70 70 70 1 1 25.00% 2
1937 Boyer, Charles 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1937 March, Frederic 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1937 Montgomery, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1938 Cagney, James 35 70 105 105 2 1 37.50% 1
1938 Tracy, Spencer 70 70 70 1 1 25.00% 2
1938 Boyer, Charles 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1938 Donat, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1938 Howard, Leslie 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1939 Stewart, James 35 70 105 105 2 1 37.50% 1
1939 Donat, Robert 70 70 70 1 1 25.00% 2
1939 Gable, Clark 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1939 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1939 Rooney, Mickey 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1940 Chaplin, Charles 35 70 105 105 2 1 37.50% 1
1940 Stewart, James 70 70 70 1 1 25.00% 2
1940 Fonda, Henry 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1940 Massey, Raymond 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1940 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 3
1941 Cooper, Gary 70 70 140 140 2 2 50.00% 1
1941 Grant, Cary 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1941 Huston, Walter 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1941 Montgomery, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1941 Welles, Orson 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1942 Cagney, James 70 70 140 140 2 2 50.00% 1
1942 Pidgeon, Walter 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1942 Woolley, Monty 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1942 Colman, Ronald 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1942 Cooper, Gary 35 35 35 1 0 12.50% 2
1943 Lukas, Paul 70 70 70 210 189 3 3 57.45% 1
1943 Bogart, Humphrey 35 35 35 1 0 10.64% 2
1943 Cooper, Gary 35 35 35 1 0 10.64% 2
1943 Pidgeon, Walter 35 35 35 1 0 10.64% 2
1943 Rooney, Mickey 35 35 35 1 0 10.64% 2
1944 Crosby, Bing 70 70 140 140 2 2 47.62% 1
1944 Knox, Alexander 35 70 105 84 2 1 28.57% 2
1944 Boyer, Charles 35 35 35 1 0 11.90% 3
1944 Grant, Cary 35 35 35 1 0 11.90% 3
1945 Milland, Ray 70 70 126 266 245 4 4 63.64% 1
1945 Crosby, Bing 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 2
1945 Kelly, Gene 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 2
1945 Peck, Gregory 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 2
1945 Wilde, Cornel 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 2
1946 Olivier, Laurence 35 126 161 161 3 2 41.82% 1
1946 Peck, Gregory 35 70 105 84 2 1 21.82% 2
1946 March, Frederic 70 70 70 1 1 18.18% 3
1946 Parks, Larry 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 4
1946 Stewart, James 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 4
1947 Colman, Ronald 70 70 140 119 2 2 30.91% 1
1947 Powell, William 35 70 105 105 2 1 27.27% 2
1947 Redgrave, Michael 35 56 91 91 2 1 23.64% 3
1947 Garfield, John 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 4
1947 Peck, Gregory 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 4
1948 Olivier, Laurence 70 70 70 210 189 3 3 49.09% 1
1948 Bogart, Humphrey 56 56 56 1 1 14.55% 2
1948 Ayres, Lew 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 3
1948 Clift, Montgomery 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 3
1948 Dailey, Dan 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 3
1948 Webb, Clifton 35 35 35 1 0 9.09% 3
1949 Crawford, Broderick 70 70 70 210 189 3 3 44.58% 1
1949 Peck, Gregory 35 70 105 105 2 1 24.76% 2
1949 Todd, Richard 35 35 70 60 2 0 14.03% 3
1949 Douglas, Kirk 35 35 35 1 0 8.25% 4
1949 Wayne, John 35 35 35 1 0 8.25% 4
1950 Ferrer, Jose 70 70 140 119 2 2 25.76% 1
1950 Calhern, Louis 35 35 70 60 2 0 12.88% 2
1950 Stewart, James 35 35 70 60 2 0 12.88% 2
1950 Guinness, Alec 56 56 56 1 1 12.12% 4
1950 Astaire, Fred 70 70 49 1 1 10.61% 5
1950 Holden, William 35 35 35 1 0 7.58% x
1950 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 35 1 0 7.58% x
1950 Dailey, Dan 35 35 25 1 0 5.30% x
1950 Lloyd, Harold 35 35 25 1 0 5.30% x
1951 Kennedy, Arthur 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 20.33% 1
1951 March, Frederic 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 18.68% 2
1951 Bogart, Humphrey 70 35 105 105 2 1 16.48% 3
1951 Basehart, Richard 56 56 56 1 1 8.79% 4
1951 Kaye, Danny 70 70 49 1 1 7.69% 5
1951 Brando, Marlon 35 35 35 1 0 5.49% x
1951 Clift, Montgomery 35 35 35 1 0 5.49% x
1951 Golisano, Francesco 35 35 35 1 0 5.49% x
1951 Crosby, Bing 35 35 25 1 0 3.85% x
1951 Kelly, Gene 35 35 25 1 0 3.85% x
1951 Douglas, Kirk 35 35 25 1 0 3.85% x
1952 Richardson, Ralph 126 70 196 196 3 3 23.82% 1
1952 Cooper, Gary 70 70 140 119 2 2 14.46% 2
1952 Brando, Marlon 35 70 105 105 2 1 12.76% 3
1952 O’Connor, Donald 70 70 49 1 1 5.95% 4
1952 Douglas, Kirk 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Ferrer, Jose 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Guinness, Alec 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Fresnay, Pierre 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Hawkins, Jack 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Patrick, Nigel 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Sim, Alistair 35 35 35 1 0 4.25% 5
1952 Kaye, Danny 35 35 25 1 0 2.98% x
1952 Boyer, Charles 35 35 25 1 0 2.98% x
1952 Milland, Ray 35 35 25 1 0 2.98% x
1953 Lancaster, Burt 35 70 105 105 2 1 12.30% 1
1953 Brando, Marlon 35 70 105 105 2 1 12.30% 1
1953 Tracy, Spencer 70 35 105 84 2 1 9.84% 3
1953 Holden, William 70 70 70 1 1 8.20% 4
1953 Gielgud, John 70 70 70 1 1 8.20% 4
1953 Mason, James 56 56 56 1 1 6.56% x
1953 Niven, David 70 70 49 1 1 5.74% x
1953 Burton, Richard 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Clift, Montgomery 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Hawkins, Jack 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Heflin, Van 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Howard, Trevor 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Laydu, Claude 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Macrae, Duncan 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Mouloudji, Marcel 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1953 Peck, Gregory 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% x
1954 Brando, Marlon 70 70 70 70 280 259 4 4 28.03% 1
1954 More, Kenneth 105 105 105 2 1 11.36% 2
1954 Crosby, Bing 35 56 91 91 2 1 9.85% 3
1954 Mason, James 35 70 105 84 2 1 9.09% 4
1954 Bogart, Humphrey 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 O’Herlihy, Dan 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Brand, Neville 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Denham, Maurice 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Donat, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Ferrer, Jose 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 March, Frederic 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Mills, John 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Niven, David 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Stewart, James 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1954 Wolfit, Donald 35 35 35 1 0 3.79% 5
1955 Borgnine, Ernest 70 70 126 70 336 315 5 5 36.89% 1
1955 Dean, James 35 70 105 105 2 1 12.30% 2
1955 Sinatra, Frank 35 70 105 105 2 1 12.30% 2
1955 Ewell, Tom 70 70 49 1 1 5.74% 4
1955 Cagney, James 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1955 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1955 Guinness, Alec 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1955 Hawkins, Jack 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1955 Hayter, James 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1955 Holden, William 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1955 More, Kenneth 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1955 Redgrave, Michael 35 35 35 1 0 4.10% 5
1956 Douglas, Kirk 35 70 70 175 154 3 2 14.67% 1
1956 Brynner, Yul 70 35 56 161 151 3 2 14.33% 2
1956 Olivier, Laurence 35 70 105 105 2 1 10.00% 3
1956 Finch, Peter 70 70 70 1 1 6.67% 4
1956 Perier, Francois 70 70 70 1 1 6.67% 4
1956 Cantinflas 70 70 49 1 1 4.67% x
1956 Dean, James 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 Hudson, Rock 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 Fresnay, Pierre 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 Hawkins, Jack 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 Mifune, Toshiro 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 More, Kenneth 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 Shimura, Takashi 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 35 1 0 3.33% x
1956 Brando, Marlon 35 35 25 1 0 2.33% x
1956 Ford, Glenn 35 35 25 1 0 2.33% x
1956 Kaye, Danny 35 35 25 1 0 2.33% x
1956 Cooper, Gary 35 35 25 1 0 2.33% x
1956 Heston, Charlton 35 35 25 1 0 2.33% x
1956 Lancaster, Burt 35 35 25 1 0 2.33% x
1956 Malden, Karl 35 35 25 1 0 2.33% x
1957 Guinness, Alec 70 70 126 70 336 315 5 5 25.71% 1
1957 Laughton, Charles 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 7.71% 2
1957 Fonda, Henry 35 70 105 95 2 1 7.71% 2
1957 Brando, Marlon 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.86% 4
1957 Franciosa, Anthony 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.86% 4
1957 Sinatra, Frank 70 70 49 1 1 4.00% x
1957 Finch, Peter 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Gabin, Jean 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Howard, Trevor 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Jurgens, Chad 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Mitchum, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Poitier, Sidney 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Redgrave, Michael 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Quinn, Anthony 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Baseheart, Richard 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Bjornstrand, Gunnar 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Brasseur, Pierre 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Curtis, Tony 35 35 35 1 0 2.86% x
1957 Chevalier, Maurice 35 35 25 1 0 2.00% x
1957 Ford, Glenn 35 35 25 1 0 2.00% x
1957 Niven, David 35 35 25 1 0 2.00% x
1957 Randall, David 35 35 25 1 0 2.00% x
1958 Niven, David 70 70 70 210 189 3 3 16.36% 1
1958 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 56 35 161 151 4 1 13.03% 2
1958 Poitier, Sidney 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 11.21% 3
1958 Curtis, Tony 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.18% 4
1958 Newman, Paul 35 35 70 70 2 0 6.06% 5
1958 Howard, Trevor 70 70 70 1 1 6.06% 5
1958 Kaye, Danny 70 70 49 1 1 4.24% x
1958 Brando, Marlon 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Craig, Michael 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Ford, Glenn 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Gabin, Jean 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Johar, IS 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Jurgens, Chad 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Quayle, Anthony 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Thomas, Terry 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1958 Gable, Clark 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1958 Grant, Cary 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1958 Jourdan, Louis 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1958 Chevalier, Maurice 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1958 Donat, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1959 Lemmon, Jack 35 70 70 175 154 3 2 13.75% 1
1959 Stewart, James 35 70 35 140 140 3 1 12.50% 2
1959 Harvey, Laurence 35 70 105 105 2 1 9.38% 3
1959 Heston, Charlton 70 35 105 95 2 1 8.44% 4
1959 Sjostrom, Victor 56 35 91 91 2 1 8.13% 5
1959 Sellers, Peter 70 70 70 1 1 6.25% x
1959 Burton, Richard 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.31% x
1959 Franciosa, Anthony 70 70 49 1 1 4.38% x
1959 Muni, Paul 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1959 Cybulski, Zbigniew 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1959 Desailly, Jean 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1959 Finch, Peter 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1959 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1959 Wolfit, Donald 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1959 Gable, Clark 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1959 Grant, Cary 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1959 Martin, Dean 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1959 Poitier, Sidney 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1959 March, Frederic 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1959 Schildkraut, Joseph 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1960 Lancaster, Burt 70 70 70 35 245 224 4 3 19.39% 1
1960 Lemmon, Jack 35 70 70 175 154 3 2 13.33% 2
1960 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.18% 3
1960 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.18% 3
1960 Finch, Peter 70 70 70 1 1 6.06% 5
1960 Howard, Trevor 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.15% x
1960 Mitchum, Robert 56 56 56 1 1 4.85% x
1960 Attenborough, Richard 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 Fraser, John 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 Guinness, Alec 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 Hamilton, George 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 March, Frederic 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 Mills, John 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 Montand, Yves 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 Shimura, Takashi 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1960 Bogarde, Dirk 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1960 Cantinflas 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1960 Grant, Cary 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1960 Hope, Bob 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1960 Stockwell, Dean 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1961 Schell, Maximilian 70 70 70 35 245 224 4 3 22.07% 1
1961 Newman, Paul 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 12.76% 2
1961 Finney, Albert 56 35 91 91 2 1 8.97% 3
1961 Finch, Peter 70 70 70 1 1 6.90% 4
1961 Poitier, Sidney 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.86% 5
1961 Ford, Glenn 70 70 49 1 1 4.83% x
1961 Boyer, Charles 35 35 35 1 0 3.45% x
1961 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 35 1 0 3.45% x
1961 Whitman, Stuart 35 35 35 1 0 3.45% x
1961 Bogarde, Dirk 35 35 35 1 0 3.45% x
1961 Ivashov, Vladimir 35 35 35 1 0 3.45% x
1961 Leroy, Philippe 35 35 35 1 0 3.45% x
1961 Sordi, Alberto 35 35 35 1 0 3.45% x
1961 Astaire, Fred 35 35 25 1 0 2.41% x
1961 Beymer, Richard 35 35 25 1 0 2.41% x
1961 Hope, Bob 35 35 25 1 0 2.41% x
1961 MacMurray, Fred 35 35 25 1 0 2.41% x
1961 Beatty, Warren 35 35 25 1 0 2.41% x
1961 Chevalier, Maurice 35 35 25 1 0 2.41% x
1962 Mastroianni, Marcello 35 70 70 175 154 3 2 10.65% 1
1962 Peck, Gregory 70 70 35 175 154 3 2 10.65% 1
1962 Lancaster, Burt 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 8.96% 3
1962 O’Toole, Peter 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 8.96% 3
1962 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 6.54% 5
1962 Mason, James 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.11% x
1962 Quinn, Anthony 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.11% x
1962 Robards, Jason 56 56 56 1 1 3.87% x
1962 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Ryan, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Wilson, Georges 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Attenborough, Richard 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Bates, Alan 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Belmondo, Jean-Paul 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Citti, Franco 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Douglas, Kirk 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Laughton, Charles 35 35 35 1 0 2.42% x
1962 Stewart, James 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Boyd, Stephen 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Durante, Jimmy 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Grant, Cary 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Heston, Charlton 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Malden, Karl 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Preston, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Sordi, Alberto 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Darin, Bobby 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Gleason, Jackie 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Harvey, Laurence 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1962 Newman, Paul 35 35 25 1 0 1.69% x
1963 Finney, Albert 35 35 70 35 175 165 4 1 14.73% 1
1963 Poitier, Sidney 70 70 35 175 154 3 2 13.79% 2
1963 Harrison, Rex 35 35 56 126 116 3 1 10.34% 3
1963 Newman, Paul 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.46% 4
1963 Harris, Richard 35 35 70 70 2 0 6.27% 5
1963 Bogarde, Dirk 70 70 70 1 1 6.27% 5
1963 Grant, Cary 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.33% x
1963 Lemmon, Jack 70 70 49 1 1 4.39% x
1963 Sordi, Alberto 70 70 49 1 1 4.39% x
1963 Courtenay, Tom 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1963 Da Silva, Howard 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1963 Garner, James 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 Giallelis, Stathis 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 Sinatra, Frank 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 Thomas, Terry 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 Tryon, Tom 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 Winters, Jonathan 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 Brando, Marlon 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 McQueen, Steve 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1963 Peck, Gregory 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1964 Harrison, Rex 70 70 70 35 245 224 4 3 21.83% 1
1964 Quinn, Anthony 35 35 56 35 161 151 4 1 14.67% 2
1964 Sellers, Peter 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 12.62% 3
1964 O’Toole, Peter 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 11.60% 4
1964 Mastroianni, Marcello 35 70 105 95 2 1 9.21% 5
1964 Attenborough, Richard 70 70 70 1 1 6.82% x
1964 Burton, Richard 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.80% x
1964 Courtenay, Tom 35 35 35 1 0 3.41% x
1964 Hayden, Sterling 35 35 35 1 0 3.41% x
1964 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 35 1 0 3.41% x
1964 Van Dyke, Dick 35 35 25 1 0 2.39% x
1964 Franciosa, Anthony 35 35 25 1 0 2.39% x
1964 March, Frederic 35 35 25 1 0 2.39% x
1965 Marvin, Lee 70 70 56 70 266 245 4 4 21.21% 1
1965 Werner, Oskar 35 35 70 70 210 200 4 2 17.27% 2
1965 Steiger, Rod 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 11.21% 3
1965 Burton, Richard 35 70 105 105 2 1 9.09% 4
1965 Bogarde, Dirk 70 70 70 1 1 6.06% 5
1965 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.15% x
1965 Poitier, Sidney 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.15% x
1965 Sharif, Omar 70 70 49 1 1 4.24% x
1965 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1965 Andrews, Harry 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1965 Caine, Michael 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1965 Smoktunovsky, Innokenti 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1965 Lewis, Jerry 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1965 Robards, Jason 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1965 Sordi, Alberto 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1965 Harrison, Rex 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1966 Scofield, Paul 70 70 126 70 336 315 5 5 30.91% 1
1966 Caine, Michael 35 70 63 35 203 182 5 1 17.86% 2
1966 Burton, Richard 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 12.71% 3
1966 Richardson, Ralph 105 105 105 2 1 10.30% 4
1966 Arkin, Alan 35 70 105 84 2 1 8.24% 5
1966 McQueen, Steve 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.84% x
1966 Belmondo, Jean-Paul 35 35 35 1 0 3.43% x
1966 Warner, David 35 35 35 1 0 3.43% x
1966 Bates, Alan 35 35 25 1 0 2.40% x
1966 Jeffries, Lionel 35 35 25 1 0 2.40% x
1966 von Sydow, Max 35 35 25 1 0 2.40% x
1967 Steiger, Rod 70 70 133 70 343 322 5 5 29.19% 1
1967 Tracy, Spencer 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 11.74% 2
1967 Beatty, Warren 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.57% 3
1967 Bogarde, Dirk 70 70 70 1 1 6.35% 4
1967 Hoffman, Dustin 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.39% 5
1967 Burton, Richard 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.39% 5
1967 Newman, Paul 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.39% 5
1967 Poitier, Sidney 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.39% 5
1967 Finch, Peter 56 56 56 1 1 5.08% x
1967 Harris, Richard 70 70 49 1 1 4.44% x
1967 Mason, James 35 35 35 1 0 3.17% x
1967 Welles, Orson 35 35 35 1 0 3.17% x
1967 Harrison, Rex 35 35 25 1 0 2.22% x
1967 Tognazzi, Ugo 35 35 25 1 0 2.22% x
1967 Bates, Alan 35 35 25 1 0 2.22% x
1968 Robertson, Cliff 70 35 56 161 151 3 2 16.54% 1
1968 Arkin, Alan 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 14.23% 2
1968 Moody, Ron 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 13.08% 3
1968 O’Toole, Peter 35 70 105 84 2 1 9.23% 4
1968 Oskarson, Per 63 63 63 1 1 7.56% 5
1968 Bates, Alan 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.54% 5
1968 Howard, Trevor 35 35 35 1 0 4.20% x
1968 Williamson, Nicol 35 35 35 1 0 4.20% x
1968 Astaire, Fred 35 35 25 1 0 2.94% x
1968 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 2.94% x
1968 Matthau, Walter 35 35 25 1 0 2.94% x
1968 Mostel, Zero 35 35 25 1 0 2.94% x
1968 Curtis, Tony 35 35 25 1 0 2.94% x
1969 Voight, Jon 35 35 133 203 193 4 2 19.78% 1
1969 Hoffman, Dustin 35 70 70 175 154 4 1 15.83% 2
1969 O’Toole, Peter 35 70 56 161 140 3 2 14.39% 3
1969 Wayne, John 70 70 140 119 2 2 12.23% 4
1969 Redford, Robert 70 70 70 1 1 7.19% 5
1969 Burton, Richard 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.12% x
1969 Bates, Alan 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1969 Matthau, Walter 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1969 Newman, Paul 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1969 Williamson, Nicol 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1969 Marvin, Lee 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1969 McQueen, Steve 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1969 Quinn, Anthony 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1969 Arkin, Alan 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1970 Scott, George C. 70 70 189 35 364 343 6 5 44.95% 1
1970 Douglas, Melvyn 35 35 70 60 2 0 7.80% 2
1970 Jones, James Earl 35 35 70 60 2 0 7.80% 2
1970 Nicholson, Jack 35 35 70 60 2 0 7.80% 2
1970 O’Neal, Ryan 35 35 70 60 2 0 7.80% 2
1970 Finney, Albert 70 70 49 1 1 6.42% x
1970 Hoffman, Dustin 35 35 35 1 0 4.59% x
1970 Benjamin, Richard 35 35 25 1 0 3.21% x
1970 Gould, Elliott 35 35 25 1 0 3.21% x
1970 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 3.21% x
1970 Sutherland, Donald 35 35 25 1 0 3.21% x
1971 Hackman, Gene 70 70 126 70 336 315 5 5 32.37% 1
1971 Finch, Peter 35 35 63 70 203 193 4 2 19.78% 2
1971 Scott, George C. 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 9.71% 3
1971 Topol 35 70 105 84 2 1 8.63% 4
1971 Matthau, Walter 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.12% 5
1971 Bogarde, Dirk 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1971 Brando, Marlon 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1971 Finney, Albert 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1971 Cort, Bud 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1971 Jones, Dean 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1971 Wilder, Gene 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1971 McDowell, Malcolm 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1971 Nicholson, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1972 Olivier, Laurence 35 35 70 35 175 165 4 1 19.11% 1
1972 Brando, Marlon 70 70 35 175 154 3 2 17.89% 2
1972 O’Toole, Peter 35 35 56 126 116 3 1 13.41% 3
1972 Matthau, Walter 35 70 105 95 2 1 10.98% 4
1972 Hackman, Gene 70 70 70 1 1 8.13% 5
1972 Caine, Michael 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.91% x
1972 Lemmon, Jack 70 70 49 1 1 5.69% x
1972 Winfield, Paul 35 35 35 1 0 4.07% x
1972 Scott, George C. 35 35 35 1 0 4.07% x
1972 Shaw, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 4.07% x
1972 Grodin, Charles 35 35 25 1 0 2.85% x
1972 Voight, Jon 35 35 25 1 0 2.85% x
1973 Brando, Marlon 35 133 35 203 203 4 2 19.73% 1
1973 Pacino, Al 35 70 56 35 196 175 4 2 17.01% 2
1973 Nicholson, Jack 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 12.59% 3
1973 Lemmon, Jack 70 35 105 95 2 1 9.18% 4
1973 Matthau, Walter 70 70 70 1 1 6.80% 5
1973 Sutherland, Donald 70 70 70 1 1 6.80% 5
1973 Ryan, Robert 56 56 56 1 1 5.44% x
1973 Segal, George 70 70 49 1 1 4.76% x
1973 Redford, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 3.40% x
1973 Anderson, Carl 35 35 25 1 0 2.38% x
1973 Dreyfuss, Richard 35 35 25 1 0 2.38% x
1973 Neeley, Ted 35 35 25 1 0 2.38% x
1973 O’Neal, Ryan 35 35 25 1 0 2.38% x
1973 Blake, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 2.38% x
1973 McQueen, Steve 35 35 25 1 0 2.38% x
1974 Nicholson, Jack 35 70 133 70 308 287 5 4 30.60% 1
1974 Pacino, Al 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 13.81% 2
1974 Carney, Art 70 70 140 119 2 2 12.69% 3
1974 Hackman, Gene 35 56 35 126 116 3 1 12.31% 4
1974 Hoffman, Dustin 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 10.07% 5
1974 Finney, Albert 35 35 70 70 2 0 7.46% x
1974 Jones, James Earl 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1974 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1974 Matthau, Walter 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1974 Reynolds, Burt 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1974 Caan, James 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1975 Nicholson, Jack 70 70 189 70 399 378 6 6 38.41% 1
1975 Pacino, Al 35 35 70 70 210 200 4 2 20.27% 2
1975 Matthau, Walter 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 12.09% 3
1975 Schell, Maximilian 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.05% 5
1975 Whitmore, James 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.05% 5
1975 Hackman, Gene 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.05% 5
1975 Dreyfuss, Richard 35 35 35 1 0 3.56% x
1975 Beatty, Warren 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1975 Caan, James 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1975 Sellers, Peter 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1976 De Niro, Robert 35 35 203 35 308 298 6 3 30.58% 1
1976 Finch, Peter 70 70 70 210 189 3 3 19.42% 2
1976 Stallone, Sylvester 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 9.71% 3
1976 Carradine, David 35 56 91 81 2 1 8.27% 4
1976 Holden, William 35 35 70 70 2 0 7.19% 5
1976 Hoffman, Dustin 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.12% x
1976 Kristofferson, Kris 70 70 49 1 1 5.04% x
1976 Giannini, Giancarlo 35 35 35 1 0 3.60% x
1976 Brooks, Mel 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1976 Sellers, Peter 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1976 Weston, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1976 Wilder, Gene 35 35 25 1 0 2.52% x
1977 Dreyfuss, Richard 70 70 70 70 280 259 4 4 29.84% 1
1977 Travolta, John 35 35 56 126 116 3 1 13.31% 2
1977 Allen, Woody 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 10.89% 3
1977 Burton, Richard 35 70 105 84 2 1 9.68% 4
1977 Gielgud, John 70 70 70 1 1 8.06% 5
1977 Carney, Art 63 63 63 1 1 7.26% x
1977 Mastroianni, Marcello 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.85% x
1977 Brooks, Mel 35 35 25 1 0 2.82% x
1977 De Niro, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 2.82% x
1977 Winkler, Henry 35 35 25 1 0 2.82% x
1977 Pacino, Al 35 35 25 1 0 2.82% x
1977 Peck, Gregory 35 35 25 1 0 2.82% x
1978 Voight, Jon 70 70 196 336 315 5 5 32.01% 1
1978 Busey, Gary 35 35 63 133 123 3 1 12.45% 2
1978 De Niro, Robert 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 9.60% 3
1978 Olivier, Laurence 35 56 91 91 2 1 9.25% 4
1978 Beatty, Warren 35 70 105 84 2 1 8.54% 5
1978 Davis, Brad 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.05% x
1978 Hopkins, Anthony 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.05% x
1978 Ustinov, Peter 35 35 35 1 0 3.56% x
1978 Alda, Alan 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1978 Peck, Gregory 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1978 Chase, Chevy 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1978 Scott, George C. 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1978 Travolta, John 35 35 25 1 0 2.49% x
1979 Hoffman, Dustin 70 70 203 35 378 357 6 5 38.06% 1
1979 Sellers, Peter 35 70 56 35 196 175 4 2 18.66% 2
1979 Scheider, Roy 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 10.07% 3
1979 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.34% 4
1979 Pacino, Al 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.34% 4
1979 Allen, Woody 35 35 35 1 0 3.73% x
1979 Sheen, Martin 35 35 35 1 0 3.73% x
1979 Voight, Jon 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1979 Hamilton, George 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1979 Moore, Dudley 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1979 Reynolds, Burt 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1979 Woods, James 35 35 25 1 0 2.61% x
1980 De Niro, Robert 70 70 259 35 434 413 7 6 44.36% 1
1980 Hurt, John 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 13.91% 2
1980 O’Toole, Peter 35 35 63 133 123 3 1 13.16% 3
1980 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.39% 4
1980 Sharkey, Ray 70 70 49 1 1 5.26% 5
1980 Duvall, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 3.76% x
1980 Jones, Tommy Lee 35 35 25 1 0 2.63% x
1980 Le Mat, Paul 35 35 25 1 0 2.63% x
1980 Matthau, Walter 35 35 25 1 0 2.63% x
1980 Diamond, Neil 35 35 25 1 0 2.63% x
1980 Sutherland, Donald 35 35 25 1 0 2.63% x
1981 Lancaster, Burt 35 35 266 70 406 396 7 5 39.51% 1
1981 Fonda, Henry 70 70 56 35 231 210 4 3 20.98% 2
1981 Beatty, Warren 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 9.44% 3
1981 Moore, Dudley 35 70 105 84 2 1 8.39% 4
1981 Newman, Paul 35 35 35 1 0 3.50% 5
1981 Irons, Jeremy 35 35 35 1 0 3.50% 5
1981 Alda, Alan 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1981 Hutton, Timothy 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1981 Williams, Treat 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1981 Hamilton, George 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1981 Martin, Steve 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1981 Matthau, Walter 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1982 Kingsley, Ben 70 70 196 70 406 385 6 6 36.77% 1
1982 Hoffman, Dustin 35 70 126 70 301 280 5 4 26.74% 2
1982 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 9.03% 3
1982 Newman, Paul 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.68% 4
1982 Finney, Albert 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.68% 4
1982 O’Toole, Peter 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.68% x
1982 Hoskins, Bob 35 35 35 1 0 3.34% x
1982 Pacino, Al 35 35 25 1 0 2.34% x
1982 Winkler, Henry 35 35 25 1 0 2.34% x
1982 Gere, Richard 35 35 25 1 0 2.34% x
1983 Duvall, Robert 70 70 140 280 259 4 4 23.87% 1
1983 Caine, Michael 35 70 105 210 189 4 2 17.42% 2
1983 Conti, Tom 35 35 56 126 116 3 1 10.65% 3
1983 Courtenay, Tom 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.71% 4
1983 Finney, Albert 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.71% 4
1983 Roberts, Eric 35 63 98 88 2 1 8.06% x
1983 Depardieu, Gerard 63 63 63 1 1 5.81% x
1983 De Niro, Robert 35 35 35 1 0 3.23% x
1983 Allen, Woody 35 35 25 1 0 2.26% x
1983 Cruise, Tom 35 35 25 1 0 2.26% x
1983 Murphy, Eddie 35 35 25 1 0 2.26% x
1983 Patinken, Mandy 35 35 25 1 0 2.26% x
1983 Farnsworth, Richard 35 35 25 1 0 2.26% x
1983 Pacino, Al 35 35 25 1 0 2.26% x
1984 Abraham, F. Murray 70 70 70 35 245 224 4 3 22.38% 1
1984 Martin, Steve 35 133 168 158 3 2 15.73% 2
1984 Waterston, Sam 35 35 63 35 168 158 4 1 15.73% 2
1984 Finney, Albert 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 12.94% 4
1984 Banerjee, Victor 56 35 91 91 2 1 9.09% 5
1984 Bridges, Jeff 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.94% x
1984 Hulce, Tom 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.94% x
1984 Moore, Dudley 70 70 49 1 1 4.90% x
1984 Murphy, Eddie 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1984 Murray, Bill 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1984 Williams, Robin 35 35 25 1 0 2.45% x
1985 Hurt, William 70 35 126 70 301 291 5 4 29.43% 1
1985 Nicholson, Jack 35 70 196 301 280 5 4 28.37% 2
1985 Ford, Harrison 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 9.57% 3
1985 Voight, Jon 35 70 105 84 2 1 8.51% 4
1985 Julia, Raul 35 56 91 81 2 1 8.16% 5
1985 Garner, James 35 35 70 60 2 0 6.03% x
1985 Dunne, Griffin 35 35 25 1 0 2.48% x
1985 Fox, Michael J 35 35 25 1 0 2.48% x
1985 Daniels, Jeff 35 35 25 1 0 2.48% x
1985 Hackman, Gene 35 35 25 1 0 2.48% x
1986 Hoskins, Bob 35 70 266 70 441 420 7 6 37.50% 1
1986 Newman, Paul 70 35 56 161 151 3 2 13.44% 2
1986 Hogan, Paul 70 35 105 84 2 1 7.50% 3
1986 Connery, Sean 70 70 70 1 1 6.25% 4
1986 Gordon, Dexter 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.31% 5
1986 Hurt, William 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.31% 5
1986 McAnally, Ray 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.31% x
1986 Woods, James 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1986 Allen, Woody 35 35 35 1 0 3.13% x
1986 Ford, Harrison 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1986 Broderick, Matthew 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1986 Daniels, Jeff 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1986 De Vito, Danny 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1986 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1986 Irons, Jeremy 35 35 25 1 0 2.19% x
1987 Douglas, Michael 70 70 56 35 231 210 4 3 19.61% 1
1987 Nicholson, Jack 35 35 140 210 200 4 2 18.63% 2
1987 Martin, Steve 35 133 168 158 3 2 14.71% 3
1987 Hurt, William 35 35 63 133 123 3 1 11.44% 4
1987 Williams, Robin 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 11.11% 5
1987 Depardieu, Gerard 35 35 35 1 0 3.27% x
1987 Montand, Yves 35 35 35 1 0 3.27% x
1987 Oldman, Gary 35 35 35 1 0 3.27% x
1987 Mastroianni, Marcello 35 35 35 1 0 3.27% x
1987 Cage, Nicholas 35 35 25 1 0 2.29% x
1987 De Vito, Danny 35 35 25 1 0 2.29% x
1987 Swayze, Patrick 35 35 25 1 0 2.29% x
1987 Lone, John 35 35 25 1 0 2.29% x
1987 Nolte, Nick 35 35 25 1 0 2.29% x
1988 Hanks, Tom 35 70 70 175 154 3 2 15.49% 1
1988 Hoffman, Dustin 70 70 35 175 154 3 2 15.49% 1
1988 Irons, Jeremy 133 133 133 2 2 13.38% 3
1988 Hackman, Gene 35 35 56 126 116 3 1 11.62% 4
1988 Cleese, John 35 70 105 95 2 1 9.51% 5
1988 Keaton, Michael 63 63 63 1 1 6.34% x
1988 Day-Lewis, Daniel 63 63 63 1 1 6.34% x
1988 Olmos, Edward James 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.99% x
1988 von Sydow, Max 35 35 35 1 0 3.52% x
1988 Caine, Michael 35 35 25 1 0 2.46% x
1988 De Niro, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 2.46% x
1988 Hoskins, Bob 35 35 25 1 0 2.46% x
1988 Hulce, Tom 35 35 25 1 0 2.46% x
1988 Whitaker, Forest 35 35 25 1 0 2.46% x
1989 Day-Lewis, Daniel 70 35 266 70 441 431 7 6 39.35% 1
1989 Cruise, Tom 35 70 63 35 203 182 4 2 16.64% 2
1989 Freeman, Morgan 35 70 56 161 140 3 2 12.80% 3
1989 Williams, Robin 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.64% 4
1989 Branagh, Kenneth 35 35 70 70 2 0 6.40% 5
1989 Nicholson, Jack 35 30 65 55 2 0 4.98% x
1989 Crystal, Billy 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1989 Douglas, Michael 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1989 Martin, Steve 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1989 Lemmon, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1989 Pacino, Al 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1990 Irons, Jeremy 70 70 259 399 378 6 6 32.73% 1
1990 De Niro, Robert 35 126 35 196 196 4 2 16.97% 2
1990 Depardieu, Gerard 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 10.30% 3
1990 Costner, Kevin 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 8.18% 4
1990 Williams, Robin 35 56 91 81 2 1 6.97% 5
1990 Noiret, Philippe 70 70 70 1 1 6.06% x
1990 Harris, Richard 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.15% x
1990 Connery, Sean 35 35 35 1 0 3.03% x
1990 Culkin, Macauley 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1990 Depp, Johnny 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1990 Gere, Richard 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1990 Pacino, Al 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1990 Swayze, Patrick 35 35 25 1 0 2.12% x
1991 Hopkins, Anthony 70 35 235 70 410 400 7 6 36.45% 1
1991 Nolte, Nick 35 70 133 238 217 4 3 19.80% 2
1991 Beatty, Warren 35 35 56 126 116 3 1 10.54% 3
1991 Williams, Robin 35 70 105 84 2 1 7.66% 4
1991 Phoenix, River 63 63 63 1 1 5.75% 5
1991 De Niro, Robert 35 35 70 60 2 0 5.43% x
1991 Rickman, Alan 35 35 35 1 0 3.19% x
1991 Bridges, Jeff 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1991 Crystal, Billy 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1991 Hoffman, Dustin 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1991 Kline, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1991 Costner, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 2.24% x
1992 Washington, Denzel 35 35 196 266 256 5 3 24.01% 1
1992 Rea, Stephen 35 63 35 133 133 3 1 12.50% 2
1992 Downey Jr., Robert 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 12.17% 3
1992 Pacino, Al 70 70 140 119 2 2 11.18% 4
1992 Robbins, Tim 105 35 140 109 3 1 10.20% 5
1992 Eastwood, Clint 35 70 105 105 2 1 9.87% x
1992 Lemmon, Jack 56 56 56 1 1 5.26% x
1992 Day-Lewis, Daniel 35 35 35 1 0 3.29% x
1992 Cage, Nicholas 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1992 Crystal, Billy 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1992 Mastroianni, Marcello 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1992 Cruise, Tom 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1992 Nicholson, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1993 Hopkins, Anthony 35 35 126 105 301 291 6 3 27.30% 1
1993 Day-Lewis, Daniel 35 35 63 35 168 158 4 1 14.80% 2
1993 Neeson, Liam 35 35 63 35 168 158 4 1 14.80% 2
1993 Hanks, Tom 70 105 175 144 3 2 13.49% 4
1993 Thewliss, David 133 133 133 2 2 12.50% 5
1993 Williams, Robin 70 70 49 1 1 4.61% x
1993 Fishburne, Laurence 35 35 35 1 0 3.29% x
1993 Depp, Johnny 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1993 Kline, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1993 Meaney, Colm 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1993 Ford, Harrison 35 35 25 1 0 2.30% x
1994 Hanks, Tom 70 70 119 35 70 364 343 6 5 25.52% 1
1994 Newman, Paul 35 35 133 35 238 228 5 2 16.93% 2
1994 Travolta, John 35 35 70 35 35 210 200 5 1 14.84% 3
1994 Grant, Hugh 70 70 140 119 2 2 8.85% 4
1994 Hawthorne, Nigel 35 70 105 105 2 1 7.81% 5
1994 Freeman, Morgan 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 7.03% x
1994 Finney, Albert 63 63 63 1 1 4.69% x
1994 Stamp, Terence 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.43% x
1994 Robbins, Tim 35 35 35 1 0 2.60% x
1994 Carrey, Jim 35 35 25 1 0 1.82% x
1994 Depp, Johnny 35 35 25 1 0 1.82% x
1994 Schwarzennegar, Arnold 35 35 25 1 0 1.82% x
1994 Pitt, Brad 35 35 25 1 0 1.82% x
1995 Cage, Nicholas 70 70 385 35 70 630 609 10 9 45.96% 1
1995 Troisi, Massimi 35 35 35 105 105 3 0 7.92% 2
1995 Hopkins, Anthony 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 7.13% 3
1995 Penn, Sean 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 7.13% 3
1995 Bacon, Kevin 30 70 100 86 2 1 6.49% 5
1995 Dreyfuss, Richard 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.49% x
1995 McKellen, Ian 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.49% x
1995 Travolta, John 70 70 49 1 1 3.70% x
1995 Pryce, Jonathan 35 35 35 1 0 2.64% x
1995 Jones, James Earl 35 35 35 1 0 2.64% x
1995 Swayze, Patrick 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1995 Douglas, Michael 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1995 Ford, Harrison 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1995 Martin, Steve 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1996 Rush, Geoffrey 70 70 203 70 70 70 553 518 8 8 39.09% 1
1996 Cruise, Tom 35 70 56 35 196 175 4 2 13.21% 2
1996 Thornton, Billy Bob 35 63 35 133 133 3 1 10.04% 3
1996 Fiennes, Ralph 35 35 35 35 140 130 4 0 9.77% 4
1996 Harrelson, Woody 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 7.13% 5
1996 Murphy, Eddie 35 63 98 88 2 1 6.60% x
1996 Lane, Nathan 35 30 65 55 2 0 4.11% x
1996 Spall, Timothy 35 35 35 1 0 2.64% x
1996 Banderas, Antonio 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1996 Costner, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1996 Gibson, Mel 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1996 Neeson, Liam 35 35 25 1 0 1.85% x
1997 Nicholson, Jack 70 70 56 70 70 336 301 5 5 23.89% 1
1997 Duvall, Robert 35 196 35 266 266 5 3 21.11% 2
1997 Fonda, Peter 35 70 70 35 210 189 4 2 15.00% 3
1997 Hoffman, Dustin 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 7.50% 4
1997 Damon, Matt 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 7.50% 4
1997 Carlyle, Robert 70 70 70 1 1 5.56% x
1997 Pacino, Al 63 63 63 1 1 5.00% x
1997 Winstone, Ray 35 35 35 1 0 2.78% x
1997 Day-Lewis, Daniel 35 35 25 1 0 1.94% x
1997 Carrey, Jim 35 35 25 1 0 1.94% x
1997 Jackson, Samuel L. 35 35 25 1 0 1.94% x
1997 Kline, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 1.94% x
1997 DiCaprio, Leonardo 35 35 25 1 0 1.94% x
1997 Honsou, Djimon 35 35 25 1 0 1.94% x
1998 McKellen, Ian 35 35 189 35 70 364 340 7 4 25.53% 1
1998 Nolte, Nick 35 35 133 35 238 228 5 2 17.11% 2
1998 Benigni, Roberto 70 70 70 210 210 3 3 15.79% 3
1998 Hanks, Tom 35 35 35 35 140 130 4 0 9.74% 4
1998 Caine, Michael 70 35 105 84 2 1 6.32% 5
1998 Fiennes, Joseph 35 35 70 70 2 0 5.26% x
1998 Gleeson, Brendan 63 63 63 1 1 4.74% x
1998 Carrey, Jim 70 70 49 1 1 3.68% x
1998 Norton, Edward 35 35 35 1 0 2.63% x
1998 Banderas, Antonio 35 35 25 1 0 1.84% x
1998 Beatty, Warren 35 35 25 1 0 1.84% x
1998 Travolta, John 35 35 25 1 0 1.84% x
1998 Williams, Robin 35 35 25 1 0 1.84% x
1998 Fry, Stephen 35 35 25 1 0 1.84% x
1999 Crowe, Russell 35 35 189 35 35 70 399 375 8 4 27.44% 1
1999 Spacey, Kevin 70 35 63 70 70 308 298 5 4 21.79% 2
1999 Carrey, Jim 70 63 35 168 147 3 2 10.77% 3
1999 Farnsworth, Richard 35 35 70 140 130 3 1 9.49% 4
1999 Washington, Denzel 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 8.72% 5
1999 Penn, Sean 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.36% x
1999 Broadbent, Jim 35 35 35 1 0 2.56% x
1999 Fiennes, Ralph 35 35 35 1 0 2.56% x
1999 Puri, Om 35 35 35 1 0 2.56% x
1999 Hoffman, Philip Seymour 35 35 35 1 0 2.56% x
1999 De Niro, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 1.79% x
1999 Everett, Rupert 35 35 25 1 0 1.79% x
1999 Grant, Hugh 35 35 25 1 0 1.79% x
1999 Damon, Matt 35 35 25 1 0 1.79% x
2000 Hanks, Tom 35 70 133 35 35 308 287 6 3 22.16% 1
2000 Crowe, Russell 70 35 35 35 70 245 221 5 2 17.03% 2
2000 Bardem, Javier 35 35 119 189 179 4 2 13.78% 3
2000 Douglas, Michael 35 70 35 140 130 3 1 10.00% 4
2000 Rush, Geoffrey 35 35 35 35 140 130 4 0 10.00% 4
2000 Bell, Jamie 70 35 105 105 2 1 8.11% x
2000 Farrell, Colin 63 63 63 1 1 4.86% x
2000 Clooney, George 70 70 49 1 1 3.78% x
2000 Harris, Ed 35 35 35 1 0 2.70% x
2000 Carrey, Jim 35 35 25 1 0 1.89% x
2000 Cusack, John 35 35 25 1 0 1.89% x
2000 De Niro, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 1.89% x
2000 Gibson, Mel 35 35 25 1 0 1.89% x
2001 Crowe, Russell 35 70 70 70 70 315 280 5 4 19.80% 1
2001 Washington, Denzel 70 35 133 35 273 263 5 3 18.56% 2
2001 Hackman, Gene 70 126 196 175 3 3 12.38% 3
2001 Wilkinson, Tom 35 70 35 35 175 175 4 1 12.38% 3
2001 Thornton, Billy Bob 70 56 126 105 3 1 7.43% 5
2001 Penn, Sean 35 35 35 105 98 3 0 6.93% x
2001 Smith, Will 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 6.19% x
2001 Cox, Brian 63 63 63 1 1 4.46% x
2001 Spacey, Kevin 35 35 70 60 2 0 4.21% x
2001 Kline, Kevin 35 35 35 1 0 2.48% x
2001 Jackman, Hugh 35 35 25 1 0 1.73% x
2001 McGregor, Ewan 35 35 25 1 0 1.73% x
2001 Mitchell, John Cameron 35 35 25 1 0 1.73% x
2002 Day-Lewis, Daniel 35 35 203 70 70 70 483 459 8 6 30.18% 1
2002 Brody, Adrian 70 35 126 35 35 301 291 6 3 19.12% 2
2002 Nicholson, Jack 35 70 70 35 35 70 315 280 6 3 18.43% 3
2002 Cage, Nicholas 35 35 35 35 140 130 4 0 8.53% 4
2002 Caine, Michael 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 6.22% 5
2002 Gere, Richard 70 35 105 84 2 1 5.53% x
2002 Scott, Campbell 56 56 56 1 1 3.69% x
2002 Williams, Robin 35 35 28 1 0 1.84% x
2002 Culkin, Kieran 35 35 25 1 0 1.61% x
2002 Grant, Hugh 35 35 25 1 0 1.61% x
2002 Sandler, Adam 35 35 25 1 0 1.61% x
2002 DiCaprio, Leonardo 35 35 25 1 0 1.61% x
2003 Murray, Bill 35 70 329 70 35 35 574 546 10 7 36.97% 1
2003 Penn, Sean 70 70 56 70 35 70 371 336 6 5 22.75% 2
2003 Depp, Johnny 35 35 35 70 35 210 193 5 1 13.03% 3
2003 Kingsley, Ben 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 8.29% 4
2003 Law, Jude 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 6.40% 5
2003 Crowe, Russell 35 35 70 53 2 0 3.55% x
2003 Dinklage, Peter 35 35 35 1 0 2.37% x
2003 Black, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 1.66% x
2003 Nicholson, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 1.66% x
2003 Thornton, Billy Bob 35 35 25 1 0 1.66% x
2003 Cruise, Tom 35 35 25 1 0 1.66% x
2004 Foxx, Jamie 70 70 182 70 70 70 532 497 8 8 33.02% 1
2004 Giamatti, Paul 35 133 35 35 238 221 5 2 14.65% 2
2004 DiCaprio, Leonardo 35 70 35 35 35 210 182 5 1 12.09% 3
2004 Depp, Johnny 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.47% 4
2004 Cheadle, Don 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 8.14% 5
2004 Neeson, Liam 35 70 105 95 2 1 6.28% x
2004 Carrey, Jim 35 35 70 60 2 0 3.95% x
2004 Bardem, Javier 35 35 70 53 2 0 3.49% x
2004 Eastwood, Clint 35 35 35 1 0 2.33% x
2004 Garcia Bernal, Gael 35 35 35 1 0 2.33% x
2004 Kline, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2004 Spacey, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2005 Hoffman, Philip Seymour 70 70 315 70 70 70 665 630 10 10 41.18% 1
2005 Ledger, Heath 35 35 70 35 35 35 245 228 6 1 14.87% 2
2005 Phoenix, Joaquin 35 70 35 35 35 210 182 5 1 11.90% 3
2005 Straithairn, David 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.29% 4
2005 Howard, Terrence 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 5.72% 5
2005 Crowe, Russell 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 5.72% 5
2005 Fiennes, Ralph 35 35 35 1 0 2.29% x
2005 Brosnan, Pierce 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x
2005 Daniels, Jeff 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x
2005 Depp, Johnny 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x
2005 Lane, Nathan 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x
2005 Murphy, Cilian 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x
2006 Whitaker, Forest 70 70 385 70 70 70 735 700 11 11 43.61% 1
2006 DiCaprio, Leonardo 35 70 35 65 70 275 240 6 2 14.95% 2
2006 O’Toole, Peter 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 9.81% 3
2006 Smith, Will 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 7.63% 4
2006 Cohen, Sacha Baron 70 70 140 119 2 2 7.41% 5
2006 Gosling, Ryan 35 35 35 105 98 3 0 6.11% x
2006 Griffiths, Richard 35 35 35 1 0 2.18% x
2006 Craig, Daniel 35 35 35 1 0 2.18% x
2006 Depp, Johnny 35 35 25 1 0 1.53% x
2006 Eckhart, Aaron 35 35 25 1 0 1.53% x
2006 Ejiofor, Chiwetel 35 35 25 1 0 1.53% x
2006 Ferrell, Will 35 35 25 1 0 1.53% x
2007 Day-Lewis, Daniel 70 70 266 70 70 70 616 581 9 9 38.60% 1
2007 Clooney, George 35 35 56 35 35 35 231 214 6 1 14.19% 2
2007 Mortenson, Viggo 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.47% 3
2007 Depp, Johnny 35 70 35 140 112 3 1 7.44% 4
2007 Gosling, Ryan 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 5.81% 5
2007 Langella, Frank 63 63 63 1 1 4.19% x
2007 Hirsch, Emile 35 35 70 63 2 0 4.19% x
2007 McAvoy, James 35 35 70 60 2 0 3.95% x
2007 Jones, Tommy Lee 35 35 35 1 0 2.33% x
2007 Muhe, Ulrich 35 35 35 1 0 2.33% x
2007 Hanks, Tom 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2007 Hoffman, Philip Seymour 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2007 Reilly, John C. 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2007 Washington, Denzel 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2008 Penn, Sean 70 35 266 35 70 70 546 522 9 7 32.03% 1
2008 Rourke, Mickey 35 70 126 70 35 35 371 343 7 4 21.07% 2
2008 Langella, Frank 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 9.67% 3
2008 Pitt, Brad 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 9.67% 3
2008 Jenkins, Richard 35 35 35 105 98 3 0 6.02% 5
2008 Eastwood, Clint 56 35 91 84 2 1 5.16% x
2008 Patel, Dev 35 30 65 65 2 0 3.99% x
2008 Gleeson, Brendan 35 30 65 55 2 0 3.35% x
2008 Farrell, Colin 70 70 49 1 1 3.01% x
2008 Bardem, Javier 35 35 25 1 0 1.50% x
2008 Franco, James 35 35 25 1 0 1.50% x
2008 Hoffman, Dustin 35 35 25 1 0 1.50% x
2008 DiCaprio, Leonardo 35 35 25 1 0 1.50% x
2009 Bridges, Jeff 70 70 70 35 70 70 385 350 6 5 22.42% 1
2009 Renner, Jeremy 35 189 35 35 35 329 322 7 3 20.63% 2
2009 Clooney, George 35 35 126 35 35 35 301 284 7 2 18.16% 3
2009 Firth, Colin 35 35 70 35 35 210 193 5 1 12.33% 4
2009 Freeman, Morgan 35 35 56 35 35 196 179 5 1 11.43% 5
2009 Downey, Robert 70 70 49 1 1 3.14% x
2009 Serkis, Andy 35 35 35 1 0 2.24% x
2009 Mortenson, Viggo 35 35 28 1 0 1.79% x
2009 Damon, Matt 35 35 25 1 0 1.57% x
2009 Day-Lewis, Daniel 35 35 25 1 0 1.57% x
2009 Gordon-Leavitt, Joseph 35 35 25 1 0 1.57% x
2009 Stahlberg, Michael 35 35 25 1 0 1.57% x
2009 Maguire, Tobey 35 35 25 1 0 1.57% x
2010 Firth, Colin 70 70 203 70 70 70 553 518 8 8 34.42% 1
2010 Eisenberg, Jesse 35 35 182 35 35 35 357 340 8 3 22.56% 2
2010 Franco, James 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.47% 3
2010 Bridges, Jeff 35 35 35 35 140 133 4 0 8.84% 4
2010 Bardem, Javier 35 35 70 70 2 0 4.65% 5
2010 Duvall, Robert 35 35 70 63 2 0 4.19% x
2010 Gosling, Ryan 35 35 70 53 2 0 3.49% x
2010 Depp, Johnny 70 70 49 2 0 3.26% x
2010 Giamatti, Paul 70 70 49 1 1 3.26% x
2010 Gyllenhall, Jake 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2010 Spacey, Kevin 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2010 Wahlberg, Mark 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2011 Pitt, Brad 35 35 196 35 35 35 371 354 8 3 23.49% 1
2011 Dujardin, Jean 70 70 70 70 35 315 287 5 4 19.07% 2
2011 Clooney, George 35 70 56 35 35 70 301 266 6 3 17.67% 3
2011 Fassbender, Michael 35 70 35 35 175 158 4 1 10.47% 4
2011 DiCaprio, Leonardo 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 5.81% 5
2011 Gosling, Ryan 70 35 105 77 3 0 5.12% x
2011 Oldman, Gary 35 35 70 70 2 0 4.65% x
2011 Bichir, Demian 35 35 70 70 2 0 4.65% x
2011 Shannon, Michael 63 63 63 1 1 4.19% x
2011 Gleeson, Brendan 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2011 Gordon-Leavitt, Joseph 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2011 Wilson, Owen 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x

Lists

  • Best Oscar Winner Snubbed by the BAFTAs:  Jeremy Irons  (Reversal of Fortune)
  • Best Oscar Nominee Snubbed by the BAFTAs:  Peter O’Toole  (The Lion in Winter)
  • Best BAFTA Winner Snubbed by the Oscars:  Henry Fonda  (12 Angry Men)
  • Best BAFTA Nominee Snubbed by the Oscars:  Takashi Shimura  (Ikiru)
  • Best Performance Snubbed by both the Oscars and BAFTAs:  Orson Welles  (Touch of Evil)
  • Best Performance Snubbed by the Oscars and BAFTAs but Nominated by the BFCA:  Paul Giamatti  (Sideways)
  • Best Performance Snubbed by the Oscars and BAFTAs but Nominated by SAG:  Tim Robbins  (The Shawshank Redemption)
  • Average Nighthawk Winner  (9 point scale):  8.32
  • Average Oscar Winner  (9 point scale):  6.44
  • Average BAFTA Winner  (9 point scale):  6.00
  • Average Globe – Drama Winner  (9 point scale):  6.77
  • Average Globe – Comedy Winner  (9 point scale):  4.56
  • Average SAG Winner  (9 point scale):  7.28
  • Average BFCA Winner  (9 point scale):  7.06
  • Average Nighthawk 2nd Place  (9 point scale):  7.48
  • Average Nighthawk Nominee  (9 point scale):  7.01
  • Average Oscar Nominee  (9 point scale):  5.80
  • Average BAFTA Nominee  (9 point scale):  4.55
  • Average Globe – Drama Nominee  (9 point scale):  5.36
  • Average Globe – Comedy Nominee (9 point scale):  2.90
  • Average SAG Nominee  (9 point scale):  6.26
  • Average BFCA Nominee  (9 point scale):  6.17
  • Average Oscar Score:  84.10
  • Average Oscar Winner Rank:  4.94
  • Average Oscar Winner Rank Among Nominees:  2.46

See Them Only for the Actor Performance

(The Awards Groups)

There are two films that fit here.  In both cases, they were nominated by the Oscars, BAFTAs and Globes for this and nothing else but in all three cases received no other nominations which is insane because they are fantastic films: The Pawnbroker (Rod Steiger) and The Quiet American (Michael Caine).

See Them Only for the Actor Performance

(The Nighthawks)

Of the 16,000+ films I have seen through 2011, there are 123 that only earn points from me for Actor (far fewer than Actress).  Of those, 102 are *** (you can’t earn just Actor and be better than *** because all films better than *** earn points for Picture).  Of the other 21, the ones that are **.5 or lower, only two of them earn a 4 or higher which means I think they’re good enough to be an Oscar nominee.  Those two performances are Richard Dreyfuss in Mr. Holland’s Opus (which was an Oscar nominee) and Brian Cox in L.I.E..  The single best performance from a film with no other points is Edward Norton in American History X which is a mid ***.


Since 2011

All-Time Notes:  Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) is now the top performance of the decade.  Lin-Manuel Miranda (Mary Poppins Returns) now tops a very weak Kids field while Matt Damon (The Martian) is the top performance in Sci-Fi.

9 Point Performances Since 2011:

  • Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln, 2012
  • Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant, 2015
  • Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour, 2017

Oscar Notes:  Daniel Day-Lewis is now tied for 4th in points with 315 after becoming the first person to win three Best Actor Oscars and Denzel Washington is part of the group at the bottom with 245 points.  Ethan Hawke (First Reformed) is now #2 for Most Critical Acclaim without an Oscar Nom.  In 2013, we had another winner who was the weakest of the nominees (Matthew McConaughy).  The Oscar Score for the decade now stands at 96.1 including 2018 and no year has been below a 91.  Matthew McConaughey became the latest Oscar winner to be the weakest of the nominees.

BAFTA Notes:  Daniel Day-Lewis is now in 2nd place in points with 385.  The Revenant became the first Adventure to win the BAFTA while The Martian became the first Sci-Fi to earn a nomination.  In 2015, for the first time since 2002, a film was nominated for Actor and nothing else (Trumbo) and then it happened again the next year (Captain Fantastic).  Several years (2013, 2014, 2018) rank above 2011 on the “five nominee” ranking.

Golden Globes:  Daniel Day-Lewis, Tom Hanks and Denzel are all now tied for 4th place in Drama with 315 points.  Day-Lewis is tied for 10th in overall points with 350 while Leo is up to 420 total points and is in 6th place.  The 2017 Drama class (Oldman, Hanks, Chalemet, Day-Lewis, Denzel) is tied for 2nd but the 2013 Comedy class is far and away the best group for Comedy and even ties for 1st overall with the top Drama year (it’s DiCaprio, Bale, Dern, Isaac, Phoenix) and they all happen to be from Picture nominees.  The Big Short became the eighth film to earn two Comedy noms without a win but in this case one of them went on to an Oscar nom but in supporting.  Darkest Hour became the first Drama winner in a decade to have no other nominations.  The Globes had another year (2017) where neither Picture winner earned an Actor nom.

BFCA Notes:  The Top 5 at the BFCA is now Crowe, Day-Lewis (245), DiCaprio (210), Gosling (210) and Penn.  Ryan Gosling (First Man) is now easily the Best Performance Only Nominated by the BFCA.

SAG Notes:  The Top 5 is now Daniel Day-Lewis (210), Denzel (210), Crowe, Penn, Hanks and Leo (175).  Denzel (2016) is now the Lowest Acclaim for a Winner while Casey Affleck in the same year is the Highest Acclaim for a Nominee.

Critics Awards Notes:  Gary Oldman (2017) is now the Most Acclaimed Performance to Not Win a Critics Award with Rami Malek (2018) in 4th and Eddie Redmayne (2014) in 5th.  Michael Keaton (2015) is now the Least Acclaimed to win the NYFC, Tom Hardy (2014) and Adam Driver (2016) are Least Acclaimed for LAFC and Michael B. Jordan (2015) for the NSFC.  After their snub of Jack Nicholson in their initial awards in 1975, the LAFC gave their award to every major winner (30% or higher of Consensus) – all 17 of them – but in 2012, they passed over Daniel Day-Lewis (35.68%) and then in 2016 they passed over Casey Affleck (39.25%).  In 2014, Timothy Spall became the third Actor to win multiple Critics awards (NYFC, NSFC) and not earn any other Consensus points.

Nighthawk Notes:  Daniel Day-Lewis is now #1 in Nighthawk points with ease (and with 490 points).  Leo has entered the Top 10 with 315 points.  No changes in Drama except that DDL now has a much bigger lead (560 total points).  Bill Murray is now up to 315 Comedy points.  In weighted points, if DDL really has retired, he goes out in 2nd place (barely) with 607 points.  Leo is now in 10th place with 448 points but depending on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood he could end the year as high as 6th.  The Top 10 for Absolute Points is now Jack, Newman, DDL (835), Tom Hanks (722), Jimmy Stewart, Olivier, Leo (688), Hoffman, Fonda and De Niro.  Scorsese scores another win (Leo – Wolf of Wall Street) and another nom (The Silence) so he now dominates as a director in this category.  Wolf of Wall Street lands in the Top 10 performances directed by Marty.  Denzel lands (easily) in the Top 20 for Best Self-Directed Performances for FencesThe Martian is the third Sci-Fi film with a nom while Birdman is the first Fantasy to win.  The 2013 Comedy class is easily the best year for Comedy (DiCaprio, Bale, Dern, Isaac, Phoenix – the same as the Globes).

The Nighthawk winners since 2011:

  • 2012:  Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, NYFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC)
  • 2013:  Leonardo DiCaprio, Wolf of Wall Street  (Globe – Comedy, Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 2014:  Michael Keaton, Birdman  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, BSFC, CFC, NBR)
  • 2015:  Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, BSFC, CFC)
  • 2016:  Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea  (Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, NYFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR, SAG)
  • 2017:  Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA)
  • 2018:  Bradley Cooper, A Star is Born  (Oscar, SAG, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA)

The Other Genre Nighthawk winners since 2011:

  • 2012 Comedy:  Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
  • 2013 Drama:  Chiwetel Ojiofor, 12 Years a Slave
  • 2014 Drama:  Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
  • 2015 Comedy:  Matt Damon, The Martian
  • 2016 Comedy:  Ryan Gosling, La La Land
  • 2017 Comedy:  Hugh Jackman, The Greatest Showman
  • 2018 Drama:  Ryan Gosling, First Man

See Them for the Performance:  Denzel Washington’s performance in Roman J. Israel Esq. is now the best performance from a sub *** film (low **.5) with no other points.

Consensus Notes:  Astoundingly in the last three years we have had examples of all three kinds of Consensus races.  In 2016, we have a blowout (Casey Affleck at 40.18%, no one else above 12.29%), in 2017, we have the Top 2 finish (Timothee Chalemet at 23.06%, Gary Oldman at 20.15%) and in 2018 we have the wide open race (five actors ranging from 19.18% to 10.27% with only four Oscar nominees among them because the whole reason we have such a range is Hawke dominating the critics and being mostly passed over by awards groups).

Consensus Chart:

Year Director AA GG crit BAFTA SAG BFCA RT WT N W % Rk
2012 Day-Lewis, Daniel 70 70 259 70 70 70 609 574 9 9 38.14% 1
2012 Cooper, Bradley 35 35 56 35 35 35 231 214 6 1 14.19% 2
2012 Phoenix, Joaquin 35 35 70 35 35 210 193 5 1 12.79% 3
2012 Jackman, Hugh 35 70 35 35 35 210 182 5 1 12.09% 4
2012 Washington, Denzel 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 8.14% 5
2012 Hawkes, John 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 5.81% x
2012 Affleck, Ben 35 35 35 1 0 2.33% x
2012 Black, Jack 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2012 McGregor, Ewan 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2012 Murray, Bill 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2012 Gere, Richard 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2013 Ejiofor, Chiwetel 35 35 126 70 35 35 336 319 7 3 21.16% 1
2013 Dern, Bruce 35 35 126 35 35 35 301 284 7 2 18.84% 2
2013 McConaghy, Matthew 70 70 70 70 280 245 4 4 16.28% 3
2013 Redford, Robert 35 70 35 140 123 3 1 8.14% 4
2013 Bale, Christian 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 8.14% 4
2013 Hanks, Tom 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 8.14% 4
2013 DiCaprio, Leonardo 35 70 35 140 119 3 1 7.91% x
2013 Isaac, Oscar 35 63 98 88 2 1 5.81% x
2013 Whitaker, Forest 35 35 35 1 0 2.33% x
2013 Phoenix, Joaquin 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2013 Elba, Idris 35 35 25 1 0 1.63% x
2014 Keaton, Michael 35 70 182 35 35 70 427 392 8 5 24.64% 1
2014 Redmayne, Eddie 70 70 70 70 35 315 287 5 4 18.04% 2
2014 Cumberbatch, Benedict 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 9.90% 3
2014 Spall, Timothy 133 133 133 2 2 8.36% 4
2014 Carrell, Steve 35 35 30 35 135 125 4 0 7.83% 5
2014 Gyllenhaal, Jake 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 7.70% x
2014 Fiennes, Ralph 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 5.50% x
2014 Hardy, Tom 70 70 70 1 1 4.40% x
2014 Isaac, Oscar 56 56 56 1 1 3.52% x
2014 Oyelowo, David 35 35 70 53 2 0 3.30% x
2014 Cooper, Bradley 35 35 35 1 0 2.20% x
2014 Murray, Bill 35 35 25 1 0 1.54% x
2014 Phoenix, Joaquin 35 35 25 1 0 1.54% x
2014 Waltz, Christoph 35 35 25 1 0 1.54% x
2015 DiCaprio, Leonardo 70 70 126 70 70 70 476 441 7 7 29.78% 1
2015 Fassbender, Michael 35 35 70 35 35 35 245 228 6 1 15.36% 2
2015 Damon, Matt 35 70 56 35 35 231 203 5 2 13.71% 3
2015 Redmayne, Eddie 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.63% 4
2015 Cranston, Bryan 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.63% 4
2015 Keaton, Michael 70 70 70 1 1 4.73% x
2015 Jordan, Michael B 63 63 63 1 1 4.25% x
2015 Depp, Johnny 35 35 70 63 2 0 4.25% x
2015 Carrell, Steve 35 35 25 1 0 1.65% x
2015 Pacino, Al 35 35 25 1 0 1.65% x
2015 Ruffalo, Mark 35 35 25 1 0 1.65% x
2015 Smith, Will 35 35 25 1 0 1.65% x
2016 Affleck, Casey 70 70 315 70 35 70 630 595 10 9 40.18% 1
2016 Gosling, Ryan 35 70 35 35 35 210 182 5 1 12.29% 2
2016 Garfield, Andrew 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.63% 3
2016 Washington, Denzel 35 35 70 35 175 158 4 1 10.63% 3
2016 Mortenson, Viggo 35 35 35 35 140 130 4 0 8.74% 5
2016 Driver, Adam 70 70 70 1 1 4.73% x
2016 Edgerton, Joel 35 35 70 53 2 0 3.54% x
2016 Gyllenhaal, Jake 35 35 35 1 0 2.36% x
2016 Hanks, Tom 35 35 28 1 0 1.89% x
2016 Reynolds, Ryan 35 35 25 1 0 1.65% x
2016 Hill, Jonah 35 35 25 1 0 1.65% x
2016 Farrell, Colin 35 35 25 1 0 1.65% x
2017 Chalamet, Timothee 35 35 203 35 35 35 378 361 8 3 23.06% 1
2017 Oldman, Gary 70 70 70 70 70 350 315 5 5 20.15% 2
2017 Kaluuya, Daniel 35 35 126 35 35 35 301 284 8 2 18.14% 3
2017 Day-Lewis, Daniel 35 35 35 35 140 123 4 0 7.84% 4
2017 Franco, James 70 35 35 140 112 3 1 7.17% 5
2017 Hanks, Tom 35 56 35 126 109 3 1 6.94% x
2017 Washington, Denzel 35 35 35 105 95 3 0 6.05% x
2017 Carrell, Steve 35 30 65 55 2 0 3.49% x
2017 Bell, Jamie 35 35 35 1 0 2.24% x
2017 Gyllenhaal, Jake 35 35 28 1 0 1.79% x
2017 Elgort, Ansel 35 35 25 1 0 1.57% x
2017 Jackman, Hugh 35 35 25 1 0 1.57% x
2018 Hawke, Ethan 266 35 301 294 5 4 19.18% 1
2018 Malek, Rami 70 70 70 70 35 315 287 5 4 18.72% 2
2018 Mortenson, Viggo 35 35 56 35 35 35 231 214 6 1 13.93% 3
2018 Bale, Christian 35 70 35 35 70 245 210 5 2 13.70% 4
2018 Cooper, Bradley 35 35 35 35 35 175 158 5 0 10.27% 5
2018 Reilly, John C. 35 63 98 88 2 1 5.71% x
2018 Dafoe, Willem 35 35 35 105 88 3 0 5.71% x
2018 Washington, John David 35 35 70 60 2 0 3.88% x
2018 Coogan, Steve 35 35 35 1 0 2.28% x
2018 Gosling, Ryan 35 35 28 1 0 1.83% x
2018 Redford, Robert 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x
2018 Miranda, Lin-Manuel 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x
2018 Hedges, Lucas 35 35 25 1 0 1.60% x

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1987

$
0
0

“Inconceivable!” the Sicilian cried.
The Spaniard whirled on him. “Stop saying that word. It was inconceivable that anyone could follow us, but when we looked behind, there was the man in black. It was inconceivable that anyone could sail as fast as we could sail, and yet he gained on us. Now this too is inconceivable, but look – look -‘ and the Spaniard pointed down through the night. “See how he rises.” (p 105)
Two notes: The first is that Goldman definitely improved on the line for the film. Second, I literally opened the book at random and went with the first scene I saw for this picture and caption.

My Top 10

  1. The Princess Bride
  2. The Dead
  3. Manon of the Spring
  4. Jean de Florette
  5. Roxanne
  6. Full Metal Jacket
  7. The Untouchables
  8. Empire of the Sun
  9. My Life as a Dog
  10. Prick up your ears

note:  This is a much stronger Top 5 and 10 than the year before.  Little Shop of Horrors, my #5 in 1986 would probably be the #9 or 10 here.  There is also a much longer list outside my Top 10 and only one of those films (The Last Emperor) is reviewed because of awards consideration.

Consensus Nominees:

  1. The Last Emperor  (184 pts)
  2. Roxanne  (80 pts)
  3. Jean de Florette  (80 pts)
  4. Fatal Attraction  (80 pts)
  5. Full Metal Jacket  (80 pts)

note:  With only one Globe nominee (see below) and with the BAFTAs going with an entire slate that wasn’t nominated by the Oscars or WGA, we have four films tied for the #2 spot.  This is the only aside from 1976 after 1960 to have a #2 with so few points.  However, 40 points isn’t enough to earn a Consensus nom because of a WGA oddity.  Roxanne becomes the only WGA winner post-1983 (when the WGA reduced to two categories) not to earn an Oscar nom.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • The Last Emperor
  • The Dead
  • Fatal Attraction
  • Full Metal Jacket
  • My Life as a Dog

WGA:

  • Roxanne
  • Fatal Attraction
  • Full Metal Jacket
  • The Princess Bride
  • The Untouchables

WGA (Original):

  • The Last Emperor

note:  Yes, it was nominated as an Original (losing to Moonstruck) and honestly, given how little of the film comes from the source (which wasn’t even credited), it’s not a bad choice by the WGA.

Golden Globe:

  • The Last Emperor

Nominees that are Original:  Broadcast News, House of Games, Hope and Glory, Moonstruck

BAFTA:

  • Jean de Florette
  • 84 Charing Cross Road
  • Prick up your ears
  • Empire of the Sun  (1988)

note:  The other 1987 nominee, Little Dorrit, was eligible in 1988.

My Top 10

The Princess Bride

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film, of course.  That’s not just because it’s my #1 film of 1987 and indeed one of the best films ever made in so many ways but also because the novel itself is brilliant and ranked in my Top 100 (see below).  Basically, this film, like The Wizard of Oz, is one of the greatest in a larger number of genres with the main difference being that this is a Romance and Wizard of Oz is a Musical (and they are both not the other).  It has one of the funniest scripts ever written, a brilliant ensemble cast, great romance, humor, action and everything you could ever want in a film.  And then, of course, it gives you the whole cast with visual images, the way every film should.

The Source:

The Princess Bride: S. Morgenstern’s Classic Tale of True Love and High Adventure, the ‘good parts’ version abridged by William Goldman  (1973)

This book ranks at #73 in my Top 100 of all-time.  It is a brilliant tale of romance and adventure but it is also a brilliant post-modern look at such books and why we like them and how we react to them.

The Adaptation:

Goldman does a brilliant job of adapting his own novel.  He had built in the meta parts of the novel with him reacting to his father reading him the book when he was sick and so he simply placed that in the hands of the grandson and the grandfather with many of the exact same interjections.  Much of the book ends up perfect on the screen.  There are changes, of course, like the dropping of the whole Zoo of Death as well as small, more subtle changes.  Some lines get moved (Inigo tells the Man in Black his story in the film to get us that necessary narrative and it’s Fezzick’s mother who says “Life is pain.  Anyone who says different is selling something.” while cough drops get changed to an MLT).  But the heart and soul of the book are right there on the screen in almost every line.

The Credits:

Directed by Rob Reiner.  Screenplay by William Goldman.  Based upon his book.
note:  Only the title is in the opening credits.

The Dead

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film when I wrote about Dubliners (see below).  I could, at one point, have reviewed it as a Top 5 film for the year but it currently sits just outside the Top 5.  This is an interesting year because there’s, for me, a clear winner (The Princess Bride) and then three films grouped together as high **** (Hope and Glory, Broadcast News, Au Revoir Les Enfants).  After that, there is a considerable number of solid **** films, many of them are listed here and it’s hard to really pick one over the others though lately, it has been Empire of the Sun.  This is a great film, the final film of one of film’s greatest directors.  It is a very Irish film which makes sense because while Huston wasn’t from Ireland, he did have some Irish ancestors and he took to the country early on and eventually became a citizen.  He died before the film was released and he directed it from a chair hooked up to an oxygen tank, but was working right up until the end.

The Source:

The Dead” by James Joyce  (1914)

Though not published until 1914 because it took Joyce a long time to get the book published, the story was written in 1907.  It is the final story in the greatest story collection ever written and I consider it the finest short story ever written, one of the perfect works of literature.  I explain more about that in my piece on the book when I covered it as a great read.  If you have never read Dubliners you need to read it now.

The Adaptation:

A very faithful adaptation that brings to life everything that was in the story.  It does have one added character, the one who recites the Irish poem (which also wasn’t in the story).  Other than that, almost everything in the story is in the film and everything from the film was in the original story.  Proof that great literature can be a great film.

The Credits:

Directed by John Huston.  Based on the short story “The Dead” from the collection “Dubliners” by James Joyce.  Written by Tony Huston.

Manon de Sources: Jean de Florette 2ème partie

The Film:

(This works better if you read the Jean de Florette stuff first – I wrote them based on the order of the films, not the order they would go in this post.)

As mentioned below, Jean de Florette and Manon of the Spring are both great films by themselves, but for the full measure, it is necessary to watch them in conjunction with each other.  Then you feel the full weight of the tragedy (which is part of the reason why this version is so much better than the original 1952 version written and directed by Pagnol himself – but part of the reason as well is that this film is better made on almost every level except possibly the writing – the acting, the directing, cinematography, art direction, costume design, score – all of them are far superior in this version).

In the first film, we focused on Jean and his optimism while Ugolin’s tragedy was not to speak of what he knew, to allow his need to succeed to overcome the friendship that he felt.  Here it becomes even harder because, 10 years after the events of the first film, Jean’s daughter has grown into an exquisite beauty (played by Emmanuelle Beart in her first big film role and she is perfectly cast) and he falls in love with her.  Knowing that he bears considerable responsibility for her father’s death (without knowing that she already knows that), he longs for her at the same time that he wants to absolve himself of his guilt.

His uncle has no such compunctions.  For him, this was a question of business.  They needed the spring for their carnation business to work and so they did what they had to do in order to allow that to succeed.  But events will unfold and he will see the true cost of his greed.  It is at the close of the film that Yves Montand, so great through his whole career, really finds his true measure as we see the events of time unfolding over his face and he realizes what he has done and what is has cost him.

American film is full of sequels – we so often get stories that feel they need more to them.  But we rarely get a story like this, in which the entire story is allowed to unfold properly, over the course of time (the new version of It is a rare example of this in American film) – not a sequel, but the rest of the story.  Like I said, the two films belong together, because then we feel the full weight.

The Source:

L’Eau des collines: Jean de Florette suivi de Manon des sources  (1962)

Of course, I’ve really already addressed this down below.  This is the second half of the book (or second book depending on how it is published), covering the story when it picks up years later.  Like the first book, it is filled with more details about the town that really adds to the experience, which is one reason why it’s worth reading even if you have seen the films multiple times.

The Adaptation:

Like the first film, almost everything we see and hear in the film is straight from the book though the book does include additional details that make it a rich experience on its own.

The Credits:

un film de Claude Berri.  d’après l’œuvre de Marcel Pagnol de l’Académie Française.  adaptation: Claude Berri, Gerard Brach.

Jean de Florette

The Film:

We sow the seeds of tragedy ourselves.  For classical tragedy, there need be a tragic flaw.  This story and its sequel (or, companion piece, as the books were written and are generally published together and the films were made together) have multiple characters who are defined by their tragic flaws and it is what brings about their downfalls.  What’s more, as will be shown by the end, they are tragedies that need not ever have happened.  A tragic flaw that brings about our downfall is one thing, but the tragedy of chance is something quite different.

A young man returns home to southern France (not far outside of Marseillaise) after serving in the army and looks for some sort of direction in his life.  His uncle tends to his large house as possibly the richest man in town but the young man, Ugolin, has his own ideas centered around planting carnations, which he learned how to do from a friend in the army.  They hope to use a spring near his house that is owned by an ornery old man but their encounter with him leads to the man’s death and while they hope to buy the land, the dead man’s nephew, a hunchback with a young daughter moves in instead.

This is Jean de Florette, the son of Florette, a noted beauty from the town who moved to a neighboring rival town and was rarely seen again (and who had also died).  Jean has his own tragic flaw, that of optimism, always believing that things are going to work out.  With no water (having seen their plans thwarted, the men have blocked the spring and not told Jean of its presence) and the burning heat of Southern France, he plows on, convinced he can make his dream of living on the land work.  That optimism will see him through to the moment where everything comes crashing apart.

This film, exquisitely adapted from the wonderful source novels, beautifully photographed and with an exquisite score, still comes down to the magnificent acting from the three main principals.  Gerard Depardieu plays Jean and fills him with eternal optimism, even as he is trudging along in the hot sun, trying to carry as much water as will keep his dreams alive.  Yves Montand, near the end of his career, plays the older man, determined to help his family fortunes stay strong no matter what the cost.  Then there is Daniel Auteuil, the youngest of the three (he was 35 when they were filmed).  There might be no greater actor in French history for conveying sorrow and regret and his eyes are constantly filled with both emotions as he balances his newfound friendship with this desperate hunchback who is trying to live his dream and his own dreams wasting away as he waits for the hunchback to fail so he can bring the spring back to life.

This is a beautiful and amazing film, and yet, even though it has an ending, one that balances both hope and tragedy, it is only one part of the story and the two films really should always be watched in conjunction, so that one may flow into the other and you feel the full scope of the story.

The Source:

L’Eau des collines: Jean de Florette suivi de Manon des sources  (1962)

These novels, like the films, are viewed as two different things, but really are just one story.

Marcel Pagnol was one of France’s greatest 20th Century writers but he doesn’t have the reputation of a Camus or a Sartre partially because of the formats in which he published.  He was a playwright, but then started turning to film (his Marius trilogy was originally two plays and then the third film was an original screenplay) and he originally wrote the story of Manon of the Spring as an original screenplay which he directed in 1952 (another reason why his writing doesn’t have the reputation it deserves is that Pagnol was not a great director).  Then, in 1962 (at least according to the copyright in my copy of the book though other places say 1963), Pagnol published a two volume set that expanded upon the story, giving the back story of his original screenplay and expanding upon the town where it is set (based on the town that he was raised near Marseillaise).

This is a fantastic novel (published as one, The Water of the Hills), though the 1988 publication doesn’t use that title on the cover, only the titles of the two individual volumes which are also the titles of the films (at least mine doesn’t but the copy I found on the right does list it as one, which is the only difference in the cover from my copy), the tragic story of two men and their town and what befalls them over the course of a decade (though the seeds of it had been planted decades before).  While the films are brilliant, it is worth it to read the books (which is why I still have my copy) because it gives you more in-depth detail on the town and its history and how things come to the point that they do in the films.

The Adaptation:

It is a first-rate adaptation of the novel.  Almost everything we see in the film is straight from the novel (except for Ugolin returning home which happens before the book opens) though there is more detail about the town and the history of the characters (especially Jean’s uncle) that there is no good way to fit into the film.

The Credits:

un film de Claude Berri.  d’après l’œuvre de Marcel Pagnol de l’Académie Française.  adaptation de Claude Berri et Gerard Brach.

Roxanne

The Film:

I remember seeing Roxanne in the theater with my parents, my little sister and my friend Jay (Alison was mad because my parents wouldn’t buy us anything and Jay and I had snuck in sodas).  I really liked the film, especially, of course, the brilliant 20 insults when Steve Martin’s Charlie Bales, the local fire chief, has to come up with 20 insults for his gigantic schnoz better than “hey, big nose!” or how he takes out a couple of bullies with a tennis racket.  Even though the opening credits flat out said that it was based on a play, I was only 12 and I didn’t pay attention to such things.  In fact, I wouldn’t really pay attention to that fact until my senior year of high school when I was doing my summer reading the day before school started (yes, I read five books for AP English the day before school started – Cyrano de Bergerac, Slouching Towards Bethlehem, Of Mice and Men, The Catcher in the Rye and something else I have forgotten except that it was a novel and it was short) and I realized that the play I was reading was totally the basis for Roxanne.

Poor C.D. Bales (get the name?) runs the worst fire department on the planet.  He has to say things to his crew like “Not the gasoline!” or “take the truck”.  He watches his department pathetically try to get a cat down from a tree while he just opens a can of food and on the return trip, the department manages to park the truck in the station with the ladder still up, knocking out a window.  He’s a bit of a tough guy, as someone with a noticeable trait ripe for mocking often has to be, but sometimes he defends himself with humor (like the brilliant 20 insults, my favorite of which has always been “Breathe and the world breathes with you.  Sneeze and it’s goodbye Seattle.”) and sometimes with force (the opening scene is hilarious).  But at heart he’s a romantic, though with great insecurity that no woman would ever love him because of the nose.  So when Roxanne moves to town (she needs the darkness of the hills to spot a new comet), he falls for her but she, in spite of really liking Charlie, is be-smitten with hunky new firefighter Chris who is good at his job but incapable of even talking to a woman.  So Charlie becomes the go-between, wooing Roxanne with his own words but in Chris’ name.

Steve Martin has written a dozen films and he’s acted in more than forty.  This is the best film he’s written and is probably his best comedic performance (I give a slight nod to his dramatic performance in Grand Canyon).  He had always loved the story and he did a magnificent job of moving it the present day, finding an idyllic smalltown in British Columbia to film it in, giving himself the plum role, not because it’s the romantic lead, but because the character is smart and funny and you want him to be successful.  That’s perhaps why he decided on the different ending (see below), because this is the ending that works for this film.  It’s not a great film, namely because no one else on screen can even come close to matching Martin (there are some good character actors who get small roles like Michael J. Pollard and Fred Willard).  Darryl Hannah is there for the eye candy (doubly ironic for me, since in terms of looks, I much prefer Shandra Beri as the cocktail waitress and because the whole point is that the looks shouldn’t matter) but isn’t able to do that much with the role other than be desirable (although they at least go to pains to make certain that she is smart and that the character is desirable beyond her looks).  But it’s a smart and funny film and in a year where Fatal Attraction was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay somehow this film wasn’t which shows that the Academy sometimes is just a bunch of idiots.

The Source:

Cyrano de Bergerac: A Heroic Comedy in Five Acts by Edmond Rostand  (1897)

It’s interesting that this should be listed as a comedy when by the old definition (wedding at the end), it doesn’t fit.  Indeed, Cyrano doesn’t even actually get the girl and ends up lying in her arms, dying at the end (sorry if I ruined the ending of a 122 year old play for you but you should read more).  It’s a brilliant verse play that tells the story of Cyrano, he of the big nose and the way he tries to woe Roxane through Christian, the handsome young cadet he has been placed in charge of.

Reading this play was an eye-opener into the way that translators and editors work.  I had a partner in my summer reading and one of us had a copy where the last line was “my white plume”, which, in fact, is literally what a panache is.  However, since this play is famous for introducing the word “panache” into the English language in its 1898 translation (G. B. Shaw would use it just five years later), it’s incredibly stupid to go with the literal translation for that line and not to use “my panache” as the final line.  Of course, if you don’t know what’s going on because you haven’t read the play or seen the 1990 film version (sadly the 1950 English language film uses “my white plume”) then that’s your loss.  And your high school English teacher.

The Adaptation:

While many of the scenes come straight from the play (most notably the insults and hiding below Roxanne’s balcony while Charlie tells Chris what to say), almost no dialogue does, even from the translation.  Even in the insults, only one of them (the one about giving the birds a place to perch) is re-used which is actually to Martin’s credit that he came up with all those brilliant insults for his script.

The Credits:

directed by Fred Schepisi.  from the play “Cyrano de Bergerac” by Edmond Rostand.  screenplay by Steve Martin.

Full Metal Jacket

The Film:

Is there any film about Vietnam that is less remembered for the part of the film that takes place in Vietnam?  Platoon entirely takes place in Vietnam as does almost all of Apocalypse Now, of course, but films like Born on the Fourth of July and The Deer Hunter, while having only parts of the film set during the war are clearly remembered for the parts of the film that take place in Vietnam.  It’s certainly possible that someone reading this review will object and will say that they remember best the parts of this film that take place in Vietnam, that show the utter brutality of the war.  But I suspect that what people really remember about this film is the first 45 minutes of the film, the time on Parris Island that perhaps gives the mindset of the United States Marine Corps.  The Marines certainly have a place in the world, especially in combat but the mindset that is required to be in such a group is one that is so foreign to me that every part of my brain ends up pushing the first 45 minutes of the film away and it took me several tries before I ever saw this movie in its entirety.

After those first 45 minutes, after we watch the drill sergeant played so very well by Lee Ermey that when he died (just a week before I wrote this review though who knows when the hell it will run) that every obituary about it him mentioned it in the headline, beat the Marine Corps into his men, after we watch Vincent D’Onofrio prove just how deranged he was with just one look towards Matthew Modine while sitting on the toilet, after the brutality of everyone in a platoon beating a man with soap in a towel because that’s what it takes apparently to get the low man in the squad to perform at the level necessary, who even cares about Vietnam?  If this is what it takes just to serve in Vietnam than what the hell will be the shit-show once you get there?

But it doesn’t end there.  We get to Vietnam and we are reminded that this of the kind of war where a man will wear a helmet that says born to kill but will also wear a peace button.  Because it is a war of uncertainty in which sometimes we must kill our friends to ease their pain but given that the process of getting there means sometimes we kill ourselves to ease our pain, then of course that’s the end result.

One interesting thing to note which may be entirely a coincidence.  This is one of the darkest films about the Vietnam War, one in which soldiers slaughter a village and then finishes with them singing the Mickey Mouse Club song.  Over the end credits is the Rolling Stones’ song “Paint It Black”.  Less than three months after this film was released, a television show would debut that, while it didn’t show the characters as heroes, certainly showed a much less dark side of the people who fought in Vietnam called Tour of Duty.  It used “Paint it Black” as its theme song, the first time I ever remember hearing the song.

The Source:

The Short-Timers by Gustav Hasford  (1979)

A fascinating but very dark (with some very dark humor) novel about Vietnam.  It works almost more as a series of short stories (the book is broken up into short sections and it takes a while after starting the second part to be certain that the narrator is still the same person as in the first part).  As most people would probably come to it now after seeing the film, I suspect a lot of the power and darkness would be taken away given the fidelity of the film to the source (see below).  Well-written but definitely not for the light-hearted.

The Adaptation:

Given Kubrick and the way he adapts (and gets crap for it from the original authors though as far I know Thackeray never complained), I was expecting something to be very different from the original novel.  But, reading the novel, right from the start, I was stunned at how closely the film followed the original novel.  There are definitely changes, mostly in the last 2/3 of the film (the first 1/3 of the film is almost exactly as in the book except for a name change to the gunnery sergeant) but the biggest changes are mostly just omissions from the original book.

The Credits:

Directed and Produced by Stanley Kubrick.  Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick, Michael Herr, Gustav Hasford.  Based on the novel The Short-Timers by Gustav Hasford.
note:  Only the title is in the opening credits.

The Untouchables

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as part of my RCM series, reviewing films that I saw a lot before I started thinking seriously about film.  Although I was not allowed to see the film in the theater (my mother deemed it too violent – the same person who would, two years later, have me watch Blue Velvet with her).  As mentioned in that review, I have gone back and forth over the years between considering this a high ***.5 film and a low **** film (it was one of the first films I ever ranked at ***** back when I still used a five star system).  These days, I have it back at ****, a great film lead by first-rate direction and an absolutely magnificent score that is brilliant from the first note straight through to the last.

The Source:

The Untouchables by Eliot Ness with Oscar Fraley  (1957)

Published just after Ness died (he had just approved the final galleys according to the Epilogue) this is the story of how Ness and his group of ten loyal men surrounding him were eventually able to take down Capone.  It is an interesting book but even with Fraley’s help it still doesn’t really stand out like a good historical writer or journalist might have made it.  Still, just the core idea was interesting enough that within two years the television show was on the air.

The Untouchables  (cr. 1959)

The show was a hit drama of course, staying on the air for 118 episodes over the course of four years and making a mark on the cultural landscape.  It won Robert Stack an Emmy and helped make him a television star (he was already an Oscar nominated film actor).  It’s good for the time, though such a show is not really my thing.

The Adaptation:

Only the basic concept is used in the film, the idea that Ness worked at getting Capone, surrounded himself with men who could not be bribed (thus were “untouchable”) and were eventually able to send Capone to jail on income tax evasion.  But almost nothing else is accurate (the men in the film, reduced from ten to three, aren’t any particular men in real life other than that one of them was killed, Nitti lived for years afterwards and ran Capone’s mob while he was in prison, Ness wasn’t yet married at the time of these actions, let alone having children).

Even the television show doesn’t really provide too much of a blueprint for the film.  The film is much more violent (obviously) and only the original two hour episode that premiered on Westinghouse Desilu Playhouse then became the two-part pilot actually dealt with Capone (they had him in prison by the end of that so they had go with other villains for the rest of the series)

The Credits:

Directed by Brian De Palma.  Written by David Mamet.  Suggested by the television series “The Untouchables” and based upon the works written by Oscar Fraley with Eliot Ness and with Paul Robsky.
note:  The source is only in the end credits.

Empire of the Sun

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film because it is one of the five best films of 1987 and has been acknowledged as such by many (including the Globes and the NBR and many who comment on this site) even though the Academy passed it over in the biggest three Oscar categories.  The writing gets overlooked a bit because some of the other films in the year have writing as their strongest component while here it is overshadowed by the brilliant technical work, the direction and the lead performance from Christian Bale.  But it is well-written, keeping us riveted in poor Jamie’s story and never losing sight of him in all the misery of war, though obviously not well-written enough in my opinion to merit earning a Nighthawk nomination.  Then again, this is a tough year in almost all categories and Adapted Screenplay is no exception.

The Source:

Empire of the Sun by J. G. Ballard  (1984)

This is a novel but like Das Boot, it’s also a record of one man’s experience during the war.  Except, instead of being a sailor on a U-boat, Ballard was an English boy living in Shanghai who spent the war in a camp.  It’s the story of young Jim who is separated from his parents in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor when the Japanese take over Shanghai, spends some time wandering the city and hiding in his old house and eventually ends up in a camp.  It’s a good novel that’s a good reflection of what life was going on for British citizens who were overseas when the war began and how they lived out their time during the war, struggling to survive.  Apparently having that kind of childhood must have messed up Ballard at least a bit because he would go on to write such messed up novels as Crash and High-Rise.

The Adaptation:

“When it got to the camp, the book is about several relationships between Jim and other people, not all equally important, but you can’t deal fully with all of them.  Steven was most interested in Jim’s relationship with Basie.”  (screenwriter Tom Stoppard quoted in Steven Spielberg: A Biography by Joseph McBride, p 395)

In fact, while the first part of the film is fairly faithful in its adaptation (the most memorable scene being perhaps the encounter with the soldiers after the party and the slap from the woman who worked in his house – both of which are very faithfully rendered in the film) once things get to the camp, aside from tightening the film into the main relationship between Jim and Basie, it also changes a lot, especially dropping most of the later chapters (after Jim leaves the camp) and makes the moment where he finds his mother again the key moment upon which to end (rather rightfully so – to me, the book meanders a bit after Jim leaves the camp).  The key moment in the second half – when Jim manages to sneak through the mud and earn his place in the tent – is not in the original book.

The Credits:

Directed by Steven Spielberg.  Screenplay by Tom Stoppard.  Based on the novel by J. G. Ballard.
note:  Only the title is in the opening credits.

Mitt Liv Som Hund

The Film:

This film definitely warms hearts.  When it was first released, the Boston Globe compared it to Fellini’s Amarcord (with good reason in terms of content though I think it’s not at the same level of film-making), Jack Nicholson declared it was his favorite film of the year (according to Inside Oscar) and Kurt Vonnegut has said it is one of his favorite films of all-time.  Released in the States by a small distributor (this is the only film that distributor ever released to make more than $3 million) it managed to earn Best Director (knocking out James L. Brooks who had won the award four years before or Spielberg) and Adapted Screenplay (knocking out either The Princess Bride or Roxanne) nominations in crowded fields.  For all that, while it’s a nice heart-warming film about a 12 year old boy who is sent away to live with relatives while his mother is dying, it’s just that.

Poor little Ingemar doesn’t really realize what is going on.  He knows he’s being shipped off and he’s able to cope with it, partially because of Saga, the local tomboy he becomes friends with, with both of them unable to quite express their emotions for each other because they’re just twelve.  But he doesn’t really understand what is going on with his mother.  To him, this is partially a change but also partially a vacation from the life he has been living.

My Life as a Dog is a charming film, well directed and well-written.  In a year like 1987, though, when the adapted scripts include all of the films that I have ranked above it, it doesn’t really belong among the Oscar nominees.  I think it’s one of those films that remind people of when they were young, of when things felt different and you didn’t have to worry so much about the world and what was going to happen, even if horrible things were happening in your life (like your mother dying).  So I think people took to the film and voted for it, less because of how good it was (though it is quite good – a high ***.5) and more because of what it spoke to them about.

This film actually holds a unique place in Oscar history.  It is the only time in history that a foreign director earned an Oscar nomination for Best Director before coming to Hollywood and then would go on to earn another Oscar nomination after coming to Hollywood.  Lasse Hallström isn’t a great director but that’s quite notable.

The Source:

Mitt Liv Som Hund by Reidar Jönsson  (1983)

I’m certain it must have been the success of the film that earned the book a translation into English since the book was originally published in Sweden in 1983, the film was made in 1985 and released in the States in 1987 and the translation wasn’t published until 1989.  It’s a decent novel, a little story about a 12 year old boy and how his mother is dying while he is growing up and he gets sent off because of it.  It doesn’t necessarily seem to be autobiographical (the author himself would have been 14 and 15 in the years that the book takes place) which is nice because it does mean he actually created this from his imagination rather than his memory.  Still, it’s just a short (just over 200 pages) decent little book and there are thousands just like it.

The Adaptation:

Most of what is in the film comes straight from the book though some events are moved around a little, most notably the boxing match that they listen to in both the novel and the film but takes place much earlier in the novel while it helps provide a conclusion for the film.

The Credits:

regi: Lasse Hallström.  fritt efter Reidar Jönssons roman.  manus: Lasse Hallström, Reidar Jönsson, Brasse Brännström, Per Berglund.
note:  The screenplay credit is not in the opening credits.

Prick up your ears

The Film:

Writers seem to be a favorite of filmmakers.  I’ve got 31 films listed as Biopic-Writer for the sub-genre (which actually doesn’t include this film as the film doesn’t cover the whole life but just a small part) and only one of them is above *** and that film, My Left Foot, is more about how the writer overcame his circumstances than about him as a writer.  Writing is an inherently un-cinematic act so the films have to focus more on the lives of the writers than their writing.  So take Prick up your ears (the film’s title is stylized that way on-screen).  It is the story of Joe Orton, a very fashionable playwright in England in the middle 60’s whose career was on a meteoric rise when suddenly it was over.  How it ended, we discover early on in the film (he was murdered by his roommate / lover in a rather dramatic and gruesome crime) and why it ended is really the subject of the film as a whole rather than his ability as a writer.  I watched the film, obviously not for the first time, and was struck that the performances were captivating and their lives were thoroughly disturbing but there was nothing about the film that made me want to understand Joe Orton as a writer other than just as a really strong early performance from Gary Oldman that had helped establish him as a great young actor before several performances in the next decade would help distinguish him as a ham as well.  But for more on that part, see the next section.

What could have brought these two men together?  My college roommate Jamie used to argue for an inherent evenness in attractiveness in relationships; by his argument if one of the couple was much better looking than the other, they held power in the relationship and it kept it unbalanced and made it unsuccessful.  Extrapolating from that, you could use other characteristic in place of looks, like intelligence.  I knew a couple that made no sense to me until I realized that the female liked that she was much smarter than the male and could boss him around.  That couple is now divorced and he’s a nationally known domestic abuser and she’s a congresswoman.  In this relationship, one that was illegal at the time (male homosexuality wasn’t decriminalized in the U.K. until the late 60’s, around the time Orton died), we start with one person much better looking and the other one being older and more articulate and farther ahead as a writer.  That can bring balance, with each one having an advantage over the other.  But as time went on, the better looking one also became the successful writer while the other one toiled away for nothing and now all the power in the relationship was on one side and tension built to the point where the other one finally just bludgeoned the pretty one to death one night.

We can see the tension rising through the film in Alfred Molina’s performance (another good early performance and one that really established Molina as a very intense actor) just as we can see Orton’s brazen sexuality and charm in Oldman’s performance.  Through it all, we also have a very good performance from Vanessa Redgrave as Orton’s agent who also kind of provides a framing device for the film as she provides Orton’s diaries to his eventual biographer, a kind of odd way to go about the script, but it allows for reflection on Orton’s life after the fact and for more of Redgrave’s performance and given that her caustic, sarcastic performance is great it improves the film.  At the service after their deaths, when Orton’s sister is mixing the ashes and worried she isn’t doing it right, Redgrave comments “it’s only a gesture, not a recipe.” (This line is not in the book though at least one book claims it was said and at least one other one claims it wasn’t).

This is a good film but doesn’t really give you the measure of a writer’s life as a writer, just as a man who was interested in being outlandish and talented and charming.  It’s well-written and very well acted and that is the real attraction.

The Source:

Prick Up Your Ears: Tbe Biography of Joe Orton by John Lahr  (1978)

It’s hard to know what to think of this book.  Part of the issue is that I have no measure of Joe Orton as a playwright.  I’ve never heard of him outside of this film.  If you don’t live near New York or London, it’s hard to keep up with current theatre unless the plays are made into films or unless you study them.  Having not seen the two film versions made from Orton plays and not having studied him, I just don’t know him as a playwright and I think it’s hard to get too interested in the biography of a writer that you have never met, no matter how well written it is.  John Lahr, who was primarily known at this point for being the son of Bert Lahr and having written a biography of his father (though later he would become the long-standing drama critic for The New Yorker), does a good job, having had access to Orton’s journals, of presenting the full measure of the man as a man and a writer.  I just couldn’t get too interested in it without having ever experienced him as a writer.  (okay, side note, I have now, having read some of his plays since writing this, but I still didn’t see in him what Lahr did so maybe I just missed seeing it on stage)

The Adaptation:

The biography is much more well-rounded on Orton as an artist.  It gives you much more insight to what he was like as a writer and his place in British dramatic history.  Because, as I said above, writing is an inherently un-cinematic act, the film focuses much more on Orton’s life and how his relationship with Halliwell would lead to the point where both their lives would end and you can understand why.

The Credits:

Director: Stephen Frears,  Based on the biography by John Lahr.  Screenplay: Alan Bennett.

Consensus Winner

The Last Emperor

The Film:

I find it interesting that this film received a four disc Criterion release back in 2008 (which is the DVD I got from the library to watch for this project).  The Last Emperor won the Oscar (it swept all nine of its nominations) but wasn’t the Consensus winner for Best Picture (that was Hope and Glory), was the lowest grossing Best Picture winner in a decade and the second lowest since 1968 and there wouldn’t be a lower one for over 20 years.  So who is willing to actually spend the money for the four disc Criterion set?  Not that it’s not a great film (mid ****) and not that it doesn’t look amazing (it deserved several of the technical wins and is close to the top of my list in others) but is it really a movie that people want to return to time and again?  Its visionary look doesn’t overcome some storytelling problems and this was, by far, the Oscar it least deserved.  Either way, I suppose that’s what libraries can be for and if you are going to watch it, you’ll have a gorgeously restored version to go with.

The Source:

Wo ti ch’ien pan sheng by P’u-i  (1964)

This book, which has a translation title of From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi (I grabbed the original title and author name from the copyright page) has a long history.  It was published in a “deliberately restricted edition” in Chinese in 1964, was translated not long after and there have been different published versions because there were apparently numerous draft versions as is explained in the 1987 introduction that was published in coordination with the release of the film.  It’s an interesting historical document but it doesn’t read very well and it’s not that well-written because he was a child emperor, after all, and not a writer.  It drags quite a bit and it’s hard to get through.  Useful for students of history but if you just want to get the story, you’re much better off just watching the film.

The Adaptation:

Though the book does have some dialogue, it doesn’t have much and the vast majority of what we get in the film comes from the screenwriters and not the book.  The book gives us more of the history and less of the person.  It’s reasonable that they didn’t bother to credit the book and that the WGA considered it an original screenplay.

The Credits:

Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci.  Initial Screenplay Collaboration: Enzo Ungari.  Screenplay by Mark Peploe with Bernardo Bertolucci.
note:  There is no credited source in the film which is perhaps why the WGA nominated it in the Original Screenplay category.

Consensus Nominee

Fatal Attraction

The Film:

I’m going to repeat the first paragraph of my own review, written back in 2011: “Fatal Attraction is an embarrassment to the actors involved.  It is a bad film, very badly written, badly directed, badly edited with a moronic script, unforgivable scenes and one of the most idiotic endings ever thrown on in response to an early screening.  That Close and Archer were able to be nominated for their performances (and possibly Douglas even might have been had he not already been on the way to the Oscar for Wall Street) is a testament to how well they are able to overcome this idiotic film.  That the film, the direction, the editing and worst of all, the script, were nominated shows that several branches of the Academy clearly have lapses from time to time.  Either that or, they are the type of people who either hate the idea of a woman taking power in a situation or, more likely, the type of people who have had affairs that have turned out badly (as most affairs are wont to do) and love the idea of just being able to end it in such a final way without paying any real cost.”  I can not fathom how anyone could think this is a better film than Empire of the Sun, The Dead, The Princess Bride, Full Metal Jacket, My Life as a Dog or another of numerous other films that were nominated for major Oscars in 1987 but not for Best Picture or that the fucking writers thought it was more deserving of a nomination for Adapted Screenplay than The Princess Bride or Roxanne.

The Source:

Diversion, written and directed by James Dearden  (1980)

This is a much more satisfying film than the remake.  It’s a short film (the IMDb says 50 minutes but the version I found online ran 39 minutes) that was apparently a theatrical feature.  It’s the story of a man who decides to philander a bit while his wife and child are in the country so he calls up the sexy young woman he met at a party (and she is sexy – this is Cheri Lunghi the year before she played Guinevere in Excalibur) but when he sleeps with her a few times he then wants to end it because his wife is coming back to town.  She slits her wrists (and survives) and in the final shot, we see the phone ringing and know that she is about to tell his wife what happened.  A decent little film, not great acting, but a realistic little drama.

The Adaptation:

Things are the same, yet different.  In the original, the male character is much less sympathetic.  Instead of basically being stalked and then yielding into an affair that he tries to quickly drop only to discover that he’s entangled with a psycho, here he is a man whose wife heads to the country and so he decides to call up this good looking woman he met at a party and go have a fling with her.  Then she feels betrayed and tries to kill herself when he’s saying he needs to leave, but still sleeps with her again, still is kissing her in the kitchen.  He’s much more of an asshole who has damaged this woman than a man caught in circumstances beyond his ability to cope with.  It also drops all of the clearly psychotic behavior.  Basically, if Archer had returned to the city and found out about the affair and the film had ended then, it would have been more similar.  All of the insane things the Close character does after Douglas breaks off the affair aren’t in the original; they are just shitty additions that make Fatal Attraction such a stupid film.  One other thing of note which I would say is just me but is all over the comments page on the YouTube video for the original film.  Glenn Close is a great actress, but she isn’t exactly, to my mind, sexy (aside from being blonde, I don’t like frizzy hair, though I know there were people who thought she was very sexy).  But Cherie Lunghi, though not anywhere in the same universe as Close as an actress, is really sexy.  Add in the lack of being a completely psycho and she makes for a much more appealing affair.

The Credits:

Directed by Adrian Lyne.  Screenplay by James Dearden, Based on his Original Screenplay.

BAFTA Nominee

84 Charing Cross Road

The Film:

In a collection of letters, the letters themselves can show the depth of a friendship and the way that people develop over time even if they never meet during that period (or, indeed, in this case, ever meet at all).  In a play, you can develop that kind of thing, with two people who speak to the audience and to each other but just not face to face.  But in a film, that can present a kind of half-movie, in which we get words and emotions but no interactions.

So we have 84 Charing Cross Road in which a woman who loves books in New York is corresponding with a bookseller in London who has the books and over the course of the years they write to each other, they express ideas to each other, they express emotions to each other.  Well, the female in New York does because she’s an American while the British male does not because he’s British.

So, time passes.  She writes more and buys more books and he writes back and sells her the books.  She is played quite well by Anne Bancroft and he is played with a quiet reserve and dignity by Anthony Hopkins.  But, unfortunately, there’s never really any life to the film.  Yes, the performances help keep the film from sinking below *** but it is mired down in the lower reach because there’s only so much you can do when these people never interact.  Perhaps if it were also a love story (which it’s not, something that was apparently never communicated to whoever created the tagline on the poster), something more could have been done.  Somehow the Brits decided the quiet reserve of it all was worth nominating for Adapted Screenplay which is why I am reviewing it.  But they are English after all and waiting around just to have nothing happen is kind of the English way after all (actually it’s hanging on in quiet desperation but let’s not haggle).

The Source:

84, Charing Cross Road by Helene Hanff  (1970)

This is a collection of letters between Helene Huff and the members of Marks and Co. Booksellers located at 84 Charing Cross Road in London, mostly Frank Doel.  When Doel died in late 1968 before Hanff could ever bring herself to travel to London, Hanff published the letters (with permission, she published the others as well – the final letter in the book is from Doell’s daughter granting permission).  They are a nice record of the times and of the way a love of books can bond two people.

84, Charing Cross Road by Helene Hanff Adapted for the Stage by James Roose-Evans  (1982)

The play at least brings things to life a bit and provide some actual dialogue that they could use for the film.  It still doesn’t seem like it would be particularly interesting to watch, though.

The Adaptation:

Because the letters are rather inert – providing some character moments but no actual action or dialogue, the filmmakers expand greatly, although a lot of that had already been done for the play (though the play restricted action to Hanff’s apartment and the bookshop while the film opens things up a bit).

The Credits:

Directed by David Jones.  Screenplay by Hugh Whitemore.  Based on the Book by Helene Hanff.  Originally Adapted for the Stage by James Roose-Evans.
note:  There is no source mentioned in the opening credits.  Those are from the end credits.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

  • Ironweed  –  A full review can be found here because the novel by William Kennedy is my #100 All-Time.  The film currently sits at a high *** but it seems to bounce and forth between that and a low ***.5.
  • The Good Father  –  A solid film (high ***) with a very good cast that was, with the exception of Anthony Hopkins, mostly little known at the time (Jim Broadbent, Simon Callow, Joanne Whalley, the film debut of Stephen Fry).  Based on the novel by Peter Prince and originally released in the U.K. in 1985.
  • No Way Out  –  My Under-Appreciated film of the year (and thus fully reviewed) from my Year in Film, a remake of the film The Big Clock which had been based on the novel by Kenneth Fearing but this version adds a nice Cold War twist.  Low ***.5.
  • The Assault  –  The Oscar and Globe winner for Best Foreign Film (but my #6) from 1986 is a low ***.5.  Based on the novel by Harry Mulisch.
  • The Fourth Protocol  –  High ***, a solid thriller with Michael Caine and Pierce Brosnan based on the novel by Frederick Forsyth.  Because I saw this right after I started becoming serious about film, this was one of the films that made me love Michael Caine as an actor.
  • Cry Freedom  –  A film I used to rate higher (it’s high ***) because of what it’s trying to say (and because of Denzel’s performance) than how effectively it says it.  Surprising that it did as well with awards as it did (14 total nominations) without a writing nom from anyone.  Based on the book Biko by Donald Woods.
  • The Whales of August  –  Kudos to Lindsay Anderson for giving starring roles to Bette Davis (79) and Lilian Gish (94).  Solid ***.  Based on the play by David Berry.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn  –  The one ***.5 film on this list because the writing isn’t necessarily the strength.  But funny and horrific all at once.  A simultaneous sequel / quasi-remake of the first film but much funnier than the first one.
  • The Living Daylights  –  Timothy Dalton takes over as Bond and rejuvenates the franchise.  A full review can be found here.  This film is a 75 – the highest of ***.
  • The Fringe Dwellers  –  Based on the novel by Nene Gare, Bruce Beresford’s film about a young Aboriginal girl was apparently the first film to star native Australians in all the major roles.  A second 75 film in one year is rare, let alone for both of them to be adapted, but here we are.
  • Come and See  –  Heavy Soviet film about World War II co-written by the original book’s author Ales Adamovich.  Adamovich’s book was called I Am from the Fiery Village.
  • Gardens of Stone  –  Francis Ford Coppola’s Drama about the soldiers during Vietnam who are stationed at Arlington National Cemetery.  Got very mixed reviews but I think it’s solid.  Based on the novel by Nicholas Proffitt.
  • The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne  –  Solid Drama with Maggie Smith and Bob Hoskins adapted from the novel by Brian Moore.
  • Housekeeping  –  The novel (which is solid) made Marilynne Robinson as a first-time novelist at age 37, earning her a Pulitzer Finalist placement.  She would win the Pulitzer for her second novel which wouldn’t be for another 24 years.  Bill Forsyth directed the adaptation with Christine Lahti starring.
  • My Friend Ivan Lapshin  –  We’re down to mid ***.  A 1984 Soviet Drama based on the novel One Year by Yuri German.
  • Dark Eyes  –  Marcello Mastroianni earned an Oscar nomination for this film that adapted four Chekhov stories.
  • Maurice  –  E.M. Forster’s most personal novel is solid but not to the level of his great novels and wasn’t published until after his death (because of the content not the quality).  Likewise, this film version from James Ivory is nowhere near the level of A Room with a View or Howards End but is still solid with an early role for Hugh Grant and several actors who had been in Room.
  • Hour of the Star  –  Brazilian submission for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars for 1986.  Based on the novel by Clarice Lispector.
  • Nuts  –  The most dramatic role of Barbra Streisand’s career and she didn’t even direct herself but let Martin Ritt do it instead.  Solid film (and performance) based on the play by Tom Topor.
  • If the Sun Never Returns  –  The Swiss Oscar submission based on the novel by Charles-Ferdinand Ramuz.
  • The Tale of Genji  –  We’ve dropped to low *** with this Animated adaptation of what many consider the first novel ever written, at least the third film adaptation.
  • The Legend of the Suram Fortress  –  Yet 1985 Soviet film, this one based on the novel by Daniel Chonkadze.
  • The City and the Dogs  –  Another Oscar submission, this one the Peruvian one for 1985.  Drama based on the novel The Time of the Hero by Mario Vargas Llosa.
  • Kangaroo  –  Based on one of D.H. Lawrence’s weaker novels and the film doesn’t have much to recommend it outside of having Judy Davis.
  • Moonzund  –  This Soviet film is actually from 1987.  It’s a War film based on a World War I novel by Valentin Pikul.
  • Devil in the Flesh  –  Before The Brown Bunny we had this film with un-simulated fellatio.  Italian Drama based on the novel by Raymond Radiguet.
  • Square Dance  –  Mixed critical reception and it made less than a quarter million dollars at the box office but somehow Rob Lowe snagged a Globe nomination for his developmentally delayed man who forms a friendship with the young girl (Winona Ryder) who moves to the big city.  Based on the novel by Alan Hines.
  • Benji the Hunted  –  Barely ***, a harmless Kids film, the latest with the “everydog”.
  • Three Men and a Baby  –  What does it say about film in 1987 that the #1 grossing film of the year starred Steve Guttenberg (“Who made Steve Guttenberg a star?  We do!”), Tom Selleck and Ted Danson.  Weak remake of the French film Three Men and a Cradle.  Well, at least it was the lowest grossing #1 post-1979 and given that the #2 and 3 films were even worse (one is below, Fatal Attraction is reviewed above), it could have been worse.  By the way, we’ve hit **.5 films.
  • Hibiscus Town  –  This Chinese Drama was their Oscar submission.  Based on the novel by Gu Hua.
  • Orphans  –  Not one of Alan J. Pakula’s best offerings.  This Drama is based on the play by Lyle Kessler.
  • Happy New Year  –  Directed by a former Oscar winner (John G. Avildsen) and an Oscar nominee itself (Makeup), it’s based on a French film (La bonne année).
  • Tough Guys Don’t Dance  –  I’d have to run through a lot of films to be certain but I suspect this is the only film nominated for Best Picture at the Indies and Worst Picture at the Razzies.  It’s kind of in-between.  Norman Mailer (whose novel wasn’t very good to begin with) decides he’s a director but he is wrong.
  • Dragnet  –  This Comedy version of the classic television show has a line that still makes me laugh (“You may find this funny mister, but I don’t hear God laughing.”  “He will once he sees your haircut.”) but it’s very uneven.  First film directed by Tom Mankiewicz, longtime screenwriter, son of Great Director Joseph, nephew of Oscar winning writer Herman and first cousin once removed of TCM host Ben.
  • Angel Heart  –  Adaptation of the novel Falling Angel by William Hjortsberg.  Directed by Alan Parker and stars De Niro and Mickey Rourke during the period where it kept looking like Rourke might break into real stardom and then didn’t.
  • Beverly Hills Cop II  –  Another Comedy I liked much more when I was younger and still has a line that makes me laugh (“Are you driving with your eyes open or are you like using the Force?”) but looking back now, pretty weak Comedy retread of the first one.  The #2 film of the year at the box office.
  • The Glass Menagerie  –  Now we’ve hit mid **.5.  I always want to like this more than it deserves because the play is a classic, it has a solid performance from Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman directed it.  But it can’t overcome its staginess.
  • The Running Man  –  I think of this as a hit but it really wasn’t more than a moderate success (just under $40 mil, #30 for the year).  Arnie wouldn’t really be a big star until Twins.  But he works well here in this adaptation of a weak Stephen King novel (published as Richard Bachman) even if he’s the opposite of King’s character in the novel.  A pretty bad novel (like all the Bachman books).
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street III: Dream Warriors  –  We drop to low **.5 with this weak third outing in the franchise that kills off Heather Langenkamp’s character, the heroine of the first film.
  • Man on Fire  –  Mediocre Action film based on the novel by A.J. Quinnell with Scott Glenn in the role that Denzel will take in the remake.  I rate both movies the same (52) but this film made just over a half million dollars while the Denzel version will make almost $80 million.
  • Born in East L.A.  –  Based on the song by Cheech, which he did without Chong, this film also drops Chong by the wayside, which is for the best.  Not good but not bad either and a funny concept.  The song is amusing (a parody on Bruce’s “Born in the U.S.A.”) but overstays its welcome a little.
  • The Puppetoon Movie  –  Gumby, Pokey and the other George Pal characters from the 30’s and 40’s get their own feature film.
  • Rita, Sue and Bob Too  –  British Drama-Comedy based on two plays by Andrea Dunbar.  This must have been on the TSPDT initial list because I don’t know the actors and it doesn’t tick any other category for which I see films (awards, director, studio, major name source, actual interest).
  • The Brave Little Toaster  –  Mediocre Animated film based on the novel by Thomas M. Disch.
  • The Believers  –  Now we’re at **.  I actually watched this film originally in Spanish class in high school which seems really messed up.  Disturbing film about a detective tracking down a child murdering cult (that is Hispanic).  Opens with a scene of a woman (the detective’s wife) getting electrocuted by touching a defective coffee maker while standing in a pool of milk.  Accidental electrocution because of liquid on the floor of the kitchen has terrified me ever since.  Directed by John Schlesinger based on the novel The Religion by Nicholas Conde.
  • O.C. and Stiggs  –  Mess of a Robert Altman film based on characters created for National Lampoon.
  • The Bedroom Window  –  After two former Oscar nominees we get a future Oscar nominee with Curtis Hanson.  Weak Suspense film based on The Witnesses by Anne Holden.  Who casts Steve Guttenberg in a thriller?
  • Family Business  –  Back to former Oscar nominees with Costa-Gavras directing a Comedy with weak results.  Based on the novel by Francis Ryck.
  • Less Than Zero  –  We get away from Oscar directors (it’s directed by Marek Kanievska).  We get our first glimpse of the darkness that Robert Downey, Jr. can provide for a film.  Solid soundtrack (namely the Bangles cover of “Hazy Shade of Winter”).  Based on the novel by Bret Easton Ellis (with a brilliant line I still remember about L.A. – “You can disappear here without knowing it”) who is a douchebag but did right a couple of good books.
  • Creepshow 2  –  Down to mid **.  Horror anthology film, the middle story of which is a Stephen King story (“The Raft”) but not a good one.
  • The Witches of Eastwick  –  A much better writer than King (with all due respect to King who I like) gets a crappy film.  But then again the original novel is one of John Updike’s weakest and his novels never really work as films anyway.  Big star power (Nicholson, Pfeiffer, Cher, Sarandon) made it the #10 film of the year and the biggest hit of Pfeiffer’s career until Batman Returns.
  • The Chipmunk Adventure  –  After four years as a Saturday morning cartoon, the Chipmunks get their own (bad) animated film.  Low **.
  • Dead of Winter  –  Back to former Oscar nominees with Arthur Penn directing this dreck remake of My Name is Julia Ross which was based on a novel called The Woman in Red.
  • Love is a Dog from Hell  –  Also known as Crazy Love, mess of a film based on the works of Charles Bukowski, a poet whose work I loathe.
  • Gothic  –  The Oscars didn’t consider this mess from former Oscar nominee Ken Russell to be adapted but both the IMDb and Wikipedia list stories from Byron and Shelley as sources so I’ll stick it here and not care.  Crap film about the famous night when Byron, the Shelleys and Polidori sat around creating their ghost stories that ended up with Frankenstein.
  • The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland  –  More Care Bears feature film crap.  Thankfully the last of them.
  • Beyond Therapy  –  Looks like O.C. and Stiggs wasn’t the worst thing directed by Robert Altman this year.  This one is based on a play by Christopher Durang and it’s the worst film Altman ever made.  It’s amazing how good Altman’s work was in the 90’s given his crap output in the 80’s (average Altman 80’s film: 53.6, average Altman 90’s film: 73.8)
  • Superman IV: The Quest for Peace  –  I used to rate this higher not because it’s good but because I so hate Superman III (which is worse than this one – this is low *.5 but that’s *).  What’s more, this film has Gene Hackman back.  Unfortunately it also has Jon Cryer and “Nuclear Man” and is quite bad.  Still, Christopher Reeve had good motives.  After writing all that, I realized I own this film on Blu-Ray, having gotten the box set for my birthday and so I watched it for the first time in probably 30 years.  If you read about the film (either on Wikipedia or in Reeve’s autobiography) you’ll realize this film was doomed by a cheap company (Cannon), that it could have been better.  What’s more, they were trying, which was more than happened with the third film.  To point out how stupid the filmmakers were, I pointed out to Veronica while watching it that Cryer has a key role (possibly his most annoying role ever) yet Jim Broadbent is in the film for just one scene.  What a waste.  I also realized (and I don’t know how I never knew this) that the other person in the Broadbent scene, William Hootkins is in three movies I love (I recognized him as the government man from Raiders but not as Porkins from Star Wars or Eckhart from Batman and never realized it was all the same actor).
  • Burglar  –  She was great in The Color Purple but then Whoopi started doing Comedies and I hate them and hate her in them.  She’s one of my least favorite actresses of all-time.  That aside, this is utter crap, also starring Bobcat Goldthwait.  Co-written by Jeph Loeb whose film work is not good but whose comic book writing is among the best of all-time.  Based on a novel by Lawrence Block and apparently originally meant to be a Bruce Willis serious thriller but when Willis dropped out was re-fashioned as a Comedy though much less successfully than when Stallone dropped out of Beverly Hills Cop.  We’re into * films now.
  • Pinocchio and the Emperor of Night  –  Regular commenter cjodell12 suggested at one point I do a series of reviews of Filmation films though I turned it down since he suggested it on an RCM post and I didn’t see any of the Filmation films as a kid.  I could have done it as a FLOM series but I think their feature films (several of which have been mentioned in previous posts because they were from pre-existing properties such as Mighty Mouse or Masters of the Universe) are mostly pretty bad.  This is a good example, a terrible film with crap animation that is somewhat derived from the original Collodi novel.  All that being said, Filmation provided a lot of entertainment for me as a kid (a real little kid – when I was still living in New York) with several Saturday morning cartoons that I enjoyed a lot though they haven’t held up as well as I had hoped when I’ve tried to view them as an adult using other pre-existing properties like Batman, Tarzan and Flash Gordon (definitely my first exposure to each of the last two).  On the other hand, they also did the really bad Star Trek animated show.
  • Rumpelstiltskin  –  Crappy Musical version of the Grimm Brothers tale.
  • Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold  –  A sequel to King Solomon’s Mines from the year before, loosely based on Haggard’s original sequel novel.  It took six years for Sharon Stone to recover from this for Basic Instinct to make her a star.
  • Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise  –  Dumb Comedy gets very bad sequel.  This will continue a lot from this point forward.  Thanks to Top Gun, Anthony Edwards’ career was in good enough shape to bail on most of this film.
  • The Sicilian  –  Michael Cimino destroys any notion that he’s a brilliant auteur.  Based on Mario Puzo’s novel.  Down to low *.
  • The Curse  –  Filmmakers should stop making films based on Lovecraft stories (in this case “The Colour out of Space”, one of Lovecraft’s best) because they seem to always screw it up.  They definitely shouldn’t put Will Wheaton in a starring role.
  • Nightflyers  –  Okay, so I’ll mention here that I love the show Game of Thrones but I am a not a big fan of the Martin books.  In fact, I really don’t think Martin is that good of a writer.  I haven’t read Nightflyers but given how bad the film is and that I’m not a Martin fan, I’ll pass.
  • Hellraiser  –  Clive Barker adapts his own novella The Hellbound Heart and creates a memorable villain but a terrible franchise.
  • Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II  –  Maybe it shouldn’t even have been on the list at it wasn’t originally a sequel to Prom Night but was refashioned to capitalize on the first film.  Either way, it’s terrible.
  • Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol  –  We’ve hit .5 films now and sadly this isn’t even the worst film I saw in theaters in 1987 (yes, I saw it – I blame my friend Cody).  No wonder I only went to one movie in the theaters in 1988.  Terrible stupid installment in a terrible unfunny franchise.  This also has Sharon Stone.
  • A Return to Salem’s Lot  –  How does a television movie get a feature film sequel?  Stick to the original, which, if Spielberg really directed Poltergeist, might have been the best thing Tobe Hopper ever made even if it constrained by budget and by what you could show on television.  This sequel is just worthless.
  • Flowers in the Attic  –  Photographic evidence shows that my sister got this book for Christmas just after turning 12 showing either that my parents had no idea what it was about or they totally dropped the ball.  I love that Wikipedia says that Wes Corman was dropped from the film because “producers were disturbed by his approach to the incest-laden story”.  Right, because the approach was the problem.  The book was insanely popular so there was no way a movie wasn’t getting made but also pretty much no way it was going to be good and it wasn’t.
  • It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive  –  More crappy Horror sequels.
  • Jaws: The Revenge  –  Again, more crappy Horror sequels.  Most notorious for being the film Michael Caine was filming that prevented him from accepting his Oscar in person.  Now we’re down to low .5.
  • Back to the Beach  –  This film is a perfect example of why the explosion of Animated and Comic Book films is a good thing.  In the summer of 1987, I was staying in La Mesa with my cousins for a week (just two miles away from where I currently live, also in La Mesa) and we went to the movies.  We needed a movie that was good for a 17 year old, a 13 year old, an 8 year old and a 7 year old and while in recent years, there is generally a Comic Book or Animated film out that is okay for kids that age, that summer with The Living Daylights, Beverly Hills Cop II, Full Metal Jacket, Stakeout, The Lost Boys and Robocop in theaters we were hard-pressed and desperate.  So we ended up at this, a terrible, terrible Musical made worse because we had no context for it (we had never seen the Beach films growing up).  It was years before my cousin Erika and I could get “Surfin’ Bird” (“Bird, bird, bird is the word”) which is actually sung by Pee-Wee Herman in the movie (who I hate) out of our heads and we used it as a code for something that was just awful.  Probably, until I saw Showgirls, the worst film I ever saw in the theater.  Adapted because it really uses the Annette and Frankie characters from the old Beach films.  Weird to write about this today when one of Annette’s fellow Mousketeers just had his body confirmed (it was found a while ago but was so decomposed it wasn’t identified until today) and because their daughter in the film is played by Lori Laughlin who is having some severe legal problems.
  • Masters of the Universe  –  This was actually out the same week as Back to the Beach so it could have been worse, I guess.  Guess I can’t be too hard on Sharon Stone’s career choices when Frank Langella played Skeletor and, like Stone, went on to be an Oscar nominee.  I was never a fan of the animated show so I didn’t bother to watch this live action film until a few years ago.
  • Death Wish 4: The Crackdown  –  J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson team up for more garbage.
  • The Garbage Pail Kids Movie  –  As I ticked off all the boxes over time of the films I wanted to see in 1987 I kept seeing this film on the eligible list and thinking “shouldn’t I have seen that?  Isn’t it animated?”  But, no, it’s not.  And since it’s not from a major studio (it’s from Atlantic Releasing which did specialize in Animated films), it didn’t get checked there either.  And I was old enough when the trading cards came out that, while I was aware of them (I had younger neighbors who were into them), I thought them ridiculous and disgusting.  But then some movie station recently (I actually want to say it was TCM but all logic keeps me from automatically saying that) aired it and I thought, well, I might as well just get it watched and stop wondering about it.  And it, well, I gave it a 1 because there’s a part of me that doesn’t want to undercut any of my Worst Film of the Year reviews from the Nighthawk Awards and Leonard Part 6 (I actually wrote Ghost Dad there first but no, that’s Cosby’s terrible 1990 Comedy that was only the second worst film of that year) got a 1, so I think I kept this from a zero just because of that because it’s appallingly bad.  The “kids” are actually dwarf actors in really, really bad makeup.  Its real star was Mackenzie Astin in his first film role (and until 1994, his only one), the younger brother of Sean Astin who had been brought in to try to appeal to younger kids on The Facts of Life the same way Leo would be brought into Growing Pains in the final season.  Adapted only in the sense that the characters existed on the cards first.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • none  –

The highest grossing film from this year (according to Box Office Mojo) that is both adapted and that I haven’t seen is Teen Wolf Too (#93 for the year at $7.88 mil).  It’s ironic because my brother actually tried out for a part in it (they filmed at Pomona, one of the Claremont colleges, another of which, Harvey Mudd, was where my brother was a student at the time).  I can’t imagine anyone at this point, even Jason Bateman, thought that 20 years later he would star in one of the greatest television shows ever created and that it would lead to a quite successful film career.

A Century of Film: United Artists

$
0
0

A Century of Film


United Artists


The Studio

It’s a famous story by now, one of the most famous in film history.  Four artists were tired of the offers they were getting from their studios and so they left their studios and formed their own.  There was a director (D.W. Griffith), a couple of stars (Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, not yet married because of her pending divorce) and the man who could do it all (Charlie Chaplin).

“There is an antique strip of silent film barely two minutes long that is perhaps unique in motion-picture and business history.  It is in two parts, two simple cuts.  The first records the ritual signing of incorporation papers, and there is an appropriate solemnity as signatures are affixed to documents dated February 5, 1919.  The scene is artlessly composed and shot and would be of no visual interest whatever were it not that the four signatories, the founding partners of the newly formed United Artists Corporation, were perhaps the four most famous people on earth.”  (Final Cut: Dreams and Disaster in the Making of Heaven’s Gate, Steven Bach, p 28)

“There was a very large wrinkle, one unique in motion-picture history, perhaps the one that made them appear lunatics to many in the industry: Their films would be not only self-produced and self-distributed but self-financed as well.  Each partner agreed to deliver three pictures a year, giving the small distribution company a release schedule of one picture per month.  It didn’t work out that way.”  (Bach, p 36)

For a history of their logo, go here, which is where I grabbed the image above.

“The early history of United Artists was extremely troublesome.  Without automatic access to any theaters of its own, the firm needed to break the stranglehold of Paramount and First National (it was not entirely a coincidence that Paramount began its theater-buying spree the day after the incorporation of United Artists).”  (An Evening’s Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915-1928, Richard Koszarski, p 78)

But the main problem was they just didn’t have enough movies to go around.  “From its beginning, United Artists had no shortage of box-office hits, only a shortage of product.”  (The United Artists Story, Ronald Bergan, p 9)  They had commitments still to their previous studios and Chaplin would always be slow to make new films (they were supposed to provide four each per year for one film to release a month but Chaplin would take until 1931 to finish his fourth film).  But “things began to change when Joseph Schenck joined the company in November 1924.”  (Bergan, p 9)

“The artists had never actually run the ‘asylum.’  They made (or didn’t make) their pictures and hired businessmen to run the company and sell the product.  By the mid-twenties, however, it was clear that if UA was to survive, they needed more than administrators and salesmen.  They needed an executive who could command respect on Wall Street and with the bankers, who could reorganize the company’s capital structure, and, most important, attract talent: a movieman, someone who understood not only the numbers but audiences, movies, and the people who made them.  In Joseph M. Schenck they found a movieman of the first rank.”  (Bach, p 37-38)  He would start to branch things out, bring in other independent producers that would supply the films for the studio, including Samuel Goldwyn and actress Gloria Swanson and by 1927 the studio was finally meeting its obligation to theaters.

“United Artists was created near the beginning of the decade by four of the silent cinema’s supreme artists.  At the end of the golden era, Griffith was ruined and Pickford and Fairbanks were heading for divorce and retirement.  Despite further masterpieces, Chaplin’s divorce cases and politics were to tarnish his reputation.  Thus ‘the company built by the stars’ was beginning to pass out of their hands.  It was producer-businessmen-showmen such as Schenck, Goldwyn, [Howard] Hughes, [David O.] Selznick and [Alexander] Korda who were to dominate United Artists in the 30s and keep its reputation alive.”  (Bergan, p 9)

Schenck would keep things running, staying ahead of financial failure (helped by the release of City Lights which was a massive hit) until 1933 when “Schenck decided that instead of merely giving advances to independent producers, loans secured by the rental fees of the pictures, he would now finance productions, and demand interest as well as a share of the profits.”  (Bergan, p 41)

“United Artists became a principal distributor of British pictures in the United States.  UA was solely a distributor and did not finance films; therefore, the company did not have to give top priority to its own product.  UA was always in search of quality product from anywhere to include on its roster.”  (Grand Design: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise, 1930-1939, Tino Balio, p 35)

The biggest hit for the studio was when Darryl F. Zanuck quit Warner Bros and joined Schenck in a new independent company, Twentieth Century Pictures, which provided a full slate for 1933 and 1934, all of them within budget, almost all of them making a profit.  But the four founders refused to let Zanuck buy into the company itself and so he merged with Fox and they were left with a gap to fill (there was a drop of five films from 1934 to 1935 without Zanuck) and Goldwyn and Korda were looked at to fill more of the slots.

“Schenck also brought into UA Howard Hughes (Scarface and Hell’s Angels) and two men who, in very different ways, were to become household words: Walt Disney and Darryl F. Zanuck.  In one sense, then, United Artists under Schenck not only became a major power itself but spun off two other major companies: Disney’s and the merger of William Fox’s moribund studio with Zanuck’s UA unit, born there and dubbed (in 1933) Twentieth Century.  Zanuck’s departure in 1935 was a stunning blow because he took Schenck with him as chairman of the newly merged Twentieth Century-Fox.  But their leaving was symptomatic of problems at UA that could only grow.”  (Bach, p 38)

“Maybe no one could have handled Goldwyn (others had tried and failed) but certainly Mary Pickford was not executive enough to do so or to run the company as Schenck had.  She promoted herself from partner to manager and promptly lost Walt Disney to RKO over a minor negotiating point regarding television rights to the Disney cartoons (in 1935!).  The public embarrassment of having lost in short order Schenck, Zanuck, Goldwyn and Disney only worsened already strained relations with Chaplin.”  (Bach, p 40)  By the late 30’s, Fairbanks was barely involved as his marriage to Pickford had ended in 1935.  “For the first two years following the divorce, Fairbanks and Pickford rarely saw each other except at UA board meetings where they were waging a bitter campaign against Sam Goldwyn’s attempt to gain control of the company.  Doug was starting to cut himself off from his old friends, even from Chaplin, who in his autobiography remembers seeing Fairbanks only twice during the late 1930s.”  (Doug & Mary, Gary Carey, p 221)

That’s when Selznick came in, making a deal to release his pictures through UA until 1939 but when they also wouldn’t allow him control of the company, he would eventually leave as well (not helped by him needing to release Gone with the Wind through MGM in order to use Gable).  Next to come along was Goldwyn, who also left, again before he wasn’t allowed to simply run the company.  “He had supplied them with a remarkable 50 films in 14 years, the majority of which were both critical and commercial triumphs.  So the Titans of the industry – Zanuck, Selznick, Korda and Goldwyn forsook UA one by one.  Of the greats, only Chaplin remained to make a mere two films in the 40s.”  (Bergan, p 41)

In the 40s, even though the industry was booming, UA wasn’t necessarily making more films.  In no year in the decade would the studio release more than 21 films and in the decade it would only release 181, just six more than it had released in the tumultuous 30s.

The latest person to try and take things over was J. Arthur Rank, who was providing a number of British films for UA (and providing a lot of their international grosses during the war with most foreign markets cut off) but Pickford and Selznick opposed the idea.  Selznick himself, after providing films like Rebecca, Since You Went Away and Spellbound also was forced out in 1946 after giving films to RKO to distribute.

The studio was barely surviving.  “In fact, its net income dropped from $440,000 in 1939 to $409,000 in 1946.  This can be put down to bad management, inter-company disputes and, generally, undistinguished product.”  (Bergan, p 87)  More independents were springing up and they weren’t going through UA, the Blacklist was hitting and UA was having trouble competing with the majors.

“Pickford and Chaplin were no longer speaking to each other by 1950, but they could read the balance sheets and knew it was time to sell, time to get out.”  (Bach, p 43)

“Arthur Kim and Robert Benjamin [had] assumed control of the flailing United Artists in the early 1950s and, over the next ten years, built a thriving creative and commercial structure in which independent producers would retain control of their work and share profits with the studio as long as they could reach agreements on cast, cost, director and script.  Krim and Benjamin’s dramatic rethinking of the old studio system not only resulted in better movies, but caught the attention of every other studio.  From the beginning of the 1950s to the end, even as the overall number of Hollywood films declined sharply, so-called independent production at the majors quadrupled.”  (Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood, Mark Harris, p 41)  This is definitely reflected at UA.  After releasing 455 films in their first 31 years, they released 404 in the 50s alone.

UA succeeded in the decade by branching out in different ways.  There was the spectacle (Bwana Devil, the first 3-D film), there was pushing the boundaries of the Code (The Moon is Blue), there were the quality productions from Stanley Kramer (High Noon, The Defiant Ones) and Hecht-Hill-Lancaster (Marty, Separate Tables) and numerous inexpensive but consistent productions from Edward Small and Aubrey Schenck.  The studio would win back-to-back Best Picture Oscars in 1955 and 56 (Marty, Around the World in 80 Days) and then would begin a run of Oscar domination, winning five time in the 60s.  From 1960 to 1963 they would become the first studio to win three Best Picture Oscars in four years and from 1975 to 1977 they would become the only studio in history to win three Best Picture Oscars in a row.

The 60s would bring not only massive Oscar success but also popular success, establishing multiple franchises (James Bond, Pink Panther) but big hits like The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape and A Hard Day’s Night.

“In 1968, UA reached a new high when it generated over $20 million in profits after tax.  Its impressive record attracted the interest of the Transamerica Corporation of San Francisco, a diversified organization known largely as a major insurance company.  It purchased 98% of UA’s stock and made it a subsidiary.”  (Bergan, p 195)

Big changes were in store soon after, though.  Big losses in 1970 meant a big cutback in production (UA distributed 41 films in 1970 and after 1971 they never again distributed more than 21 films in a year).  But the bigger chance came a few years later.

“In 1973, UA acquired the domestic theatrical and syndicated distribution rights of all MGM pictures for ten years, and also purchased MGM’s music publishing companies.  MGM, which had been deteriorating progressively over the last few years, decided to get out of the distribution business.”  (Bergan, p 251)  In the 60s, UA had at least six films that grossed over $40 million.  In the first five years of the 70s, in spite of inflation, there was only one (Diamonds are Forever) and they only had two Best Picture nominees.  But then would come two smash hits, both winning Best Picture and both grossing over $100 million (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Rocky) and things were looking up.  But success at the studio was not translating to calm times at the business.

In 1978, the UA heads were tired of being told what to do by parent company Transamerica and the head of Transamerica, Jack Beckett, said “if the people at United Artists don’t like it, they can quit and go off on their own.”  Which is what they did, leaving the next day and forming Orion Pictures, with a financing and distributing affiliation with Warner Brothers.

The 80s would see the studio become more and more irrelevant.  The franchises would keep the business going, Rocky becoming the most successful and there would be one more Best Picture win (Rain Man, in 1988) but Heaven’s Gate would wipe things out.

I won’t recap everything about the film that helped the studio crater thanks to Heaven’s Gate because you should read The Final Cut which is a fantastic film book and a great description of those times at UA.

Notable UA Films

  • Broken Blossoms (1919)  –  first United Artists release
  • Disraeli (1921)  –  first UA release not by the original four
  • Stella Dallas (1925)  –  first Goldwyn film for UA
  • Alibi (1929)  –  first UA Best Picture nominee
  • Hell’s Angels (1930)  –  first Howard Hughes film for UA
  • The Bowery (1933)  –  first 20th Century Pictures film
  • The Call of the Wild (1935)  –  last 20th Century Pictures film
  • Little Lord Fauntleroy (1936)  –  first Selznick film for UA
  • Rebecca (1940)  –  first UA Best Picture winner
  • Home of the Brave (1949)  –  first Stanley Kramer film for UA
  • Bwana Devil (1953)  –  first 3-D film
  • Around the World in 80 Days (1956)  –  Best Picture winner; highest grossing UA film to date
  • Dr. No (1963)  –  first James Bond film
  • Goldfinger (1964)  –  first UA film to gross over $50 million
  • One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)  –  Best Picture winner; first UA film to gross over $100 million
  • Rocky (1976)  –  Best Picture winner; start of UA’s second most lucrative franchise; highest grossing UA film to-date beaten before 1988 only be two of its sequels
  • Rain Man (1988)  –  Best Picture winner; highest grossing UA film

The Directors

D.W. Griffith

  • Films:  14
  • Years:  1919 – 1931
  • Average Film:  71.2
  • Best Film:  Broken Blossoms
  • Worst Film:  Dream Street

One of the original four that founded UA, Griffith’s heyday as a director was behind him but he still did solid work for UA.  But he was productive, directing more films by 1925 for UA than Chaplin would over the whole course of his time with the studio.  What’s more, he started with the great Broken Blossoms.

Charlie Chaplin

  • Films:  8
  • Years:  1923 – 1952
  • Average Film:  88.4
  • Best Film:  Modern Times
  • Worst Film:  A Women of Paris

Any time you can take eight films from any director and average a **** film, you’ve done a magnificent job.  Chaplin’s films were few and far between but he did five masterpieces in a row for the studio (The Gold Rush, The Circus, City Lights, Modern Times, The Great Dictator), just about five films in a row as great as any director in history.  Chaplin, of course, also deserves to go down below under the Actors.

William Wyler

  • Films:  7
  • Years:  1936 – 1961
  • Average Film:  76.1
  • Best Film:  Wuthering Heights
  • Worst Film:  The Big Country

Wyler did several films working for Samuel Goldwyn when he was releasing his films through UA including three that were nominated for Best Picture (Dodsworth, Dead End, Wuthering Heights) then returned to the studio for distribution almost two decades later for two of his later, independently produced films (The Big Country, The Children’s Hour).  All seven films earned at least one Oscar nom, four of them won an Oscar and they earned 29 combined nominations.

Stanley Kramer

  • Films:  8
  • Years:  1955 – 1969
  • Average Film:  73.8
  • Best Film:  The Defiant Ones
  • Worst Film:  The Pride and the Passion

Stanley Kramer started as a film producer (on High Noon, among others) so when he turned to directing, independently producing his films and releasing them through UA was the natural move.

Billy Wilder

  • Films:  9
  • Years:  1957 – 1978
  • Average Film:  82.8
  • Best Film:  The Apartment
  • Worst Film:  The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes

After leaving Paramount, Wilder moved to UA and made four fantastic films in a row (Witness for the Prosecution, Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, One Two Three) before making several lesser ones.  Those first four alone earned 23 combined Oscar nominations.

Blake Edwards

  • Films:  9
  • Years:  1964 – 1993
  • Average Film:  54.7
  • Best Film:  A Shot in the Dark
  • Worst Film:  Curse of the Pink Panther

Edwards’ films would only earn two combined Oscar noms but, with directors moving in and out of the Bond and Rocky franchises, Edwards was the hand behind the Pink Panther franchise, the other major franchise in the studio’s history, directing eight films that helped hold UA together.

Woody Allen

  • Films:  8
  • Years:  1971  –  1980
  • Average Film:  87.8
  • Best Film:  Here Comes Mr. Jordan
  • Worst Film:  Good Girls Go to Paris

Unlike Griffith, Chaplin and Wilder who came in at their peaks, Allen rose at the studio with his last four films (Annie Hall, Interiors, Manhattan, Stardust Memories) averaging a 94.5, earning 12 Oscar noms and winning 5, including Best Picture before Allen followed the Orion people out the door.

The Stars

Mary Pickford

One of the original UA four, Pickford both starred in films and produced them.  She was the first actor of either gender to win an Oscar for UA (in 1929) and the only one until 1936.  Until 1958 (when UA won both awards), she would be the only female winner.
Essential Viewing:  Coquette, Pollyanna, Sparrows, Tess of the Storm Country

Douglas Fairbanks

Fairbanks’ time as one of the great charismatic actors on the screen was already established before the foundation of UA but he cemented while there, proving that he was the great Action star of the decade.
Essential Viewing:  The Mark of Zorro, Robin Hood, The Thief of Bagdad, The Three Musketeers

Sean Connery

Because UA wasn’t like a traditional studio, they didn’t have a group of stars under contract, so after the original stars, it would be awhile before someone solid came along at UA and what allowed that was the rise of the franchise.  UA released the James Bond films right from the start and helped make Sean Connery a star.  He did very little else for UA but since three of his six Bond films are still among the Top 10 UA films when adjusted for inflation, he had already done enough.
Essential Viewing:  Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, Dr. No

Peter Sellers

Sellers’ first two Pink Panther films were solid successes but his return to the franchise in the late 70’s was even more successful and part of the fantastic run when UA dominated things before Heaven’s Gate destroyed it all.
Essential Viewing:  A Shot in the Dark, The Pink Panther

Sylvester Stallone

Stallone did, in a sense, even more than Connery and Sellers.  First, Stallone actually wrote the first Rocky film, so it was his franchise to start and he directed later films.  Also, his first four Rocky films are all among the top seven films all-time for UA.
Essential Viewing:  Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III, Rocky IV

Genres

UA never really branched out much into genre films.  They had several Adventure films at the start because of Fairbanks but they also focused on Drama (Pickford) and Comedy (Chaplin).  Many of their best films over the years have been their Comedies.  It’s notable as well that one of their few franchises, one that helped keep the studio afloat in the mid 70’s was the Pink Panther, a rare Comedy franchise.

The Top 100 United Artists Films

  1. West Side Story
  2. Modern Times
  3. Annie Hall
  4. Paths of Glory
  5. Raging Bull
  6. The Apartment
  7. Some Like It Hot
  8. City Lights
  9. Apocalypse Now
  10. Rebecca
  11. High Noon
  12. The Great Dictator
  13. The Gold Rush
  14. Henry V (1944)
  15. The Great Escape
  16. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  17. 12 Angry Men
  18. Scarface (1932)
  19. The Killing
  20. A Star is Born (1937)
  21. Sweet Smell of Success
  22. Manhattan
  23. A Hard Day’s Night
  24. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest
  25. In Which We Serve
  26. Being There
  27. In the Heat of the Night
  28. Tom Jones
  29. Wuthering Heights (1939)
  30. The African Queen
  31. Les Miserables (1935)
  32. The Manchurian Candidate
  33. Sunday Bloody Sunday
  34. Red River
  35. The Defiant Ones
  36. Last Tango in Paris
  37. Richard III (1995)
  38. Oliver Twist (1948)
  39. Interiors
  40. Stagecoach
  41. Witness for the Prosecution
  42. You Only Live Twice
  43. One, Two, Three
  44. Stardust Memories
  45. Ghost World
  46. The General (1927)
  47. Hotel Rwanda
  48. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
  49. The French Lieutenant’s Woman
  50. Othello (1952)
  51. Midnight Cowboy
  52. The Man with the Golden Arm
  53. Lenny
  54. The Moon is Blue
  55. Hobson’s Choice
  56. Elmer Gantry
  57. Carrie (1976)
  58. The Circus
  59. To Be or Not To Be (1942)
  60. Rain Man
  61. The Hospital
  62. Broken Blossoms
  63. The Best Man
  64. Goldfinger
  65. 24 Hour Party People
  66. Steamboat Bill Jr
  67. Spellbound
  68. Moulin Rouge (1952)
  69. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia
  70. The Night of the Hunter
  71. The Magnificent Seven
  72. The Claim
  73. Queen Kelly
  74. Charge of the Light Brigade
  75. From Russia with Love
  76. All or Nothing
  77. Mississippi Mermaid
  78. Women in Love
  79. The Birdcage
  80. Dodsworth
  81. The Sound Barrier
  82. J’Accuse
  83. The Last Metro
  84. Love and Death
  85. A Fistful of Dollars
  86. The Miracle Worker
  87. A Christmas Carol (1951)
  88. Separate Tables
  89. Dead End
  90. A Shot in the Dark
  91. Sleeper
  92. Osama
  93. Hamlet (1964)
  94. The Story of G.I. Joe
  95. The Whisperers
  96. The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming
  97. Limelight
  98. The Southerner
  99. The Fortune Cookie
  100. Thieves Like Us

note:  The Top 67 films are all ****.  The rest are high ***.5.

Notable United Artists Films Not in the Top 100

note:  Includes all films I have either already reviewed or have current plans to review in the future as well as all films I saw in the theater.

The Bottom 10 United Artists Films, #1015-1024
(worst being #10, which is #1024 overall)

  1. Rocky V
  2. The Vampire and the Ballerina
  3. Windows
  4. The Vampire
  5. Caveman
  6. The Manchu Eagle Murder Caper Mystery
  7. Mr. Accident
  8. The Beast Within
  9. Drum
  10. Galaxy of Terror

note:  The first three are * while the other 8 are .5 films.

Notes on Films

note:  These are just tidbits on some of the films.  The films are listed in alphabetical order.  Unless I have something specific to say, I don’t mention films that have full reviews elsewhere or films that I saw in the theater from 1989 to 2005 (they are all mentioned in those Nighthawk Awards).

  • Betrayed  –  Not a great film but my friend Cody got to be an extra somewhere in the film because they were filming it in Canada when he went to visit relatives nearby and I was endlessly jealous because he got to be an extra in a Debra Winger film.
  • Black Magic  –  Clearly of interest to people because there’s a film (Fade to Black) about Orson Welles solving a mystery while filming it and there’s an issue of Superman (reprinted in Superman: From the 30’s to the 70’s) in which Welles, while filming it, gets kidnapped by Martians and no one believes him when he radios home about it because of War of the Worlds.
  • Help!  –  This is weird and I can’t explain it but the individual songs in this film are better than A Hard Day’s Night but the latter’s album is a better album.  This film is only okay where AHDN was brilliant but the songs make it worth it.
  • How I Won the War  –  Worth seeing for the fascinating combination of Michael Crawford and John Lennon in non-musical roles.
  • Inserts  –  Mediocre film but worth seeing for Richard Dreyfuss’ performance and because of an attempt to make a mainstream movie about pornography.
  • It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World  –  Way too long but it’s a family favorite so I can’t not mention it.  Lots of really good comic actors.
  • The Long Riders  –  Mediocre film about the James-Younger gang but worth watching at least once because it uses four sets of actual brothers to play historical brothers.
  • Love and Death  –  One of two films where Woody Allen makes the transition from just being funny to being funny and brilliant on film that lead to Annie Hall.
  • Saved  –  A hilarious satirical Comedy that definitely deserves to be watched.  Responsible for the somewhat surprisingly satisfying cover of “God Only Knows” by Michael Stipe and Mandy Moore (Moore is the star, Stipe a producer).
  • Sleeper  –  The other Woody Allen film that helped make that transition.
  • That Hamilton Woman  –  If you’re going to see an Olivier / Leigh film this is the one to see.

The 8 Most Under-Rated United Artists Films

These are all films that I rate at **** that have never appeared in TSPDT’s Top 1000 (now 2000) or their Top 250 21st Century Films (now 1000).  Also, I eliminated several films that were nominated for Best Picture (A Star is Born, In Which We Serve, Les Miserables, Wuthering Heights, The Defiant Ones, Lenny, Elmer Gantry, Spellbound).  I present them in their rank order.  I do think it’s remarkable that of the 16 UA films nominated for Best Picture that earn **** from me, a full half of them aren’t on the TSPDT list, which, again, seems a flaw in the way they calculate their list.

  1. Sunday Bloody Sunday
  2. Richard III
  3. Oliver Twist
  4. The Man with the Golden Arm
  5. The Moon is Blue
  6. Hobson’s Choice
  7. The Hospital
  8. The Best Man

The Best United Artists Films by Decade

  • 1920’s:  The Gold Rush
  • 1930’s:  Modern Times
  • 1940’s:  Rebecca
  • 1950’s:  Paths of Glory
  • 1960’s:  West Side Story
  • 1970’s:  Annie Hall
  • 1980’s:  Raging Bull
  • 1990’s:  Richard III
  • 2000’s:  Ghost World

The Worst United Artists Films by Decade

  • 1920’s:  Coquette
  • 1930’s:  White Zombie
  • 1940’s:  The Outlaw
  • 1950’s:  The Vampire
  • 1960’s:  The Vampire and the Ballerina
  • 1970’s:  Drum
  • 1980’s:  Galaxy of Terror
  • 1990’s:  Rocky V
  • 2000’s:  Mr. Accident

The Best United Artists Films by Genre

  • Action:  Goldfinger
  • Adventure:  The African Queen
  • Comedy:  Modern Times
  • Crime:  Scarface
  • Drama:  Raging Bull
  • Fantasy:  A Christmas Carol
  • Horror:  Carrie
  • Kids:  n/a
  • Musical:  West Side Story
  • Mystery:  Rebecca
  • Sci-Fi:  n/a
  • Suspense:  The Manchurian Candidate
  • War:  Paths of Glory
  • Western:  High Noon

note:  It’s not that I haven’t seen any UA Kids or Sci-Fi films but that none of them are higher than *** (for the record, the best two films are The Black Stallion and The Quatermass Experiment).

The Worst United Artists Films by Genre

  • Action:  Safari 3000
  • Adventure:  The Minotaur, the Wild Beast of Crete
  • Comedy:  Mr. Accident
  • Crime:  Deuces Wild
  • Drama:  Drum
  • Fantasy:  Little Monsters
  • Horror:  The Beast Within
  • Kids:  Thunderbird 6
  • Musical:  200 Motels
  • Mystery:  The Manchu Eagle Murder Caper Mystery
  • Sci-Fi:  Galaxy of Terror
  • Suspense:  Windows
  • War:  The Passage
  • Western:  Heaven’s Gate

The Most Over-Rated UA Films

  1. Heaven’s Gate
    Originally reviled by critics and rightfully so, the egotistical monster of a film by Michael Cimino basically destroyed the studio yet somehow is now close to the Top 25 on TSPDT.
  2. The Long Goodbye
    I will never understand why some people like Elliot Gould’s version of Marlowe.  One of Altman’s most over-rated films.
  3. Fellini Satyricon
    When people say Fellini is self-indulgent, this is what they are talking about.
  4. The Lord of the Rings
    Some people think this is good.  My review explains all the ways in which this view is wrong.
  5. Cutter’s Way
    Though not on the TSPDT Top 2000, for several years before their 2013 revision of how they did the list, this was actually a Top 1000 film and I can’t figure out why.  A full review here talks about why I think it sucks.

The Statistics

Total Films 1912-2011: 1023  (5th)

Total Percentage of All Films 1912-2011:  6.19%

  • 1912-1929:  60  (14.22%)  (2nd)
  • 1930-1939:  132  (8.95%)  (6th)
  • 1940-1949:  131  (9.14%)  (3rd)
  • 1950-1959:  201  (12.31%)  (2nd)
  • 1960-1969:  189  (10.64%)  (1st)
  • 1970-1979:  171  (9.57%)  (1st)
  • 1980-1989:  90  (4.37%)  (7th)
  • 1990-1999:  20  (0.78%)  (18th)
  • 2000-2009:  29  (1.02%)  (19th)

Percentage I’ve Seen by Decade:

  • 1919-1929:  66.33%
  • 1930-1939:  73.14%
  • 1940-1949:  75.82%
  • 1950-1959:  52.58%
  • 1960-1969:  74.70%
  • 1970-1979:  80.47%
  • 1980-1989:  84.95%
  • 1990-1999:  100.00%
  • 2000-2009:  96.88%
  • TOTAL:  70.31%

note:  UA made far more films in the 50’s than in any other decade.  It accounts for 11.76% of the years in the studio’s release history but 27.59% of the films.  They made very few films after 1989 (just 52, the only one of which I haven’t seen is No Such Thing).  After 1930, I am at least 70% in every year except 1988 (6 for 9) and the 50’s.  In the 50’s, I am at least 50% in every year but never over 56% (there are an average of 40.7 films in every year).  Even up through 1930 I am at 70% in 8 of the 12 years.

note:  Because most box office information before 1980 is spotty and I have seen most of the UA films since 1980, the highest grossing UA film listed on Box Office Mojo that I haven’t seen is Penitentiary II, the #124 UA film at $3.17 million.

Biggest Years:

  • 28:  1957
  • 26:  1951, 1960
  • 25:  1956
  • 23:  1958, 1962, 1969

note:  UA has the most films in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1961-63, 1968-71, 1979 and 1981.

Biggest Years by Percentage of All Films:

  • 1961:  15.66%
  • 1926:  15.36%
  • 1957:  14.81%
  • 1954:  14.60%
  • 1956:  14.29%

Biggest Years by Percentage of UA Films I’ve Seen:

  • 100%  (21 for 21)  –  1971
  • 100%  (13 for 13)  –  1977, 1981
  • 100%  (7 for 7)  –  2004
  • 100%  (6 for 6)  –  1984, 2003
  • 100%  (5 for 5)  –  1995, 1996, 2001
  • 100%  (3 for 3)  –  1987, 1999, 2000
  • 100%  (2 for 2)  –  1990, 1997
  • 100%  (1 for 1)  –  1986, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2006

Best Year:

  • 1945, 1957:  4 films in the Top 10
  • 1937, 1964:  3 films in the Top 10, 5 in the Top 20

Average Film By Decade:

  • 1919-1929:  70.07
  • 1930-1939:  64.69
  • 1940-1949:  63.76
  • 1950-1959:  60.92
  • 1960-1969:  63.42
  • 1970-1979:  57.72
  • 1980-1989:  52.11
  • 1990-1999:  45.90
  • 2000-2006:  59.38
  • TOTAL:  61.12

note:  As always with a chart like this, it does beg the question of whether older films are better (or just fewer older films are bad) or whether the ones that are worse are simply harder to find.

Best Years for Average Film:

  • 1927-28:  74.33
  • 1964:  72.85
  • 2004:  71.33
  • 1912-26:  70.22
  • 1937:  70.12

Worst Years for Average Film (minimum 5 films):

  • 1989:  38.90
  • 1995:  48.00
  • 1982:  49.20

Star Rating:

note:  The percentage breakdown for all UA films by star rating.

  • ****:  6.55%
  • ***.5:  6.74%
  • ***:  40.37%
  • **.5:  27.66%
  • **:  13.00%
  • *.5:  1.96%
  • *:  3.03%
  • .5:  0.68%
  • 0:  0.00%

Eras:

  • Top 10 Most Films every year through 1985

UA starts in 2nd place behind MGM but by 1932 has already dropped to 3rd behind Paramount.  It bounces back and forth between 3rd and 4th with Warner Bros until Fox passes them both in 1942 but by 1945 it has pulled back ahead of both Warners and Paramount and moved back into 3rd.  Right now, it stays in 3rd all the way until 2009 but by the time I do the Warners and Paramount posts, it will have dropped to 5th place much earlier.

The Top Films:

UA would be the third major to win the Nighthawk but the first to win a second as well as the first to get to three, four and five and the second to get to six.

  • Nighthawk Winner:  1931, 1932, 1936, 1937, 1961, 1980
  • 4 Films in the Top 10:  1945, 1957
  • 3 Films in the Top 10:  1937, 1964, 1970, 1979
  • 5 Films in the Top 20:  1937, 1945, 1964
  • Top 10 Films:  81
  • First Year in the Top 10:  1926
  • Latest Year in the Top 10:  1995
  • Top 20 Films:  154
  • Best Decade for Top 20 Films:  1960’s  (29)
  • Worst Decade for Top 20 Films:  1990’s / 2000’s  (4)

Nighthawk Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  172
  • Number of Films That Have Won Nighthawks:  65
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  129
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  29
  • Best Picture Nominations:  45
  • Total Number of Nominations:  672
  • Total Number of Wins:  139
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Actor  (61)
  • Director with Most Nighthawk Nominated Films:  Charlie Chaplin  (7)
  • Best Film with No Nighthawks:  Paths of Glory
  • Best Film with No Nighthawk Nominations:  The General
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Drama Nominations:  98
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Comedy Nominations:  64
  • Number of Films That Have Won Drama Awards:  29
  • Number of Films That Have Won Comedy Awards:  28
  • Drama Picture Nominations:  39
  • Comedy Picture Nominations:  33
  • Total Number of Drama Nominations:  289
  • Total Number of Comedy Nominations:  221
  • Total Number of Drama Wins:  45
  • Total Number of Comedy Wins:  89
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Actor  (52 – Drama  /  38 – Comedy)
  • Best Drama Film With No Nominations:  All or Nothing
  • Best Comedy Film With No Nominations:  A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
  • Most 2nd Place Finishes:  Paths of Glory  (8)
  • Most 6th Place Finishes:  Oliver Twist  /  The Moon is Blue  (4)
  • Most Top 10 Finishes:  Rebecca  /  Tom Jones  (15)
  • Most Top 20 Finishes:  Tom Jones  (16)
  • Films With at Least One Top 10 Finish:  262
  • Best Film Without a Top 10 Finish:  Saved
  • Films With at Least One Top 20 Finish:  300
  • Best Film Without a Top 20 Finish:  Blithe Spirit

Most Nighthawk Nominations:

  1. Rebecca  –  12
  2. The Great Dictator  –  11
  3. High Noon  –  11
  4. West Side Story  –  11
  5. Tom Jones  –  11
  6. City Lights  –  10
  7. Scarface  –  10
  8. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp  –  10
  9. Spellbound  –  10
  10. Henry V  /  Paths of Glory  –  10

Most Nighthawks:

  1. City Lights  –  9
  2. Modern Times  –  9
  3. West Side Story  –  8
  4. Raging Bull  –  8
  5. Tom Jones  –  6
  6. Scarface  –  5
  7. A Star is Born  –  5
  8. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp  –  5
  9. The Great Escape  –  4
  10. four films  –  3

Most Nighthawk Points:

  1. City Lights  –  630
  2. West Side Story  –  575
  3. Modern Times  –  570
  4. Raging Bull  –  540
  5. Scarface  –  500
  6. A Star is Born  –  485
  7. Tom Jones  –  460
  8. Rebecca  –  420
  9. The Great Dictator  –  415
  10. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp  –  405

Most Drama Nominations:

  1. Rebecca  –  7
  2. The Best Man  –  7
  3. eight films  –  6

Most Comedy Nominations:

  1. Tom Jones  –  10
  2. West Side Story  –  8
  3. Manhattan  –  8
  4. The Moon is Blue –  7
  5. Some Like It Hot  /  The Apartment  /  Being There  –  7

Most Drama Wins:

  1. Raging Bull  –  5
  2. A Star is Born  –  4
  3. Scarface  –  3
  4. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  3
  5. five films  –  2

Most Comedy Wins:

  1. The Gold Rush  –  6
  2. Steamboat Bill Jr  –  6
  3. City Lights  –  6
  4. Some Like It Hot  –  6
  5. The Apartment  /  Tom Jones  /  Annie Hall  –  6

Most Drama Points:

  1. Raging Bull  –  380
  2. Scarface  –  365
  3. A Star is Born  –  365
  4. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  340
  5. Rebecca  –  330
  6. High Noon  –  275
  7. In the Heat of the Night  –  275
  8. Women in Love  –  275
  9. Wuthering Heights  –  270
  10. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp  –  270

Most Comedy Points:

  1. Tom Jones  –  585
  2. Some Like It Hot  –  505
  3. The Apartment  –  500
  4. West Side Story  –  490
  5. Annie Hall  –  470
  6. Steamboat Bill Jr  –  460
  7. City Lights  –  460
  8. The Gold Rush  –  400
  9. Being There  –  395
  10. Modern Times  /  The Moon is Blue  –  375

All-Time Nighthawk Awards

  • Best Picture
  1. West Side Story
  2. Modern Times
  3. Annie Hall
  4. Paths of Glory
  5. Raging Bull

Analysis:  It’s an interesting group in my Top 5 because you have two Best Oscar winners, an Oscar nominee and then two films that failed to earn even a single Oscar nomination.
UA wins six Nighthawks with Annie Hall and Paths of Glory as painfully close second choices while City Lights, Scarface and A Star is Born win the award.  Another 40 films earn nominations with eight of them coming in second place.  Including winners and nominees, there are 79 Top 10 films and 121 Top 20 films.  At the Globes, thanks to Chaplin, UA does very well in Comedy.  Chaplin films win more Comedy picture awards (five) than all of UA’s films win Drama awards (three).  Plus, Billy Wilder and Woody Allen both have two winners with three other winners as well for a total of 12 Comedy wins plus 21 other nominees (one Chaplin, two Wilder, three Allen) while in Drama there are actually 36 nominees including all four of the nominees in 1957.
UA won the Oscar 12 times but it was in a concentrated stretch.  Before 1955 it won one award and after 1977 it won one.  But in the 23 year stretch from 55 to 77 it won 10 Oscars including three in a row from 1975 to 1977 and seven times it was a bigger sweep (Picture, Director, Screenplay).  The nominations are a bit different.  They earned 36 nominations, the last in 1980 but over half of them (20) came before 1955 and the 18 year stretch from 1960 to 1977 that earned the studio eight Oscars only earned them 9 other nominations.  What’s more, of those 36 nominated films, only 10 of them earned nominations for both Director and Screenplay.
UA was a powerhouse at the Globes for a while.  It won Best Picture six times for Drama between 1956 and 1988 and earned 23 nominations from 1950 to 1981 and then one in 2004 but in Comedy it really ruled for a short stretch, winning six awards and one in Musical (when it was a separate category) in just 13 years but never won anything before 1959 or after 1971.  It did earn another 18 nominations from 1960 to 1980 with another in 1987 and then one more in 2002.  Only one film, though, managed the trifecta of Picture, Director and Screenplay wins: One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
After winning Best Picture at the BAFTAs in 1952 it would win seven more from 1960 to 1979 but not again after that.  It would also win three early British Film Awards (The Sound Barrier, Hobson’s Choice, Tom Jones).  The studio would earn 33 nominations from 1950 to 1970 and then five more from 1977 to 1981 and none after that.  Oliver Twist and Richard III have the distinction of being the only UA films to earn a British Film nomination but not a Picture nom.
Seven films would win two critics awards each with four of them (In Which We Serve, Marty, Around the World in 80 Days, Tom Jones) at a time when there were only two awards while another 12 films won one award each.

  • Best Director
  1. Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins  (West Side Story)
  2. Martin Scorsese  (Raging Bull)
  3. Francis Ford Coppola  (Apocalypse Now)
  4. Stanley Kubrick  (Paths of Glory)
  5. Charlie Chaplin  (Modern Times)

Analysis:  Six films win the Nighthawk with the oddity that the only winner for Picture that doesn’t win Director is A Star is Born which loses to You Only Live Once, the only UA film to win Director but not Picture.  In addition there are 40 other nominees.  The big three Comedy directors dominate here with Chaplin winning twice and earning three other nominations, Wilder earning four noms and Allen earning three.  At the Globes, there are 14 Comedy winners (six Chaplin, two Wilder, two Allen) and 18 nominees as well as three Drama winners and 35 other nominees.
There have been 10 Oscar winners, including the Comedy Director award in the 1st Oscars (Two Arabian Knights) then a jump to 1955, then 4 in the 60’s, three straight from 1975 to 1977 and then 1988.  Every Director winner also won Picture.  There have also been 33 nominations, most of them (25) in the 30 years from 1951 to 1980 with none since 1980.  Their wins have also been odd: 56-59, six nominations, no wins, 60-69, 4 out of 8 nominations win, 70-74, 6 nominations, no wins, 75-77, 3 wins, no other noms, 78-80, 5 nominations, no wins.  Also, from 1958 to 1979, of the 17 films that earned nominations without winning, 10 of them weren’t nominated for Best Picture.
Only four UA films have won Director at the Globes and two of them (Judgment at Nuremberg, Apocalypse Now) didn’t win Picture (the other two are Cuckoo and Yentl).  Another 30 films have earned nominations, none before 1956 and only Rain Man since 1980.  So, in the 25 year stretch from 1956 to 1980, UA earned 32 nominations but only won the award three times.
UA won Director at the BAFTA five times in eleven years from 1969 to 1979 but not since.  It also earned 6 other noms, all from 1969 to 1981.
Eight UA films have won the DGA, including three in a row from 1975 to 1977, though Rain Man is the only winner (or even nominee) since 1980.  There have also been 22 other nominees.
Tom Jones, Manhattan and Night of Shooting Stars are the only films to win two critics awards (Tom Jones did it when there were only two awards) while 14 films have won one each.  It is worth noting that with all the critical outrage of Scorsese not winning the Oscar for Raging Bull that he only won critics award that year (the NSFC).

  • Best Adapted Screenplay:
  1. Some Like It Hot
  2. Paths of Glory
  3. Being There
  4. Tom Jones
  5. West Side Story

Analysis:  There are six Nighthawk winners though Some Like It Hot and Paths of Glory aren’t among them (running up against The Seventh Seal and Bridge on the River Kwai) while Scarface, The Killing and French Lieutenant’s Woman are.  There are (including Some Like It Hot and Paths) some 34 other films that earn nominations.  UA has done well at the Globes winning seven each in Drama and Comedy.
UA has won 8 Oscars but all of them in the short period of 1955 to 1975 including five in the 60’s.  There have also been another 29 nominees though only 13 of them came during the period of their winners.
Two Globe winners are adapted: In the Heat of the Night and One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.  There are also six adapted nominees.  There are three BAFTA winners (Tom Jones, Midnight Cowboy, Being There) and nine other nominees.  Though most of their WGA winners come before the split, there are 13 UA films that are adapted and win the WGA.  I’m not going to figure out which are which but there are another 63 films that earn WGA nominations.

  • Best Original Screenplay:
  1. Annie Hall
  2. Modern Times
  3. The Apartment
  4. City Lights
  5. A Star is Born (1937)

Analysis:  Because The Apartment runs up against Ikiru, it doesn’t win the Nighthawk though the other four do as do 11 other UA films as well with four Chaplin winners and four Allen winners (in a row!).  Including The Apartment there are 19 nominees.  There are 14 Comedy winners (6 Chaplin, 3 Allen, 2 Wilder) and 7 Drama winners.
There have been 7 Oscar winners, spread out a bit (1937, 1958, 1960, three in the 70’s, 1988) and another 24 nominees.  Though the studio didn’t win between 1937 and 1958 it earned 13 of those nominees in that time.  There were also (including two winners), six nominees just from 1976 to 1979.
The only Globe winner that’s original is The Hospital.  There have also been eight nominees that were original.  There are three BAFTA winners (The Hospital, Annie Hall, Manhattan) and five other nominees.
Seven films win the WGA that count as original.  See above for the nominee details.  Annie Hall wins three awards, Sunday Bloody Sunday wins two and The Apartment wins one.

  • Best Actor:
  1. Robert De Niro  (Raging Bull)
  2. Jack Nicholson  (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest)
  3. Dustin Hoffman  (Rain Man)
  4. Marlon Brando  (Last Tango in Paris)
  5. Jack Lemmon  (The Apartment)

Analysis:  There have been 13 Nighthawk winners including seven from 1967 to 1980 though Lemmon is not among them.  The first two winners (both Chaplin) are from films that also win Picture, Director and Screenplay.  After that, no film wins all four of those awards.  There are another 35 Nighthawk nominees including 17 from 1953 to 1963.  There are eight Drama winners and 17 Comedy winners (six of them being Chaplin).  There are an additional 41 Drama nominees and 19 Comedy nominees.
There have been 14 Oscar winners including three in a row (50-52).  Three films have earned two nominations, including Judgment at Nuremberg which won the award and had an additional nominee.  In 1958, 1960 and 1971, UA had three of the nominees (losing all three in 1971).
UA has done well at the Globes, winning 14 Drama awards including 8 from 1950 to 1963 and nine Comedy awards.  There have also been 20 additional Drama nominees (including two each from The Defiant Ones and Midnight Cowboy) and 19 Comedy nominees (with 12, including three winners, from 1960 to 1966).
UA did very well at the BAFTAs in the early years when it was split between British and Foreign awards.  During that stretch (1950-1967), it earned 34 total nominations including eight winners with multiple nominations for six different films.  After 1967, would be three more winners and 14 more nominees.
Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda) is the only SAG nominee.
DeNiro won four critics awards for Raging Bull.  Nicholson won three as did Jon Voight (Coming Home).  Six more actors won two awards each.  Another 11 actors won one award each.

  • Best Actress
  1. Diane Keaton  (Annie Hall)
  2. Shirley MacLaine  (The Apartment)
  3. Glenda Jackson  (Women in Love)
  4. Katharine Hepburn  (The African Queen)
  5. Meryl Streep  (The French Lieutenant’s Woman)

Analysis:  Five actresses win the Nighthawk – Lilian Gish (Broken Blossoms), Janet Gaynor (A Star is Born), MacLaine, Jackson and Keaton.  There are another 24 nominees with Streep being the last.  Gish, Gaynor, Joan Fontaine (Rebecca) and Jackson win Drama with 26 other nominees.  Marilyn Monroe (Some Like It Hot), MacLaine (twice – also for Irma La Douce) and Keaton win Comedy with 18 other nominees with two of them (Thora Birch for Ghost World, Mandy Moore for Saved) coming this century.
There have been seven Oscar winners, with three of them before the 70’s (Mary Pickford (Coquette), Susan Hayward (I Want to Live) and Anne Bancroft (Miracle Worker)) and four of them in the 70’s (Jackson, Louise Fletcher (Cuckoo), Keaton and Jane Fonda (Coming Home)).  There are also 23 other nominees with Streep being the most recent.
There have been five Drama winners at the Globes (Hayward, Edith Evans (Whisperers), Fletcher, Fonda, Streep) and 12 other nominees as well as four Comedy winners (the same four who win the Nighthawk) and 13 other nominees with Birch the only one after 1987.
Nine actresses have won the BAFTA with five of those coming during the British / Foreign split and there have been 15 other nominees with only four of those coming since the split was dropped.  There have been no SAG or BFCA nominees.
Jackson won three critics awards (the only three in existence at the time) while Evans and Keaton won two each.  Another seven actresses have won one award each (actually Fonda won one in 1978 for two different UA films – Coming Home and Comes a Horseman).

  • Best Supporting Actor:
  1. Robert Duvall  (Apocalypse Now)
  2. Steve Buscemi  (Ghost World)
  3. George Chakiris  (West Side Story)
  4. Charles Laughton  (Les Miserables)
  5. Joe Pesci  (Raging Bull)

Analysis:  There are seven Nighthawk winners though Buscemi and Chakiris aren’t among them (the others are Donald Crisp (Broken Blossoms), Harry Myers (City Lights), Robert Mitchum (Story of GI Joe) and Hugh Griffith (Tom Jones)).  There are also 25 nominees including two each from Oliver Twist and Judgment at Nuremberg.  There are six Drama winners and a whopping 14 Comedy winners including five from 1960 to 1966.  There are an additional 24 Drama nominees and 14 Comedy nominees.  UA accounts for four of the Comedy nominees in 1961.
Ten UA films have won the Oscar and in eight of those cases, it was the only Oscar the film won (the other two are Stagecoach and West Side Story).  UA won three Oscars in a row from 1964-66.  There have also been another 30 nominees including two from Rocky.  The two really strong periods were 1958 to 1966 (5 Oscars, 14 total nominations) and 1976 to 1979 (one Oscar, eight total nominations).  Three times (1940, 1961, 1979), UA won the Oscar and earned two other nominations.
UA has won 8 Globes including 1979 where there was a tie and both films (Being There, Apocalypse Now) were UA films.  There have been another 16 nominations including two more recent (for UA) ones in 1995 and 2001.  There have been 5 BAFTA winners – four in the 70’s and then Tim Roth for Rob Roy in 1995.  There have only been 4 other nominees, all in the 70’s.  The only two SAG nominees were both in 1996 – Nathan Lane and Hank Azaria in The Birdcage.
Joe Pesci and Steve Buscemi both won three critics awards while Richard Farnsworth (Comes a Horseman) and Melvyn Douglas (Being There) both won two and three other performances won one each.

  • Best Supporting Actress:
  1. Judith Anderson  (Rebecca)
  2. Edith Evans  (Tom Jones)
  3. Shirley Jones  (Elmer Gantry)
  4. Rita Moreno  (West Side Story)
  5. Angela Lansbury  (The Manchurian Candidate)

Analysis:  Aside from my Top 5 (who all win the Nighthawk) there are five other winners with Elsa Lanchester doing it twice (Private Life of Henry VIII, Witness for the Prosecution).  Tom Jones is notable for winning the award and earning two other noms.  In total, there are 44 nominees from 40 different films.  There are nine Drama winners as well as six Comedy winners with Tom Jones taking the win and three other noms.
While Tom Jones is notable for earning three Oscar noms it didn’t win the award which is kind of surprising because UA had won four of the previous five awards (Separate Tables, Elmer Gantry, West Side Story, The Miracle Worker).  Yet, after 1962 it never won the award again.  UA earns 37 nominations but after four quick ones in 1936-37 the main peak was 1957-63 (16 noms, 4 wins including all four losing noms in 1963 but no noms in 1959).  The most recent two Oscar nominated UA films (Pieces of April, Hotel Rwanda) both were nominated for Supporting Actress.
There have been six Globe winners, all between 1952 and 1966 while there have been 22 other nominations with 12 of those coming from 1958 to 1963.  From 1977 to 1979, UA won the BAFTA award three years in a row (Equus, Interiors, Manhattan) but except for another nomination for Equus the studio has never had another nomination.  Pieces of April and Hotel Rwanda are the only SAG noms.
The only two actresses with more than two critics wins (Meryl Streep with 3 in 1979, Patricia Clarkson with 4 in 2003) had those awards shared with non-UA films.  Three other actresses have won two awards each (Valerie Perrine in 1974, Talia Shire in 1976, Maureen Stapleton in 1978) while five others have won one award each.

  • Best Ensemble
  1. Tom Jones
  2. Judgment at Nuremberg
  3. Rebecca
  4. Separate Tables
  5. The Apartment

Analysis:  This is based on the total points for acting for all members of the cast.  Tom Jones with all of its supporting cast easily wins though Judgment also has a lot of supporting points as well.  In fact, Judgment has more points for acting than any other film below ***.5 (not just UA).

  • Best Editing:
  1. West Side Story
  2. Modern Times
  3. Raging Bull
  4. A Hard Day’s Night
  5. The Great Escape

Analysis:  A Hard Day’s Night doesn’t win the Nighthawk but the other four do as does City Lights, Scarface, A Star is Born and Interiors.  There are also 33 nominees including all four non-winning nominees in 1957.
It would take until 1947 for UA to win the Oscar in Editing but it won three more in the next decade and then three in the 60’s and two more later (1976, 1980).  There are also 31 additional nominees.  The strongest stretch is 1958 to 1969 (three wins, 13 more nominees).
There have been five BAFTA winners, all from 1969 to 1981 as well as 9 nominees and UA had three of the four nominees in 1977.
There have been four ACE winners (Rocky, Raging Bull, Wargames, Rain Man) and 12 other nominees, though none since 1979.

  • Best Cinematography:
  1. Raging Bull
  2. Apocalypse Now
  3. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  4. Paths of Glory
  5. West Side Story

Analysis:  There are only six Nighthawk winners though not Good or Paths but it does include City Lights, Modern Times and You Only Live Once.  There are also 34 nominees including all four of the non-winning nominees in 1957.  The Claim (2000) is the only one after 1979.
Even with two categories, UA was never strong here, winning only nine Oscars and only six of them during the split category years.  They did better with nominations, earning 49 with 32 of them coming during the split years (1939-1966) including four each in 1960 and 1963.
There have been three BAFTA winners (From Russia with Love, The Whisperers, A Bridge Too Far) and the first two were “British” winners.  There have also been 13 nominees, the most recent in 1981.
Rain Man is the only ASC nominee.  Three films have won two critics awards each (Bound for Glory, Black Stallion, Raging Bull) while five others have won one each.

  • Best Original Score:
  1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  2. The Pink Panther
  3. The Great Escape
  4. Exodus
  5. A Fistful of Dollars

Analysis:  These are the only 9’s for this category for UA and all of them came in just a space of six years.  There are 12 Nighthawk winners (including all five of these), the last being in 1968.  There are also another 30 nominees, going all the way up until 2000.  From 1946 to 1957, UA earns 12 noms but doesn’t win the award.
There are 12 Oscar winners though Limelight is the only one after 1963 but there are also six Song Score / Adapted Score winners, all from 1963 to 1983. There are 79 additional nominees in the regular category (56 of them from 1938 to 1945) and five more Song Score nominees.
Five UA films have won the Globes and none of them are scores that are nearly as memorable as my list (High Noon, On the Beach, The Alamo, Hawaii, Apocalypse Now).  Another 14 films have earned nominations.
Only two films have won the BAFTA (A Bridge Too Far, French Lieutenant’s Woman) with only 10 other nominees (none since 1979).  The Black Stallion and Long Riders each won the LAFC award.

  • Best Sound:
  1. Raging Bull
  2. Apocalypse Now
  3. West Side Story
  4. The Sound Barrier
  5. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Analysis:  Ten films win the Nighthawk and another 34 films earn nominations with the strongest periods the late 60’s (two noms each in 65, 67 and 68) and the late 70’s (two noms each in 78 and 79).
There are 9 Oscar winners, fairly spread out (two in the 30’s, one in the 40’s, one in the 50’s, three in the 60’s, two in the 70’s) and another 27 nominees though none after 1983.  The studio is strongest from 1939 to 1945 (12 noms).
Three films win the BAFTA (A Bridge Too Far, French Lieutenant’s Woman, Wargames) with another 10 nominees (though none after 1979).  The Birdcage is the only CAS nominee.

  • Best Art Direction:
  1. Tom Jones
  2. West Side Story
  3. The Birdcage
  4. Moulin Rouge
  5. Richard III

Analysis:  Seven films win the Nighthawk, the last in 1970.  Another 31 films earn nominations including films all the way up through 2000.
Nine films win the Oscar, the latest being West Side Story in 1961.  There are actually 51 nominees, including one as last as 1996 but a good chunk of them are in the period when there were unlimited nominations in two categories (21 nominees from 1937 to 1942).Two films win the BAFTA (Rollerball, Richard III) while there are 14 other nominees.  The Birdcage is the only ADG nominee.

  • Best Visual Effects
  1. Jack the Giant Killer
  2. The Thief of Bagdad (1940)
  3. Thunderball
  4. Moonraker
  5. Goldfinger

Analysis:  Surprisingly, there are 10 films that win the Nighthawk though all of them are from 1965 or earlier and seven of them are from 1926 to 1946.  There are another 10 nominees, none of them after 1979.
There are three Oscar winners (Thief of Bagdad, Blithe Spirit, Thunderball) and another 14 nominees, 11 of whom are from 1939-45 and Moonraker the only one after 1966.  Wargames is the only BAFTA nominee.  There have been no VES nominees.

  • Best Sound Editing
  1. Apocalypse Now
  2. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  3. The Sound Barrier
  4. Raging Bull
  5. The Great Escape

Analysis:  Four films win the Nighthawk: Henry V, The Great Escape, Goldfinger and Thunderball.  Another 34 films earn nominations.
UA has had more Oscar winners (It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Goldfinger, Black Stallion) than nominees (In the Heat of the Night).  There have been six MPSE winners but no nominees aside from those.

  • Best Costume Design:
  1. Tom Jones
  2. Henry V
  3. Moulin Rouge
  4. Richard III
  5. Oliver Twist

Analysis:  Nine films win the Nighthawk, the last of them in 1970.  Henry V and Richard III are not among them, being in more competitive years and they are among 24 nominees.
Moulin Rouge won the Oscar then three more in a row from 1959-61: Some Like It Hot, Facts of Life, West Side Story.  Another 17 films have earned Oscar noms.  From 1964 to 1981, UA earned eight BAFTA nominations but never won the award.  Since then, UA won its only nomination (Richard III).  Igby Goes Down is the only CDG nominee.

  • Best Makeup
  1. The Birdcage
  2. Oliver Twist
  3. The Thief of Bagdad (1940)
  4. Limelight
  5. Carrie

Analysis:  Six UA films win the Nighthawk, all of them older films when it was a less competitive category: Thief of Bagdad, Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, Oliver Twist, Bwana Devil, Tom Jones and Carrie.  Another 11 films earn nominations with The Birdcage the only one after 1979.
No UA film has ever been award nominated for Makeup.

  • Best Technical Aspects
  1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  2. Henry V
  3. Oliver Twist
  4. Apocalypse Now
  5. West Side Story

Analysis:  Simply adding up all the points in the technical categories.  Apocalypse Now would be higher if it had a more prominent (and better) score while West Side Story would be higher if it had an original score at all.

  • Best Original Song:
  1. “Help”  (Help)
  2. “A Hard Day’s Night”  (A Hard Day’s Night)
  3. “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away”  (Help)
  4. “Ticket to Ride”  (Help)
  5. “Do Not Forsake Me”  (High Noon)

Analysis:  Help sweeps the Nighthawks, earning all five nominations in 1965 while “A Hard Day’s Night” runs up against Mary Poppins.  “Do Not Forsake Me” earns an Oscar nom, along with another 14 songs not already mentioned while “Follow That Dream” and “New York New York” both win Nighthawks for their title songs.
The Oscars ignored the Beatles and only three UA songs have won the Oscar: “Do Not Forsake Me”, “High Hopes” (A Hole in the Head) and “Windmills of Your Mind” (The Thomas Crown Affair) while 28 others earned nominations including three Bond songs and two from Yentl.
Two songs won the Globes: “Town Without Pity” and “Windmills” while 15 others earned noms (including four Bond songs).  Electric Dreams earned a BAFTA nom in its short-lived category.

  • Best Animated Film:
  1. n/a

Analysis:  No Animated Film ranks above *** and there are only a handful of them anyway.

  • Best Foreign Film:
  1. Mississippi Mermaid
  2. The Last Metro
  3. J’Accuse
  4. Hamlet
  5. Osama

Analysis:  UA, like many of the major studios, didn’t do a whole lot of releasing of foreign films.  I’ve seen over 1000 UA films (over 2/3 of everything the studio released) and only 56 of them were foreign and only 10 of them were ***.5 (I would say or above, but none were above).
Only four films have earned Oscar noms (Live for Life, Last Metro, Man of Iron, Thief).  Partially due to their British films and the Globes English Language Foreign Film category, they have done much better at the Globes (five winners, three of them British, 8 nominees, four of them in English).  Diva (a UA Classics film) is the only BAFTA nominee.  Seven films have won a critics award though one of them (Sound Barrier) was in English.

  • Best Film (by my points system):
  1. Tom Jones
  2. West Side Story
  3. High Noon
  4. Rebecca
  5. Raging Bull

Analysis:  Adding up all of my points.  The combination of all the great acting plus the magnificent sets, costumes and makeup pushes Tom Jones one point higher than West Side Story.

  • Best Film  (weighted points system)
  1. West Side Story
  2. Tom Jones
  3. Rebecca
  4. Some Like It Hot
  5. Raging Bull

Analysis:  West Side Story pulls just ahead with more points in key categories (Picture, Director, Editing, Cinematography).  Some Like It Hot leapfrogs in because of the acting and writing.  Raging Bull finishes just a single point ahead of The Apartment and High Noon.

Best Films With No Top 5 Finishers:

  • The Great Dictator
  • Manhattan
  • Scarface
  • The Gold Rush
  • Sweet Smell of Success
  • 12 Angry Men
  • The Killing

Worst Film with a Top 5 Finish:

  • Exodus

Nighthawk Notables

  • Best Film to Watch Over and Over:  West Side Story
  • Best Line  (comedic):  “Nobody’s perfect.”  (Joe E. Brown in Some Like It Hot)
  • Best Line  (dramatic):  “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”  (Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now)
  • Best Opening:  West Side Story
  • Best Ending:  Some Like It Hot
  • Best End Credits:  West Side Story
  • Best Scene:  the motorcycle jump in The Great Escape
  • Best Kiss:  Talia Shire and Sylvester Stallone  (Rocky)
  • Best Death Scene:  Donald Pleasance  (The Great Escape)
  • Most Gut-Wrenching Scene:  the execution in The Great Escape
  • Most Heart-Wrenching Scene:  the ending of West Side Story
  • Best Use of a Song (dramatic):  “The End”  (Apocalypse Now)
  • Best Use of a Song (comedic):  “Can’t Buy Me Love”  (A Hard Day’s Night)
  • Best Soundtrack (original songs):  A Hard Day’s Night
  • Best Soundtrack (original score):  The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  • Best Soundtrack (compilation):  24 Hour Party People
  • Best Original Song from a Bad Film:  “Mockingbird Girl”  (Tank Girl)
  • Funniest Film:  Annie Hall
  • Worst Film by a Top 100 Director:  Fellini Satyricon
  • Best Sequel:  Goldfinger
  • Worst Sequel:  Rocky V
  • Best Remake:  Les Miserables
  • Worst Remake:  The Big Sleep
  • Best Guilty Pleasure:  The Return of the Pink Panther
  • Watch the Film, SKIP the Book:  Raging Bull
  • Read the Book, SKIP the Film:  The Lord of the Rings
  • Performance to Fall in Love With:  Natalie Wood in West Side Story
  • Sexiest Performance:  Shirley Jones in Elmer Gantry
  • Highest Attractiveness / Acting Ability Ratio:  Daniela Bianchi in From Russia with Love
  • Coolest Performance:  Steve McQueen in The Great Escape
  • Best Tagline:  “Accentuate the negative”  (Ghost World)
  • Best Trailer:  24 Hour Party People
  • Best Cameo:  Jeff Goldblum in Annie Hall
  • Sexiest Cameo:  Lana Wood in Diamonds are Forever

note:  As usual, several categories that are normally here (Best Ensemble, Most Over-Rated) are given a fuller treatment above and so aren’t listed here.

note:  Soundtracks I Own from UA Films (chronological):  West Side Story, A Hard Day’s Night, Help!, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, 24 Hour Party People

At the Theater:  By the end of 2011, I had probably seen over 1000 films in the theater at some point or another and had definitely been to the movies over 1000 times.  But because of timing (fewer films after 1989), UA only has Rain Man, Richard III, The Birdcage, Ghost World and Hotel Rwanda.  Also The Good the Bad and the Ugly which I saw at Cinema 21 with V who has never forgiven me for making her sit three hours in the most uncomfortable theater on the planet.

Awards

Academy Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  260
  • Number of Films That Have Won Oscars:  75
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  136
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  26
  • Best Picture Nominations:  50
  • Total Number of Nominations:  704
  • Total Number of Wins:  137
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Score  (102)
  • Number of Films with Nominations I Haven’t Seen:  9
  • Directors with Most Oscar Nominated Films:  William Wyler  /  Stanley Kramer  (7)
  • Best Film with No Oscar Nominations:  Modern Times
  • Year with Most UA Nominated Films:  1944  (13)
  • Year with Most UA Nominations:  1940  (45)
  • Year with Most UA Oscars:  1961  (12)

Oscar Oddities:

  • West Side Story won 10 of 11 nominations.  The other two UA films with 11 nominations won 4 combined awards and all three of the UA films nominated for 10 awards won 12 combined awards.
  • West Side Story is the only UA film with more than 5 nominations not to lose at last 2 races and the only one with more than 7 nominations not to lose at least three.
  • Of the 26 UA films with 7 or more nominations only Hawaii won no Oscars.  But of the 12 films with 6 nominations, five of them won no Oscars.
  • The 10 Oscars for West Side Story are more than any other director won for UA films.  Billy Wilder had 6 films with 30 nominations but only 8 wins.  Stanley Kramer had 7 films with 35 nominations but only 5 wins.  William Wyler had 7 films with 29 nominations but only 4 wins.
  • The only UA film to win Best Director without a Picture win didn’t even earn a Picture nom – it was Lewis Milestone’s win in the Comedy Director category for Two Arabian Knights in the first year of the awards.
  • David Lean is the only UA director to direct a Best Picture nom without a Director nom (In Which We Serve) and to earn a Director nom without a Picture nom (Summertime).
  • From 1939 to 1988 I only list five Comedies as winning Best Picture at the Oscars and four of them were UA films (Around the World in 80 Days, The Apartment, Tom Jones, Annie Hall).
  • UA won Best Picture three years in a row (1975-77).

Most Oscar Nominations

  1. Rebecca  –  11
  2. West Side Story  –  11
  3. Judgment at Nuremberg  –  11
  4. The Apartment  –  10
  5. Tom Jones  –  10
  6. Rocky  –  10
  7. Since You Went Away  –  9
  8. The Defiant Ones  –  9
  9. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  9
  10. eight films  –  8

Most Oscar Wins:

  1. West Side Story  –  10
  2. Around the World in 80 Days  –  5
  3. The Apartment  –  5
  4. In the Heat of the Night  –  5
  5. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  5
  6. High Noon  –  4
  7. Marty  –  4
  8. Tom Jones  –  4
  9. Annie Hall  –  4
  10. Rain Man  –  4

Most Oscar Points:

  1. West Side Story  –  610
  2. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  515
  3. The Apartment  –  505
  4. Tom Jones  –  495
  5. Marty  –  445
  6. Rocky  –  440
  7. Rain Man  –  435
  8. Rebecca  –  425
  9. Judgment at Nuremberg  –  425
  10. Around the World in 80 Days  –  410

Oscar Nominated Films:

  • UA would have at least one film nominated every year from the 1st Oscars all the way until 1984.
  • UA lead with the most nominated films for four straight years (39-42) and for six out of seven from 39-45 and then five out of seven from 60-66.
  • UA has had the most (or tied for the most) nominated films 15 times.
  • UA started in 1st place for nominated films the first two Oscars.  By 1932, it dropped to third behind MGM and Paramount.  It passed Paramount back into 2nd in 1941 where it stayed until 1953.  It dropped to 4th in 1956 went back to 3rd in 1962 went back to 2nd in 1965 but in 1975 began the decline, moving down to 3rd, dropped to 4th in 1987 and to 5th in 1992 where it still sits.

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  10  (1st)
  • 1930’s:  45  (3rd)
  • 1940’s:  70  (1st)
  • 1950’s:  28  (6th)
  • 1960’s:  54  (1st)
  • 1970’s:  35  (3rd – tie)
  • 1980’s:  9  (11th)
  • 1990’s:  4  (16th – tie)
  • 2000’s:  4  (18th)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  259  (5th)

Oscar Nominations:

  • Columbia has lead in the total number of nominations 9 times, all between 1937 and 1976 with its 45 in 1940 an all-time high for any studio.
  • It started in 3rd place, went up to 2nd place in 1939, stayed until 1953, dropped to 4th in 1955, by 1961 was back up to 2nd where it stayed until 1972 before starting to go down eventually sinking down to its current place of 6th where it has been since 2006.

Years with Most Total Oscar Nominations:

  • 45:  1940
  • 35:  1960
  • 33:  1961
  • 27:  1939, 1963

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  13  (3rd – tie)
  • 1930’s:  107  (2nd)
  • 1940’s:  155  (4th)
  • 1950’s:  97  (6th)
  • 1960’s:  174  (1st)
  • 1970’s:  112  (3rd)
  • 1980’s:  33  (8th)
  • 1990’s:  5  (22nd)
  • 2000’s:  6  (22nd)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  702  (6th)

Oscar Wins:

  • The longest streak of years with at least one Oscar win is 1958 to 1972.
  • From 1933 to 1983, UA never went more than two straight years without winning an Oscar.
  • From 1958 to 1967 it won at least two Oscars every year.
  • UA has lead all studios in Oscar wins in seven different years.
  • Its 12 Oscars in 1961 is tied for the most and its 23 Oscars in 1960-61 is the most in back-to-back years.
  • By 1935, with only five total Oscars, UA was down in 7th place.  It would get as high as 4th but by 1958 and the start of its winning streak, it was still down in 6th place.  By the mid 60’s it was up to 3rd place where it stayed until 1985 and has slowly gone down having won only one Oscar since 1988 and it is now down in 6th place again.
  • UA’s 47 Oscars in the 60’s is the second most for any studio in any decade.

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  3  (3rd – tie)
  • 1930’s:  10  (6th)
  • 1940’s:  13  (7th)
  • 1950’s:  27  (5th)
  • 1960’s:  47  (1st)
  • 1970’s:  28  (2nd)
  • 1980’s:  7  (6th – tie)
  • 1990’s:  0
  • 2000’s:  1  (19th – tie)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  136  (6th)

Critics Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Won Critics Awards:  65
  • Number of Films With Multiple Awards:  33
  • Best Picture Wins:  26
  • Total Number of Awards:  150
  • Category With the Most Awards:  Actor  (33)

Most Awards:

  1. Raging Bull  –  12
  2. Annie Hall  –  9
  3. Manhattan  –  6
  4. Tom Jones  –  5
  5. Coming Home  –  5
  6. Night of Shooting Stars  –  5

Most Points:

  1. Raging Bull  –  782
  2. Annie Hall  –  693
  3. Manhattan  –  413
  4. Tom Jones  –  412
  5. Night of Shooting Stars  –  378

Highest Points Percentage:

  1. Tom Jones  –  48.93%
  2. In Which We Serve  –  43.90%
  3. Marty  –  36.00%
  4. The Sound Barrier  –  34.53%
  5. Annie Hall  –  32.78%

Most Points by Critics Group:

  • NYFC:  Annie Hall  –  340
  • LAFC:  Coming Home  –  240
  • NSFC:  Annie Hall  –  250
  • BSFC:  Night of Shooting Stars  –  230
  • CFC:  Family Thing  /  Ghost World  /  Pieces of April  –  60
  • NBR:  The Sound Barrier  –  200

note:  Raging Bull finished 8th at the NYFC, 2nd at the LAFC, NSFC and BSFC and 6th at the NBR.

Golden Globes

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  122
  • Number of Films That Have Won Globes:  52
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  77
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  18
  • Best Picture Nominations:  58
  • Total Number of Nominations:  307
  • Total Number of Wins:  79
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Actor  (62 – 34 Drama, 28 Comedy)
  • Best Film with No Globe Nominations:  Paths of Glory

Globe Oddities:

  • The only UA film to win Picture, Director and Screenplay also won Actor and Actress as well (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest).
  • Four films have won Actor and Actress but only West Side Story has won both supporting awards.

Most Globe Nominations:

  1. In the Heat of the Night  –  7
  2. Tom Jones  –  6
  3. The Secret of Santo Vittoria  –  6
  4. Midnight Cowboy  –  6
  5. Avanti  –  6
  6. Rocky  –  6
  7. Coming Home  –  6
  8. Being There  –  6
  9. Raging Bull  –  6
  10. Yentl  –  6

Most Globes:

  1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  5
  2. High Noon  –  3
  3. Some Like It Hot  –  3
  4. The Apartment  –  3
  5. West Side Story  –  3
  6. In the Heat of the Night  –  3
  7. Apocalypse Now  –  3
  8. 11 films  –  2

Most Globe Points:

  1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  410
  2. In the Heat of the Night  –  390
  3. Coming Home  –  305
  4. West Side Story  –  300
  5. Being There  –  300
  6. Yentl  –  295
  7. The Apartment  –  285
  8. Tom Jones  –  280
  9. Rocky  –  280
  10. High Noon  /  Judgment at Nuremberg  /  Avanti  –  270

Guild Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  100
  • Number of Films That Have Won Guild Awards:  31
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  32
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  8
  • Best Picture Nominations:  0
  • Total Number of Nominations:  147
  • Total Number of Wins:  39
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Screenplay  (83)
  • Best Film with No Guild Nominations:  Oliver Twist

note:  Because the proliferation of guild awards didn’t happen until the late 80’s (before 1986 there were only four guilds that gave awards) and because UA petered out starting in the late 80’s, the awards here are a bit skewed which is why the number of nominations and awards per film are so small.  Of the 100 nominated films only two (Igby Goes Down, Pieces of April) weren’t nominated for at least one of those four early guilds (DGA, WGA, ACE, MPSE).

Most Guild Nominations:

  1. The Birdcage  –  6
  2. Rain Man  –  4
  3. Hotel Rwanda  –  4
  4. seven films  –  3

Most Guild Wins:

  1. eight films  –  2

Most Guild Points:

  1. The Birdcage  –  240
  2. Rain Man  –  205
  3. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  195
  4. Rocky  –  180
  5. Marty  –  170

The BAFTAs

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  96
  • Number of Films That Have Won BAFTAs:  29
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  52
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  13
  • Best Picture Nominations:  46
  • Total Number of Nominations:  249
  • Total Number of Wins:  61
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Picture  (46)
  • Best Film with No BAFTA Nominations:  High Noon

Most BAFTA Noms:

  1. The French Lieutenant’s Woman  –  11
  2. Women in Love  –  10
  3. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  10
  4. Manhattan  –  10
  5. Apocalypse Now  –  9

Most BAFTA Wins:

  1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  6
  2. Midnight Cowboy  –  5
  3. Sunday Bloody Sunday  –  5
  4. Annie Hall  –  5
  5. A Bridge too Far  –  4

Most BAFTA Points:

  1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  540
  2. Sunday Bloody Sunday  –  465
  3. Annie Hall  –  425
  4. Manhattan  –  425
  5. The French Lieutenant’s Woman  –  415

Broadcast Film Critics Awards  (Critic’s Choice Awards)

Because the BFCA arose after UA had, for the most part, stopped making films, the only film with any nominations is Hotel Rwanda which earned Picture and Actor nominations.

All Awards

Most Nominations:

  1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  31
  2. Raging Bull  –  30
  3. Tom Jones  –  29
  4. Rocky  –  27
  5. Annie Hall  –  27
  6. Apocalypse Now  –  25
  7. Judgment at Nuremberg  –  24
  8. In the Heat of the Night  –  24
  9. The Defiant Ones  –  22
  10. The Apartment  /  Midnight Cowboy  –  22

Most Awards:

  1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  22
  2. Annie Hall  –  21
  3. Raging Bull  –  17
  4. The Apartment  –  16
  5. West Side Story  –  16
  6. Tom Jones  –  15
  7. Marty  –  13
  8. In the Heat of the Night  –  13
  9. Midnight Cowboy  –  12
  10. Coming Home  –  11

Total Awards Points

  1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  1858
  2. Annie Hall  –  1838
  3. Tom Jones  –  1620
  4. Raging Bull  –  1485
  5. The Apartment  –  1396
  6. Midnight Cowboy  –  1259
  7. In the Heat of the Night  –  1249
  8. Rocky  –  1229
  9. West Side Story  –  1153
  10. Marty  –  1150

Highest Awards Percentage:

  1. Tom Jones  –  17.72%
  2. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  16.82%
  3. Annie Hall  –  16.60%
  4. Raging Bull  –  14.91%
  5. The Apartment  –  13.91%
  6. In the Heat of the Night  –  13.27%
  7. Marty  –  13.26%
  8. West Side Story  –  12.97%
  9. The Defiant Ones  –  12.07%
  10. Rocky  –  12.07%

Lists

Lists for studios are harder because I have to come up with them myself.  There are no books that rank the best films by studio and no way to sort through them on the IMDb or TSPDT.

The TSPDT Top 25 UA Films

  1. Apocalypse Now  (#11)
  2. Raging Bull  (#24)
  3. City Lights  (#26)
  4. Some Like It Hot  (#28)
  5. The General  (#40)
  6. The Night of the Hunter  (#43)
  7. Modern Times  (#45)
  8. The Apartment  (#54)
  9. The Gold Rush  (#71)
  10. Annie Hall  (#89)
  11. Manhattan  (#111)
  12. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  (#114)
  13. Stagecoach  (#138)
  14. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly  (#158)
  15. The Great Dictator  (#169)
  16. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp  (#181)
  17. Kes  (#196)
  18. Red River  (#197)
  19. Sweet Smell of Success  (#201)
  20. Paths of Glory  (#243)
  21. Broken Blossoms  (#262)
  22. Monsieur Verdoux  (#272)
  23. West Side Story  (#318)
  24. Kiss Me Deadly  (#315)
  25. Midnight Cowboy  (#327)

note:  The numbers in parenthesis are the position on the most recent (2019) TSPDT list.  This list has had some minor re-ordering recently but none of the Top 25 themselves have changed since TSPDT completely redid their list in 2013.  It’s quite notable that not only does UA have a whopping seven films in the Top 50 but that eight of their top 11 films are Comedies with three by Chaplin, two by Wilder and two by Allen.

The IMDb Top 10 United Artists Films

  1. 12 Angry Men
  2. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  3. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest
  4. City Lights
  5. Modern Times
  6. Apocalypse Now
  7. The Great Dictator
  8. Paths of Glory
  9. Witness for the Prosecution
  10. For a Few Dollars More

note:  You read that right.  According to the IMDb voters, For a Few Dollars More is a better film than Raging Bull, The Gold Rush, Annie Hall, Some Like It Hot or West Side Story.  To quote Homer Simpson: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  Democracy just doesn’t work.”

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office

  1. Rain Man  –  $172.82 mil
  2. Rocky IV  –  $127.87 mil
  3. Rocky III  –  $124.14 mil
  4. The Birdcage  –  $124.06 mil
  5. Rocky  –  $117.23 mil
  6. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  $108.98 mil
  7. Rocky II  –  $85.18 mil
  8. WarGames  –  $79.56 mil
  9. Apocalypse Now  –  $78.78 mil
  10. Moonraker  –  $70.30 mil

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office (all-time, adjusted to 2019)

  1. Thunderball  –  $675.44 mil
  2. Goldfinger  –  $598.68 mil
  3. Around the World in 80 Days  –  $583.47 mil
  4. West Side Story  –  $505.79 mil
  5. Rocky  –  $497.01 mil
  6. It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World  –  $486.49 mil
  7. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  $484.77 mil
  8. Rain Man  –  $390.92 mil
  9. Rocky III  –  $383.89 mil
  10. You Only Live Twice  –  $324.21 mil

Books

United Artists: The Company Built by the Stars, Tino Balio, 1976

The in-depth studio of the history because Balio was given access to UA’s archives in Madison (they are stored at UW, whose press also published the book).  It is a bit strange in that it was published in 1976 but it really only covers up through the early 50s, mainly because, I think the goal was to talk about how it was run by the stars and so when Pickford and Chaplin finally gave up the ghost (and the studio), the story as envisioned, is kind of over.  It isn’t quoted in the History piece at the top because it is so in-depth and it’s easier to quote bits and pieces from other books but this is a must for anyone interested in the studio.

Doug & Mary: A Biography of Douglas Fairbanks & Mary Pickford, Gary Carey, 1977

United Artists only comes into this book a bit, especially the founding of it.  It is more a biography of the marriage between the two than their individual lives (and admits as much in the Preface).  But if you want to know more about the people who formed UA and especially that tumultuous first decade, this is a good source.

Final Cut: Dreams and Disaster in the Making of Heaven’s Gate, Steven Bach, 1985

A fantastic book from, aside from director Michael Cimino and his producer, “the only person to witness the evolution of Heaven’s Gate from beginning to end.”  Bach covers the whole sordid detail and doesn’t spare anyone or anything.  One of the best books ever written about the making of one film.  The first several chapters also do a magnificent job relating the history of United Artists up to that point and really if you want something more than my brief history above, you should read at least the first 60 pages of this book if not the entire thing.

The United Artists Story, Ronald Bergan, 1986

The single best book on the studio.  Not the most in-depth in terms of the history, but it sums up the history quite well in page length summations of each decade (which is where most of my history in the opening piece comes from).  This is one of a series of books published around this time that covered the whole history of the major studios, big coffee table books that are just wonderful to browse through, with details on every film ever released by the studio.  A must-have for any film buff and the place to start for looking at the films from United Artists.  Also, not as outdated as most of the books of this kind because United Artists has done so little since the mid 80’s compared to most of the majors.  I used to look at all these books at the library when I was a kid and I think this is the first one I really got into.  It was the book that made me realize how successful UA had been in the mid 70s with its three Best Picture winners in a row and was one of the first things that actually made me pay attention to film studios.

Goldwyn: A Biography, A. Scott Berg, 1989

This important biography of one of the most fascinating people in film history could have gone in a number of places as Goldwyn dealt with many studios over the year.  But, for several years he was a key player at United Artists and he almost managed to take over the studio in 1939.  Berg was already acclaimed for his biography of Max Perkins but this was just his second biography before he became much more well known with his Lindbergh biography.

Reviews

The Best United Artists Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

The General  (1926, dir. Buster Keaton)

If you haven’t figured out by now, I’m into lists.  In the early years of the blog, that was all I did – writing various lists and coming up with other ones.  I didn’t actually write that much – I just listed with some comments.  One list I considered doing was one of problematic films – films that achieved greatness through the quality of the film but had issues that made it difficult to write about such a film.  The Birth of a Nation, of course, would be the king of that list, a film that is brilliantly made but whose racism is so disturbing and disgusting that you don’t actually want to watch it (if I did documentaries, The Triumph of the Will would actually surpass it).  Here, we have The General.

Now, on a personal level I could discuss The General in the same way that I discuss Vertigo – that it is a great film with great direction that really does some amazing things but is not one of the greatest films of all-time and that it has a reputation (which has diminished somewhat over the last couple of decades) that at one point had it on Sight & Sound’s Top 10 list and had Roger Ebert talking about how Keaton’s films have held up better than Chaplin (that’s ludicrous as is evidenced by Chaplin ranking at #15 on TSPDT and Keaton down at #49).  This is a great film, but it’s a low level **** film, not a film at the level of Chaplin’s Modern Times, City Lights, The Gold Rush or The Great Dictator.

And yet, we still haven’t reached the part that I find so bothersome.  Why do I want to sit and watch this movie about the poor railroad engineer who is in love with two things, his train, The General and the girl, Annabelle Lee.  He is rejected by the army when the war breaks out (he’s too valuable in his job) and she rejects him but due to a confluence of circumstances he will end up in the great train chase of all-time, based on real events.  It will provide a showcase for Keaton’s visual showmanship, the way he makes jokes without dialogue but with visual cues and yet never reacts.

The problematic part, of course, is that it’s the Confederate Army that he tried to enlist in.  Yes, you could point out that this is based on a real chase but since it was the Union saboteurs who were the real heart of the story (Disney would later make a film about the events as well and place them in the proper role of heroes), then why tell the story from the opposite end?

It comes down to that point.  I want to watch the film and admire what Keaton does as director and star but I am so bothered by cheering for someone on the wrong side.  The more time goes by, the more it bothers me especially as people continue to embrace the Confederate flag over 150 years after they lost the fucking war.  It was a war to keep an entire race of people enslaved.  Yes, you can do anything to make someone sympathetic but that’s the problematic part – why bother to do it?  And yet, I never seem to read anything about this.  Ebert, while lavishing praise upon the film, never once comments upon it.  Is it because the film itself isn’t overtly racist like Birth of a Nation is?

It’s tricky because this is being reviewed because it is the best United Artists film I haven’t yet reviewed (or isn’t scheduled for a future review – although as I have just gone through and done my full list and done the links and realize it actually should have been Last Tango in Paris which I thought I had reviewed for my Bertolucci post since it has a picture there but I actually reviewed Last Emperor instead).  It is a great film and it showcases Keaton’s strengths.  I just wish I wanted to watch it more than I do.

The Worst United Artists Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

Galaxy of Terror  (1981, dir. Bruce D. Clark)

Originally for this slot and for the worst UA film at all, I had Invaders from the Deep.  But this is the problem with information – sometimes it’s hard to get exact information.  Invaders from the Deep, also a Sci-Fi film, also from 1981, was a release of several edited episodes of a British show called Stingray and was the very first film ridiculed on MST3K.  But it doesn’t seem like it was an actual feature release so I decided to eliminate it from my spreadsheets.  Landing a couple of points higher and now the worst UA film on my entire list instead is Galaxy of Terror.

I’m going to speak a moment about Ed Wood because it is relevant here.  Ed Wood’s films had basically no budget (or as small as you could have and still have a film get a feature release) and they are often ridiculed for things like people walking into scenery of things falling over.  But that’s not why the films are so bad; they are simply a reflection of how they are bad.  The reason why Wood’s films are so incredibly bad is because Wood himself had no talent.  He couldn’t act, he couldn’t write and he couldn’t direct, yet he often insisted on doing all three (though, thankfully, less of the first as time went on).  His films were already inept at the basic conceptual level before the low budgets made them even worse.

So now I bring you to Galaxy of TerrorGalaxy of Terror is a cheap rip-off of Alien, a pathetic attempt by Roger Corman to capitalize on a film that was made with genuine talent.  Yet Alien, whether considered a Sci-Fi or Horror film, is one of the very best films of its genre.  That’s not because Alien had a much bigger budget, though it did.  It’s because Alien had a brilliant concept at its core (Horror movie set on a spaceship) and then came through with shining talent on every level.  It was brilliantly written, fantastically directed and had a magnificent cast.  Galaxy of Terror shamelessly rips off the plot from Alien (in this case, an undead crew member of a crashed spaceship kills off his crewmates, another ship comes to check the wreckage, a creature kills off the crew) but then inserts some random shit that just makes it go off the rails and sound like a really bad episode from the final season of Star Trek (this is a just a test from super powerful space creatures).

So with the story already botched, then there is the talent.  When your director (in this case Bruce D. Clark) doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page, that’s a bad sign.  When your star are Edward Albert (the son, not the dad), Erin Moran (between seasons of Happy Days) and Taaffe O’Connell you know you’re doomed.  Roger Corman was involved in making this and indeed, directing part of it as I will explain in a minute and he was the master at working with a very low budget but the budget isn’t the problem here.  Given the budget, James Cameron (who was the set designer) actually did some good work and this helped get him his start.

But aside from story problems, directorial problems and a cast that couldn’t bring in five people on opening night, there is the most famous scene in the film.  That’s the “worm sex scene”.  Yes, originally the giant worm (which kills the crew) was supposed to kill O’Connell but Corman decided it would be better box office if the worm raped her instead.  At first it’s hard to even tell that’s being attempted, but then she’s naked and writhing on the floor and it’s pretty clear that this film hasn’t gone off the rails but rather used a nuclear bomb to disintegrate the rails.

And if you just want to watch the sex scene and skip the rest of the film, well, it’s easy to Google and find it on YouTube.  Enjoy.

Bonus Review

Rocky III  (1982, dir. Sylvester Stallone)

This goes against the grain of my usual Bonus Review.  I usually review a film I saw in the theaters, usually in the late 80’s or early 90’s.  The problem is that I have only seen five United Artists films in the theaters and four of them I have already or will in the future review because of the Adapted Screenplay project.  That leaves Hotel Rwanda, which honestly, is so depressing I didn’t want to watch it again.  So, instead, I am reviewing a film that I considered reviewing for my RCM project because I did see it a lot as a kid.  I’m not certain why since I’m not much of a fan of the franchise and I don’t like boxing, but I did.  In fact (ironically, since John Oliver just did a piece on WWE last night), I saw this film enough and I knew so little about wrestling that for a long time I only knew Hulk Hogan as Thunderlips.

Sadly, this film is not all that good, though.  Oh, yes, it has it moments.  If you’re into boxing, the final boxing match between Stallone’s Rocky and Mr. T’s Clubber Lang is pretty impressive and looking at Lang you wonder how on earth he didn’t just beat Rocky to a pulp.  It’s got a great Survivor song, “Eye of the Tiger” (which was thrown into the film itself in a very clunky bit of dialogue) that actually earned an Oscar nomination, helping to pave the way for the Academy to finally start nominating rock songs although they still would have a pretty pathetic track record over the next decade.

The problem isn’t that the film doesn’t do a decent job of what it’s trying to do – the montage of the training (complete with the great Rocky musing which really is one of the more uplifting scores ever written), the tragic scene where Rocky’s trainer, Mickey dies (the first actor to leave the franchise – he would be followed by many others over the years though the franchise is now at eight films and still going strong with Stallone still hanging in there after all these years), the fight scenes themselves.  The problem is that everything in the film is kind of a cliche right from the start.  We start with his win over Apollo at the end of the previous film, losing his edge by becoming rich and famous and pampered, losing the first fight against Clubber badly and then winning the rematch.  In some ways this would not only be the blueprint for Rocky IV but also Creed II.

In short, Rocky III isn’t a bad film, it’s just a relatively mediocre film that actually falls down into the upper **.5 range, a spot that the three films that would follow this would be thankful to reach for before, after a long lay-off, the franchise would finally be revitalized even if it wouldn’t be great.

Post-2011

When I began this post, months ago, there wasn’t a post-2011 United Artists.  But, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the studio, MGM teamed with Annapurna to bring back the label as a distributor.  As a result, UA lives again with three films so far, none of which I have as yet seen: Missing Link, The Hustler, Booksmart.  With Where’d You Go Bernadette also in the lineup (in August), it’s possible that UA could see its first awards attention since 2004 this year.


Best Adapted Screenplay: 1988

$
0
0

VALMONT: Why not? To seduce a woman famous for strict morals, religious ferver and the happiness of her marriage: what could possibly be more prestigious? (Scene 1)

My Top 10

  1. Dangerous Liaisons
  2. Who Framed Roger Rabbit
  3. The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  4. The Accidental Tourist
  5. Little Dorrit
  6. Babette’s Feast
  7. Eight Men Out
  8. A Cry in the Dark
  9. Dead Ringers
  10. A Handful of Dust

note:  Overall, a strong winner, but not a great Top 5 or Top 10.  The Top 5 won’t be this weak again until 1995.  Of course, as is often the case, balanced out by a phenomenal group of original scripts, the second best to-date (A Fish Called Wanda, Running on Empty, Bull Durham, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Wings of Desire).

note:  I checked 1987 and there were 10 films on the list at the bottom with a number in the title; in this year, it’s 14.  From here on, sequels will really become a massive part of this project, ironic in that the #1 film at the box office in this year (Rain Man) is original and has never had a sequel, something only Titanic and Avatar (so far) can say since then.

Consensus Nominees:

  1. Dangerous Liaisons  (240 pts)
  2. The Unbearable Lightness of Being  (160 pts)
  3. The Accidental Tourist  (120 pts)
  4. Gorillas in the Mist  (80 pts)
  5. Little Dorrit  (80 pts)
  6. Who Framed Roger Rabbit  (80 pts)

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • Dangerous Liaisons
  • The Accidental Tourist
  • Gorillas in the Mist
  • Little Dorrit
  • The Unbearable Lightness of Being

WGA:

  • Dangerous Liaisons
  • The Accidental Tourist
  • Gorillas in the Mist
  • The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  • Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Golden Globe:

  • A Cry in the Dark

Nominees that are Original:  Running on Empty, Mississippi Burning, Rain Man, Working Girl

BAFTA:

  • The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  • Dangerous Liaisons  (1990)
  • Babette’s Feast
  • Who Framed Roger Rabbit
  • The Accidental Tourist  (1990)

My Top 10

Dangerous Liaisons

The Film:

In 1988, Dangerous Liaisons would earn a Best Picture nomination and would win Adapted Screenplay but would have its Picture chances killed at the Oscars by failing to earn a Best Director nomination for Stephen Frears which is unfortunate since it was the best of the nominees.  A longer review of the film can be found here.

The Source:

Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos  (1782)

An interesting book but perhaps too subtle, even for me.  Yes, it has a good deal of eroticism in the concept but not in the content and it only got banned because of what it suggested not because of what it actually said.  Because it is an epistolary novel, it has the difficulty of conveying everything through letters, letters which will only convey what the character wants conveyed.  But for all of that, de Laclos does a magnificent job of creating his characters which is why the story has been devoured and adapted through the last two centuries.

Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Christopher Hampton  (1985)

Hampton would brilliantly adapt the novel into a play in 1985 that starred Alan Rickman, Lindsey Duncan and Juliet Stevenson (damn, I wish I could have seen a version of that – that must have been magnificent, especially Rickman), taking all of the hints and suggestions in the novel, all the descriptions of what had happened and turning it into actual dialogue and action (more dialogue than anything else).

The Adaptation:

Hampton did not simply put his play up on-screen.  The play was broken into just 18 scenes.  The film takes much more from the novel, finding many small, bridging scenes between the original Hampton scenes.  What’s more, of course, the film opens things up, adding a lot more locations, allowing it to feel nothing like a filmed play which is to the credit of both Hampton as the screenwriter (adding in all the small scenes) and Frears for the way in which he filmed it.

One notable thing is that all three things have different endings.  In the original novel, after the death of Valmont, Merteuil gets the pox (which destroys her looks) and flees to the country.  In the play, she is still advising Cecile’s mother although we have seen Valmont give the letters to Danceny so there is the likelihood of her downfall (and it does show a silhouette of the guillotine in the background, reflecting the changing times).  In the film, of course, she goes to the opera and is widely booed and the last thing we see if her wiping off her makeup at home, alone.  All three of them work towards the same ending but in very different ways.  Ironically, Valmont, the 1989 film version (which doesn’t use Hampton’s play) has a fourth ending.

The Credits:

Directed by Stephen Frears.  Based on the play by Christopher Hampton.  Adapted from the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos.  Screenplay by Christopher Hampton.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

The Film:

I have already written about this film because it’s the best film of the year.  In fact, it easily wins that, with a two point gap before any other film (such a gap is only in 1/3 of all the years).  It also happened to be the only film I saw in the theaters in 1988 (I would see Rain Man but not until February of 1989).  It is brilliantly inventive with a fantastic story (that comes more from Chinatown than the original novel – see below) and a brilliant performance from Bob Hoskins that must have been extremely difficult, especially in the days before bluescreen acting was a common thing.  What’s more, it’s a film that continues to be brilliant every time I watch it, never failing to make me laugh.

The Source:

Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary Wolf  (1981)

This is, quite frankly, not a very good book.  It does have a very clever idea at the heart of it – that toons are alive and that they exist with us (though those toons speak in actual word balloons and they get photographed for comic strips rather than star in films).  But it’s a rather seedy novel and it seems to be more of an inspiration for the horrible The Happytime Murders rather than this one.  It involves the death of a comic strip mogul, presumably killed by Roger Rabbit and then Roger is killed, presumably by the wife who left him.  It gets a lot more complicated than that and seems to be a pale shadow of The Maltese Falcon in a lot of ways and it doesn’t end happily for almost anyone.

Here’s a good measure of the worth of the book.  In 1994, a little known book became a hit film and it was reprinted with a movie cover and it became a huge seller even though the book wasn’t actually very good and had some big differences from the film.  So why didn’t this book become like Forrest Gump?  Well, partially, I am sure, because it really isn’t a good book at all.  It’s really pretty bad.  But also, it has much more adult material and I am sure Disney didn’t really want to lend a movie cover to it.

The Adaptation:

The filmmakers took the original idea (that toons exist in our world) and the character of Eddie Valiant trying to solve a murder that Roger is being framed for (though in the book, Roger actually did commit the murder – don’t blame me for spoiling a 38 year old book that was the basis for a film made 31 years ago).  Almost nothing else in the book is the same (it’s the present in the book, Jessica doesn’t really love Roger in the book and once starred in essentially a Tijuana Bible, the crimes are different, the results are different).  The plot actually comes from a discarded idea that would have been the third part of a Chinatown trilogy (how the freeways came to L.A.) and brilliantly merges it with the toon idea.  Plus, because they were with Disney they could use a lot of actual toons (and convince Warner Bros to lend theirs as well, which means I got to see my dream team-up of Donald and Daffy).

The Credits:

Directed by Robert Zemeckis.  Screenplay by Jeffrey Price & Peter S. Seaman.  Based on the Book “Who Censored Roger Rabbit?” by Gary K. Wolf.
note:  Only the title is in the opening credits.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film when I wrote about the novel (see below).  But I would have reviewed it anyway because it is one of my Top 5 for the year.  It’s a brilliant film, probably the best of Kaufman’s career but it is a bit hard to decide on whether I should classify it as a Drama or a Comedy (it is currently listed as a Drama).  That’s because one of the things the film does so well is balance the drama of relationships and political strife in a country on the edge with the comedy of a man torn between a woman and a lifestyle, torn between a mistress and a wife, torn between the lightness of being and the darkness of everything else.  Made in English with an Irish lead, a French co-star and a Swedish co-star, directed by an American, based on a novel by a Czech with the greatest cinematographer of all-time from Sweden and it all works together brilliantly.

The Source:

Nesnesitelná lehkost bytí by Milan Kundera (1984)

A brilliant book, one which was recommended to every customer who walked into our Borders store by a co-worker of mine.  Written in Czech but published first in French and then in English before it was published in Czech.  If you have never read it, you absolutely must.  I ranked it at #76 all-time (which definitely is too low according to some) and that’s where you can find a full review of both the book and the film.

The Adaptation:

It’s an interesting film because the film gives you not only the story and the characters but also a considerable amount of the spirit and the philosophy of the book, yet there is far more to the book.  Anything you could possibly put into a film version is in the film (though there are some story cuts – mostly about the events the precede the opening of the book) and a few changes (the way Tomas notices Teresa a bit before they actually meet) but most of what we see on screen is straight from the book.  The book has more, of course, because of Kundera’s style, which is hard to define but really should have won him the Nobel Prize by now (he’s one of the four people from my 2010 list who is still alive).

The Credits:

Directed by Philip Kaufman.  Based on the novel by Milan Kundera.  Screenplay by Jean-Claude Carriere & Philip Kaufman.

The Accidental Tourist

The Film:

I used my original review of this film to note how it’s hard to decide who you are going to trust if you are going to read a review of a film.  My own policy is to basically never read reviews of films I know I am going to see until after I have seen them, but for many people, it’s what convinces them to see a film.  This is, in my opinion, a great film, a low **** film with brilliant acting that tells a bittersweet funny story about a man who slowly comes back to life.  I don’t think it belonged in the Best Picture finalists but it definitely belonged in the race and it’s a much better choice than one of the nominees from that year and many nominees from the era.

The Source:

The Accidental Tourist by Anne Tyler  (1985)

Some couples stay together for the kids.  Other couples fall apart when their kid dies.  For Sarah, she can’t understand why Mason doesn’t grieve in the way she thinks he should (whether or not he is grieving at all is a legitimate question but Tyler herself, in the newer edition with an author’s Q&A in the back adamantly assures the readers that he is grieving in his own way, in fact the only way he knows how and I would argue that the text supports this – that she does a good job of creating this character and if the reader doesn’t grasp that, that’s on the reader not on her) so she leaves him.  Ironically, not grieving in the way people expect is the theme of another film reviewed below.

What happens after that is a sort-of comedy of manners or perhaps of errors.  What it also is, is a journey of Macon back into life.  After he must switch dog boarders (his dog bit someone) he meets a very strange woman who entrances him and after he breaks his leg (thanks to the dog) he returns to the comfort of his family.  The combination of these things makes for a very good novel from Tyler, a winner of the National Book Critics Circle and a finalist for the Pulitzer.

Tyler herself would win the Pulitzer three years later for Breathing Lessons and that book was the reason that it took me so long to read this one (not until 2000 or so, over a decade after having seen the film originally).  I knew a guy in my dorm that I loathed whose writing (which he submitted to the literary magazine) was explicitly derived from Breathing Lessons and it turned me off so much to Tyler (without having read her) that it would be years before I could bring myself to try her (which is a shame because Breathing Lessons, while not as good as The Accidental Tourist in my opinion, is still a good book).

The Adaptation:

A fairly straight forward adaptation of the novel (except for the opening – the book opens while Sarah and Macon drive him a rainstorm and she tells him she wants the divorce while the films opens more gradually) in which the vast majority of the film and the dialogue come straight from the page.

The Credits:

Directed by Lawrence Kasdan.  Based on the book by Anne Tyler.  Screenplay by Frank Galati and Lawrence Kasdan.

Little Dorrit

The Film:

I saw this film probably 25 years ago now or possibly even longer ago.  Even when it was first released and earned its Oscar nominations, I was interested in it because I was just becoming seriously interested in film and because one of the Oscar nominations was for Alec Guinness!  Obi-Wan Kenobi was still getting nominated!  So, I found it on video at my local library at some point when I lived in Oregon and sat through all six hours of it and thought it was fairly good.  It had good costumes and sets but the main attraction was Guinness even if it did have Derek Jacobi (who I already liked) or Joan Greenwood (who, I wouldn’t realize who she was until years later) but I had never read the book (and wouldn’t for years, though I think I read it at least once before my year of Dickens (see below).

Unfortunately, in the time since then, this film has become just about completely unavailable.  It was released on a Region 2 DVD over a decade ago now but I don’t think it’s ever been released on DVD in the States and libraries have been purging all their videocassettes and I just can’t get it.  It doesn’t even seem to be available online anywhere either.  So, I will hope that at some point, the film will become available again, but if not, I can’t really run a review based on vague memories of watching it when I was still a teenager.

The Source:

Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens  (1857)

In my Year of Reading Dickens, I ranked this as the #7 novel which is actually pretty good.  I felt that it did some of the same things that Hard Times had done but I felt Dickens had a more sure story-telling hand in this one.  Perhaps because it had been made into a film with Guinness and Jacobi, I could also visualize those actors in their characters and that helped.  Given that I did write that small bit on it (a decade ago now, holy crap) and can’t review the film anyway, I’m not going to invest the time to read an 800 page Dickens novel for this project when I’m trying to do so many other things.  If I can ever find the film again, I’ll read the book again.

The Adaptation:

Obviously, there’s not much I can add here.

The Credits:

Director: Christine Edzard.  Written by Charles Dickens (novel) and Christine Edzard.
note:  Credits taken from the IMDb.

Babette’s Feast

The Film:

Two elderly women live alone.  They follow in their father’s legacy, living in an austere sect that he had guided in a small fishing village on the coast of Jutland.  They have grown old and the group has grown small.  They think back upon their lives and upon lost changes for love, of a young, dashing soldier for one of them and of a celebrated French music teacher for the other.  But they kept to their faith and their father.

Now, after all this time, the music teacher writes, asking them to take in Babette, who has fled Paris and its revolution.  Without asking any pay, she becomes a housekeeper for them, content to live quietly with them, far away from the life she had known.  For 12 years, this is how the three women exist until they reach the 100th anniversary of their father’s birth.  At this same time, Babette wins 10,000 francs in a lottery that she has been renewing each year.  She wants to do something nice for the women and to provide a good French dinner for the anniversary.

This all seems like a simple story and it was, for the most part, in the original short story by Isak Dinesen, published when she herself was in her seventies.  It is a film without much action, but with some delectable looking food.  In fact, when I first saw this film, in a Film and Lit class in college where we had class in the morning, I actually told my professor it was reprehensible of him to show us this film and then allow us to go back to the dining hall and eat the crappy food there.  Because we don’t just see the food and the loving dedication that Babette pours into it (we learn that she was the chef in a high scale Paris restaurant) but, in a bit that allows for the past to find some closure, the soldier returns to visit his lost love and takes part in the dinner.  As the only one not of the sect, he is used to such fine food and spends much of the meal explaining how fantastic it is, commenting on the various dishes.

This is a film for people who like to watch films.  Very little happens and not even a lot is said.  But the film moves slowly, presents characters who are fully formed and in the end, we get a good experience.  It is well directed and well acted and is very beautiful to look at.  It won Best Foreign Film over Au Revoir, Les Enfants perhaps because it was so much simpler and could just be experienced without the pain of thinking of the past.  In this film, the past is something to inform us, not to condemn us.

The Source:

“Babette’s Feast” by Isak Dinesen  (1958)

I had always assumed that Dinesen, who was Danish, wrote in Danish but apparently she did much of her writing in English.  This story was published in Anecdotes of Destiny, the final short story collection to see print before her death.  It is a nice story, the story of two women who live in an austere sect because their father had founded it and the housekeeper who comes to them from Paris and the feast that is prepared to celebrate the 100th anniversary of their father’s birth.

There is one detail that seems out of place in the book and is certainly ignored in the film.  In the book, it explicitly says that the soldier who loved one of the girls when they were both young, returns thirty-one years later.  That would make the women only 49 and 48 and that seems far too young.

The Adaptation:

The time is changed.  In the film it’s been 49 years since the soldier was in the town which works much better.  But other than that (and that the location has been moved from Norway to Jutland) almost everything in the film comes straight from the book.  It is true that in the original story, the elderly soldier doesn’t say aloud all his thoughts on the food but he did think them and it would have been hard to express his thoughts without verbalization.  Besides, it provides a contrast to the rest of the rather silent meal in which no one discusses what they are eating.  This film was notable for being the first adaptation of a Dinesen work to be filmed in Denmark in Danish, rather remarkable given how important a Danish writer she is (though, true, she mostly wrote in English and then translated her work into Danish).

The Credits:

En film af Gabriel Axel.  Drejebog efter Karen Blixen’s novelle: Gabriel Axel
note:  The writing credits are only in the end credits.

Eight Men Out

The Film:

Why we do things matters.  Even when something very wrong has been done, something that’s not only a crime but just an awful thing to do to the people you know that are counting on you, the reason matters.  It might not excuse it, but it helps you to understand it.

For the vast majority of people who watch professional sports today, it’s hard to imagine how different the world used to be.  Today, a player can make more every time he comes to bat than I make in an entire year and he’ll do it 700 times.  This is not even a relatively recent development anymore, but it was something that came about just after I was born, at a time when professional baseball had already been around for a century.  For a long time, players were treated as indentured servants (not like slaves, no matter what anything might say, since they were paid), unable to choose who to play for, barely having any say in how much they were paid and often being lied to by management.  Thus we have the 1919 Chicago White Sox.  They were a great team, lead by two of the greatest players in baseball history up to that point, both in their prime and one of the best pitchers in baseball.  But they were in the throes of a cheap owner who routinely screwed his players, paying them less than almost any other team in baseball in spite of them being the best.  So the players, with a chance for some real money, decided to do something about it.  It was wrong and they knew it.  Some of them were bothered by that and they are the most interesting.  What’s more, there was a wide range of personalities involved and it leads to a wide array of emotions to choose from when watching their story unfold.  What’s more, John Sayles not only does a good job of making the story clear, of letting you know why the players are doing what they are doing and what the potential windfall is, but also allowing you to realize which players have which reasons for doing what they do.

There were eight players involved in the Black Sox scandal but they kind of fall into three groups.  In the first group are those players who were all in, who wanted their money and didn’t seem that bothered by what was going on, including the ringleader, Chick Gandil (Michael Rooker) and the reckless Happy Felsch (Charlie Sheen).  In the second group are the two pitchers, who were key to the whole plan to work.  Both of them, star pitcher Eddie Cicotte (David Strathairn giving the most conflicted of the performances) and Lefty Williams (James Read) did it for the money because of their own issues (which the film does a good job of making clear) but really wanted to win.  Then there are poor Shoeless Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney), too dumb to really know what to do, the illiterate outfielder who was one of the best in the history of the game who went along with what he was told to do but didn’t seem to ever stop trying, even if he took money and Buck Weaver, the star third baseman (John Cusack) who didn’t take money, didn’t give up on the field and was still thrown out of the game arbitrarily by the new commissioner who refused to even listen to him and who still hasn’t been reinstated.

It helps to be a baseball fan to understand the story that Sayles tells (with himself in a very good supporting role as famous sportswriters Ring Lardner) but it’s not necessary.  Sayles does a great job making clear who all the people are, what they are doing and why they are doing it.  And the why really is important.  Like I said, when people do bad things, it doesn’t excuse them and it doesn’t mean those things should go unpunished.  But it sure helps to have an idea of why they did them and this film does a great job with that.

The Source:

Eight Men Out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series by Eliot Asinof  (1963)

This is a very good book that took Asinof a while to write because no one wanted to talk about it.  What’s more, he had to get it done because the people involved with it were already dying (Jackson and Weaver had already been dead for several years).  It’s a first-rate storytelling of what the background was prior to the series, how the fix was conceived, arranged and then brought about and then the aftermath, as it happened over the course of a year (many people forget that the eight members of the Black Sox played almost the entire 1920 season before they were banned from baseball), the trial itself and then the banning.  One of the better narrative books on baseball.

The Adaptation:

Much of what we get on screen is straight from the book.  There are a few things that are compressed (some of the early bits about how Comiskey, the White Sox owner, was such a cheapskate are compressed from earlier seasons) but the game details are extremely accurate as are bits from the trial (which are from the transcripts, which were also used in the book).  The final scene, of Buck Weaver watching Joe Jackson play, is fictional but Jackson did play under pseudonyms for several semi-pro teams over the years because it was the only thing he really knew how to do.

The Credits:

Written for the Screen and Directed by John Sayles.  Based on the book by Eliot Asinof,

A Cry in the Dark

The Film:

People believe what they want to believe and everything else be damned.  That has become even more apparent in the United States over the last couple of years (I am writing this in mid 2018) but A Cry in the Dark, a film made in 1988 about events that occurred over the years 1980 to 1985 makes the point just as well.  What’s more, it’s not a film that was made or takes place in the United States, but instead in Australia and shows how people will believe any idiotic thing for any idiotic reason and will refuse to change.

Did this case make any kind of cultural landfall in the United States?  It was one of Australia’s most famous trials, likely the most famous in the country that decade but until movie screens (and then award shows) starting showing Meryl Streep streaking out of the tent crying “the dingo’s got my baby” did anyone in this country know anything about it?  Did they even know what the hell a dingo was?  In fact, did the Australians really have an idea of what a dingo was really like and wasn’t that part of the problem?

A family goes camping at Ayers Rock (yes, it’s Uluru now and should have always been, but it was Ayers Rock then) and during the night, their infant is stolen out of their tent by a dingo.  It’s a tragedy and the family is crushed, but things take a darker turn when, after being vindicated in an inquest, a new look at the events suddenly turns the country against the couple, especially the mother.  The mother, now famous in Australia, is Lindy Chamberlain and Meryl Streep’s fantastic performance is just like the news footage shows: a woman who internalizes her emotions and doesn’t meet the public’s idea of what a grieving mother should be like.  She is also a member of a church that is little known and little understood (7th Day Adventist) and suddenly she finds herself on trial yet again, having already been convicted by the opinions of her own country.

This film solidly depicts the insane events that lead to the conviction of Lindy and her husband (the always dependable Sam Neill) before eventually finding its way to her vindication as well.  What’s more, it follows the court of public opinion and we see hosts who complain that they won’t have another dinner party ruined over this trial or people who see if they can carry nine pounds in their mouth and claiming the dogs could never do so (when you think dingo, don’t think dog, think wolf).

It is a measure of the way that people think about things that there is an item of “trivia” on the IMDb that states “Meryl Streep has never revealed publicly her opinion on whether or not Lindy Chamberlain was innocent.”  Given that there’s no way that Streep would have taken the role if she thought Chamberlain was guilty, let alone that there’s no evidence or even thought process that could logically lead you to think that Chamberlain ever would have done such a thing.  But people believe what they want to believe.

The Source:

Evil Angels: The Case of Lindy Chamberlain by John Bryson  (1985)

John Bryson was a lawyer and writer in Australia who was fascinated by the Chamberlain case from the start and began to write about when it still didn’t have much of a conclusion.  Eventually, Lindy would go to jail and then the government would reverse course when a jacket that was long claimed but never found was suddenly recovered due to a random accident of chance.  As a book it starts to drag partially because it’s well over 500 pages and doesn’t need to be and partially because there’s so little to the case and you get worn down by the insane idea that anyone would have ever thought to believe she was guilty in the first place.  I would say that this is an indictment of Australia and their ability to so easily believe ridiculous things in their ignorance of Lindy Chamberlain’s religion but the country I currently live in is currently “lead” by a man who routinely believes such idiotic things, presents them as facts and then demands apologies for anyone who point out that he’s the biggest fucking idiot who ever lived, so Australia, please hold our beer while we do something stupid.  Bloody hell, what Australia did to Chamberlain is nothing compared to what that despicable piece of shit did to the Central Park Five, publicly proclaiming (in a newspaper ad that he paid money for) that they should get the death penalty.

All in all, actually one of the most depressing books I have ever read, though it would have been more so had Lindy not been released before the book was published.  And if all of that doesn’t make you understand why I’m not watching Ava DuVernay’s new series and am thankful it’s not a feature film I don’t know what to say.

The Adaptation:

Most of what we get on screen comes from the book (although not the person running up Ayers Rock) although a lot of stuff was compressed for the film because getting everything in the book into the film would have resulted in a ridiculously long film.  Even a lot of the scenes with other people commenting on the case come straight from the book, though the one with the hostess complaining that she’s not going to have another dinner party ruined.

The Credits:

Director: Fred Schepisi.  Based on Evil Angels by John Bryson.  Screenplay: Robert Caswell, Fred Schepisi.

Dead Ringers

The Film:

The Mantle twins are creepy even when they’re young.  They decide that things are different under water and so, at the age of maybe ten or so, they go up to a neighbor girl and ask her if she’ll have sex with them in their bathtub.  They don’t get less creepy as time goes by but they get good at hiding it.  They become gynecologists and have a clinic together that specializes in fertility problems for women (but not men – they are adamant that they don’t do anything about it when the men in the relationships are the problem).  But what many of the women don’t realize is that Elliot, the more headstrong and confident of the two often seduces the women (well, actually they know that part – they’re the ones being seduced) and then passes off the women to his twin, Beverly.

When things start to change for the men is when actress Claire Niveau comes to the clinic.  As she struggles to cope with a strange birth defect that has left her unable to have children, she falls into a relationship with Beverly.  What’s more, Beverly comes to love her and it starts to draw a line between him and his twin (“You haven’t fucked Claire Niveau until you’ve told me about it,” Elliot says with Beverly replying “Then I haven’t fucked Claire Niveau.”).  Claire tries to push Beverly to be closer to a brother that she believes he is distanced from until the moment where she learns (from someone else) that the two are identical twins.  Confronting them at lunch, certain that both of them have slept with her, Elliot explains that he was with her first and found her uninteresting so he passed her off.

This is the start of the real downfall for the twins.  Beverly starts to descend into madness, with strange visions of bizarre women and he starts to have a set of very disturbing looking tools made for him to work on them.  Drugs start to come into their lives and they can’t keep from spiraling downward.

The twins are played, quite brilliantly, by Jeremy Irons.  It’s interesting to remember that by this time, Irons had already made The French Lieutenant’s Woman, Moonlighting, Betrayal and The Mission, was widely regarded as one of the best actors around (helped certainly by Brideshead Revisited, which, of course, was for television) and still hadn’t earned an Oscar nomination (and he still wouldn’t for two more years when he would win).  Claire is played by Genevieve Bujold in her best performance in almost 20 years as she struggles to understand what she has become involved with.

How to really describe Dead Ringers?  It’s a Horror film, one in which the horrible things are what these men end up doing, not just to other people, but to themselves.  It’s about people who can not separate from each other and when they attempt to do so, even more horrific things occur.  By the time he directed this film, David Cronenberg had already been working for almost 20 years but this was the first film that really showed how good he could be, that mapped out the path that would lead to films like Existenz, A History of Violence and Eastern Promises.

The Source:

Twins: a novel by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland  (1977)

I don’t know why Bari Wood, who had already published a well-received novel would team up with someone else (about whom there is a lot less information) to write a novel, let alone write a novel that was based so clearly on real life events (the lives of Stewart and Cyril Marcus, even though the book itself says nothing about it – but the deaths of the brothers, alluded to in the beginning of the novel and described quite thoroughly at the end are pretty much exactly how those twin gynecologists died in real life in 1975 – if you are interested in their real lives and it’s pretty gruesome, you can read a piece in the book The Secret Parts of Fortune by Ron Rosenbaum).  This book is not really all that good, just a novelization of actual events, something which I have discussed before (1959Compulsion) that I am not a fan of.  Just write an original book or write non-fiction about the case.

The Adaptation:

Cronenberg really only uses the book as a blueprint (as the book Cronenberg by Cronenberg makes clear, he also made copies of a number of articles about the real twins – he doesn’t specify the Rosenbaum article but it’s likely).  Aside from changing the names of the twins and changing their location from New York to Toronto (Cronenberg is himself Canadian and this film is notable for winning 10 Genies), he changed considerable portions of the story (Claire, who is not named that in the novel, is not an actress and she and the twin she is with are actually married for a long time and she leaves him for another doctor) and the whole stuff with the monstrous women and the weird instruments are only from the film.  Even the end is different as both twins die in the book (the discovery of their deaths is the start of the novel and then it goes back and tells the story) just as they did in real life while in the film only one of them dies and it’s in a much different manner than in the original novel.  The film may be creepy as all hell but it’s a far greater artistic achievement.

In Cronenberg by Cronenberg you can follow the long history of the film through the course of a decade including multiple versions of the script and how it hewed to the original story, to the novel (which really they just bought the rights to because it existed) and then in its own direction.  But this is really Cronenberg’s story more than the real story or the novel.

The Credits:

Directed by David Cronenberg.  Written by David Cronenberg and Norman Snider.  Based on the book “Twins” by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland.

A Handful of Dust

The Film:

Is it that Evelyn Waugh’s novels have resisted being adapted to the screen or that people just aren’t that interested in making films out of his fantastic work?  By the time this film was made, Waugh had been dead for over 20 years but the only film versions of his novels had both been back in the 60’s and there have only been two more adaptations since this film even though it was made over 30 years ago.  Or is it because they are so very British that people know that they won’t really translate overseas?  Either way, every now and then we get a film like this (or like Bright Young Things, the next Waugh adaptation in 2003) that reminds us that Waugh can translate to the screen after all.

Perhaps one of the things that hold Waugh way from film is what to think of his films.  Are we watching a Comedy that is satirizing the upper class or a Drama about what happens when these people can’t keep control of their lives.  There is certainly enough tragedy in this film which encompasses the death of a child, a divorce (or at least an attempt at one), a love affair that ends badly because of a lack of money and a man who is trapped in the wilderness for what would seem to be the rest of his life.

However, looking at it another way, all of those same events except the death of the child, looked through a prism, can be a dark comedy about what happens when you have just enough money to not have to work but not enough that the rest of the world doesn’t intervene.

We’ve got poor Tony Bast, who so loves his old estate, the family home that was left to him, the kind of home that has a name (so common in Britain it would seem when you read novelists of this period like Waugh and Forster).  Tony’s beautiful young wife, Brenda, has started an affair with Mr. Beaver, who doesn’t belong in their class because he doesn’t have that kind of money and his mother can’t give him anymore which is why she’s pushing him to marry rich and if Brenda can get a good divorce then he can.  We’ve got a quite talented cast at work as well with James Wilby as Tony, Kristin Scott Thomas as Brenda, Rupert Graves as Beaver and Judi Dench as his mother with Anjelica Huston and Stephen Fry thrown in for good measure (the scene with Fry is quite tragic and quite funny all at the same time, the same way much of the film is and also ironic since Fry would direct Bright Young Things).

All of this will end up with Tony fleeing to Brazil to try and get away from what has happened only to find himself the last survivor of his expedition and held captive to the desires of an elderly man who just wants to have Dickens read to him.  That small role is played with brilliance by Alec Guinness (who, of course, starred in a Dickens adaptation this same year listed up above) and it’s the scene that either brings the depths of the tragedy of the heights of the comedy.

It might be hard to take this film, to be reminded of the idle rich or those who would want to be part of the idle rich.  But the film is well written with a very good cast and it looks quite good (it earned an Oscar nomination for its costumes).  It is a good summation of the kind of line that Waugh would balance between tragedy and comedy.

The Source:

A Handful of Dust by Evelyn Waugh  (1988)

I don’t know that I had ever read Evelyn Waugh before he appeared on the Modern Library list with not only this book but also both Scoop and Brideshead Revisited, though its possible I had read the latter.  But the quality of those books made me seek out more.  I remember that I had already seen the film by the time I first read the book because when I got late in the book I suddenly remembered, hey, this is the film where Alec Guinness demands to have Dickens read to him and holds a man captive in the Brazilian jungle.  It’s not the kind of scene you forget once you’ve seen it because it’s so wonderfully bizarre.

I have no hesitation in naming Scoop as my favorite of the Waugh novels but I’m hard pressed to decide between that novel, this one or Brideshead as his best book (all three are in my second 100).  It’s a great novel that really brings the characters so much to life that it’s not hard to understand any of them even when you might find yourself repulsed by any of them as well.  The question about tragedy and comedy isn’t just that you can’t decide which it is, but also which one you want it to be.

The Adaptation:

This is a first-rate faithful adaptation.  It keeps all of the major characters and their dialogue and a number of the minors ones.  It does cut some of them for time considerations.  But it’s incredibly faithful to the original, right down to the bizarre tragicomic ending.

The Credits:

Directed by Charles Sturridge.  Based on the novel by Evelyn Waugh.  Screenplay by Tim Sullivan, Derek Granger and Charles Sturridge.

Consensus Nominee

Gorillas in the Mist

The Film:

For most people, there comes a time when you decide that the risks outweigh the potential good, that there are lines you have to worry about crossing.  Some people are not like that and they end up as the subjects of films, people like Veronica Guerin, Karen Silkwood and Dian Fossey.  There are levels to such behavior of course, and there are differences in what is going on in their lives that brings up their own deaths.

Fossey, as seen in this film in a magnificent performance from Sigourney Weaver, became interested in working with gorillas in the wild in Africa (in different circumstances than are shown in the film) and once she got there, she wanted to do nothing else in life.  She would have a close relationship with National Geographic photographer Bob Campbell (played solidly by Bryan Brown) but even love (or sex) wasn’t enough to pull her away from her work.  Over the years, no human relationship or interaction would mean more to her than what she would learn working with her gorillas and she loved them beyond reason.  When poachers began to be a serious problem, she fought them with every means at her disposal (including some that are at least partially fictional but are effective when presented on film).  When they murdered her favorite gorilla, she would strike back by burning buildings, storming into restaurants and threatening anyone who would get between her and her work.  Is it any wonder, with no sense of safety for herself, that she would end up being murdered?

The film is solid, with good sound, really good cinematography and a fantastic performance from Weaver in the lead role.  It shows us a woman who was just not going to back down, who had found what she loved in life and was going to protect it at all costs.  We can understand why she acts the way she does and are probably not really surprised when it ends with her death.

But it’s not just Weaver.  It’s the gorillas.  Some of them are real gorillas.  Some of them are the work of Rick Baker.  Some of them are chimps that are disguised to look like gorillas.  But whatever we’re seeing, we always believe it.  The film gives us a vision of a woman who was dedicated beyond all reason.  It’s not a great film but it’s definitely one well worth seeing.

The Source:

Gorillas in the Mist by Dian Fossey  (1983)

This is kind of a difficult book to get into unless you are really interested in gorillas.  The book skips around in time and Fossey only cared about her gorillas and writes very little about what was going on with her.  But, as a record of her time with the gorillas, it is an indisputable classic of its kind and certainly the inspiration for many people who went into zoology.

The Adaptation:

The book provides the title but is it really the source for the film?  The film credits themselves just list “the work by Dian Fossey” which would seem to imply this book but perhaps not.  There is a bit from this book that ends up in the film but since Fossey’s book focused on the gorillas and not her life and since even what ended up on the screen was changed, almost nothing that’s in the film actually comes from this book.

The actual Fossey book mentions very little about Bob Campbell, the photographer that she had an affair with while he was there photographing gorillas.  She mentions that he came and took photographs and very little else.  Most of the story about their affair came from an article by Harold T.P. Hayes (which was then incorporated into his posthumous book The Dark Romance of Dian Fossey, though that book came out the year after the film) and even then, the film just takes the basic ideas from the book and not any actual scenes.  That book, I suppose, would be useful for someone who really wanted to know more about Fossey’s life, especially the more scandalous parts, because that’s what it’s all about.  Personally, I found it uninteresting since Fossey really cared about her work and that was what she wanted people to know and what she deserved to be remembered for.  But the filmmakers clearly felt they needed something a bit more juicy to hang her personality around as well.

The Credits:

Directed by Michael Apted.  Based on the work by Dian Fossey and the article by Harold T.P. Hayes.  Screenplay by Anna Hamilton Phelan.  Story by Anna Hamilton Phelan And Tab Murphy.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

  • Die Hard  –  One of the all-time great Action films but it’s more about the direction and Alan Rickman’s performance. than the script (in spite of a few memorable lines like “Yippe-kay-aye motherfucker”).  Based on the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp.  The rare **** film that doesn’t make the Top 10 (and isn’t reviewed because it earned no nominations for the script either) but that will start to become more common after this point.
  • The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!  –  Adapted because it uses the characters from the show Police Squad.  Not often that a television show that only lasts six episodes gets made into a film, let alone one that spawns two sequels.  High *** but higher on this list because it is so damn funny even if the sequels haven’t aged nearly as well.
  • Red Sorghum  –  Zhang Yimou does a solid job (high ***.5) with his first film and begins his great collaboration with Gong Li.  Based on the novel by Mo Yan who would (much later) win the Nobel Prize.
  • The Last Temptation of Christ  –  Even higher ***.5, a really strong Scorsese film (especially his direction and Peter Gabriel’s score).  I have never taken to the book and found it horribly dense but I don’t like Kazantzakis’ Zorba either.
  • The Milagro Beanfield War  –  Eight years after winning the Oscar for his directorial debut, Robert Redford finally makes a second film with great cinematography and a great Oscar-winning score though the film itself is a 75, my very highest *** without making my Picture list.  Based on the novel by John Nichols.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Cobra Verde  –  The direction from Werner Herzog and the acting of Klaus Kinski are the strengths of this low ***.5 film rather than the script which is based on the novel The Viceroy of Ouidah by Bruce Chatwin.
  • A Short Film About Love  –  Early Polish drama from Kieslowski that’s an expansion of the sixth part of his Dekalog television series.  High ***.
  • Dirty Rotten Scoundrels  –  Remake of a 1964 film (Bedtime Story) that I haven’t yet seen and recently remade into The Hustle.  Fun film with good performances from Michael Caine and Steve Martin.  During the filming, Eric Idle visited Caine on set and David Bowie showed up with his enormous yacht and Caine turned to Idle and said “Eric, we are in the wrong business.” (approximate anecdote remembered from Idle’s recent memoir)
  • 38: Vienna Before the Fall  –  The 1987 Austrian submission to the Oscars, it was nominated for Best Foreign Film.  Based on a novel by Friedrich Torberg.
  • Commissar  –  A 1967 Soviet film about the Russian Civil War finally getting a U.S. release.  Based on a story by Vasily Grossman.
  • Madame Sousatzka  –  I mainly remember this as the performance that Shirley MacLaine won the Globe for (in a three way tie) making her the only Globe – Drama winner in history to fail to earn an Oscar nom but it’s a solid film from John Schlesinger (written by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala in a rare script by her not written for Merchant-Ivory) based on a novel by Bernice Rubens.
  • The Summer of Aviya  –  Starring, written by and produced by Gila Almagor based on her own autobiographical novel, this was Israel’s submission for Best Foreign Film.
  • Crossing Delancey  –  Charming Romantic Comedy from director Joan Micklin Silver (her first feature in nearly a decade) starring Amy Irving.  Based on the play by Susan Sandler.
  • Torch Song Trilogy  –  Because it’s based on a hit play set in New York City and stars Matthew Broderick my brain always wants to think this is a Neil Simon adaptation which isn’t fair to Harvey Fierstein since this was the play that made him known and he is still the only person in history to win the Tony for both writing and starring in the same play.  The length of the play was cut in half for the film version.
  • Talk Radio  –  Oliver Stone directs Eric Bogosian in an adaptation of Bogosian’s play based on the real murder of a radio show host in Denver.
  • The Cat Who Walked by Herself  –  Kipling’s short story gets turned into a Soviet animated film.
  • Without a Clue  –  Amusing concept (that Holmes was a front for Watson with a drunk actor “playing” Holmes) that makes use of Doyle’s characters.  Ben Kingsley is a good Watson and Michael Caine is fun as a bumbling actor then a Holmes that is faking it.
  • White Mischief  –  We’re down to mid *** with this film from future Oscar nominee Michael Radford based on a novel by James Fox about a real murder trial in Kenya in 1941.
  • The Dressmaker  –  British Drama based on the novel by Beryl Bainbridge.  For a long time this was a BAFTA nominee (Costume Design) that eluded me.
  • Violence at Noon  –  In spite of a Criterion DVD release (in the Eclipse Box Set Oshima’s Outlaw Sixties) this film doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page.  Solid 1966 film from Nagisa Oshima that finally played in the States.  Based on the novel by Taijun Takeda.
  • King of the Children  –  Chinese Drama based on the novella by Ah Cheng.
  • The Revolving Doors  –  Canadian Oscar submission based on the novel by Jacques Savoie.
  • Switching Channels  –  This fourth film version of The Front Page which keeps the gender reversal from His Girl Friday and adds in a change to television news didn’t do well but I have always enjoyed it, perhaps because I saw it before I saw any other version.  Partially it’s because I think the three leads (Burt Reynolds, Kathleen Turner, Christopher Reeve) fit in well to their roles.  I’m kind of resistant to re-watching it for fear it will drop several points.
  • The Serpent and the Rainbow  –  The non-fiction book by Wade Davis is fascinating and the movie is at least effective with suitable Horror from director Wes Craven.
  • They Live  –  Another film that’s effective because the director (John Carpenter, in this case) knows how to create atmosphere.  Based on a short story by Ray Nelson this Sci-Fi film about aliens having already taken over is compelling.  It has an odd cast of Roddy Piper (yes, the wrestler) and Meg Foster (or “that chick who looks like Kirstie Alley”).  Most famous because of Piper’s line: “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I’m all out of bubblegum.” which prompted my favorite tweet, “I’m just here to give love and quote Air Supply and I’m all out of love.”
  • A Month in the Country  –  Colin Firth and Kenneth Branagh, both quite young, star in this adaptation of the novel by J. L. Carr about men recovering after the Great War.
  • The Dagger of Kamui  –  An Anime film from Rintaro based on the novel series that was popular in Japan.  We’re down to low ***.
  • Mélo  –  Alain Resnais’ 1986 French Drama is based on a play by Henri Bernstein.
  • Life is a Dream  –  Raúl Ruiz, the well-known Chilean director goes to France to direct this film based somewhat on the 17th Century play.
  • Oliver & Company  –  In a year where the Academy only nominated three songs I still find it odd that they didn’t bother with Huey Lewis’ nice opening number “Once Upon a Time in New York City” or Billy Joel’s joyous “Why Should I Worry”.  I ranked this at #39 of Disney’s first 50 animated films.  Derived from Oliver Twist, of course, though with animals.
  • When the Wind Blows  –  Kind of strange British animated film based on the graphic novel by Raymond Briggs.
  • Bright Lights, Big City  –  Michael J. Fox sheds his straight-laced image as a cocaine addled fact-checker in the adaptation of Jay McInerney’s novel.
  • Funny Farm  –  Surprised to realize this was adapted because it just felt like an original script written for Chevy Chase.  But it’s actually based on a novel by Jay Cronley who will also have film versions of novels in each of the next two years.
  • Cocoon: The Return  –  Let the sequel mania begin with at least 18 more by the end of the list.  Not bad and I would say that at low *** it’s about as good as you can expect from a film with Steve Guttenberg (the original was much better than you would expect from a film with Steve Guttenberg).
  • Mr. North  –  A Huston family affair.  Co-written and produced by John before he died, directed by Danny years before he started acting on film, starring Anjelica.  Based on Theophilus North, the last novel by Thornton Wilder.
  • Daffy Duck’s Quackbusters  –  The last of the Looney Tunes clip show movies and the last film for Mel Blanc before he died.
  • Return to Snowy River  –  A better title than the original Australian title (The Man from Snowy River II).  It’s got Brian Dennehy instead of Kirk Douglas and that’s a big drop-off.
  • A gauche en sortant de l’ascenseur  –  Former Oscar nominee Edouard Molinaro directs this Comedy based on the play by Gerard Lauzier.
  • Pelle the Conquerer  –  While I don’t want to revisit Switching Channels, I probably should revisit this film because it’s been a very long time and I might have just been too young to appreciate it.  I thought von Sydow was good but that the film (based on the novel by Martin Andersen Nexø) was just too slow.  Obviously the Oscars disagreed as it won Best Foreign Film.  We’re at **.5.
  • The Beast  –  It’s not often that a War film is based on a play but that’s what we’ve got here about a Soviet tank crew in the Afghanistan invasion.  Based on the play Nanawatai by William Mastrosimone.
  • Biloxi Blues  –  What do you know, it’s a Neil Simon adaptation starring Matthew Broderick.  This would have been the first time I saw Penelope Ann Miller and I was totally hooked.
  • Clara’s Heart  –  Neal Patrick Harris before he became fun (even before Doogie Howser) and Whoopi Goldberg in a serious role.  Spare me.  Based on a novel by Joseph Olshan.
  • Short Circuit 2  –  Usually not good when you lose the leads from the first film for the sequel but when your lead was Steve Guttenberg, not all that bad.  Mediocre sequel.  Could have been worse.  Down to mid **.5.
  • The Lair of the White Worm  –  The book, by Bram Stoker, was interesting, but a big drop-off from Dracula.  The film is directed by Ken Russell, so it’s kind of a mess in spite of young Hugh Grant and Peter Capaldi.
  • Light Years  –  Edited version of Gandahar, the animated René Laloux film based on Jean-Pierre Andrevon’s novel Les Hommes-machines contre Gandahar.
  • Crocodile Dundee II  –  Any time this film comes on, if it’s close to the end, I watch.  The ending is really well-done with a solid score and good cinematography.  In fact, most of the Australia scenes are well done but the first half of the film is just a complete drag.
  • Scrooged  –  Bill Murray in a modern take on A Christmas Carol.  I guess this was the year for Dickens.  Hard to find a consistent tone, moving between quite dark and overly sentimental.
  • The Chocolate War  –  After a decent career as an actor, Keith Gordon, still in his 20’s, turns to directing with this adaptation of the novel that is a staple of middle school when it’s not being banned.  Now we’re at low **.5.
  • Consuming Passions  –  Sadly this film doesn’t work which is odd since it’s based on a teleplay by Michael Palin and Terry Jones.
  • Bat 21  –  War film with Gene Hackman and Danny Glover based on the non-fiction book by Michael C. Anderson about rescuing a pilot who was shot down in Vietnam.
  • Sunset  –  The old oscars.org didn’t list this as adapted but apparently this Blake Edwards Comedy is based on an unpublished novel by Rod Amateu.
  • Cop  –  My first year at Powells I read all of James Ellroy.  The Lloyd Hopkins books (of which this is an adaptation of the first – Blood on the Moon) are not just not very good but astoundingly bad when compared to what he would do with his L.A. Quartet.  James Woods is rather proper casting to play Hopkins though.
  • Appointment with Death  –  The all-star adaptations of Agatha Christie with Ustinov as Poirot had really run out of steam.
  • The Dead Pool  –  Speaking of running out of steam, here is the final Dirty Harry film.
  • Pound Puppies and the Legend of the Big Paw  –  The toy line and television series gets a feature film.
  • D.O.A.  –  We hit ** with this remake of the 1949 film.  You should stick with the original because this one is a dud.  After playing lovers who aren’t on-screen together in Innerspace, stars Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan actually end up getting married after starring together in this film.
  • Bravestarr: The Movie  –  Unlike The Secret of the Sword, this film is an add-on to the television show after it ended its run as opposed to an edited together version of several episodes.  A bomb as a film which is what happens when you make a film from a show that ran only one season, The Naked Gun notwithstanding.
  • Big Top Pee-Wee  –  I never liked Pee-Wee Herman and without Tim Burton to make it stylistic, there was nothing worthwhile for this film to do.  We’re down to mid **.
  • The Blob  –  Let’s remake a Steve McQueen film and give the lead role to Kevin Dillon.  How can that go wrong?
  • Patti Rocks  –  Nominated for four Indie Spirit awards including Best Picture which I can’t fathom because it’s dreadfully boring.  The film is technically a sequel to Loose Ends, a student film from UCLA from the film’s director and writer.
  • A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon  –  We’re down to low ** with this terrible coming-of-age film starring River Phoenix.  Based on the novel Aren’t You Even Gonna Kiss Me Goodbye.
  • Poltergeist III  –  Creepy and bad to begin with, made more so since child star Heather O’Rourke had died before the film was released.
  • The Boost  –  Coming out at the time when I was first getting interested in film, this was the first film I ever saw that made me realize that a Drama trying to be good could be bad.  James Woods was known as a good actor and Sean Young was hot (and not yet nuts) but the film was just a disaster about a couple of unlikeable cocaine addicts.  Actually based on a book by Ben Stein and let’s remember that before Stein was Ferris Bueller’s monotonous Econ teacher he was a Nixon speechwriter.
  • Everybody’s All-American  –  Dreary Sports Drama with Dennis Quaid and Jessica Lange based on the novel by longtime SI writer and NPR contributor Frank Deford.  Directed by future Oscar nominee Taylor Hackford.
  • Beaches  –  Another one I was surprised to realize was adapted.  Sappy Drama based on the novel by Iris Rainer Dart.  Most memorable for Mayim Bailik’s performance (as a young Bette Midler) of “The Glory of Love” which is wonderful, although watching it just now, it’s clear the pianist is faking it since the keys she is playing are way too far down to produce the higher notes in the song.  Also put the phrase “over-the-shoulder-boulder-holder” in my head and it’s still there almost 30 years after I watched the film (for the only time) with Leah and Rachel Newkirk in their basement the same week we watched Heathers and Earth Girls are Easy in August of 1989.
  • Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers  –  After the third film and the idea of a series of anthology films without Michael Myers didn’t pan out, they returned to him six years later and over three decades later we’re still getting films with him.
  • Taffin  –  After missing out on James Bond (for the time being), Pierce Brosnan follows the conclusion of Remington Steele by starring as the Irish debt collector from Lyndon Mallett’s series of books as the filmmakers ignore the description of the character as unattractive and overweight.
  • Salome’s Last Dance  –  Glenda Jackson returns to acting for Ken Russell in this adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s play Salome.
  • The Prince of Pennsylvania  –  Keanu Reeves is the it guy lately thanks to the third John Wick with everyone ignoring that he still hasn’t learned how to act.  Here he is back in 1988 when he couldn’t act either.  Based on the novel by Ron Nyswaner.
  • Nightfall  –  Cheap Sci-Fi film based on the Asimov novel.  We drop all the way to mid *.5 with this one.
  • Cocktail  –  Yet another adaptation surprise.  Heywood Gould wrote the novel and screenplay.  Gave us the song “Kokomo” which I enjoy in spite of my brain telling me that it’s an objectively terrible song.
  • Arthur 2: On the Rocks  –  Now we’re into * films.  It doesn’t help that I hate Dudley Moore and don’t find him funny and that the best thing about the first film (John Gielgud) is barely in it because he died in the first one.
  • Critters 2: The Main Course  –  A bad Horror film gets a bad sequel.
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master  –  A good Horror film has almost hit rock bottom with its sequels (the fifth film will be worse).  Directed by Renny Harlin, a director so bad his best move was somehow getting Geena Davis to be married to him for five years.
  • Monkey Shines  –  Just because it’s directed by George Romero doesn’t mean it can’t be complete crap.  Adapted from a novel by Michael Stewart.
  • Ernest Saves Christmas  –  When I did the 20th Century Fox post I talked (in the comments field) about how I can’t see every film from a studio and then hinted that it wasn’t completely true.  So, I’m at 677 of the 712 films released by Disney which is why I have seen this stupid sequel and almost all of the remaining films are available (for a cost) on YouTube, so my plan when I get to the Disney post is to rank every Disney film ever because I will have (hopefully) seen them all.  I’m hoping that they’ll put them all on their Disney+ service when it debuts in the fall and I can avoid paying individually to watch them on YouTube.  Of my 34 films remaining, 28 are pre-Touchstone / pre-1984 Buena Vista films, two are Touchstone films (one of which, Off Beat, is bizarrely the only one of the 34 not available for a cost on YouTube) and three are mid-90’s Hollywood Pictures films.  Thankfully, my list will go down on Tuesday when TCM is showing four films from the Disney vault that are on that list.
  • King Lear  –  Godard botches Shakespeare.  Low *.
  • Iron Eagle II  –  Totally unnecessary sequel to a film that wasn’t all that good to begin with.  This line applies as well to almost every film remaining on the list.
  • Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood  –  When they couldn’t get New Line to agree to Jason versus Freddy they basically made Jason versus Carrie.  We’ve hit the .5 films.
  • Phantasm II  –  Thankfully after this film, the Phantasm films would go direct to video.
  • Rambo III  –  The Iron Eagle line still qualifies if the previous film referred to is Rambo rather than First Blood.  Rambo goes to Afghanistan and blows shit up.
  • Hellbound: Hellraiser II  –  Clive Barker just provides the story but mostly bails on the further tales of Pinhead.
  • Police Academy 5: Assignment Miami Beach  –  Maybe I’m wrong about Guttenberg because he bailed on this franchise and it got even worse.
  • Messenger of Death  –  Not a shitty sequel.  Just a shitty Charles Bronson / J. Lee Thompson vigilante film.  Based on a novel by Rex Burns.
  • Caddyshack II  –  The worst film of 1988, an opinion I have had basically since I first saw it (when it first came to cable, sometime in 1989 I think) and for a long time (until 1995 when I saw Showgirls, I think), the worst film I had ever seen.  Reviewed in full in the Nighthawk Awards.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • Burning Secret  –  “Notable” is both subjective and vague but this film from director Andrew Birkin starring Klaus Maria Brandauer and Faye Dunaway is based on a Stefan Zweig short story.
  • Stars and Bars  –  Only “notable” in that F.T. seems to think I’m avoiding it and it’s one of only two Daniel Day-Lewis films I haven’t seen (Nanou is the other).  Satirical take on America from the novel by William Boyd.  Nearly impossible to find and I’ve been trying to find it for years.

The highest grossing adapted film of the year is Vice Versa (#73, $13.66 mil) which is ironic, because the highest grossing film at all that I haven’t seen from 1987 is Like Father Like Son, the previous body-switching movie but that one wasn’t adapted.

A Century of Film: Actor and Supporting Actor (the lists)

$
0
0


A Century of Film

Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress

The Lists

Introduction

I have done two previous posts for A Century of Film, one on Best Actor and one on Best Supporting Actor.  In those two posts, I discussed the history of each award and all the various groups that give out such awards.  I also included all-time lists for points from each group based on my own point system.

The problem, as perhaps you can see, is that I discussed each award separately, yet many actors over the years have won or earned nominations in both categories.  It wasn’t always like that, of course.  Spencer Tracy earned all 10 of his Oscar nominations as a lead while Claude Rains and Walter Brennan were only ever competing in supporting.  Walter Huston became the first person to earn back to back Oscar acting nominations in different categories in 1941 (Actor) and 1942 (Supporting Actor).  In more recent years, of course, a star like Jack Nicholson can win an Oscar in lead then supporting then lead again while the likes of Al Pacino can earn nominations in both categories in one year.

So, this list is designed to combine the statistics from both groups.  I again only use my point system rather than tally up nominations and awards (35 for a lead nomination, 30 for supporting, double that if they win).  But I have included here the complete top results from all the awards groups tallying both male acting categories.  To get an idea of how actors were appreciated by various awards groups, I have also included, for some of the longer lasting awards, top 5 results by decade as well as a “Progression of the #1 Spot”.  That’s the running forward total of who is the all-time leader in points as the years progress.

Again, this is covering my Century of Film, which began, for the purposes of this project, in 1912 and ends in 2011.  There will be a section at the end that covers the history since 2011.

The Academy Awards

Progression of the #1 Spot:

  • 1928-30:  Emil Jannings  –  105
  • 1931-32:  Emil Jannings  /  George Arliss  –  105
  • 1933-34:  Emil Jannings  /  George Arliss  /  Fredric March  /  Wallace Beery  –  105
  • 1935:  Emil Jannings  /  George Arliss  /  Fredric March  /  Wallace Beery  /  Charles Laughton  /  Clark Gable  –  105
  • 1936:  Paul Muni  –  140
  • 1937:  Paul Muni  –  175
  • 1938-39:  Paul Muni  /  Spencer Tracy  –  175
  • 1940:  Walter Brennan  –  180
  • 1941-45:  Walter Brennan  –  210
  • 1946-49:  Walter Brennan  /  Fredric March  –  210
  • 1950:  Walter Brennan  /  Fredric March  /  Spencer Tracy  –  210
  • 1951:  Fredric March  –  245
  • 1952-54:  Fredric March  /  Gary Cooper  –  245
  • 1955-57:  Fredric March  /  Gary Cooper  /  Spencer Tracy  –  245
  • 1958-59:  Spencer Tracy  –  280
  • 1960:  Spencer Tracy  –  315
  • 1961-66:  Spencer Tracy  –  350
  • 1967-91:  Spencer Tracy  –  385
  • 1992-96:  Jack Nicholson  –  395
  • 1997-01:  Jack Nicholson  –  465
  • 2002-11:  Jack Nicholson  –  500

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  500
  2. Spencer Tracy  –  385
  3. Laurence Olivier  –  380
  4. Marlon Brando  –  345
  5. Paul Newman  –  345
  6. Jack Lemmon  –  340
  7. Dustin Hoffman  –  315
  8. Al Pacino  –  300
  9. Peter O’Toole  –  280
  10. Robert De Niro  –  270
  11. Michael Caine  –  260
  12. Fredric March  –  245
  13. Gary Cooper  –  245
  14. Tom Hanks  –  245
  15. Sean Penn  –  245
  16. Richard Burton  –  240
  17. Robert Duvall  –  230
  18. Denzel Washington  –  230
  19. Jeff Bridges  –  230
  20. Gene Hackman  –  225

Top 5 Total Points: 1930-39

  1. Spencer Tracy  –  175
  2. Paul Muni  –  140
  3. Fredric March  –  140
  4. Clark Gable  –  140
  5. Walter Brennan  –  120

Top 5 Total Points: 1940-49

  1. Gary Cooper  –  140
  2. Laurence Olivier  –  140
  3. Gregory Peck  –  140
  4. Walter Huston  –  125
  5. Charles Coburn  –  120

Top 5 Total Points: 1950-59

  1. Marlon Brando  –  210
  2. Anthony Quinn  –  155
  3. Arthur Kennedy  –  125
  4. Humphrey Bogart  –  105
  5. Jose Ferrer  /  Spencer Tracy  /  Alec Guinness  /  William Holden  –  105

Top 5 Total Points: 1960-69

  1. Richard Burton  –  140
  2. Peter O’Toole  –  140
  3. Peter Ustinov  –  120
  4. Spencer Tracy  –  105
  5. Paul Newman  /  Burt Lancaster  /  Rod Steiger  /  Rex Harrison  –  105

Top 5 Total Points: 1970-79

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  175
  2. Al Pacino  –  170
  3. Robert De Niro  –  130
  4. Jason Robards  –  120
  5. Jack Lemmon  /  George C. Scott  /  Marlon Brando  /  Peter Finch  /  Dustin Hoffman  –  105

Top 5 Total Points: 1980-89

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  160
  2. Paul Newman  –  140
  3. William Hurt  –  140
  4. Dustin Hoffman  –  105
  5. Robert Duvall  –  105

Top 5 Total Points: 1990-99

  1. Tom Hanks  –  175
  2. Anthony Hopkins  –  170
  3. Al Pacino  –  130
  4. Kevin Spacey  –  130
  5. Jack Nicholson  /  Geoffrey Rush  –  100

Top 5 Total Points:  2000-11

  1. Sean Penn  –  175
  2. George Clooney  –  165
  3. Jeff Bridges  –  135
  4. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  130
  5. Daniel Day-Lewis  /  Russell Crowe  /  Johnny Depp  –  105

The Critics Awards

Note:  The points here are the same, with one exception – they are weighted.  Full points go to winners from the New York Film Critics and LA Film Critics.  I count the points at 90% (63 for lead, 54 for supporting) for the National Society of Film Critics as well as the Boston and Chicago groups.  For the National Board of Review, it’s 80% (56 for lead, 48 for supporting).

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  1372
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  955
  3. Robert De Niro  –  702
  4. Gene Hackman  –  639
  5. Bill Murray  –  496
  6. Burt Lancaster  –  406
  7. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  404
  8. Robert Duvall  –  389
  9. Martin Landau  –  384
  10. Jeremy Irons  –  378
  11. Nicolas Cage  –  378
  12. Forest Whitaker  –  378
  13. Joe Pesci  –  372
  14. William Hurt  –  363
  15. Anthony Hopkins  –  354
  16. Jon Voight  –  329
  17. Dustin Hoffman  –  329
  18. Laurence Olivier  –  322
  19. Sean Penn  –  322
  20. Denzel Washington  –  322

note:  Though he doesn’t earn enough points to make the Top 20 list, Albert Finney is utterly unique among the critics winners.  He won four critics awards over the course of his career (good enough for 36th place).  What makes him unique is that all four of them were given by a different group and all four them were in different years because they were for different films.  In 1960, he won the NBR for Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, in 1963 he won the NYFC for Tom Jones, in 1984 he won the LAFC for Under the Volcano and in 1994 he won the BSFC for The Browning Version.

Top All-Time by Critics Group (not weighted):

  • NYFC:  Jack Nicholson  –  400
  • LAFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  210
  • NSFC:  Jack Nicholson  –  330
  • BSFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  210
  • CFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis  /  Jeremy Irons  /  Tom Hanks  –  140
  • NBR:  Jack Nicholson  –  320

note:  For the record, Nicholson is a close second at the LAFC (200) and BSFC (190).

The BAFTAs

Progression of the #1 Spot:

  • 1952:  Ralph Richardson  /  Marlon Brando  –  70
  • 1953:  Marlon Brando  –  140
  • 1954-57:  Marlon Brando  –  210
  • 1958-60:  Marlon Brando  –  245
  • 1961-68:  Peter Finch  –  280
  • 1969-70:  Laurence Olivier  –  305
  • 1971-76:  Peter Finch  –  350
  • 1977-11:  Peter Finch  –  420

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Peter Finch  –  420
  2. Jack Lemmon  –  350
  3. Marlon Brando  –  345
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  340
  5. Jack Nicholson  –  325
  6. Michael Caine  –  310
  7. Denholm Elliott  –  300
  8. Dustin Hoffman  –  280
  9. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  280
  10. Albert Finney  –  270
  11. Geoffrey Rush  –  255
  12. Sidney Poitier  –  245
  13. Dirk Bogarde  –  245
  14. Anthony Hopkins  –  240
  15. Gene Hackman  –  230
  16. John Hurt  –  220
  17. John Gielgud  –  220
  18. Spencer Tracy  –  210
  19. Burt Lancaster  –  205
  20. Paul Newman  –  205

note:  Because the Supporting Actor category wasn’t introduced until 1968, I am only including decade lists from the 70’s forward.

Top 5 Total Points: 1970-1979

  1. Gene Hackman  –  170
  2. Peter Finch  –  140
  3. Jack Nicholson  –  140
  4. John Hurt  –  120
  5. Edward Fox  /  Robert Duvall  –  120

Top 5 Total Points:  1980-1989

  1. Denholm Elliott  –  240
  2. Michael Caine  –  140
  3. Bob Hoskins  –  135
  4. Sean Connery  –  130
  5. Ray McAnally  –  120

Top 5 Total Points:  1990-1999

  1. Anthony Hopkins  –  175
  2. Geoffrey Rush  –  160
  3. Alan Rickman  –  155
  4. Ralph Fiennes  –  130
  5. Kevin Spacey  –  105

Top 5 Total Points:  2000-2011

  1. Colin Firth  –  170
  2. George Clooney  –  165
  3. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  160
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  140
  5. Russell Crowe  –  105

The Golden Globes

One little tidbit to note here because there is nowhere else to really put it.  There have been more individual actors nominated over the years in Actor – Comedy / Musical at the Globes than in Drama even though the latter category existed for seven more years.  Also, there have been nearly as many people nominated in Supporting Actor (275) as in Actor (299) even though there are half as many nominees each year.

Progression of the #1 Spot

  • 1943:  Paul Lukas  –  70
  • 1944:  Paul Lukas  /  Alexander Knox  –  70
  • 1945:  Paul Lukas  /  Alexander Knox  /  Ray Milland  –  70
  • 1946:  Lukas / Knox / Milland / Gregory Peck  –  70
  • 1947:  Lukas / Knox / Milland / Peck / Ronald Colman  –  70
  • 1948:  Lukas / Knox / Milland / Peck / Colman / Laurence Olivier  –  70
  • 1949:  Lukas / Knox / Milland / Peck / Colman / Olivier / Broderick Crawford  –  70
  • 1950-56:  Edmund Gwenn  –  120
  • 1957:  Marlon Brando  –  140
  • 1958-61:  Danny Kaye  /  David Niven  –  175
  • 1962:  Danny Kaye  /  David Niven  /  Jack Lemmon  –  175
  • 1963-64:  Jack Lemmon  –  245
  • 1965-67:  Jack Lemmon  –  280
  • 1968-69:  Jack Lemmon  –  315
  • 1970-71:  Jack Lemmon  –  350
  • 1972:  Jack Lemmon  –  420
  • 1973:  Jack Lemmon  –  455
  • 1974-78:  Jack Lemmon  –  490
  • 1979:  Jack Lemmon  –  525
  • 1980-81:  Jack Lemmon  –  560
  • 1982-85:  Jack Lemmon  –  595
  • 1986-88:  Jack Lemmon  –  630
  • 1989-01:  Jack Lemmon  –  665
  • 2002:  Jack Nicholson  –  710
  • 2003-05:  Jack Nicholson  –  745
  • 2006-11:  Jack Nicholson  –  775

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  775
  2. Jack Lemmon  –  665
  3. Al Pacino  –  515
  4. Dustin Hoffman  –  490
  5. Peter O’Toole  –  385
  6. Tom Hanks  –  385
  7. Johnny Depp  –  385
  8. Robin Williams  –  380
  9. Michael Caine  –  375
  10. Gene Hackman  –  370
  11. Tom Cruise  –  335
  12. Walter Matthau  –  315
  13. Robert De Niro  –  315
  14. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  310
  15. Jon Voight  –  305
  16. Paul Newman  –  305
  17. Warren Beatty  –  280
  18. Jim Carrey  –  280
  19. Marlon Brando  –  275
  20. Albert Finney  /  Denzel Washington  /  George Clooney  –  270

note:  Paul Newman has nine Globe noms but never won.

Top 5 Total Points: 1943-1949:

  1. Paul Lukas  –  70
  2. Alexander Knox  –  70
  3. Ray Milland  –  70
  4. Gregory Peck  –  70
  5. Ronald Colman  /  Laurence Olivier  /  Broderick Crawford  –  70

Top 5 Total Points: 1950-1959:

  1. Danny Kaye  –  175
  2. David Niven  –  175
  3. Marlon Brando  –  140
  4. Frank Sinatra  –  130
  5. Spencer Tracy  /  Fredric March  /  Gary Cooper  /  Kirk Douglas  –  105

Top 5 Total Points:  1960-1969:

  1. Jack Lemmon  –  245
  2. Peter O’Toole  –  245
  3. Sidney Poitier  –  175
  4. Rex Harrison  –  175
  5. Paul Newman  –  170

Top 5 Total Points:  1970-1979:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  245
  2. Al Pacino  –  245
  3. Jack Lemmon  –  210
  4. Walter Matthau  –  175
  5. five actors  –  140

Top 5 Total Points:  1980-1989:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  230
  2. Jack Lemmon  –  140
  3. Dustin Hoffman  –  140
  4. Dudley Moore  –  140
  5. Robin Williams  –  140
  6. Steve Martin  –  140

Top 5 Total Points:  1990-1999:

  1. Robin Williams  –  240
  2. Tom Hanks  –  210
  3. Jim Carrey  –  210
  4. Al Pacino  –  165
  5. Tom Cruise  –  165

Top 5 Total Points:  2000-2011:

  1. Johnny Depp  –  280
  2. George Clooney  –  270
  3. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  245
  4. Russell Crowe  –  175
  5. Philip Seymour Hoffman  /  Javier Bardem  –  165

SAG

All-Time Top 10 Points:

  1. Russell Crowe  –  175
  2. Sean Penn  –  175
  3. Geoffrey Rush  –  165
  4. Tom Hanks  –  140
  5. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  140
  6. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  135
  7. Jeff Bridges  –  135
  8. George Clooney  –  135
  9. Robert Duvall  –  130
  10. Morgan Freeman  –  130

Broadcast Film Critics (Critic’s Choice)

Top 10 All-Time:

  1. Russell Crowe  –  280
  2. Sean Penn  –  175
  3. George Clooney  –  170
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  140
  5. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  140
  6. Ryan Gosling  –  140
  7. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  130
  8. Johnny Depp  –  105
  9. Jeff Bridges  –  105
  10. Colin Firth  –  105

note:  Crowe dominated early here – he had 280 points before any other actor had more than 105.

Consensus Awards

What I have done here is converted the Consensus percentage in each year to a straight point value.  The advantage is that it equalizes the later years when there are far more awards.  The disadvantage is that it leaves Actor and Supporting Actor as equal, it gives a bit too much weight to the first few years when there was only the Oscar (if I don’t count those years, it hurts those early actors) and that a performance that earned awards in both can be dinged depending on where the Academy placed it (for instance, Leonardo DiCaprio in 2006 – if the Oscars had considered him supporting in The Departed he could have earned points in both categories).  But it does allow for an idea of how well appreciated each actor has been by awards groups since the awards began with the 1st Oscars.  Because the Consensus really makes a big difference with wins, especially critics wins, this is why a great actor like Paul Newman (18 combined Oscar and Globe noms, 1 win and only three critics wins) is so low in the Top 50 in spite of years and years of great performances while Daniel Day-Lewis, who has only made 19 films through 2011, far, far below the others around him, is so high.

Progression of #1:

  • 1927-31:  Emil Jannings  –  50
  • 1932-34:  Fredric March  –  57
  • 1935-36:  Charles Laughton  –  93
  • 1937-40:  Paul Muni  –  105
  • 1941-47:  Walter Brennan  –  116
  • 1948-51:  Laurence Olivier  –  117
  • 1952-55:  Laurence Olivier  –  121
  • 1956:  Laurence Olivier  –  131
  • 1957-58:  Laurence Olivier  –  134
  • 1959:  Laurence Olivier  –  137
  • 1960-61:  Laurence Olivier  –  145
  • 1962-64:  Laurence Olivier  –  147
  • 1965-68:  Laurence Olivier  –  150
  • 1969-71:  Laurence Olivier  –  159
  • 1972-75:  Laurence Olivier  –  178
  • 1976-77:  Laurence Olivier  –  190
  • 1978:  Laurence Olivier  –  199
  • 1979-84:  Laurence Olivier  –  202
  • 1985-86:  Jack Nicholson  –  227
  • 1987-88:  Jack Nicholson  –  246
  • 1989-91:  Jack Nicholson  –  251
  • 1992-96:  Jack Nicholson  –  273
  • 1997-01:  Jack Nicholson  –  297
  • 2001-02:  Jack Nicholson  –  315
  • 2003-05:  Jack Nicholson  –  317
  • 2006-11:  Jack Nicholson  –  324

All-Time Top 50 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  324
  2. Laurence Olivier  –  202
  3. Gene Hackman  –  169
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  150
  5. Robert De Niro  –  146
  6. Dustin Hoffman  –  134
  7. Jack Lemmon  –  131
  8. Spencer Tracy  –  124
  9. Marlon Brando  –  122
  10. Al Pacino  –  122
  11. Fredric March  –  118
  12. Walter Brennan  –  116
  13. Walter Huston  –  114
  14. Paul Muni  –  108
  15. James Stewart  –  104
  16. Robert Duvall  –  104
  17. Gary Cooper  –  103
  18. Charles Laughton  –  103
  19. Jason Robards  –  97
  20. Anthony Hopkins  –  93
  21. James Cagney  –  92
  22. George C. Scott  –  91
  23. Paul Newman  –  91
  24. Albert Finney  –  91
  25. Michael Caine  –  90
  26. Peter O’Toole  –  90
  27. Tom Hanks  –  88
  28. Gregory Peck  –  87
  29. John Gielgud  –  87
  30. Burt Lancaster  –  86
  31. Geoffrey Rush  –  85
  32. Ralph Richardson  –  83
  33. Clark Gable  –  81
  34. Peter Ustinov  –  81
  35. Sean Penn  –  76
  36. Kevin Spacey  –  76
  37. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  76
  38. Jon Voight  –  75
  39. Russell Crowe  –  74
  40. Morgan Freeman  –  74
  41. Edmund Gwenn  –  73
  42. Walter Matthau  –  73
  43. Joe Pesci  –  73
  44. Ben Kingsley  –  73
  45. Denzel Washington  –  73
  46. George Clooney  –  73
  47. Martin Landau  –  72
  48. Bing Crosby  –  71
  49. Arthur Kennedy  –  70
  50. Peter Finch  /  Melvyn Douglas  /  Alec Guinness  –  70

note:  A very similar list to Actress, with one person (modern) over 300, another (from studio era) just over 200 several above 100 though with no one close to #2 and the bottom of the list only having a 1 point differential.

Top 5 Points: 1930-1939

  1. Charles Laughton  –  93
  2. Paul Muni  –  88
  3. Clark Gable  –  77
  4. Fredric March  –  70
  5. Walter Brennan  –  66

Top 5 Points:  1940-1949

  1. Laurence Olivier  –  104
  2. Walter Huston  –  76
  3. Gary Cooper  –  74
  4. Gregory Peck  –  65
  5. Ray Milland  –  64

Top 5 Points:  1950-1959

  1. Marlon Brando  –  68
  2. Arthur Kennedy  –  60
  3. Frank Sinatra  –  56
  4. Anthony Quinn  –  47
  5. Alec Guinness  –  46

Top 5 Points:  1960-1969

  1. Peter Ustinov  –  45
  2. Peter O’Toole  –  44
  3. Rod Steiger  –  40
  4. Richard Burton  –  39
  5. Paul Newman  /  Rex Harrison  –  36

Top 5 Points:  1970-1979

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  93
  2. Al Pacino  –  81
  3. Jason Robards  –  73
  4. Robert De Niro  –  71
  5. Gene Hackman  –  67

Top 5 Points:  1980-1989

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  129
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  59
  3. John Gielgud  –  51
  4. Robert De Niro  –  49
  5. Bob Hoskins  –  47

Top 5 Points:  1990-1999

  1. Anthony Hopkins  –  82
  2. Kevin Spacey  –  68
  3. Geoffrey Rush  –  55
  4. Gene Hackman  –  52
  5. Ralph Fiennes  –  52

Top 5 Points:  2000-2011

  1. George Clooney  –  73
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  71
  3. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  68
  4. Sean Penn  –  62
  5. Javier Bardem  –  62

He may be a Lakers fan but Jack is still Jack.

The Nighthawk Awards

Progression of #1 Spot:

  • 1928:  Lon Chaney  –  205
  • 1929-34:  Lon Chaney  –  240
  • 1935-42:  Charles Laughton  –  255
  • 1943:  Claude Rains  –  305
  • 1944-45:  Claude Rains  –  335
  • 1946-48:  Claude Rains  –  395
  • 1949-50:  Claude Rains  –  425
  • 1951-53:  Humphrey Bogart  –  440
  • 1954-91:  Humphrey Bogart  –  475
  • 1992-96:  Jack Nicholson  –  500
  • 1997-05:  Jack Nicholson  –  535
  • 2006-11:  Jack Nicholson  –  565

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  565
  2. Humphrey Bogart  –  475
  3. Laurence Olivier  –  470
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  445
  5. Robert De Niro  –  430
  6. Claude Rains  –  425
  7. Michael Caine  –  395
  8. Alec Guinness  –  390
  9. Paul Newman  –  380
  10. Anthony Hopkins  –  365
  11. Gene Hackman  –  350
  12. Orson Welles  –  340
  13. Kirk Douglas  –  335
  14. Charles Laughton  –  325
  15. James Stewart  –  315
  16. Charlie Chaplin  –  315
  17. George Clooney  –  305
  18. Toshiro Mifune  –  285
  19. Warren Beatty  –  280
  20. Dustin Hoffman  –  280

Top 5 Points: 1912-1929

  1. Lon Chaney  –  240
  2. Emil Jannings  –  140
  3. Conrad Veidt  –  100
  4. Charlie Chaplin  –  70
  5. Erich von Stroheim  /  Albert Dieudonne  –  70

Top 5 Points: 1930-1939

  1. Charles Laughton  –  245
  2. Fredric March  –  210
  3. Leslie Howard  –  210
  4. Claude Rains  –  185
  5. Charlie Chaplin  –  140

Top 5 Points: 1940-1949

  1. Humphrey Bogart  –  280
  2. Claude Rains  –  240
  3. Kirk Douglas  –  160
  4. Walter Huston  –  155
  5. James Stewart  –  140

Top 5 Points: 1950-1959

  1. Alec Guinness  –  235
  2. Kirk Douglas  –  175
  3. William Holden  –  170
  4. Orson Welles  –  165
  5. Karl Malden  –  155

Top 5 Points:  1960-1969

  1. Richard Burton  –  175
  2. Toshiro Mifune  –  165
  3. Paul Newman  –  140
  4. Peter O’Toole  –  140
  5. Rod Steiger  /  Takashi Shimura  –  135

Top 5 Points:  1970-1979

  1. Robert De Niro  –  290
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  245
  3. Al Pacino  –  200
  4. Gene Hackman  –  195
  5. Michael Caine  –  135

Top 5 Points:  1980-1989

  1. William Hurt  –  205
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  195
  3. Michael Caine  –  160
  4. Paul Newman  –  140
  5. Bob Hoskins  –  140

Top 5 Points:  1990-1999

  1. Anthony Hopkins  –  235
  2. Ralph Fiennes  –  235
  3. Kevin Spacey  –  190
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  175
  5. Ian McKellen  –  135

Top 5 Points:  2000-2011

  1. George Clooney  –  235
  2. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  175
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  140
  4. Tom Wilkinson  –  130
  5. Heath Ledger  /  Christian Bale  –  130

The Nighthawk Drama Awards

Progression of #1 Spot:

  • 1928:  Lon Chaney  –  170
  • 1929-34:  Lon Chaney  –  205
  • 1935-39:  Charles Laughton  –  255
  • 1940-43:  Charles Laughton  –  290
  • 1944-45:  Claude Rains  –  305
  • 1946-47:  Claude Rains  –  365
  • 1948-49:  Humphrey Bogart  –  400
  • 1950:  Humphrey Bogart  –  435
  • 1951-53:  Humphrey Bogart  –  470
  • 1954-06:  Humphrey Bogart  –  505
  • 2007-11:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  515

Top 20 All-Time Points:

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  515
  2. Humphrey Bogart  –  505
  3. Jack Nicholson  –  495
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  470
  5. Robert De Niro  –  465
  6. Claude Rains  –  425
  7. Anthony Hopkins  –  400
  8. Paul Newman  –  380
  9. Orson Welles  –  375
  10. Gene Hackman  –  355
  11. Toshiro Mifune  –  350
  12. Ralph Fiennes  –  340
  13. Kirk Douglas  –  335
  14. Charles Laughton  –  325
  15. James Stewart  –  315
  16. Henry Fonda  –  305
  17. Richard Burton  –  305
  18. Alec Guinness  –  290
  19. Fredric March  –  280
  20. Marlon Brando  –  280

Top 5 Points:  1912-1929

  1. Lon Chaney  –  205
  2. Emil Jannings  –  140
  3. Conrad Veidt  –  100
  4. Erich von Stroheim  –  70
  5. Albert Dieudonne  –  70

Top 5 Points:  1930-1939

  1. Charles Laughton  –  255
  2. Fredric March  –  245
  3. Leslie Howard  –  240
  4. Claude Rains  –  185
  5. Clark Gable  –  160

Top 5 Points:  1940-1949

  1. Humphrey Bogart  –  280
  2. Claude Rains  –  210
  3. Kirk Douglas  –  160
  4. Orson Welles  –  140
  5. Laurence Olivier  –  135

Top 5 Points:  1950-1959

  1. Kirk Douglas  –  175
  2. Marlon Brando  –  175
  3. William Holden  –  170
  4. Orson Welles  –  165
  5. James Stewart  –  140

Top 5 Points:  1960-1969

  1. Toshiro Mifune  –  230
  2. Richard Burton  –  175
  3. Peter O’Toole  –  175
  4. Takashi Shimura  –  165
  5. Paul Newman  –  140

Top 5 Points:  1970-1979

  1. Robert De Niro  –  290
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  245
  3. Gene Hackman  –  200
  4. Al Pacino  –  200
  5. Robert Duvall  –  150

Top 5 Points:  1980-1989

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  165
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  160
  3. Robert De Niro  –  140
  4. Paul Newman  –  140
  5. Denzel Washington  –  120

Top 5 Points:  1990-1999

  1. Ralph Fiennes  –  270
  2. Anthony Hopkins  –  235
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  210
  4. Kevin Spacey  –  190
  5. Ian McKellen  –  135

Top 5 Points:  2000-2011

  1. George Clooney  –  195
  2. Sean Penn  –  175
  3. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  175
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  140
  5. Tom Wilkinson  /  Heath Ledger  /  Christian Bale  –  130

The Nighthawk Comedy Awards

Progression of #1 Spot:

  • 1928-30:  Charlie Chaplin  –  210
  • 1931-35:  Charlie Chaplin  –  280
  • 1936-39:  Charlie Chaplin  –  350
  • 1940-46:  Charlie Chaplin  –  420
  • 1947-71:  Charlie Chaplin  –  490
  • 1972-11:  Charlie Chaplin  –  560

Top 20 Points All-Time:

  1. Charlie Chaplin  –  560
  2. Cary Grant  –  480
  3. James Cagney  –  415
  4. Bill Murray  –  395
  5. Alec Guinness  –  340
  6. Woody Allen  –  315
  7. Johnny Depp  –  315
  8. Jack Lemmon  –  305
  9. George Clooney  –  280
  10. Peter Sellers  –  270
  11. Walter Matthau  –  270
  12. Dustin Hoffman  –  270
  13. Fred Astaire  –  245
  14. Gene Wilder  –  225
  15. Michael Caine  –  220
  16. Gene Kelly  –  210
  17. James Stewart  –  210
  18. Robert Redford  –  210
  19. Jack Nicholson  –  210
  20. Steve Martin  –  205

Top 3 Points:  1912-1929

  1. Charlie Chaplin  –  210
  2. Buster Keaton  –  140
  3. Theodore Roberts  –  60
  4. Mack Swain  –  60
  5. Ernest Torrance  –  60

Top 5 Points:  1930-1939

  1. Edward Everett Horton  –  180
  2. Cary Grant  –  175
  3. James Cagney  –  175
  4. Charlie Chaplin  –  140
  5. William Powell  –  140

Top 5 Points:  1940-1949

  1. Cary Grant  –  200
  2. William Demarest  –  150
  3. Charlie Chaplin  –  140
  4. Claude Rains  –  130
  5. Spencer Tracy  /  James Stewart  /  Robert Montgomery  –  105

Top 5 Points:  1950-1959

  1. Alec Guinness  –  305
  2. Gene Kelly  –  140
  3. Jack Lemmon  –  130
  4. James Cagney  –  100
  5. Maurice Chevalier  –  90

Top 5 Points:  1960-1969

  1. Peter Sellers  –  200
  2. Jack Lemmon  –  140
  3. Dustin Hoffman  –  105
  4. Albert Finney  –  105
  5. Marcello Mastroianni  –  105

Top 5 Points:  1970-1979

  1. Woody Allen  –  175
  2. Gene Wilder  –  165
  3. Robert Redford  –  140
  4. Jack Warden  –  120
  5. Walter Matthau  /  Richard Dreyfuss  /  Warren Beatty  –  105

note:  Ironically, Woody Allen leads with the same exact number of points that Diane Keaton had also leading in this decade.
note:  All of Wilder’s points are from the same year (1974).

Top 5 Points:  1980-1989

  1. Steve Martin  –  205
  2. William Hurt  –  165
  3. Woody Allen  –  140
  4. Michael Caine  –  130
  5. Michael Palin  –  125

Top 5 Points:  1990-1999

  1. Johnny Depp  –  175
  2. Bill Murray  –  165
  3. George Clooney  –  140
  4. Robin Williams  –  105
  5. Tim Robbins  /  Hugh Grant  /  Jeff Bridges  –  105

Top 5 Points:  2000-2011

  1. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  185
  2. Bill Murray  –  165
  3. George Clooney  –  140
  4. Johnny Depp  –  140
  5. Paul Giamatti  –  140

The Nighthawk Awards (Weighted)

note:  This takes all 20 performances in Actress and Supporting Actress on my list from each year and weights them with 70 (or 60) for the #1 spot and 1 for the #20 spot.  It makes for a much more nuanced list, both because it includes a lot more performances but also because they are weighted.

Progression of the #1 Spot:

  • 1928:  Lon Chaney  –  277
  • 1929-36:  Lon Chaney  –  326
  • 1937-40:  Fredric March  –  377
  • 1941-42:  Fredric March  –  386
  • 1943:  Claude Rains  –  390
  • 1944-45:  Claude Rains  –  425
  • 1946-48:  Claude Rains  –  485
  • 1949-50:  Claude Rains  –  520
  • 1951-53:  Humphrey Bogart  –  551
  • 1954-55:  Humphrey Bogart  –  605
  • 1956-75:  Humphrey Bogart  –  611
  • 1976-77:  Laurence Olivier  –  630
  • 1978-91:  Laurence Olivier  –  674
  • 1992-94:  Jack Nicholson  –  683
  • 1995-96:  Jack Nicholson  –  696
  • 1997-00:  Jack Nicholson  –  750
  • 2001:  Jack Nicholson  –  773
  • 2002:  Jack Nicholson  –  803
  • 2003-05:  Jack Nicholson  –  809
  • 2006-11:  Jack Nicholson  –  851

Top 20 All-Time Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  851
  2. Laurence Olivier  –  674
  3. Paul Newman  –  642
  4. Alec Guinness  –  635
  5. Humphrey Bogart  –  611
  6. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  578
  7. Robert De Niro  –  575
  8. Michael Caine  –  550
  9. Claude Rains  –  546
  10. Fredric March  –  539
  11. Henry Fonda  –  537
  12. James Stewart  –  526
  13. Charles Laughton  –  526
  14. Toshiro Mifune  –  525
  15. Dustin Hoffman  –  513
  16. Gene Hackman  –  509
  17. Anthony Hopkins  –  505
  18. James Cagney  –  494
  19. Orson Welles  –  483
  20. Burt Lancaster  –  474

Top 5 Points:  1912-1929

  1. Lon Chaney  –  326
  2. Emil Jannings  –  193
  3. Conrad Veidt  –  122
  4. Charlie Chaplin  –  103
  5. Erich von Stroheim  –  100

Top 5 Points:  1930-1939

  1. Fredric March  –  377
  2. Leslie Howard  –  346
  3. Charles Laughton  –  331
  4. James Cagney  –  227
  5. Claude Rains  –  223

Top 5 Points:  1940-1949

  1. Humphrey Bogart  –  334
  2. Claude Rains  –  297
  3. Cary Grant  –  258
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  224
  5. James Stewart  –  215

Top 5 Points:  1950-1959

  1. Alec Guinness  –  357
  2. Kirk Douglas  –  266
  3. William Holden  –  262
  4. James Stewart  –  218
  5. Marlon Brando  –  213

Top 5 Points:  1960-1969

  1. Toshiro Mifune  –  367
  2. Richard Burton  –  245
  3. Paul Newman  –  240
  4. Sidney Poitier  –  212
  5. Peter O’Toole  –  193

Top 5 Points:  1970-1979

  1. Robert De Niro  –  297
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  295
  3. Al Pacino  –  274
  4. Gene Hackman  –  273
  5. Robert Duvall  –  200

Top 5 Points:  1980-1989

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  292
  2. William Hurt  –  278
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  191
  4. Bob Hoskins  –  186
  5. Paul Newman  –  178

Top 5 Points:  1990-1999

  1. Ralph Fiennes  –  298
  2. Anthony Hopkins  –  294
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  241
  4. Kevin Spacey  –  206
  5. Ian McKellen  –  188

Top 5 Points:  2000-2011

  1. George Clooney  –  358
  2. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  283
  3. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  216
  4. Viggo Mortenson  –  191
  5. Sean Penn  –  167

note:  There will be no lists for the Absolute Points that I also do, based on all performances that make my list and how I rate the performance.  Why those lists are absent is the same reason they were absent for Actress.

Post 2011

note:  For any of the awards groups that had a progressive leader listed up above, if there is no progressive leader listed here that’s because that leader has not changed.

note:  These lists are complete through the 2018 awards season.

The Academy Awards

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  500
  2. Spencer Tracy  –  385
  3. Laurence Olivier  –  380
  4. Marlon Brando  –  345
  5. Paul Newman  –  345
  6. Jack Lemmon  –  340
  7. Denzel Washington  –  335
  8. Dustin Hoffman  –  315
  9. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  315
  10. Al Pacino  –  300
  11. Robert De Niro  –  300
  12. Peter O’Toole  –  280
  13. Michael Caine  –  260
  14. Robert Duvall  –  260
  15. Jeff Bridges  –  260
  16. Fredric March  –  245
  17. Gary Cooper  –  245
  18. Tom Hanks  –  245
  19. Sean Penn  –  245
  20. Richard Burton  –  240

Top 5 Total Points: 2012-18

  1. Bradley Cooper  –  135
  2. Denzel Washington  –  105
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  105
  4. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  105
  5. Eddie Redmayne  –  105

The Critics Awards

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  1372
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  1207
  3. Robert De Niro  –  702
  4. Gene Hackman  –  639
  5. Bill Murray  –  496
  6. Tom Hanks  –  434
  7. Casey Affleck  –  410
  8. Burt Lancaster  –  406
  9. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  404
  10. Robert Duvall  –  389
  11. Martin Landau  –  384
  12. Willem Dafoe  –  384
  13. Jeremy Irons  –  378
  14. Nicolas Cage  –  378
  15. Forest Whitaker  –  378
  16. Joe Pesci  –  372
  17. William Hurt  –  363
  18. Anthony Hopkins  –  354
  19. Jon Voight  –  329
  20. Dustin Hoffman  –  329

Top All-Time by Critics Group (not weighted):

  • NYFC:  Jack Nicholson  –  400
  • LAFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  210
  • NSFC:  Jack Nicholson  –  330
  • BSFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  280
  • CFC:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  210
  • NBR:  Jack Nicholson  –  320

BAFTAs

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Peter Finch  –  420
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  385
  3. Jack Lemmon  –  350
  4. Marlon Brando  –  345
  5. Laurence Olivier  –  340
  6. Jack Nicholson  –  325
  7. Michael Caine  –  310
  8. Denholm Elliott  –  300
  9. Dustin Hoffman  –  280
  10. Albert Finney  –  270
  11. Geoffrey Rush  –  255
  12. Sidney Poitier  –  245
  13. Dirk Bogarde  –  245
  14. Anthony Hopkins  –  240
  15. Gene Hackman  –  230
  16. John Hurt  –  220
  17. John Gielgud  –  220
  18. Spencer Tracy  –  210
  19. Burt Lancaster  –  205
  20. Paul Newman  –  205

Top 5 Points: 2012-2018:

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  105
  2. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  105
  3. Eddie Redmayne  –  105
  4. Bradley Cooper  –  100
  5. Christian Bale  –  100

Golden Globes

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  775
  2. Jack Lemmon  –  665
  3. Al Pacino  –  550
  4. Dustin Hoffman  –  490
  5. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  480
  6. Tom Hanks  –  455
  7. Peter O’Toole  –  385
  8. Johnny Depp  –  385
  9. Robin Williams  –  380
  10. Michael Caine  –  375
  11. Denzel Washington  –  375
  12. Gene Hackman  –  370
  13. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  350
  14. Tom Cruise  –  335
  15. Walter Matthau  –  315
  16. Robert De Niro  –  315
  17. Jon Voight  –  305
  18. Paul Newman  –  305
  19. Warren Beatty  –  280
  20. Jim Carrey  –  280

Golden Globes:  2012-2018:

  1. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  170
  2. Christian Bale  –  140
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  105
  4. Joaquin Phoenix  –  105
  5. Denzel Washington  /  Hugh Jackman  /  Eddie Redmayne  /  Steve Carrell  –  105

SAG

All-Time Top 10 Points:

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  210
  2. Denzel Washington  –  210
  3. Russell Crowe  –  175
  4. Sean Penn  –  175
  5. Tom Hanks  –  175
  6. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  175
  7. Geoffrey Rush  –  165
  8. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  165
  9. Jeff Bridges  –  165
  10. Robert Duvall  –  160

BFCA

Top 10 All-Time:

  1. Russell Crowe  –  280
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  245
  3. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  210
  4. Ryan Gosling  –  210
  5. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  190
  6. Sean Penn  –  175
  7. George Clooney  –  170
  8. Christian Bale  –  160
  9. Johnny Depp  –  140
  10. Jeff Bridges  –  135

Consensus Awards

All-Time Top 50 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  324
  2. Laurence Olivier  –  202
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  196
  4. Gene Hackman  –  169
  5. Robert De Niro  –  153
  6. Dustin Hoffman  –  134
  7. Jack Lemmon  –  131
  8. Spencer Tracy  –  124
  9. Marlon Brando  –  122
  10. Al Pacino  –  122
  11. Fredric March  –  118
  12. Walter Brennan  –  116
  13. Walter Huston  –  114
  14. Robert Duvall  –  113
  15. Paul Muni  –  108
  16. Tom Hanks  –  105
  17. James Stewart  –  104
  18. Gary Cooper  –  103
  19. Charles Laughton  –  103
  20. Denzel Washington  –  98
  21. Jason Robards  –  97
  22. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  95
  23. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  94
  24. Anthony Hopkins  –  93
  25. James Cagney  –  92
  26. George C. Scott  –  91
  27. Paul Newman  –  91
  28. Albert Finney  –  91
  29. Michael Caine  –  90
  30. Peter O’Toole  –  90
  31. Gregory Peck  –  87
  32. John Gielgud  –  87
  33. Burt Lancaster  –  86
  34. Geoffrey Rush  –  85
  35. Ralph Richardson  –  83
  36. Clark Gable  –  81
  37. Peter Ustinov  –  81
  38. Sean Penn  –  76
  39. Kevin Spacey  –  76
  40. Jon Voight  –  75
  41. Russell Crowe  –  74
  42. Morgan Freeman  –  74
  43. Edmund Gwenn  –  73
  44. Walter Matthau  –  73
  45. Joe Pesci  –  73
  46. Ben Kingsley  –  73
  47. George Clooney  –  73
  48. Martin Landau  –  72
  49. Bing Crosby  –  71
  50. Arthur Kennedy  /  Peter Finch  /  Melvyn Douglas  /  Alec Guinness  –  70

Top 5 Points: 2012-2018:

  1. Mahershala Ali  –  65
  2. Willem Dafoe  –  48
  3. J.K. Simmons  –  48
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  46
  5. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  44

The Nighthawk Awards

All-Time Top 20 Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  565
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  550
  3. Humphrey Bogart  –  475
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  470
  5. Robert De Niro  –  430
  6. Claude Rains  –  425
  7. Michael Caine  –  395
  8. Alec Guinness  –  390
  9. Paul Newman  –  380
  10. Anthony Hopkins  –  365
  11. Gene Hackman  –  350
  12. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  345
  13. Orson Welles  –  340
  14. Kirk Douglas  –  335
  15. Charles Laughton  –  325
  16. James Stewart  –  315
  17. Charlie Chaplin  –  315
  18. George Clooney  –  305
  19. Ralph Fiennes  –  305
  20. Toshiro Mifune  –  285

Top 5 Points:  2012-2018

  1. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  140
  2. Bradley Cooper  –  135
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  105
  4. Christian Bale  –  100
  5. Michael Fassbender  –  95

The Nighthawk Drama Awards

Top 20 All-Time Points:

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  620
  2. Humphrey Bogart  –  505
  3. Jack Nicholson  –  495
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  470
  5. Robert De Niro  –  465
  6. Claude Rains  –  425
  7. Anthony Hopkins  –  400
  8. Paul Newman  –  380
  9. Orson Welles  –  375
  10. Gene Hackman  –  355
  11. Toshiro Mifune  –  350
  12. Ralph Fiennes  –  340
  13. Kirk Douglas  –  335
  14. Charles Laughton  –  325
  15. James Stewart  –  315
  16. Henry Fonda  –  305
  17. Richard Burton  –  305
  18. Alec Guinness  –  290
  19. Fredric March  –  280
  20. Marlon Brando  –  280

Top 5 Points:  2012-2018

  1. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  105
  2. Tom Hanks  –  105
  3. Michael Fassbender  –  95
  4. Willem Dafoe  –  95
  5. Mark Rylance  –  90

The Nighthawk Comedy Awards

Top 20 Points All-Time:

  1. Charlie Chaplin  –  560
  2. Cary Grant  –  480
  3. James Cagney  –  415
  4. Bill Murray  –  395
  5. Alec Guinness  –  340
  6. Woody Allen  –  315
  7. Johnny Depp  –  315
  8. Jack Lemmon  –  305
  9. George Clooney  –  280
  10. Peter Sellers  –  270
  11. Walter Matthau  –  270
  12. Dustin Hoffman  –  270
  13. Fred Astaire  –  245
  14. Hugh Grant  –  235
  15. Gene Wilder  –  225
  16. Michael Caine  –  220
  17. Gene Kelly  –  210
  18. James Stewart  –  210
  19. Robert Redford  –  210
  20. Jack Nicholson  –  210

Top 5 Points:  2012-2018

  1. Bradley Cooper  –  165
  2. Hugh Jackman  –  140
  3. Christian Bale  –  130
  4. Ryan Gosling  –  105
  5. Matt Damon  –  105

The Nighthawk Awards (Weighted)

Top 20 All-Time Points:

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  851
  2. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  702
  3. Laurence Olivier  –  674
  4. Paul Newman  –  642
  5. Alec Guinness  –  635
  6. Humphrey Bogart  –  611
  7. Robert De Niro  –  598
  8. Michael Caine  –  575
  9. Claude Rains  –  546
  10. Fredric March  –  539
  11. Henry Fonda  –  537
  12. James Stewart  –  526
  13. Charles Laughton  –  526
  14. Toshiro Mifune  –  525
  15. Anthony Hopkins  –  516
  16. Dustin Hoffman  –  513
  17. Gene Hackman  –  509
  18. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  509
  19. James Cagney  –  494
  20. Orson Welles  /  Ralph Fiennes  –  483

Top 5 Points:  2012-2018

  1. Bradley Cooper  –  167
  2. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  166
  3. Christian Bale  –  158
  4. Tom Hanks  –  155
  5. Denzel Washington  –  131

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1989

$
0
0

“Now the narrow neck of sand where Shaw was buried with his men is washed by Atlantic storms. St. Gaudens’s monument to Shaw and his men marks a place where the Colonel and his regiment passed by on their way to war.” (p 147)

My Top 10

  1. Glory
  2. Field of Dreams
  3. Born on the Fourth of July
  4. Henry V
  5. My Left Foot
  6. The Little Mermaid
  7. Enemies, a Love Story
  8. Drugstore Cowboy
  9. Batman
  10. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

note:  A fantastic Top 5 and Top 10 which is pretty much the case for any category in this year.  There’s also some irony to note here in that this is the Adapted Screenplay post but I used to own the novelization of two of these films (although it should be pretty obvious which two).

Consensus Nominees:

  1. Drugstore Cowboy  (232 pts)
  2. Driving Miss Daisy  (200 pts)
  3. Born on the Fourth of July  (184 pts)
  4. My Left Foot  (120 pts)
  5. Field of Dreams  (80 pts)

note:  Drugstore Cowboy remains (through 2019) the only Consensus Winner without an Oscar nomination.  It was only the second film without an Oscar win to win the Consensus since 1971 but that would become fairly common after this.  The reason Drugstore can do this is that after only five adapted films even winning a single critics award over the previous two decades, it wins all three awards.  No Original Screenplay wins a critics award for the first time since 1972, something that will mostly happen each of the next two years as well.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • Driving Miss Daisy
  • Born on the Fourth of July
  • Enemies a Love Story
  • Field of Dreams
  • My Left Foot

WGA:

  • Driving Miss Daisy
  • Born on the Fourth of July
  • Field of Dreams
  • Glory
  • My Left Foot

Golden Globe:

  • Born on the Fourth of July
  • Glory

Nominees that are Original:  Dead Poets Society, Do the Right Thing, sex lies and videotape, When Harry Met Sally

BAFTA:

  • My Left Foot
  • Shirley Valentine
  • Born on the Fourth of July  (1990)
  • Driving Miss Daisy  (1990)
  • The War of the Roses  (1990)

note:  Even with five nominees (in a four nominee field) spread out over two years, none of them win losing to Dangerous Liaisons and GoodFellas.

NYFC:

  • Drugstore Cowboy

note:  The first Adapted Screenplay to win the NYFC since 1975.

LAFC:

  • Drugstore Cowboy

note:  The first Adapted Screenplay to win the LAFC since 1984.

NSFC:

  • Drugstore Cowboy

note:  The first Adapted Screenplay to ever win the NSFC.

My Top 10

Glory

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as my #1 film of the year.  That’s really saying a lot in this year because this is still my favorite film year of all-time and while a lot of other years have had the #1 film change over time, Glory has been the #1 film since the day I saw it, in early January of 1990 (on MLK Day as it so happens).  It’s a triumph on every level, from the directing to the writing to the acting to the magnificent technical achievements, most notably, to my mind, the score, which is one of the most brilliant ever recorded.

The Source:

One Gallant Rush: Robert Gould Show and His Brave Black Regiment by Peter Burchard  (1965)

A short (168 pages including notes and index) history monograph, more on Shaw himself (the first third of the book covers Shaw before he was ever made commander of the 54th) than on the regiment which makes sense because the last part of the book discusses the many ways in which Shaw was lionized after his death.  A good little book about a man who was very well-known in the 19th Century but much less so in this century in spite of the famous bas-relief (see below).

Lay This Laurel: An Album on the Saint-Gaudens Memorial on Boston Common Honoring Black and White Men Together Who Served the Union Cause with Robert Gould Shaw and Died with Him July 18, 1863 by Richard Benson and Lincoln Kirstein  (1973)

This book is half photograph album (with very detailed photos of the Saint-Gaudens memorial) and half essay.  The essay itself gives a brief history (a few pages) of the 54th and what happened to them but the bulk of it is on what happened afterwards, the way the news spread and how Saint-Gaudens ended up doing the memorial which ended up taking him 14 years.  It is not so much a source of the film as One Gallant Rush (which is actually cited and mentioned directly in this book).

The Adaptation:

There are certain things in the book that are altered for dramatic purposes (or possibly just logistical purposes – such as that Fort Wagner is south of Charleston which means the beach would have been on their right as they charged north).  The issue about pay, for instance, was something that came up after the regiment had left camp and headed into the war, not while they were still there.  Likewise, very little is documented about the actual enlisted men of the 54th (though the records for the regiment are at the Massachusetts Archives) and so much of the dramatic tension between the men that we get and the characters played by Washington, Freeman, Andre Braugher and Jhimi Kennedy are, for the most part, creations of the filmmakers.

The Credits:

Directed by Edward Zwick.  Screenplay by Kevin Jarre.  Based on the books “Lay This Laurel” by Lincoln Kirstein and “One Gallant Rush” by Peter Burchard and the letters of Robert Gould Shaw.

note:  Only the title is in the opening credits.

Field of Dreams

The Film:

I have loved this film unashamedly since the day I saw it.  I was actually kind of pre-programmed to love it, a film about baseball starring the most famous person who ever went to my high school.  But that it is brilliantly made on every level, especially the script, makes for one of the best films of the decade.  It’s nice that the Academy recognized it, even if they only gave it three nominations, because it didn’t get nearly the level of attention that it deserved to get.  For a longer review, you can go here where I reviewed it as one of the Best Picture nominees.

The Source:

Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella  (1982)

“How I wish my father could be here with me.  If he’d lasted just a few months longer, he could have watched our grainy black-and-white TV as Bill Mazeroski homered in the bottom of the ninth to beat the Yankees 10-9.  We could have joined hands and danced around the kitchen like madmen.  ‘The Yankees lose so seldom you have to celebrate every single time,’ he used to say.”

That quote, first, sums up my feelings about baseball (appropriately, I re-read the book yesterday on opening day of the 2019 baseball season and annoyingly I then watched the Yankees win and the Red Sox lose) but also kind of sums up the book.  The book is a wonderful fantasy about a man who builds a baseball diamond in his corn field to help bring back Shoeless Joe Jackson.  It is also about relationships but it is mainly about baseball and a love of baseball.  Even more than the film, I have a hard time thinking that somebody who isn’t interested in baseball could really enjoy it (though it is quite well-written).  I no longer have any of Kinsella’s other books (I really enjoyed The Iowa Baseball Confederacy the first time I read it, the only other book of his that ever had much success in the States (Kinsella is Canadian even if he was living in Iowa when he wrote Shoeless Joe) and I remember parts of it at least appearing in Sports Illustrated when it was first published but it dragged considerably when I went back to it so I no longer have it).

The Adaptation:

This is a great example of keeping to the spirit and even some of the specifics but making a lot of changes to make the film work better.  In the book, it’s J.D. Salinger that is the writer that goes along for all of this but he threatened to sue so they created Terence Mann which worked even better because they could structure Mann’s career as they needed to (and it gives him the dream of playing with Robinson at Ebbets Field – with Salinger it was the Polo Grounds).  In the book, Ray also has a twin brother (who travels with a carnival) who is wisely dropped.  But there are other changes, about Ray and his relationship with his father that affect the climax of the film.  In the book, the climax is Salinger going with the players.  But in the book, Ray’s relationship with his father wasn’t as bad (it was his brother with the bad relationship), he wasn’t worried about turning into him, his mother was still alive and he was asking from the beginning if his father could play with the Black Sox instead of having it be a surprise, the emotional climax of the film and the subject of the voices in the first place.  It’s a brilliant move by Robinson which is why this film, as mentioned in my original review, has become such a favorite for people to bond with their fathers (or with their sons).  It understands that while baseball is a key part of the film, it’s the relationships that make the emotional core of the film.  There are a few other small changes as well (like Doc Graham’s death being moved up to 1972 or Annie being much more involved in the film than the book and Karin being several years older in the film than in the book).

The Credits:

Written for the Screen and Directed by Phil Alden Robinson.  Based on the book “Shoeless Joe” by W.P. Kinsella.

Born on the Fourth of July

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the Best Picture nominees from 1989.  Even had I not reviewed it then, it would have been reviewed for the Nighthawk Awards as one of the five best films of the year, a position it has held since I saw it in the theaters over Christmas break of 1989.  It’s a powerful, moving film not only about the Vietnam War, but also about what happened when people came home.  I am reminded of Springsteen’s quote, which is appropriate since Kovic’s book helped inspire “Born in the USA”: “A lot of them never came home.  And a lot who came home were never the same again.”  After some trials in The Color of Money and Rain Man, this was the film that proved that Tom Cruise was not just a star, but a first-rate actor.  While I think Field of Dreams was the best of the nominees, I am still stunned, 30 years later, that this film lost to Driving Miss Daisy.

The Source:

Born on the Fourth of July by Ron Kovic  (1976)

Spare in its tone and not a work of literary genius, but a moving, troubling account of what one young patriotic man went through after volunteering for Vietnam, being crippled there and coming home to a country that had changed while he was gone and what that does to his view on America.

The book is effective for two reasons.  First, the language is so sparse that it really cuts right to the heart of the matter.  Second, because Kovic had been a patriot who was gung ho to go fight the war and it was his experiences (even more than his wounds) there that changed him against the war, it made him a more powerful voice in opposition to the war.  It is not a great book, but it has continued to sell through the years and continued to be powerful as we have been drawn into more wars with a great deal of similarity (the version I read this time, since I no longer own a copy, was an edition printed during the Iraq War with a new introduction by Kovic railing against that war).

The Adaptation:

Reading this, it was easy to note that the primary difference between the book and the film is that the film is actually the straight narrative, beginning with Kovic as a child growing up on Long Island and progressing to his actions at the two conventions (the RNC in 1972, the DNC in 1976) while the book actually begins with the events in which he was wounded, jumps back to him growing up, cover his time at Parris Island (not included in the film, which artfully moves right from his prom to Vietnam) and only towards the end do we find out about the soldier that he accidentally killed.  Except for his marine training, almost everything in the book is in the film though a few things are changed (the book only mentions Kovic’s baseball interest not wrestling but see below) and some things expanded (his time in Mexico is dealt with in just a few pages in the book).  There is no meeting with the parents of the soldier he killed and the character played by Kyra Sedgwick doesn’t exist in the book.

I wondered how much of that actually came from Kovic’s life but wasn’t included in the book (it was mostly invented for the film although Kovic did wrestle in high school which isn’t mentioned in the book) and I suddenly realized that this film was almost utterly unique.  Certainly in the history of the Academy Awards it was unique.  No person had ever lived a life, written a book about it and written the script and earned an Oscar nomination.  Most autobiographies aren’t good enough for the writer to be allowed to write the script (and most writers don’t know how to write screenplays if they’re not already film writers) or they are ghost written.  But Stone wanted Kovic’s involvement and so Kovic co-wrote the script with him.  It’s utterly unique in Oscar history and the only other example in the entire scope of this project is Marjane Satrapi, whose autobiographical Persepolis she would later turn into a film and would adapt (and even direct) it herself.

The Credits:

Directed by Oliver Stone.  Based on the book by Ron Kovic.  Screenplay by Oliver Stone & Ron Kovic.

Henry V

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the five best films of 1989.  The Academy seemed to sort of recognize this, nominating it for both Best Director and Best Actor when even the Best Picture winner, Driving Miss Daisy, was (rightfully) passed over for Director.  It rivals Chimes at Midnight as the best ever feature film adaptation of Shakespeare that uses Shakespeare’s actual language.  It is a singularly striking Shakespeare adaptation (the only War film) and a magnificent triumph on every level of filmmaking.

The Source:

The Life of Henry the Fifth by William Shakespeare  (1599)

I have actually already discussed this play here when I discussed the Olivier adaptation.  It is a magnificent play, not the least of which is because, depending on your first exposure to the play, it can have a variety of different meanings as to how stage it and how to portray Henry.  It contains some of the best speeches in all of Shakespeare and Henry is a magnificent part to play.

The Adaptation:

Like almost all of the film Shakespeare adaptations (except, of course, for Branagh’s Hamlet), there are a number of cuts throughout the play.  Branagh tries to stick to the things that will move the action along and eliminates some subplots that had been lingering from the two Henry IV plays (notice, in particular, in the first scene with Henry, where all the talk of Scotland is eliminated).  Many of the scenes have trimmed lines like this (which is fairly common).  But Branagh also brings in some bits of Henry IV, the drinking scenes with Falstaff and lines that help establish their relationship to provide some context for this film for those not that familiar with Henry IV (Falstaff never actually appears in this play though, with a very good performance from Robbie Coltrane, he does in this film).  He also takes one of Falstaff’s lines from the earlier play and gives it to Bardolph, provoking another flashback that makes the hanging scene even more heartbreaking.  All in all, a magnificent example of how to do Shakespeare right on film.

Branagh, in his book, Beginning, published the same year the film was released and written as he was editing the film, the final section is a day by day diary of making the film, including why he added what he did (he decided not to presume any familiarity with Henry IV) and that the original run was about 160 minutes and he knew he needed to cut about 25 minutes of that (which means that a number of the cuts were made in the editing stage not in the screenplay itself).

The Credits:

Directed by Kenneth Branagh.  by William Shakespeare.  Adapted for the Screen by Kenneth Branagh.

My Left Foot: The Story of Christy Brown

The Film:

This was a film that had a big knock on it before I ever saw it.  It was the film that, to my mind, had knocked Glory, my #1 film of 1989, out of the Oscar nominations, grabbing unexpected nominations for Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay that I expected to go to Glory, not to mention winning Best Actor over Tom Cruise’s powerhouse performance as Ron Kovic.  But when all was said and done, while I didn’t think this was one of the five best films of the year, it was a great film without question and Daniel Day-Lewis had absolutely earned his Oscar (as had Brenda Fricker).  If it is not my favorite Day-Lewis performance (too many to chose from) it still might actually be his best (again, hard to decide).  For a more full review that deals more with the film itself go here.

The Source:

My Left Foot by Christy Brown  (1954)

First of all, no matter what it might say in the credits below, this is not a novel.  It’s a memoir of Brown’s first twenty two years, covering his childhood, his revelation to his family that he could understand them, his liberation of his mind through the use of his left foot and his eventual rise to a published author (it ends with a Burl Ives performance at a benefit for cerebral palsy where the first chapter of this book was read aloud).  This was the memoir of a man who would not let his mind be trapped simply because his body didn’t want to let him free.  It was published when he was still very young (22) and long before he would become even more well known as an accomplished fiction writer.

The Adaptation:

While there are some basic scenes that come straight from the book, like when Christy first writes the letter “A” or when he spells “Mother” out with chalk, nearly all of what is actually in the film isn’t in the book.  Aside from the fact that Christy’s entire relationship with Dr. Cole and the framing device for the book happened years after the publication of the book (he did meet his wife Mary Carr at a reading in 1972), almost all of the scenes in the film that deal with Christy’s relationship with his father, like the fight in the pub or bringing Christy to the pub after he realizes his son can spell aren’t in the book.  I can’t speak to whether or not they happened in real life but they definitely aren’t in the book.  Of course, the scenes surrounding the death of his father also isn’t in the book because his father was still alive in 1954.  Also, the famous scene of Christy as a child saving his mother’s life by alerting the neighbors also wasn’t in the book and since that seems like the kind of scene that would have been in the book, I suspect that scene is entirely fictional.

The Credits:

Director: Jim Sheridan.  Screenplay by Shane Connaughton, Jim Sheridan.  Based upon the novel – My Left Foot – by Christy Brown.

The Little Mermaid

The Film:

I had never seen a Disney animated film in the theater (except perhaps a revival of one of the classic films but if so I don’t remember it) and I was 15, so why would I go to see The Little Mermaid in the theater?  I had no idea who Alan Menken and Howard Ashman were.  It was a Kids film and I was no longer a kid.  So, at some point after it came out on video and my sister rented it, I watched it.  And I watched it.  And again.  Four times in all before we returned the video.  Not just because it was a great story, an update of a classic fairy tale but given a happy ending that was appropriate for the film, not just because it had a red-headed heroine in love with Eric but because of that music.  That all-encompassing wonderful music from start to finish that would help change the course of Disney, Kids films and even the Academy Awards.

As would become the plan for the next two Disney films, the film would start with a solid but not great opening number (“Fathoms Below”) but then would come what would later be termed the “I want” song, the song in which the heroine connects to the audience, making us feel her anguish and desires.  “Part of Your World” wouldn’t earn an Oscar nomination (that would be reserved for the massive big number at the heart of the film, “Under the Sea” as well as the romantic ballad “Kiss the Girl”, making this the first Kids film and the first Disney film to earn multiple nominations for Best Song at the Oscars).  There was humor in it (“Betch’a on land they understand  /  Bet they don’t reprimand their daughters”) but more importantly there was emotion in it.  What’s more, it was simply a fantastic song.

Thus I had discovered the team of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman.  They had already done a Broadway show (Little Shop of Horrors) and Ashman was hired to work on Oliver & Company and discovered that Disney was working on Little Mermaid, the first fairy tale from the company in 30 years.  The songwriting team would write a whole film worth of memorable numbers (is there any Disney song funnier than “Les Poissons”?) and would then go on to even bigger success with Beauty and the Beast though Ashman would not live to enjoy it (he died while the film was still in production though he did also write lyrics for three songs in Aladdin).

But even if the songs had been brilliant, it still wouldn’t have been enough to make this such a brilliant film (though it’s a major part of it).  Luckily though, the film also comes alive through the animation, through the voice performances (most notably Samuel E. Wright’s hilarious turn as Sebastian, the crab court composer) and the story.  We feel for Ariel because we understand her, just wanting to breathe free, to have a chance for life and love.  Though the original tale has a sad ending (see below), you want Ariel to succeed (please tell me you want the gorgeous redhead to end up with Eric).  But it’s all those things in conjunction with Menken’s magnificent music and Ashman’s lyrics which range from the dramatic to the unbelievably hilarious (“I stuff you with bread  /  It don’t hurt ’cause you’re dead”).  It’s a triumph on every level.

The Source:

Den lille havfrue” by Hans Christian Anderson  (1837)

This is one of Anderson’s most famous fairy tales (indeed, there is a statue commemorating the tale in the Copenhagen harbor), the story of the young mermaid who falls in love with a human prince and makes a bargain with the sea witch to become human to win his love.  She needs his love because mermaids become sea foam when they die because they don’t have an immortal soul as humans do.  She fails to win his love and dies (having turned down the chance to kill him to become a mermaid again) but is granted the chance for a soul by doing good deeds with the daughters of the air.

The Adaptation:

There are a lot of changes, of course.  The film takes the basic premise from the fairy tale and turns into the film with a lot of changes.  One particular difference that seems to highlight the film itself is noted by Maria Tatar in The Annotated Hans Christian Anderson: “The sisters’ mania for collecting is transferred in the Disney film to Ariel, who hoards and fetishizes artifacts of civilization (forks, combs, and so on) as a sign of her desire to live with humans.  If Anderson’s little mermaid is inspired by church bells she has never heard and is driven by a longing for the hustle and bustle of the big city (as was the young Anderson), Ariel – as is appropriate for a Disney character – becomes a slave to commodity fetishism.” (p 126)

Many of the details come from the original story with significant changes.  In the original, the witch takes the voice from the mermaid (who has no name) as payment but in the film, it is her voice that the prince fell for and the witch then uses the mermaid’s voice to try to steal the prince (as opposed to the prince simply falling for a neighboring princess).  Then, of course, there is the happy ending of the film – in fact nothing in the film past the moment where the wedding ship sails bears any similarity to the original tale as told by Anderson.

The Credits:

Written and Directed by John Musker and Ron Clements.  Based on the fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson.
note:  There is no mention of the source in the opening credits, only in the end credits.

Enemies, A Love Story

The Film:

I need to stop watching this film.  Every time I watch it, I end up pushing it higher and higher and in 1989 there are too many great films and there’s really nowhere for it to go.  Part of the problem, of course, is that, like Crimes and Misdemeanors, I was really too young to appreciate this film properly when I first saw it.  So, originally, it was a mid *** film.  Now it’s the high end of ***.5 and it came real close to being bumped up to ****.

Poor Herman Broder has got problems.  It’s 1949 and he’s living near Coney Island but he can’t stop dreaming about his nights in the hayloft in Poland and this time the Nazis have found him there.  He wakes up to his real life and his wife and tries to escape the nightmares.  But he has his own living nightmares as well, such as the jackass of a rabbi that he works for, writing all his speeches and books while masquerading to his wife as a travelling book salesman.  The reason for the deception is that he can claim he’s out of town when really he’s off schtupping his mistress, another escapee from the Holocaust (his wife is the woman who hid him, who had been his family’s servant before the war).  He’s got a wife and a mistress but he’s only just getting started.

One day he sees his name in an advert in the paper and he discovers that his wife did not die in the camps like he was told.  She was shot, yes, but she survived that bullet and she has finally made her way to the States.  And in the midst of all of this, when his mistress claims she’s pregnant (it will turn out to be a hysterical pregnancy) she demands that he marry her.  Suddenly he doesn’t have a wife and a mistress but three wives with two of them carrying his children.

When I first saw this, I recognized the solid characters and the good writing that entailed, the fantastic supporting performances from Anjelica Huston and Lena Olin and the solid lead performance from Ron Silver.  I think what I didn’t get was that the film was a Comedy.  All of this insanity is quite funny in its overwrought way and that’s the way to approach the film.  Once I could see that clearly, it became a different film, an intricately constructed, brilliant look at the kind of problems that you can only find in America after surviving the brutality of the war and you can look back and think, well, everything about this is easier than that.

The Source:

Sonim, di Geschite fun a Liebe by Isaac Bashevis Singer (1966)

Part of the reason that the film has gone up in my estimation over the years is that at some point I got a copy of the book and even though I have gotten rid of a lot of books (over 2000 if you compare my apartment to my LibraryThing account) and this is a hardcover (which I have gotten rid of even more of), I continue to hold on to this and continue to read it.  I actually think it’s Singer’s best novel and when you’re talking about someone who has won the Nobel Prize that is high praise.

It’s the story of a man who ends up married to three women at the same time through a set of strange circumstances (listed above).  Just the title alone should give you a sense of the humor at the core of the story and an understanding of what poor Harold Broder is going through.

The Adaptation:

The film cuts a little bit here and there but for the most part it is a very faithful adaptation.  The great majority of the lines are right there in the original novel.

The Credits:

Produced and Directed by Paul Mazursky.  Based on the novel by Isaac Bashevis Singer.  Screenplay by Roger L. Simon & Paul Mazursky.

Drugstore Cowboy

The Film:

This film was made in Portland in 1989 but was set in 1971.  Little enough had changed that Gus Van Sant could simply shoot the film and not have to worry about things looking out of place.  Indeed, when I moved there three years later things still hadn’t changed.  When I would eventually see this film, many years later (late 90’s, maybe early 00’s), you could still walk around and find sights from the film without a problem.  The drug store in the opening scene was still there as was the apartment complex from the film (it was right around the corner from Cinema 21).  Today, the city is very different and much of the things in the film are gone now as Portland has emerged from that isolated aspect and become hipster central (you think Portlandia is satire but you have no idea how much of it is true).  But for a long time, things didn’t change.

That includes the culture that helped inspire this film in the first place.  The author of the original novel, James Fogle, had written the book based on his own experiences and was in jail at the time the film was made (he was friends with Daniel Yost, Gus’s co-screenwriter and I assume that’s how Gus first heard of it).  In the years that I worked at Powells, over a decade after the film was made and some 30 years after it was set, the bathroom fixtures were installed sideways so you could see if people were shooting up in the bathroom and we occasionally had to step around people shooting up near the warehouse where my department was located.  Walking around the Pearl today (where Powells is) or along Hoyt Street (where the warehouse was) you couldn’t possibly imagine that.  But a gang of drug abusers who would walk into a drug store and cause a distraction so one of them could run to the back and steal any kind of drug that he could in the couple of minutes that the distraction was providing?  Yeah, that wasn’t so out of place in that Portland.  Veronica (and later myself) worked in a drug and alcohol treatment center near all of this (actually just up the street from the drug store that they rob in the opening scene) and it was never lacking for clients.

This film was the very definition of a critics film.  Even today, no film has ever been this successful at the critics awards without earning a nomination from any of the other major awards groups (Oscar, BAFTA, guilds, Globes, BFCA).  You could point out that the Independent Spirit Awards absolutely loved this film but that’s really kind of proving my point.  After making one small film a few years before (listed in the list at the bottom), this was the film that really put Gus Van Sant on the map.  He showed that he could take a film with unlikeable people (it’s a story of four drug addicts and the lives that they lead as they continually try to find their next drugs and the misery that entails, whether it comes from being beaten up by the police, being blackmailed by the lowlife across the street or even having one of their own die while also being forced out of their hotel by a police convention and needing to deal with getting the body out and not being discovered) and make it successful.  It took Matt Dillon, who had always been a decent actor and really showed that he could be an amazing actor as well and though it would take him years before he would finally earn an Oscar nomination, this was the one that really showed his range of talent.

I don’t enjoy watching this film.  I didn’t when I first saw it and I don’t now.  The characters are too unlikeable and it’s hard to have any sympathy for them even if they are captives to their needs.  Perhaps that’s why I end up leaving it as a high ***.5 and not ****.  But I certainly admire it for Dillon’s performance (one of the best in a year that’s full to the brim with fantastic lead male performances), its direction and its script.  I just wish it weren’t all so true.  While many might lament the ways that Portland has changed, I’m rather glad that today I can walk from my dad’s condo, a block from where I used to work in the warehouse, all the way down to Powells and never have to worry about walking past anyone using in a doorway.

The Source:

Drugstore Cowboy by James Fogle  (1990)

Wait, you say, how can the date of publication be after the film?  That’s because this was an unpublished novel when Gus made the film and Fogle was actually in prison.  In fact, the copyright on the book is held by Avenue Entertainment, the company that made the film.  It’s a decent book, though considerably bleak with almost no hope for anyone in the book.  The one character who finally tries to break through, get away from his addiction, and try to get back to something resembling a normal life ends up dead.

Things didn’t work out any better for Fogle.  He would be in and out of prison for the rest of his life, usually for possession and when he died in 2012, he was actually in prison at the time.

The Adaptation:

It’s a very straightforward adaptation.  The vast majority of action in the film and almost all of the dialogue come straight from the book.  Even some of the narrative of the book is kept in the film by being used as voiceover for Dillon.  Just about the biggest narrative change is the way that the beginning of the film is also the end of the film which the book doesn’t do.

The Credits:

directed by gus van sant, jr..  based on the novel by james fogle.  screenplay by gus van sant & daniel yost.

Batman

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film from when I covered Batman in my For Love of Film series.  In fact, this was one of the lengthiest reviews in the series because I really wanted to cover Nicholson’s brilliant performance, the brilliant design of the film even if it doesn’t make sense (just now, watching the ending, I commented to Veronica, “world’s tallest church”) and how there had been a serious dearth of comic book films in the years leading up to this film and this film changed all of that.  It’s a fantastic film, thanks to Burton, to Nicholson, to Keaton, to Furst, to Pratt and to Elfman (no thanks go to Prince) and it still delights 30 years after I sat there for an hour and half waiting for the film to start on opening morning.

The Source:

Batman, characters created by Bob Kane

I don’t really need to say much here because I have spoken so much about Batman in my various posts and especially in my Reading Guide to the character.  So go there to learn more about Batman and how I feel about him.

The Adaptation:

As the first real film version of Batman (speak not to me of Adam West) this film needed to provide an origin.  To give the film some heft, it was decided to have the Joker (who is given a name in this version) also be the young man who murdered the Waynes.  It went against everything that had come before but it worked for the film.  It stripped away much of the baggage and just focused on an origin story (he’s already Batman when the film starts though we think the opening scene is his origin at first), changing what it felt needed to be changed to make the film work.  For the most part (other than the Joker having killed the Waynes) it is like a lot of comic book films – faithful to the characters without using any particular storyline from the comics themselves.

The Credits:

Directed by Tim Burton.  Based upon characters appearing in magazines published by DC Comics, Inc..  Based on Batman characters created by Bob Kane.  Screenplay by Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren.  Story by Sam Hamm.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

The Film:

I didn’t go the movies a lot when I was a kid.  Or, to be more precise, I didn’t see a lot of movies in the theater before I was fourteen years old (early 1989).  But one film I saw in the theater was Raiders of the Lost Ark and while I had mixed feelings on the sequel (see here), the original was the first film I ever bought on videotape and the third film in the series happened to arrive in the summer of 1989, the summer where I really became a film buff.  This is a film I loved from the first minute I saw it and continue to love.  I was never really certain whether or not it was a great film (I have it as a high ***.5 which is where it has generally been for the most part) but I definitely loved it, taping it when it came on HBO, buying the soundtrack and eventually getting it as part of the box set when it was released on DVD.  Was it just because it was a new Indiana Jones film (with a lot less darkness and a lot more humor than the second film) or was it because it added Sean Connery as Indiana’s ornery father (in a wonderful performance) or was it because it really gave it a goal with some heft to it.  The second film had Indiana trying to bring back some rocks in India and I was uncertain when it was released if they were real artifacts or just created for the film but either way it didn’t seem to have the same weight behind it that the Ark of the Covenant had or this, one of my favorite objects in all of literature, the Holy Grail.

“The Holy Grail, the cup that caught the blood at the crucifixion and was entrusted to Joseph of Arimathea.”  “The search of the Grail is not Archaeology.  It’s a race against evil.”  “The search for the Grail is the search for the divine in all of us.  But if you want facts, Indy, I’ve none to give you.  At my age, I’m prepared to take a few things on faith.”  These are ideas about the Grail that permeate through the film and they are what bring me in.  I don’t find the Grail fascinating because of any connection to Christian theology but the way it connects to Christian mythology.  There is a larger story at play here, over what you believe and what you are willing to do for it.  That’s what makes this something more than just an adventure story or a relationship story (see below for that).  And the end, when they find the Grail, yet are unable to take it with them, is part of that great story.

Aside from all of that, there is the film itself.  Spielberg does a solid job of directing it, but he brings in his usual group to do their best work again.  John Williams makes good use of the themes he already wrote for the first film but also brings more to it, with the great Scherzo for Motorcycle.  The sound, cinematography and visual effects are all first-rate.  Most importantly, the acting is first-rate as well, namely Connery’s performance as Henry and Elliott’s amusing performance as Marcus.  Elliott was always one of my favorite actors and I was massively bummed when he died but it’s great to look at performances like this and see how good he was at playing either drama or comedy.  Most importantly, the film combines solid film-making with wonderful entertainment and gives me a film that I love to watch again and again.

The Source:

characters created by George Lucas, 1981

Of course, the characters in this film, most notably Indiana Jones, Marcus Brody and Sallah, were all created for Raiders of the Lost Ark.  If you want to know what I think of Raiders, in my mind, one of the greatest films ever made and absolutely one of my favorite films, can be found here (with links to other spots).

The Adaptation:

“In the earlier draft of Last Crusade by Meyhes [sic], ‘the father was sort of a MacGuffin,’ recalls [Screenwriter Jeffrey] Boam.  ‘They didn’t find the father until the very end.  I said to George, ‘It doesn’t make sense to find the father at the end.  Why don’t they find him in the middle?’  Given the fact that it’s the third film in the series, you couldn’t just end with them obtaining the object.  That’s how the first two ended.  So I thought, Let them lose the object – the Grail – and let the relationship be the main point.  It’s an archeological search for Indy’s own identity, Indy coming to accept his father is more what it’s about than the quest for the Grail.'”  (Steven Spielberg: A Biography, Joseph McBride, p 401)

The film itself holds mostly true to the characters as they existed in the first two films.  The one exception, and I feel the need to point this out, because it is part of the reason why my friend Tavis prefers the second film to this one, is taking Marcus Brody and making him the comic relief instead of a serious character like he is during his brief appearances in the first film.  I didn’t object to that mainly because they did such a good job of making him comic relief in a specific way but it is a reasonable objection.  Of course, we also get the acknowledgement that Indy would know what the Ark of the Covenant would look like (one of my favorite moments in the film) and we get the return of Sallah as well, one of the best characters in the first film.

The Credits:

Directed by Steven Spielberg.  Story by George Lucas and Menno Meyjes.  Screenplay by Jeffrey Boam.

Consensus Nominee

Driving Miss Daisy

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as the annoying Best Picture winner of 1989.  That it should not have won is an opinion that seems to be held by every person who didn’t actually vote for it and quite possibly by many who did and have changed their minds.  It is not a bad film – the acting from the two leads is too strong for that.  But in a year where the Academy nominated four great films (Born on the Fourth of July, Field of Dreams, My Left Foot, Dead Poets Society) and in which this film was passed over for Director in favor of two other great films (Crimes and Misdemeanors, Henry V) and in which yet three more great films were nominated for Original Screenplay but not for Picture or Director (When Harry Met Sally, sex lies and videotape, Do the Right Thing) and all the other great films that were nominated for Oscars (Glory, The Little Mermaid, Batman) or not nominated for any (Heathers, Say Anything), it’s absurd that this film should have won the Oscar, one of the most absurd choices the Academy ever made and one which they have been hearing gripes about ever since.

The Source:

Driving Miss Daisy: A Play by Alfred Uhry  (1988)

I was kind of hard on A Trip to Bountiful in the 1985 post but that’s nothing on this.  This is a kind of harmless little play that Uhry wrote about memories of his mother and her chauffeur, one of a trilogy of plays he wrote about growing up in Atlanta.  Of course, Uhry’s Atlanta seems to have missed all the massive changes wrought on the country and the area from 1948 to 1973.  It’s a play about a friendship that grows up between a woman and her driver but they happen to be Jewish and black in an era where that would have been greatly frowned upon and yet not that much of that comes into the story.  The play itself only has three characters (the woman’s son is the other).  It’s harmless.  I just can’t understand how it won the Pulitzer.

The Adaptation:

Uhry adapted his own play and made some changes (for instance, the opening car crash is much more significant in the play, when it is off-stage (she demolishes the neighbor’s garage) than when it is shown on-screen but for the most part what he did is add scenes.  The original play, as mentioned, only has the three main characters.  So any scene in the film that involves more characters than that is either completely new or has had dialogue and bits added to it.

The Credits:

Directed by Bruce Beresford.  Screenplay by Alfred Uhry.  Based on his play.

BAFTA Nominees

Shirley Valentine

The Film:

I see, by looking at my 1989 spreadsheet, that I gave this film a 69.  Was I drunk?  I wasn’t, of course, because I don’t drink and write about films.  That’s what Mountain Dew is for.  But I was being much more generous than this film, a film that really earns a **.5 (and which it now gets – a 61 – but which somehow I not only gave *** but a mid *** at that.  What I think was going on was that I didn’t want to be too hard on a film that clearly was not made for me, the story of a bored housewife (I was going to write middle-aged but fuck, she’s younger than me) who gets away and be accused of not getting the film.  Pauline Collins went on to earn an Oscar nomination and it’s not that she doesn’t deserve it but that so many others deserved it this year so much more (the most obvious being Meg Ryan).

Shirley is going bonkers and has started talking to the wall.  She’s got a daughter somewhere and a son who’s becoming the first busker poet in England.  She’s got a husband who gets upset if his tea isn’t ready at six.  Her life is one big nothing and she needs a break and she gets a chance when a friend takes off for Greece and convinces Shirley she should join her.  All of this an understandable portrait of a British woman in a certain age and at a certain time and it might have worked as a drama.  But because this is all played for a Comedy, while Collins gives a solid performance as Shirley, most of the rest of the film is one long cliche.  When she goes to Greece, she has an affair with the owner of a cafe who fits every cliche you could ever imagine and is played by Tom Conti with, not only a terrible accent, but the most ridiculously terrible performance you could possibly imagine.

So what’s going to happen?  Is Shirley going to head back home and begin again her life of drudgery?  What do you think?  I knew, years ago, that this was a film based on a play.  But I hadn’t realized it was based on a one woman show and I can understand how it would bring forth a powerhouse performance (Collins played the role on stage as well).  But she gives us vivid descriptions of her life and what is happening.  Here, they show us everything.  For once, showing instead of telling just doesn’t work.  Everything seems to lack any conviction or reality.

The Source:

Shirley Valentine: A Play by Willy Russell  (1988)

How much I could possibly take this play would depend on who was playing the part.  If played by Collins, who was good in the film, I might be able to tolerate it.  But just barely.  It’s a one woman show about Shirley, who dreams of getting out of her life of drudgery and is able to do so when she takes a trip to Greece, has an affair and decides to stick around for the country if not for the man.  Everything we learn in the play comes from Shirley’s description.

The Adaptation:

Russell adapted his own play and the key thing he did was actually write scenes to match the stories that Shirley has already told us.  It doesn’t feel like a filmed play because of course it’s opened up just in actually depicting the scenes instead of having them described to us.  But most of what we hear from Shirley makes it to the screen intact.

One little word about the bizarre dvd release of this film.  There are two sets of subtitles – the English UK and the English US.  So, for example, her son proclaiming that he’s the “first busker poet” becomes the “first street poet” in the US subtitles.  What the bloody hell was the point of that?  Bunch of bleedin’ wankers.

The Credits:

produced and directed by Lewis Gilbert.  written by Willy Russell.

The War of the Roses

The Film:

In 1984, Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas played a couple who fell in love while constantly bickering with Danny DeVito along for the ride in Romancing the Stone.  A year later, they all reunited for a mediocre sequel, The Jewel of the Nile.  But clearly they were a group with some chemistry and when Danny DeVito decided to direct The War of the Roses (which must have been lingering for a while in development hell as the First Edition of the novel, published in 1981 claims on the dust jacket it will soon be a feature film), he brought his two co-stars, along again as a bickering couple.  Except this time, it’s the love that comes first and the bickering that comes later with this bleak, darkly satirical look at divorce.

The film, whose title also alludes to the famous British war over the crown (whereas here the war is over the house and while there are children involved, neither parent seems to care about anything other than the house and the physical possessions inside and I had honestly forgotten that they even had children) was a solid hit and earned three Golden Globe nominations and there was considerable talk of Oscar nominations but it actually failed to earn a single nomination.  Was is it just that it wasn’t quite up to snuff?  I would argue that is the case since this is 1989, a singularly fantastic year, even if the Academy did pick the mediocre Driving Miss Daisy.  Was it the Academy bias against Comedies, especially since When Harry Met Sally was mostly left out in the cold as well?  Or was it that this film was just too darkly satirical to ever be embraced by Academy voters?

Oliver and Barbara Rose seem to be a happy couple, falling in love over an antique auction and having kids, great careers and a magnificent home (complete with chandelier, hanging high up above).  But when Oliver thinks he’s having a heart attack (it turns out to be not as serious but he thinks it is at first) and Barbara simply doesn’t care, they fast-track into the nastiest divorce imaginable on film.  The cat will die, the dog will possibly become pate, the children will just be fodder in the middle of it all, and there we have Douglas and Turner throwing barbs (and in Turner’s case, punches) at each other as we watch them disintegrate.

It’s a solid film but the nastiness of the film really keeps it mired down in the high ***.  What’s more, the totally dour ending (which is almost straight from the book) keeps it down there as well.  It left people dazed and stunned when it first came out.  What’s more, having the DeVito character telling the story actually allowed the viewers to take an alternate approach and decide that perhaps the whole thing is just a metaphor or a story that he’s telling and not what really happened.  Either way, it’s well-written and it has a solid performance from Douglas and a really strong one from Turner, but watching it again, after all this time, I am still left with just too much nastiness to really push it any higher.

The Source:

The War of the Roses by Warren Adler  (1981)

If the film was rather nasty, that’s nothing compared to the original novel.  At least in the film while we get the performances of Douglas and Turner to enjoy, in the novel, we just have a couple that have a really ugly divorce because Barbara Rose decides she doesn’t care about her husband Jonathan anymore.  In the end, they don’t care about the kids and even care less about the stuff than about trying to destroy each other and finally they both end up dead on the floor together.

The Adaptation:

Most of what we see in the film is straight from the book with the exception of DeVito.  The story isn’t told in a framing device in the book (it begins with the auction and ends with the death) and the DeVito character is much less important in the book.  Other than that, the vast majority of what we see on film is from the book, including little details (the cat, the attempted murder in the sauna, the fake-out over the dog with the pate) with the small exception that in the book, Jonathan (one other small change – his name, for some reason) is trying to help Barbara off the chandelier when they both fall rather than them both having been trapped there together.

The Credits:

Directed by Danny DeVito.  Based upon the novel by Warren Adler.  Screenplay by Michael Leeson.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10


(in descending order of how I rank the script)

note:  A little preface.  As mentioned in other posts in the past, I began tracking the films I watched in a notebook in February of 1989 around the time that I went to the theaters to see both Rain Man and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.  Because I decided that any film seen before then had to be seen again to count as being “seen”, this is the first year where I might have seen a film just the once (possibly even in the theater) and have literally never seen it again.  That’s not the case for the above films because I had to re-watch them to review them at the very least though over half my Top 10 I have seen at least 10 times.  But there are films on this list I haven’t seen since 1989 and my rating of them is based on one viewing 30 years ago when I was still a teenager just starting to become serious about film.

  • The Mighty Quinn  –  Denzel had already proven himself a great actor but this film showed he could be a star.  Solid Mystery based on the novel Finding Maubee which isn’t bad (I read it at one point when I thought this would be in the Top 10), a mid ***.5 film.
  • The Adventures of Baron Munchausen  –  Gilliam’s direction and technical aspects are the star much more than the script but this is a film that deserves to be better known than a box office disaster.  Wildly imaginative, just like the original stories.  Notable also for being the subject of a great film book: Losing the Light (see more way down the post here).
  • Always  –  A couple of months ago my college roommate watched A Guy Named Joe on TCM and realized Always was a remake of that film.  But I prefer this one, partially because I prefer Richard Dreyfuss to Spencer Tracy and partially because it has Audrey Hepburn’s last performance.
  • Spider’s Web  –  West Germany’s Oscar submission wasn’t nominated though it was better than three of the nominees.  Based on the first novel by Joseph Roth.
  • Story of Women  –  This film is high *** but with solid writing making it one of Claude Chabrol’s best films (starring Isabelle Huppert in the first of four collaborations between the two in the course of a decade).  Based on a non-fiction book about Marie-Louise Giraud who was executed in Nazi-occupied France by guillotine for performing abortions.
  • Camille Claudel  –  Back to low ***.5 with this film about the famous sculptor and painter and her relationship with Rodin.  Fantastic performance from Isabelle Adjani.  Based on the book by Claudel’s great-niece.  This film made Adjani the only French actress to earn two Oscar nominations.
  • Steel Magnolias  –  The ultimate chick flick is a mid *** but I admire the writing.  Based on a play by Robert Harling.  The first film I ever saw Julia Roberts in which became vitally important over the next few years.  It’s ironic that Roberts, who was the least known of the six stars, has probably made more money in her career than the other five combined (if you don’t count Parton’s singing).  Because I haven’t seen this in almost 30 years (the only film in this part in that situation) and because I had a friend in college who couldn’t have kids because of having CF I had forgotten that Roberts’ character doesn’t have CF but has Type 1 Diabetes, a disease which I have to think about everyday.

Other Adaptations


(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Licence to Kill  –  I’ve seen this plenty of times, of course, because as my full review shows, I’m a big fan of Dalton’s Bond.  Very underrated with the most underrated Bond girl.
  • Dead Calm  –  Solid high *** (75 – the highest ***) Suspense film based on the novel by Charles Williams which Orson Welles had taken a stab at adapting back in the late 60’s though his film was left unfinished.
  • Valmont  –  With Colin Firth and Annette Bening in the roles played in Dangerous Liaisons played by Malkovich and Close, a film I feel I should return to.  Milos Forman’s adaptation didn’t use Hampton’s play but went back to the original de Laclos.  Sadly, it bombed in the States.
  • Jacknife  –  This is based on a play called Strange Snow that I have actually seen on stage when my undergraduate Shakespeare professor was in it and I realized halfway through that it was clearly the basis for this film which I had seen several years previously.
  • Back to the Future Part II  –  I have always been a bigger fan of this film than most people because I have always been into the whole “alternate timeline” concept thanks to Star Trek and comic books.  My friend Jay disliked it enough that he was going to skip the third one but we talked him into it when Total Recall was sold out (and he loved the third one – especially the train).
  • Casualties of War  –  Dark story of Vietnam based on a New Yorker article and subsequent book by Daniel Lang that I thought was headed for Oscars at the time but ended up being blanked.
  • La Lectrice  –  Solid French Drama based on the novel by Raymond Jean.
  • Powwow Highway  –  Solid film made from David Sears’ novel.  I call it a Drama but you could easily classify it as a Comedy.  Notable for the number of Native Americans in the cast and for being the film debut of Wes Studi.
  • In Country  –  Platoon obviously opened things up because we’re just getting down to mid-*** and we’ve already had two films about Vietnam and this is the second one about vets after Vietnam (unless we want to count Born on the Fourth of July twice in which case it’s the third).  Based on the novel by Bobbie Ann Mason.
  • Lethal Weapon 2  –  The first topless scene I ever saw in the theater and probably the first R-rated film I ever saw in the theater which was made more awkward because I saw it with my older sister.  Still, an entertaining action film that also had an entertaining short HBO film that Mel Gibson did to promote it that became much more awkward when he went off the deep end years later.  About even with the first film but more enjoyable because of more humor.  This was the film that made Gibson a superstar, making more in the States than his three previous films combined and it was his highest grossing film for over a decade.
  • A Dry White Season  –  A bit clunky at times but well-meaning and with a solid performance from Marlon Brando, his last Oscar nomination after a 16 year gap.  Ironically, it had the same subject as Lethal Weapon 2 (apartheid).
  • The Old Well  –  Solid Chinese Drama based on the novel by Zheng Yi.
  • Manifesto  –  Serbian director Dušan Makavejev comes to the States and adapts a novella by Émile Zola (Pour une nuit d’amour).
  • The Bear  –  Jean-Jacques Annaud was never great with his actors but does better here directing bears.  Adapted from the novel The Grizzly King.
  • We’re No Angels  –  No wonder Neil Jordan went back to Ireland after being given films like this and High Spirits (well, he wrote that but it was vastly changed in editing out of his hands).  Much better than it should have been but based on a Bogie film which was based on a play this film should have sucked and was nowhere near showing off the talents of the man who had made Mona Lisa.  We’re down to low ***.
  • Ashik Kerib  –  Soviet film based on the Lermontov short story.
  • 36 Fillette  –  For her second film (12 years after her first), Catherine Breillat once again adapts her own novel and it once again deals with a precocious teenage girl’s sexuality.  I would say that this will also be the case for all the Breillat films going forward but after this she stops adapting her own novels and just writes original scripts that usually deal with a precocious teenage girl’s sexuality (not always – sometimes the sexuality is of a young woman after her teen years).
  • Blaze  –  Starting with this film, for a few years Lolita Davidovich was considered kind of an “it girl” with people focused on her sexuality which I never understood because I didn’t think she was much of an actress and didn’t find her to be that attractive.  To me the strength of this film is Paul Newman’s performance as Earl Long.  Based on the memoir of stripper Blaze Starr about her affair with Long.
  • Journey to Melonia  –  Swedish Animated adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
  • Miss Firecracker  –  For Christmas of 1992, our family bought the game Taboo.  The goal of the game is to guess what your partner has on their card without them using any of the “taboo” words.  So, for instance, the word might be “firecracker” and the taboo things might be “Fourth of July”, “Independence Day” and such.  But my brother Kelly and I were a team and Kelly quickly realized that if he could turn whatever the word was into a film reference, I could get it in a second.  This was one of the first examples when he said “Holly Hunter is Miss…” and I added “Firecracker”.  Which is pretty good for being three years after this film finished the year at #148 at the box office.  Based on the play The Miss Firecracker Contest by Beth Henley (who won a Pulitzer for Crimes of the Heart).
  • A Taxing Woman’s Return  –  Probably not a surprise to find this is a sequel to A Taxing Woman, both of them Japanese Comedies.
  • Cousins  –  Mediocre remake of the solid French comedy Cousin Cousine which had earned several major Oscar noms back in 1976.
  • An Enemy of the People  –  Maybe Satyajit Ray isn’t meant for Henrik Ibsen because his adaptation of Ibsen’s play is one of his weaker films.
  • Asterix and the Big Fight  –  The latest Animated Asterix film combines elements from Asterix and the Big Fight and Asterix and the Soothsayer.
  • The Rainbow  –  We drop to **.5 with Ken Russell once again returning to D.H. Lawrence but this adaptation of the very good novel (it made my Top 200) is a far cry from his Women in Love.
  • Babar: The Movie  –  Odd that I never read the Asterix books growing up (though my brothers had) because the Tintin books and Babar books were something my family picked up in France.  So I grew up reading Babar and was thus even more bummed when this film version of everyone’s favorite elephant turned out to be so relentlessly mediocre.
  • Star Trek V: The Final Frontier  –  Otherwise known as Star Trek V: Plotholes for reasons I explain in my review.  By the way, I can now list over 100 films from this year worse than this Razzie winner with over 40 of them listed below.
  • Worth Winning  –  My mother is constantly confusing people who shouldn’t be confused (like Jim Broadbent and Hugh Bonneville who are so different in age that they play the same character in a film at different ages!) but when I was first getting into films I constantly mixed up Lesley Ann Warren (one of Mark Harmon’s love interests in this mediocre Romantic Comedy based on a novel by Dan Lewandowski) and Susan Sarandon who were both super sexy redheads (or close to it, depending on their hair) in films I was seeing at the time who look alike and are only six weeks apart in age.
  • Cheetah  –  Given that I saw both Little Nikita and The Great Outdoors multiple times even though they’re both terrible because I thought Lucy Deakins was super cute I don’t understand how I never saw this film until this year which also has her in it.  Disney Kids film based on the novel by Alan Caillou.  Mid **.5.
  • The Rachel Papers  –  I’ve never really liked Martin Amis’ books so even though I have seen this film adaptation of his novel, I haven’t bothered with the novel itself.
  • Crusoe  –  Under the heading of “cinematographers shouldn’t direct films because they’re not great with telling a story”, six time Oscar nominee Caleb Deschanel directs Aidan Quinn in this version of the classic Defoe novel.
  • Family Business  –  Of course, even truly great directors can misfire like Sidney Lumet does here with this film that brings us down to low **.5.  With three generations of criminals played by Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman and Matthew Broderick you think you have the making of a good film but even without looking at their actual ages (seven years between Connery and Hoffman) it’s pretty clear that it’s ridiculous to ever think Connery could be Hoffman’s father.  Based on the novel by Vincent Patrick.
  • Millennium  –  Penultimate film from former Oscar nominee Michael Anderson is a Sci-Fi that was originally a short story called “Air Raid” by John Varley.
  • Mala Noche  –  From former Oscar nominee to future Oscar nominee with Gus Van Sant’s debut film finally getting an L.A. release four years after it was made.  Based on the novel by Walt Curtis.
  • Iguana  –  Strange film about a disfigured man based on the novel by Alberto Vázquez-Figueroa and I have no idea why I’ve even seen it.
  • Farewell to the King  –  Adventure film starring Nick Nolte based on the novel by Pierre Schoendoerffer.
  • Jeweller’s Shop  –  Another Michael Anderson film (released before Millennium) this one, believe it or not, based on a play by Karol Józef Wojtyła before he became Pope John Paul II.
  • Ghostbusters II  –  We drop to ** with this lackluster sequel that I haven’t bothered to watch in close to 30 years (but didn’t see in the theater).
  • Paperhouse  –  Roger Ebert gave **** to this film based on the novel Marianne Dreams by Catherine Storr but I’m not with him on that one.
  • Great Balls of Fire!  –  Lifeless biopic of Jerry Lee Lewis but with Winona Ryder playing his 13 year old first cousin once removed (she had just turned 17 when it was filmed) you can understand why he would marry her.  Based on her biography of her husband (I was gonna say “because he was dead” but holy crap, 30 years after that film came out and he’s not only still alive he’s apparently still performing!).
  • Alice  –  Jan Švankmajer is an imaginative filmmaker but he’s not good with story-telling so his “animated” films (they’re basically claymation) are fascinating but often not very good.  This is his version of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
  • National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation  –  Has somehow become considered a “Christmas classic” but not in the sense of restoring your faith in humanity (It’s a Wonderful Life) or having wonderfully written characters and a heart-warming ending that overcomes massive logical issues (Love Actually) but more in the sense of Elf in that it’s perfectly fine for the whole family to watch, it’s about Christmas and it doesn’t suck although honestly, I have it at mid ** so I kind of think it sucks.  The third film in the Griswold family series.
  • Bloodhounds of Broadway  –  Four different Damon Runyon stories are combined to make one rather lifeless film.
  • Dad  –  Oh, fuck me.  Ted Danson and Ethan Hawke?  I don’t know how I survived this three generation story.  Based on the novel by William Wharton which is the novel he wrote between Birdy and A Midnight Clear both of which were made into much better films.
  • Triumph of the Spirit  –  A true story about a man who was forced by SS guards to box other prisoners at Auschwitz for their amusement was assumed to be Oscar bait but they forgot to actually make a good film.  Known for being the first film to actually film at Auschwitz (obviously not counting Night and Fog, the film that, along with Anne Frank, made me an atheist).  I’m leaving it here but I don’t actually think it is adapted.  The old oscars.org listed it as such but neither the IMDb or Wikipedia list a source.  TCM lists Simon Winhelberg as having written a book though their link to Wincelberg describes Christoph Waltz.  AFI lists Wincelberg as being involved at one point early on but that his script wasn’t used and he receives no credit.  Whether it’s adapted or original, it’s a film that wants to be very important but isn’t very good.
  • Let it Ride  –  Silly Richard Dreyfuss Comedy about gambling and horse racing both of which bore me.  Based on the novel Good Vibes by Jay Cronley whose Funny Farm was in 1988 and who will be back again next year (with a better film though I have never read any of these novels).
  • The Karate Kid Part III  –  The first film in this project that I saw in the theater and have never seen again.  I had seen the second film in the theater and it was much better than this crap.  So bad that it wasn’t until last year while working on my Columbia post that I finally saw the fourth film and the remake.
  • The Phantom of the Opera  –  We drop to low ** with this weak adaptation of the classic Leroux novel (which I happen to really love).  Like the 1998 Les Miserables, made I think to capitalize on the success of the stage musical while waiting for the film version of the musical to be made and both times it would take over a decade for that to happen.
  • She-Devil  –  How much do the Globes love Meryl?  They nominated her for this crap over Winona Ryder (Heathers), Mary Steenburgen (Parenthood), Isabella Rossellini (Cousins) or Holly Hunter (Miss Firecracker).  Based on the novel by Fay Weldon.
  • The Fly II  –  We drop to *.5 with this sequel to Cronenberg’s film with Eric Stoltz playing the son of Jeff Goldblum’s character.  Went from Cronenberg to Chris Walas, who did the creature effects on the first film as the director.
  • Johnny Handsome  –  One of numerous films that failed to make Mickey Rourke a star.  Adapted from the novel by John Godey.
  • Godzilla vs Biollante  –  I’ll see any film with Godzilla in the title but that doesn’t mean that you should.  This film, the second in the Heisei series and 17th overall, is terrible.
  • Pet Sematary  –  I haven’t yet seen this year’s remake though I might have by the time this posts and it’s supposed to be pretty good but it couldn’t be worse than this crap.  Doesn’t help that it’s one of King’s lesser books (his worst through both 1983 when it was published and 1989 when the film was released).
  • Pumpkinhead  –  We drop to * with this Horror film based on a poem by Ed Justin.  Another film directed by an effects creator (the brilliant Stan Winston).
  • Slaves of New York  –  Merchant-Ivory should have stuck with Ruth Prawer Jhabvala as their screenwriter because they get Tama Janowitz to adapt her own stories.  Included in Roger Ebert’s I Hated Hated Hated This Movie with the great opening line of his review: “I detested Slaves of New York so much that I distrust my own opinion.”
  • Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers  –  Michael Myers is still killing people and poor Donald Pleasance as Dr. Sam Loomis is still trying to stop him.
  • Stepfather II  –  The original was bad.  This one is shitty.
  • Edge of Sanity  –  You would think Anthony Perkins would be a good Jekyll and Hyde but this very bad version of the novel would prove you wrong.
  • Three Fugitives  –  Since Martin Short starring in a film is usually a reason I don’t watch it, I will cite what I said in 1988 about trying to see every Disney film.  Remake of a French film and it’s awful.
  • Communion  –  Is it Drama?  Horror?  Sci-Fi?  It’s bad is what it is.  Mid-level * based on the book by Whitley Strieber.
  • The Return of Swamp Thing  –  Give people a sequel no one is asking for and no one will see it.  In the same year that Batman was the #1 film of the year (by a long way) this, the other DC film in the year, couldn’t make the Top 200 making less than $1 for every $1000 that Batman made.  First of two films close together in which the original (far superior) film was directed by Wes Craven.
  • American Ninja 3: Blood Hunt  –  I would ask why they made three of these but they actually made five.
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child  –  When I wrote my description for the fourth film in the franchise for 1988 I initially wrote “the franchise hits rock bottom and that’s not hyperbole because all of the films after this will actually be better” but when I checked my spreadsheet I realized this one is actually the bottom which shows that this franchise is much better than Friday the 13th which is lower and will stay down there while this franchise will have a bit of a rebound at least.  We’re down to the .5 films now.
  • To Die For  –  Dracula in modern Los Angeles.  They actually stuck Bram Stoker’s name on the title for the video release, maybe to capitalize on Coppola’s film.  It’s hard to get a greater discrepancy on two unrelated films with the same title than the 85 points between this film and Van Sant’s film.
  • Fletch Lives  –  This film is so agonizingly stupid that it brings down the original because it does badly many of the things that the first film did well (or at least tolerably).  Even though Gregory Mcdonald wrote 11 Fletch books this is based on none of them.
  • Wired  –  I remember Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi at the SNL 15th Anniversary show and I’m gonna try to do this from memory: “Hi, I’m Jim Belushi, John’s little brother.”  “And I’m Dan Aykroyd, John’s other little brother.”  After that they said something about John then Dan said “Those who were there will know and will always know; those who were not there will never know and will be forgotten.”  Clearly Bob Woodward won’t be forgotten but thankfully most people seem to have forgotten this book and gone back to remembering what he has been as a political journalist.  I’ve never read the book which was widely panned as a hit job but the film, with Belushi being driven around through his life by a cabbie and then interviewed by Woodward in his dying moments is just utter shit.  I met Jim at a book signing at Borders and we had some jackass who tried to claim he knew John and Jim asked him two questions that proved he didn’t and then shut him down.  He’s clearly protective of his brother’s memory and I don’t blame him especially when a movie this shitty has been made about him.
  • Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan  –  More Jason crap.  The lowest grossing film in the series until 2002 and it still couldn’t kill the franchise although it would be the last one in the franchise made at Paramount.
  • Police Academy 6: City Under Siege  –  Worse than the Jason movie.  Nuff said.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • A Chorus of Disapproval  –  If you think of an Alan Ayckbourn play as “notable” then you are in theater or have a degree in Literature but I had a friend who was in Henceforward when we were in college and I was fascinated.  Plus this film has both Jeremy Irons and Anthony Hopkins yet seems to be completely unavailable.

The highest grossing adapted film of 1989 I haven’t seen is Fright Night II way down at #132 for the year ($2.98 mil).  The only two films in the Top 100 I haven’t seen (She’s Lost Control, Troop Beverly Hills) are both original.  The highest grossing non-sequel adapted film I haven’t seen is Winter People (#143, $2.02 mil).

A Century of Film: The 100 Greatest Actors

$
0
0


A Century of Film


The 100 Greatest Actors


Introduction

Much as I did with Actress, this is the list that was obviously coming, the list of the 100 Greatest Film Actors of All-Time.

When calculating my Top 100 Directors, I did a lot of different lists that factored in the quality of their films, the quality of their direction, critical acclaim and awards attention.  It wasn’t going to be that easy with acting.  So I bit the bullet and decided that my ranking would be based on my Absolute Points list.

Here’s how that works.  I rate a performance on a scale of 0-9.  The vast, vast majority of film performances are a 0, not worthy of noting.  To me, a solid performance worthy of an Oscar nomination is a 4 (equivalent to a low star **** film for Picture), which earns 35 points, which is the point total for an Oscar or Nighthawk nomination.  A great performance, worthy of an Oscar, is an 8 (equivalent to a high **** film), which earns 70 points, the total for an Oscar or Nighthawk win.  The very best performances earn a 9, which earns a 78 (the equivalent of a 98 or 99 for Best Picture).  The numbers for supporting are 4=30, 8=60, 9=67 with appropriate scaling going down (1=9 in lead, 8 in supporting).

I simply have totaled all of those performances.  It eliminates the luck of what year the performance was in.  So, for instance, in 1941, when both Orson Welles and Humphrey Bogart earn a 9 for their performances, they both get 78 points.  In 1950, Erich von Stroheim, Orson Welles and George Sanders all earn 67 points.  They aren’t hurt by the chance of having brilliant competition.  Likewise, in 1949, when no lead or supporting performance earns above a 7 the highest point totals are 61 and 52.  They don’t get extra points just for winning in a weaker year.

It is true that the points are cumulative, so the more good performances you do, the more you earn.  But that’s part of a whole career.  James Dean and Heath Ledger fail to make the list because of their early deaths and Michael Caine is higher than you might expect thanks to an amazing career that has seen him continue to amass plenty of points.  But in the end, greatness matters.  You have to give nine 1 point performances to match a nine point performance.  The more often you are great, the higher you go.  That’s why Daniel Day-Lewis ranks so high with such a comparatively small number of films.

I will also point out that this list is entirely configured based off films.  Derek Jacobi’s theater and television work don’t count which is why he didn’t make the list.  Tinker Tailor doesn’t help Alec Guinness and no one is helped by Angels in America or Empire Falls.  Also please note that my paragraph description of the career doesn’t necessarily even include everything I gave the actor points for – it’s just a summation, not a complete list.

I start below with an oddity list, then do decade lists, then two different lists that stress peak performance.  That will be followed by the full list, with some post-2011 updates at the bottom.  In the full list, though I list awards from major groups (wins are in bold – if there is no line in bold they didn’t win any of the awards I track) though I will stress that those awards are just a list – they have nothing to do with the actual construction of the list.  My own awards are abbreviated NH to save space but even those are a little deceptive when it comes to total points as a non-nominated performance in a great year might be the equal of a win in a weak year.  In the post-2011 updates (for those listed in the initial list), I only list awards or nominations that are post-2011.

One thing I will address here that, amazingly, I didn’t have to think about in the Actress post.  I write these posts as if it were December 31, 2011, the end of the first Century of Film.  But at least two actors on this list had notable deaths between then and when I am actually writing this in July of 2019 (and a lot more than two have died).  I will include their death dates in their bios because otherwise it would just seem really awkward.  But when I went back to see what I had done about this on the Actress post I discovered that the most recent death of those 100+ (factoring in the post-2011 additions) actresses was when Elizabeth Taylor died in 2011.  Not a single person on that list has died since then, including Olivia de Havilland who just turned 103!

Top 10 Oddest Performances in History:

note:  Here is what I mean by this list: these are the highest career point totals on the list (of the 1034 actors on the list through 2011) whose entire point total is from just one film.  These actors gave it their all just once and the rest of their career was either mediocre or even dreck.

  1. Ray Milland  –  The Lost Weekend
  2. Tom Hulce  –  Amadeus
  3. Robert Walker  –  Strangers on a Train
  4. Victor Sjostrom  –  Wild Strawberries
  5. F. Murray Abraham  –  Amadeus
  6. Sydney Greenstreet  –  The Maltese Falcon
  7. Sean Astin  –  The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
  8. Paul Lukas  –  Watch on the Rhine
  9. Yul Brynner  –  The King and I
  10. Juri Jarvet  –  King Lear

Top 10 Points:  1912-1929

  1. Lon Chaney  –  299
  2. Emil Jannings  –  227
  3. Charlie Chaplin  –  157
  4. Erich von Stroheim  –  95
  5. Conrad Veidt  –  89
  6. Buster Keaton  –  60
  7. Sessue Hayakawa  –  56
  8. Max Schreck  –  45
  9. Henry B. Walthall  –  45
  10. George O’Brien  –  44

Top 10 Points:  1930-1939

  1. Leslie Howard  –  371
  2. Fredric March  –  356
  3. Charles Laughton  –  279
  4. James Cagney  –  243
  5. Clark Gable  –  235
  6. Paul Muni  –  218
  7. Claude Rains  –  208
  8. William Powell  –  174
  9. Lionel Barrymore  –  169
  10. John Barrymore  –  137

Top 10 Points:  1940-1949

  1. Humphrey Bogart  –  383
  2. Cary Grant  –  356
  3. Claude Rains  –  311
  4. Laurence Olivier  –  284
  5. James Stewart  –  278
  6. Henry Fonda  –  235
  7. Gregory Peck  –  201
  8. Walter Huston  –  193
  9. Orson Welles  –  183
  10. Kirk Douglas  –  158

Top 10 Points:  1950-1959

  1. Alec Guinness  –  504
  2. Kirk Douglas  –  358
  3. William Holden  –  322
  4. James Stewart  –  315
  5. Marlon Brando  –  304
  6. Orson Welles  –  251
  7. Burt Lancaster  –  232
  8. Henry Fonda  –  219
  9. Humphrey Bogart  –  201
  10. Frank Sinatra  –  199

Top 10 Points:  1960-1969

  1. Toshiro Mifune  –  605
  2. Richard Burton  –  339
  3. Paul Newman  –  339
  4. Burt Lancaster  –  323
  5. Sidney Poitier  –  323
  6. Peter O’Toole  –  260
  7. Alec Guinness  –  248
  8. Peter Sellers  –  239
  9. John Mills  –  229
  10. Marcello Mastroianni  –  208

Top 10 Points:  1970-1979

  1. Al Pacino  –  380
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  357
  3. Gene Hackman  –  342
  4. Robert De Niro  –  321
  5. Dustin Hoffman  –  310
  6. Robert Duvall  –  246
  7. Robert Redford  –  235
  8. Woody Allen  –  235
  9. Walter Matthau  –  217
  10. Warren Beatty  –  193

Top 10 Points:  1980-1989

  1. Jack Nicholson  –  405
  2. William Hurt  –  331
  3. Michael Caine  –  280
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  280
  5. Paul Newman  –  261
  6. Jeremy Irons  –  261
  7. Bob Hoskins  –  238
  8. Steve Martin  –  237
  9. Harrison Ford  –  232
  10. Denzel Washington  –  207

Top 10 Points:  1990-1999

  1. Anthony Hopkins  –  425
  2. Ralph Fiennes  –  416
  3. Robert De Niro  –  374
  4. Denzel Washington  –  359
  5. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  331
  6. Clint Eastwood  –  330
  7. Johnny Depp  –  322
  8. Kevin Spacey  –  294
  9. Al Pacino  –  283
  10. Tom Hanks  –  277

Top 10 Points:  2000-2011

  1. George Clooney  –  600
  2. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  453
  3. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  436
  4. Christian Bale  –  331
  5. Michael Caine  –  319
  6. Ralph Fiennes  –  311
  7. Sean Penn  –  305
  8. Viggo Mortenson  –  292
  9. Russell Crowe  –  287
  10. Paul Giamatti  –  268

Top 10 Most Points in a Single Oscar Eligible Year

  1. Charles Laughton  –  1935  –  156  (Mutiny on the Bounty  /  Les Miserables  /  Ruggles of Red Gap)
  2. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  2007  –  156  (Charlie Wilson’s War  /  The Savages  /  Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead)
  3. Sidney Poitier  –  1967  –  150  (In the Heat of the Night  /  Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner  /  To Sir with Love)
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  1993  –  148  (In the Name of the Father  /  The Age of Innocence)
  5. Anthony Hopkins  –  1993  –  148  (The Remains of the Day  /  Shadowlands)
  6. Cary Grant  –  1940  –  147  (His Girl Friday  /  The Philadelphia Story  /  My Favorite Wife)
  7. Kirk Douglas  –  1951  –  140  (Detective Story  /  Ace in the Hole)
  8. Henry Fonda  –  1957  –  140  (12 Angry Men  /  The Tin Star  /  The Wrong Man)
  9. Billy Bob Thornton  –  2001  –  139  (The Man Who Wasn’t There  /  Monster’s Ball  /  Bandits)
  10. Toshiro Mifune  –  1962  –  139  (Throne of Blood  /  The Lower Depths  /  Sanjuro  /  Important Man)

note:  No male actor comes remotely close to what Julianne Moore did in 1999 or Emma Thompson in 1993 both of whom were over 200 points.

Top 10 Most Points in Five Consecutive Years

note:  For this list, I only list an actor once, no matter what their total over another five year stretch may be (because often it’s just slightly lower by dropping one end year and moving one year in the other direction).

  1. Toshiro Mifune  –  1962-66  –  448  **
  2. Anthony Hopkins  –  1991-95  –  347
  3. Alec Guinness  –  1956-60  –  340
  4. Kirk Douglas  –  1949-53  –  331  *
  5. Cary Grant  –  1937-41  –  329
  6. Al Pacino  –  1972-76  –  319  *
  7. Leslie Howard  –  1934-38  –  305
  8. Ralph Fiennes  –  1996-00  –  305
  9. Richard Burton  –  1963-67  –  295
  10. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  2005-09  –  295  *

note:  Douglas, Pacino and Hoffman actually did their totals in just four years.
note:  Mifune’s isn’t cheating so much as luck as to when his films earned U.S. releases.

The 100 Greatest Film Actors of All-Time (through 2011)

 

#100  –  John Hurt

294 points
1940-2017, English
2 BAFTAs, Golden Globe
2 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, 2 Globe noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance: The Elephant Man
He was so good for so long.  He earns his first points in 1971 as the wrongly convicted man in 10 Rillington Place and earned points all the way up until Tinker Tailor in 2011.  In between he was earning award nominations for great performances in Midnight Express and The Elephant Man but also being overlooked for such solid performances as The Hit and Scandal.  He doesn’t earn points for it, but he also managed to give a good performance as The War Doctor as well.

#99  –  Walter Huston

294 points
1883-1950, Canadian
Oscar, Globe, NYFC (twice), NBR, 2 NH
4 Oscar noms, Globe nom, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
The sire of a grand family of acting (and other talents as well).  Huston would work for years in Hollywood, earning multiple Oscar noms before winning an Oscar being directed by his son John (who would later direct Walter’s granddaughter to an Oscar as well).  He was great all the way until the end, even earning points for The Furies, released four months after he died.

#98  –  Brad Pitt

295 points
b. 1963, American
Globe, NYFC, NSFC, BSFC
3 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  12 Monkeys
It took me a while to really get into Pitt.  At the beginning he was great in small doses (like Thelma & Louise) but not in lead roles.  In 1995, it would emerge that he was a great character actor but a charismatic void as a lead.  He’s really turned up the notch in more recent years with Burn After Reading, Inglourious Basterds, Tree of Life and Moneyball.

#97  –  Gary Oldman

295 points
b. 1958, English
Oscar nom, 2 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
For a long time Oldman was part of that Malkovich / Tommy Lee Jones category of fine line between actor and ham with sprinklings of solid acting like Prick Up Your Ears or Immortal Beloved.  But after his lay-off he came back as Sirius Black and Commissioner Gordon and he was a new actor, finally breaking through with awards attention as George Smiley.

#96  –  Lon Chaney

299 points
1883-1930, American
NH
5 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Chaney was the greatest actor of the Silent Era.  Even buried in his brilliant makeup you could feel the power of his performances as the Hunchback and the Phantom.  Sadly, he died of lung cancer in 1930 having made just one sound film and we never really got the measure of what he could have done (and that early death is also why he’s so far down the list).

#95  –  Jude Law

301 points
b. 1972, English
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 3 Globe noms, NH Nom
Best Performance:  A.I.
Law is an interesting case because I first knew him for The Talented Mr. Ripley for which he earned what I thought was an undeserved Oscar nomination.  But then in 2001 and 2002 I thought he was worthy of them (A.I., Road to Perdition) and he was mostly ignored by awards groups.  Then he was back in the Oscar race for a performance that wasn’t as good for Cold Mountain.  Then came his six films in 2004 though Closer provided the bulk of the points.  He’s been mostly cold since then but he’s still in a lot of films and is ready to move up.

#94  –  Ralph Richardson

301 points
1902-1983, English
BAFTA, NYFC (twice), NBR (4)
2 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Sound Barrier
One of the great British stage actors who turned to film and proved equally adept in lead roles (The Fallen Idol, The Sound Barrier) and supporting performances (The Citadel, The Heiress).  Richardson continued to act until the end, earning his second Oscar nomination some 16 months after he died.  What’s more astounding is that he only earned the two nominations, having become, in 1952, the first actor to win the NYFC without earning an Oscar nom (ironically, John Gielgud, another of those stage greats would be the second, in 1977).

#93  –  Lee Marvin

302 points
1924-1987, American
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, NBR
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, 2 Globe noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  Point Blank
It’s the luck of the draw.  Marvin only earns one Nighthawk nomination (for The Big Heat) but the bulk of his points came in the mid 60’s with The Killers, Cat Ballou, Ship of Fools, The Professionals, The Dirty Dozen and Point Blank, when he was not just a really strong actor but one of the biggest box office draws in the world as well.

#92  –  Marcello Mastroianni

304 points
1924-1996, Italian
2 BAFTA, Globe
3 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 4 Globe noms, NH Nom
Best Performance:  La Dolce Vita
The great Italian actor earned the bulks of his points in just a few years with great performances in La Dolce Vita, Divorce Italian Style, White Nights and 8 1/2.  He would forever be thought of as the stylish actor who looked at ease either as the artist or the man pursuing the art.

#91  –  Jean Gabin

305 points
1904-1976, French
NBR (twice)
2 BAFTA noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Grand Illusion
When Gabin appeared on my Top 100 Favorite Actors list, my mother had to ask me who he was which just goes to show that she needs to watch more classic French films like The Grand Illusion, The Lower Depths, Pepe le Moko, Port of Shadows, La Bete Humaine or Le Jour Se Leve, all of which helped put Gabin at this place on this list.

#90  –  Robert Mitchum

306 points
1917-1997, American
NBR, NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Night of the Hunter
Even more than Lee Marvin, I think that Mitchum is probably thought of more as a star than as an actor.   After all, he received just one Oscar nomination and it was early in his career (The Story of GI Joe, for which he wins the Nighthawk).  But to just think of that ignores his work in Out of the Past, Crossfire, The Night of the Hunter, Heaven Knows Mr. Allison and The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

#89  –  Peter Sellers

309 points
1925-1980, English
BAFTA, Globe, NBR, 2 NH
2 Oscar noms, 4 BAFTA noms, 5 Globe noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Being There
If Sellers hadn’t spent so much time as Inspector Clouseau could he have moved further up this list?  He is pretty low on the list for having won two Nighthawks, especially both as a lead.  He was a great comedic actor in films like Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, A Shot in the Dark and The Pink Panther but he also died when he was still relatively young.

#88  –  Jason Robards

314 points
1922-2000, American
2 Oscars, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, NBR (twice), NH
3 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 4 Globe noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  All the President’s Men
Over half of his point total comes in just five years with supporting work in All the President’s Men, Julia (both of which won him Oscars), Comes a Horseman and Melvin and Howard but he was good before that (Long Day’s Journey Into Night, A Thousand Clowns) and long after (Parenthood, Magnolia).

#87  –  Robert Downey, Jr.

317 points
b. 1965, American
BAFTA, Globe
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 3 Globe noms, BFCA nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  Chaplin
He already had shown an effortless charm and ability as far back as Less Than Zero before hitting the awards circuit with Chaplin, still just 27.  Drugs kept him from hitting his peak although he would emerge with performances like Home for the Holidays and Wonder Boys.  But once he played Iron Man and earned an Oscar nomination the same year for Tropic Thunder he could became one of the biggest stars in film.  A good chance that he will still win an Oscar at some point.

#86  –  Harvey Keitel

317 points
b. 1939, American
NSFC, CFC
Oscar nom, Globe nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  Bad Lieutenant
After strong work for Marty in the 70’s (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver), Keitel mostly flew under the radar until the first half of the 90’s brought us Thelma & Louise, Bugsy, Bad Lieutenant, Reservoir Dogs, The Piano and Clockers.

#85  –  Alan Rickman

1946  –  2016, English
319 points
BAFTA, NH
4 BAFTA noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
Until he started playing Snape and reminded people how good of an actor he was every year for a decade, Rickman seemed to space his solid performances out: 1988 (Die Hard), 1991 (Robin Hood, Truly Madly Deeply), 1995 (Sense and Sensibility, An Awfully Big Adventure), 1999 (Galaxy Quest).  It was also clear that the people who worked with him loved him (Google “tribute to Alan Rickman”).

#84  –  Gary Cooper

321 points
1901-1961, American
2 Oscars, Globe, NYFC, NBR, NH
5 Oscar noms, 2 Globe noms, 4 NH Noms
Best Performance:  High Noon
This could definitely be considered as a flaw in my system in that Gary Cooper and Spencer Tracy had similar styles and Cooper was far better at it (I rate four performances from Cooper – Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Sergeant York, For Whom the Bell Tolls, High Noon – higher than anything Tracy ever did) but Tracy did it in far more films and far longer so Tracy ended up considerably higher on the list.

#83  –  Trevor Howard

322 points
1913-1988, English
BAFTA
Oscar nom, 4 BAFTA noms, 3 Globe noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Brief Encounter
Distinguished British actor who finally managed to score an Oscar nomination as the lead in a film where he wasn’t really the lead (Sons and Lovers) after he had been so good in films like Brief Encounter, I See a Dark Stranger, Outcast of the Islands and The Heart of the Matter.

#82  –  John Malkovich

327 points
b. 1953, American
NYFC, NSFC, BSFC, NBR
2 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, Globe nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  Dangerous Liaisons
Malkovich was tricky for a long time because he could give brilliant performances like Places in the Heart, The Killing Fields, Empire of the Sun, Dangerous Liaisons, In the Line of Fire and Being John Malkovich but they weren’t that far from his really hammy performances in films like Mary Reilly, Mulholland Falls, Con Air or The Man in the Iron Mask.

#81  –  Jim Broadbent

331 points
b. 1949, English
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, LAFC, NBR
Oscar nom, 3 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom
Best Performance:  Iris
Broadbent, unlike Cooper, shows the strength of my list.  Due to bad luck, he’s earned no Nighthawk nominations (not even for his double turn in 2001 for Iris and Moulin Rouge where he came in 7th and 8th) in spite of a list like The Good Father, Bullets over Broadway, The Secret Agent, Topsy-Turvy, Gangs of New York, Vanity Fair, Another Year or The Iron Lady.  But that all adds up and lands him here above people who have won multiple Nighthawks.

#80  –  Nicolas Cage

333 points
b. 1964, American
Oscar, SAG, Globe, LAFC, NYFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR, NH
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 4 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Leaving Las Vegas
I didn’t really like Cage until I saw Moonstruck and realized he could act.  He still wouldn’t do a ton of solid acting before LLV but that went through the roof.  After that, there was also Adaptation but most of his career has been a joke since 2002 with two notable exceptions (Matchstick Men, The Weather Man).

#79  –  Matt Damon

334 points
b. 1970, American
NBR
2 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, 4 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Good Will Hunting
He seemed a lot younger than 27 as Will Hunting and 29 as Tom Ripley but that’s because his talent shines through in those performances.  It would be several years before he would return to my lists but starting with The Departed, he’s earned a heap of points in just five years with The Bourne Ultimatum, The Informant, Invictus, Green Zone and True Grit.

#78  –  Ed Harris

341 points
b. 1950, American
SAG, Globe, BFCA, NSFC, NBR
4 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 4 Globe noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  The Truman Show
Harris, like Broadbent, has suffered from bad luck at the Nighthawks.  He earned a nomination for Truman Show but couldn’t quite break through with a slough of really good performances, almost always in supporting (Alamo Bay, Jacknife, Glengarry Glen Ross, Apollo 13, Absolute Power, Pollack, The Hours, A History of Violence).

#77  –  Ewan McGregor

342 points
b. 1971, Scottish
Globe
Globe nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  Trainspotting
Ewan burst onto the scene with Trainspotting but continued soon after with Brassed Off and Velvet Goldmine.  At the same time that he was Obi-Wan he was earning more points for Moulin Rouge, Down with Love, Young Adam and Big Fish.  Most recently there have been his performances in The Ghost Writer and Beginners.

#76  –  Nick Nolte

342 points
b. 1941, American
Globe, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC
3 Oscar noms, 3 Globe noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  The Prince of Tides
Nolte became a star thanks to television on Rich Man Poor Man but starting with Cannery Row and 48 Hrs. in 1982, he’s given a wide array of solid film performances with Prince of Tides and Affliction standing tallest among them.

#75  –  Steve Martin

349 points
b. 1945, American
NYFC, LAFC, NSFC (twice)
4 Globe noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Roxanne
Almost all of his points come in a decade+ stretch from 1981 to 1991 with Pennies from Heaven, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, All of Me, Little Shop of Horrors, Roxanne, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Parenthood, L.A. Story and Grand Canyon.

#74  –  Robin Williams

353 points
1951-2014, American
Oscar, SAG, 3 Globes, NBR
4 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 8 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Fisher King
He was a massively loved star from television and stand-up before his awards career began in 1987.  Good Morning Vietnam made him an Oscar nominee and a box office smash and in odd years (Dead Poets, Fisher King) he was earning nominations.  Good Will Hunting won him that elusive Oscar and confirmed that were few people who could do both comedy and drama this well.

#73  –  Gunnar Bjornstrand

358 points
1909-1986, Swedish
NH
BAFTA nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Winter Light
Given that almost his entire career is with heavy dramatic performances his first points come from a Comedy (Smiles of a Summer Night).  As a major member of Bergman’s troupe he earned a massive number of points in the late 50’s and early 60’s before adding to his total a decade later with a couple more Bergman films.  If you’re not familiar with him you need to watch more Bergman.

#72  –  Donald Sutherland

360 points
b. 1935, Canadian
BAFTA nom, 3 Globe noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Without Limits
One of the great under-appreciated actors of all-time as is clear from his nomination list.  But this is the star of M*A*S*H, Klute, Don’t Look Now, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Ordinary People.  And that list doesn’t even include his best performance.

#71  –  Edward Norton

363 points
b. 1969, American
Globe, LAFC, BSFC, NBR
2 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  American History X
Norton earned an Oscar nomination for his film debut (Primal Fear) and that might not even have been his best performance in that year thanks to The People vs. Larry Flynt.  Then Rounders, Fight Club and especially American History X proved that this was no fluke.  He’s cooled off since then but every now and then he gives performances like 25th Hour or The Painted Veil to remind us how talented he is.

#70  –  George C. Scott

363 points
1927-1999, American
Oscar, Globe, NYFC, NBR, 2 NH
4 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 4 Globe noms, 5 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Hustler
The original Oscar refusal (among actors that is).  Scott had a long career but he was only great for a little over a decade.  But what a decade: Anatomy of a Murder, The Hustler, Dr. Strangelove, Patton and The Hospital, earning him five Nighthawk nominations.

#69  –  Leslie Howard

371 points
1883-1943, English
NH
2 Oscar noms, 5 NH noms
Best Performance:  Pygmalion
Howard hadn’t earned any points since 1938 so maybe his death didn’t end things.  But from 1931 to 1938 he earned more points than any other actor in A Free Soul, Berkeley Square, Of Human Bondage, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Romeo and Juliet, The Petrified Forest, It’s Love I’m After and Pygmalion.  If you haven’t seen his three films with Bette Davis (with vastly different relationships in each), it’s a great testament to the range for both.

#68  –  Bill Murray

373 points
b. 1950, American
BAFTA, Globe, NYFC (twice), LAFC (twice), NSFC (twice), BSFC, CFC, 2 NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, 3 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Lost in Translation
Murray was a Steve Martin-like actor for a while, earning small increases a lot for strong comedic performances.  But then came a bigger jump with Groundhog Day, then a big one for Rushmore and an even bigger one for Lost in Translation and the three of those combined with all the smaller films kept him moving up the list continually for years, a rise that still hasn’t stopped.

#67  –  Robert Redford

374 points
b. 1936, American
BAFTA
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom
Best Performance:  The Candidate
In some ways, Redford reminds me of Spencer Tracy, in the way he under-played roles and the way he makes it to his spot on the list through sheer number of solid performances rather than any truly great performances.  Of course, I like Redford a lot more, the Academy didn’t over-rate him (clearly) and he’s a lot better looking than Tracy.  Of course, he’s also going to pass Tracy because he’s acting well past the age of 70 while Tracy had drank himself to death at the age of 67 (and looking about 87).  What to name?  How about Butch Cassidy, The Candidate, The Sting, The Way we Were, The Great Waldo Pepper, The Three Days of the Condor, Marathon Man, All the President’s Men, Sneakers and The Clearing.  Is that enough?

#66  –  Christian Bale

375 points
b. 1974, Welsh
Oscar, SAG, Globe, BFCA, BSFC, CFC, NBR, NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Fighter
Because I’m a sports fan, I always thought of 40 as the end of a career but Bale, who’s just nine months older than me, makes me feel better.  He was a child prodigy (Empire of the Sun) but in spite of steady work he wouldn’t really start earning most of his points until the mid 00’s.  It would take until 2010 for the awards groups to start noticing him (winning the Oscar for The Fighter) but by then he had already been fantastic in The Machinist, Batman Begins, The Prestige, 3:10 to Yuma and The Dark Knight.  He is absolutely one of the best actors at work in film today.

#65  –  Chris Cooper

376 points
b. 1951, American
Oscar, SAG, Globe, BFCA, NBR, NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, 3 SAG noms, Globe nom, BFCA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Adaptation
One of my Mom’s favorites though she always laments that he plays the bad guy (except in Lone Star).  Before Lone Star his only points were from Matewan but after that star turn he’s got American Beauty, Adaptation, Silver City, Capote and The Company Men.

#64  –  Walter Matthau

379 points
1920-2000, American
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe
3 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 8 Globe noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Fortune Cookie
His career took a big turn up when he was given all the best lines in The Fortune Cookie and for the next decade he was one of the best actors at work (The Odd Couple, Cactus Flower, A New Leaf, Kotch, Pete n Tillie, Charley Varrick, The Front Page, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, The Sunshine Boys).

#63  –  Harrison Ford

388 points
b. 1942, American
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, 4 Globe noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  Presumed Innocent
He’s never really gotten his rightful due as an actor.  In 1981, when Burt Lancaster was lauded for Atlantic City he said his own choice for Best Actor was Ford in Raiders.  After playing Han and Indy, Ford finally got Oscar recognition for Witness and at least Globe recognition for Mosquito Coast and The Fugitive though he got nothing for his best performance in Presumed Innocent.

#62  –  Bob Hoskins

397 points
1942-2014, English
BAFTA, Globe, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, NH
Oscar nom, 3 BAFTA noms, 3 Globe noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  Mona Lisa
If you only know him from Who Framed Roger Rabbit then you have no business looking at this list.  You have to at least know his work in The Long Good Friday and Mona Lisa to know he’s great and you should probably know The Cotton Club, The Secret Agent, Felicia’s Journey and Mrs Henderson Presents.

#61  –  Woody Allen

400 points
b. 1935, American
Oscar nom, 3 BAFTA noms, 2 Globe noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Annie Hall
If you find him annoying or even creepy you’re not alone.  But there are few comedic actors who can touch the stretch from 1969 to 1986, the best being Annie Hall, Manhattan and Stardust Memories but the most notable being Play It Again Sam and The Front since those are films he didn’t actually direct.

#60  –  Kenneth Branagh

414 points
b. 1960, Northern Irish
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, Globe nom, BFCA nom, 5 NH Noms
Best Performance:  Henry V
Like Olivier at the top of the list, he’s actually constrained by his stage acting because he earns no points from that and it takes time away from films.  Branagh’s first decade in film as a leading man as he went from zero points to the Top 60 with films like Henry V, Dead Again, Peter’s Friends, Much Ado About Nothing, Othello and Hamlet.  He’s barely in the Top 60 now though because since 1996 his only points have been few and far between (Rabbit Proof Fence, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, My Week with Marilyn).

#59  –  Richard Dreyfuss

414 points
b. 1947, American
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, LAFC
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 4 Globe noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  The Goodbye Girl
Dreyfuss was slowly earning points for films like The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz and Inserts before his big 1977 (The Goodbye Girl, Close Encounters) moved him up quite a bit.  After that, though, it was almost a decade before he slowly started moving up again (Nuts, Tin Men, R&GrD, Mr Holland’s Opus) and getting up to his current spot.

#58  –  John Mills

421 points
1908-2005, English
Oscar, Globe
Oscar nom, 3 BAFTA noms, Globe nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Tunes of Glory
John Mills was my grandmother’s favorite actor and it’s easy to see why.  There’s a quiet dignity he brings to performances in a wide range of films from Drama (This Happy Breed) to Comedy (Hobson’s Choice) to War (Ice Cold in Alex) to Adventure (Scott of the Antarctic).  His Oscar was for Ryan’s Daughter but he was better in Tunes of Glory and it’s wonderful to watch him act opposite his daughter Hayley in Tiger Bay and The Chalk Garden.

#57  –  Spencer Tracy

437 points
1900-1967, American
2 Oscars, BAFTA, Globe, NBR (twice)
9 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, 4 Globe noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  Bad Day at Black Rock
Spencer Tracy is not a favorite of mine and as you can see I think the Academy vastly over-rated his quiet under-playing.  What’s more, they gave him an Oscar for one of his worst performances (Captains Courageous) and twice nominated him (San Francisco, The Old Man and the Sea) when he gave much better performances in the same year (Fury, The Last Hurrah).  He lands here because of a long, solid career while never earning more than 44 points for a performance.  But he earns at least a 26 in a whopping 12 films.

#56  –  Kevin Spacey

442 points
b. 1959, American
2 Oscars, BAFTA, SAG, BFCA, NYFC, BSFC (twice), CFC (twice), NBR, 3 NH
2 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  American Beauty
It’s awkward now given the off-screen issues with him but on-screen, Spacey was just about the best actor at work in the mid to late 90’s with The Ref, The Usual Suspects, L.A. Confidential, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Hurly Burly and American Beauty.

#55  –  Ian McKellen

442 points
b. 1939, English
SAG, BFCA, LAFC, CFC, NBR, 2 NH
2 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 2 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  Gods and Monsters
Like Judi Dench who played opposite him in the BBC’s production of Macbeth, McKellen earned no acting points (on film) until after the age of 40 and really barely any until he was well into his 50’s.  But when he finally moved into film more full-time (not completely – he still does a lot of great stage work) with films like Richard III, Cold Comfort Farm, Gods and Monsters, Apt Pupil and The Lord of the Rings, he also became one of the best film actors around.

#54  –  Charlie Chaplin

446 points
1889-1977, English
NYFC, NBR, 2 NH
Oscar nom, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  Modern Times
Probably the second best actor of the Silent Era behind Chaney except he managed to continue the Silent Era long past where everyone else had turned to sound and continued to be great.  What’s more, once he did allow for sound he proved that he was still a great actor.  If he had made more films or if he had allowed others to direct him, he probably would be higher.  I would say he challenges Orson Welles for the most overall talent on this list but given that Chaplin also did music for his films, he actually wins that argument.  If you need a list of his best films you need to watch more classic films.

#53  –  Ian Holm

448 points
b. 1931, English
2 BAFTAs, BSFC, NH
Oscar nom, 4 BAFTA noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Sweet Hereafter
That a career as great as Holm’s, dating back to the late 60’s (The Fixer, The Bofurs Gun), through to the 70’s (Alien), 80’s (Brazil, Dreamchild), 90’s (The Madness of King George, Big Night, The Sweet Hereafter) and even into the 00’s (Fellowship of the Ring, The Emperor’s New Clothes) should have just the single Oscar nomination from Chariots of Fire is ridiculous.

#52  –  Gregory Peck

454 points
1916-2003, American
Oscar, 2 Globes, NYFC
5 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 5 Globe noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  To Kill a Mockingbird
Gregory Peck began his film career with three straight Oscar nominations and four in five years before waiting over a decade for that fifth nomination and the actual Oscar.  Of course, in between all those nominations he did work like The Gunfighter, Roman Holiday, The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, Moby Dick and On the Beach so even those 5 Oscar nominations don’t tell the whole story.

#51  –  Kevin Kline

456 points
b. 1947, American
Oscar, 2 NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, 4 Globe noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  A Fish Called Wanda
Kline has only earned the one Oscar nomination (and win) for A Fish Called Wanda and he only does one better at the Nighthawks with another nom (and win) for Sophie’s Choice but that’s not to say that he didn’t give nomination worthy performances (even if they didn’t make my Top 5) in The Big Chill, Grand Canyon or The Ice Storm not to mention performances that earned him points from over half a dozen other films.

#50  –  Russell Crowe

457 points
b. 1964, New Zealand raised in Australia
Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, Globe, 3 BFCA, LAFC, NSFC, NBR
3 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 4 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, 5 BFCA noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Insider
Many would probably think this is all about that stretch when he was the biggest actor at the awards shows from L.A. Confidential through to the trifecta of The Insider, Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind.  But even adding his early points for Proof and Romper Stomper that wouldn’t have been enough.  Crowe might have proved he was nuts way back in 2002 but he’s still done some really good work since then (Master and Commander, Cinderella Man, American Gangster, 3:10 to Yuma) with those four films actually earning him more points than his three straight Oscar nominations.

#49  –  Kevin Costner

460 points
b. 1955, American
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, 3 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  A Perfect World
The Academy finally nominated him for Dances with Wolves after passing him over for better performances in Bull Durham and Field of Dreams.  After A Perfect World people mostly ignored him thanks to Waterworld and The Postman but The Upside of Anger and The Company Men showed that he was still an awards worthy actor.

#48  –  Morgan Freeman

463 points
b. 1937, American
Oscar, SAG, Globe, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, NBR (twice)
5 Oscar noms, 3 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Street Smart
His days as Easy Reader on Electric Company quickly faded in the late 80’s when he made, in just three years, Street Smart, Clean and Sober, Lean on Me, Driving Miss Daisy and Glory.  But those were only two of his Oscar nominations and the future would bring Shawshank, Million Dollar Baby and Invictus plus making him the narrator everyone wants for their life after March of the Penguins.

#47  –  William Holden

479 points
1918-1981, American
Oscar, 2 NH
3 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 5 NH noms
Best Performance:  Sunset Blvd.
There was a time when Holden was actually the winner of four Nighthawk Awards but I decided that De Niro’s performance in 1976 couldn’t be denied and that Chimes at Midnight belonged in 1969 knocking his performances in Network and The Wild Bunch down to second place.  But, given that he has as many Nighthawk nominations as Oscar nominations, BAFTA nominations and Globe nominations put together shows that his acting was never truly appreciated properly.

#46  –  Max von Sydow

483 points
b. 1929, Swedish
2 Oscar noms, 2 Globe noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  Hour of the Wolf
His points span a period of well over 50 years, from his magnificent work for Bergman (The Seventh Seal, The Magician, Hour of the Wolf, The Rite), his other foreign work (The Emigrants, Pelle the Conqueror) and then his English language work (The Exorcist, Voyage of the Damned, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close).

#45  –  Peter O’Toole

484 points
1932-2013, English
BAFTA, 3 Globes, NSFC, NBR (twice), 2 NH
8 Oscar noms, 4 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 8 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Lawrence of Arabia
O’Toole was well-liked by the Academy but not loved as his record 8 Oscar nominations without a win clearly show.  To me, it mostly comes down to those two magnificent performances that earn the full amount of points possible (Lawrence, Lion in Winter) but his work that showed a sly comedic hand (The Stunt Man, My Favorite Year) can’t be overlooked and unlike Spencer Tracy, the Academy never nominated him for a performance that was completely unworthy.

#44  –  Robert Duvall

498 points
b. 1931, American
Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, 2 Globes, NYFC (twice), LAFC (twice), NSFC, CFC, NH
6 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 3 SAG noms, 3 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Apocalypse Now
One of the most formidable actors of the 70’s (and early 80’s) with M*A*S*H, The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Network, Apocalypse Now, The Great Santini, True Confessions and Tender Mercies.  In later years, the Oscars would continue to love him, over-rating his performances in The Apostle and A Civil Action but they are still good (if not to the level of a Nighthawk) and continue to add to his point total.

#43  –  Sidney Poitier

502 points
b. 1927, born in America, raised in the Bahamas
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe
2 Oscar noms, 6 BAFTA noms, 6 Globe noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  In the Heat of the Night
Poitier didn’t retire after 1968 and in 1992 he would be in one of my favorite of his films (Sneakers).  But he seemed like he had done what he needed to do, having won an Oscar (Lilies of the Field), earned another nomination (The Defiant Ones), given several amazing performances (No Way Out, Blackboard Jungle, A Raisin in the Sun, The Slender Thread) before his amazing 1967 that saw three incredible performances, all dealing with race relations (In the Heat of the Night, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, To Sir with Love) that saw him completely ignored by the Oscars.

#42  –  Ben Kingsley

503 points
b. 1943, English
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, BFCA, NYFC, LAFC, BSFC, NBR
4 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 4 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  Sexy Beast
Kingsley was already an accomplished stage and television actor when he hit movie screens with his fantastic performance in Gandhi.  That won him the Oscar (if not the Nighthawk) and he would earn more for Bugsy, Sexy Beast and House of Sand and Fog.  But outside of those, there are his performances in Betrayal, Schindler’s List, Death and the Maiden, Twelfth Night and Oliver Twist, almost all of them as good as some of those nominated performances.  More recently, Shutter Island and Hugo prove that he continues to be a formidable screen presence.

#41  –  Warren Beatty

510 points
b. 1937, American
Globe, NBR, 2 NH
4 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 6 Globe noms, 6 NH noms
Best Performance:  Reds
Warren Beatty, in 1978, became the first person to earn four Oscar nominations for the same film since 1941.  And yet, his acting on Heaven Can Wait is just even with The Parallax View and Shampoo and considerably weaker than Bonnie and Clyde, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Reds, Bugsy and Bulworth.  He can do it all but acting is still what he does best.

#40  –  William Hurt

519 points
b. 1950, American
Oscar, BAFTA, NYFC, LAFC (twice), NBR, 2 NH
4 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, 3 Globe noms, 5 NH noms
Best Performance:  Kiss of the Spider Woman
At the start of 1980, William Hurt had never acted in a film.  By the start of 1989 he was in the Top 45.  That meteoric rise came courtesy of Body Heat, The Big Chill, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Children of a Lesser God, Broadcast News and The Accidental Tourist and it showed that Hurt could move between Comedy and Drama with ease.  He’s slowed up since which is why he is where he is but every now and then he still gives a hell of a performance (like Smoke or A History of Violence) to remind people what he’s capable of.

#39  –  Charles Laughton

522 points
1899-1962, English
Oscar, NYFC, 3 NH
3 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, Globe nom, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  Mutiny on the Bounty
Great actors who weren’t also good looking had an easier time finding success in England which is why it’s ironic that Laughton’s move to Hollywood won him an Oscar and earned him another nomination just two years later.  Though he would continue to give solid performances right up until his death (he would die just six months after the release of Advise & Consent) his best year, by far (actually as the list above proved, anybody’s best year) was in 1935 where he wins both Nighthawk awards (lead in Mutiny on the Bounty, supporting in Les Miserables) while also giving a great comedic performance in Ruggles of Red Gap.

#38  –  Marlon Brando

537 points
1924-2004, American
2 Oscars, 3 BAFTAs, 2 Globes, NYFC (twice), NSFC, 3 NH
8 Oscar noms, 7 BAFTA noms, 6 Globe noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  A Streetcar Named Desire
Method was already on screen before Brando did The Men in 1950 but the next year he took film acting to a new level with Streetcar that has never been equalled.  Even if the Academy didn’t award him for that he would become the only person in history to be nominated for Best Actor four years in a row, culminating in a well deserved Oscar for On the Waterfront.  The next two decades would be on and off but his double whammy of The Godfather and Last Tango in Paris (the former winning the Oscar and the latter the Nighthawk) would prove once and for all how great an actor he was and if he had just focused on making good films he would be a lot higher.  The evidence is that though he is down at #38 he is one of just 11 actors to give 4 different 8 point lead performances and only he and Daniel Day-Lewis have more than two 9 point lead performances (Streetcar, Waterfront, Tango).

#37  –  Jeremy Irons

540 points
b. 1948, English
Oscar, Globe, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC (twice)
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, Globe nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Reversal of Fortune
In some ways, Irons is the opposite of Brando.  He rarely gives a bad performance (Dungeons & Dragons being the exception) but it’s the rare occasion where he rises high enough to land in the Nighthawk nominations (Betrayal, Dead Ringers, Reversal of Fortune).  But to just look at those three ignores The French Lieutenant’s Woman, Moonlighting, Swann in Love, The Mission, Damage, M. Butterfly, Stealing Beauty, Lolita, The Merchant of Venice, Being Julia and Kingdom of Heaven and that’s one hall of a resume.

#36  –  Johnny Depp

548 points
b. 1963, American
SAG, Globe, NH
3 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 10 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Ed Wood
Clearly I am more in the embrace of my friend Terry Lopata who practically worshipped Johnny around the time that Pirates came out and he finally started being recognized (in spite of Edward Scissorhands, Benny and Joon, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Ed Wood, Don Juan DeMarco, Donnie Brasco and Fear and Loathing having already come out) rather than my mother’s view (“But he’s so weird“).  The weird, of course, is the point, as proven since with Sweeney Todd his best performance since he started getting more attention.

#35  –  Claude Rains

549 points
1889-1967, English
3 NH
4 Oscar noms, 11 NH noms
Best Performance:  Casablanca
If Rains’ points weren’t almost all in supporting he would be a good ten spots higher.  But he is the greatest character actor of them all.  He earned four Oscar nominations and yet somehow never won any of them.  Well, he’s had no problem at the Nighthawks, not with performances like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Casablanca or Notorious.  His 11 Nighthawk nominations, even with almost all of them in supporting (his one lead was for The Invisible Man in which we don’t see his face until the final shot) lands him with 425 Nighthawk points, good enough for 6th all-time.

#34  –  Orson Welles

556 points
1915-1985, American
3 NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, Globe nom, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  Citizen Kane
There, but for the lack of God goes God.  That’s what one person supposedly said about Welles and I should point out that while he earns 7 nominations and wins three Nighthawks that’s just for his acting.  He also wins for Director and Screenplay for Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil.  Because of the range of what he does he rivals Chaplin for total Nighthawk wins and nominations.  What should not be lost is his brilliant acting in films that he didn’t direct like The Third Man, Compulsion or Catch-22.

#33  –  Leonardo DiCaprio

559 points
b. 1974, American
Globe, NBR, NH
3 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 4 SAG noms, 8 Globe noms, 4 BFCA noms, 5 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Aviator
When he made the jump from television to film in the early 90’s, performances in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape and Romeo + Juliet proved he was a real actor.  But Titanic, while a decent performance from Leo moved him into stardom and it derailed his actual acting.  Thankfully he started working with Marty and became a massive powerhouse of acting.  Not all of his great performances have been for Marty (The Aviator, The Departed, Shutter Island) because there are also Catch Me if You Can, Blood Diamond and Revolutionary Road (the latter one of his most under-appreciated performances).  The awards line is thin but it’s gonna get a lot bigger.

#32  –  Jeff Bridges

572 points
b. 1949, American
Oscar, SAG, Globe, BFCA, LAFC
6 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 3 SAG noms, 4 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  True Grit
In 1998 when Jeff Bridges plained what is clearly his most iconic role he was not yet 50 years old and it had been 14 years since his third and most recent Oscar nomination (Starman).  He was in the Top 100 with almost 300 points earned in a career that included The Last Picture Show, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, The Fabulous Baker Boys and The Fisher King.  But then, in spite of only earning a Satellite nomination (and a Nighthawk nomination), Bridges moved into a different realm.  Since then have come three more Oscar nominations and a win (The Contender, Crazy Heart, True Grit) and he’s now in the Top 35 and it doesn’t like he’s stopping any time soon.

#31  –  Philip Seymour Hoffman

573 points
1967-2014, American
Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, Globe, BFCA, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR (twice)
3 Oscar noms, 4 BAFTA noms, 3 SAG noms, 4 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  Capote
He broke through with a really strong year in 1999 earning 100 points for The Talented Mr. Ripley, Magnolia and Flawless.  Then, less than a decade later he managed to eclipse that with a year for the ages, earning 156 points for Charlie Wilson’s War, The Savages and Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.  In between all he did was win an Oscar (and almost everything else).  Since then he’s only added to his already impressive total with Doubt and Moneyball.

#30  –  Tom Hanks

576 points
b. 1956, American
2 Oscars, SAG, 4 Globes, NYFC, LAFC, CFC (twice), NBR
5 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 3 SAG noms, 7 Globe noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Saving Private Ryan
Hanks’ career reminds me of Jude Law.  I always liked Hanks and Big clearly proved he could act but when he won back-to-back Oscars for performances that I didn’t think were close to the best performance of the year (especially Gump) I started to see him as overrated.  But then came Saving Private Ryan and Cast Away which proved he really was one of the better actors around and then Road to Perdition which was better than most of his Oscar nominated performances but failed to earn him any award traction and Charlie Wilson’s War which showed a different side of him.  If only he would get back to the good stuff and get away from crap like Angels and Demons and Larry Crowne.

#29  –  Clint Eastwood

582 points
b. 1930, American
LAFC, NBR, NH
2 Oscar noms, BFCA nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  Unforgiven
The next few actors on the list aren’t going to make the Academy look good.  The first two barely even earned any nominations and the following three earned several but never managed to win.  Because Eastwood didn’t go the normal route to acting stardom (television, off to Italy and giving good performances, then back for Westerns) and then turned to directing, it took the Academy a long time to realize he had become a brilliant actor.  What’s amazing is what he did just in his 60’s: White Hunter Black Heart, Unforgiven, In the Line of Fire, A Perfect World, The Bridges of Madison County, Absolute Power.

#28  –  Cary Grant

590 points
1904-1986, English
NH
2 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, 5 Globe noms, 5 NH noms
Best Performance:  His Girl Friday
As I type this, The Philadelphia Story is on TCM and I am reminded that while Jimmy Stewart won the Oscar in that film, Grant only earned two Oscar nominations, neither of them for Comedies.  That’s in spite of a career that includes, not only that film, but also The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Arsenic and Old Lace, To Catch a Thief and North by Northwest.  That’s right, that list, with Suspicion and Notorious thrown in for good measure, earned him no Oscar nominations.  My mother’s favorite actor and with good reason.

#27  –  Richard Burton

602 points
1925-1984, Welsh
BAFTA, Globe, NH
7 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 6 Globe noms, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf
The Academy would nominate Burton for two early performances (My Cousin Rachel, The Robe) then pass him over for a better performance in Look Back in Anger.  In 1964, they would nominate him for Becket rather than his better performance in Night of the Iguana.  He would earn nominations but fail to win in 1965 (The Spy Who Came in From the Cold), 1966 (Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf) and 1977 (Equus) in spite of giving performances better than the winning one each time.  His final performance (released after his death) in 1984 would go unnoticed by awards groups in spite of its brilliance but by then his hard drinking had already taken the toll.

#26  –  Kirk Douglas

603 points
b. 1916, American
Globe, NYFC, 2 NH
3 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, 2 Globe noms, 8 NH noms
Best Performance:  Paths of Glory
Also never to win an Oscar, he would be even better than Burton but with far fewer Oscar nominations to show for it.  Yes, they nominated him for Champion, The Bad and the Beautiful and Lust for Life.  But he would be almost completely ignored for brilliant work in Out of the Past, A Letter to Three Wives, Detective Story, Ace in the Hole and Paths of Glory not to mention numerous other films that earn him points.

#25  –  Albert Finney

608 points
1936-2019, English
Globe, SAG, NYFC, LAFC, BSFC, NBR
5 Oscar noms, 8 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 7 Globe noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  Under the Volcano
Finney, like Lemmon below, fails to make the Top 10 in any decade but manages to score at least 70 points in five straight decades.  Finney was fascinating because he was so often so good and yet people couldn’t agree on when he was the best.  Not only is he the only person to win at least four critics awards but to have them be all, first, from different organizations, but second, all for different performances (in order by award listed above: Tom Jones, Under the Volcano, The Browning Version, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning) but his Globe win (Scrooge) and his SAG win (Erin Brockovich) were also for different films.  And those don’t even include two of his Oscar nominations (Murder on the Orient Express, The Dresser) of one of his Nighthawk nominations (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead).

#24  –  James Cagney

611 points
1899-1986, American
Oscar, NYFC (twice), NH
3 Oscar noms, 6 NH noms
Best Performance:  Yankee Doodle Dandy
My mom always likes to claim she had three favorite actors and they all died within the space of a year (Grant, Cagney, Robert Preston).  Really, she had one favorite actor and two favorite performances (Yankee Doodle Dandy, The Music Man).  But while that’s Cagney’s best performances, let’s remember The Public Enemy, Footlight Parade, Picture Snatcher, Angels with Dirty Faces.  And those are just the ones before he won the Oscar.  After that came my college roommate’s favorite film (White Heat), another Oscar nomination (Love Me or Leave Me), one of my mother’s favorite movies (Mister Roberts), one of my favorite performances (One Two Three) and his brilliant return (Ragtime).

#23  –  Sean Penn

623 points
b. 1960, American
2 Oscars, SAG, Globe, 2 BFCA, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, NBR, NH
5 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 4 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Milk
In the 80’s in spite of performances that showed his potential, Penn was known more for being belligerent and married to Madonna.  In the 90’s, the 1-2 punch of Carlito’s Way and Dead Man Walking made people really notice the talent as did Sweet and Lowdown before his knockout year of 2003 (Mystic River, 21 Grams).  And after all that, who still could have guessed he could play a kind, hopeful man like Harvey Milk?

#22  –  Fredric March

638 points
1897-1975, American
2 Oscars, Globe, 2 NH
5 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 3 Globe noms, 5 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Best Years of Our Lives
Fredric March is such a great actor that he won an Oscar for a performance in a Horror film (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), something no male has ever done again and no female would do for 36 years after his win.  Is that his best performance?  Or is it when he played Jean Valjean?  Or is it when he originated the role of Norman Maine in A Star is Born?  Or maybe his soldier returning from the war in The Best Years of Our Lives?  Or his Willy Loman?  Or his portrayal of William Jennings Bryan (even under another name) in Inherit the Wind?  The point is, those are all legitimate choices.

#21  –  Humphrey Bogart

666 points
1899-1957, American
Oscar, 3 NH
3 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, 11 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
It’s easy to make the case that Bogie belongs higher and that it’s a flaw in my system.  I will point out that he died at an age younger than anyone in the Top 30 and that if he had lived longer he would have been higher because he was still giving good performances.  I pointed out that Brando had four 8 point lead performances (which translates to 70 points) but Bogie actually had five of them (The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The African Queen, The Caine Mutiny) and he didn’t even earn Oscar nominations for two of them.  It’s also clear from his 11 Nighthawk nominations that it’s not all about those five performances either.

#20  –  Denzel Washington

669 points
b. 1954, American
2 Oscars, 2 Globes, NYFC, LAFC, BSFC (twice), CFC, NH
5 Oscar noms, 2 SAG noms, 6 Globe noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  Glory
On the one hand, the Academy gave him an Oscar for Training Day, a performance where I don’t even award him any points and didn’t nominate him for A Soldier’s Story.  On the other hand, they rightfully nominated him for Cry Freedom and correctly gave him the award for Glory.  Denzel has moved into superstardom land and seems less interested in pure acting lately, only earning points for two films since 2002 (The Manchurian Candidate, American Gangster).

#19  –  Tom Cruise

675 points
b. 1962, American
3 Globes, CFC (twice), NBR, NH
3 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, 2 SAG noms, 7 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Magnolia
I used to think that Tom Cruise winning an Oscar was inevitable.  But his last Oscar nomination was in 1999 and since 2004 the only film he’s even earned points for was his hilarious short performance in Tropic Thunder.  Perhaps when the Oscars passed him over in 1999 for his career best performance to instead give Michael Caine a second Oscar and when he followed that up in the five years after with Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, The Last Samurai and Collateral and couldn’t even snag a nomination that he might as well just do the less Oscar oriented films.

#18  –  Jack Lemmon

676 points
1925-2001, American
2 Oscars, 3 BAFTAs, 3 Globes, NBR, NH
8 Oscar noms, 8 BAFTA noms, 16 Globe noms, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Apartment
Lemmon is the ultimate career actor.  By that, I mean he’s the highest actor on this list who doesn’t make the Top 10 in any decade though he did manage to have at least 100 points in four straight decades and 70 points in five straight decades.  The only other actors to do the former are Olivier, Hoffman and Nicholson and the latter are Olivier, Hoffman, Finney and Caine.  The Oscars really liked him (his second Oscar, Save the Tiger, is, at best, his seventh performance behind The Apartment, Mister Roberts, Some Like It Hot, Missing, Glengarry Glen Ross, The China Syndrome) but the Globes absolutely loved him and with good reason because he’s brilliant at both Drama and Comedy.

#17  –  James Stewart

706 points
1908-1997, American
Oscar, NYFC (twice), 2 NH
5 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 Globe noms, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  It’s a Wonderful Life
I’ve always liked Jimmy Stewart but I was a bit surprised when I did my chart and discovered that for a stretch in the early 60’s he was actually in first place on the chart.  I don’t usually think of him in the same terms that I do the others surrounding him here on the list, perhaps in part because he didn’t receive the same kind of awards acclaim that the others did.  But when you have two powerhouse performances like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It’s a Wonderful Life and great leading performances in The Philadelphia Story, Harvey, Vertigo and Anatomy of a Murder you’re already over 400 points and only then go back and add in all the other films he earns points for (10 different ones) and the numbers really add up.

#16  –  Ralph Fiennes

727 points
b. 1962, English
BAFTA, NYFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, 2 NH
2 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 3 Globe noms, 6 NH noms
Best Performance:  Schindler’s List
He came out of nowhere to give the definitive film performance of evil and didn’t win the Oscar (Schindler’s List).  He was brilliant the next year in Quiz Show and didn’t even earn a nomination.  Two years later he was masterful in The English Patient and didn’t win the Oscar.  The next year he got ignored by everyone in Oscar and Lucinda.  I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who realized just how brilliant an actor Ralph Fiennes was.  What more?  In 1999 he did The End of the Affair, Onegin and Sunshine and got just a BAFTA nom.  The rest of the decade saw Spider, The Good Thief, The Constant Gardener, In Bruges, The Duchess, The Reader and multiple portrayals of Voldemort and got him mostly ignored.  He was in his third Best Picture winner (The Hurt Locker) and started directing (Coriolanus).  Someday people will look back and realized they had never appreciated Fiennes and his film work properly.

#15  –  Gene Hackman

727 points
b. 1930, American
2 Oscars, 2 BAFTAs, 3 Globes, NYFC (twice), LAFC, NSFC (thrice), BSFC, CFC, NBR (thrice), 4 NH
5 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, 8 Globe noms, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  Unforgiven
In the Studio days there were stars like Stewart and Bogie and there were character actors like Rains.  As the Studio Era died out you still had stars like Newman and Beatty but the character actors would kind of get lost in the shuffle.  But Gene Hackman seemed to be the first person to be a true character actor in films like Bonnie and Clyde and I Never Sang for My Father (which is perhaps why he was nominated for supporting in the latter in spite of clearly being the lead) who then became a star in films like The French Connection, The Conversation, Night Moves, Hoosiers and Mississippi Burning.  But then he could go back to being the supporting role in films like Superman, No Way Out and Unforgiven.  The only reason Hackman is as low as he is, is because he was older than the others who came up with him in the late 60’s and he decided to retire back in 2004.

#14  –  George Clooney

731 points
b. 1961, American
Oscar, 3 Globes, BFCA, NBR (thrice), NH
4 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, 4 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, 4 BFCA noms, 8 NH noms
Best Performance:  Out of Sight
The Academy waited too long to get this right.  Clooney is one of only two English language actors in the Top 30 to not even earn an Oscar nomination for his best performance (Bogie is the other).  What’s most impressive is not that Clooney is this high but that he reached this point in just 14 years.  He earns at least 17 points in every year from 1998 to 2011 except 2006 (where he earns none).  And he proved he could do it in Comedy (O Brother, Intolerable Cruelty), Drama (Solaris, Good Night and Good Luck) or a combination of both (Out of Sight, Three Kings, Up in the Air, The Descendants) and that he could be a star (Ocean’s Eleven, Michael Clayton) or supporting (Syriana, Burn After Reading, The Ides of March).

#13  –  Henry Fonda

731 points
1905-1982, American
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, NBR, 2 NH
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 Globe noms, 6 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Grapes of Wrath
Just a couple of days ago, TCM did their Henry Fonda day and they programmed it bouncing back and forth between Comedy and Drama.  Some bizarre programmer than set things up so that in primetime Yours, Mine and Ours was between 12 Angry Men and The Grapes of Wrath which is insane since Fonda’s Comedies include The Lady Eve and Mister Roberts (both played earlier in the day).  Fonda would have ranked even higher had he not taken seven years off from film at the end of the Studio Era in order to go back on stage.

#12  –  Al Pacino

751 points
b. 1940, American
Oscar, BAFTA, 2 Globes, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, NBR (twice), NH
8 Oscar noms, 4 BAFTA noms, 13 Globe noms, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Godfather
Lon Chaney and Leslie Howard lead the 20’s and 30’s in points but died in 1930 and 1943 respectively and earned no points the following decade.  Pacino lead the impressive group in the 70’s with 380 points even while he only acted in one film between 1975 and 1979 thanks to The Godfather, Scarecrow, Serpico, The Godfather Part II, Dog Day Afternoon (earning four straight Oscar noms) and And Justice for All.  Then he disappeared in the 80’s, earning zero points.  But the 90’s began with an Oscar nomination (Dick Tracy), a film he should have been nominated for (The Godfather Part III) and his double Oscar nom resulting in a very undeserved win (Glengarry Glen Ross, Scent of a Woman).  He was very uneven after that, bouncing between horrible performances and giving, every couple of years, another really good performance that reminded you of what he was capable of and kept his point totals moving higher (Donnie Brasco, The Insider, Insomnia, The Merchant of Venice).

#11  –  Burt Lancaster

753 points
1913-1994, American
Oscar, 2 BAFTAs, NYFC (thrice), LAFC, NSFC, BSFC, Globe
4 Oscar noms, 4 BAFTA noms, 4 Globe noms, 6 NH noms
Best Performance:  Atlantic City
Stanley Kauffmann, one of the greatest films critics of all-time, would be appalled by this placement.  If you read my obit on him you’ll find several digs at Lancaster at the end because Kauffmann couldn’t stand Lancaster as an actor.  But, while Lancaster had an early good performance (Brute Force) and a masterpiece late one (Atlantic City) followed by two strong supporting ones (Local Hero, Field of Dreams), it’s what he did when he was a star from 1952 to 1966 that is most impressive.  In that stretch he earned 538 points, landing in the Top 10 in both decades, something that many above him on the list managed to do.

#10  –  Anthony Hopkins

727 points
b. 1937, Welsh
Oscar, 2 BAFTAs, BFCA, NYFC, LAFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR (twice), 2 NH
4 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 9 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Silence of the Lambs
His performance as Hannibal followed in the next several years by Dracula, Howards End, The Remains of the Day, Shadowlands, Nixon and Amistad shouldn’t have been such a surprise given that before 1991 he had already done The Lion in Winter, Magic, The Elephant Man and The Good Father but those hadn’t earned awards attention outside of the BAFTAs and so it did come as a surprise.

#9  –  Toshiro Mifune

818 points
1920-1997, born in China to Japanese parents
2 NH
BAFTA nom, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  Rashomon
Here’s a good reason why awards don’t factor into this list.  The BAFTAs just once nominated him (for Seven Samurai as a lead but they didn’t have a supporting category at the time – he wins the Nighthawk for supporting for both that and Rashomon).  Most of his films with Kurosawa landed in the States in the early 60’s and they were Oscar eligible but the Academy didn’t really bother to notice so brilliant performances in Stray Dog, I Live in Fear, Throne of Blood, The Hidden Fortress, The Bad Sleep Well, Yojimbo, High and Low and Red Beard were the kind of thing that the Nighthawk Awards were created to reward.  He is so linked with Akira Kurosawa that there is a wonderful dual biography (The Emperor and the Wolf – check your local library) and they were my top pic for my now 11 year old piece on the best actor-director collaborations.

#8  –  Laurence Olivier

833 points
1907-1989, English
Oscar, 2 BAFTAs, 2 Globes, NYFC (thrice), NBR (twice), 2 NH
10 Oscar noms, 9 BAFTA noms, 5 Globe noms, 12 NH noms
Best Performance:  Richard III
The first actor ever to be made a peer which shows he great he is.  And it feels weird to have him this low (and by the update below he’s out of the Top 10).  But that’s because he spent so much of his career on the stage (which was his real passion) and really did film to make money more than the art of it (except for the Shakespeare films).  He is still the consummate Shakespeare actor on film (Henry V, Hamlet, Richard III, Othello) but just to limit yourself to his Shakespeare films is to miss so much brilliant work aside from that.  He never earned a 9 for a film performance but he earns an astounding six 8’s as a lead (Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, Henry V, Hamlet, Richard III, Sleuth) and two in supporting (Spartacus, Marathon Man).

#7  –  Daniel Day-Lewis

837 points
b. 1957, English
2 Oscars, 3 BAFTAs, SAG, Globe, 2 BFCA, NYFC (4), LAFC (thrice), NSFC (twice), BSFC (thrice), CFC (twice), NBR, 4 NH
4 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 6 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 9 NH noms
Best Performance:  My Left Foot
How great an actor is Daniel Day-Lewis?  Through 2011, he had made just 19 films.  Two of them were tiny roles (Sunday Bloody Sunday, Gandhi) and three of them I have been unable to see (Nanou, Stars and Bars, Eversmile New Jersey).  Of the other 14 he earned at least 26 points for each one and at least 44 for each one except The Bounty and Nine.  He doesn’t waste performances.  Most other people have at least a number of films where they earned no points.  DDL racks up points for every film and by a large, large margin has the highest points per film appearance.  And just look at how long his awards line is and think about how films he has made.  In spite of his few appearances, he joins Jack Nicholson as the only actors to earn more than 200 points in three different decades.

#6  –  Alec Guinness

864 points
1914-2000, English
Oscar, BAFTA, Globe, NYFC, LAFC, NBR (twice), 2 NH
5 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 3 Globe noms, 10 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Bridge on the River Kwai
As revealed in the previous post, although it should come as no surprise, he’s my favorite actor of all-time.  I first knew him as Obi-Wan Kenobi, a performance which earned a Nighthawk win and an Oscar nomination.  Then I got into David Lean and discovered his performance for the ages in The Bridge on the River Kwai.  Eventually I would discover the Ealing Comedies and see what a brilliant comedic actor he could be in films like Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Man in the White Suit and The Ladykillers.  Oh, and there’s also The Horse’s Mouth, Tunes of Glory, Our Man in Havana, The Comedians, The Quiller Memorandum and Little Dorrit.

#5  –  Robert De Niro

892 points
b. 1943, American
2 Oscars, Globe, NYFC (5), LAFC (twice), NSFC (twice), BSFC, NBR (twice), 5 NH
6 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, 8 Globe noms, 8 NH noms
Best Performance:  Raging Bull
After his double whammy in 1973 of Mean Streets and Bang the Drum Slowly, De Niro had a meteoric rise up the chart.  By 1981 he was already at almost 400 points thanks to The Godfather Part II, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter and Raging Bull.  The 80’s were a slow rise but the 90’s began with GoodFellas, Awakenings, Cape Fear and Guilty by Suspicion and he earned in two years almost more than he had from 1981 to 1989.  In the late 90’s, De Niro decided to start doing dumb comedies and hasn’t earned any points since 1998 but there’s still hope he’ll go back to better work.

#4  –  Dustin Hoffman

927 points
b. 1937, American
2 Oscars, 2 BAFTAs, 3 Globes, NYFC, LAFC, NSFC (twice), BSFC, NH
7 Oscar noms, 7 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 10 Globe noms, 7 NH noms
Best Performance:  Rain Man
I list him fourth all-time and he’s not even the best American actor born in 1937.  But he hits major milestones.  He’s got five level 8 performances (The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Kramer vs. Kramer, Tootsie, Rain Man).  He hits 100 points in five straight decades (60’s-00’s).  That’s remarkable given that he’s only earned more than 37 points for a performance once since 1988 (Wag the Dog) but he continues to do solid work (mostly as supporting now) and moving up the lists.

#3  –  Paul Newman

960 points
1925-2008, American
Oscar, BAFTA, NYFC, NSFC, NBR, 2 NH
10 Oscar noms, 5 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 9 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 9 NH noms
Best Performance:  The Hustler
He’s really well liked but not loved.  The Oscars finally gave him the award for his 8th nomination after he had been nominated for at least five better performances (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The Hustler, Hud, Cool Hand Luke, The Verdict).  The Globes nominated him a lot but never gave him the award (actually he won three – Best Newcomer Male for The Silver Chalice which might be his worst performance, Best Director for Rachel Rachel and Best Supporting Actor in a Mini-Series for Empire Falls which was definitely the right choice).  Even I have only given him his two Nighthawks after having times when those years had different winners.  But he was a consummate actor and he continued to be great for a very long time (his first points are in 1958, his last in 2002).  I also have a soft spot because of the night he came into Borders, 15 minutes after Robin Williams did.  He and Joanne bought some DVD’s for their grandkids and some classical music.  My cashier didn’t recognize him.  At the time, I thought the only bigger people who could come in were Jack, Eastwood or Harrison Ford and my cashier had no idea who he was (made infinitely worse by the other cashier who said “You know, the salad dressing.”).  The mold for Clooney: as good looking as they come, as good an actor as can be, important social activism, an awesome spouse and partner.

#2  –  Michael Caine

967 points
b. 1933, English
2 Oscars, BAFTA, SAG, 2 Globes, NSFC, 3 NH
6 Oscar noms, 8 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 9 Globe noms, 9 NH noms
Best Performance:  Hannah and Her Sisters
Michael Caine once went 10 years without earning any acting points (1988-1998).  To be fair, he only made 10 films from 1989 to 1997, the same amount he made from just 1986 to 1988.  But it’s notable because Caine has earned at least 70 points in every decade (he earned almost 90 points in the last two years of the 90’s with Little Voice and The Cider House Rules).  Just the fact that he earned Oscar nominations in five different decades (Alfie, Sleuth, Educating Rita, The Cider House Rules, The Quiet American) shows how long he’s been a great actor.  Though he’s long been a great actor with some truly great performances (not even mentioned there are California Suite, Mona Lisa and Hannah and Her Sisters) his place on the list is also about sheer accumulation of points.  Take 2005-08 where he earned over 200 points without earning more than 37 points for any single performance just because, in his mid 70’s he was so good in Batman Begins, The Weather Man, The Prestige, Children of Men, Sleuth and The Dark Knight.  His entire career is like that and it doesn’t look like he has any intention of stopping anytime soon which is astounding because back in January of 2008 when I came in the kitchen and told V that I hoped filming on The Dark Knight was complete she (reasonably, since he was almost 75) asked if Michael Caine had died before I told her it was Ledger who had died.  Yet, here we are and Caine is still doing great work.

#1  –  Jack Nicholson

1249 points
b. 1937, American
3 Oscars, 3 BAFTAs, SAG, 6 Globes, 2 BFCA, NYFC (6), LAFC (thrice), NSFC (5), BSFC (thrice), CFC, NBR (5), 4 NH
12 Oscar noms, 7 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 17 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, 13 NH noms
Best Performance:  Chinatown
“This poem’s no Jack Nicholson.  /  This poem can’t abide a man who admires  /  the Lakers.  This poem will stop  /  to say just that.  /  This poem loves the Boston Celtics.”  (“Poetry is Carnal Knowledge, It’s True”, Doyle Wesley Walls).  Doyle’s poem (I feel fine calling him by his first name since he was my English professor as an undergraduate which is why I know this fantastic poem) puts forth the only reason I wouldn’t like Jack.  Jack is the king.  He’s almost the Meryl of male actors but he retired and Meryl shows no sign of retiring.  Plus she actually has a lot more points.  Jack worked in B-movies for years before suddenly bursting forth into the acting lists, awards lists and stardom with Easy Rider.  From 1969 to 1975 he gave a string of performances that earned him at least 35 points every year (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Carnal Knowledge, The King of Marvin Gardens, The Last Detail, Chinatown, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest).  He was not yet 40 but he was already at #25 on the all-time list.  He made just three movies in the next four years, none of them earning him any points but then he followed that up by earning more points in the 80’s than any other actor thanks to films like The Shining, Reds, Terms of Endearment, Prizzi’s Honor, Ironweed and Batman.  He had become the first actor (and still only) to ever earn over 350 points in multiple decades and was up to #4.  By the end of the 90’s, having earned another Oscar nomination (A Few Good Men) and another Oscar (As Good as It Gets) not to mention films like Hoffa and The Crossing Guard he had become the first actor to ever earn over 200 points in three separate decades.  In 1992 he became the #1 actor and in 1997 became the first to pass 1000 points.  He only made six films in the 00’s and two of them were awful (Anger Management, The Bucket List) but he still managed, with just the other four (The Pledge, About Schmidt, Something’s Gotta Give, The Departed) to earn enough points to become the first and only actor to earn over 200 points in four separate decades.

Post-2011

Top 10 Points:  2012-2018

  1. Tom Hanks  –  280
  2. Christian Bale  –  263
  3. Jake Gyllenhaal  –  261
  4. Bradley Cooper  –  256
  5. Matthew McConaughy  –  255
  6. Joaquin Phoenix  –  226
  7. Steve Carrell  –  220
  8. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  219
  9. Hugh Jackman  –  201
  10. Denzel Washington  /  Eddie Redmayne  –  183

note:  The following several lists I saved for here so that I could include everything through 2018 instead of having to do two versions.  So they reflect the current points.

Top 10 Actors Who Have Never Won an Oscar

  1. Ralph Fiennes
  2. Toshiro Mifune
  3. Tom Cruise
  4. Johnny Depp
  5. Albert Finney
  6. Clint Eastwood
  7. Kirk Douglas
  8. Richard Burton
  9. Cary Grant
  10. Orson Welles

note:  Leo would have been 5th in 2011.
note:  Eastwood and Welles have non-acting Oscars.

Top 10 Actors Who Have Never Been Nominated for an Oscar

  1. Toshiro Mifune
  2. Ewan McGregor
  3. Donald Sutherland
  4. Gunnar Bjornstrand
  5. Steve Martin
  6. Alan Rickman
  7. Hugh Grant
  8. Jean Gabin
  9. Lon Chaney
  10. John Cusack

Top 10 Years for Actors

  1. 1937  (Jack Nicholson  /  Dustin Hoffman  /  Anthony Hopkins  /  Warren Beatty  /  Morgan Freeman)
  2. 1925  (Paul Newman  /  Jack Lemmon  /  Richard Burton)
  3. 1899  (Humphrey Bogart  /  James Cagney  /  Charles Laughton)
  4. 1974  (Leonardo DiCaprio  /  Christian Bale  /  Joaquin Phoenix)
  5. 1930  (Gene Hackman  /  Clint Eastwood  /  Sean Connery)
  6. 1962  (Ralph Fiennes  /  Tom Cruise  /  Jim Carrey)
  7. 1889  (Claude Rains  /  Charlie Chaplin  /  Clifton Webb)
  8. 1916  (Kirk Douglas  /  Gregory Peck  /  Peter Finch)
  9. 1950  (William Hurt  /  Bill Murray  /  Ed Harris)
  10. 1943  (Robert De Niro  /  Ben Kingsley  /  Klaus Marie Brandeur)

note:  1937 is far and away the best year as I had already made clear here.  Interestingly, none of these overlap with the Top 10 years for Actresses.

Top 4 Actors, age 8-12

  1. Haley Joel Osment  –  52
  2. Freddie Highmore  –  22
  3. Daniel Radcliffe  –  17
  4. Justin Henry  –  15

Top 5 Actors, age 13-19

  1. Daniel Radcliffe  –  131
  2. River Phoenix  –  104
  3. Jamie Bell  –  61
  4. Sal Mineo  –  52
  5. Jean-Pierre Leaud  –  52

Top 10 Actors, age 20-29

  1. Edward Norton  –  193
  2. Marlon Brando  –  191
  3. Heath Ledger  –  184
  4. James Dean  –  166
  5. Tom Cruise  –  162
  6. Tom Courteney  –  157
  7. Elijah Wood  –  152
  8. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  150
  9. Gael Garcia Bernal  –  148
  10. Ewan McGregor  –  141

note:  Lucas Hedges (age 23, 118 points) and Timothee Chalamet (age 24, 97 points) have the potential to make this list.

Top 10 Actors, age 30-39

  1. Leonardo DiCaprio  –  524
  2. Ralph Fiennes  –  468
  3. Christian Bale  –  453
  4. Jack Nicholson  –  409
  5. Daniel Day-Lewis  –  409
  6. Cary Grant  –  408
  7. Robert De Niro  –  399
  8. Al Pacino  –  380
  9. Kirk Douglas  –  376
  10. Toshiro Mifune  –  375

Top 10 Actors, age 40-49

  1. George Clooney  –  432
  2. Humphrey Bogart  –  383
  3. Philip Seymour Hoffman  –  375
  4. Leslie Howard  –  371
  5. Burt Lancaster  –  369
  6. Alec Guinness  –  362
  7. Gene Hackman  –  342
  8. Robert De Niro  –  329
  9. Sean Penn  –  305
  10. Woody Allen  –  305

Top 10 Actors, age 50-59

  1. Anthony Hopkins  –  442
  2. Claude Rains  –  341
  3. Henry Fonda  –  315
  4. Morgan Freeman  –  292
  5. Jack Nicholson  –  286
  6. Al Pacino  –  283
  7. Michael Caine  –  280
  8. Ian McKellen  –  253
  9. Harvey Keitel  –  245
  10. Gunnar Bjornstrand  –  243

note:  Bear in mind that Hopkins, Freeman and Nicholson are all the same age, so those are all the same years (87-96) while Pacino (90-99), Caine (83-92), McKellen (89-98) and Keitel (89-98) are all overlapping in that period as well.

Top 10 Actors, age 60-69

  1. Clint Eastwood  –  330
  2. Jack Nicholson  –  262
  3. Paul Newman  –  255
  4. Michael Caine  –  203
  5. Dustin Hoffman  –  203
  6. Denholm Elliott  –  179
  7. Jeff Bridges  –  174
  8. Tommy Lee Jones  –  166
  9. Ian McKellen  –  163
  10. Michael Keaton  –  157

note:  Michael Keaton won’t be 70 until 2021.

Top 5 Actors, age 70-79

  1. Michael Caine  –  205
  2. Clint Eastwood  –  122
  3. Christopher Plummer  –  112
  4. John Geilgud  –  97
  5. Paul Scofield  –  97

Top 5 Actors, age 80 and above

  1. Christopher Plummer  –  168
  2. Michael Caine  –  71
  3. Hal Holbrook  –  71
  4. Victor Sjostrom  –  70
  5. Robert Redford  –  69

note:  Plummer is now 90 but Caine is only 86 and it looks like as long as he continues to work, Nolan will continue to put him in films.

Highest Percentage of Points after the Age of 40 in the Top 100

  1. Claude Rains  –  100%
  2. Ian McKellen  –  100%
  3. Morgan Freeman  –  100%
  4. Viggo Mortenson  –  100%
  5. Bob Hoskins  –  100%
  6. Walter Matthau  –  100%
  7. Leslie Howard  –  100%
  8. Gunnar Bjornstrand  –  100%
  9. Nick Nolte  –  100%
  10. William H. Macy  /  Alan Rickman  /  Tom Wilkinson  /  Jason Robards  /  Walter Huston  –  100%

note:  Judi Dench was the only actress in the Top 100 to earn all of her points after the age 40.

Lowest Percentage of Points after the age of 40 in the Top 100

I’m not going to bother with this list and that just proves my point about how Hollywood doesn’t use actresses as they age.  I had an entire Top 10 from the Actress list all of whom earned no acting points after the age of 40 without including anyone born after 1976 or Natalie Wood (who died at age 43).  The only three on the Actor list with no points after the age of 40 were all born after 1976.  There are only three actors on the list born before the year 1970 who earn less than 20% of their acting points after the age of 40 (Nicolas Cage, Jean Gabin, Edward Norton).

Progressive #1 All-Time by Age

  • 8-10:  Justin Henry  –  15
  • 11-12:  Haley Joel Osment  –  52
  • 13-15:  Haley Joel Osment  –  96
  • 16-17:  Daniel Radcliffe  –  113
  • 18-19:  Daniel Radcliffe  –  148
  • 20-21:  River Phoenix  –  191
  • 22-23:  Daniel Radcliffe  –  226
  • 24-29:  Daniel Radcliffe  –  248
  • 30-31:  Marlon Brando  –  269
  • 32-33:  Leonardo DiCaprio  –  368
  • 34-35:  Leonardo DiCaprio  –  429
  • 36:  Leonardo DiCaprio  –  533
  • 37:  Leonardo DiCaprio  –  559
  • 38:  Leonardo DiCaprio  –  604
  • 39-40:  Leonardo DiCaprio  –  700
  • 41-47:  Leonardo DiCaprio  –  778
  • 48-49:  Toshiro Mifune  –  783
  • 50-51:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  811
  • 52-53:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  837
  • 54:  Ralph Fiennes  –  877
  • 55-56:  Daniel Day-Lewis  –  915
  • 57:  Jack Nicholson  –  926
  • after this it’s Nicholson in increasing numbers

To give a good idea for this, here are some actors and what rank they are at given their current age (end of 2018, since I’ve done no 2019 points yet):

  • Jake Gyllenhaal  –  #5
  • Ryan Gosling  –  #6 (tie)
  • Leonardo DiCaprio  –  #1
  • Christian Bale  –  #2 (tie)
  • Ralph Fiennes  –  #4

Jack Nicholson doesn’t enter the Top 10 until age 38 and doesn’t enter it permanently until age 44.  To get an idea of how good Philip Seymour Hoffman was, he stays in the Top 10 until the age 58 even though he died when he was 47.  Michael Caine, on the other hand, doesn’t enter the Top 10 until the age 72.  I will also point out that Leo has 61 points coming from OUATIH which means he’s at 839 and will be #1 all the way through age 53 even if he never acts in another film.

Progressive #1 All-TIme by Year

  • 1928:  Lon Chaney  –  282
  • 1929-36:  Lon Chaney  –  299
  • 1937:  Fredric March  –  356
  • 1938-40:  Leslie Howard  –  371
  • 1941-42:  Fredric March  –  373
  • 1943:  Claude Rains  –  392
  • 1944-45:  Claude Rains  –  422
  • 1946:  Claude Rains  –  482
  • 1947-48:  Cary Grant  –  486
  • 1949-50:  Claude Rains  –  519
  • 1951-53:  Humphrey Bogart  –  579
  • 1954-55:  Humphrey Bogart  –  649
  • 1956-58:  Humphrey Bogart  –  666
  • 1959-61:  James Stewart  –  697
  • 1962-66:  James Stewart  –  706
  • 1967:  Alec Guinness  –  752
  • 1968-75:  Toshiro Mifune  –  783
  • 1976:  Laurence Olivier  –  789
  • 1977:  Alec Guinness  –  819
  • 1978-87:  Laurence Olivier  –  833
  • 1988-91:  Alec Guinness  –  864
  • 1992-present:  Jack Nicholson in increasing amounts

The Updates

Without re-typing the whole 100 again, I will just cover major movements and actors who have entered the list since 2011.  Everyone below 316 points has been knocked off the list.

This first list are actors who moved up enough to merit listing them and their new point total.  It’s not everyone who moved up (which is why if you try to total the lists it might not work) but those who earned a significant amount of points since 2011.  I will also list below them, their new point total and any awards or nominations they have earned since 2011 and notes including their best performance if it came since 2011.

#78  –  Gary Oldman

373 points
Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, Globe, BFCA, NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  The Darkest Hour
He’s only earned points for one performance since 2011 but what a performance.

#75  –  Jude Law

379 points
With films like Anna Karenina, Dom Hemingway and Fantastic Beasts, Law continues to slowly creep higher and higher up the all-time list.

#73  –  Jim Broadbent

389 points
Like Law, slowing moving up the list with points from Le Week-end, Brooklyn and The Sense of an Ending.

#66  –  Edward Norton

423 points
LAFC, NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, Globe nom, SAG nom, BFCA nom, NH nom
Best Performance:  Birdman
Since 2011 his only points have been for his Nighthawk winning performance in Birdman but it moved him up 60 points.

#63  –  Ewan McGregor

438 points
Globe nom
Ewan continues to move up the list and is now the top living actor without a single Oscar nomination.  Since 2011 he’s done Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, The Impossible, August: Osage County and T2.  At some point he’ll get that nomination.

#61  –  Harrison Ford

447 points
The only points that Ford has earned since 2011 were for 42 and Force Awakens but his wonderful return performance as Han moved him up a number of spots in this tight area of the list.

#54  –  Matt Damon

465 points
Globe
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, NH nom
The Martian might be responsible for all the awards but not all the points because there’s also Behind the Candelabra and Downsizing and he might earn more points later this year for Ford vs. Ferrari.

#53  –  Bill Murray

465 points
2 Globe noms, BFCA nom
Hyde Park on Hudson and St. Vincent might not be great but Murray’s performances earned him enough points to move him a number of spots.

#52  –  Kenneth Branagh

470 points
Branagh had been sitting in the same spot for a while before 2017 came along and he earned some points for Murder on the Orient Express and a lot more for Dunkirk.

#47  –  Robert Redford

495 points
NYFC
Globe nom, BFCA nom
Best Performance:  The Old Man and the Gun
As promised above, Redford has soared past Tracy because he’s done some of his best work in his 70’s (All is Lost) and 80’s (The Old Man and the Gun).  Who the hell gives the best performance of their career in their supposed farewell film at age 82?

#40  –  Ian McKellen

523 points
Even though he turned 80 a couple of months ago, McKellen continues to give first-rate film performances with three more turns as Gandalf and a great lead role in Mr. Holmes.

#30  –  Johnny Depp

609 points
BFCA nom, SAG nom, NH nom
It’s been rough to be a Johnny fan the last number of years with films like the latest crappy Pirates sequels or even worse, Yoga Hosers or Mortdecai.  But he also did a hell of a job as Whitey in Black Mass and that kind of performance can’t be ignored.

#27  –  Jeff Bridges

624 points
NBR
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, NH nom
It was interesting to watch the terrible Seventh Son (truth be told, many Bridges films since 2011 have been terrible) and point out that he was younger in Lebowski than his co-star in that and this film, Julianne Moore was in Seventh Son (Moore is insanely good looking for her age).  But thankfully not all of his choices have been terrible and his fantastic performance in Hell or High Water earned him numerous nominations and enough points to move into the Top 30.

#26  –  Christian Bale

638 points
Globe, BFCA
3 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 3 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 3 NH nom
Best Performance:  Vice
Winning that Oscar seemed to have spurred Bale on because since then he’s earned three more (well-deserved) nominations and as you can see from the above list he’s earned the second most points since 2011.  Aside from his three Oscar nominations (American Hustle, The Big Short, Vice) he also finished off the Dark Knight Trilogy (earning more points) and also earned points for Out of the Furnace and Hostiles.  His career trajectory gives me hope for my own life.  Hell, he could earn more points this year for Ford vs. Ferrari.

#21  –  Philip Seymour Hoffman

686 points
BFCA, CFC
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, NH nom
Hoffman was clearly a Top 10 talent.  Given that he was just 46 when he died who knows where he could have reached.  Between 2011 and his death he added over 100 more points thanks to The Master and A Most Wanted Man.

#15  –  Leonardo DiCaprio

778 points
Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, 2 Globes, BFCA, BSFC, CFC, NBR, 2 NH
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 3 Globe noms, BFCA nom
Best Performance:  The Revenant
What’s astounding is that Leo didn’t appear again in a film after winning the Oscar four years ago until last week.  But, thanks mostly to Wolf of Wall Street and The Revenant (with some points as well for Django and Gatsby), Leo has moved way up the list and where he is for his age is simply astounding and shows that he easily will be one of the all-time best.  He has now joined Jack and De Niro as the only actors to earn more than 300 points in two different decades.  Bear in mind that this total doesn’t include the 61 points he’s getting from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.  A brief mention here for Brad Pitt who was actually knocked off the list a couple of years ago but who also earns 61 for OUATIH (I can’t actually decide which is the better performance) and that will actually move him back on the list but he didn’t get a update because these are the first points Pitt has earned since 2011 and I haven’t counted them.

#14  –  George Clooney

803 points
Clooney’s gains since 2011 have been modest for low scoring performances in Gravity, Tomorrowland and Hail Caesar.

#13  –  Anthony Hopkins

812 points
Hopkins earned enough points from Hitchcock to keep him at this spot on the list.

#10  –  Denzel Washington

852 points
SAG
3 Oscar noms, 2 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 2 NH noms
Denzel moved back into the pure acting realm in 2012 with a great performance in Flight and followed it up with an even more impressive one in Fences (which just barely doesn’t win the Nighthawk) and then wasted a very good performance in the not very good Roman J. Israel.  But those three performances (all of them Oscar nominated) were enough to move him past Olivier and into the Top 10.

#9  –  Tom Hanks

856 points
NBR
BAFTA nom, SAG nom, 2 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, NH Nom
Best Performance:  The Post
Hanks is now up to 19 years since his last Oscar nomination which is astounding to me because I think he’s doing the best work of his career.  Since 2011, he’s earned more points than any other actor with Captain Phillips, Saving Mr. Banks, Bridge of Spies, Sully and The Post.  What’s more, he’ll be playing the ultimate good guy this fall (the trailer for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood in the theater before OUATIH almost made V start crying) so by the end of this year he could be just behind Dustin Hoffman.  Thanks to his impressive work this decade he has joined Jack and DDL as the only actors to earn over 200 points in three different decades.

#7  –  Ralph Fiennes

877 points
BAFTA nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, NH nom
Well, at least The Grand Budapest Hotel saw him earning some more nominations even if the Oscars passed him over yet again.  Aside from that, he’s done solid supporting work in Skyfall, Great Expecations, A Bigger Splash and Hail Caesar.

#5  –  Robert De Niro

937 points
Oscar nom, SAG nom, BFCA nom
De Niro hasn’t done much lately but he did earn some nominations (and some points) for Silver Linings Playbook.  Let’s not forget he has The Irishman coming this fall and that could put him back into the race for the first time in a while.

#3  –  Daniel Day-Lewis

985 points
Oscar, BAFTA, SAG, Globe, BFCA, NYFC, NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NH
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, SAG nom, 2 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Lincoln
Since 2011?  He’s made just two films (supposedly his last) and those two lines above show how lauded he was for them.

#2  –  Michael Caine

1038 points
With solid supporting performances in Interstellar and Youth, Caine does what he has always done – continues to accumulate points and move higher.  As long as he’s alive, it seems that Nolan will put him in films and he will move up (the trailer for Tenet just hit theaters on Friday, so Caine has at least one 2020 film).  Caine, by the way, is now the only actor on the list to earn at least 70 points in six straight decades which is astounding.  And no one else can do it until at least 2030 because of those who started in the 70’s, they are all short in at least one decade.  It just shows how amazing his career has been.

Actors who are new to the list since 2011

Five Actors to Watch For, moving up the list

  1. Javier Bardem  –  313
  2. Liam Neeson  –  312
  3. Hugh Grant  –  309
  4. Forest Whitaker  –  305
  5. Christopher Plummer  –  297

#100  –  Tom Wilkinson

316 points
b. 1948, English
BAFTA, NYFC, 2 NH
2 Oscar noms, 4 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, Globe nom, BFCA nom, 2 NH Noms
Best Performance:  In the Bedroom
Wilkinson can be enough of a chameleon that I honestly didn’t realize when I saw Shakespeare in Love in the theater that the man with the money was the same man who had been the depressed man whose wife wouldn’t stop spending in The Full Monty.  By 2001, of course, when he gave a magnificent performance that should have won the Oscar in In the Bedroom I knew who he was and by 2007 when told by George Clooney in Michael Clayton “I’m not the enemy” and gave him the most brilliant look and reply “Then who are you?” I was a big fan.  He’s in his 60’s now but continues to be good in films like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and Selma.

#99  –  Joaquin Phoenix

317 points
b. 1974 in Puerto Rico
BFCA, LAFC, NBR
3 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  The Master
When he was just a kid in Parenthood (and still called Leaf) he was interesting.  By 2000, he had gotten good (in Quills though, not in his Oscar nominated performance in Gladiator).  But after Walk the Line he got nuts and everyone began to wonder if he was done.  But then came the back-to-back-to-back years with The Master, Her and Inherent Vice when he proved once and for all that he’s really a great actor.  Just in 2018 he returned with strong but very different performances in You Were Never Really Here and Don’t Worry He Won’t Get Far on FootJoker looks like it will move up him more even if the film itself seems pointless.

#93  –  Michael Fassbender

331 points
b. 1977 in West Germany to German-Irish parents
LAFC (twice), NBR, NH
2 Oscar noms, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 3 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Steve Jobs
Fassbender had teased with performances like Hunger and Fish Tank before exploding in 2011 with Shame, Jane Eyre and A Dangerous Method while continuing with 12 Years a Slave and Steve Jobs.

#91  –  Hugh Jackman

332 points
b. 1968, Australian
Globe
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, 3 Globe noms, BFCA nom, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  Les Miserables
For a while he was Wolverine on film and saved his best acting for Broadway.  That changed in 2006 (The Fountain, The Prestige) then he finally broke through with awards groups playing Jean Valjean and has continued on with Prisoners, The Greatest Showman and The Front Runner.

#83  –  Michael Keaton

355 points
b. 1951, American
Globe, BFCA, NYFC, NSFC, BSFC, NBR, NH
Oscar nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, Globe nom, BFCA nom, 3 NH noms
Best Performance:  Birdman
Just before he became Batman he proved he was a hell of an actor with Beetlejuice and Clean and Sober.  But after Much Ado About Nothing he basically disappeared from my points system for almost two decades before Birdman put him back on top and the follow up of Spotlight and The Founder pushed him into the Top 100.

#80  –  Willem Dafoe

362 points
b. 1955, American
NYFC, LAFC (twice), NSFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR, NH
4 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, 2 SAG noms, 3 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, 2 NH Noms
Best Performance:  The Florida Project
Dafoe has a completely unique awards line in that he’s won every critics award but none of the five awards groups.  That’s because after he won all those awards, the idiot awards group dumped him for a far inferior performance from Sam Rockwell.  But even before The Florida Project he had earned Oscar nominations for Platoon and Shadow of the Vampire (and would earn another the following year for At Eternity’s Gate).

#70  –  Viggo Mortensen

405 points
b. 1958, American, raised in Venezuela
NBR
3 Oscar noms, 3 BAFTA noms, 3 SAG noms, 4 Globe noms, 3 BFCA noms, 4 NH noms
Best Performance:  A History of Violence
He was just off the bottom of the list in 2011 after his great performances as Aragorn, combined with his Oscar nominated performance in Eastern Promises and his career best in A History of Violence.  But recently he managed two more nominations for Captain Fantastic and Green Book and not only made the list but went up quite a bit.

#69  –  Ryan Gosling

410 points
b. 1980, Canadian
Globe
2 Oscar noms, BAFTA nom, 3 SAG noms, 5 Globe noms, 6 BFCA noms, 2 NH noms
Best Performance:  First Man
Like Edward Norton, he proved early on that his chiseled good looks weren’t getting in the way of his acting ability.  Women (and men) swooned over The Notebook but Half Nelson started the award swooning and it was followed in short order by Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine, Drive and The Ides of March.  After a couple of weak years he then started earning points in a big heap with The Big Shot, The Nice Guys, La La Land, Blade Runner and First Man.

#68  –  Jake Gyllenhaal

411 points
b. 1980, American
NBR, NH
Oscar nom, 2 BAFTA noms, 2 SAG noms, 2 Globe noms, 2 BFCA noms, NH nom
Best Performance:  Brokeback Mountain
Even though he’s five weeks younger, Gyllenhaal was already doing movies, playing Billy Crystal’s son in City Slickers before Gosling even started on The Mickey Mouse Club.  Thanks to Donnie Darko and Brokeback he already had 100 points before Gosling had any.  And while Gosling has almost caught up, that hasn’t stopped Gyllenhaal in films like Prisoners, Enemy, Nightcrawler, Southpaw, Nocturnal Animals and Stronger.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1990

$
0
0

“And now all that is over, and that’s the hardest part.  Today everything is very different.  No more action.  I have to wait around like everyone else.  I’m an average nobody.  I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.”  (p 284)

My Top 10

  1. GoodFellas
  2. The Grifters
  3. Dances with Wolves
  4. Presumed Innocent
  5. The Hunt for Red October
  6. Reversal of Fortune
  7. White Hunter Black Heart
  8. Misery
  9. Mr. & Mrs. Bridge
  10. Awakenings

note:  Once you get past the top two, it’s not nearly as strong as 1989 but it would hard to be that good.  There is, however, a large number of films on my list outside of the Top 10 (barely making the list but making it nonetheless) which are all listed down at the bottom.

Consensus Nominees:

  1. GoodFellas  (264 pts)
  2. Dances with Wolves  (264 pts)
  3. Reversal of Fortune  (264 pts)
  4. Awakenings  (80 pts)
  5. The Grifters  (80 pts)
  6. Mr. & Mrs. Bridge  (80 pts)

note:  We get the only three-way tie in history.  Then a very distant three-way tie for the next place as well.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • Dances with Wolves
  • Awakenings
  • GoodFellas
  • The Grifters
  • Reversal of Fortune

WGA:

  • Dances with Wolves
  • Awakenings
  • GoodFellas
  • The Grifters
  • Reversal of Fortune

note:  The Oscars and WGA aligned their categories and number of nominees starting in 1984 but this is the first time the five nominees have aligned in both groups.  It won’t happen again until 2017 (as opposed to Original where it wouldn’t happen until 1991 but would happen again in 1992 and 1993).

Golden Globes:

  • Dances with Wolves
  • The Godfather Part III
  • GoodFellas
  • Reversal of Fortune

Nominees that are Original:  Avalon

BAFTA:

  • GoodFellas
  • Postcards from the Edge
  • Dances with Wolves  (1991)
  • Cyrano de Bergerac  (1991)

NYFC:

  • Mr. & Mrs. Bridge

LAFC:

  • Reversal of Fortune

BSFC:

  • Reversal of Fortune

CFC:

  • GoodFellas

My Top 10

GoodFellas

The Film:

I have actually reviewed this film twice already, once as my representative film for Scorsese in the Top 100 Directors post and then again for my Best Picture project.  Of course, both reviews are beyond laudatory because I consider this film to be the single greatest film of the decade, the only 99 film made between Princess Bride and Crouching Tiger.  It is brilliantly conceived and made in every single way (acting, directing, writing, editing, cinematography, sets, sound) and has not one but two of the most brilliant uses of rock and roll in the history of film with the Copacabana scene (“Then He Kissed Me”) and the “Layla” piano exit montage.

The Source:

Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family by Nicholas Pileggi  (1985)

I was in a bookstore I had never been in before (or since) at The City Shopping Center (a mall in Orange that has been completely remade into The Outlets at Orange) and I noticed this book called Wiseguy.  Even though it said nothing on the cover (because it wasn’t a new printing), I knew this was the book that GoodFellas was based on.  True Crime wasn’t and has never been my thing (I have less than a handful of books that could be classified as such) but the film had been so brilliant, that I bought the book and the book is so well-written, so fascinating in the way it tells the tale of the modern Mafia from someone who saw it all that I have never gotten rid of it.

Pileggi was set up with Henry Hill by Hill’s lawyer because he knew Pileggi was a True Crime writer and Hill spilled everything.  In many books like this, the credit would have gone to Hill with Pileggi doing the writing, but Pileggi is able to perfectly frame the story while consistently giving Hill (and occasionally his wife Karen) his own voice through long monologues.  It provides for an authentic voice while also keeping the book crisp and clear which is why I have held on to it for so long and do continue to reread it even though I have never been interested in crime and don’t buy into the romanticizing of the life.

The Adaptation:

While the film would change names (except for the Hills almost every person in the film has their name changed from their real life counterpart) and do some combinations of characters (namely Tommy, who is combined with Paulie’s two sons since Tommy was actually almost a decade younger than Henry rather than about the same age), the main thing that is done is actually cutting.  The main thing cut is Henry’s stint in the army, a cut down on his time in prison and the complete elimination of the Boston College point shaving scandal that was actually occupying Henry’s time at the moment of the actual Lufthansa heist.  A considerable amount of the action and even the dialogue (especially the voiceovers) come from the book itself.  It’s an excellent adaptation of a book, keeping what they needed for the story and dropping what would have been extraneous.  What’s especially well done is that final day of Henry being free, when he is being followed by the helicopter and trying to juggle numerous things at once – almost everything in that day, every line of dialogue and especially every line of Henry’s voiceover is straight from the book.

The most famous scene that isn’t in the actual book – the “you think I’m a clown” scene – was actually mostly improvised (as Scorsese explains in Martin Scorsese Interviews, p 156) and actually came from a real incident in Joe Pesci’s life that was really kind of terrifying for him (not knowing if the person might actually kill him).

The Credits:

Directed by Martin Scorsese.  Based on the book “Wiseguy” by Nicholas Pileggi.  Screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi & Martin Scorsese.

The Grifters

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the five best films of the year in my Nighthawk Awards.  I really should have reviewed it back for my Best Picture post but the idiotic Oscar voters placed Ghost among the nominees instead of this film.  That anyone could think Ghost is a better film or that Whoopi Goldberg gave a better performance than Annette Bening just depresses me.  Every time I watch this film I am more and more impressed and it has been continually been moving up in my ratings.  It’s a brilliant modern noir film, based on a novel from 1963 but perfectly placed in the present with magnificent direction, writing and especially acting.

The Source:

the grifters by jim thompson  (1963)

A brilliant example of later pulp.  Thompson picked up precisely where Dash Hammett and Raymond Chandler left off (complete in Los Angeles for picking up where Chandler left off) except where Hammett and Chandler wrote about detectives who were solving crimes, Thompson focused on those who were committing them.  Here we have three grifters, Roy, his mother, Lilly and his girlfriend, Moira.  In less than 200 pages we’ll meet them, discover just how messed up all of them are and follow all of them to their destinies, riveted on every page.  I had read this once before, years ago, and this time, realizing that neither of my local library systems had a copy, rather than try to get one from another library, I simply bought the book, knowing how good Thompson is, knowing how masterfully he subsumes us into this life of corruption and decay and knowing full well I would be reading it again and again, never content to get enough of these characters.

The Adaptation:

Well, you first might notice that Bening’s character is Moira in the book and Myra in the film.  There are a lot of small changes like that (the novel is set when it was written in 1963 but the film is set when it was filmed in 1990).  There is information we get in the book that we don’t get in the film (the background on Roy and Lilly and some comments between the two that really ratchet up the venom in their relationship that would have been difficult to put in the film).  There are a few small changes from the book (in the book both women are brunettes but once the filmmakers decided that a platinum blonde wig was the perfect thing to make Huston look the part, they had to make Myra blonde as well and with it we get Bening as the living embodiment of Gloria Grahame so no wonder she would later play Grahame because she is probably the only other femme fatale I would be okay with shooting me) and Myra’s background is much expanded upon in the film (she was a grifter, but nothing like the operation she describes in the film).  The film is very thematically faithful and even faithful in a lot of details while feeling that it could change and adapt where necessary like the best adaptations do (which is appropriate since Donald E. Westlake, the screenwriter, is also Richard Stark, the writer of similar books).

The Credits:

directed by stephen frears.  based on the novel “the grifters” by jim thompson.  screenplay by donald e. westlake.

Dances with Wolves

The Film:

I have reviewed this film once already.  Actually, I also reviewed the film when it was originally released, the very first movie review I ever wrote in full.  It was a pathetic review that mostly summed up the plot (and not very succinctly) and was trimmed down by my editor, Koko Ozaki (who had been on the paper for three years while this was my first semester on it) and kind of taught me how to write a film review.  But I thought it was a great film then (my #1 film of the year from the day it opened until the summer of 91 when I saw GoodFellas) and still think so today, with epic scope, magnificent technical aspects (most notably the score and the cinematography, but really, all of it), very good acting, directing and writing and just a beautiful Western.  Of all the great Westerns, there really isn’t any other one that’s similar to this one which kind of speaks to why it is great.

The Source:

Dances with Wolves by Michael Blake  (1988)

This would have been a screenplay originally except that Kevin Costner, who had become friends with Blake while working on a film together during the years that Blake had been engrossed in the research that would become the novel advised him to write a novel instead.  Even then, it struggled to find a publisher, but once it did, Costner snatched up the movie rights (by then he had made The Untouchables and Bull Durham and was a star) for his directorial debut.

Blake’s book is decent enough, a New Age Western about a soldier who wants to see the frontier before it disappears.  He ends up befriending a local group of Comanche and when the Army turns against him (his order posting him to the fort was lost and the Army didn’t know he was there when they arrived to reinforce the fort), he essentially “turns native”.  In essence, it was really always meant to be on screen and that, of course, was where it ended up.

The Adaptation:

Plotwise, almost everything in the book ends up on-screen, but of course, that was Blake’s goal in the first place.  There is a lot of narrative prose that is easily discarded or even given to Dunbar as voiceover narration.  Really, aside from the beginning (the Civil War scenes are a flashback in the book rather than the actual opening) and the ending (the final scenes of Dances with Wolves and Stands with A Fist leaving aren’t in the novel nor the Army finding the remains of the camp), the only significant difference between the book and the film is that in the book, the natives that Dunbar befriends are Comanche and in the film they are Lakota Sioux.  That was actually done for two specific reasons, as Blake notes in the Q&A in the back of the edition I read: “The Sioux (they call themselves Lakota) are one of the most numerous tribes today, and the Comanche pool would have been too small to utilize in terms of leading roles and extras.  A bigger reason for the change is that the largest buffalo herd on earth is kept near Pierre, South Dakota, where the film was ultimately shot, on territory the Sioux had formerly inhabited.”  It’s never explicitly stated in the book where Fort Sedgewick is located but it’s implied, because of the Comanche, to be in Texas.

The Credits:

directed by Kevin Costner.  screenplay by Michael Blake based on his novel.

Presumed Innocent

The Film:

This film is a rare film.  It was made by a major Hollywood studio with a major star and was a solid hit and yet, in spite of not receiving a single nomination from any awards group that I track, it is one of my top five films of the year (which is why this is a paragraph and not a full review).  I have been a big fan of it since the day the film debuted in theaters, not just because it has one of Harrison Ford’s best performances but because it is so good across the board, a taut legal thriller and mystery with a first-rate script and an absolutely masterful cast.  Ford may be the star but the film wouldn’t be nearly as good as it is without the superb supporting performances from Bonnie Bedelia, John Spencer, Raul Julia, Greta Scachi, Paul Winfield and Brian Dennehy.

The Source:

Presumed Innocent by Scott Turow  (1987)

As I mentioned in the Nighthawk Awards for the year, I saw this film with my mother as a (belated) birthday present.  She had read the book and I had not which meant that she knew who the killer was and I did not.  It was great for both of us because she could see how the film worked and I could wait and see what was going to happen and I must admit I was floored.

It wasn’t long afterwards that I bought and read the book (my copy isn’t a movie cover but does say at the top “Now a major motion picture”) and discovered that it was a first-rate book of its genre.  Just like with True Crime books, I’m not a fan of legal thrillers but Turow really nailed it, with great characters and an in-depth look at the process (he’s a former lawyer and this was his first novel).  I liked it enough that I still own it all these years later (though I don’t still own my other Turow books – The Burden of Proof which I remember as enjoyable and Pleading Guilty which wasn’t very good and I’m not certain I ever finished).  It’s a little disappointing to learn that several years ago, Turow wrote a sequel in which Rusty Sabich is accused of killing his wife because I didn’t need to go there (in The Burden of Proof he returns to Sandy Stern, the fascinating defense lawyer played so well on screen by Raul Julia and deals with his wife’s suicide but I didn’t need to have more things happen to Rusty).  But Turow does a good job of creating a fictional version of Chicago, its politics and its legal system.  I don’t know whether to say it’s better to have read the book first or seen the film first though if you haven’t seen the film, you reach a point where you definitely have the wrong idea of who committed the murder (which is deliberate) and it’s really well done, though if you have seen the movie, you know what’s going on and that it’s a bit of a red herring.

The Adaptation:

Until the end of the book, the film does a first-rate job of simply cutting some material and some peripheral characters (namely a racist cop) but changing almost nothing.  Most of the dialogue from the film is straight from the page and we follow everything quite closely.  There are a couple of things that are changed in time (like finding Leon before the outcome of the trial instead of after) but it is quite faithful.  At the end, though, not only is the discovery of the glass handled slightly differently, the book has a rather depressing final bit that changes the course of the Sabich family.  The film doesn’t so much change that as end the film before it would get to that point and really it would depressing and anti-climactic to have put it in and it was the right move to excise it.  But it probably does change how you feel about everything has played out.

The Credits:

Directed by Alan J. Pakula.  Based upon the novel by Scott Turow.  Screenplay by Frank Pierson and Alan J. Pakula.

The Hunt for Red October

The Film:

This is one of the most memorable times I ever had at a movie.  It opened on a Friday, but Academic Decathlon was the next day and we really couldn’t afford to go out to a movie the night before.  So we went to Decathlon and then John, Jay and I headed to the sold out 8:00 show that night filled with several hundred people.  Given that I had just been at a competition with students from all the county’s 48 public high schools, I had basically been near someone from pretty much every corner of a county that had close to three million people.  All of that was an interesting background that night when I came home and told my parents I didn’t feel well and we discovered I had chicken pox and I was infectious had probably just infected all of Orange County.  Good times!

But who cares about spreading an infectious disease to three million people when you could be at opening weekend of The Hunt for Red October.  First of all, the film had an intriguing cast.  There was James Earl Jones, who of course, was Darth Vader and Sean Connery who was James Bond.  There was Scott Glenn who was the star of Silverado, one of the first films I ever recorded on video-tape off HBO.  There was Tim Curry, who I knew from his hilarious performance in Clue.  There was Richard Jordan in a small but snarky role who I had loved in a similar role in The Secret of My Success.  Then there was the star of the film, Alec Baldwin, who I remembered as the nerdy man in Beetlejuice.  Could he hold up his end of the film?  And would it matter when he would be surrounded by such a cast?

This was a hell of a film that kept me riveted from the opening scenes straight through to the end of the film.  Yes, the Berlin Wall had fallen just a few months before the film was released but the Cold War didn’t quite seem like it was really over and I had grown up in the 80’s so the idea of the Soviets coming up with a submarine that couldn’t be tracked but the sub being captained by a man who actually wanted to defect was a hell of an idea.  What’s more, it had so many thrilling scenes that you weren’t ever quite sure where it was going to go.  You’ve got a torpedo that the sub has to outmaneuver in the middle of a deep-sea trench.  There is another torpedo that looks like it will destroy the sub only to have the most memorable moment in the film when James Earl Jones shows just how much he is in charge.  Then there is yet another torpedo and the brilliant strategy from Connery’s Captain Ramius knowing exactly how to deal with it.  Then there is that brilliant final torpedo and the great line that the theater went nuts over: “You arrogant us.  You’ve killed us.”

Two years before making this film, John McTiernan had directed Die Hard.  It showed that he could take masterful cinematography, sound and editing and make them work together to really heighten the suspense and keep you on the edge of your seat.  It made him the perfect director for the film and if the rest of his career came nowhere near living up to these two films, well that’s no reflection on what McTiernan did manage to do in these two films.  It had also put together a perfect cast, not just in the cast itself but in finding the right roles for all of them to play.  It actually had a considerable sense of humor (see the Adaptation section below for more on that).  It has some of the best use of sound in any film ever made.  It is crisply edited and directed and it always keep you on the edge.  I’d like to think that if the Academy had instituted their idiotic “Popular Film” idea in 1990, this, one of the best (my #6) and most entertaining films of the year would have been nominated.

The Source:

The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy  (1984)

This may sound surprising for a couple of reasons, but I used to devour the Tom Clancy books.  I blame two things: first, the magnificent adaptation of The Hunt for Red October that sent me to read the book and my friend John Ramirez, who was always much more into the Navy (he was in NROTC for a stretch) than I was and was already deep into Clancy (he had read all five of Clancy’s book at that point).  So I started reading him and found his books entertaining (although Red Storm Rising was just too dense and not interesting enough, partially probably because it didn’t star Jack Ryan).  I would keep reading them through the mediocre Without Remorse and the stupid Debt of Honor which ended with Jack Ryan becoming president, thinking that it was so insanely stupid that I just didn’t care any more (and I didn’t have Clancy’s politics which wasn’t helping by that point).  I wasn’t familiar yet with the term “Mary Sue” if it even existed by that point but reading the book for the first time in years (the book was thrilling and it was nice to read it again after so long because I sold my Clancy books a long time ago but my favorite of the books was always The Cardinal of the Kremlin, the one of those early solid books that wasn’t made into a film), I was a bit disappointed.  Perhaps it’s because I so love the film and so much of what I love about the film is only in the film (see below).  Perhaps because Ryan is such a Mary Sue, always knowing exactly what to do and always being right with pretty much every guess he comes up with.  It is still a fairly enjoyable read and it really kick-started the whole “techno-thriller” that Michael Crichton had been a master of into another gear and inspired a lot of imitators.

The Adaptation:

The plot as given in the book is fairly close to what we get on film, though there are a lot of extraneous details that are excised from the film (such as the submarine accident that confuses people and has a horrific description of the destruction of a nuclear submarine).  There are a number of plot details that are changed in the film (it’s a British carrier that Jack lands on, he doesn’t drop in the ocean, the Red October is hit by a torpedo from the Soviet sub but that happens after the crew thinks the Red October has sunk and that battle is a totally separate action).  But the real difference between the novel and the film is the dialogue.  The dialogue in the film is so memorable that it actually gave me something I call the Red October Test (“Could you launch an ICBM horizontally?”  “Sure.  Why would you want to?”) – the test that you ask about the development of a new technology in a Sci-Fi novel or film.  Or there is Jones’ brilliant line: “Now, understand, Commander, that torpedo did not self-destruct.  You heard it hit the hull.  And I was never here.”  There is almost any line spoken by Richard Jordan like “Listen, I’m a politician which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their lollipops.” or “Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet.” or Jack’s imitation of Ramius “Ryan, some things in here don’t react well to bullets.” or the immortal “I would like to have seen Montana” which became hilarious three years later when that same actor, Sam Neill, opened Jurassic Park in Montana.  Not a single one of those lines is in the book.  They were all written for the film.

The Credits:

Directed by John McTiernan.  Based on the novel by Tom Clancy.  Screenplay by Larry Ferguson and Donald Stewart.

Reversal of Fortune

The Film:

In my review of A Cry in the Dark I commented on the inanity of a “trivia” item on the film on the IMDb about how Meryl Streep has never said whether she thought Lindy Chamberlain was innocent.  Of course, Chamberlain was innocent and nothing was ever proven otherwise and it’s absurd to think Streep would have taken the film if she thought otherwise.  But now we get to Reversal of Fortune, the Oscar-winning film made about the Claus von Bülow case, a man who was first convicted of trying to kill his wife and then had the conviction overturned on appeal and when he was tried again, was found not guilty.  In his original book about the case, Dershowitz talks about how he often thinks his clients are guilty but that by the end of this case, he was convinced that von Bülow actually was innocent.  What’s interesting here is that I don’t think that the film itself thinks that von Bülow is innocent.  Most films about cases like this are usually about how justice was carried out in the end in spite of the problems in the way.  But, even though, when it came to the actual court case, there was very little to make von Bülow seem guilty (certainly not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence), the film never really acts that way.  You walk away from the film possibly convinced that he was guilty and he was smart enough to get Dershowitz involved to get him off.  And the film seems to revel in that.  What that makes clear is that Roger Ebert was right in his review when he said the filmmakers “have not made a docudrama or a sermon, but a film about personalities.”

First of all, unlike a lot of films about famous court cases, this one had not been settled.  Indeed, other than von Bülow being found not guilty at the second trial, there has been no conclusion at all.  You can believe Dershowitz although one of his own students at the time, Jim Cramer (yes, before he was a jackass about stocks, he was a Harvard law student) firmly believed that von Bülow was guilty.  All that is truly known is that Sunny von Bülow, an entertaining (very) rich woman with some drug issues fell into a coma just after Christmas in 1980 (after a similar coma the year before), was still in it when the first trial came back with a guilty verdict in 1982, when he was found not guilty in 1985, when the book was published in 1986 and when the film was released in 1990.  Indeed, she stayed in a coma until her eventual death in 2008 (in an odd coincidence, her first husband, the father of the two older children that were convinced that their stepfather had tried to murder their mother fell into a coma after a car accident in 1983 and for nine years, until he died, both of their parents were in comas).  Claus is actually still alive as I write this at the age of 92 (actually, he would die about a week after I wrote that sentence in May of 2019).  No one knows what caused her to fall into the coma, but the film takes the interesting approach of having her narrate the film even though she’s really kind of the one person in the film (and the book) who doesn’t have any sort of voice, being in a persistent vegetative state and all.

The film works though, for a variety of reasons.  First of all, Jeremy Irons is magnificent as Claus (he doesn’t win my Best Actor award but that’s not a knock on his performance but rather that I feel the Oscars didn’t fully appreciate the performances in the year).  He’s charming, smart, witty and damned insistent that he is completely innocent.  But when told by his attorney, Alan Dershowitz, that he is a very strange man, with a brilliant look, he replies “You have no idea.”  But Irons’ performance alone wouldn’t make the film as good as it is.  Even coupled with Glenn Close (I’ll get to her in a minute), it still wouldn’t be enough.

So bring in Barbet Schroeder.  Schroeder, for the most part, was utterly wasted in Hollywood and that’s part of the reason why when I ranked all the Oscar nominated directors, he came in way down at #184.  But Schroeder’s real strength was as a documentary filmmaker and I don’t count those so, as I said at the time, it wasn’t a real testament to his worth as a filmmaker.  Indeed, perhaps it’s his documentary filmmaking that prepared him for this.  He understood the power of a personality over a sort of look at “truth” and he allowed the von Bülow personalities to rise to the fore, not only in Irons’ performance but in the rather oddly inspired decision by screenwriter Nicholas Kazan to have the film narrated by Sunny, allowing Glenn Close to really shine through in a performance that otherwise might have made much too limited a use of such a talent (though there are numerous flashbacks as we try to get to a sense of truth that not only isn’t possible given that no one knows what happened but isn’t even something the filmmakers are striving for, given their approach to the material).

So what we get in the end is a film that is less interested in courtroom abilities (in fact the film almost never sees the inside of a courtroom, focusing mostly on possible explanations of what could have happened coupled with Dershowitz working with his team).  We hear a lot about the case and we understand what turns the tide and allows for the overturning of the original verdict as well as the second verdict but it’s not about seeing lawyers argue.  It’s about watching personalities interact.

The Source:

Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Bülow Case by Alan M. Dershowitz  (1986)

I wasn’t really interested in reading this book because I find Dershowitz personally to be unbearable and unlikable (and that was before the recent New Yorker article).  Granted, those can be things that can be useful in an attorney but since he’s not my attorney, it doesn’t really make me want to read him.  But he definitely knows the law, which is why he tends to work more on appeals than actual court cases and look for things that were done wrong or overlooked.  He found the things that had definitely been done wrong in the original trial (with some very disturbing issues about how the rich can basically hire their own police and those people are not beholden to actual laws).  He makes a very good case that von Bulow was actually innocent of the crime of which he was accused.

The Adaptation:

The filmmakers use the title and they use the material that Dershowitz writes about gathering a team around him and working with them to gather all the evidence and figure out where the problems in the case were.  But almost nothing else comes from the book.  Certainly none of the stuff of Sunny’s narration comes from the book.  And like I wrote above, Dershowitz comes away convinced that von Bülow is innocent and the film doesn’t seem to agree with that.  Also, some of the actual personal life of Dershowitz is changed to streamline things in the film (that he has two sons, for instance, or the relationship with Sarah).  The basic gist of the legalities used in the film, however, do come from the book and from the work that Dershowitz did and the film makes good (and faithful) use of those.

The Credits:

Directed by Barbet Schroeder.  Based on the book by Alan Dershowitz.  Screenplay by Nicholas Kazan.

White Hunter Black Heart

The Film:

I wonder what John Huston would have thought of the film.  According to his obit in the Washington Post, Peter Viertel himself, who worked on the script of The African Queen and on the script of this film, based on his own experiences (see below) thought that Huston would have given the film more of a sarcastic edge.  But then again, there is a level of sarcasm present in much of Huston’s work that you don’t really see in Eastwood’s work as a director, so Viertel is probably right.  But I think Huston would have been pleased with the results even if he doesn’t come off looking good.

John Wilson is a man who rather wishes he was Hemingway, but that’s appropriate because Hemingway himself often wished he were doing the things he was writing about (this notion of the director as the Hemingway type he-man plays directly into The Other Side of the Wind as well).  He’s a film director but he wants to be a macho man who can beat up a racist (when he tries he fails quite spectacularly) and shoot an elephant.  In fact, it seems like he’s only making this movie in Africa so that he can shoot an elephant, and if something comes of the film, well, then, huzzah.

If there’s any man right to play that part it’s Clint Eastwood.  Eastwood himself was known as a macho man (according to the trivia on the IMDb the fight with the racist is the only time in his acting career that Eastwood loses a one-on-one fight that he’s trying to win) and he was already a great director by this point even if it would be another two years before he would start winning Oscars.  In fact, this film would be the film that would make me realize that he was a great director (ironically, one of the first films I saw that he directed).  He understands this man that he’s playing, what he wants, what his weaknesses are, what he feels he has to do and why he is incapable of doing it.

On the outskirts of the story, of course, is the film that he’s making.  But as I said, that becomes almost an afterthought to Wilson, much less important than the chance to kill an elephant, something which Wilson himself describes as a crime in a speech that seems like it would be a reference to To Kill a Mockingbird if not for the fact that it’s straight from the book which was published almost a decade earlier than Lee’s book.

There are other members of the cast, of course, but they hardly matter.  There is great cinematography out on the African plains as Wilson strives to get the beast that he is after and there is some dark humor at the core of the story.  But mostly what this is, is a portrait of an obsession and Eastwood knows how to direct and star in that kind of film.

The Source:

White Hunter, Black Heart by Peter Viertel

I am not a fan of autobiographical criticism, of looking at a work and trying to determine if any of it is based on real events.  But I am also critical of the act of writing about a real event and crouching it in fictional terms.  I definitely object to it in a book like Compulsion or Schindler’s List where it seems rooted in the desire not to do the proper work necessary to call it non-fiction.  But this is different.  In this case, Viertel lived through some events (although Katharine Hepburn disputed quite a bit of it) and then wrote a novel where he barely bothered to hide anything.  He becomes Peter Verrill, John Huston becomes John Wilson and The African Queen becomes The African Trader.  Pauline Kael apparently called it the best novel she ever read about Hollywood except not only is it not set in Hollywood, it’s not really about the film industry at all but about one man’s singular obsession.  It’s a solid book, a fascinating portrait.  I just wish Viertel had either written more fiction or a memoir and stopped being so completely unsubtle in the slight changes he would make from real life.

The Adaptation:

“The only radical change from the novel to the film was Clint’s prescribed ending.  The book was predicated on the narrator’s disgust with John Wilson’s obsessive desire to stalk and kill an elephant, which is carried through to a sorry conclusion.  In Africa, Clint began to rethink the ending, discussing it with author Viertel. … To Viertel, Clint confided his hesitation about shooting one of Africa’s tuskers, even for pretend purposes.”  (Clint: The Life and Legend by Patrick McGilligan, p 454)

It’s interesting that would be an issue because Eastwood never struck me as the type who would be concerned by that.  But he doesn’t actually shoot it (unlike in the book) and that really is the only drastic change.  There are other changes, of course, like how the first third of the book takes place in London while, proportional to running time, the film gets to Africa much faster because that’s where the action is.  But a lot of it is quite faithful to the book, including the memorable scene with the anti-semitic woman which is word-for-word straight from the book.

The Credits:

Directed and Produced by Clint Eastwood.  Screenplay by Peter Viertel & James Bridges and Burt Kennedy.  Based on the Novel by Peter Viertel.
note:  The only thing in the opening credits is the title.

Misery

The Film:

When Misery was released in 1990 there was a big question over how good it would be.  Since the release of The Shining, there had been 10 Horror adaptations of King books and they average a 46.5.  Fans were right to be concerned because after Misery there would be 13 more King adaptations until the next one that was even good (1408 in 2007) and it would take until 2017 until there would another one this good.  And this had a good chance from the start.  As mentioned below, it was one of King’s best books in a while.  Plus, it had Rob Reiner while he was still riding high from his streak of initial great films that marked the start of his directing career and he was teaming again with William Goldman.

Poor Paul Sheldon is a best-selling novelist but he would like to return to being a good novelist.  To that end, he’s killed off the character he’s been getting rich with, Misery Chastain and returned to writing a book closer to his roots.  But when he crashes in a blizzard and is saved by his number one fan, Annie Wilkes, he ends up in more danger than he realizes.  Annie, it will become apparent before too long, is insane.  She used to be a nurse but she had a disturbing history of having her patients end up dying in her care, even if it couldn’t be proved in court.

The film is a masterwork in claustrophobia and rising tension.  It takes a bit before Paul (and the audience) realize just how demented Annie is and how much of a danger she poses.  At the same time, we have a smart and determined sheriff who starts to realize that something is wrong and begins his own investigation.  We start to wonder, can Paul keep Annie going and manage to survive long enough to be found?  Or will Annie’s craziness carry her over the edge.

In 1990 when this film was released, Kathy Bates was almost unknown in film (both Goldman and Reiner knew her from the stage, especially ‘night Mother and thought she would be perfect) but everyone knew her after the film came out.  James Caan, meanwhile, hadn’t had a really good role in a long time and his need to break out of the bed is evident in his face in every scene.  The film works so well because they got the casting right even if no one could have expected it from this casting.

I feel a little bad in that Bates finishes third at the Nighthawk Awards.  She’s a hell of a talented actress and this was the breakthrough role for her, winning the Oscar.  That I have her in third behind the magnificent performances from Huston and Woodward (both also covered in this post) is no slight on Bates’ terrifying performance.

The Source:

Misery by Stephen King  (1987)

This perhaps says what I need to say about this book: King is a writer whose books I have almost all read but I often haven’t kept.  After he became rich and famous and hit the 80’s, I have kept almost none of King’s novels that aren’t connected to The Dark Tower but I have always held on to this book.  It isn’t at the top of his list (The Stand, The Dark Tower series, It, The Shining) but it is that next tier along with Salem’s Lot and The Dead Zone.  It captures the helplessness of poor Paul Sheldon, stuck in the bed (or in the chair), trying to escape from this crazed fan who has kept him alive but also flies off the handle without notice.

The novel is interesting because it sticks with Paul (a limited third person narrative) and we don’t know what’s going on in the outside world – we’re just stuck alongside him.  For King, it’s also a fairly short book (my paperback – because I’ve never once owned a King hardback because they take up way too damn much room – runs 338 pages and 40 of those pages are actually the manuscript from Misery’s Return, the book that Annie makes Paul write) which helps to keep the tension high.

The Adaptation:

Though the film does stick reasonably close to the book, there are still some notable changes.  The main one, of course, is the changing of the amputation of Paul’s foot (and the torching of the stump to keep him from bleeding to death) is changed to a hobbling of him with a sledgehammer.  William Goldman, on pages 37-40 of Which Lie Did I Tell?: More Adventure in the Screen Trade explains precisely how he lost George Roy Hill as a potential director because he wouldn’t drop the scene but how the scene was changed (without his input) after suggestions from Warren Beatty (who was considering playing Paul) against his will but he acknowledged that the change was the right one to make.

There are other changes as well, some very minor (in the book Paul drives a Camaro while in the film it’s a Mustang which is a good choice because, as a matter of pure objectivity, the classic Mustang is the coolest car ever created and far better than a Camaro), some much more important (in the book, Annie also cuts off Paul’s thumb) and some key to the story-telling in the film.  The last one is about the sheriff.  In the book, we only know things from Paul’s point-of-view, without any idea of what is happening outside his view while in the film it presents us with the sheriff (whose final scene conflates a couple of different scenes and characters in the book) who has slowly been figuring out what has been going on.  Also, by going that route, it gives Paul some finality in his final battle with Annie and there is no feeling that he has suddenly been rescued.  What worked in the book would have made the film feel a bit too claustrophobic and would have made it feel more like a filmed play than a film.  It was definitely the right move to make, aside from giving Richard Farnsworth a nice part that he does a good job with.

The Credits:

Directed by Rob Reiner.  Based on the Novel Misery by Stephen King.  Screenplay by William Goldman.

Mr. & Mrs. Bridge

The Film:

A middle-aged couple deals with a changing world.  That sounds like it could be the formula for a very boring film and if you are someone pre-inclined to dismiss Merchant/Ivory films as boring, then you probably will find it so.  But it’s an interesting departure for the team because, after years of approaching British society (or Indian, or Brits in India), they would move over to America, adapting two parallel novels that tell the tale of this couple quite well and get a couple of actors who could not be more perfect for the parts.

This film provided a wealth of awards and nominations for Joanne Woodward as she was heading into the twilight of her career but not the same for her husband (both on and off-screen), Paul Newman.  Is it because she is demonstrably better in the film than he is?  (no)  Is it because she is a given a role that has more nuance to it? (at least partially)  She plays a woman, India Bridge, who looks at the world around her and sees possibilities unfolding without quite understanding or ever reaching for them.  She is the type of woman who votes the way her husband tells her to (sadly, this type of woman still exists – I remember V slamming her head in agony over an idiot at our work during the 2000 election who was just like this) but she also takes art classes and finds interesting things about the world.  Her husband, on the other hand, is closed off, prejudiced against much of society, unimaginative, conservative in almost every way (“I see nothing amusing about smut” he says in response to a dirty joke).  Newman plays him very well but there is less for him to play because that is the way that Walter Bridge is in the world.  But then there is the third part of the question.  Is it because Hollywood doesn’t really do a good job of writing roles for women in the way that they do for men so that Woodward’s performance, though better than Newman’s, became one of the three major award contenders (going against Kathy Bates in Misery and Anjelica Huston in The Grifters) while Newman was pretty much completely overlooked.  It probably also had something to do with it that Newman had just finally won an Oscar four years before and Woodward hadn’t been nominated in nearly 20 years.

The Bridges live in Kansas City and though in the book we get the full history of their marriage (see below), what we mostly get in this film is a brief glimpse of the early 30’s and then on into the late 30’s and the 40’s.  We get a daughter who wants to rebel by moving to New York City, a daughter who just wants to settle down and get married even though that will come back to bite her (after a scene in which her fiancee stands up to her father and ensures the marriage happens – a scene that made me look at the actor and go, okay, clearly Paul Giamatti has a brother) and a son who has his own urges (his father might see nothing funny about smut but the son has an awkward conversation when his mother finds his own smut hidden in his room).  Most of all, what we get is a genuine portrait of a conservative marriage and how it stands up to changing times as acted out by the premier married couple in Hollywood history.  It just makes you, once again, wish that they had done more films together.  But maybe they needed not to and that was why they were so long-lasting as an actual married couple.

The Source:

Mrs. Bridge by Evan S. Connell  (1959)

Reading this novel I was reminded somewhat of About Schmidt, which was also a film made out of two books, also taking place in the Midwest and also making use of a great actor’s golden age to get another great performance.  I thought this novel was actually a set up from the Schmidt books though because I was surprised at how invested I found myself in the novel in spite of finding the characters themselves to be totally foreign to my experience.  They’re an upper-middle class couple in Kansas City of all places, the smack center of the country, conservative in their outlook and beliefs, safe and rather boring (except for when Walter refuses to go the basement of their country club during a tornado – that at least wasn’t boring).  Yet, somehow I found myself fascinated by the characters and what they would do.  It’s a tribute to Connell’s writing and his ability to fully infuse his characters with a sense of reality.

Mr. Bridge by Evan S. Connell  (1969)

I’ve known for a long time that the film was made from two books (in theory, I’ve known it since I saw the film but I doubt I thought about it back in 1991).  I simply assumed that this book was a sequel to the first book.  Imagine my surprise when I got close to the end of the first book only to experience Mr. Bridge’s fatal heart attack.  After finishing the first book, I picked up the second and realized that they were actually parallel books which made perfect sense given that the first book focused on Mrs. Bridge and we only saw her husband during the rare times when he was at home.  It really takes this second book to get a better measure of him and his personality.

The Adaptation:

The films do a good job of combining the books, taking a few elements from Walter’s work life and bringing them into the film (including the dirty joke scene) but focusing more on the first book because that’s the one that really gives the family life.  The books give much more of the marriage’s history from when they first meet until after Walter’s death while the film just provides a brief glimpse into about a decade of their lives as their children are reaching young adulthood and finding their own way.

The Credits:

Directed by James Ivory.  Based on the novels “Mrs. Bridge” and “Mr. Bridge” by Evan S. Connell.  Screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala.

Awakenings

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the Best Picture nominees in 1990.  Had I not re-watched the film for that project, I think it would have not been sitting in the Top 10 for this list before I went to re-watch it again this time, but I think watching it again would have pushed it there.  I had long thought of it as an inspirational, sentimental type film (think Patch Adams) but it is so much more honest than that.  Yes, it has a lot of Hollywood flourishes (see below) but it is solidly directed, very well written and has two very different, powerful performances from Robin Williams and Robert De Niro that anchor it to reality.

The Source:

Awakenings by Oliver Sacks  (1973)

Now, this book was originally published (in the U.K. because he was having trouble getting it published at all and it wouldn’t see U.S. publication until the next year) in 1973 but it has had several different editions.  I highly recommend the 1990 edition, not only because it has the most follow-up as well as a detailed introduction about what it took to get the book published and what was changed, added and excised in all the subsequent editions after the original publication but also the important essay mentioned just below.

My mind groups Oliver Sacks together with Atul Gawande for a few different reasons even if you might think, at first glance, that they don’t belong together.  First of all, both of them write about the things they have encountered in the medical profession.  Second, both of them are fantastically human writers; their core of humanity makes them both better doctors and better writers.  Third, they are both very good writers and they have gotten me interested in their subjects when I normally wouldn’t have much of an interest.  I also read much of their works around the same time.

If you have never read Sacks, he has written some really fascinating books about the people he has met over his career, including (highly recommended but not limited to) The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, An Anthropologist on Mars and Musicophilia.  This was an early book (though not his first) that compiled his time working with a group of patients who had been affected by the sleeping sickness outbreak in the post-World War I Era and the success (and failure) he had with the drug L-DOPA in bringing them out of their states and back into an awakened state of life.  It’s not as interesting (to me) as the other books I list because it is far more of a case study but it is still fascinating to see what he was able to do.

The Adaptation:

I’m not going to bother to put much here.  That’s because in the 1990 edition of his book, Sacks included an essay “Awakenings on Stage and Screen” which detailed the history of the making of the film (which was still being made when the edition was published) and talks about the various ways in which the filmmakers decided to approach the film, what changes they made from reality, how it worked (and sometimes how it didn’t) and how much it reflected what actually happened.  It’s a detailed and fascinating essay from someone who lived with these patients and then watched them portrayed on screen, having worked closely with the writers, director and two stars.  I highly recommend it, just like all of his writing.

The Credits:

Directed by Penny Marshall.  Based Upon the Book by Oliver Sacks, M.D..  Screenplay by Steven Zaillian.

Consensus Nominee


Cyrano de Bergerac

The Film:

When I first saw this film, back when it was first released on video, sometime in 1991 (but, I’m fairly certain, after I had to read the play for my summer reading in August of that year), I didn’t rate it above *** (actually, it would have been **** back then when I had a five point scale).  I have never had it rated high enough to be considered for Best Foreign Film (***.5 or higher) but thinking back upon it, I’m not certain that I have seen it since it was first released on video.  And I think my feelings on the film were influenced, first, on my fondness for Roxanne, a film that I still think is superior in both the writing and the lead performance (and I liked the way they made it much more of a comedy while this, like the stage play, in spite of the description, really is more of a tragedy), and because I have never been a fan of Gerard Depardieu.  He can be quite a good actor at times and he is quite solid in this film even if he didn’t belong in the Oscar race (I have five performances just from the Best Picture nominees ranked above his).

So what is this film?  It was the #2 film in the Consensus race for Best Foreign Film winning the Globe and NBR and earning Oscar and BAFTA noms, finishing behind The Nasty Girl because I give lower weight to the NBR and Globe.  But I realize now that it is a very good film, a low ***.5 that at least belongs on my list even if it still can’t reach my Top 5 (ironically my #5 is The Nasty Girl which I rate several points higher).  I still don’t think it deserved its Oscar for Best Costume Design, especially not with Dances with Wolves and Dick Tracy among the nominees.  And, in the end, the film can’t rise above low ***.5 because while Depardieu is good and the script, of course, is basically following a really good play that has thrived on stage for over a century, it is weakened by a lack of support for Depardieu.

The main two characters aside from poor Cyrano, are his cousin Roxane (played by the very alluring Anne Brochet but her performance isn’t very good) that he is in love with who falls for Christian (played by Vincent Perez who became a big star much to my mystification because I’ve never thought he was particularly good in anything).  Of course, Cyrano believes that his nose is the obstacle to his love and somehow that makeup got Oscar nominated when it really isn’t all that impressive and is definitely weaker than what was done in Roxanne.

However it works, the film is quite good, even if it still can’t match Roxanne.  It earned its place in the Foreign Film race even if it doesn’t make my Top 5 and Depardieu really gives the role his all, playing the tragic character right to the hilt.

The Source:

Cyrano de Bergerac: A Heroic Comedy in Five Acts by Edmond Rostand  (1897)

I have already reviewed this play once when I wrote about Roxanne in the 1987 post.  It’s a bit strange to write about it here because this is a faithful adaptation of a play that was written in French in the first place but because I don’t read or understand French, I am forced to rely on a translated copy of the play and subtitles in the film.  It’s a really good play and you should read it if you get a chance because it’s a verse play and has a great sense of rhythm to it.  It also, of course, provides a great lead role which is why it’s been filmed and produced so many times.

The Adaptation:

This is a really close and faithful adaptation of the play, extending all the way to the ending which is anything but happy.

The Credits:

mise en scene: Jean-Paul Rappeneau.  d’apres l’oeuvre de Edmond Rostand.  adaptation de Jean-Paul Rappeneau et Jean-Claude Carriere.

BAFTA Nominee


Postcards from the Edge

The Film:

Suzanne Vale is a mess.  She’s a well-known actress, the daughter of an even more famous actress.  But she can’t control her life and the amount of drugs she is taking to try and cope with whatever is going on, whether it’s her career, her love life or even her family issues, just aren’t enough.  So one day she overdoses and her latest lover (who she won’t remember) dumps her at the emergency room and while she’s still unconscious from the overdose her mother has her placed in a rehab center.  She has to try and find something other than the drugs that can make her go on with life.

Getting through rehab is hard enough and when she winds up back outside again, she’s trying to kick her career back into gear.  She owes some voiceover for a friendly director who acts more like a father than anyone in her own family, she gets work on a new film, meets a producer (who is the lover who dumped her at the emergency room and also a world class cad) and even gets flowers from the doctor who pumped her stomach.

But the real issue in her life is her mother.  This is the kind of mother who, at her daughter’s 17th birthday party will swing around and lift her skirt in the air (“It twirled up!” she insists though it’s clear to both of them what happened all those years ago) and wasn’t wearing any underwear (“Well,,” she replies to that in a brilliant manner as only Shirley MacLaine can do).  It is the mother-daughter relationship that is at the heart of the film and is played brilliantly by Meryl Streep as the daughter and MacLaine as the mother.  MacLaine must deal with her own issues (she drinks, a lot) about no longer being as famous as she used to be and her own failures as a mother, especially when Suzanne, as part of the insurance requirement for her next film, is forced to go back and live with her during the course of the film.

The film isn’t great.  It’s not Mike Nichols’ most sure-handed directing job and the book didn’t originally have a real story and one has kind of been pushed on the film.  But between the performances of Streep and MacLaine and the clear understanding that the film has of a relationship of this sort, it’s a strong film, an enjoyable comedy that gets at the heart, not only of Hollywood, but at relationships as well.

The Source:

Postcards from the Edge by Carrie Fisher  (1987)

“Maybe I shouldn’t have given the guy who pumped my stomach my phone number, but who cares?”  When you’ve got a novel coming in with a line like that, it’s easy to see how funny it can be.  Poor Suzanne is in rehab and she’s not liking it there: “I called my friend Wallis today, and I tried to get the operator to say, ‘Collect call from hell, will you accept the charges?'”  Suzanne’s time there is bitter but also darkly funny: “Wanda told me she likes to be tied up and have her clothes torn off before sex.  She said it really makes her happy.  I don’t know what makes me happy, but that doesn’t ring a bell.”

The rest of the book doesn’t hold up quite as well after Suzanne leaves therapy 1/3 of the way through the book but it’s still funny and worth reading and helped give Carrie Fisher a brand new career as a writer (first as a novelist, then a scriptwriter with this film, then also a script doctor as well as a memoirist).

The Adaptation:

Not only does the book not really have that much in the way of a plot, but the book also doesn’t actually deal that much with Suzanne’s mother.  Needing more of a plot to hang the film around, Fisher decided to greatly expand the role of the mother and to have the mother-daughter relationship be the key to the film (and she was right – it’s the best move).  There are a few bits, first in rehab and then a few things later that do come straight from the book (like Suzanne talking to her lover about his cheating but he’s the one who mentions it, not her and she doesn’t pretend to shoot at him at the end – a scene that would have been more effective in the film had they not used it in the credits).

The Credits:

Directed by Mike Nichols.  Screenplay by Carrie Fisher, Based on her novel.
note:  There are no opening credits other than the title.

Globe Nominee

The Godfather Part III

The Film:

I got Veronica to watch The Godfather.  She was more than willing to watch the second film.  I offered her the choice of watching the third and she decided that she would.  She agreed with my assessment (in my original review, here) that this film is comparable to The Phantom Menace in that, if you could see it, divorced of the expectations, it is a perfectly good example of its genre but you can’t do that.  She did spend much of the movie complaining about Sofia’s performance, however, even though she already knew what to expect.

The Source:

The Godfather by Mario Puzo

Nothing in this film comes from the original novel.  In fact, one of the things that is added into this film, the character of Vincent, specifically contradicts the fate of his mother as she is written about in the original novel (she is part of the Johnny Fontane sections of the novel that didn’t make it into the original film and we get her story down through the entire timeline of the original novel).  The real source of this film are the characters that were created by Puzo for his novel and were introduced on film by Coppola and furthered along by Coppola in the second film.  That’s why, instead of showing the novel again, I went with the poster from the second film; because it’s really there, where Coppola makes the characters completely his own, that we get the source material for what would become this film.

The Adaptation:

“The theme of Godfather III, [Coppola] decided, would be very similar to the theme of King Lear, with Michael seen in his twilight years, and his nephew, Vincent Mancini, mirroring Edmund, the illegitimate son in Lear.”  (Francis Ford Coppola: A Filmmaker’s Life, Michael Schumacher, p 417)

Other than that, there isn’t much to adapt, other than allowing us to know what happens to the characters from the original two films a generation later.  As I said, the character of Vincent does contradict something from the original novel, but it doesn’t contradict anything from the films and really it’s a reasonable character to bring along based on what we had seen on film (not to mention that Garcia’s performance is the best thing in the film).

The Credits:

directed by Francis Ford Coppola.  written by Mario Puzo & Francis Ford Coppola.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

  • Q & A  –  Sidney Lumet starts the decade strong with this adaptation of Edwin Torres’ novel (whose Carlito’s Way will be here in a few years) but sadly he won’t have a really strong film again until his last in 2007.
  • Quick Change  –  Jay Conley’s novel had already been filmed in France but after a mediocre adaptation of one of his novels in 1988 (Funny Farm) and a bad one in 1989 (Let it Ride), he gets the best film of the bunch with this Crime Comedy starring Bill Murray.
  • Last Exit to Brooklyn  –  The adaptation of Harold Selby’s gritty novel provides a plum (and critics winning) role for Jennifer Jason Leigh that still fails to earn her an Oscar nom (and a 7th place finish at the Nighthawks).
  • Black Rain  –  Not for a day when you’re already down, the original novel (by Masuji Ibuse) and the film deal with Hiroshima and its after-effects on the people.  Very good but depressing Japanese film, the best film from director Shohei Imamura.
  • Texasville  –  A box office bomb and not a hit with critics, I avoided this film until I did the Oscar Director project but Peter Bogdanovich’s follow-up to The Last Picture Show, based on the novel by Larry McMurtry who loves writing sequel novels, is actually pretty good even without the two best performances from the first film.
  • Mermaids  –  Well-written with solid performances from Cher and Winona Ryder based on the novel by Patty Dann.  But I mainly remember it for Cher’s cover of “The Shoop Shoop Song”.
  • Back to the Future Part III  –  I often feel like I’m the only one who likes the second film while the third one was well-liked (this was certainly the case among my friends) but the second one actually made a lot more money (possibly because the second one disappointed people and they skipped the third one in the theater).  Strong finish to the trilogy.
  • The Russia House  –  I don’t know what’s stranger – that I have never read the book (I have only read Le Carre’s books that I own which is all his books through Smiley’s People) or that I have never seen the film again after watching it when it first hit video sometime in 1991.  I remember the script as being strong and Connery and Pfeiffer being solid.  I imagine at some point I’ll get and read the book and then watch the film again.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Total Recall  –  This film, on the other hand, I owned on video and have seen numerous times.  Kind of surprising to realize it had the biggest opening weekend of the year ($25 mil – how times have changed) but only was the 7th biggest film of the year.  A very good film, a high ***.5 (though the script isn’t good enough to make my list) with a full review here.  Oh and it’s based on the brilliant Philip K. Dick story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”.
  • The Vanishing  –  The original 1988 Dutch Suspense film was based on the novel The Golden Egg (though it was given the movie title in the States) and is quite good (a 75 – the highest ***) but George Sluizer would then remake it in the States and it would suck.  The Dutch submission at the Oscars in 1988, it was rejected for having too much French dialogue.
  • Monsieur Hire  –  A 1989 French adaptation of the Georges Simenon Suspense novel which had made before in 1947 as Panique.
  • The Sheltering Sky  –  Blanked at the Oscars in spite of a BAFTA, two critics wins and a Globe rewarding the Cinematography and Score and a Globe nom for director Bernardo Bertolucci.  Based on the novel by Paul Bowles.  Appealing to me at the time because of Debra Winger’s nude scenes but the film is quite good though I think the script prevents it from getting higher than *** (which makes sense since the book is quite meandering and not really written to be filmed).
  • Time of Violence  –  As a 1988 film (played at Cannes and released in the home country of Bulgaria) it shouldn’t have been eligible for the 1989 Foreign Film award but Bulgaria submitted it (it wasn’t nominated).  Based on the novel by Anton Donchev this is a good historical Drama.
  • Young Guns II  –  Fully reviewed here as my Bonus Review.  Better than the first film and it at least tells the story through Billy’s death (maybe).  Very good music.  The Oscar nominated song “Blaze of Glory” ranked at #135 on my Top 250 list for the decade.
  • Wild at Heart  –  Placing this film here is probably against the grain of people who either love the film or hate it.  I think it’s quite good but also quite flawed.  Unlike “Blaze of Glory”, it took me a very long time to get into “Wicked Game” and then it turned out it was actually released the year before and wasn’t from the film (or even the decade).  Based on a novel by Barry Gifford (who then turned it into a series of novels after the success of the film) who Lynch later brought on-board to co-write Lost Highway, a film I rate at almost the same (this is a 71, that’s a 74).
  • After Dark, My Sweet  –  Good modern noir film based on the novel by Jim Thompson.
  • Hamlet  –  Mel Gibson proved he could take on a serious role even if Glenn Close was way too young to play his mother.  Solid supporting cast but would have been better with a better director than Franco Zeffirelli (if the recently dead don’t want me to speak ill of them then they shouldn’t have been such creeps when they were alive).
  • Mountains of the Moon  –  Not certain why I originally saw this since I think it was before I knew much about Sir Richard Burton (who really was the most interesting man in the world) and most of the cast I wasn’t familiar with (Iain Glen, Richard E. Grant, Bernard Hill, Peter Vaughan), certainly not to the extent that I am familiar with them now.  So I decided writing this to watch it again and it still stands up – a solid historical Adventure story about Burton and John Henning Speke’s quest to find the source of the Nile (based on the novel Burton and Speke by William Harrison).
  • The Sting of Death  –  Japanese Oscar submission is a Drama based on the novel by Toshio Shimao.
  • Dick Tracy  –  Both because of my tastes and my older brothers, I trend older than I am.  As a result, I was a fan of Dick Tracy, not because the strip was any good by the 80’s but because for my whole life, I have had a copy of The Celebrated Cases of Dick Tracy 1931-1951 which covered the first 20 years of the strip that introduced all the classic villains (the book used to be my brother’s).  As a result, I was excited to see this film and disappointed that it wasn’t better (though visually it really came to life).
  • Miami Blues  –  The other Jennifer Jason Leigh performance that pushed her to two critics wins was from this Crime film based on the novel by Charles Willeford.
  • The Field  –  Richard Harris earned a surprise Oscar nomination for this melancholy Jim Sheridan Drama based on the play by John B. Keane (you know, if my last name was also an adjective and my middle initial were B. I wouldn’t use it that way).
  • Rouge  –  Jackie Chan may have produced this Hong Kong Drama based on the novel by Lilian Lee but it’s serious and has no action so he’s not actually in it.
  • Gremlins 2: The New Batch  –  I actually saw this before I saw the first one because it looked more obviously comedic.  Actually as a result of that, it’s a fairly solid follow-up.  Actually, mostly what I remember is that Phoebe Cates looked super-cute.
  • Akira  –  The highly acclaimed Anime film based on the highly acclaimed Manga series has some convoluted story-telling which actually keeps it down in the mid *** range for me.  I want to think it’s great but I just don’t much like Fist of the North Star.
  • Evenings  –  Dutch film based on the novel by Gerard Reve was their Oscar submission.
  • Die Hard 2  –  I may be giving this too much credit because I enjoyed it quite a bit in the theater with lines like “Guess I was wrong about you.  You’re not such an asshole after all.”  “Oh, you were right.  I’m just your kind of asshole.”  Not nearly as good as the original.  The main characters came from the first film but the plot came from the novel 58 Minutes which was unrelated to the first film or the novel it was based on.
  • Letters from the Park  –  The Cuban Oscar submission from 1988.  Based on a “story” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez but I think that’s just a screen story and not one of his actual short stories.  Part of a six film collection all based on his work.
  • A Better Tomorrow II  –  John Woo still hadn’t hit the stride with this sequel that he would hit with The Killer and Hard-Boiled.
  • A Chinese Ghost Story  –  This 1987 Hong Kong supernatural Horror film is loosely based on a short story from 1740.
  • The Mahabharata  –  Peter Brook reduces his 9 hour stage play for a theatrical release (via a six hour television version).
  • Torrents of Spring  –  We’re down to low *** with this Jerzy Skolimowski adaptation of Turgenev’s novel.
  • My Uncle’s Legacy  –  The Yugoslavian Oscar submission for 1988 is based on the novel by Ivan Aralica.
  • Verónico Cruz  –  Argentine Drama set during the Falklands War is based on the book by Fortunato Ramos.
  • Lord of the Flies  –  This second film adaptation of the brilliant novel (I ranked it #32 all-time) is okay but pales in comparison to the book which is perhaps why I still hadn’t seen it when I wrote that post in 2011.
  • Miracle of Rome  –  Another GGM adaptation, this one based on his story “The Long Happy Life of Margito Duarte”.
  • The Rescuers Down Under  –  Did anyone need a Rescuers sequel set in Australia?  There’s a reason no one remembers this when they talk about the Disney Renaissance.
  • A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings  –  Based nominally on one of GGM’s best stories (which was also the basis for one of the greatest videos ever made), this feature length adaptation really drags.
  • The Summer of Miss Forbes  –  More GGM but I believe this is another case where he just provided the idea rather than it actually being based on his work.
  • I’m the One You’re Looking For  –  Wikipedia claims this is based on the GGM novel of the same name but since he doesn’t have a novel by that name, that writer is clearly full of shit.  More GGM providing a story and may not technically be adapted.
  • DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp  –  I never watched the original DuckTales show (which still would have been adapted since Scrooge and the nephews were pre-existing characters) but I have seen the film since it’s an animated feature film (and I watch the new show since David Tennant voices Scrooge).  Not bad but at low *** not all that good either.
  • Agneepath  –  An Indian Crime film based on the poem of the same name.
  • The Two Jakes  –  I saw this in the theater because even by then I knew Chinatown was one of the greatest films ever made and because I lived in L.A. and was fascinated by the story.  A disappointment and I haven’t seen it since mostly because I fear it would drop even lower than the high **.5 it has been sitting at for so long.
  • Henry & June  –  Loosely based on Anais Nin’s book.  Good Cinematography and good sensuality but I just couldn’t take to the film.  Then again, I liked it a hell of a lot better than I like Henry Miller’s actual writing.
  • The Witches  –  Apparently there are many who love this film, as became apparent when the remake, due for next year, was announced.  But this film, based on the book by Roald Dahl just isn’t that good outside of Anjelica Huston’s performance and Dahl himself wasn’t a fan thanks to the changed ending.
  • White Palace  –  Susan Sarandon is good (and earned a Globe nom in a weak year) but the film, based on the novel by Glenn Savan, isn’t all that good.
  • The Handmaid’s Tale  –  In this case the book is brilliant and in my Top 200 (it’s sadly appropriate that it was the book I was reading when I went to the doctor for my ultrasound that revealed my cancer given the kind of cancer) but the film is quite bland.  I haven’t watched the show because I don’t have Hulu and I don’t need to be that depressed – the news itself does that.
  • Lensman  –  Animated Japanese film based on the series of novels by E. E. Smith.
  • A Shock to the System  –  One of those movies I remember from it airing on Cinemax after its theatrical run rather than when it was in theaters.  Michael Caine in a black Comedy Crime film about a man who kills those he feels has wronged him.  Based on the novel by Simon Brett.
  • The Nutcracker Prince  –  Mediocre animated adaptation of the classic ballet.
  • Inocência  –  A 1983 Brazilian Drama based on the novel by Visconde de Taunay.  Down to mid **.
  • Fable of the Beautiful Pigeon Fancier  –  More of the GGM “adaptations”.
  • Jetsons: The Movie  –  Down to low ** with this feature length animated film of the beloved show.  Made complicated in that two of the key voice actors (including Mel Blanc) died during production.
  • Frankenstein Unbound  –  It’s got a solid cast (John Hurt, Raul Julia, Bridget Fonda) and is directed by Roger Corman but this adaptation of the Horror novel by Brian Aldiss doesn’t click all that well.
  • Stanley & Iris  –  It had De Niro in the same year as GoodFellas and Awakenings and had Jane Fonda and was the last film directed by Martin Ritt but this Drama is still pretty dull.  Based on the novel Union Street by Pat Barker.  The last Fonda film for 15 years.
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles  –  Surprisingly enough, this was a bigger hit than Total Recall or Hunt for Red October and was the #5 film for the year.  I still fondly think of the comic which was rather dark but it was already an animated television show and a toy franchise before this film was released.
  • Tales from the Darkside: The Movie  –  The show was fascinating and fun but the film was just another Horror anthology film with one story based on a Conan Doyle story and another on a Stephen King story so weak he kept passing it over for his collections for 30 years.
  • Mack the Knife  –  This version of The Threepenny Opera also has Raul Julia but it also not all that good.
  • Another 48 Hours  –  We’ve dropped to ** with this sequel that I probably haven’t seen since it first hit video.
  • Air America  –  It’s been even longer since I’ve seen this – not since it opened in theaters.  Action Comedy based on the non-fiction book by Christopher Robbins.
  • A Show of Force  –  Down to mid ** with this Suspense film based on real murders in Puerto Rico that had been written about in the book Murder Under Two Flags by Anne Nelson.
  • The Kill-Off  –  I haven’t read this Jim Thompson novel but given his other novels it’s got to be better than this film version directed by Maggie Greenwald.
  • Everybody Wins  –  A talented director (Karel Reisz), one of America’s Trinity of playwrights (Arthur Miller) and one of my favorite actresses (Debra Winger) and it’s still just dull as can be.
  • Night of the Living Dead  –  Down to low ** with this pointless remake of Romero’s original classic.
  • Stella  –  Did we need a third version of this?  Clearly not.  Bette Midler this time in a role that earned Barbara Stanwyck an Oscar nomination back in 1937.  The original novel is by Olive Higgins Prouty but you’re better off sticking with her Now Voyager.
  • Men Don’t Leave  –  Years and years ago I had this guide to great films released by Blockbuster Video in 1991 and I checked off films as I watched them.  This film was on the list for some reason which is strange since it was fairly new, not very good and a box office flop.  It’s a remake of the French film La vie continue which, in my limited French, I would translate as Life Goes On.
  • The Misadventures of Mr. Wilt  –  Bad British Comedy based on the novel Wilt by Tom Sharpe.
  • Hardware  –  Released as an “original” film, this shitty Sci-Fi film (*.5) was then sued for plagiarism because it’s really based on an issue of Judge Dredd (a story that was drawn by Kevin O’Neill who would later team with Alan Moore on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).
  • Nightbreed  –  I’ve got to give Clive Barker credit for writing a novel (Cabal) and then moving into film and both writing and directing the adaptation.  That’s all the credit he gets though because his film sucks.
  • Desperate Hours  –  Mickey Rourke is no Bogie and Michael Cimino is no William Wyler in this remake of the 1955 film (based on the novel by Joseph Hayes).
  • Revenge  –  Before Legends of the Fall, I was disinclined to like Jim Harrison because of this terrible adaptation of his novella (which I haven’t read but I’ve read and disliked other things by Harrison).  I let Charles Kipps in his terrible book on the Puttnam era at Columbia (see the book list at the bottom here) get away with criticizing Puttnam for not giving this the green-light because the book was published in 1989 but it’s all that I let Kipps get away with.
  • The Bonfire of the Vanities  –  If I don’t like Harrison, that’s nothing on my dislike of Tom Wolfe.  I knew the movie before I ever touched the book as a massive commercial and critical flop but still read the book (in 2000 or so) years before I saw the film (2015 or so).  I absolutely loathed the book and every character in it.  When I finally saw the film, I agreed that it just sucked.  The best thing about it is the book The Devil’s Candy by Julie Salamon which is absolutely worth reading and is a nice portrait of a film in which everything went wrong.
  • The Hot Spot  –  Attempt at noir based on the novel Hell Hath No Fury by Charles Williams.  Its fame (and really the only reason to see it) is a magnificent topless scene from a 19 year old Jennifer Connelly.
  • Predator 2  –  Even though I wasn’t a fan of the first one, my friends talked me into seeing this in the theater and I’ve never seen it since.
  • The Gods Must Be Crazy II  –  My friend Jay walked out of the theater on this one but I didn’t finally see it until I did that Columbia post last year.  A far cry from the original.  We drop to * with this film.
  • The Haunting of Morella  –  Roger Corman produces this adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe’s story “Morella” but it’s a far cry from his own Corman/Poe cycle.
  • The Exorcist III  –  With William Friedkin directing The Guardian instead (a bad move – see below), William Peter Blatty directs this shitty sequel himself.  The only actor back from the original film is Jason Miller who, if you recall, died in that film.
  • Three Men and a Little Lady  –  To be fair, the original was the #1 film of 1987 and thanks to the upcoming Top Gun sequel, the only #1 films of the 80’s that don’t have sequels are E.T. and Rain Man.  On the other hand, Guttenberg, Danson and Selleck again and it made less half what the first one did.
  • Graveyard Shift  –  A fascinating and eerie short story (“Graveyard Shift”) becomes a terrible film which should come as no surprise to anyone.
  • Look Who’s Talking Too  –  The original had been the #4 film of the year before so this sequel came faster but also did worse, making just 1/3 of the original.  Travolta sinks again after his first big comeback.
  • RoboCop 2  –  This film, on the other hand, did almost as much box office as the first one but is far worse.  Low *.
  • Rocky V  –  I avoided this for a long time (over 20 years) even though I had seen the first four multiple times.  So did everyone else as it made less than 1/2 what any of the previous films had made and less than 1/3 what the previous two had done.  And we were right because it’s awful.  It would drag the franchise to a half and would be another 16 years before it finally got another film.
  • The Adventures of Ford Fairlane  –  I was stunned to realize this is adapted but the character was apparently created by Rex Weiner and ran as serials in a couple of alternative papers in the late 70’s and early 80’s.  I avoided the film until I started watching Razzie nominees to prepare for Nighthawk Awards posts a few years ago because I don’t find Clay amusing.  Now we’ve hit the .5 films.
  • Delta Force 2: The Columbian Connection  –  Chuck Norris is back doing the same kind of stuff that Stallone and Arnold do except without their star power.
  • The Guardian  –  William Friedkin returns to Horror for the first time since The Exorcist and it’s the nadir for him.  Based on The Nanny by Dan Greenburg.
  • Ernest Goes to Jail  –  If I’m going to suffer through crap like this I better manage to see all the Disney films like I’m trying to.  The fourth Ernest film.  This film earned more than The Russie House, The Freshman or Hamlet.
  • Child’s Play 2  –  The second Chucky film.
  • Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III  –  The third film but just to be annoying a 2017 prequel will also be called Leatherface.  I think it’s awful (low .5) but I think all the films in the franchise are awful.
  • Troll 2  –  A film I didn’t bother to review as my Worst Film of the Year for the Nighthawk Awards because there’s a whole documentary about it.  It’s a zero star film and if you are really interested in knowing more watch Best Worst Movie.  Arguably not adapted since it was originally called Goblins and they changed the title to connect it to Troll even though there are no connections.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • Strike it Rich  –  Looking at the poster you might think there’s no way it’s based on a Graham Greene novel but it is (Loser Takes All).

The highest grossing adapted film of 1990 I haven’t seen is Funny About Love down at #107 for the year ($8.14 mil) while the highest grossing sequel I haven’t seen seems to be Bloodfist 2 (#179 – $1.29 mil).  The only film in the Top 100 I haven’t seen (Crazy People) is original.

A Century of Film: MGM

$
0
0


A Century of Film


Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer


The Studio

In 1924, Loew’s was one of the most prominent studios in Hollywood.  It had a massive studio chain and with Metro Pictures, a production company that was providing a good share of films to fill them.  But Metro’s films had been slipping and Lee Shubert, whose theater chains were big on stage but less so in Hollywood, happened to be a board member of both Loew’s and Goldwyn Pictures, the studio formed by Samuel Goldwyn but which he had departed in 1922.  Goldwyn wasn’t in great shape and its mascot (Leo the Lion) was better known than most of its stars (the biggest being Will Rogers); a long explanation of Leo’s history as the mascot can be found here.  A merger became imminent but they needed someone better than anyone available at Metro or Goldwyn to run the studio.

Enter Louis B. Mayer who had a strong hand in management and had been making films for his own independent production company.  Loew’s would be the parent company, absorbing both Goldwyn and Mayer’s independent company and the combined new studio, with a large roster of talent and a steady hand at the helm would be christened Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer but would soon be known primarily as MGM.

From the start, it was a massive hit.  The craftsmen were solid, the directors and writers were workhorses, but the studio was loaded, not just with acting talent, but with stars.  “More Stars Than There Are in Heaven” was the slogan and they lived up to it.  In 1925, the studio released two of the most successful films released up to that point: The Big Parade and Ben-Hur.

Norma Shearer would become a star at the end of the Silent Era and continue over into talkies at the same time that the studio brought over Greta Garbo from Sweden and developed Joan Crawford and Clark Gable.  And when the features weren’t the big selling point, they had Hal Roach shorts (including Laurel and Hardy and Our Gang) and Tom and Jerry cartoons.  Then came the arrival of the young prodigy, Irving Thalberg, who would marry Shearer and become the most prominent producer in Hollywood, knowing which films would make money and when he could occasionally spend more money on a quality product that wouldn’t have quite the same rate of return.

Within a decade the studio had expanded, with 23 sound stages over 117 acres and 4000 employees run by Mayer like a large family with him as the stern head.  But the studio felt its first serious blow when Thalberg died in 1936 and Shearer retreated from films a few years later, followed a year later by the retirement of Garbo.  They had young stars ready to replace them with Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland and Greer Garson arrived from England to become a huge star and Oscar darling.

Over the course of the 40’s, Mayer would clash with Dore Schary, the former production chief of RKO who had been brought in to replace Thalberg.  By the end of the decade the tension was too much and when Mayer finally confronted his boss Joseph Schenck in 1951 demanding that he had to choose, one third of the studio’s name was gone (with Schary himself staying on only five more years).  At the same time, Loew’s was forced to divest itself of the studio so that it could continue to own its theater chain.  MGM had completely toppled.  This would be reflected in the number of films (over 450 in the 30’s, well over 300 in the 40’s and 50’s, just over 250 in the 60’s).

The studio would continue on through the 60’s but without the same level of quality and with other focuses (such as their casino in Las Vegas) and eventually, in 1973, MGM decided it would no longer be a film distributor.  The studio made a complicated deal with United Artists so that UA would distribute the films (with the MGM name still on them) until 1981 at which point UA, riven by the financial fall-out from Heaven’s Gate would actually merge with MGM forming MGM/UA.  For the next 20 years, both studios would continue to reduce their output (while often releasing films as MGM/UA but with one exception, The Secret of Nimh, which really was a joint production, each film was either an MGM or a UA production) until, in the 90’s, neither was doing much of anything and eventually both would stop making films altogether.

One thing to bear in mind about MGM – it was very much the kind of studio that Disney is today.  It produced films that the public absolutely ate up, no matter how well they were received.  Yet, many of those films, while massive hits, are not considered at nearly the same level today.  They were popular but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were great.  MGM won nine Best Picture Oscars but five of those aren’t on the TSPDT Top 2000 list and only 11 of their 48 Best Picture nominees are on that list.

Notable Films:

  • He Who Gets Slapped  –  first MGM film
  • The Torrent  –  Garbo makes her US debut
  • The Barrier  –  the first Lionel Barrymore film for MGM, beginning 28 years with the studio
  • White Shadows in the South Seas  –  first film where Leo the Lion roars
  • Hallelujah  –  the first all-black film from MGM
  • The Broadway Melody  –  MGM’s first all-sound film
  • The Unholy Three  –  Lon Chaney’s only talkie and last film
  • Grand Hotel  –  the first “all-star” MGM film
  • Gone with the Wind  –  the biggest film in studio history for both awards and box office
  • A Two-Faced Woman  –  the last Garbo film
  • Woman of the Year  –  the first Hepburn-Tracy film
  • Betrayed  –  the last Gable film for MGM
  • Jailhouse Rock  –  Elvis comes to films
  • Andy Hardy Comes Homes  –  the final Andy Hardy movie
  • Ben-Hur  –  second to Gone with the Wind for both box office and awards acclaim

Victor Fleming takes over direction of GWTW from George Cukor.

The Directors

MGM is tricky because there are a lot of directors for whom I have seen at least the vast majority of their films that just aren’t all that good.  Because MGM was a powerhouse of a studio, a lot of their directors earned at least one Oscar nomination (or more than one) and thus I tried to see all of their work for my Oscar Director project.  But most of them didn’t deserve that nomination or, if they deserved it, didn’t have a worthwhile career (in terms of the quality of their films) outside of that nomination.  So, to start this out, I will list all of those directors up front in order of their Oscar Director ranking.  To point out the difference between the MGM contract directors and those who made a film at MGM, the directors who aren’t in bold (with the film listed after them) aren’t listed below the list because they made just the one or very few films at MGM.

  • #1  –  Stanley Kubrick  (2001)
  • #8  –  David Lean  (Dr. Zhivago)
  • #16  –  John Huston  (The Asphalt Jungle)
  • #20  –  William Wyler  (Mrs. Miniver, Ben Hur)
  • #21  –  Sidney Lumet  (Network)
  • #31  –  Ridley Scott  (Thelma & Louise)
  • #42  –  Fred Zinnemann  (The Search)
  • #54  –  George Cukor
  • #80  –  Richard Brooks
  • #92  –  William Wellman  (Battleground)
  • #102  –  Norman Jewison  (Moonstruck)
  • #107  –  Charles Crichton  (A Fish Called Wanda)
  • #108  –  Vincente Minnelli
  • #109  –  Mervyn LeRoy
  • #111  –  King Vidor
  • #114  –  John Sturges
  • #119  –  Victor Fleming
  • #124  –  Frank Lloyd
  • #128  –  Sam Wood
  • #139  –  W.S. Van Dyke
  • #146  –  Clarence Brown
  • #165  –  Mike Figgis  (Leaving Las Vegas)
  • #180  –  Robert Z. Leonard
  • #187  –  Charles Walters
  • #188  –  Sidney Franklin
  • #193  –  Norman Taurog
  • #200  –  Lionel Barrymore  (Madame X)
  • #203  –  Harry Beaumont

So look at that list – only two contract directors made the Top 100 while Warners had John Huston and Michael Curtiz, Columbia had Capra, RKO had Welles (briefly), UA had Chaplin and Wyler, Paramount had Wilder and Fox had Ford.  What’s more, Cukor and Brooks earned only one nomination each at MGM while earning multiple nominations elsewhere (and both won Oscars for other studios).  MGM had the biggest stars but for directors, they mostly had midling talent.  But somehow I suspect both Mayer and Thalberg wanted it that way.

Harry Beaumont

  • Films:  21
  • Years:  1928 – 1948
  • Average Film:  57.9
  • Best Film:  When Ladies Meet
  • Worst Film:  The Broadway Melody

Beaumont was the second director from MGM to earn an Oscar nomination and the first to have his film win Best Picture though it is widely regarded as one of the worst or even the worst Best Picture winner in history.  He stayed at the studio for two more decades but rarely rose above mediocrity.

Richard Brooks

  • Films:  14
  • Years:  1950  –  1985
  • Average Film:  67.1
  • Best Film:  Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
  • Worst Film:  Fever Pitch

Brooks moved from screenwriting into directing at the studio and he would make his best film at the studio but he would also leave at the end of the 50’s returning for just two more films and it was after he left that he found real critical and Oscar success.

Clarence Brown

  • Films:  33
  • Years:  1927  –  1952
  • Average Film:  63.6
  • Best Film:  Of Human Hearts
  • Worst Film:  A Free Soul

How bad a sign is it that two of the first three directors listed earned Oscar nominations for their worst films.  Brown was a mainstay at the studio for a long time and earned a whopping six Oscar nominations (while only two of his films were nominated).  He made 14 films at the studio that combined for 35 Oscar nominations but, while most of his films were good, none rose above high ***.

Tod Browning

  • Films:  13
  • Years:  1925  –  1936
  • Average Film:  70.9
  • Best Film:  Freaks
  • Worst Film:  Fast Works

Browning made two very good films at the studio (The Unholy Three, Freaks) and no bad ones so it’s ironic that the best film of his career was made at Universal (Dracula).  Of the seven surviving films he made at the studio with Lon Chaney, all of them are high *** or better.

Jack Conway

  • Films:  25
  • Years:  1930  –  1948
  • Average Film:  62.5
  • Best Film:  A Tale of Two Cities
  • Worst Film:  Viva Villa

Conway is almost unique in the history of the Academy Awards.  Thanks to years of more Picture nominees than Director nominees (32-43, 09-present) plus films that were nominated for Picture without Director in the 5 BP Era there have been over 200 films now that have earned a Picture nomination without a Director nomination.  But there have only been 9 directors who have had more than one film nominated for Picture without ever receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Director.  Jack Conway is one of just two directors to do it three times (Edmund Goulding is the other): Viva Villa, A Tale of Two Cities and Libeled Lady.  And to be fair, I don’t think he ever deserved a nomination (A Tale of Two Cities is my #5 in 1936 but is beaten out in director by Fritz Lang, also for an MGM film, Fury).  Conway made more good films than mediocre ones and only a couple of bad ones but Tale is above *** and only Libeled Lady makes it to high ***.

George Cukor

  • Films:  21
  • Years:  1932  –  1981
  • Average Film:  72.1
  • Best Film:  The Philadelphia Story
  • Worst Film:  A Woman’s Face

Cukor first came to MGM in the 30’s following David O. Selznick who he had worked for at RKO.  From the next 25 years while the bulk of the films he made were at MGM including some of his best (Dinner at Eight, The Philadelphia Story, Gaslight) he only earned one Oscar nomination for the studio while earning multiple ones elsewhere.  Still, even with the rare Oscar success elsewhere, Cukor was the best of MGM’s directors, making only one mediocre film and no bad ones while making a lot of good or really good ones.  He even put in work on two of MGM’s biggest films: The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind.

Victor Fleming

  • Films:  14
  • Years:  1932  –  1945
  • Average Film:  63.1
  • Best Film:  The Wizard of Oz
  • Worst Film:  Wet Parade

Victor Fleming should be double grateful to Cukor because Cukor’s commitment to Gone with the Wind meant he left The Wizard of Oz and then when Gable objected, Fleming replaced the fired Cukor there as well.  If not for those two films his MGM average drops to 58.0 and he loses his Oscar win.  Fleming made a couple of solid films (A Guy Named Joe, Red Dust) which would both have better remakes and did a lot of filler.

Sidney Franklin

  • Films:  13
  • Years:  1927  –  1957
  • Average Film:  63.9
  • Best Film:  Wild Orchids
  • Worst Film:  The Lady of Scandal

Three Best Picture nominations (Smilin Through, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, The Good Earth), the last earning Franklin himself a nomination is really all that earns him a place here.  His 13 films have a tight range between 69 and 56, so not bad but not all that good either.

Robert Z. Leonard

  • Films:  45
  • Years:  1924  –  1955
  • Average Film:  59.5
  • Best Film:  Pride and Prejudice
  • Worst Film:  The Great Diamond Robbery

Well over half of Leonard’s films are subpar (21 **.5 films, 5 ** films) while only one is better than a 72 (Pride and Prejudice).  But he was a workhorse for the studio, earned two Oscar nominations (The Divorcee, The Great Ziegfeld), won the studio a Best Picture and I’ve seen at least one MGM film directed by him for every year from 1928 to 1955 with some years having as many as three.

Mervyn LeRoy

  • Films:  19
  • Years:  1931  –  1954
  • Average Film:  62.9
  • Best Film:  Random Harvest
  • Worst Film:  Little Women

First, I’ve always thought LeRoy was a bit overrated.  Second, his best films were when he was still at Warners early in the 30’s (he made two early films for MGM but didn’t really come over the studio until 1938.  Third, he might have produced The Wizard of Oz but he didn’t direct it.  Fourth, of his four Best Picture nominees at MGM three of them absolutely didn’t deserve it (Blossoms in the Dust, Madame Curie, Quo Vadis) while the fourth, which also earned him an Oscar nom (Random Harvest) was very good and easily the best of his MGM career but still not up to Oscar level.

Vincente Minnelli

  • Films:  30
  • Years:  1943  –  1965
  • Average Film:  66.0
  • Best Film:  The Bad and the Beautiful
  • Worst Film:  Undercurrent

He made all but three of his final four films at MGM but he’s another director I have always felt was overrated.  His best film didn’t get him an Oscar nom while the mediocre Gigi won him an Oscar and the over-rated An American in Paris won Best Picture.  His films were generally pretty good (14 of his 30 films at the studio are a 69 or higher) but Home from the Hill is the only other film I rate above ***.

George B. Seitz

  • Films:  16
  • Years:  1933  –  1943
  • Average Film:  61.6
  • Best Film:  Andy Hardy’s Private Secretary
  • Worst Film:  Lazy River

Though I have only seen 16 of his films, Seitz was a workhorse for MGM for years before he directed A Family Affair.  That was the first of the Andy Hardy films and it gave him continued employment at MGM for the rest of his life (Seitz died in 1944), directing 11 of the first 14 films in the series before his death and they were basically all better than any of the films I’ve seen direct outside of the series.

George Sidney

  • Films:  16
  • Years:  1943  –  1964
  • Average Film:  64.4
  • Best Film:  Anchors Aweigh
  • Worst Film:  Key to the City

Sidney was one of the studio’s key directors for Musicals, covering nine of the 16 films I’ve seen from him (what’s more, he also directed Gene Kelly in the non-Musical version of The Three Musketeers).  Nine of his films did combine for 21 Oscar nominations but the only above the line nominations were Picture and Actor for Anchors Aweigh.

John Sturges

  • Films:  14
  • Years:  1950  –  1968
  • Average Film:  65.4
  • Best Film:  Bad Day at Black Rock
  • Worst Film:  Fast Company

Sturges spent the 50’s at the studio, mostly with mediocre Dramas though he somehow broke through to real quality (and an Oscar nomination) for Bad Day at Black Rock.  Sturges would leave in 1960 for UA where he made The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape (the films he’s really known for) before returning just once to direct Ice Station Zebra.

Norman Taurog

  • Films:  26
  • Years:  1938  –  1968
  • Average Film:  58.7
  • Best Film:  Lucky Night
  • Worst Film:  The Beginning or the End

Taurog is the ultimate example of mediocrity in directing.  He made 26 films at MGM and with one exception (his worst film, a 48) they all land between 67 and 51.  He had won his (very undeserved) Oscar before coming to MGM and earned another (undeserved) nomination for Boys Town before settling in with Musicals and light Comedies.  He would finish his career at MGM by directing a bunch of Elvis’ late 60’s Musicals.

Richard Thorpe

  • Films:  41
  • Years:  1935  –  1967
  • Average Film:  60.3
  • Best Film:  Night Must Fall
  • Worst Film:  Wyoming

Unlike most of the major directors who spent years at the studio, Thorpe never earned an Oscar nomination (though he didn’t deserve one) though there was one Best Picture nomination (Ivanhoe).  Night Must Fall was his best film by a long way (5 points) but he only made two bad films (Toy Wife was the other) while he was mostly just mediocre.  Between Tarzan films (four of them) and Arthurian type films, Thorpe was clearly the go-to director for Adventure films, directing 12 of them.

W. S. Van Dyke

  • Films:  43
  • Years:  1928  –  1942
  • Average Film:  63.2
  • Best Film:  The Thin Man
  • Worst Film:  Cuban Love Song

Van Dyke was the real workhorse for the studio, making an astounding 43 films in under 15 years.  Even with cancer and a bad heart he worked until the end, killing himself just after his last film was released at the age of 54.  He wasn’t great but his films were more often good than not (25 of his films are *** or higher) and he could work in all genres, making four Thin Man films, a Tarzan film, an Andy Hardy film and making a wide variety of Dramas, Comedies and Musicals.

King Vidor

  • Films:  16
  • Years:  1924  –  1944
  • Average Film:  64.3
  • Best Film:  Show People
  • Worst Film:  The Champ

I consider Vidor over-rated at least in part because his big film (The Crowd) I think is very over-rated.  But he could be good in Comedy (Show People), War (The Big Parade) or Drama (The Citadel) and he rarely made weak films.

Charles Walters

  • Films:  20
  • Years:  1947  –  1964
  • Average Film:  62.0
  • Best Film:  High Society
  • Worst Film:  Dangerous When Wet

Unlike many of the directors listed here, Walters didn’t have a lot of range.  Of the 20 films only three were Dramas and over half of them were Musicals (the rest were Comedies).

Sam Wood

  • Films:  23
  • Years:  1929  –  1950
  • Average Film:  60.0
  • Best Film:  A Night at the Opera
  • Worst Film:  Lord Jeff

Wood was very prolific early on; I’ve seen 11 films he made for MGM between the advent of sound and the start of the Code.  Unfortunately, all 11 of them are **.5 because he just wasn’t that good.  After working for a few weeks on Gone with the Wind to help Victor Fleming recover from exhaustion, Wood left MGM and did his best work (Our Town, Kings Row, Pride of the Yankees, For the Whom the Bell Tolls) at other studios before returning for his last three films before dying in 1949 before the release of his last film, Ambush.


The Stars

Norma Shearer

Shearer was already a rising star at the studio before she married Irving Thalberg but that took her right to the top.  During the years that the Pre-Code films were hard to find, Shearer got a bad reputation for being boring but her Pre-Code films are risque and have an open sexuality that was then shut out of mainstream film for decades.  The most beautiful of the MGM stars to me and one of the most talented.  Sadly, many of her films didn’t rise to her talent.
Essential Viewing:  The Divorcee, A Free Soul, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, Romeo and Juliet

Clark Gable

Gable signed a contract in 1930, entered the Stars Poll in 1932 and was #2 most years from 1934 to 1942 with four different stars keeping him out of the top spot.  Even with his star not as bright after the war, he stayed with MGM and continued to be one of their most prominent actors, not leaving the studio until his contract expired in 1934.  The irony, of course, is that Gable won his Oscar on loan to Columbia but then again, it was Selznick’s need for Gable as Rhett that lead to Gone with the Wind being the studio’s biggest hit.
Essential Viewing:  Gone with the Wind, Mutiny on the Bounty, Red Dust

Greta Garbo

MGM brought Garbo over from Sweden in the mid 20’s and she quickly became a massive star with her gorgeous looks and great talent.  Talking didn’t hold her back and she continued to be a big box office star and critical darling throughout the 30’s before she decided to leave acting behind.
Essential Viewing:  Anna Christie, Anna Karenina, Grand Hotel, Ninotchka

William Powell & Myrna Loy

In 1934, the studio decided to team Powell and Loy up to star as Nick and Nora Charles in The Thin Man.  They would end up making six Thin Man films in all but it wasn’t just those films; they also made Libeled Lady, The Great Ziegfeld and Double Wedding together with the first Thin Man sequel all in less than a year.  By the time they left the studio in the late 40’s they had made 14 films together.
Essential Viewing:  The Thin Man, After the Thin Man, The Great Ziegfeld, Libeled Lady

Joan Crawford

I have never liked Joan Crawford and never thought she was particularly good-looking.  But there’s no denying she was a major star for MGM.  She was the #1 star of 1930 and stayed in the Top 10 through 1937 and the men at MGM were all over her.  Of course, after almost 20 years of being one of the studio’s biggest stars she left in 1943 went to Warners and won an Oscar.
Essential Viewing:  The Women, Grand Hotel, Our Dancing Daughters

Spencer Tracy

He earned six Oscar nominations at the studio and won back-to-back Oscars in 1937 and 1938 so he can’t be discounted as a major part of the studio’s success.  Another actor I’ve never been fond of, but I can’t deny his importance.
Essential Viewing:  Captains Courageous, Boys Town, Bad Day at Black Rock, Woman of the Year

Mickey Rooney

The number one box office star from 1939 to 1941, Rooney was also the anchor of a major studio series (Andy Hardy), stealing the first film and making the series all about him.  He would also do a lot of films with the next person on the list.
Essential Viewing:  The Human Comedy, Babes in Arms, Love Finds Andy Hardy

Judy Garland

Garland, of course, rose through the ranks, doing things like being Andy Hardy’s love interest before breaking through with The Wizard of Oz.  She was a major star throughout the 40’s, mostly in Musicals but her personal problems ended up with her being pushed out of the studio at the end of the decade.
Essential Viewing:  The Wizard of Oz, Meet Me in St. Louis, The Clock

Robert Taylor

I loathe Robert Taylor.  He’s one of my least favorite actors of all-time because he was a terrible actor and he wasn’t good looking enough (like say Tyrone Power) to overcome that.  But I can’t deny that 1 – he was a big star and 2 – he spent more years under contract to MGM (24, from 1934 to 1958) than any other star, making him a major part of the studio’s history.
Essential Viewing:  Johnny Eager, Waterloo Bridge, Quo Vadis

Genres

MGM is known for Musicals, of course.  Through 1969, MGM accounts for about 15% of all the films I’ve seen but it accounts for 25% of the Musicals.  But during that time it also accounts for 20% of all the Adventure films because those cost a lot of money (which MGM had) and good production values (which MGM also had).  But outside of Adventure films, MGM didn’t do too much in the way of genre films (all films except Drama, Comedy or Musical).  While the average comes out to about 37.5% of all the films I’ve seen are genre films, the MGM films are less than 30% genre films.  It’s not even because of the trend towards more genre films in more recent decades; though over 2/3 of the MGM films I have seen (and that they made) are from before 1970, there are several genres (Action, Horror, Kids, Sci-Fi) in which well more than half of MGM’s output in those genres comes after that point.  Among the genres, MGM is considerably above the average number for Adventure and below the average percentage for everything else.  Musicals account for less than 6% of all films I’ve seen but over 12% at MGM (the number for all films is 8% for all films but 13.8% for MGM).

One thing MGM did was focus on some specific sub-genres.  For instance, like many studios in the Studio Era, they made a lot of series films.  They had two Comedy series (Andy Hardy, Maisie), a Drama series (Dr. Kildare), a Mystery series (The Thin Man) and they made a number of Tarzan films.  The Tarzan films are interesting because they made six films from 1932 to 1942 before letting the franchise go, brought it back in 1957, making five more films by 1963 and then one more in 1981.  In total, the studio made three different films called Tarzan the Ape Man (1932, 1959, 1981).  They made a number of films with Comedy teams (12 Laurel & Hardy films, 5 Marx Brothers films and a couple of Abbott & Costello films).  They also made the Elvis Musicals (11 in all).  Aside from the Thin Man films, they made five Agatha Christie films in the 60’s (four Miss Marple films and one other film).  What’s more, they were flush with literary properties.  While covering a wide range of authors, the studio made at least three films each adapted from Dickens, Maugham, O’Neill, Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Stevenson, Tolstoy and Tennessee Williams (the latter being the best, four films that average an 84).

The Top 75 MGM Films

  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. Singin’ in the Rain
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  4. Greed
  5. Doctor Zhivago
  6. The Philadelphia Story
  7. North by Northwest
  8. Network
  9. The Bad and the Beautiful
  10. Gaslight
  11. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
  12. A Fish Called Wanda
  13. Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
  14. The Thin Man
  15. Ride the High Country
  16. Bad Day at Black Rock
  17. Forbidden Planet
  18. Faust
  19. Point Blank
  20. The Asphalt Jungle
  21. Pygmalion
  22. Thelma & Louise
  23. The Night of the Iguana
  24. Leaving Las Vegas
  25. The Wind
  26. The Americanization of Emily
  27. The Shop Around the Corner
  28. Diner
  29. Ben-Hur (1959)
  30. Gone with the Wind
  31. A Tale of Two Cities
  32. Get Shorty
  33. Dinner at Eight
  34. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
  35. The Sunshine Boys
  36. Force of Evil
  37. Ronin
  38. Napoleon (1927)
  39. My Favorite Year
  40. Freaks
  41. Merrily We Live
  42. Lolita (1962)
  43. Seven Chances
  44. Random Harvest
  45. The Year of Living Dangerously
  46. Poltergeist
  47. Pink Floyd: The Wall
  48. The Four Days of Naples
  49. The Comedians
  50. Shoot the Moon
  51. Home from the Hill
  52. Ben-Hur (1925)
  53. Act of Violence
  54. Fury
  55. Laugh Clown Laugh
  56. The Merry Widow (1925)
  57. Sweet Bird of Youth
  58. The Actress
  59. The Mighty Quinn
  60. A Night at the Opera
  61. Show People
  62. The Naked Spur
  63. The Goodbye Girl
  64. Woman of the Year
  65. The Indian Runner
  66. Death at a Funeral (2007)
  67. The Unholy Three (1925)
  68. The Search
  69. Anchors Aweigh
  70. Cameraman
  71. Entre Nous
  72. The Blackboard Jungle
  73. The Secret of Nimh
  74. Travels with My Aunt
  75. Moonstruck

note:  The first 36 films are ****.  The rest are ***.5.

Notable MGM Films Not in the Top 75

note:  Includes all films I have either already reviewed or have current plans to review in the future as well as all films I saw in the theater.

The Bottom 10 MGM Films, #1379-1388
(worst being #10, which is #1388 overall)

  1. College
  2. Gymkata
  3. Fatal Instinct
  4. Dirty Work
  5. Solarbabies
  6. Night of the Lepus
  7. Bio-Dome
  8. Hercules
  9. Body of Evidence
  10. Showgirls

notes on films

note:  These are just tidbits on some of the films.  The films are listed in alphabetical order.  Unless I have something specific to say, I don’t mention films that have full reviews elsewhere or films that I saw in the theater from 1989 to 2005 (they are all mentioned in those Nighthawk Awards).

  • Brewster McCloud  –  How much had MGM changed if this very odd film got made there.  A perfect example of why Altman wasn’t made for Hollywood unless he was ripping it to shreds.
  • The Clock  –  Minnelli made a good film directing his future wife Judy Garland in her first dramatic role (and first in which she doesn’t sing) and then they were promptly told to never do it again.  See it if you can.
  • Death at a Funeral  –  Darkly hilarious British Comedy directed by Frank Oz of all people.
  • Diner  –  A film so funny and enjoyable that even the death-like unfunny combination of Paul Reiser and Steve Guttenberg can’t bring it down.
  • The Fearless Vampire Killers  –  The best way to appreciate Sharon Tate onscreen (since The Wrecking Crew is mostly unavailable) is this enjoyable Vampire Comedy.
  • He Who Gets Slapped  –  Lon Chaney and Norma Shearer.  A movie I re-watch whenever it airs on TCM.
  • Love Finds Andy Hardy  –  Not the best of the series but my favorite because it makes good use of Judy Garland.
  • Ludwig  –  Some think it’s brilliant but it’s just a giant mess of a film from a sometimes great director (Luchino Visconti).  But it makes great visual use of one of my favorite places (even if I’ve never been there): Neuschwanstein.
  • Mystery Street  –  Underrated Mystery filmed in Boston and starring Ricardo Montalban.
  • The Naked Spur  –  When critics talk about how good Anthony Mann was at making Westerns this is the kind of film they’re talking about.
  • Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid  –  Near the top of the list for Westerns I haven’t reviewed and now near the top of the list for MGM films I haven’t reviewed.  It’s a great film with an even better soundtrack.
  • Pink Floyd: The Wall  –  I don’t take drugs and I’ve always loved it.
  • The Pirate  –  Gene Kelly and Judy Garland.  ’nuff said.
  • Poltergeist  –  I’m one of those who’ve always bought into the idea this was mostly directed by Spielberg because it feels like one of his films and I’ve never thought Tobe Hooper even showed anything like this kind of talent.
  • Soylent Green  –  Several years ago now, we were driving with my sister and saw a “Soylent Green is people!” bumper sticker and she was confused and I explained it.  To her, only film buffs knew that and it was a niche bumper sticker while V and I explained that it was a widely known cultural moment (which she refused to believe and claimed V only knew it because she was married to me).  Ironically, I don’t think I had even seen the film at that point.  V, by the way, drinks Soylent all the time and every time she does I accuse her of cannibalism.  She loves being married to me.
  • Westworld  –  It pales now because of the show which is so much more brilliant in its story-telling and its effects but it was a rather revolutionary concept at the time and is still well worth watching.

The 10 Most Under-Rated MGM Films

These are all films that I rate at **** or high ***.5 that have never appeared in TSPDT’s Top 1000 (now 2000) or their Top 250 21st Century Films (now 1000).  Also, I eliminated a few films that were nominated for Best Picture (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Pygmalion, A Tale of Two Cities).  I present them in their rank order.

  1. Point Blank
  2. The Night of the Iguana
  3. The Americanization of Emily
  4. Get Shorty
  5. Dinner at Eight
  6. The Sunshine Boys
  7. My Favorite Year
  8. Ronin
  9. Merrily We Live
  10. The Comedians

The Best MGM Films by Decade

  • 1920’s:  Greed
  • 1930’s:  The Wizard of Oz
  • 1940’s:  The Philadelphia Story
  • 1950’s:  Singin’ in the Rain
  • 1960’s:  2001: A Space Odyssey
  • 1970’s:  Network
  • 1980’s:  A Fish Called Wanda
  • 1990’s:  Thelma & Louise
  • 2000’s:  Death at a Funeral

The Worst MGM Films by Decade

  • 1920’s:  The Broadway Melody
  • 1930’s:  General Spanky
  • 1940’s:  Wyoming
  • 1950’s:  Tarzan the Ape Man
  • 1960’s:  The Green Slime
  • 1970’s:  Night of the Lepus
  • 1980’s:  Hercules
  • 1990’s:  Showgirls
  • 2000’s:  College

The Best MGM Films by Genre

  • Action:  Ronin
  • Adventure:  Mutiny on the Bounty
  • Comedy:  The Philadelphia Story
  • Crime:  The Asphalt Jungle
  • Drama:  Greed
  • Fantasy:  Faust
  • Horror:  Freaks
  • Kids:  The Wizard of Oz
  • Musical:  Singin’ in the Rain
  • Mystery:  The Thin Man
  • Sci-Fi:  2001: A Space Odyssey
  • Suspense:  North by Northwest
  • War:  n/a
  • Western:  Ride the High Country

note:  It’s not that I haven’t seen any MGM War films but that none of them are higher than ***.

The Worst MGM Films by Genre

  • Action:  Gymkata
  • Adventure:  Damon and Pythias
  • Comedy:  Bio-Dome
  • Crime:  2 Days in the Valley
  • Drama:  Showgirls
  • Fantasy:  Hercules
  • Horror:  Night of the Lepus
  • Kids:  Good Boy!
  • Musical:  Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart
  • Mystery:  The Mod Squad
  • Sci-Fi:  Solarbabies
  • Suspense:  Body of Evidence
  • War:  Inchon
  • Western:  Road to El Dorado

The Most Over-Rated MGM Films

  1. Gone with the Wind
    It is a great film but it’s not of the greatest thanks to the weak script and it’s constantly invoked as such.
  2. The Crowd
    Adored by critics by not by Louis B. Mayer who kept it from winning the initial Best Production Award at the Oscars.  I’m ashamed of agreeing with Mayer but Sunrise deserved it more and this over-rated critic’s favorite is slow and boring.
  3. The Broadway Melody
    The second winner for Best Picture is also the worst winner.
  4. Gigi
    This winner of an astounding 9 Oscars is not all that good, has music that is mostly ignorable and has a performance from Maurice Chevalier that, while good, is also kind of creepy.
  5. An American in Paris
    Winner of Best Picture over A Streetcar Named Desire and A Place in the Sun (which won Director and Screenplay), the ballet in the middle just brings down a Musical that’s already over-rated.
  6. Christmas Story
    I hate, hate, hate this film.  I’ve explained why here.

The Statistics

Total Films 1912-2011: 1388  (2nd)

Total Percentage of All Films 1912-2011:  8.17%

  • 1912-1929:  70  (16.32%)  (1st)
  • 1930-1939:  328  (21.00%)  (1st)
  • 1940-1949:  271  (18.05%)  (1st)
  • 1950-1959:  258  (15.18%)  (1st)
  • 1960-1969:  181  (10.05%)  (2nd)
  • 1970-1979:  68  (3.77%)  (7th)
  • 1980-1989:  84  (4.06%)  (8th)
  • 1990-1999:  74  (2.81%)  (8th)
  • 2000-2011:  54  (1.55%)  (11th)

note:  Not only was MGM the biggest studio of the Studio Era, but their films are the most easy to find.  Many of them are available on DVD and even more get shown on TCM every single week.

Percentage I’ve Seen by Decade:

  • 1919-1929:  31.44%
  • 1930-1939:  69.21%
  • 1940-1949:  78.87%
  • 1950-1959:  77.78%
  • 1960-1969:  71.65%
  • 1970-1979:  71.84%
  • 1980-1989:  87.91%
  • 1990-1999:  90.24%
  • 2000-2011:  82.26%
  • TOTAL:  70.02%

note:  The 20’s get better when we hit sound; as with most studios, the silent films are much harder to find because many are lost (the total % I’ve seen from 1929 on is 75.10%).  From 1931 to the present, most years are above 70% and all but two years (1935, 1973) are above 64%.  What’s more, in the week following this post, thanks to TCM, 1929 itself will go over 50%, 1930 will go over 60%, 1931 will go over 70% and the 30’s as a whole will go over 70%.  I have 10 films from MGM that I have never seen just set to record on my DVR next week alone.  This post is going up because it’s the appropriate next studio to cover after UA (which merged with MGM in the 70’s) not because I’m really done with it.

note:  Because most box office information before 1980 is spotty and I have seen most of the MGM films since 1980, the highest grossing MGM film listed on Box Office Mojo that I haven’t seen is A Guy Thing, the #92 MGM film at $15.54 million.

Biggest Years:

  • 1933:  44
  • 1950:  39
  • 1939, 1942:  37
  • 1934:  35

note:  MGM has the most films I’ve seen from any studio in almost every single year up through 1952.

Biggest Years by Percentage of All Films:

  • 1929:  28.00%
  • 1930:  27.59%
  • 1932:  24.41%
  • 1934:  23.18%
  • 1950:  23.08%

Eras:

  • Top 10 Most Films every year from 1926 to 1973

MGM starts with the most films in the very first year.  It becomes the first studio over 100 total films in 1930, the first with over 500 films in 1942 and the first with 1000 in 1963 by which point it is several hundred films above any other studio.  It would take the massive drop in production in the mid 70’s for other studios to start catching up.  The first studio back within 300 films is in 1978, the first within 200 is in 1994.  Fox would get within 100 films in 2004 and would actually pass MGM in 2008.

Best Years:

  • 1929:  3 in the Top 10, 7 in the Top 20
  • 1938:  3 in the Top 10, 6 in the Top 20
  • 1926  /  1944:  3 in the Top 10, 5 in the Top 20

The Top Films:

  • Nighthawk Winner:  1926, 1934, 1939, 1965, 1968
  • 3 Films in the Top 10:  1926, 1929, 1936, 1938, 1944
  • 5 Films in the Top 20:  1926-29, 1938, 1942, 1944, 1953
  • Top 10 Films:  53
  • First Year in the Top 10:  1926
  • Latest Year in the Top 10:  1995
  • Top 20 Films:  111
  • Best Decade for Top 20 Films:  1930’s  (31)
  • Worst Decade for Top 20 Films:  2000’s  (0)

Average Film By Decade:

  • 1919-1929:  69.74
  • 1930-1939:  61.54
  • 1940-1949:  61.92
  • 1950-1959:  61.85
  • 1960-1969:  59.07
  • 1970-1979:  53.72
  • 1980-1989:  48.48
  • 1990-1999:  45.19
  • 2000-2006:  45.76
  • TOTAL:  59.10

note:  As always with a chart like this, it does beg the question of whether older films are better (or just fewer older films are bad) or whether the ones that are worse are simply harder to find.

Best Years for Average Film:

  • 1926:  71.45
  • 1928:  68.90
  • 1929:  68.19
  • 1949:  64.92
  • 1956:  63.79

Worst Years for Average Film (minimum 5 films):

  • 1996:  34.13
  • 1998:  34.33
  • 2004:  37.33

Star Rating:

note:  The percentage breakdown for all MGM films by star rating.

  • ****:  2.59%
  • ***.5:  3.31%
  • ***:  44.96%
  • **.5:  30.84%
  • **:  13.04%
  • *.5:  1.66%
  • *:  2.23%
  • .5:  1.30%
  • 0:  0.01%

Nighthawk Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  188
  • Number of Films That Have Won Nighthawks:  54
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  96
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  19
  • Best Picture Nominations:  20
  • Total Number of Nominations:  513
  • Total Number of Wins:  111
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Actress  (48)
  • Director with Most Nighthawk Nominated Films:  George Cukor  (11)
  • Best Film with No Nighthawks:  Ride the High Country
  • Best Film with No Nighthawk Nominations:  Seven Chances
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Drama Nominations:  83
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Comedy Nominations:  67
  • Number of Films That Have Won Drama Awards:  23
  • Number of Films That Have Won Comedy Awards:  29
  • Drama Picture Nominations:  19
  • Comedy Picture Nominations:  27
  • Total Number of Drama Nominations:  195
  • Total Number of Comedy Nominations:  202
  • Total Number of Drama Wins:  37
  • Total Number of Comedy Wins:  62
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Actress  (36 – Drama  /  37 – Comedy)
  • Best Drama Film With No Nominations:  Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
  • Best Comedy Film With No Nominations:  Death at a Funeral
  • Most 2nd Place Finishes:  Gone with the Wind  (6)
  • Most 6th Place Finishes:  A Tale of Two Cities  /  Night Must Fall  /  Act of Violence  /  The Americanization of Emily  (3)
  • Most Top 10 Finishes:  The Wizard of Oz  (21)
  • Most Top 20 Finishes:  The Wizard of Oz  (21)
  • Films With at Least One Top 10 Finish:  262
  • Best Film Without a Top 10 Finish:  Home from the Hill
  • Films With at Least One Top 20 Finish:  315
  • Best Film Without a Top 20 Finish:  The Big Parade

Most Nighthawk Nominations:

  1. The Wizard of Oz  –  18
  2. Doctor Zhivago  –  14
  3. Gone with the Wind  –  13
  4. Gaslight  –  12
  5. Singin’ in the Rain  –  12
  6. Mutiny on the Bounty  –  10
  7. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  10
  8. The Thin Man  –  9
  9. Ben-Hur  –  9
  10. Network  –  9

Most Nighthawks:

  1. The Wizard of Oz  –  14
  2. Doctor Zhivago  –  9
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  9
  4. Greed  –  5
  5. The Thin Man  /  Gaslight  /  Ben-Hur  –  5

Most Nighthawk Points:

  1. The Wizard of Oz  –  795
  2. Doctor Zhivago  –  660
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  510
  4. Gaslight  –  500
  5. The Thin Man  –  490
  6. Gone with the Wind  –  405
  7. Greed  –  400
  8. Network  –  400
  9. The Philadelphia Story  –  350
  10. Mutiny on the Bounty  –  340

Most Drama Nominations:

  1. Network  –  8
  2. The Night of the Iguana  –  7
  3. seven films  –  6

Most Comedy Nominations:

  1. Dinner at Eight  –  7
  2. The Wizard of Oz  –  7
  3. The Philadelphia Story  –  7
  4. Singin’ in the Rain  –  7
  5. five films  –  6

Most Drama Wins:

  1. Greed  –  4
  2. Doctor Zhivago  –  4
  3. Gaslight  –  3
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  3
  5. four films  –  2

Most Comedy Wins:

  1. The Wizard of Oz  –  6
  2. The Thin Man  –  5
  3. The Philadelphia Story  –  5
  4. Singin’ in the Rain  –  5
  5. five films  –  3

Most Drama Points:

  1. Doctor Zhivago  –  395
  2. Network  –  375
  3. Gaslight  –  335
  4. Greed  –  330
  5. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof  /  The Night of the Iguana  –  300

Most Comedy Points:

  1. The Wizard of Oz  –  490
  2. Singin’ in the Rain  –  455
  3. The Philadelphia Story  –  450
  4. The Thin Man  –  410
  5. Dinner at Eight  –  355

All-Time Nighthawk Awards

  • Best Picture
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. Singin’ in the Rain
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  4. Greed
  5. Doctor Zhivago

Analysis:  The full list can be seen above.  Five films win the Nighthawk (Singin doesn’t but Thin Man does).  Another 15 films earn Nighthawk noms.  Overall, 54 films land in the Top 10 in their respective years with 107 total making the Top 20.  In Drama, Greed, Zhivago and 2001 are winners with 16 other nominees while Thin Man, Wizard, Philadelphia Story, Anchors Aweigh and Singin win the Comedy award with 22 other nominees.  North by Northwest and A Fish Called Wanda, which are 17 and 16 points higher than Anchors Aweigh don’t win the Comedy award because of much tougher years.
Of course, MGM was big at the Oscars.  After talking the Academy out of awarding The Crowd (which Mayer didn’t like) in the first Oscars, the studio would win Best Picture six times over the following fourteen years.  After a gap of almost a decade, the studio would win three more in the 50’s but that was it.  After 1959, though it would earn six more nominations, MGM would never again win Best Picture.  In total, 57 films from MGM earned Best Picture noms and it was in 1st place in total Picture points from 1929 to 1992 and still sits in a tie for 4th even though it hasn’t had a nomination since 1987.
Only two films have won the Globe – Drama (Ben Hur, Zhivago) while six have won in Comedy or Musical (American in Paris, Guys and Dolls, Les Girls, Gigi, Sunshine Boys, Goodbye Girl).  In addition, 12 films have earned Drama noms (though only Network, Thelma and Louise and Leaving Las Vegas since 1968) and 25 in Comedy including four in 1962 (Period of Adjustment, Boys Night Out, Wonderful World of Brothers Grimm, Billie Rose’s Jumbo) and three in 1982 (Victor/Victoria, My Favorite Year, Diner).
Only two films have earned BAFTA noms for British Film (Shiralee, The Hill) but a whopping 28 have earned regular Picture noms, 20 of them in the 50’s, including the only winner (Ben Hur).  There have been two PGA nominees, both in 1995 (Leaving Las Vegas, Get Shorty).
MGM was always the popular studio, not the critically acclaimed one which is why after The Citadel somehow won both the NYFC and NBR it would take almost 60 years before another MGM film won more than one critics award (Leaving Las Vegas) though in between six films managed to win one each.

  • Best Director
  1. Stanley Kubrick  (2001: A Space Odyssey)
  2. David Lean  (Doctor Zhivago)
  3. Victor Fleming  (The Wizard of Oz)
  4. Erich von Stroheim  (Greed)
  5. George Cukor  (Gaslight)

Analysis:  Five films win the Nighthawk (the same five that win Picture).  Another 20 films earn a Nighthawk nomination though 8 of those didn’t earn Picture noms.  There are four Drama winners (Greed, Bad Day at Black Rock, Zhivago, 2001) and three Comedy winners (Thin Man, Wizard, Singin) with another 21 Drama and 20 Comedy nominees.
In spite of winning Best Picture nine times, only four MGM films have won Best Director at the Oscars: Gone with the Wind, Mrs. Miniver, Gigi, Ben Hur.  There have been 36 nominees as well, though, again, they don’t correspond well to Picture (one Picture winner wasn’t nominated and only 14 of the Director nominees weren’t from Picture nominees).  From 1932 to 1944, MGM had a whopping 17 Picture nominees without a Director nomination.  In the 5 BP Era, MGM had two films win Picture and Director, one film win Picture without Director, 10 films nominated for Picture without Director, 9 films nominated for Director without Picture but only six films nominated for Picture and Director without a win.  Since the last Picture nom, MGM has had three Director nominations (A Fish Called Wanda, Thelme and Louise, Leaving Las Vegas).
MGM has been lackluster at the Globes, winning four times (Gigi, Ben Hur, Zhivago, Network) and earning only 9 other nominations with only Leaving Las Vegas since 1965.
MGM’s heyday was gone before the BAFTAs introduced a Director award in 1968 so only five films have earned noms with no winners: Ryan’s Daughter, Network, Fame, Fish Called Wanda, Thelma & Louise.
MGM has won the DGA just twice (Gigi, Ben Hur) but has earned 18 other nominations, most recently Leaving Las VegasLeaving would also won two critics awards, or as many as all MGM films won through 1975.  In total, just five MGM films have won a critics award (Asphalt Jungle, Boy Friend, Network, Sunday in the Country, Leaving Las Vegas).

  • Best Adapted Screenplay:
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. The Philadelphia Story
  3. Greed
  4. Doctor Zhivago
  5. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Analysis:  Four films win the Nighthawk (Greed, Thin Man, Wizard, Zhivago) with another 23 nominations.  There are only three Drama winners (Greed, Citadel, Zhivago) but five Comedy winners (Thin Man, Wizard, Philadelphia, State of the Union, Lolita).  There are also 20 Drama nominees and 12 Comedy nominees.
Like many categories, MGM did well here for a while then just died out.  The studio won 8 Oscars by 1965 and no more after that.  It also earned 29 nominations though just four of those came after 1965.  MGM had The Bad and the Beautiful, the only film until 1996 to win the Oscar without a Picture nomination.
There have been more Globe winners in their Screenplay category (7) than nominees (6) including three winners early on before it was a regular category and the first regular winner (Zhivago).  There have been 10 BAFTA nominees (six before the Adapted / Original split) and none have won the award.  Sixteen films won the WGA before the Adapted / Original split.  Three more won Adapted during the genre split years with no winners since the merge.  In total, including all winners and nominees, 83 MGM films have earned noms at the WGA.

  • Best Original Screenplay:
  1. A Fish Called Wanda
  2. Network
  3. Singin’ in the Rain
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  5. North by Northwest

Analysis:  It takes until 1976 for MGM to win the Nighthawk here (Network) and then it wins just one more (Fish).  On the other hand, the 21 nominees range from 1928 to 1991.  Aside from Network, Fury and 2001 win the Drama award while A Night at the Opera, Ninotchka, Anchors Aweigh and Vacation from Marriage win weak years and North by Northwest and Fish win strong ones.  There are only 8 other Drama nominees because original dramatic writing wasn’t a strength of the studio while there are 17 Comedy nominees.
There are 17 Oscar winners among the MGM films including two each in 1949 and 1955 (thanks to competing categories) and three films that won an Oscar here and earned a nomination in the ostensible “Adapted” category at the same time.  Winners lasted longer here than in most categories thanks to Moonstruck and Thelma & Louise.  There have also been 40 Oscar nominees including 10 in four years from 1950 to 1953.  From 1946 to 1949, four MGM films won the Oscar but none earned a nomination without winning.  Lars and the Real Girl, nominated in 2007, is the most recent MGM nominee in any category.
See above for some Globe, BAFTA and WGA info.  Lars and the Real Girl earned a BFCA nom.  After the split at the WGA, Network won during the genre years while Moonstruck, Thelma & Louise and Bowling for Columbine all have won in the current set-up.  All three films to win critics awards (two for Network, one each for Diner and Lars and the Real Girl) were original.

  • Best Actor:
  1. Nicolas Cage  (Leaving Las Vegas)
  2. Charles Laughton  (Mutiny on the Bounty)
  3. Clark Gable  (Gone with the Wind)
  4. Kirk Douglas  (Lust for Life)
  5. William Holden  (Network)

Analysis:  MGM wins five early Nighthawks (1929-44) then just Cage after that.  There are also 22 other nominees including two from Network.  In Drama, it wins four early ones as well as Cage’s win with 25 other nominees.  In Comedy it dominates early on (8 wins by 1951) but only wins once more after that (Walter Matthau in Sunshine Boys) though its 22 nominations are much more spread out (1929-2007 with at least one every decade).
MGM is the only studio to have a film with three nominees and none of them won (Mutiny on the Bounty).  That was in the middle of a ten year stretch where MGM had six winners including four in a row from 37-40.  After 1940, there would only be four more winners: Ben Hur, Network, The Goodbye Girl, Leaving Las Vegas.  There are 36 nominees including the non-winner from Network and the three from Mutiny including 16 in the stretch from 1941 to 1958 when MGM had no winners.
The studio would win in Drama at the Globes roughly once a decade (1946, 1956, 1965, 1976, 1995) and quite a bit more often in Comedy (four time in the 50’s, twice each in the 60’s and 70’s then Get Shorty).  Ironically, before 1981, they had only lost the Comedy award six times and the only time since 1963 was The Sunshine Boys (which lost to itself) but from 1981 to 2007 the studio would have 10 nominees without a win.  In Drama, it would be all about the 60’s with two nominees before the decade, only two since (The Champ, Shoot the Moon) but six during the decade.
The Goodbye Girl is the only MGM film to simply win the BAFTA.  Julius Caesar managed to win both British Actor and Foreign Actor while both Network and A Fish Called Wanda won the award and had a second nominee.  Aside from those four, seventeen films have earned nominations but only three since the British / Foreign split was dropped in 1968 (Sunshine Boys, Shoot the Moon, Leaving Las Vegas).
Cage won SAG while Philip Seymour Hoffman (Flawless) and Ryan Gosling (Lars and the Real Girl) earned noms.  Cage won all six critics awards while no other performance won more than one; eight different performances won one each.

  • Best Actress
  1. Vivien Leigh  (Gone with the Wind)
  2. Ingrid Bergman  (Gaslight)
  3. Katharine Hepburn  (The Philadelphia Story)
  4. Elizabeth Taylor  (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof)
  5. Wendy Hiller  (Pygmalion)

Analysis:  As could be expected from a more female dominated studio, MGM does better here, winning nine Nighthawks (though most of them are before 1945).  What’s more, there are an additional 39 nominees including two each from Night of the Iguana and Thelma & Louise.  In its 14 year heyday (1929-42), it manages 23 nominations with six of those winning the award.  The studio isn’t as solid in Drama (six wins, 30 other nominations with two films scoring two noms each) but is quite strong in Comedy (14 wins with 11 of them by 1952 as well as 22 nominees).
From 1930 to 1944, MGM would win eight Oscars; after 1944 it would win three.  But from 1930 to 1944 there would be 21 additional nominees (including three each in 1930 and 1938) while after 1944 there would be 21 more nominees including two for Thelma & Louise.
Only three MGM films have win in Drama at the Globes (Gaslight, Sweet Bird of Youth, Network) while 13 have earned noms (including two for Thelma & Louise).  It would do much better in Comedy / Musical with 8 wins (most recently Moonstruck) and 20 nominees (three in the 00’s: Bandits, Legally Blonde, De-Lovely).
The only two BAFTA winners were back in the 50’s (Lili, Ask Any Girl) but there have been 20 nominees including two from Thelma & Louise.  MGM has done better here than in Actor with nine of those nominations coming since the split was dropped.
Elisabeth Shue (Leaving Las Vegas) is the only SAG nominee.  Shue won three critics awards as did Saranadon and Davis for T&L while the other 10 performances to win a critics award won just one each.  Interestingly, the first six winners of the NYFC were all for MGM films: Garbo (Anna Karenina), Luise Rainer (Great Ziegfeld), Garbo again (Camille), Margaret Sullavan (Three Comrades), Leigh and Hepburn.  Two of the other awards were for different performances by the same actress in one year (Jean Simmons in 1953 – The Actress / Young Bess).

  • Best Supporting Actor:
  1. Kevin Kline  (A Fish Called Wanda)
  2. Tom Courteney  (Doctor Zhivago)
  3. Cary Grant  (The Philadelphia Story)
  4. Burl Ives  (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof)
  5. Peter Sellers  (Lolita)

Analysis:  Five performances win the Nighthawk (the first four listed as well as Charles Laughton in Barretts of Wimpole Street).  There are also 30 other nominees including two each from Dinner at Eight and Ryan’s Daughter and a second from Zhivago.  Four films manage a genre win and another nomination, two in Drama (A Free Soul, Zhivago) and two in Comedy (Wizard of Oz, Fish Called Wanda).  There are three more Drama wins and 11 more Comedy wins however there are 21 more Drama nominees and only 9 more Comedy nominees.
Oddly, it would take until 1942 before MGM won an Oscar (Johnny Eager) and 1956 before a second (Lust for Life).  In all the studio has 8 Oscars and 21 more nominations including two for Quo Vadis.
There have been six Globe winners including Ryan’s Daughter which also had an additional nominee.  Fourteen more films have earned nominations with A Dry White Season the only nominee in the category since 1975.  Michael Palin (Fish) is the only BAFTA winner while there have been five other nominees.  There have been no SAG nominees.  Mickey Rourke (Diner) is the one person to win two critics awards while 10 other performances have earned one win each.  Rather notably, only two of the critics wins (including Rourke) turned into Oscar noms: Lee J. Cobb (Brothers Karamazov) and Robert Preston (Victor/Victoria).
George Burns (Globe) and Kevin Kline (BAFTA) both won Oscars in the category but earned lead noms from another group.

  • Best Supporting Actress:
  1. Gloria Grahame  (The Bad and the Beautiful)
  2. Margaret Hamilton  (The Wizard of Oz)
  3. Angela Lansbury  (Gaslight)
  4. Linda Hunt  (The Year of Living Dangerously)
  5. Ruth Hussey  (The Philadelphia Story)

Analysis:  A whopping 11 performances win the Nighthawk though only two (Night of the Iguana, Year of Living Dangerously) after 1952.  Of those 11, only Greed, Wizard of Oz and Gaslight managed to win another Nighthawk award.  Another 18 performances earn Nighthawk noms.  There are nine Drama winners and 12 more nominees with Gone with the Wind showing up in both.  In Comedy two films win the award with a second nominee (Dinner at Eight, Merrily We Live), seven films simply win the award and one film earns three nominations without a win at all (The Women).  In 1938 and 1939, MGM won Comedy both times and earned six of the ten nominations.
Eight performances have won the Oscar with two of them (Hattie McDaniel in Gone with the Wind, Teresa Wright in Mrs. Miniver) from films that also earned another Oscar nomination.  Aside from those 10, there have also been 20 more nominees including three each in 1938 and 1944.  Since 1960, the studio has as many winners (VIP’s, Patch of Blue, Network, Moonstruck) as nominees (Sweet Bird of Youth, Night of the Iguana, Goodbye Girl, Victor/Victoria).
There have been six Globe winners though Olympia Dukakis is the only one since 1963.  There have also been 16 nominees, the last of them in 1982 (Victor/Victoria and My Favorite Year).  There have been just four BAFTA nominees (Ryan’s Daughter, Wetherby, Moonstruck, A Fish Called Wanda).  Cate Blanchett (Bandits) is the only SAG nominee.  Dukakis won two critics awards while seven performances have won one each though only A Sunday in the County since 1969.

  • Best Ensemble
  1. Network
  2. The Philadelphia Story
  3. Gone with the Wind
  4. Mrs. Miniver
  5. Doctor Zhivago

Analysis:  This is based on the total points for acting for all members of the cast.  Network wins this easily but it’s one of the rare films in all of film history to earn at least a 5 from six different acting performances (Finch, Holden, Dunaway, Beatty, Duvall, Straight).

  • Best Editing:
  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  2. The Wizard of Oz
  3. Point Blank
  4. The Asphalt Jungle
  5. North by Northwest

Analysis:  It’s worth noting that none of my Top 5 earned any nominations for their editing.  Only three films win the Nighthawk (Thin Man, Wizard, 2001) while another 16 earn nominations.
Eight films have won the Oscar though none of them after Grand Prix in 1966.  Another 27 films have earned a nomination though only three since 1967 (Network, Fame, Thelma & Louise).  The best era, by far, was in the late 30’s as, even with only five nominees per year, MGM had at least two every year from 1935 to 1939.  Only five films have managed a BAFTA nomination (the three late Oscar nominees plus Ryan’s Daughter and A Fish Called Wanda).  Two films won ACE (How the West Was Won, Dirty Dozen) while seven others earned noms.

  • Best Cinematography:
  1. Doctor Zhivago
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. The Wizard of Oz
  4. Greed
  5. Gone with the Wind

Analysis:  By 1958, only two MGM had won the Nighthawk (Greed, Wizard) but from 1959 to 1970 four more did (North by Northwest, Zhivago, 2001, Ryan’s Daughter) and then there are no more MGM winners after 1970.  Among nominations it’s quite different with 13 nominees before 1959, only four from 59 to 70 and one much later (Leaving Las Vegas).
MGM won the Academy Award 17 times including five times in the 50’s but only twice after 1959, but for Lean films (Zhivago, Ryan’s Daughter).  This was one of the best categories for the studio with 64 nominations aside from the wins though only three times after 1976.  However, from 1943 to 1955 the studio managed 38 nominations with six of those films winning the Oscar.
Only two films managed a BAFTA win (The Hill, 2001) with only seven other nominees (only three after the British requirement was dropped).  MGM never managed an ACS nomination (which didn’t start until 1986).  Pennies from Heaven did win two critics awards.

  • Best Original Score:
  1. Doctor Zhivago
  2. The Wizard of Oz
  3. Gone with the Wind
  4. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
  5. North by Northwest

Analysis:  There are four winners, three of which I can hum in my mind easily (Wizard, North by Northwest, Zhivago) as well as Ryan’s Daughter while there are 15 nominees including the iconic Wind score (which loses to Wizard) and the under-rated Willow score.
Twelve films have won the Oscar including 8 from 1948 to 1959.  Another 48 have earned nominations including 15 films from 1951 to 1957.  Those numbers don’t include an Adapted Score winner (Victor/Victoria) and five more nominees.  Three films won the Globe (Zhivago, Shoes of the Fisherman, Shaft) while another 7 earned nominations.  Six films earned BAFTA nominations with no winners.

  • Best Sound:
  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  2. Ronin
  3. The Wizard of Oz
  4. Doctor Zhivago
  5. Singin’ in the Rain

Analysis:  Much like Cinematography, two early winners (Wizard, They Were Expendable) and then four from 59 to 68 (Ben-Hur, Zhivago, Grand Prix, 2001) and none after that.  This is a good category for nominations for MGM though with 24 of them spread out from 1930 to 1998 (Ronin).
Eight MGM films won Best Sound, all of them from 1930 to 1966.  Another 29 films earned nominations, most recently 2010 in 1984.  2001, Fame and The Wall all won the BAFTA while Ryan’s Daughter, Network and GoldenEye earned noms.  There have been no CAS nominees.

  • Best Art Direction:
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Doctor Zhivago
  4. Gone with the Wind
  5. Singin’ in the Rain

Analysis:  There are five Nighthawk winners but Wind and Singin are out in favor of Ben-Hur and Gaslight.  There are 27 other nominees but only three after 1958 (Lolita, Far from the Madding Crowd, Victor/Victoria).
When Zhivago won the Oscar it was the 15th MGM film to win the award in less than 40 years; it would also be the last.  Still, the number is impressive as are the 52 nominations in the category including 17 in the eight year stretch from 1950 to 1957 and another 8 from 1962 to 1964.  Only two of the 52 would come after 1976 (Victor/Victoria, 2010).
The only BAFTA winner is 2001 while three other films earned noms (The Hill, Ryan’s Daughter, Beatrix Potter).  There have been no ADG nominees.

  • Best Visual Effects
  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  2. The Wizard of Oz
  3. Forbidden Planet
  4. Stargate
  5. Poltergeist

Analysis:  There are seven winners, spread out from 1936 to 1968 as well as 15 nominees but they cover a stretch from 1926 to 1995.
Eight films have won the Oscar while another 16 have earned nominations.  Poltergeist is the only BAFTA winner with GoldenEye the only other nominee.  With the late arrival of the VES awards, only Die Another Day and Valkyrie have earned noms and neither won.

  • Best Sound Editing
  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  2. Ronin
  3. The Wizard of Oz
  4. Forbidden Planet
  5. Willow

Analysis:  Seven films win the Nighthawk with San Francisco, Wizard, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, Ben-Hur and 2001 taking home both Visual Effects and Sound Editing.  There are also 18 nominees but the crossover with Visual Effects is actually fairly minimal there.
Two films have won the Oscar (Grand Prix, Dirty Dozen) and two more earned noms (Poltergeist, Willow).  Nine films have earned MPSE wins with another eight earning noms.

  • Best Costume Design:
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. Gone with the Wind
  3. Doctor Zhivago
  4. Ben Hur
  5. Lust for Life

Analysis:  Given how good MGM was at producing good-to-look-at Musicals, it’s surprising that the studio only manages six Nighthawks with Wizard being the only Musical (and I list it as a Kids film).  The other five winners are Napoleon, A Tale of Two Cities, Gaslight, Ben-Hur and Zhivago.  There are, however, another 36 nominees and 14 of those are Musicals.  From 1948 to 1958, MGM doesn’t win the Nighthawk at all but earns 16 nominations with nine of those being Musicals.
Though MGM’s golden era was done before the Oscars began this award in 1948, MGM still has won 10 awards and earned another 26 nominations.  Six films have earned BAFTA noms, four of them British films when they still only rewarded British films in the tech categories.  Four films have earned CDG noms.

  • Best Makeup
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Faust
  4. London After Midnight
  5. Willow

Analysis:  Because my award goes back to 1926 (as opposed to the Oscar), MGM wins six awards and earns 12 more nominations.
MGM won the first award in this category, a special award in 1964 for 7 Faces of Dr. Lao and would later earn one Oscar nom (2010).  Three films won the MUASG (Thomas Crown Affair, both Legally Blonde films) while two others earned noms.

  • Best Technical Aspects
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Doctor Zhivago
  4. Gone with the Wind
  5. Ben-Hur

Analysis:  Simply adding up all the points in the technical categories.  These are all magnificent technical films across the board.

  • Best Original Song:
  1. “Over the Rainbow”  (The Wizard of Oz)
  2. “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door”  (Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid)
  3. “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”  (Meet Me in St. Louis)
  4. “We’re Off to See the Wizard”  (The Wizard of Oz)
  5. “That’s Entertainment”  (The Band Wagon)

Analysis:  All five of these are 9 point songs.  The first, of course, is the best song ever written for a film and the other four are all simply fantastic as well.  MGM wins 15 Nighthawks (by far its best category) including six in the 40’s when the competition wasn’t great and only two after 1958 (“Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door”, “When the Tigers Broke Free” from Pink Floyd: The Wall).  Three films win the Nighthawk and earn a second nomination (Easter Parade, Singin’ in the Rain, Jailhouse Rock) while Wizard wins and earns two other nominations.  There are also 19 films that just earn nominations and for 16 of those films, it’s their only Nighthawk nom.  In fact, of the 34 films that earn a Nighthawk nom (or win), 23 of them earn no other nominations while, of the 25 MGM films to earn six or more Nighthawk noms only WIzard and Singin manage a Song nom.
Even though the best of MGM’s songs have mostly gone unrewarded (see how few earned Oscar noms in my Top 5), MGM has won eight Oscar and earned another 25 nominations (including Fame, the first film to ever do both).  “Another Brick in the Wall” won the first BAFTA award.  Yellow Rolls Royce and Fame won the Globe while 10 other films have earned nominations.

  • Best Animated Film:
  1. The Secret of Nimh

Analysis:  It’s the only MGM Animated film to reach ***.5 and it’s, ironically, the one film officially released by MGM/UA.  MGM didn’t do much with animation (I’ve seen seven feature films and as far as I know that’s all that MGM ever released).  It did win the Nighthawk.

  • Best Foreign Film:
  1. Faust
  2. Napoleon
  3. Live Flesh
  4. The Four Days of Naples

Analysis:  MGM didn’t do much distribution of foreign films and these are the only four off the list to earn ***.5 or better from me.  All four of them earned Nighthawk nominations but none won the award.
The Four Days of Naples is the only film distributed in the States by MGM to ever earn an Oscar nom.  A Sunday in the Country, Ginger and Fred and Live Flesh all earned BAFTA noms.  A Sunday in the Country won three critics awards.  Any Number Can Win won the Globe while six other films earned nominations.

  • Best Film (by my points system):
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. Doctor Zhivago
  3. Singin’ in the Rain
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  5. Network

Analysis:  This just tallies up all of my points.  The Wizard of Oz actually has the second most points of any film in history (behind Return of the King) with 168.  It’s a long drop to Zhivago but Zhivago is still the rare film (just over 50 by 2011) to earn over 100 total points.  Singin, 2001 and Network aren’t that far below.

  • Best Film  (weighted points system)
  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. Doctor Zhivago
  3. Network
  4. Singin’ in the Rain
  5. Gaslight

Analysis:  Wizard has the third most points ever.  Network and Gaslight move up the list because of their quality of acting which are weighted higher.

Best Films With No Top 5 Finishers:

  • The Thin Man
  • Ride the High Country
  • Bad Day at Black Rock

Worst Film with a Top 5 Finish:

  • Stargate

Nighthawk Notables

  • Best Film to Watch Over and Over:  The Wizard of Oz
  • Best Line  (comedic):  “Aristotle was not Belgian.  The central message of Buddhism is not ‘every man for himself.’  And the London Underground is not a political movement.  Those are all mistakes, Otto.  I looked them up.”  (Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda)
  • Best Line  (dramatic):  “Your eyes are full of hate 41.  That’s good.  Hate keeps a man alive.”  (Jack Hawkins in Ben-Hur)
  • Worst Line:  “She’s no butterfly. Tony, she’s all pelvic thrust. I mean, she prowls. She’s got it!”  (Patrick Bristow in Showgirls)
  • Best Opening:  2001: A Space Odyssey
  • Best Ending:  Ride the High Country
  • Best Scene:  the world turns color in The Wizard of Oz
  • Best Kiss:  Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable in Gone with the Wind
  • Best Death Scene:  Margaret Hamilton in The Wizard of Oz
  • Most Gut-Wrenching Scene:  the ending of Greed
  • Most Heart-Wrenching Scene:  the end of Ride the High Country
  • Best Use of a Song:  “Over the Rainbow”  (The Wizard of Oz)
  • Best Soundtrack:  The Wizard of Oz
  • Best Rock Soundtrack:  Pink Floyd: The Wall
  • Best Original Song from a Bad Film:  “Theme from Shaft
  • Funniest Film:  A Fish Called Wanda
  • Worst Film I Saw in the Theater:  Showgirls
  • Worst Sequel:  National Lampoon’s Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj
  • Worst Remake:  Tarzan the Ape Man (1981)
  • Worst Film by a Top 100 Director:  Dream Lover  (Alan J. Pakula)
  • Best Remake:  Gaslight
  • Watch the Film, SKIP the Book:  The Americanization of Emily
  • Read the Book, SKIP the Film:  Tarzan the Ape Man (1981)
  • Performance to Fall in Love With:  Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz
  • Sexiest Performance:  Elizabeth Taylor in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
  • Highest Attractiveness / Acting Ability Ratio:  Halle Berry in Die Another Day
  • Best Performance in an Otherwise Terrible Film:  Leslie Howard in A Free Soul
  • Coolest Performance:  Lee Marvin in Point Blank
  • Best Tagline:  “A tale of murder, lust, greed, revenge, and seafood.”  (A Fish Called Wanda)
  • Best Cameo:  Robbie Coltrane in The World is Not Enough
  • Sexiest Cameo:  Brad Pitt in Thelma & Louise
  • Funniest Cameo:  Desmond Llewellyn in The World is Not Enough

note:  Soundtracks I Own from MGM Films (chronological):  The Wizard of Oz, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, Pink Floyd: The Wall (sort of)

At the Theater:  By the end of 2011, I had probably seen over 1000 films in the theater at some point or another.  But MGM was dying at the point when I started going to the movies.  Ironically, though, one of the first movies I ever remember seeing (Clash of the Titans) is an MGM film.  It wouldn’t be until 1992 that I would see another one (The Cutting Edge).  After that I count 13 films I have seen in the theater, mostly in college or Bond films (Speechless, Stargate, Blown Away, GoldenEye, Get Shorty, Leaving Las Vegas, Showgirls, Kingpin, Tomorrow Never Dies, The Man in the Iron Mask, Ronin, The World is Not Enough, Die Another Day).  And, of course, I have seen The Wizard of Oz in the theater, I think four times now and the next time it plays I’ll see it again.

Awards


Academy Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  291
  • Number of Films That Have Won Oscars:  99
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  155
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  27
  • Best Picture Nominations:  57
  • Total Number of Nominations:  741
  • Total Number of Wins:  168
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Cinematography  (80)
  • Number of Films with Nominations I Haven’t Seen:  2
  • Directors with Most Oscar Nominated Films:  Vincente Minnelli  (16)
  • Best Film with No Oscar Nominations:  Point Blank
  • Year with Most MGM Nominated Films:  1953  (16)
  • Year with Most MGM Nominations:  1939  (34)

Oscar Oddities:

  • MGM has the first film to 8 wins (Gone with the Wind), the first to 9 (Gigi) and the first to 11 (Ben Hur).
  • For over 40 years, Gigi had the most (or tied for the most) wins without a loss with 9.
  • Of the 17 other films (aside from Gigi) with at least 7 nominations, the only one with less than two losses is Ben Hur, going 11 for 12.
  • MGM has the film with 2nd (Gone with the Wind) and 3rd (Ben Hur) most points and is the only studio with 3 of the Top 10.
  • The only film with more than one nomination to win all of its nominations aside from Gigi is Grand Prix (3 for 3).
  • William Wyler made just two films for MGM but they both won Picture and Director, earned 24 combined nominations and won 17 Oscars.  By contrast, W.S. Van Dyke made over 40 films at the studio, 13 of which earned a combined 27 Oscar nominations and won just 5 Oscars.
  • While MGM was known for Musicals, none of the 7 Musicals to earn 10 or more Oscar nominations were from MGM.

Most Oscar Nominations

  1. Gone with the Wind  –  13
  2. Mrs. Miniver  –  12
  3. Ben Hur  –  12
  4. Doctor Zhivago  –  10
  5. Network  –  10
  6. Gigi  –  9
  7. Mutiny on the Bounty  –  8
  8. Quo Vadis  –  8
  9. An American in Paris  –  8
  10. How the West Was Won  –  8

Most Oscar Wins:

  1. Ben Hur  –  11
  2. Gigi  –  9
  3. Gone with the Wind  –  8
  4. Mrs. Miniver  –  6
  5. An American in Paris  –  6

Most Oscar Points:

  1. Gone with the Wind  –  670
  2. Ben Hur  –  660
  3. Mrs. Miniver  –  610
  4. Gigi  –  510
  5. Network  –  490
  6. An American in Paris  –  420
  7. Doctor Zhivago  –  420
  8. Mutiny on the Bounty  –  340
  9. Moonstruck  –  335
  10. The Great Ziegfeld  –  320

Oscar Nominated Films:

  • MGM had at least one nominated film every year through 1973 and didn’t go more than a year without a nominated film until 1996-97.
  • MGM had at least three nominated films every year from 1929 to 1960.
  • MGM lead all studios in nominated films in 1929-30, 32-34, 36-38, 49-53, 55, 58, 62 and 68.
  • MGM had the most nominated films in the 30’s and 50’s.
  • Since earning its first nomination in 1931, Columbia has never gone back-to-back years without at least one nominated film.
  • The high number for nominated films in one year is 7 in 1984.
  • MGM took over the #1 spot in 1934, dropped for a year, then had the most total nominated films from 1936 until Paramount finally passed it in 1994.

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  8  (3rd)
  • 1930’s:  70  (1st)
  • 1940’s:  67  (3rd)
  • 1950’s:  80  (1st)
  • 1960’s:  36  (3rd – tie)
  • 1970’s:  11  (7th)
  • 1980’s:  14  (8th)
  • 1990’s:  4  (15th – tie)
  • 2000’s:  1  (29th)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  291  (4th)

Oscar Nominations:

  • MGM has lead in total nominations in the following years: 1929-30, 32, 34-39, 42, 44, 51, 53, 55, 59, setting records in 1936 (28), 1938 (33) and 1939 (34).
  • The studio was briefly in first place in 1930, then rose back to it in 1936, staying there until 1986.
  • MGM is the only studio to earn over 200 nominations in a decade and also has the second most nominations in a single decade.

Years with Most Total Oscar Nominations:

  • 1939:  34
  • 1938:  33
  • 1953:  31
  • 1936, 1951, 1955:  28

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  13  (3rd – tie)
  • 1930’s:  183  (1st)
  • 1940’s:  161  (3rd)
  • 1950’s:  203  (1st)
  • 1960’s:  93  (5th)
  • 1970’s:  37  (7th)
  • 1980’s:  40  (7th)
  • 1990’s:  12  (15th)
  • 2000’s:  1  (32nd – tie)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  743  (4th)

Oscar Wins:

  • MGM’s streak of at least one Oscar win every year from 1934 to 1960 is the second longest for any studio in Oscar history.  It also has the second longest streak of winning multiple Oscars (nine years – 1934-42).
  • MGM became, in 1939, the first studio to hit double digit wins in one year, something no studio would do again until MGM did it in 1958 and then again in 1959.
  • MGM was the first studio (and one of only two) to have back-to-back years of winning at least 10 Oscars.
  • It would take until 1973-74 for back-to-back years without an MGM film winning an Oscar.
  • MGM has had the most or tied for the most Oscar wins in 11 different years.
  • MGM has not won an Oscar since 1995.
  • After a brief rise to #1 overall in 1931 and 1932, MGM took over the #1 spot in 1934 and held it until 2000.
  • MGM’s 48 Oscars in the 50’s is still the most for a studio in a single decade.

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  3  (3rd – tie)
  • 1930’s:  39  (1st)
  • 1940’s:  37  (2nd)
  • 1950’s:  48  (1st)
  • 1960’s:  24  (5th)
  • 1970’s:  11  (7th)
  • 1980’s:  7  (7th – tie)
  • 1990’s:  2  (14th – tie)
  • 2000’s:  0
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  171  (3rd)

Critics Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Won Critics Awards:  42
  • Number of Films With Multiple Awards:  15
  • Best Picture Wins:  10
  • Total Number of Awards:  73
  • Category With the Most Awards:  Actress  (16)

Most Awards:

  1. Leaving Las Vegas  –  13
  2. Network  –  4
  3. Thelma and Louise  –  4
  4. Diner  –  3
  5. 11 films  –  2

Most Points:

  1. Leaving Las Vegas  –  952
  2. Network  –  350
  3. A Sunday in the Country  –  237
  4. Thelma and Louise  –  229
  5. The Citadel  /  Diner  –  180

Highest Points Percentage:

  1. The Citadel  –  37.34%
  2. Leaving Las Vegas  –  25.29%
  3. Ben Hur  –  17.58%
  4. Network  –  16.71%
  5. Night Must Fall  –  16.60%

Most Points by Critics Group:

  • NYFC:  Leaving Las Vegas  –  170
  • LAFC:  Leaving Las Vegas  –  330
  • NSFC:  Leaving Las Vegas  –  230
  • BSFC:  Diner  –  140
  • CFC:  Leaving Las Vegas  –  140
  • NBR:  Julius Caesar  /  Far from the Madding Crowd  –  170

note:  Network had 270 points at the LAFC, the second most for any MGM film from any group.

Golden Globes

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  125
  • Number of Films That Have Won Globes:  40
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  54
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  10
  • Best Picture Nominations:  45  (14 – Drama, 31 – Comedy)
  • Total Number of Nominations:  233
  • Total Number of Wins:  60
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Picture  (45)
  • Best Film with No Globe Nominations:  2001: A Space Odyssey

Globe Oddities:

  • Network, the only MGM film nominated in all five major categories, won four of them but lost Picture.
  • Only three MGM films have been nominated in both supporting categories: The Bad and the Beautiful, Sweet Bird of Youth and The Night of the Iguana.
  • Because of the late addition of Screenplay (1965) the only MGM films nominated for Picture, Director and Screenplay are Zhivago (won all three), Network (won two) and A Patch of Blue.
  • The Night of the Iguana, tied for the most noms for an MGM film, won no awards.

Most Globe Nominations:

  1. Gigi  –  6
  2. The Night of the Iguana  –  6
  3. The Teahouse of the August Moon  –  5
  4. Billie Rose’s Jumbo  –  5
  5. Doctor Zhivago  –  5
  6. The Sunshine Boys  –  5
  7. Network  –  5
  8. The Goodbye Girl  –  5
  9. Victor/Victoria  –  5
  10. Moonstruck  –  5

Most Globes:

  1. Doctor Zhivago  –  5
  2. Network  –  4
  3. The Goodbye Girl  –  4
  4. Gigi  –  3
  5. Ben-Hur  /  The Sunshine Boys  –  3

Most Globe Points:

  1. Doctor Zhivago  –  390
  2. Network  –  360
  3. Gigi  –  355
  4. The Goodbye Girl  –  350
  5. The Sunshine Boys  –  305
  6. Ben-Hur  –  285
  7. Moonstruck  –  255
  8. The Night of the Iguana  –  225
  9. Victor/Victoria  –  210
  10. Les Girls  –  205

Guild Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  111
  • Number of Films That Have Won Guild Awards:  32
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  32
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  4
  • Best Picture Nominations:  0
  • Total Number of Nominations:  147
  • Total Number of Wins:  39
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Screenplay  (83)
  • Best Film with No Guild Nominations:  Oliver Twist

note:  Because the proliferation of guild awards didn’t happen until the late 80’s (before 1986 there were only four guilds that gave awards) and because MGM petered out starting in the late 80’s, the awards here are a bit skewed which is why the number of nominations and awards per film are so small.  Only eight of the 111 nominated films weren’t nominated by one of those first four guilds (DGA, WGA, ACE, MPSE).

Most Guild Nominations:

  1. Leaving Las Vegas  –  5
  2. Die Another Day  –  4
  3. The Asphalt Jungle  –  3
  4. Ben-Hur  –  3
  5. The Unsinkable Molly Brown  /  Network  /  De-Lovely  –  3

Most Guild Wins:

  1. Gigi  –  2
  2. Ben-Hur  –  2
  3. How the West Was Won  –  2
  4. Victor/Victoria  –  2

Most Guild Points:

  1. Leaving Las Vegas  –  240
  2. Gigi  –  170
  3. Ben-Hur  –  170
  4. Network  –  150
  5. The Asphalt Jungle  –  125
  6. An American in Paris  –  125
  7. Father’s Little Dividend  –  125
  8. Lili  –  125
  9. Bells are Ringing  –  125
  10. Thelma & Louise  –  125

The BAFTAs

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  74
  • Number of Films That Have Won BAFTAs:  12
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  26
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  4
  • Best Picture Nominations:  28
  • Total Number of Nominations:  143
  • Total Number of Wins:  17
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Picture  (28)
  • Best Film with No BAFTA Nominations:  North by Northwest

Most BAFTA Noms:

  1. Ryan’s Daughter  –  10
  2. Network  –  9
  3. A Fish Called Wanda  –  9
  4. Thelma & Louise  –  8
  5. The Hill  –  6

note:  Ryan’s Daughter and Thelma & Louise won no awards.

Most BAFTA Wins:

  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  3
  2. Julius Caesar  –  2
  3. Pink Floyd: The Wall  –  2
  4. A Fish Called Wanda  –  2
  5. eight films  –  1

Most BAFTA Points:

  1. A Fish Called Wanda  –  390
  2. Network  –  350
  3. Ryan’s Daughter  –  295
  4. Thelma & Louise  –  280
  5. The Hill  –  245

Broadcast Film Critics Awards  (Critic’s Choice Awards)

Because the BFCA arose after MGM had, for the most part, stopped making films, the only film with any nominations is Lars and the Real Girl (Screenplay, Actor).

All Awards

Most Nominations:

  1. Network  –  31
  2. Leaving Las Vegas  –  29
  3. Thelma & Louise  –  24
  4. Ben-Hur  –  22
  5. Doctor Zhivago  –  20
  6. Gigi  –  18
  7. Ryan’s Daughter  –  18
  8. Moonstruck  –  18
  9. A Fish Called Wanda  –  17
  10. Fame  –  16

Most Awards:

  1. Ben-Hur  –  19
  2. Leaving Las Vegas  –  16
  3. Gigi  –  14
  4. Network  –  14
  5. Doctor Zhivago  –  11
  6. Gone with the Wind  –  9
  7. An American in Paris  –  8
  8. Moonstruck  –  8
  9. The Goodbye Girl  –  7
  10. Thelma & Louise  –  7

Total Awards Points

  1. Leaving Las Vegas  –  1628
  2. Network  –  1613
  3. Ben-Hur  –  1289
  4. Thelma & Louise  –  1027
  5. Gigi  –  997
  6. Doctor Zhivago  –  908
  7. Moonstruck  –  849
  8. The Goodbye Girl  –  756
  9. Gone with the Wind  –  740
  10. An American in Paris  –  727

Highest Awards Percentage:

  1. The Champ  –  16.15%
  2. Gone with the Wind  –  15.86%
  3. Network  –  15.84%
  4. Mutiny on the Bounty  –  13.84%
  5. Ben-Hur  –  12.96%
  6. Mrs. Miniver  –  12.76%
  7. Gigi  –  11.26%
  8. The Big House  –  11.20%
  9. The Divorcee  –  11.20%
  10. Leaving Las Vegas  –  11.98%

Lists

Lists for studios are harder because I have to come up with them myself.  There are no books that rank the best films by studio and no way to sort through them on the IMDb or TSPDT (actually, the IMDb has now changed that, which, since it came after I mentioned the idea to someone who works at the IMDb, I would like to think I had something to do with that; it’s not perfect since if you do the search for MGM, it includes UA films).

The TSPDT Top 25 MGM Films

  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey  (#3)
  2. Singin’ in the Rain  (#12)
  3. North by Northwest  (#61)
  4. Greed  (#93)
  5. The Wizard of Oz  (#105)
  6. Gone with the Wind  (#109)
  7. The Passenger  (#136)
  8. Napoleon  (#172)
  9. Meet Me in St. Louis  (#232)
  10. The Crowd  (#234)
  11. The Band Wagon  (#246)
  12. The Shop Around the Corner  (#257)
  13. Freaks  (#258)
  14. The Philadelphia Story  (#304)
  15. Network  (#406)
  16. A Night at the Opera  (#476)
  17. Some Came Running  (#481)
  18. The Wind  (#482)
  19. Doctor Zhivago  (#502)
  20. Faust  (#506)
  21. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid  (#533)
  22. Ninotchka  (#565)
  23. The Asphalt Jungle  (#566)
  24. Ben-Hur  (#594)
  25. The Bad and the Beautiful  (#683)

note:  The numbers in parenthesis are the position on the most recent (2019) TSPDT list.  This list would have been different in any other year but not by much (The Bad and the Beautiful finally made the Top 25 for the first time this year, bumping off Lolita).

The IMDb Top 7 MGM Films

  1. North by Northwest
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Singin’ in the Rain
  4. Gone with the Wind
  5. Network
  6. Ben-Hur
  7. The Wizard of Oz

note:  Those are all the MGM films in the Top 250 at the IMDb.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office

  1. Gone with the Wind  –  $189.52 mil
  2. Hannibal  –  $165.09 mil
  3. Die Another Day  –  $160.94 mil
  4. The World is Not Enough  –  $126.94 mil
  5. Tomorrow Never Dies  –  $125.30 mil
  6. Doctor Zhivago  –  $111.72 mil
  7. GoldenEye  –  $106.42 mil
  8. Legally Blonde  –  $96.52 mil
  9. Legally Blonde II: Red, White and Blonde  –  $90.18 mil
  10. Moonstruck  –  $80.64 mil

note:  A little bit higher across the board but not markedly different than UA’s Top 10 numbers.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office
(all-time, adjusted to December 31, 2011)

  1. Gone with the Wind  –  $1,604.12 mil
  2. Doctor Zhivago  –  $984.39 mil
  3. Ben-Hur  –  $771.51 mil
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  $346.85 mil
  5. Hannibal  –  $231.30 mil
  6. Die Another Day  –  $218.74 mil
  7. Tomorrow Never Dies  –  $213.40 mil
  8. Poltergeist  –  $206.62 mil
  9. The World is Not Enough  –  $197.09 mil
  10. GoldenEye  –  $193.52 mil

note:  On the other hand, here, the Top 3 blow away UA while the rest lag behind UA.

Books

The Complete Films of Clark Gable, Gabe Essoe, 1970

Though, ironically, Gable won his Oscar while on loan to Columbia, he was one of the biggest MGM stars and possibly the biggest.  The fact that he was under contract to MGM and that Selznick absolutely had to have him as Rhett Butler meant that the biggest film of all-time was distributed by MGM and made them a boatload of money.  Like all the books of this kind, a good description of every one of his films, covered with two pages for every film (except GWTW which gets six).

The Films of Norma Shearer, Jack Jacobs and Myron Braum, 1976

My favorite of the MGM stars would get her own book in 1976 which isn’t bad given the rate that the books were coming out.  Again, it covers all of her films but the bulk of them are MGM films.  While they are covered in the history of her career at the beginning of the book, oddly, the book doesn’t list in her individual films when she earned Oscar nominations.

All the Stars in Heaven: Louis B. Mayer’s M-G-M, Gary Carey, 1981

A worthwhile book that covers the first 25 years of the studio, when Mayer was in charge.

The MGM Story: The Complete History of Sixty-Five Roaring Years, John Douglas Eames, 1990

One of those great coffee table books first published in the 70’s and then often republished (with updates) through the 80’s.  This one, published in 1990, covers the vast majority of MGM’s history, given that MGM scaled massively back and then went defunct in the years following its release.

Norma Shearer: A Life, Gavin Lambert, 1990

Most of the research, including interviews with Shearer, was done in the early 70’s but because family members were holding out hopes for writing a book, the book itself wasn’t completed and published until 1990.  Either way, it’s a solid biography of one of the key MGM players, not only because Shearer was a respected (numerous Oscars noms) and powerful star but because she was married to Irving Thalberg for a decade while he was in charge of production at MGM, giving it an insight to the studio that most star biographies don’t have.

MGM: When the Lion Roars, Peter Hay, 1991

A very good coffee table book that looks at MGM’s history and has numerous sidebars for each year that give notable events and films.  Lots and lots of stills.  The downside is that the book only covers the studio’s “golden age” and ends with 1959 even though it was published in 1991.

The Golden Girls of MGM, Jane Ellen Wayne, 2002

Wayne likes the tawdry details (before this her books include Marilyn’s Men, Ava’s Men and Cooper’s Women) and so, while she does talk somewhat about the movies these actresses were in, it’s much more about their personal lives, especially their sex lives.  After covering the main 10 actresses, she has a section called “Famous But Not So Naughty” which kind of sums up her goal.

Clark Gable: A Biography, Warren G. Harris, 2002

A biography of possibly MGM’s biggest star, this one, while it does give details on his private life, focuses much more on his work.  A fairly readable biography.  I don’t know, though, if my name was Warren and my first name started H-a-r, I wouldn’t use my middle initial G and remind people of one of the worst presidents.

The Wizardry of Oz: The Artistry and Magic of the 1939 M-G-M Classic, Jay Scarfone and William Stillman, 1999 / rev. 2004

A great book for any lover of The Wizard of Oz (and if you aren’t one then what the hell is wrong with you?), full of fascinating details and lots and lots of stills from the film, behind the scenes and other things related to the film.

The Leading Men of MGM, Jane Ellen Wayne, 2004

Wayne is back at it, because she apparently decided it wasn’t enough so she had to go into all the tawdry details of the men’s lives as well.  For those who love Hollywood gossip.

Clark Gable: Tormented Star, David Bret, 2007

Another tell-all biography concerning a star about which there is a lot to tell.

M-G-M: Hollywood’s Greatest Backlot, Steven Bingen, Stephen X. Sylvester and Michael Troyan, 2011

A nice coffee table book (though presented sideways) pictorial history of MGM’s lot with a list in the back of the book that covers which movies were filmed on which parts of the lot.

Reviews

The Best MGM Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

Thelma & Louise (1991, dir. Ridley Scott)

It’s hard to remember what a revolutionary movie this was when it was first released.  Of course, it has its roots in a film like Bonnie & Clyde, of two people together on the run with the probability that death is the only thing at the end of the road.  There are several massive differences, of course, that make this, while not a film as revolutionary as that one, a story that is even more so.

Thelma is a bit of a ditz, a pretty woman who’s stuck in a dead-end marriage and feels the need to escape.  Louise isn’t quite as trapped because while her job is boring and predictable (she’s a waitress), she’s not trapped in a marriage (she has a boyfriend) and that gives her a bit more freedom.  They head out for a road trip but when they make their first stop and a guy who at first seems friendly to Thelma turns nasty and violent in the parking lot, their lives as they knew them are gone.

The easy thing to point out about this film is that the difference between Thelma and Louise and Bonnie and Clyde is that the former two don’t have to find death at the end of their road.  Their story is juxtaposed against a decent cop who has been tracking them and thinks he knows what happened and might be willing to help.  But they don’t feel like they can trust him, partially because they have backed themselves into a bad position (they kidnap a cop, they blow up a tanker) and partially because Louise has already been down this road before and hasn’t been believed.  In the end, that’s kind of borne out when the cop is prevented from being able to talk them during the showdown.  By that point, of course, Thelma and Louise have made their choice and they’re going out in a blaze of glory.

Road movies had been almost exclusively the purvey of the male-dominated film.  To have two women, women who are willing to stand up for themselves, women who are willing to fight back with violence if they have to, was something new.  And the fact that they go on the run in the first place is sadly not a plot hole because their fear that they would not be believed is very real and is continually borne out by circumstances almost everyday across the country.  They face violence and then they are not believed.

The film has great direction from Ridley Scott, a first-rate Oscar winning script from Callie Khouri and of course fantastic performances from its two leads.  One critics group split their award between both Susan Sarandon as the tougher Louisa and Geena Davis as Thelma though most of the groups, the Nighthawks included, relegated both performances to their nominee list thanks to Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs.

One last word about this film.  In my mind, I pair it a little with Lone Star.  That’s because this is the film where Brad Pitt shone through and was great in a small, limited performance (as a hitchhiker they pick up who sleeps with Thelma then steals their money) before breaking out and showing he didn’t really have the charisma to be a star (though when not trying to be a star, could be a fantastic character actor) while five years later McConaughey would do the exact same thing.

The Worst MGM Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

Hercules (1983, dir. Luigi Cozzi (billed as Lewis Coates))

I will begin with a small digression.  In 2005, when V and I were selling our house, we were also getting rid of some stuff.  Because it was stuff well-suited to sell at a comic convention, we bought a table at the Portland convention.  The cost of that table ($75 I want to say) was well worth it, because aside from making over $300 in sales, the two of us and our friend John got in the convention for free and go to see things like Lorenzo Llamas in line with a former Playboy Playmate to get food, the crazy hot agent of the author down the row from us (no one cared about the author – everyone kept trying to get looks at the agent) and a chance to see, up close, how freakishly big Lou Ferrigno is.  He wasn’t that tall (well, he’s four inches taller than me but I was at a sporting event once when I saw Wilt Chamberlain and his legs went over the seat in front of him) but he was simply enormous.  He was always well suited to play the Hulk on television.  Also note that the Hulk didn’t require him to have lines.  If you’re going to be the star of a film, you have to say lines and this film would prove that compared to Lou Ferrigno, Arnie is a Shakespearean actor.

If the piss-poor performance of Ferrigno in the lead role was the only problem with this film, it would at least be tolerable, or at least be bad more on the level of Conan the Destroyer or Red Sonja.  But the key to why this film is so bad is right there on the poster.  “Is he being attacked by some sort of spaceship” Veronica asked when I showed her the poster.  The answer, is, yeah, kind of.

See, this film isn’t really a Hercules film.  Which is astounding because if you open D’Aulaire’s Book of Greek Myths (if you don’t have a copy that is a major shortcoming you should rectify) to page 132 you will find a number of pages devoted to his deeds.  Let’s remember that he did twelve magnificent labors that showed off his great strength, more than enough to fill a feature film.  So, with that wealth of stories to choose from, what in the hell are the makers of this film thinking having him fight a wizard who’s trying to conquer the world through some sort of sci-fi contraption?  And why give Hercules a love interest (Sybil Danning, also awful, playing Araidne, who had nothing to do with Hercules) and not have it involve the Amazons where you could bring in an entire race of warrior women and even do it while staying true to the original myths?

I have a weakness for Adventure films.  I have seen the Jason Mamoa Conan film more than once even though it is clearly awful.  But this film is just so misconceived, so badly acted, so stupid you shouldn’t even bother with it once.

Bonus Review

Ronin (1998, dir. John Frankenheimer)

I prefer the films in this category to be ones that were released when I was in high school or college and something I saw in the theater.  But most of those are already reviewed (or a future review) or not very good.  In the 80’s, there are a number of films I already reviewed as RCM films (Clash of the Titans, Secret of NIMH, Spaceballs, Willow).  So, it was a mediocre film like The Cutting Edge or Stargate or move forward a bit in time.  I can’t even get more recent than this – the only two MGM films after Ronin that I saw in the theater I have already reviewed (Bond films).

John Frankenheimer was an interesting but very uneven director.  In the 60’s with films like Birdman of Alcatraz, Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May, The Train and Seconds, he was one of the most sought after directors around, especially for thrillers.  But after The Fixer (which was good but a bomb) he had more trouble and by the late 90’s it had been over 20 years since his last really solid film (French Connection II) and he was coming off one of the most public film disasters of the decade (The Island of Dr. Moreau).  Then came this film.

First, I wanted to see it because of the title – I have always been fascinated by samurai culture and just titling the film Ronin (I was already familiar with the story of the 47 ronin that is discussed in the film in a fascinating scene that Frankenheimer put in there because he likes miniatures – a rare example of someone taking their own fascination, putting it on film and making it really work for the story) was enough.  Second, in spite of Moreau (which I saw in the theater), I have always thought of Frankenheimer more for Manchurian Candidate than anything else and so was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Third, it had Natascha McElhone and after The Devil’s Own and The Truman Show, I was fascinated by her.  Fourth, it had Robert De Niro; in fact, it had the last Robert De Niro performance before he took his odd turn into Comedy and started making films I had no interest in.  From 1991 to 1998 I saw 10 De Niro films in the theater; after that it wouldn’t be until 2012 that I would see another De Niro film in the theater.

I would not be even remotely disappointed.  Yes, the plot to this can be confusing if you’re not paying attention.  It revolves, of course, around a great MacGuffin,this elusive briefcase that everyone is after.  Except they’re not and that’s part of what makes the film great.  If you haven’t seen it, I will not give it away, but the moment where your realize that one of the characters is not, in fact, after the briefcase, is the moment where everything clicks into place.  To some, that made the film a waste, but to me it’s what adds an extra layer to everything we’ve already seen, a great moment that adds depth to all the flash.

There is a lot of flash.  This film contains not one but two of the greatest car chases ever put on film.  Even if you don’t want to reward the editing, thinking it’s too quickly cut, I can’t fathom how the Academy did not nominate the sound in this film for either of its sound awards.  What this film does in those two chases, between the brilliant editing and cinematography, allowing us to know what’s going on while being continually thrilled (I’ve seen it several times on DVD but it was best watching it in the theater) and the magnificent sound is to keep the film moving at a pace that has you hanging on to the edge of your seat.  That the film also has a magnificent ensemble cast (there’s also Jonathan Pryce, Jean Reno, Stellan Skarsgaard, Sean Bean) shows that the filmmakers also did right by casting it correctly.  The pieces all fall into place just like they do doing each of the car chases, one through the open air and countryside surrounding and inside of Nice and another through the tunnels and highways of Paris.  If you haven’t seen it, it’s a hell of a ride.

Post-2011

There’s little point in doing categories down here.  After the release of Hot Tub Time Machine in early 2010, MGM would stop distributing movies for most of the decade.  It wouldn’t be until 2018 when they would get back into it, releasing Death Wish, Operation Finale and Creed II.  In 2019, they have released Fighting with my Family but their next releases aren’t scheduled until next year (the next James Bond and Legally Blonde films).  None of their films have factored into awards.  Creed II did make it to #6 on their box office list though doesn’t come close to the Adjusted list.  I have seen all four films though none of them factor into my awards either.  Those last two releases next year will be nice because they will put the official list that I use at exactly 2000 movies which means every film I see will move it up exactly .5%.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1991

$
0
0

“She stood again in front of Lecter’s cell and saw the rare spectacle of the doctor agitated.  She knew that he could smell it on her.  He could smell everything.”  (p 25)

My Top 10

  1. The Silence of the Lambs
  2. JFK
  3. The Commitments
  4. Beauty and the Beast
  5. Europa Europa
  6. The Indian Runner
  7. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
  8. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  9. My Own Private Idaho
  10. Fried Green Tomatoes

note:  Down at the bottom are the other films in my list which don’t make the Top 10 but the list is much shorter than the year before (even accounting for the fact that one of them, The Prince of Tides, is reviewed because of award nominations).  This is one of those years where the Original screenplays are fantastic and Adapted aren’t nearly as strong (certainly after the Top 5).

Consensus Nominees:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  (296 pts)
  2. Naked Lunch  (224 pts)
  3. JFK  (152 pts)
  4. The Commitments  (120 pts)
  5. Fried Green Tomatoes  (80 pts)
  6. The Prince of Tides  (80 pts)

note:  Silence has the most points in eight years.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • The Silence of the Lambs
  • Europa Europa
  • Fried Green Tomatoes
  • JFK
  • The Prince of Tides

WGA:

  • The Silence of the Lambs
  • The Commitments
  • Fried Green Tomatoes
  • JFK
  • The Prince of Tides

Golden Globes:

  • JFK
  • The Silence of the Lambs

Nominees that are Original:  Thelma & Louise, Bugsy, Grand Canyon

BAFTA:

  • The Commitments
  • The Silence of the Lambs
  • JFK  (1992)

NYFC:

  • Naked Lunch

NSFC:

  • Naked Lunch

BSFC:

  • Naked Lunch

CFC:

  • The Silence of the Lambs

My Top 10

The Silence of the Lambs

The Film:

I rate films on a 100 point scale, although it really runs from 0-99.  Watching this film again, for who knows how many times, I was thinking, I have not rated this film highly enough if I still have it at a 97.  It’s a 98, definitely.  Luckily, when I looked at it, I saw that I did indeed have it as a 98, easily the best film of the year and one of the best films of the decade and indeed basically in my Top 50 All-Time.  I also want to stress, since Hopkins’ performance has passed into popular culture that we shouldn’t ignore the truly amazing work from Jodie Foster, who is the actual star of the film.

The Source:

the silence of the lambs by Thomas Harris  (1988)

I really shouldn’t even own this book.  First of all, it’s a thriller and I don’t really read thrillers.  My collection of thrillers is basically all the original Ian Fleming Bond novels, The Great Train Robbery and the first two Lecter books (this and Red Dragon).  Second, I have a movie cover copy of the book and I don’t like movie cover copies and only have a handful of them.  Third, the glue wore off holding the spine on years ago and so I spend the whole time reading the book holding the cover on it.  Yet, I continue to own the book and to read it because it really is a riveting thriller.  Harris wrote a decent thriller (Black Sunday) and then quite a good one (Red Dragon) that introduced the character of Hannibal Lecter, the serial killer who had been in prison since before the start of the book (you can read a full review of it here because I reviewed it for the 1986 piece in this project).  Then came this, with Lecter moving into a starring role.  It’s a magnificent thriller that gives you everything you need – a fascinating villain of pure evil that you nonetheless start to like, a fantastic strong-willed heroine that you love and a race against time to stop a crime.  It is such a great thriller because it does everything you want it to do.  Unfortunately, Harris couldn’t leave well enough alone.  He followed the book up with another book about Lecter as could be reasonably expected but he utterly destroyed the character of Clarice Starling.  Even worse, he destroys the mystery behind Lecter by giving him very specific motivations for his actions.  So, read Red Dragon, definitely read The Silence of the Lambs and then absolutely stop there because Harris’ last two Hannibal books are bad beyond belief.

The Adaptation:

This is a magnificent book to film adaptation.  I have said before that the book appears almost perfectly on screen except for the last page (in the book, the Smithsonian entomologist that hits on Foster is more successful and they are at his beach house with a great final sentence: “But the face on the pillow, rosy in the firelight, is certainly that of Clarice Starling, and she sleeps deeply, sweetly, in the silence of the lambs.”).  There are some changes, of course.  First there are cuts, such as what’s going on in Jack Crawford’s home life in the book (his wife is dying and dies) and the concern that Clarice will lose her place in her class.  There are also some slight modifications to speed things up, like who the head is in the car and how much Hannibal really knows about Buffalo Bill.  But overall, much of the film is exactly how it was on the page with much of the dialogue exact.  Of course, credit goes to the film for the final phone call because in the book, Lecter just writes some of what he says to her in a letter and we don’t get her reaction.  We lose that final sentence but we get one of the great film endings of all-time so there’s nothing to complain about.

The Credits:

Directed by Jonathan Demme.  Based on the Novel by Thomas Harris.  Screenplay by Ted Tally.

JFK

The Film:

In my scathing review of Braveheart one of the things I focused on was the blatant distortion of history.  So why can I be so harsh on that film (in which the history is centuries old) and still admire JFK, a film that, as is made very clear in Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (the magnificent book by Vincent Bugliosi that made me realize I had been reading and believing the wrong things and that everything I was concerned about in the original Warren Report was either distorted in things I had read or could be easily explained) is just as much a distortion of history as Braveheart and is more insulting since it involves questions about our history and government?  Why have I written not one, but two laudatory reviews of this film, the first when I wrote about Oliver Stone as a great director (and as much as Stone has become one of the world’s leading jackasses, he will still almost certainly make the next version of the Top 100 which will come when I cover Best Director for Century of Film, though with six categories to come before I get to Director, it almost certainly won’t be until next year) and the second when I covered the film as a Best Picture nominee (which, of course, it was, because it’s one of the best films of the year).  So, if I’ve already written so much about this film, why am I writing obviously a lot more, more than I generally write about films I haven’t even reviewed before?  Well, because this film has become a tricky thing to look at in the current climate because it became so much more than a film.

Conspiracy theories are complicated things to write about these days.  The White House is currently inhabited by an idiotic, pathological liar who throws them out at the drop of a hat including a recent one about a certain scumbag’s suicide which prompted Callie Khouri, ironically the Oscar winner for Original Screenplay in this year, to tweet “It appears there are a lot of people delusional or stupid enough to think the Clintons are powerful enough to do anything except become President.”  The problem becomes that people like him have a similar thought process to people like Oliver Stone (which is why they both seem to love Putin so much) because of a lack of critical thinking.  That’s what makes a film like JFK so inherently problematic.

Let’s look at the film and what Stone means by it and then what the film actually has to say because one of them has to do with why so many people either deride it or worship it (and continue on from there to other ridiculous beliefs) and one of them has to do with why the film is actually a brilliant bit of filmmaking.

Authorial intent comes down to meaning.  A person can read “124 was spiteful” and believe that the meaning in it has to do with how Sethe’s first, second and fourth children are alive and the third one, the beloved one, is the missing one.  But that’s not what Toni Morrison meant and we know that because she was on the record as saying she used 124 because it was the apartment number she was living in.  Meaning is attributed to something that is not there.  JFK, on the other hand, is full of meaning because Stone has made that clear.  He sets forth, not just the Garrison investigation as a possibility of what happened (which is clearly ridiculous) but all sorts of other possibilities (it was the military, it was Castro, it was the Soviets, it was LBJ, it was the CIA, it was the mafia).  If the film were only about that meaning, it would become completely meaningless.  Indeed, some of the most powerful scenes in the film are the long bit in the middle when Donald Sutherland as “Colonel X” explains all the ways in which he thinks things went down.  Stone wants to mean that everyone killed the Kennedys, that we should doubt everything we hear, that no official bit of truth is ever correct and that those who doubt the loudest are the ones we should listen to.  Many people take a meaning from that, even though the meaning of it is completely undermined by it being one of the least accurate parts of the entire film, from the way it makes use of a man (Fletcher Prouty) who was notorious for making grand conspiracy statements to the way it twists facts about the events to the very notion that LBJ would stand there and say “Get me elected, I’ll give you your war.”

But the way the film is made, ends up with it saying something other than just what Stone means.  The film looks back on history through the way that others tell it.  It examines a quest for truth by constantly going back to events again and again, imagining them from different points of view.  It is unfortunate that Stone continually uses points of view that have been completely discredited, that his need to move away from official views also means that he believes things that are utterly preposterous, but that doesn’t mean the film is less artistically impressive.  It is also unfortunate that what the film says to me, that we need to look at the past with a critical eye and discover the truth of what happened, is obscured by Stone’s viewpoint, ever since the film, that we’re not supposed to believe what we are told but only to find out for ourselves.  To Stone, it would seem, there is always a different explanation.  To me, the film says to look for all the explanations and see the one that makes the most sense.  In Stone’s world, belief is stronger than facts.

Now, none of that makes the film less of an artistic achievement.  Even without a great performance from Costner in the lead (accents aren’t his strength), the power of the film’s editing, score, cinematography and direction, as well as the deft way in which Stone wrote the film and the strong ensemble acting (Jones got the Oscar nomination and Pesci was just coming off one but the more I have seen the film the more I think Sutherland gives probably the best supporting performance) means that the film will endure as a film.  In some ways, it’s just as problematic as other great films like The Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will.  It’s not as bad as those since it’s not actually taking a viewpoint in favor of evil but a blatant distortion of history is still hardly on the side of truth.

It is unfortunate that the idea that “we should go with belief rather than facts” is what seems to be the lasting impact of the film.  It’s what Stephen Colbert would rightly mock with “truthiness” and has been the hallmark of such different fucking idiots as Jenny McCarthy, Kyrie Irving, Stone himself and of course the scumbag Racist in Chief.  Indeed, perhaps the single biggest tragedy for the country wasn’t that JFK was assassinated but that Oswald was before the truth could come out at a trial since a trail would have put all the evidence out there, simple and clear, like has been done by others (see the bit on Bugliosi’s book below) and there wouldn’t have been all the lingering questions.  It’s true there have always been people who believed insane things (if you have never read The Plot by Will Eisner, you owe it to yourself to do so) but it seems it has become worse than ever and it seems, always at the core of any idiot who spouts random shit about vaccines or 9/11 or any other ridiculous thing, comes that belief that JFK was killed by, well, whoever they want to pick that day.

I will bring it back to Braveheart.  Feature films are not documentaries and even when they claim to be based on true stories, it should be taken with a grain of salt.  Even the best films alter things to best fit their films; Henry II was over 30 years younger than the Pope, Gerry Conlon never shared a cell with his father and the Iranians didn’t chase the plane.  Great films aren’t great just because they stay close to history.  Braveheart is a mediocre film and its blatant disregard for history is an example of its mediocrity not the reason for it.  JFK is a great film because of how it was made and it has interesting things to say if people want to listen to the right things.

The Source:

On the Trail of the Assassins: My Investigation and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy by Jim Garrison  (1988)

This is a decently written book that details the actual case that Garrison took to trial as D.A. in New Orleans in the late 60’s.  It was unsuccessful, of course, and has always seemed like one of the most implausible theories behind the assassination.  But Garrison himself presents everything in a straight forward manner, though he continues to feed the frenzy that the government is behind everything.  He makes some of the same mistakes that Marrs makes (see the end below).

Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs

Marrs’ book is an excellent example of a conspiracy book not because it’s all that good but because of what it has to say.  First of all, it’s clearly where Stone got the “everyone did it” idea because Marrs basically concludes with a long list of people he thinks were involved without providing any actual evidence.  Second, he’s a good example of the conspiracy mindset.  In the years after this book, Marrs would write books about UFO’s, telepathy and would be part of the 9/11 Truthers.  His mindset was always that the people in charge are lying to him and only he could find the truth.  The interesting thing about the book is how little Marrs himself says that’s false (though there are some things) as compared to how much he’s willing to believe clearly ridiculous lies from anyone who wants to make a claim that Oswald didn’t do it.  To him, anyone who gives a different story is worth listening to no matter how much it’s clear that they are full of shit.  To him, only the officials are lying and everyone else are the honest ones.  The major problem with reading Marrs (and Garrison) is that when reading it, you would think that they are being honest and you have been lied to because they make their cases with such sincerity.  The problem is that the more you read about what actually happened, the more you realize that they are only giving you one side that is deliberately at odds with what really happened and eliminating the vast, vast amount of evidence that contradict their views.

The Adaptation:

Most of the film, of course, does come from Garrison’s book as the film is all about Garrison’s investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw.  A lot of what didn’t come from Garrison (including a lot of the very far-fetched ideas) came from other conspiracy theorists that helped Stone with the film.  Stone published a version of the screenplay complete with copious notes that explains where everything in the film comes from.  That whole project, though, of publishing the screenplay and saying “see, I made nothing up, this all comes from other sources” is kind of typical Stone, since it documents where he got the things in the film from without any deeper look into how worthwhile the original sources are.  Or, to quote Bugliosi:

The Book of the Film does not, as its title might suggest, contain the actual word-for-word dialogue in the movie.  On unnumbered page sixteen of the book, Stone acknowledges that it’s not a book of the film but of one of the earlier drafts of the script.  I found it varied in a number of places from the words in the film, so it could not be relied on.  As for Stone’s evidentiary support, his chief researcher for the book as well as the film (Jane Rusconi, a recent Yale graduate) for the most part simply used statements made in the past by the very same kooks and nuts Stone presents in the movie, and relied on books and articles previously written by Stone’s pro-conspiracy advisers and others of like mind, virtually ignoring the wealth of credible evidence to the contrary.  (p 1360)

After that, Bugliosi spends over 70 pages refuting the film on 37 separate points.  He begins with a very long first point that rips to shreds any credibility the Garrison investigation would have if you have only read Garrison (or any other conspiracy theorist).  In terms of film, it’s not that useful because Bugliosi flat out admits he’s not into film and he doesn’t read fiction and he seems to take offense that a film would make changes (while he seems to say it’s okay to have dramatic license, his long piece and a number of things he says in it would seem to suggest otherwise).  But it is a magnificent factual repudiation of everything in the film while not really discussing the artistic decisions made in the film.  If you want to know what happened in the actual assassination, don’t read Garrison, definitely don’t read Marrs and most definitely don’t rely on the film.  Stone made an artistically brilliant (to me), fascinating film about why people believe what they believe and how that can distort history (though seems to not realize how much he is adding to that by distorting history – an armchair psychology paper on Stone would seem to indicate that Stone felt lied to about Vietnam (reasonable) and a result tends not to believe anything he is told by authority to the extent where any ridiculous thing he’s told that goes against authority he will believe no matter how absurd) but he did not make a documentary.  If you want to know what happened, read Bugliosi’s book because, as a well-known prosecutor he did a magnificent job of looking through all the evidence and making the case quite convincingly (to the point where I now accept the Warren Report).

The Credits:

Directed by Oliver Stone.  Based on the books “On the Trail of the Assassins” by Jim Garrison and “Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy” by Jim Marrs.  Screenplay by Oliver Stone & Zachary Sklar.

The Commitments

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film back when I covered Alan Parker as a Top 100 Director.  I mentioned that Parker was perfectly suited to direct the film, with his experience in Musicals (Fame, Pink Floyd: The Wall) but it also turns out that Parker wanted to direct it not only because of that but because he also liked working with young actors (Bugsy Malone, Fame).  Parker does a great job with the film and manages to find a group of actors that are just good enough as actors and well more than good enough as musicians.  It’s a rare case of a film band being a band you can actually believe in and every time they’re on stage, they are magic.  Of course, off stage they are fighting which is why the band doesn’t last but that’s all part of the fun.

If some of the people in the film look familiar, well that’s because you might know them.  The guitarist is Glen Hansard who went on to win an Oscar for his brilliant song “Falling Slowly” in Once, several of the Corrs are in the film (though not in the band) and the skateboarding kid interviewed from the window is actually the kid who was on the cover of both Boy and War.

The Source:

The Commitments by Roddy Doyle  (1987)

The best way to read this book is by yourself in the Barrytown Trilogy edition.  The former is because the best way to read all three of the books in the trilogy is to read much of it out loud because it helps you cut through the accents and get the dialogue (the novel is mostly dialogue).  Read it as part of the trilogy because, not only do you get three books for the price of one (all three are fairly short and the whole trilogy clocks in at a little over 600 pages) but because then you can see the Rabbitte family as they come together through their own troubles and tribulations.

As someone who enjoys Soul but hates Jazz, I have to give a shout-out to this paragraph:

– Dean’s solo didn’t have corners.  It didn’t fit.  It spiralled.  It wasn’t part of the song. – It wasn’t part of anything.  It was a real solo.  Washington D.C.’s drumming wasn’t there as far as it was concerned. – That’s jazz, Brother.  That’s what jazz does.  It makes the man selfish.” (p 115)

The Adaptation:

Though almost all of what we get in the book we also get in the film (except for the finale – the whole bit about Wilson Pickett isn’t in the novel at all and it provides more of a climax to the film than in the book where the band just kind of falls apart) there is more in the film, in terms of characterization in the Rabbitte household (possibly because of the casting of Colm Meany, the biggest name in the film and the actor who would be the key to the trilogy on film) and more of the fighting between the band members.

The Credits:

Directed by Alan Parker.  From the novel by Roddy Doyle.  Screenplay by Dick Clement & Ian La Frenais and Roddy Doyle.

Beauty and the Beast

The Film:

Having already written a review of this film (here) and having already ranked it at #3 of all the Disney animated films (here), I thought I would have some fun with things you try not to think too much about when watching the film.  Like, how old was the prince when he was cursed if he has to redeem himself by age 21?  And what was he the prince of, exactly, since they flat-out say they are in France and France in this period didn’t have fiefdoms?  And how long ago was the curse since clearly the townspeople don’t know about the castle yet it is so close to their town that Belle leaves for the castle after the mob has arrived and gets there during the battle between Gaston and the Beast?  And what season is it because the whole film takes place over just a few days yet we go through what seems to be late summer or early autumn, then a snowstorm so fierce it freezes the water outside and then it’s all gone before the end of the film?  And where does all the food in the castle come from?  Do they have their own supply of animals?  And why does Belle borrow books from a bookseller?  Why does he let her?  Don’t think about any of this (though a couple of them are addressed in the live action 2017 version) – just enjoy this magical film.  If you need proof of how magical the music is just re-watch the teaser for the live-action version of the film and see how brilliant the music to the title song is.

The Source:

La Belle et la Bête” by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont  (1756)

I have actually already reviewed this story when it was used as the source for Jean Cocteau’s amazing film.  It is a wonderful tale, though, as is described in the notes, designed in at least some ways as a guide for young girls.  Still, it is also a wonderful romance and a tale that is continually retold.

The Adaptation:

Unlike the Cocteau version, the Disney version keeps very little of the details from the original story.  It holds to the basic core of the tale (wayward father, imprisoned by beast, rescued by Beauty, she and Beast fall in love with each other to break the enchantment) but changes almost all of the smaller details of the story, most notably eliminating Beauty’s sisters (whose actions are contrasted against hers).

The Credits:

Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise.  Animation Screenplay by Linda Woolverton.  Songs by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken.  Story: Brenda Chapman, Burny Mattinson, Brian Pimental, Joe Ranft, Kelly Asbury, Christopher Sanders, Kevin Harkey, Bruce Woodside, Tom Ellery, Robert Lence.
note:  Only the title is in the opening credits.

Europa Europa

The Film:

There comes a moment in this film which perhaps defines both the terror and the insanity that was engulfing Europe during World War II.  Young Solly Perel is fleeing from his home in Poland because of the Nazi invasion.  He and his brother have come to a river.  As he is crossing, he realizes that there are other people crossing in the opposite direction.  The people with Solly cry out to them – that there are Nazis behind them and to go that way is death.  After all, Solly, and the others with him are Jews.  But the people crossing the other direction aren’t Jews – they’re Poles.  They’re less afraid of the Nazis that are ahead of them than they are of the Soviets behind them.  Such was the case at the start of the war – what was the lesser, or at least less terrifying evil.

Fleeing from the Nazis isn’t the only thing that happens to young Solly.  Soon he will be in a tighter mess.  After he ingrains himself with the Soviets, they are bombed by the Nazis and he finds himself discovered.  But, he speaks German, and they mistake him as someone who was captured by the Soviets.  He lies about his background and before too long, he is helping the Nazis and has even joined the Hitler Youth Society.  He is doing whatever he can to survive.

Those things include lying to the young Nazi girl he starts to fall in love with, in spite of her rants against the Jews, trying to hide the truth about his circumcision through desperate means that I won’t explicate here and actually revealing the truth to the mother of the young girl in a moving scene that makes you realize how lonely he has been inside his head.

This film was a revelation when it was released and it immediately became the sacrifice to Academy rules.  Germany decided not to submit the film, viewing it as a French production with a Polish director (both true).  You might think the Nazi element played a part, but they had submitted The Nasty Girl the year before, about a young girl, stymied by authorities in her quest to discover the Nazi past of her village.  In the end, the Academy at least gave it something – nominating its excellent script.  But in a year of some truly great films, this is definitely one of the best.

The Source:

Europa, Europa by Solomon Perel  (1990, tr. 1997)

How would this book have been considered if it had come along a few decades earlier?  Or if the book had become better known before it was a film?  This is a solid memoir, a fascinating struggle of what man did to survive, similar to Night and The Pianist, but this boy, instead of struggling through the death camps or surviving in hiding, actually faked being a Nazi, hiding in plain sight.  It is not thought of as a classic of Holocaust Literature (well, partially because by hiding out as an ethnic German, Perel never saw the Holocaust – in fact, he admits to being stunned when he found out what was going on in Auschwitz).  Is it because it came decades later that it is not thought of in the same manner as Night (probably the definitive Holocaust memoir) or The Painted Bird (a novel that is more similar in concept in that the child hides rather than survives the camps).  It is well-written, but it is a reflective look back more than a brutal tale of struggling to survive.

The book is interesting also, because the English translation is from the revised version of the text, written after the film was released.  It references certain events in the film and it includes reunions between Perel and some of the people that he had met during the war in the years after he became well-known for the book and the film.

Note on the title:  You will see it referenced that this book is entitled I Was Hitler Youth Salomon (Ich war Hitlerjunge Salomon).  While the book was written in German and that was the title in German, it was first published in French under the title Europa, Europa.  The German edition was not published until two years after the film was released.

The Adaptation:

I was a bit disappointed to not find the most memorable moment in the film in the book, suggesting that it hadn’t happened (or, at least hadn’t happened to Perel): the crossing of the river.  It is such a deeply disturbing scene, one that shows the frightening sides of historical conflicts and it’s been the one that has stuck with me from the first time I saw the film, way back in high school.

Much of what is in the film does come from the original book.  Perel himself documents a few differences (“I should mention at this point that, unlike the story depicted in the film Europa, Europa, Leni had not become pregnant.  That had happened to a mutual friend of ours.  The infant was adopted by an SS family.”  (p 194)).  But what might have seemed to be a more fantastic scene, his confession to Leni’s mother, is actually straight from the book (“I had answered her without feeling any inner conflict.  But as soon as I said the words, I was shattered by what I had done.  I knew I was still alive and breathing because I felt my body shaking and my knees trembling.”  (p 117)).

Quotes from the translation by Margot Bettauer Dembo

Credits:

Ein Film von Agnieszka Holland.  Drehbuch:  Agnieszka Holland.  nach den Lebenserinnerungen von Salomon Perel.

The Indian Runner

The Film:

“A man turns his back on his family, he just ain’t no good.”

Bruce Springsteen sang that in “Highway Patrolman”, one of his story songs from Nebraska, his starkest and probably his bleakest album.  Sean Penn decided that the song would make a good film and expanded upon the story to make a full feature about two brothers, one who stayed home from Vietnam, failed at farming, married the girl they both loved and became a sheriff.  The other one went off to the War and maybe he came back wild and out of control or maybe he was just always like that.  But they are on a collision course and there’s nothing either seems to be able to do in order to stop it.

I didn’t see this film in 1991 when it was released and neither did hardly anyone else as it made less than $200,000 at the box office (it opened the same week that The Fisher King did and that film, in 10 theaters, made 50% more in its opening weekend than Indian Runner did in its whole run).  I didn’t see it in 1993 when I first bought and heard Nebraska.  I didn’t see until 2002 or 2003 after I purchased the 2 DVD set The Bruce Springsteen Video Collection (my old VHS copy stopped in the late 80’s) which had a video for the song with scenes from the film and I thought to myself, “Holy crap, that’s Viggo!” who of course I was seeing every few days as Aragorn.

Viggo plays Franky (“I got a brother named Franky and Franky ain’t no good”) and he can’t adjust to the world as it is.  He’s scarred somewhere deep inside to the point where he can’t ever be healed, not by the construction job he’s got, not by the woman that he’s gotten pregnant and that he says he loves, not by the child on the way.  The only thing that comes close to numbing the pain is the drinking and then that takes him through to the other side where the violence is.

Viggo’s performance is fascinating, partially because (as Roger Ebert did) you can take it as a vision of Sean Penn himself as he was trying to come out of his own youthful anger and find a sense of maturity that had been eluding him (and he certainly did, at least in some ways, which is why he went from one of the most talented young actors that no one really wanted to get near to a multiple Oscar winner) and partially because Viggo’s performance seems to be a channeling of Charles Bronson.  In the way he moves his head, in the inflections in his voice, you can see the younger Bronson and you know it’s not an accident because Bronson is actually in the film, playing his father and you wonder what might have been part of Franky’s past to lead to this (and it’s a great idea to watch this and the bar scenes and then go watch A History of Violence and imagine that the two characters are connected).

But there is also the more mature half of the coin, David Morse getting what is probably his best film role, playing the solid man who has stayed behind and kept it together.  He is haunted by having to kill a fleeing suspect who was firing on him at the beginning of the film and for those who aren’t intimately familiar with the song (“I pulled over the side of the highway and watched his taillights disappear”), you might believe that the same fate will come for Franky at the end.  Instead, we get a remarkable scene of two brothers who are forced to stare at each other across the chasm of time and realize that sometimes there are hurts that are too hard to bear.

The Source:

Highway Patrolman” by Bruce Springsteen  (1982)

If you are not familiar with Bruce Springsteen’s Nebraska, it is really an eye-opener (you can read my whole review here where I ranked it the #13 album of the decade).  This is, as I said, a story song, a bit over 5 minutes as Springsteen tells the story of Joe Roberts, a highway patrolman and his no-good brother Franky.  Springsteen sings the song in first person as Roberts and it’s a great song that really makes you feel the story (as so many of the songs on the album do, an album that is really about hard times and beaten-down people and, as two of the songs mention, debts no honest man can pay).

The Adaptation:

The song, of course, is only five minutes, and if you want to just see the film that will cover those five minutes, you can watch the video for the song (linked above on the song title).  So Penn expands, brings in their parents and the problems in their town and gives more voice to Franky’s pain, as well as bringing in a lover and the potential of a child.

The Credits:

Written and Directed by Sean Penn.  Inspired by the song “Highway Patrolman” by Bruce Springsteen.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

The Film:

“My name is Guildenstern and this is Rosencrantz.”  So says Rosencrantz, though, with a look from his companion, he then reverses himself.  But does it really matter which is which.  One of them is played by Tim Roth and the other by Gary Oldman at a time when neither of them were well-known (at least outside of Britain) and both of them perfectly provide the right amount of under-playing for two roles that demand it.

The two characters, of course, were minor roles in Hamlet whose function was to betray someone who had been viewed as their friend only to find themselves hoist on their own petard and at the end of a hangman’s noose without even the dignity of getting to die onstage.  What we get here is a behind the scenes look at what is going on with Hamlet, with the prince himself just a minor character, meandering through and delivering his lines (played decently by Iain Glen, almost unrecognizable to those who only know him from Game of Thrones).  Aside from R & G (in high school, we short-handed this play by referring to it as R&GrD), the main character is the Player King from the troupe of actors, an all-knowing, fascinating role in this film played with great gusto by Richard Dreyfuss.

The play had long been a smash success when Stoppard himself decided to adapt his own play and even direct the film.  It wasn’t a hit (Roger Ebert absolutely hated the film) but it is a fascinating film.  For a playwright to successfully open up his own film (as both screenwriter and director), to allow us to see scenes in much different ways than they could have been played on stage (like the way Roth’s voice echoes or the way they come around to the same room or the way they stumble down upon Hamlet) shows a mind that was still at work on his own play and reimagining it as he went.  It’s got solid work from both Roth and Oldman, perfectly playing without getting too far under the role or going too far over the top.  And always, there is Dreyfuss, commanding the action, explaining the roles, playing everything to the edge without taking that last little step over it.  It is not a perfect film but the way it allows the dialogue to move along with the actions of the characters, it is much more than it could have been and perhaps far more than you might have heard.

The Source:

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard  (1966)

I had read Hamlet as a Junior so it was only appropriate that the next year, in AP English we would tackle this play (just months after the film was released in the U.S.).  It’s a brilliant play, the way it brings the characters to life while also making use of Hamlet’s actual dialogue and then comes back to the characters.  Just look at their game of Questions (which is hilarious in and of itself and brilliantly staged in the film) and the way they come back to that after their conversation with Hamlet and see how much he has played them.

This was the play that made Stoppard famous (he wouldn’t really have a comparable hit again until Arcadia, which didn’t come out until I was in college) and would help establish him as a brilliant re-worker of Shakespeare (thus his script for Shakespeare in Love).  In 1996, I would get lucky enough to see a stage version in London with Adrian Scarborough and Simon Russell Beale.  It’s a brilliant play to see on stage and you should do so if you ever get the chance.

The Adaptation:

Stoppard, as he has claimed, was the only director who would know what the writer wanted and could show “the necessary disrespect” to the original play.  It was the only film he ever directed (though he has written several).  He would make some considerable cuts to the play as you can see if you try to read along with it and do some interesting staging that wouldn’t have been possible on stage.  But he wrote almost nothing new for the film, keeping to what he had written and just trimming it down and moving it along slightly differently.

The Credits:

Written & Directed by Tom Stoppard.
note:  As is often the case when playwrights adapt their own work, the original source is not listed in the opening credits.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

The Film:

If you were to go to my review of the first film (see below) you can see that while I think the first film is good, I am not nearly as impressed with it as a lot of people are and find this film to be a much better film almost from top to bottom.  If you want a dissenting view from my own, you can read the comments on that post and you will find F.T.’s response to that as he is a big fan of the first one and not nearly as much of this one.  To be fair, I have some of the same objections to this film that F.T. had and think that the use of Edward Furlong to bring in “hip slang” and to try to teach the Terminator how to be cool doesn’t really work (although it is actually pretty funny to hear Arnold say “Hasta la vista, baby”).  But the weakness of the Furlong performance is overcome both in the overall story, in the way that this film uses humor to keep it from being too overwhelming the way the first one was, the improved score, the magnificent visual effects and the humanizing effect.

I’ll begin with the way the film is made.  One of the unfortunate things in life is that you can never experience something again for the first time.  So you want to make certain that first experience is a big one.  There are two terminators sent back in time and both of them seem pretty damn unstoppable.  There is no internal evidence in the film as to what the story is with either machine.  So, when John Connor is fleeing from what he thinks is a cop and suddenly finds himself facing the worst nightmare that his mother always warned him about, he doesn’t know what to do and we, as the audience, looking at it for the first time, don’t know what to do either.  Then Arnold raises his rifle, tells John to get down and fires at the cop.  It’s one of the all-time great “Holy Shit!” moments in film and sadly a lot of the marketing ruined it but it is still damn effective because Cameron has done a bang-up job of setting the whole scene up.  Indeed, we will later experience Sarah Conner in that same kind of fear, running from the thing that has haunted her dreams and memories for a decade only for it to hold its hand to her and say “Come with me if you want to live”.

There are technical reasons why this film is superior to the 1984 original.  Cameron has learned how to be a better director and if he still isn’t much of a writer at least he has found a bit of humor to lighten the way.  What’s more, he has found a humanizing aspect to the film.  Sarah Conner has become so militaristic in her dream of keeping Skynet from destroying everything that she has forgotten how to live.  It’s up to her son to teach her and the machine guarding them both how to approach things with a little bit of humanity.  Without that, then what the hell would they be fighting for anyway?  In fact, John does such a good job of humanizing the machine, of making it understand what human emotions are, that, when he doesn’t actually “die” for John after being stabbed through the chest with a metal pipe (which, on the first viewing, seems like its noble death in the defense of John in much the same way that Kyle had died in defense of Sarah in the first film), we think that we might get a “happy ending”.  But that’s when we remember that this is a Sci-Fi film and instead we get the watch the “hero” die again.

Stories that involve time travel can often trap themselves.  Harry Potter worked because it looped itself around perfectly (Harry had seen himself do it so he knew he could do it) but most films have serious flaws.  In the first film, the Terminator was trying to kill Sarah and failed but it left behind a piece of machinery that will then be used to create its own technology, a serious time loop that was ridiculed perfectly by Jasper Fforde in the Thursday Next series where the Time Police use time travel without having ever invented it because of the knowledge that someone will eventually invent it and when at some point it looks like someone won’t, then it causes problems (if your head hurts, then you’re welcome).  So we get to the final point where the technology needs to be destroyed to keep the technology from ever being created.  But it works because it provides that final minute of pathos of the hero dying again.

Now, this is not a perfect film.  It is a very good film with amazing visual effects (far superior to the first, though those weren’t bad, and some of the best ever done to this point) and a great score (actually basically the score from the first but recorded in a much less irritating fashion) and a strong performance from Hamilton (who wasn’t all that good in the first one).  But, like even very great films can do (L.A. Confidential), it goes on just a little bit too long.  Cameron apparently felt he needed that last little coda at the end about how the future can change when the film really should have ended with that thumb going into the fire and the final shutdown of that Terminator’s power.

The Source:

The Terminator, written by James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd with acknowledgement to the works of Harlan Ellison, directed by James Cameron

I have already reviewed the first film in full here as an RCM because it was a film I saw a lot as a kid even if I never though it was all that great.  But it is a good film (high ***), can actually be fairly frightening, has a lot of good action and deserves a lot better than the poster I found on the right (UK quad posters work better for posts that are shorter on items I have already reviewed because of space considerations).

The Adaptation:

Nothing in the second film contradicts anything in the first film, although if you needed the Terminator technology in order to be able to create the Terminator technology that’s a pretty serious time problem.  But Sarah has grown in ways that the first film works towards.

The Credits:

Produced and Directed by James Cameron.  Written by James Cameron & William Wisher.

My Own Private Idaho

The Film:

“I’m living in my own private Idaho, living in my own private Idaho”.

Those words come back to me every time I even hear or think of the title to this film even though the film itself, while getting its title from the song, does not include the song.  That’s fine.  The film has enough to do with without dragging in the song and forcing people to try and figure out what it all means.

I didn’t see this film when it was first released, though not many did either (less than $7 million in box office (though that would equal the combined total for Gus’ previous and next film)) but that worked out for the best.  When this film was released in 1991, I had no idea that Keanu Reeves would ever attempt to actually act (I had only seen him by that point in Dangerous Liaisons, Bill & Ted, Parenthood and Point Break), was not yet what I would consider an amateur Shakespeare scholar (having only read a handful of his plays by that point) and had only been to Portland once, years before, even though my father and sister had just moved there the month prior to the film’s opening.  By the time I did see the film, a few years later, I knew that Reeves was a disaster as an actor (he couldn’t quite kill Much Ado and when I saw Dracula in the theater, one of the people I saw it with mentioned “I’m totally giving up on Reeves as an actor after this and My Own Private Idaho“), had become much more an expert on Shakespeare (as much as one can while still an undergraduate but I had already taken Shakespeare courses at two different universities) and was living in Portland and recognized Mary’s on Broadway, the St. John’s Bridge and Jake’s.  This was a movie that I was ready for.

Sadly, by the time I did see the film, it was sometime after October of 1993 when River Phoenix had dropped dead and we were robbed of one of the best actors of his generation.  He had already proven that in Running on Empty but this would be his best leading role and would show what his possibilities were.  He plays Mike Waters, a young narcoleptic drifter and hustler who makes his way through life by selling his body while searching for his ever-elusive mother.  He ends up in a strange friendship with Scott Favor, the young son of the mayor of Portland and the heir apparent to a large fortune and perhaps political capital as well.  Scott, of course, is a stand-in for Prince Hal in the Henry IV plays and Mike and Scott have their own Falstaff in Bob Pigeon, the leader of the hustlers who drinks and lives large and dispenses advice that is best left forgotten.  For Mike, this is just the way of life as he tries to find some sort of path to any sort of future.  For Scott, it is a distraction, a youthful indiscretion that he will forget as soon as the trappings of power are draped around his shoulders.  Mike is a man who is looking for love and tries to find it at times through sex while Scott is willing to endure the sex to find some measure of anything which is made clear in a conversation between the two that shows their true sexual inclinations.

A modern-day adaptation of Shakespeare is certainly nothing new, with West Side Story, of course the most famous example.  But what makes this film so rare and special is that Gus Van Sant doesn’t take a tragedy or comedy and adapt it, but an actual history play.  To take the idea of British history and place it in modern-day Portland inspired Gus to really look at the city around him and see what kind of stand-ins could be used.  It gives us not only a fresh look at Shakespeare but a fresh look at our own modern society.

The Source:

Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 by William Shakespeare (1596/1597)

The two Henry IV plays have long been regarded as among the best, not only of Shakespeare’s histories but of his plays at all.  They set the stage for the kingly Henry in Henry V, of course, by showing the young prince at play and having fun before taking on his more important duties.  It also brings to life Shakespeare’s greatest creation, that of Falstaff (read any Harold Bloom and you can get an idea of how great Falstaff is because Bloom is obsessed with the character).

The Adaptation:

Though it does not use the language of Shakespeare and only generally takes the events of the plays (and only those that really relate to Hal and his friendship with Falstaff), this does take the two plays and make a modern-day adaptation.  The most notable scenes that are brought to life in the film are the scene in the first play where Falstaff and his companions rob people on the road and then Hal robs and frightens Falstaff (which is the scene under the St. John’s Bridge) and then the rejection of Falstaff scene (which is the scene filmed in Jake’s, which, if you ever go there, get the stuffed salmon, because it’s as good a meal as you will ever eat).

The Credits:

a film by Gus Van Sant.  screenplay by Gus Van Sant.
note:  There is no mention of the source.  There are also no opening credits beyond Phoenix, Reeves and the title.  These are from the end credits.

Fried Green Tomatoes

The Film:

An unhappy, overweight woman flees the room of her mother-in-law at the nursing home and ends up talking to an old woman who rambles on about the tiny little town where she grew up and the people she knew there.  Well, it’s less of talking and a lot more of listening.  The old woman goes on and on and eventually the unhappy woman is able to put together the tale in her mind of two women who lived together, who were a family together and the hard times that they overcame to survive and thrive.

This is two different stories in one.  In both, a woman is struggling to overcome the problems in her life.  In the past, it is Ruth, a woman who loses her love (see below for more on that) when his shoe gets caught in a railroad track and the train can’t stop in time and then loses her dignity and her will when she marries an abusive scumbag and eventually will deal with her son losing his arm in his own railroad mishap.  But through it all she manages to find the truest friendship of her life  In the present, Evelyn manages to find herself and to stand up for herself, moving from a woman who stands there flustered when an asshole berates her for no reason to a woman who will smash another woman’s car because she can (“I’m older and I have more insurance”).

Of course, it is the story in the past that really has more weight, as the abusive husband will eventually come for his wife and when he never returns from that trip, the murder investigation will intrude upon the lives of both women.  The “both women” part is key in this film.  There is the cook’s son, who is useful and a nice man but for the most part the men in this film are either worthless, stupid or horrible.  This is the story of women, of how friendships between women can help them to find better lives, to overcome the problems in their lives, to give their lives meaning.  It is anchored with better performances in the present (with Kathy Bates and Jessica Tandy as the friends) but with a more weighty story in the past.  It’s a good film but it loses a lot of the bite from the novel (see below) and in the end is just a nice film about female relationships that feels like it could have been more.

The Source:

Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg  (1987)

Though I had seen the film almost a decade before when it first came out on video (even in the early 90’s, I was already into my Oscar obsession), I didn’t read the book until sometime in late 2000 (it was one of a list of 100 books I made when I first started working at Powell’s to read over the next year).  It was one of two books I read that had an influence on me in that it showed me that something that I was doing in my own writing (making leaps between pieces where you only slowly realize what has happened in the gap as well as filling some of the information in a quasi-epistolary narrative) was something that could be done successfully (the other was The House of the Spirits, but I discuss that here).

It’s an interesting book about two different friendships in different time periods in Alabama with the story of the first friendship only coming to us in bits and pieces through some third-person narratives but mostly through pieces from newspaper clippings.  It is a very female oriented story (as with the film, almost none of the male characters provide much, though there is the drifter who is a key character) but it is not what I would call Chick Lit (perhaps because it is too well written for that).  It is a very good book as was reflected in its win at the USC Scripter Award which covers both the screenplay and the original source material.

The Adaptation:

There are some very significant changes between the book and the film.  The film mutes the relationship between the two main female characters in the past, taking what is almost certainly (though never stated explicitly in the text) a lesbian relationship and changing it (by having Ruth in love with Idgie’s brother who died (and both of them being witnesses to that) and being much older than Idgie, it changes the nature of their relationship and both of those are changes from the book – Ruth never even meets Buddy in the original book).  The book also covers far less time and far less in their relationship, focusing much more on the death of Ruth’s husband and the investigation while the book deals with a lot more of their relationship over time and the other people in their lives.  As Flagg was one of the screenwriters, clearly she was okay with the changes and certainly the cutting down of the excess plot points in the book make sense.

I will point out that I definitely mis-remembered something severely in that I had remembered Tandy as being the older version of one of the characters and that was a major change from the book when I started reading the book again only to discover when I started watching the film again that I was simply mis-remembering.

The Credits:

Directed by Jon Avnet.  Based Upon the Novel “Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistle Stop Cafe” By Fannie Flagg.  Screenplay by Fannie Flagg and Carol Sobieski.

Consensus Nominee

Naked Lunch

The Film:

“I can think of at least two things wrong with that title.”  Nelson Muntz

It’s hard to explicate just how much is wrong with William Lee’s life.  Let’s look at his job; he’s an exterminator but he’s quite bad at it, partially because he’s careless and doesn’t pay much attention and partially because, unlike every other exterminator at the company, he keeps running out of spray.  The latter is because his wife is sniffing it because her life is even more wrong than his is, at least up until the moment where he plays William Tell with her and manages to put a bullet in her brain.  I would criticize Burroughs, whose writing I already don’t like, for the decision to fictionalize the actual accidental murder of his wife (yes, this is really how she died) except that Burroughs didn’t put this in his novel (I think – my ability to follow along in the novel is compromised by my hating it and by my thought that it’s awful) but rather Cronenberg, in trying to find an interesting way to adapt an un-adaptable novel decided to put it in his film.

Joan, the dead wife, is played by Judy Davis and since her performance is easily the best thing about the film, her early death would just kill the film dead if not for the fact that after William flees to Interzone, a city in North Africa, he comes upon Joan Frost who happens to be a doppelgänger for his dead wife and is again played by Davis and the film manages to come to life again.

Of course I didn’t finish with Lee.  His typewriter is coming alive and also turning into a giant cockroach (I remember in the initial MTV Movie Awards they had joke categories going into commercials and the typewriter was nominated for Best Performance by an Inanimate Object but lost to Vanilla Ice in Cool as Ice).  It’s told him that Joan (the wife) is an agent of Interzone and that he must kill her, which shows some of his problems as a writer and some of the problems with his relationship.  That he does kill her (accidentally) but then flees to a city called Interzone helps show some of the problems with his mindset as well.

This is a very uneven film.  When I first saw it, many years ago, it was only my third experience with Cronenberg’s work after The Fly and Dead Ringers and I wasn’t sure what to think.  Later on I would try reading the book and that definitely didn’t help.  I never thought Peter Weller was a very good actor and thought perhaps that was the problem.  But the problem is in the basic idea.  If you think this is a good film perhaps you also think it’s a good book and that follows through.  I would rather watch the film (namely for Davis’ performance) than read the book but, honestly, I would prefer to do neither.  Here I have reviewed the film (but not the book).  Do what you want with it.

For the record, if Naked Lunch were on the list below where it belongs, it would be between Billy Bathgate and Stepping Out.

The Source:

Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs  (1959)

I am not even going to try and write anything about this novel.  I loathe the beats and their works (with the exception of “Howl”).  I find this to be an incomprehensible mess.  There are many people who feel that it is completely brilliant.  Go read what they have to say.  I know what Burroughs is trying to do; I just don’t feel that he does it.  I’ll just say this – I don’t hate this novel nearly as much as I hate On the Road.

The Adaptation:

“Of course, it’s my version of Naked Lunch.  I’ve seen other screenplays and attempts to do it.  If you literally translate Naked Lunch to the screen, you get a very nasty kind of soft, satirical, social satire of the Brittania Hospital variety, with no emotional content and without the beauty, grace and potency of Burroughs’s literary style.”  (Cronenberg on Cronenberg, ed. Chris Rodley, p 161)

“Burroughs had nothing to do with the writing of the script once it was under way.  When the first draft was completed in December 1989, he simply gave his blessing to what had emerged.  The resulting script combined imagery and small pieces from the book with Burroughs’s own life.  It also opened with a scene adapted from the Burroughs short story ‘Exterminator’.”  (Cronenberg on Cronberg, p 163 – editor’s quote, not Cronenberg’s)

There is a lot more in the book Cronenberg on Cronenberg on how he managed to turn the book into a film if you are interested.

The Credits:

Written and Directed by David Cronenberg.  Based on the book by William S. Burroughs.

The Prince of Tides

The Film:

Re-watching this film back in 2011 for the first time since seeing it in the theater back in 1991 for my Best Picture review I held the film at enough of an arm’s length that I wrote that Tom Wingo’s sister kills herself and that’s why he goes to New York when in fact it’s her suicide attempt that drives him there and she survives it.  But it says something about the way I react to this film, to the strain between parents and children, to the ridiculous melodrama (and ethics violations).  It is well-directed by Streisand and has good cinematography and a very good score.  It also has a magnificent performance from Nick Nolte that probably would have won the Oscar if it had come out the year before and a very good performance from Kate Nelligan as a mother who makes me glad for the one I have.  But the script is filled with just some crazy shit and that really comes from the novel so see below for more on that.

The Source:

The Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy  (1986)

Pat Conroy, I decided when reading this book, is the fiction version of Susan Orlean.  I have said in the past that Orlean is a wonderful writer but when she writes about things like orchids, I can’t get past how boring the subject is and enjoy her writing.  Likewise, Pat Conroy is a talented writer with a gift for narrative language and dialogue (“But mostly he would talk to himself, about business, politics, dreams and disillusions.  Because we were silent children and mistrustful of the man he became when he returned to land, we learned much about our father by listening to his voice as he spoke to darkness and to rivers and to the lights of other shrimp boats moving out for their grand appointment with the swarming shoals of shrimp.”  That’s a line from p 246 but I just opened the book at random to find a quote).  But his subjects make me squirm (horrible parents, child rape, suicide attempts) and his characters are so truly awful to each other in so many ways that I just can’t take reading him.  This book is the best of the three I have forced myself to endure for the sake of this project but that absolutely does not mean I am recommending it.  I honestly can’t understand people who read his books.

The next level, by the way, above Orlean and Conroy, would be David Halberstam (who wrote a book about Nissan and his writing was so good I’ve read it more than once) and Ian McEwan (whose writing is so brilliant I can often overcome how awful everything and everybody is).

The Adaptation:

It’s interesting that Conroy worked on the screenplay although credits are often tricky so who knows how much he actually wrote, because so much of the book isn’t so much changed as just dropped.  The title, for instance, which is about Luke, the other brother, whose story is so heartbreaking to Tom that it’s actually the concluding story of the book, long after he has told the tale about the rapists.  But, aside from Luke’s physical presence in the stories they do show, his presence is wiped from the film.  Indeed, most of the book is given to the stories that Tom tells about his life and his sister’s life while the film decides to give the romance much more importance (which is probably at least part of what attracted Streisand to the film in the first place, at least as a performer, if not as a director).

I would not deem to call this a faithless adaptation, not when there are numerous scenes in the film in which the dialogue ends up word for word on the screen what it was on the page (like when Tom first arrives at his sister’s apartment).  But given how much of the focus of the book is dropped from the film adaptation, I certainly can’t call it a particularly faithful adaptation either.

The Credits:

Directed by Barbra Streisand.  Screenplay by Pat Conroy and Becky Johnston.  Based on the novel by Pat Conroy.
note:  Only the title appears in the opening credits.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

  • Ju Dou  –  Honestly, this should be up in the Top 10 at #6.  However, I used to have it listed as original because somehow I didn’t realize it was adapted (based on Fuxi Fuxi by Liu Heng) and didn’t end up with the chance to see the film again and it doesn’t seem like the book has ever been printed in English.  A high ***.5 film from Zhang Yimou
  • Open Doors  –  The novel by Leonardo Sciascia is quite good as is the film which was the Italian Oscar submission in 1990.
  • Rhapsody in August  –  Akira Kurosawa’s penultimate film is about a woman whose husband died in Nagasaki caring for her grandchildren.  Based on the novel by Kiyoko Murata.  The Japanese Oscar submission.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

note:  A quick reminder that any film I saw in the theater already has a bit of a note about it in my Nighthawk Awards for the year.

  • Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country  –  For the second time in three years, the top film on this list is one I have already fully reviewed for my For Love of Film series.
  • Larks on a String  –  Made back in 1969 by Jiri Menzel in the aftermath of the Prague Spring and based on a novel by Bohumil Hrabal, the Czech government banned it and it didn’t finally get a Czech release until 1990 and an American one in 1991.
  • An Angel at My Table  –  Though made initially as a television series (which should have made it Oscar ineligible but it wasn’t) this was the second film from Jane Campion and established her international reputation.  Based on three memoirs by Janet Frame.
  • Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves  –  Only adapted in the sense that no Robin Hood film is really original.  I actually had the idea for a Robin Hood film with Kevin Costner about a year before involving a gunman in the Southwest who grew up on tales of Robin Hood and ends up back in time and living out the role (thus not needing an English accent) so I was pre-inclined to like it.  Costner’s accent isn’t very good and is inconsistent but the rest of the film is solid fun, Rickman is great and Connery’s cameo is still awesome.
  • The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear  –  Both a sequel and a continuation of characters created for the show Police Squad.  I saw the third one again not that long ago and it hadn’t held up well so I wonder how much this one will have aged but I’ll keep it here anyway.
  • Waltzing Regitze  –  Also called Memories of a Marriage this was the Danish Oscar submission in 1989 and actually earned a nomination.  Not a bad nomination (though, since I clearly have it at ***, not one I would nominate).  Based on a novel by Martha Christensen.
  • Black Robe  –  Brian Moore’s historical novel about a priest in 17th Century Quebec (or what would become Quebec) becomes a film by Bruce Beresford.  Not his immediate follow-up to Driving Miss Daisy which is actually down below.
  • Rush  –  Well-done Cop Drama based on the novel by Kim Wozencraft.  “Tears in Heaven” is from this film and I’m astounded to learn it wasn’t a #1 hit in the U.S. (it peaked at #2) because it was playing everywhere that winter.
  • The Doctor  –  Randa Haines and William Hurt team up again (she directed him to an Oscar in Children of a Lesser God).  Based on a memoir by Dr. Edward Rosenbaum and is better than you would expect from the theme of “cold doctor is humanized by getting cancer”.  Given that Hurt was barely 40 when the film was made and Rosenbaum was actually 70 when it happened to him suggests that Rosenbaum spent a long time as a cold doctor and they wanted a happier outcome.
  • Cape Fear  –  A remake of the 1962 film (which actually used its original stars but flipped the roles with good guy Peck as a sleazy lawyer and villain Mitchum as a helpful detective) and based originally on the 1957 novel The Executioners by John D. MacDonald.  This was one of the first examples I was personally aware of, of a source changing the title to match the film in the new printing although they had actually done that back in 1962 as well.  Solid Scorsese film (it brings us to mid ***) though a let-down after GoodFellas.  The first Scorsese I ever saw in the theater.
  • The Addams Family  –  Based on the show (which I have never seen) which was based on the original Charles Addams illustrations.  Barry Sonnenfeld’s directorial debut (after several very good films as a cinematographer) and it showed his dark sense of humor.  Given when this film was released and its success (the highest grossing live-action TV adaptation to date, even beating out all the Star Trek films) and that it had been four years since The Untouchables and Dragnet, I think this film is at least partially responsible for the wave of adaptations that would start with The Fugitive (which at least was really good and was a hit) and would last all the way up to the present day as can be seen here.
  • Madame Bovary  –  This French version of the classic novel, directed by Chabrol and starring (of course) Isabelle Huppert was, for a very long time, the only Oscar nominee (aside from Foreign Film) I hadn’t seen from this year before I finally completed it sometime late in the 90’s.
  • My Mother’s Castle  –  The sequel to My Father’s Glory (just below), both of which were based on books by Marcel Pagnol.
  • Frankie & Johnny  –  Both the IMDb and Wikipedia spell out the word but oscars.org and the poster use the ampersand so fuck it.  The original off-Broadway play starred F. Murray Abraham and Kathy Bates but Hollywood upgrades that to Pacino and Pfeiffer, reuniting the Scarface couple.
  • White Fang  –  Given that I don’t like Jack London’s work and I loathe Ethan Hawke, this film is very lucky to be this high.
  • Prospero’s Books  –  Interesting take on The Tempest but it’s also directed by Peter Greenaway so, of course, it’s also very flawed.
  • My Father’s Glory  –  Based on the autobiography by Marcel Pagnol and followed immediately by My Mother’s Castle (above).
  • ¡Ay Carmela!  –  Based on the play by José Sanchis Sinisterra, this Comedy was Spain’s 1990 Oscar submission.
  • Uranus  –  Claude Berri re-teams with Gerard Depardieu (after Jean de Florette) for this interesting take on Vichy France based on the novel by Marcel Aymé.
  • Hook  –  I won’t win any friends by having Hook this high or by having it just above Rambling Rose.  But I have always enjoyed the childlike adventure aspects of it and think both Williams and Hoffman work well in their roles.  The technical work (especially the Score, Art Direction and Costumes) is very good.  Uses J. M. Barrie’s characters, of course.
  • Rambling Rose  –  We actually drop to low *** here.  Laura Dern is very good but I’ve never been that impressed with the film itself.  Based on a novel by Calder Willingham.
  • Shipwrecked  –  This Norwegian film was based on a novel by Oluf Falck-Ytter inspired so much by Robinson Crusoe that its subtitle was A Norwegian Robinson.  Dubbed into English and released in the States by Disney.
  • Mister Johnson  –  This film, based on a novel by Joyce Cary (The Horse’s Mouth) was actually Beresford’s follow-up to Driving Miss Daisy.
  • F/X 2: The Deadly Art of Illusion  –  My brother was a fan of the first film so I had seen it more than once growing up and went to see the sequel in the theater.  Haven’t seen it since.  The IMDb doesn’t list the subtitle even though it’s right there on the damn poster.
  • An American Tail: Feivel Goes West  –  Unnecessary sequel to the first film isn’t bad, just pointless.  Followed later by direct-to-video sequels.
  • Sleeping with the Enemy  –  Good performance from Julia Roberts and a great climactic line at least keeps this from dropping below ***.  Based on the novel by Nancy Price.  Proved that Julia Roberts was a truly bankable star, making over $100 million even though Silence of the Lambs, in the same genre, came out the next week.
  • Rikyu  –  Japan’s Oscar submission in 1989 (over Black Rain).  Based on a novel by Yaeko Nogami and directed by former Oscar nominee Hiroshi Teshigahara.
  • Father of the Bride  –  This remake of the 1950 film (and adaptation of the original novel) is not nearly as obnoxious as the original.
  • The Rocketeer  –  It’s a comic book movie with a beautiful Jennifer Connelly so I should like it more than I do (this is the start of **.5).  But I don’t enjoy Timothy Dalton basically playing Errol Flynn as a Nazi, I didn’t read the comic, Connelly isn’t that good and the lead, Bill Campbell is a dud.  Mainly what I remember is that before this film I didn’t know the Hollywood sign Hollywoodland.  Haven’t seen it in almost 30 years.
  • Billy Bathgate  –  Part of me wants to think it’s better because Hoffman and Kidman are good and the book (by E. L. Doctorow) was good but I really can’t put it higher than high **.5.
  • Whore  –  I had forgotten about this until F.T. mentioned it as the one Ken Russell film I hadn’t seen (listed here as If You’re Afraid to Say It Just See It which is apparently a slightly incorrect version of the U.S. video title (If You’re Afraid to Say It… Just See It) that the film used to be listed under on the IMDb when I originally got all the information in my director spreadsheet over a decade ago now) and had to actually watch it.  Based on a play by a taxi driver called Bondage based on a prostitute he knew.  The driver, David Hines, leapt out of his cab in London one day when he saw Russell and asked him to direct it.  Russell transplanted it from London to Sunset Boulevard and apparently made it as a reaction to Pretty Woman.  The problem is that while it’s a much grittier, more realistic version of the life than Pretty Woman, Julia Roberts is a great actress surrounded by solid supporting performances and Theresa Russell is not and is surrounded by not much acting at all which is a major reason why this is a high **.5 while Pretty Woman is a mid ***.
  • Stepping Out  –  BAFTA nominee for Supporting Actress (Julie Walters) this film based on Richard Harris’ play (not the actor)  was Liza Minnelli’s only film role between 1988 and 2006.
  • The Voice of the Moon  –  Based on a novel by Ermano Cavazzoni this is, sadly, Fellini’s last film and it stars Roberto Benigni.
  • Other People’s Money  –  Down to mid **.5 with this film I saw in the theater because I had a thing for Penelope Ann Miller.  The only thing I remember about it (because I haven’t seen it since) is a scene where Danny DeVito tries to get Miller into bed.  Based on a play by Jerry Sterner.
  • Ballad of the Sad Café  –  Merchant Ivory tackle Carson McCullers via an Edward Albee play version but with Simon Callow directing instead of Ivory.
  • Wild Hearts Can’t Be Broken  –  The actress who would dance the tango with Pacino in Scent of a Woman and the guy who looks like Matt Dillon in 16 Candles and Mermaids but isn’t are in a movie dealing with horses based on someone’s memoir.
  • La Belle Noiseuse  –  This is loosely based on a Balzac short story with apparently some Henry James thrown in.  The key thing that everyone remembers about it is that Emmanuelle Béart is naked in it.  A lot.
  • At Play in the Fields of the Lord  –  Former Oscar nominee Hector Babenco adapts Peter Matthiessen’s novel and it’s a dreadful bore.  Apparently Jack Matthews over at GoldDerby predicted it for Best Picture the day after the previous year’s Oscars in spite of it starring Darryl Hannah and Silence having already opened a month and a half before.
  • Fist of the North Star  –  We hit low **.5 with this film that I feel like I should like more.  Like Akira, I had heard a lot of really good things before I finally saw it but the end result was just so underwhelming.  Released in Japan in 1986, it took five years to get to the States.  Based on a manga that had also been a television series.
  • Stray Dog  –  This Japanese Sci-Fi film has nothing to do with the brilliant Akira Kurosawa film but is instead based on a manga series.
  • Charlie Strapp and Froggy Ball Flying High  –  A bizarre and not very good Swedish animated film based on characters by Thomas Funck dating back to the 40’s (on a radio show).
  • A Rage in Harlem  –  I wish this gangster film was better because the Chester Himes novel it’s based on is pretty good but it’s kind of a mess.
  • V. I. Warshawski  –  Now we hit **.  Kathleen Turner takes on Sara Peretsky’s private eye, specifically using the second book, Deadlock.  One of several critical and commercial failures by Disney subset Hollywood Pictures that gave rise to the phrase “If it’s the Sphinx, it stinks”.
  • Paradise  –  Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith trying to act together.  Based on the French film The Grand Highway.
  • Shattered  –  Probably the film I saw least recently that I didn’t see in the theater (that makes sense when you think about it).  Based on a novel by Richard Neely, this was the first film I ever saw by Wolfgang Petersen and it didn’t endear him to me.  I think I saw it when it first hit video because I was interested in Greta Scacchi after her performance in Presumed Innocent.  I just remember it as a crap Mystery and haven’t seen it since.
  • The Big Man  –  The second film in a row with Joanne Whalley-Kilmer.  Also called Crossing the Line, it has Liam Neeson as a boxing Scottish miner.  Based on the novel by William McIlvanney.
  • Toy Soldiers  –  Just thinking about the title puts the horrible song in my head so let’s just call it what it is – Taps lite.  Based on a novel by William P. Kennedy.
  • Godzilla vs King Ghidorah  –  The third film in the Heisei period and the 18th Godzilla film overall.  The fourth time these two have fought but my favorite fight between the two won’t come until 2019.
  • The Magic Riddle  –  The Aussies get into the mediocre Animated film sweepstakes with this film that uses lots of fairy tale characters but without any imagination.  Now we’re into mid **.
  • Iron & Silk  –  He’s a good idea: if you’re a writer who’s written a memoir, don’t star in a feature film adapting it.  In this case, it’s Mark Sulzman writing about going to China to learn martial arts.
  • Oscar  –  I used to, in my Nighthawk Awards, include a list of “Presumably Crappy Films That I Haven’t Seen and Have No Intention of Seeing” and this film was on that list.  Since then, I started my Century of Film project which involves seeing a lot more crappy films than I ever intended.  Back then, commenter Anand wrote that Oscar was standard fare for its director and was unlikely to be among the .5 star films on my Bottom 5 list (the second part is clearly true, since I have it at mid **).  Commenter Mike Furlong agreed, giving it some faint praise and said “I would say John Landis didn’t start making awful movies for a few more years (Beverly Hills Cop III)”.  Now, I do think it’s a pretty bad film (and Stallone is bad at comedy and is ill-suited to be the star of a remake of a French farce) and that Anand and Mike have both under and over-estimated Landis if they think that this is standard Landis fare (not when he’s done Animal House, Blues Brothers and Trading Places) or that he didn’t start making awful movies until 1994 (Three Amigos is an awful film).  Now, those lists were films that I figured would be bad (and this film was) but if their argument was that it wasn’t as bad as my Bottom 5 films they are clearly correct.
  • Two Evil Eyes  –  Dario Argento and George Romero team up for an adaptation of a couple of Poe stories.
  • Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare  –  Now we’re down to low **.  I actually saw this in the theater and learned that people who wear glasses hate 3-D films because the glasses feel awkward over our regular glasses.  The only Freddy film I have seen in the theater.  They finally figure out what they should have figured out when Heather Langenkamp pulled the hat out of her dream in the first one and that they have to grab him and wake up and pull him into the real world.
  • The Comfort of Strangers  –  Paul Schrader directs a Harold Pinter adaptation of an Ian McEwan novel.  That’s a whole lot of dour.
  • Not Without My Daughter  –  Based on a memoir by a woman who was brought to Iran by her Iranian husband and then held there against her will.  The problem is that the film is so blatantly anti-Iranian (except those who aren’t Muslim) that it’s hard to watch it in any sense.  It’s also not very good.
  • A Kiss Before Dying  –  We drop down to *.5 with this horrible adaptation of the Ira Levin novel that had already been filmed quite well back in 1956.
  • The NeverEnding Story II: The Next Chapter  –  If the first film wasn’t a lie this one definitely is.  It feels never-ending though.
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze  –  A sequel was pretty much guaranteed since the first film was one of the biggest hits of 1990.  Though this one made just more than half of the first one, it still spawned more sequels which is too bad because this film is just awful.
  • House Party 2  –  Then again, this awful sequel also sparked a sequel even with a much lower box office.
  • Dying Young  –  As mentioned elsewhere, I only went to this because it had Julia Roberts and I walked out halfway through because it was awful and because I knew City Slickers was about to start in a different theater and I decided a third showing of that was better than the rest of this.  Years later I would watch the rest so I could list it as having been seen.  Based on a novel by Marti Leimbach.
  • Flight of the Intruder  –  Stuck with a bad ending and a lead who was being pushed as a star but couldn’t act (Brad Johnson), this adaptation of the novel by Stephen Coonts died with critics and the box office.
  • King Ralph  –  As stupid as it looks with John Goodman taking the British throne after the royal family is all killed because he’s some distant relation.  Very loosely based on the novel Headlong by distinguished actor and playwright Emlyn Williams (Night Must Fall).
  • Doc Hollywood  –  This film was so predictable that in the theater, at age 16, I was saying the lines before they were said onscreen.  Based on a book by Dr. Neil P. Shuman called What? Dead…Again?.
  • Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey  –  Just this morning I asked Veronica if Speed or Point Break will get the sequel to complete the trilogy of unnecessary Keanu sequels being filmed with yesterday’s announcement of the new Matrix film.  Do people forget that Excellent Adventure was really dumb and pretty bad (V and I just re-watched it a couple of weeks ago and I am definitely right on this) and that this sequel was simply awful?  We’re into the * films now.
  • Felix the Cat: The Movie  –  Released in Europe in 1988, this film actually went straight to video in the U.S. in 1991 but it’s an animated feature film so I counted it anyway.  Too bad, because it wastes Felix really badly.
  • Ernest Scared Stupid  –  My excuse is that I’m trying to see every feature film Disney ever released.  What’s Disney’s excuse for making this?  Several more Ernest films would follow but thankfully not released by Disney.
  • Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time  –  Sequel to the 1982 film (which, to be honest, wasn’t much better) which was loosely based on the Andre Norton series of novels.
  • Body Parts  –  Presumably the original novel, Choice Cuts, written by the team Boileau-Narcejac that wrote the fairly good novels that Diabolique and Vertigo were based on is much better than this crappy Horror film.
  • The Pit and the Pendulum  –  Stuart Gordon directs this bad Poe adaptation (which also throws in “The Cask of Amontillado” into the mix).
  • Highlander 2: The Quickening  –  I don’t understand the cult following of this series.  We’re into the .5 films now.  Even fans of the franchise often don’t like this film.
  • Return to the Blue Lagoon  –  Not just a sequel but based on the novel The Children of God that was the original sequel novel to The Blue Lagoon.  It debuts a 15 year Milla Jovovich and she and the film were both so bad they earned Razzie noms.
  • Child’s Play 3  –  You can’t keep a profitable Horror franchise down but thankfully this is the worst of the year with no Jason film.  Almost three decades later and this franchise is still going.
  • Problem Child 2  –  The first one wasn’t funny and neither is this one.
  • Mannequin 2: On the Move  –  When you look fondly back on Andrew McCarthy and Kim Cattrall you know you’re in trouble.  This one has William Ragsdale and Kristy Swanson (who would become much more known the next year for Buffy).

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • none

I have seen every film in the Top 100 at the box office for the year and while there are 12 films outside the top 100 I haven’t seen that grossed more, the highest grossing Adapted film I haven’t seen from 1991 is Book of Love which landed at #159 with $1.38 million.  It looks like the highest grossing sequel I haven’t seen is Kickboxer 2 (#164 – $1.25 mil).


A Century of Film: Sci-Fi

$
0
0

A Century of Film


Sci-Fi


The Genre

Science Fiction on film goes back to the dawn of narrative feature film storytelling.  The first great film, A Trip to the Moon, was a Sci-Fi film complete with state of the art special effects.  But not everyone could be George Méliès and not very many people tried.  I’ve only seen three Sci-Fi films made before the advent of sound (and there’s not much out there at feature length that I haven’t seen) and all of them were foreign (A Trip to Mars, Aelita: Queen of Mars, Metropolis).

The genre mostly lay dormant in the 1930’s and 1940’s.  If you click on those links, the vast majority of what is listed there (and even what is listed there isn’t very long) is either a serial (which I don’t count) or something I list as another genre (often Horror).  I’ve seen just 11 films from those two decades which I count (and none after 1941).  Then came the 50’s.

Right from the start, this decade was different.  The serials were starting to go away and studios were willing to actually make films, starting in 1950 with Destination Moon and Rocketship X-M.  Starting with 1951, things exploded, with alien invasion films, low-budget films from independent studios and, later in the decade, the idea of exploring out into space with films like Forbidden Planet.  There are entire books (see way below) just on the Sci-Fi films released in this decade and it only increased once Sputnik launched the space race.

However, while the occasional real gem (like Forbidden Planet) would burst forth and there would be solid bigger budget films like War of the Worlds, The Time Machine and Fantastic Voyage, for the most part, the genre was still dominated by lower budget films, cheesy effects and really bad acting.

The dual success in 1968 of 2001 and Planet of the Apes proved that the genre could actually be taken seriously, that there were some ideas as well as the potential for massive box office if studios were willing to invest in it.  However, the franchising of Apes lead to continually diminishing returns and studios again moved away from it.  Until 1977.

It wasn’t just Star Wars.  Yes, Star Wars, combined with Jaws, had changed the way movies are made and how people go to see them, but for Sci-Fi, it was Star Wars combined with Close EncountersStar Wars showed that a Sci-Fi film could be taken seriously (massive awards haul) while not needing to be as high-brow as 2001 while Close Encounters proved there was room for high-brow as well and proved that Star Wars hadn’t sucked all the air from the room.  The producers of the first Star Trek film said that it was the success of Close Encounters and showing that there was room for several Sci-Fi films to be successful at the box office that allowed them to get the greenlight.  It’s not a surprise then, that 1979 would be the first (and until 2010, the only) year to have more than 3 nominees for Visual Effects.

Since 1979, it has been rare for a Sci-Fi film not to be near the top of the box office (though there are dud years like 1988 and 1992).  Though it would still take a while to really gain the respect of the awards groups (after ET became the second Sci-Fi film to earn a Best Picture nomination it would be another 27 years before a third film earned one), Sci-Fi had finally became a massive part of the film industry.

Of course part of it as well was the other thing that Star Wars had shown: that visual effects had finally reached the point where a vision on-screen could match the imagination, something that would continue to grow in leaps and bounds with films Terminator 2 and Avatar as well.

Science Fiction had come a long way, not just from the pulps that earned no respect, but all the way back to its origins in the novels of Jules Verne and even before that.

I will say this last word about where I hope Sci-Fi films can go from here.  This has been a mostly male-dominated genre (of my Top 50 the only ones that really have a female as the primary lead are Alien and Aliens) and both the people who make the films and those who go to them have often not been welcoming of gender equality in the genre.  I will just put forth this idea recently posted by my wife’s friend Maddy, though ironically, what she’s referring to I classify in films as Horror, but the same sentiment stands: “Sometimes I want to go up to people who insist that feminism and progressive values are Ruining Science Fiction and remind them that their genre exists because a teenaged girl was stuck at a house party and decided that inventing science fiction sounded more appealing than yet another tiresome threesome with Lord Byron.”

Sub-Genres

There are a lot of different types of Sci-Fi films.

Alien Arrival

  • Best Film:  Close Encounters of the Third Kind

This is different from the sub-genre listed just below because these aliens aren’t malevolent.  They are simply arriving.  These films can range in tone from E.T. to District 9 to Cocoon to Starman (listing the best ones).  It’s a lot smaller sub-genre than Alien Invasion (17 films to 67) but much better (57.4 to 36.0).

Alien Invasion

  • Best Film:  The Thing from Another World

This sub-genre is what helped kick off the Sci-Fi films of the 50’s with what is by far the best film in the sub-genre and it has continued all the way through 2011 (Cowboys and Aliens, Battle: Los Angeles).  But most of them aren’t that good and the only two since the 60’s that I even rate at *** are Independence Day and They Live.  The 50’s and 60’s saw a lot of really, really bad films here (It Conquered the World, Queen of Outer Space, Rocket Attack U.S.A., Robot Monster, Plan Nine, Teenagers from Outer Space, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians).

Animated (Anime)

  • Best Film:  Metropolis

Though there are a few Animated films that I classify as Sci-Fi that aren’t Anime, there aren’t very many and only Fantastic Planet and Plague Dogs even make it to ***.  But all five films in my Top 5 for Animated Film below are Anime films and even aside from those, Japan has a long, solid tradition of making interesting animated Sci-Fi films for adults.

Comedy

  • Best Film:  Back to the Future

Many of the films in this category including the best ones (Ghostbusters is the other main one) I used to have listed in Comedy and could easily go there.

Disaster

  • Best Film:  Deep Impact

Most Disaster films get listed under Action and the only ones I specifically list here have some sort of Sci-Fi element to them (Deep Impact, The Day After Tomorrow, Armageddon, Meteor, The Core).  Like the Action Disaster films, they generally suck.

Dystopia

  • Best Film:  Metropolis

This has been a part of Sci-Fi films since the beginning and include some of the best films in the genre (Brazil, Minority Report).

Lit Adaptation

  • Best Film:  The War of the Worlds (2005)

There are five Wells films (two each of Time Machine and War of the Worlds plus Things to Come), only four Verne because even though he is thought of as a Sci-Fi writer I classify most film versions as Adventure (two versions of Mysterious Island, Master of the World, Valley of the Dragons) and Dune.

Planet of the Apes

  • Best Film:  Planet of the Apes  (1968)

There are seven films here through 2011.  I’m not a big fan of the newest one (Rise) but think higher of the Burton film than most people do.  They average a 59.

Post-Apocalyptic

  • Best Film:  Le Dernier Combat

A lot of other sub-genres could fit here; many Dystopia films take place after an apocalypse as do almost all Planet of the Apes films.  But these are films where things are generally still a wasteland after the apocalypse.  There are mostly terrible with a 40.3 average and only a handful of films even reaching ***.

Space Travel

  • Best Film:  2001: A Space Odyssey

Ever since A Trip to the Moon, films have been made about going to other worlds.  All of the Star Trek films could easily go here.  In general, films about traveling between planets that aren’t in other categories go here.  The Fifth Element (which barely belongs here) is the only other film above ***.

Star Trek

  • Best Film:  Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

These, of course, are Space Travel films but with 11 films and counting they deserve their own list.  At a 74.6 average they are pretty strong as well although not as strong as the next one.

Star Wars

  • Best Film:  Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Six films through 2011 (Clone Wars is counted as a Kids film) and the average stands at 89.5  The franchise that changed not only the genre, but all of film.

Technology

  • Best Film:  Inception

As I was filling in sub-genres for the Sci-Fi films I found a common theme that ran through the top films that didn’t have one listed: Inception, AI, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Existenz, Dreamscape.  All of them deal with the development of new technology, which is what brings in the Sci-Fi element.  Going through the rest of the list I found an astounding 88 films that fit this sub-genre, the largest in Sci-Fi.  Outside of those top ones (I listed all the films above ***) it starts to drop and there are a lot of bad films in this sub-genre that have an interesting idea and not much else to support it so the sub-genre averages a 44.4.

Time Travel

  • Best Film:  12 Monkeys

Only 11 films through 2011 because some films with time travel at the core (Star Trek IV, Star Trek: First Contact, Back to the Future Trilogy, The Time Machine) belong in other sub-genres.  But Wells brought time travel to the genre and it has been a prominent part ever since.

Assorted

  • Best Film:  Forbidden Planet  (Shakespeare)

I could have listed Men in Black under Comedy.  But it’s one of three films through 2011 that I have listed as Comic Book (Men in Black II and Flash Gordon are the others) because most comic book adaptations I have listed under Action, even when they have Sci-Fi elements (like all the Superman films).  There are a couple of franchises that don’t have enough films to bother to list them up above through 2011 (Alien, Predator) and also two Stephen King films (The Running Man, The Lawnmower Man).  Through 2011, Forbidden Planet is the only Sci-Fi film I classify as Shakespeare.  There are also non-Anime Animated films like Chronopolis and Fantastic Planet.  It is also worth remembering that Sci-Fi itself is a sub-genre of Horror with over 30 films (though only two of them, Village of the Damned and Horror Express even reaching low ***) in which the Horror element is, to me at least, more prominent than the Sci-Fi elements.


The Directors

James Cameron

  • Films:  5
  • Years:  1984 – 2009
  • Average Film:  75.20
  • Best Film:  Aliens
  • Worst Film:  The Abyss

Thanks to Titanic (non-Sci-Fi) and Avatar, Cameron is thought of as the king of the box office.  But that really only began with Terminator 2 (the #1 film of 1991).  The original Terminator wasn’t a huge hit (less than $40 million gross), Aliens was a solid hit but not a blockbuster (less than $100 million and #7 for the year) and until the international grosses came in, The Abyss actually lost money.  But he’s had a big imagination (even if his screenwriting isn’t very good) and all of his Sci-Fi films are generally quite highly regarded among critics.  What’s more, he has been at the forefront of increasing quality in Visual Effects and that alone has done a lot for improving Sci-Fi films.

George Lucas

  • Films:  5
  • Years:  1970 – 2005
  • Average Film:  81.40
  • Best Film:  Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  • Worst Film:  THX-1138

Lucas is the opposite of Cameron.  While THX didn’t make money, Star Wars made money hand over foot and it’s his critical estimation that has fallen over the years.  But there’s no denying the massive influence of the Star Wars saga on the genre and while he only directed four of the six films, he was the creative force behind all of them.

Steven Spielberg

  • Films:  5
  • Years:  1977  –  2005
  • Average Film:  91.00
  • Best Film:  Close Encounters of the Third Kind
  • Worst Film:  The War of the Worlds

Spielberg couldn’t manage a Best Picture nomination for Close Encounters but he was Best Director nominated (which he wasn’t for Jaws).  He’s a lot more prolific director than either Cameron or Lucas so his Sci-Fi work has been a much smaller part of his output but what he has done (Close Encounters, E.T., A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds) has been fantastic.

Best Sci-Fi Director  (weighted points system)

  1. Steven Spielberg  (212)
  2. Terry Gilliam  (126)
  3. Ridley Scott  (124)
  4. Stanley Kubrick  (90)
  5. George Lucas  /  Christopher Nolan  (90)

Analysis:  This adds up points on a weighted scale (90-1) for placing in the Top 20 at the Nighthawk Awards for Best Director in any given year.



The Stars

 

Harrison Ford

Harrison Ford is Han Solo, of course, and that alone is enough to place him here.  But he is also Rick Deckard in Blade Runner and that gives him a boost over his Star Wars co-stars.
Essential Viewing:  Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Blade Runner

John Williams

You can just go down to the Original Score section in the Nighthawk Awards below and see how much Williams dominates here.  By doing the score, not just for the Star Wars films but also for his pal Steven Spielberg’s films as well, he’s got a place at the top of the list that no one can deny.
Essential Listening:  Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind

George Pal

As a producer, George Pal was responsible for three of the most important films of the early 50’s that helped usher in Sci-Fi as a legitimate genre that studios would be willing to invest in.  Then he turned to directing and directed a seminal Sci-Fi film of the early 60’s as well.
Essential Viewing:  The Time Machine, Destination Moon, War of the Worlds, When Worlds Collide

Arnold Schwarzenegger

When James Cameron cast Arnold as an unstoppable killing machine, he also set him on a trajectory that would make him a box office star and a Sci-Fi staple.  He’s not just the Terminator, but he’s done a whole slough of Sci-Fi hits through the years.
Essential Viewing:  Terminator 2, Total Recall, Terminator, Predator

Will Smith

Independence Day made him a film star (he was already a star) and Men in Black proved that he could deftly balance the Sci-Fi and the comedy.  Since then, even aside from the films listed below, he’s also done films that I don’t classify as Sci-Fi but definitely fit the model in some ways like I Legend and Hancock.
Essential Viewing:  Men in Black, Independence Day, I Robot

Sigourney Weaver

There really is no other female who has been a Sci-Fi star like this.  Not only is she the only true female lead in the top films in the genre, she has single-handedly carried a franchise through four films while pretty much everyone else changed over.  Then, she also showed she could do a balance like Will Smith with Sci-Fi and comedy in Galaxy Quest.
Essential Viewing:  Alien, Aliens, Avatar

 

The Studios

Because they were using independent productions and then distributing them rather than paying to produce them, United Artists was the first studio to really embrace Sci-Fi in the 50’s, releasing an array of cheap, fairly bad Sci-Fi films.  But really the genre has belonged to 20th Century-Fox.  Not only did they make one of the first important Sci-Fi films of the 50’s (The Day the Earth Stood Still), but they were the first to establish a Sci-Fi franchise (Planet of the Apes) and of the four biggest franchises, Fox has three of them (Apes, Star Wars, Alien – Paramount has Star Trek).  Fox has nine of the great Sci-Fi films while no other studio has more than three.  In 2002 alone, Fox had Minority Report, Solaris and Attack of the Clones.

Countries

Sci-Fi hasn’t been a big genre outside of the States.  I’ve seen a little more than 50 foreign Sci-Fi films and the vast majority of them are from Japan and most of those are Anime films.

Oscar Submissions

Of all the Oscar submissions I have seen through 2011, the only one I classify as Sci-Fi is Goodbye, 20th Century!, the Macedonia submission in 1998 and even that film is only partially a Sci-Fi film (it’s got three short parts and only the first part is Sci-Fi).

note:  For the next few lists, any links are to reviews I have written.  Some of them go to the Adapted Screenplay posts that discuss the film and the literary source but don’t actually review the film (but link to places where I had already reviewed the film).  There are a few that are not linked now but will be in the coming months as I get to more of the Adapted Screenplay posts.  The middle list deliberately includes any Horror films I have already reviewed as well as any Horror film I saw in the theater.  I try to include significant films in the middle list.  I have deliberately not included sequels so as to not clog the bottom of the list but I try to include first films in franchises and remakes (as well as originals) for some good comparisons.
note:  Please don’t try to make the following list match up with other lists I have made.  All my lists are fluid and they change.

The Top 50 Sci-Fi Films

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Metropolis
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  4. Alien
  5. Inception
  6. The Fountain
  7. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  8. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
  9. Minority Report
  10. Brazil
  11. Solyaris
  12. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  13. Solaris
  14. E.T.
  15. Forbidden Planet
  16. Back to the Future
  17. 12 Monkeys
  18. District 9
  19. A.I.
  20. Ghostbusters
  21. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  22. Aliens
  23. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  24. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
    ***.5
  25. The Fifth Element
  26. Star Trek: First Contact
  27. Blade Runner
  28. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  29. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
  30. The Thing from Another World
  31. Total Recall
  32. Dark City
  33. Star Trek
  34. Existenz
  35. Cocoon
  36. The War of the Worlds  (2005)
  37. Men in Black
  38. Back to the Future Part III
  39. Metropolis  (2001)
  40. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
  41. Steamboy
  42. Perfect Blue
  43. Aelita: Queen of Mars
  44. Dreamscape
  45. 1984  (1984)
  46. Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence
  47. Paprika
    ***
  48. The Day the Earth Stood Still  (1951)
  49. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
  50. 2046

Notable Sci-Fi Films Not in the Top 50

The Bottom 10 Sci-Fi Films, #491-500
(worst being #10, which is #500 overall)

  1. Rocket Attack U.S.A.
  2. The Eye Creatures
  3. The Creeping Terror
  4. Beginning of the End
    0 stars
  5. Teenagers from Outer Space
  6. Battlefield Earth
  7. Robot Monster
  8. Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster
  9. Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
  10. Plan Nine from Outer Space

The 5 Most Underrated Sci-Fi Films

These are all films that I rate at high ***.5 that have never appeared in TSPDT’s Top 1000 (now 2000) or their Top 250 21st Century Films (now 1000) and none of these were in any of the three books that had lists of the best of the genres (Essential Horrors Movies, Best Worst and Most Unusual, Rough Guide).  They are listed here in chronological order.

  1. Cocoon
  2. Star Trek: First Contact
  3. The Fifth Element
  4. Men in Black
  5. Dark City

Best Sci-Fi Films By Decade

  • 1920’s:  Metropolis
  • 1950’s:  Forbidden Planet
  • 1960’s:  2001: A Space Odyssey
  • 1970’s:  Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  • 1980’s:  Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  • 1990’s:  12 Monkeys
  • 2000’s:  The Fountain
  • 2010’s:  Inception

Worst Sci-Fi Films By Decade

  • 1940’s:  The Monster and the Girl
  • 1950’s:  Plan Nine from Outer Space
  • 1960’s:  Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
  • 1970’s:  The Thing with Two Heads
  • 1980’s:  Galaxina
  • 1990’s:  American Cyborg: Steel Warrior
  • 2000’s:  Battlefield Earth
  • 2010’s:  I Am Number Four

The Most Over-Rated Sci-Fi Films

  1. The Man who Fell to Earth
    Slow and ponderous.  So very, very slow.  Bowie is interesting but the film kills any overall interest with the pace.
  2. The Matrix
    From the same year as Fight Club and both movies mask shallow ideas with a pretend philosophy.  A solid film (mid ***) but a terrible performance from Reeves and the fact that it’s not as revolutionary as people think brings it down.  And that was all before the horrible, horrible sequels.  Given that Avatar was the biggest film of all-time when it was released and was nominated for Best Picture (and won at the Globes), it could have also been here.  I think both films are good films (solid ***) but don’t deserve all the accolades they get.
  3. Logan’s Run
    Was quite popular and lead to a TV series and a comic book but it’s just awful.
  4. Tron
    Like The Matrix, it had some really good effects but there’s just nothing beneath the surface.
  5. Starship Troopers
    It boggles my mind that some people think this film has the intelligence to be a satire.  Even if it is a satire, that’s no excuse for the acting.

The Statistics

Total Films 1912-2011:  500  (11th)

Total Percentage of All Films 1912-2011:  2.90%

  • 1912-1929:  8  (8th)  –  1.86%
  • 1930-1939:  12  (12th)  –  0.75%
  • 1940-1949:  6  (13th – tie)  –  0.39%
  • 1950-1959:  99  (6th)  –  5.66%
  • 1960-1969:  80  (9th)  –  4.35%
  • 1970-1979:  53  (11th)  –  2.93%
  • 1980-1989:  77  (8th)  –  3.72%
  • 1990-1999:  70  (8th)  –  2.63%
  • 2000-2011:  95  (10th)  –  2.67%

Stars:

  • ****:  4.80%
  • ***.5:  4.60%
  • ***:  19.80%
  • **.5:  18.60%
  • **:  20.00%
  • *.5:  9.00%
  • *:  13.60%
  • .5:  8.40%
  • 0:  1.20%

Biggest Years:

  • 19:  1958
  • 17:  1957
  • 15:  1960, 1984, 2011

Biggest Years by Percentage of All Films:

  • 1958:  9.64%
  • 1957:  8.42%
  • 1960:  8.02%
  • 1953:  7.74%
  • 1956:  7.07%

Best Years:

  • 1982:  2 Top 10, 3 Top 20
  • 1985:  2 Top 10, 3 Top 20
  • 1977:  2 Top 10

The Top Films:

  • Nighthawk Winner:  1968, 1977, 1979, 2010
  • Top 10 Films:  22
  • First Year in the Top 10:  1928
  • Latest Year in the Top 10:  2010
  • Longest Streak with at least one Top 10 Film:  1982-86
  • Longest Streak without a Top 10 Film:  1932-50
  • Best Decade for Top 10 Films:  1980’s  (8)
  • Worst Decade for Top 10 Films:  1940’s  (0)
  • Top 20 Films:  36
  • Longest Streak with at least one Top 20 Film:  1982-86
  • Longest Streak without a Top 20 Film:  1932-50
  • Best Decade for Top 20 Films:  1980’s  (12)
  • Worst Decade for Top 20 Films:  1940’s  (0)

Nighthawk Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  91
  • Number of Films That Have Won Nighthawks:  32
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  58
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  15
  • Best Picture Nominations:  12
  • Total Number of Nominations:  321
  • Total Number of Wins:  87
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Visual Effects  (76)
  • Director with Most Nighthawk Nominated Films:  Steven Spielberg  (5)
  • Best Film with No Nighthawks:  Close Encounters of the Third Kind
  • Best Film with No Nighthawk Nominations:  n/a
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Drama Nominations:  21
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Comedy Nominations:  5
  • Number of Films That Have Won Drama Awards:  6
  • Number of Films That Have Won Comedy Awards:  2
  • Drama Picture Nominations:  13
  • Comedy Picture Nominations:  4
  • Total Number of Drama Nominations:  64
  • Total Number of Comedy Nominations:  18
  • Total Number of Drama Wins:  16
  • Total Number of Comedy Wins:  3
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Picture  (13 – Drama  /  4 – Comedy)
  • Best Drama Film With No Nominations:  Solaris
  • Best Comedy Film With No Nominations:  n/a
  • Most 2nd Place Finishes:  Close Encounters of the Third Kind  (6)
  • Most 6th Place Finishes:  Brazil  (3)
  • Most Top 10 Finishes:  Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  (15)
  • Most Top 20 Finishes:  Alien  (16)
  • Best Film Without a Top 10 Finish:  n/a
  • Best Film Without a Top 20 Finish:  n/a

notes:

  • The Thing from Another World and 1984 are the only films to receive multiple nominations without a Visual Effects nomination.
  • Only 5 of the 32 films to win a Nighthawk don’t win Visual Effects.  Three of those films (Star Trek, Star Trek II, Blade Runner) were in years where a different Sci-Fi film (Alien, ET) won Visual Effects.
  • Star Trek II is the only film to win multiple awards (Editing, Score) without winning Visual Effects.
  • Every Sci-Fi film that earns ***.5 or **** earns at least one Nighthawk nom.

Most Nighthawk Nominations:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  14
  2. Alien  –  13
  3. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  11
  4. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back  –  11
  5. The Fountain  –  11
  6. Inception  –  11
  7. Metropolis  –  10
  8. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  10
  9. Solyaris  –  10
  10. Brazil  –  10

Most Nighthawks:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  12
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  9
  3. Inception  –  9
  4. Alien  –  8
  5. Metropolis  /  Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace  –  5

Most Nighthawk Points:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  680
  2. Inception  –  590
  3. Alien  –  570
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  510
  5. Metropolis  –  435
  6. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back  –  345
  7. The Fountain  –  335
  8. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  310
  9. Brazil  –  280
  10. Solyaris  –  270

Most Drama Nominations:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  6
  2. Alien  –  6
  3. Metropolis  –  5
  4. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  5
  5. The Fountain  –  5

Most Comedy Nominations:

  1. Brazil  –  6
  2. Ghostbusters  –  4
  3. Back to the Future  –  4
  4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home  –  3
  5. Men in Black  –  1

Most Drama Wins:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  4
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  3
  3. Alien  –  3
  4. Inception  –  3
  5. Metropolis  –  2

Most Comedy Wins:

  1. Brazil  –  2
  2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home  –  1

Most Drama Points:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  390
  2. Alien  –  365
  3. Inception  –  305
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  270
  5. Metropolis  –  265

Most Comedy Points:

  1. Brazil  –  305
  2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home  –  175
  3. Ghostbusters  –  170
  4. Back to the Future  –  165
  5. Men in Black  –  40

All-Time Nighthawk Awards

note:  These are my all-time Top 5 in each category.  But in the Analysis section, I discuss not only how Horror films have done in the Nighthawks but also in-depth discussions of how they have done in all the awards groups.  Films in red won the Oscar.  Films in blue were Oscar nominated.  There are a few lists here that aren’t in my usual Nighthawk Awards.

  • Best Picture
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Metropolis
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  4. Alien
  5. Inception

Analysis:  Four of those films win the Nighthawk (Metropolis used to be my winner but has been bumped, just barely, by Sunrise).  Aside from those five films, seven more films earn Nighthawk noms, five of them in the course of one decade (Solyaris, Close Encounters, Empire, Star Trek II, Brazil) and then two more later (12 Monkeys, Fountain).  In all, 23 films land in the Top 10 and 35 in the Top 20.  The same four films win the Drama award with nine other nominees (the same except Brazil as well as Forbidden Planet and Return of the Jedi).  In Comedy, there are no Comedy winners but four nominees (Ghostbusters, Brazil, Back to the Future, Star Trek IV).
Traditionally, Sci-Fi has not done well here, at least until recently.  Before the Best Picture expansion in 2009 the only Oscar nominees were Star Wars and ET while afterwards at least District 9, Avatar and Inception earned nominations.  ET and Avatar won the Globe – Drama while Star Wars, Close Encounters, Cocoon and Inception earned nominations and Ghostbusters, Back to the Future and Men in Black earned Comedy noms.  Seven films have earned BAFTA noms (2001, Star Wars, Close Encounters, ET, Back to the Future, Avatar, Inception) but none have won the award.  Moon is the only film to earn a British Film nomination.  Two films earn BFCA noms (Avatar, Inception).  Four films have earned PGA noms (Avatar, Star Trek, District 9, Inception).  ET won two critics awards (LAFC, BSFC) while Star Wars (LAFC) and Brazil (LAFC) win one each.

  • Best Director
  1. Stanley Kubrick  (2001: A Space Odyssey)
  2. Ridley Scott  (Alien)
  3. George Lucas  (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)
  4. Fritz Lang  (Metropolis)
  5. Christopher Nolan  (Inception)

Analysis:  Four directors win the Nighthawk (not Lang).  Another eight earn a nomination, but not the same eight as for Picture.  Instead of Empire and Star Trek II we have two nominations for Spielberg (E.T., Minority Report).  The same four directors win the Drama award while Gilliam (Brazil) wins Comedy.  Seven films earn Drama noms (Lang, Tarkovsky (Solyaris), Spielberg (three), Gilliam (12 Monkeys) and Aranofsky (Fountain)).  In Comedy there are three nominees: Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters), Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future) and Leonard Nimoy (Star Trek IV).
There have been five Oscar nominees, two of them Spielberg, two of them in 1977 (also Kubrick and Cameron).
Cameron actually won the Globe for Avatar.  Lucas, Spielberg (three times – Close Encounters, ET, AI) and Nolan (Inception) all earned noms.  No BAFTA winners but Spielberg (Close Encounters, ET), Cameron, Neill Blomkamp (District 9) and Nolan earned noms.  Spielberg won the BFCA for Minority Report while Cameron and Nolan have earned noms.  There have been seven DGA nominees but no winners: Kubrick, Spielberg and Lucas in 77, Spielberg again for ET, Ron Howard (Cocoon), Cameron and Nolan.
Spielberg won three awards for ET (LAFC, NSFC, BSFC) while Gilliam won the LAFC for Brazil.

  • Best Adapted Screenplay:
  1. Minority Report
  2. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  3. Solaris
  4. 12 Monkeys
  5. Solyaris

Analysis:  There are no Nighthawk winners and barely more than a handful of nominees (Solyaris, Empire, Star Trek II and IV, 12 Monkeys, Minority Report).  Though I rate the remake’s script higher for Solaris, 2002 is a much tougher year than 1976.  Star Trek IV does win the Comedy award while Men in Black earns a nomination while nine films (the five mentioned above as well as 1984, T2, AI and District 9) earn Drama noms.
District 9 is the only Adapted nominee at the Oscars, Globes, BAFTAs and BFCA.  It wasn’t eligible for a WGA nom but Star Trek earned one that same year and Empire was nominated for Adapted Comedy in 1980.

  • Best Novel Adapted into a Sci-Fi Film:
  1. 1984  (twice)
  2. Dune
  3. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
  4. The War of the Worlds  (twice)
  5. The Time Machine  (twice)

Analysis:  It’s notable that of my Top 5 Adapted Screenplays, only two are adapted from a novel and it’s the same novel.  My sixth and seventh place choices in this category (Solaris (twice), Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) are well worth reading as well.  It’s also notable that the two films that haven’t been filmed twice have also been made into a television series.

Best Original Screenplay:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Inception
  3. The Fountain
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  5. Alien

Analysis:  The two Nighthawk winners are about as far apart as you can get (Metropolis – 1928, Inception – 2010).  There are also 10 nominees, spread from 1956 (Forbidden Planet – which I do list as original) to 2006.  There are six Drama winners (Metropolis, 2001, Star Wars, Alien, ET, Inception) which shows that those other four all lost the Nighthawk to extremely brilliant comedies (Producers, Annie Hall, Manhattan, Tootsie) and three other Drama nominees (Forbidden Planet, Close Encounters, Fountain).  There are no Comedy winners and just three nominees (Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Brazil).
There have been six Oscar nominees (2001, Star Wars, ET, Back to the Future, Brazil, Inception) but no winners.  The same four films earned Globe noms and BAFTA noms (Close Encounters, ET, Back to the Future, Inception).  Inception earned a BFCA nom.  ET and Inception both won the WGA with five other films earning noms (Star Wars, Close Encounters, Back to the Future, Cocoon, Avatar).  Brazil won the LAFC while Inception won the CFC.

  • Best Actor:
  1. Hugh Jackman  (The Fountain)
  2. Leonardo DiCaprio  (Inception)
  3. Jonathan Pryce  (Brazil)
  4. Richard Dreyfuss  (Close Encounters of the Third Kind)
  5. Tom Cruise  (Minority Report)

Analysis:  Only Jackman and DiCaprio manage Nighthawk noms.  For Drama, Dreyfuss and Cruise also manage noms while in Comedy, Pryce and Bill Murray (Ghostbusters) earn noms.
The only Oscar nominee is Jeff Bridges (Starman).  Bridges (in Drama), Murray and Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future (Comedy) earn Globe noms.  There have been no BAFTA, BFCA, SAG noms or critics awards.

  • Best Actress
  1. Sigourney Weaver  (Aliens)
  2. Sigourney Weaver  (Alien)
  3. Rachel Weisz  (The Fountain)
  4. Jodie Foster  (Contact)
  5. Carrie Fisher  (Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)

Analysis:  Weaver (both times) and Fisher (in a weak year) earn Nighthawk noms.  In addition, Weisz joins them as a Drama nom.
Weaver in Aliens is the only Oscar nominee.  Weaver (Aliens) and Foster are Globe nominees. There have been no BAFTA, BFCA, SAG noms or critics awards.

  • Best Supporting Actor:
  1. Alec Guinness  (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)
  2. Brad Pitt  (12 Monkeys)
  3. Richard Burton  (1984)
  4. Peter Cushing  (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)
  5. Ian Holm  (Alien)

Analysis:  Guinness is the only Nighthawk winner.  The other four earn Nighthawk noms as do Rudolf Klein-Rogge (Metropolis), Michael Palin (Brazil) and Jude Law (AI).  Add to that James Earl Jones (Star Wars) and Don Ameche (Cocoon) as Drama nominees, Palin as a Comedy winner and Ian Holm (Brazil) and Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future) as Comedy nominees.
Ameche won the Oscar while Guinness and Pitt earned nominations.  Guinness (along with Dillon – see below) was the first ever acting nominee from a Sci-Fi film and through 2011 Ameche is the only acting Oscar.  Guinness was the first ever Globe nominee as well while Pitt was the first ever winner and Law also earned a nomination.  The only two Sci-Fi BAFTA acting nominees ever are Francois Truffaut (Close Encounters) and Holm (Alien).  Andy Serkis (Rise of the Planet of the Apes) is the only ever BFCA acting nominee.  There have been no SAG nominees.  Ian Holm won the BSFC for several films in 1985 including Brazil, the only critics award for acting for a Sci-Fi film through 2011.

  • Best Supporting Actress:
  1. Brigitte Helm  (Metropolis)
  2. Zhang Ziyi  (2046)
  3. Melinda Dillon  (Close Encounters of the Third Kind)
  4. Samantha Morton  (Minority Report)
  5. Suzannah Hamilton  (1984)

Analysis:  Even more than Actress, this is a weak category.  Helm is the only Nighthawk winner while Dillon and Hamilton (in a weak year) are the only nominees.  In addition, Morton and Veronica Cartwright (Alien) manage Drama noms.
Dillon’s Oscar nomination (tied with Guinness for the first ever acting nomination for a Sci-Fi film) is the only awards attention in this category.

  • Best Ensemble
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Alien
  3. Brazil
  4. A.I.
  5. 1984

Analysis:  This simply totals up all the acting points that I assign to a film.  It’s probably not surprising that the numbers for these films are far below almost any other genre.

  • Best Editing:
  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  2. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  3. Inception
  4. Alien
  5. The Fountain

Analysis:  Those are the five perfect 9’s in this category.  The Fountain doesn’t win the Nighthawk (because of The Departed) but Star Trek II does.  There are also 11 other Nighthawk nominees.
Though only Star Wars and The Matrix have won the Oscar this is one of the categories that embraced Sci-Fi first with The War of the Worlds earning a nomination back in 1953 and then Fantastic Voyage in 1966 making it the only category with just five nominees each year to have two nominated Sci-Fi films before 2001 was released.  In all, 11 films have earned nominations including the two winners with 1977 (Star Wars, Close Encounters) and 2009 (Avatar, District 9) having two each.
No Sci-Fi film has won the BAFTA although ten have been nominated including two each in 1978 (Star Wars, Close Encounters), 1982 (ET, Blade Runner) and 2009 (Avatar, District 9).  Avatar and Inception both won the BFCA.  Two films have won the ACE (Fantastic Voyage, The Matrix) while nine others have earned nominations including two in 1977 (Star Wars, Close Encounters) and three in 2009 (Avatar, District 9, Star Trek).

  • Best Cinematography:
  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  2. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  3. Alien
  4. Inception
  5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Analysis:  The first three earn perfect 9’s.  Alien, however, doesn’t win the Nighthawk (because of Apocalypse Now).  The Nighthawk winners are 2001, Star Wars, ET and Inception.  There are only six other Nighthawk nominees.  Of the 10 nominated films, there is a Spielberg winner and two other nominees (Close Encounters, Minority Report).
Three films have won the Oscar including back-to-back winners in 2009 (Avatar) and 2010 (Inception) while Close Encounters is the other winner.  There have been nine other nominees including The Black Hole which was nominated over Alien.  To show how backwards the Oscar voters have been, here are other films nominated over my Top 3 on this list: Funny Girl, Ice Station Zebra, Star!, The Turning Point.
The BAFTAs have been better: 2001 and Blade Runner both won the award while six others have earned noms including two in 2009 (Avatar, District 9).  Like with Editing, Avatar and Inception both won the BFCA.  Inception is the only ASC winner with only four other nominees (Star Trek IV, Abyss, T2, Avatar), three of which are Cameron films.  2046 won both the NYFC and NSFC while ET (BSFC), Blade Runner (LAFC) and Inception (CFC) won one award each.

  • Best Original Score:
  1. John Williams  (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)
  2. John Williams  (Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)
  3. Jerry Goldsmith  (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)
  4. James Horner  (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)
  5. John Williams  (Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith)

Analysis:  ALL HAIL JOHN WILLIAMS!!!  You might say I over-rate the Star Wars scores but they are all different (yes, they all use the main title score but they all are very different through the films themselves) and they are all brilliant.  Plus, the awards list down below makes it clear that Williams is just massively dominant in this category.  All six Star Wars films (even the ones not in the Top 5) earn perfect 9’s.  It was very difficult to decide what that third Williams score would be in the Top 5 although it was just as hard to eliminate the other perfect 9 (Back to the Future).  The two Star Trek scores are a perfect example of the difficulty in ranking this category.  The Goldsmith has the better title score (which is so brilliant it later became the theme for TNG) but Horner’s is the better score all the way through (probably in the Top 5 non-Williams soundtracks I have listened to from start to finish in my life).
Only four of the Star Wars scores win the Nighthawk (Jedi loses to Terms of Endearment and The Right Stuff, Clones loses out to Two Towers) but so do the two Star Trek scores and Back to the Future.  In total, there are 19 nominees including the seven winners and eight of them are scored by Williams (also Close Encounters and ET).
Two films have won the Oscar, both scored by Williams (Star Wars, ET).  Another 12 films have earned noms, four of them by Williams (Close Encounters, Empire, Jedi, AI) with two nominations each for Jerry Goldsmith (Planet of the Apes, Star Trek) and James Horner (Aliens, Avatar).
Score is far and away the best category for Sci-Fi at the Globes with 16 of the 24 Sci-Fi films that have ever earned a Globe nom getting a nomination though, like the Oscars, the only winner is Williams, twice (Star Wars, ET).
Williams wins three BAFTAs (Star Wars, Empire, ET) and earns a nom for Close Encounters leaving just five other noms in the category, including one for Queen for Flash Gordon!  Williams wins the BFCA (Minority Report) while The Fountain and Inception earn noms.  He also wins the LAFC for Star Wars while Clint Mansell becomes the only Sci-Fi composer to win something other than Williams, winning the CFC for The Fountain.

  • Best Sound:
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  4. Alien
  5. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Analysis:  Four other films earn perfect 9’s (Jedi, Phantom Menace, Sith, Minority Report).  The top four films win the Nighthawk as do Phantom Menace and Inception.  Another 23 films earn nominations including three in 2009 (Avatar, District 9, Star Trek).
Three films won the Oscar in close succession (Star Wars, Empire, ET) then three more with big gaps (T2, Matrix, Inception).  Another 25 films have earned nominations with only War of the Worlds and Marooned before 1977.  The peaks were the three nominations in 2009 (Avatar, District 9, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) and the 3 winners and 11 more nominees from 1977 to 1986.
Six films have also won the BAFTA though it’s 2001 and Alien instead of Empire and ET.  Another 11 have earned nominations with three in 2009 (Avatar, District 9, Star Trek).  Avatar and Inception have won the BFCA with District 9, Star Trek and Super 8 earning noms.  Surprisingly, The Matrix is the only CAS winner though there have been 14 nominees including four in 2009 (all four with other nominations).

  • Best Art Direction:
  1. Metropolis
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  4. Blade Runner
  5. Inception

Analysis:  These are all perfect 9’s as are Alien and Brazil.  Six of those win the Nighthawk (Brazil loses to Ran).  There are also 10 nominees including Brazil, three of which are Star Wars films.
There have been three Oscar winners (Fantastic Voyage, Star Wars, Inception) and 18 nominees including Just Imagine, the first (1931) Sci-Fi film to earn an Oscar nomination and the only one to earn one during the 30’s.  The best stretch, by far, was 1976 to 1989 with one winner and 11 other nominees.
This has been a strong category for the genre at the BAFTAs with seven winners (2001, Close Encounters, Alien, Blade Runner, Brazil, Avatar, Inception) and another 11 nominees, with most of them (4 wins, 8 other noms) from 1978 to 1986.
Avatar and Inception win the BFCA and the ADG while 10 other films earn ADG noms.  Three films win critics awards: 2046, District 9 and Inception.

  • Best Visual Effects
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  4. District 9
  5. Avatar

Analysis:  I’m not going to list all of the perfect 9’s in this category because there are 18 of them.  That accounts for over 60% of the 9’s in this category through 2011 with most of the rest in Fantasy (and four outliers: Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Jurassic Park, Titanic, King Kong).  I thought for quite a while on the Top 5 and I decided based, not only on the effects and how well they looked originally and how well they looked now, but how important they were at the time and in the history of the genre and the history of film.  As discussed in the 2009 Nighthawk Awards, I actually think the way District 9 seamlessly works in the effects to live action to the point where you can’t tell when it’s effects and when it’s makeup is more impressive than Avatar’s creation of a world that is all effects.  The #6 and 7 on the list would be Inception and The Fifth Element.
Sci-Fi dominates this category at the Nighthawks, of course.  It wins the award 27 times and earns 49 more nominations.  Indeed, of the 91 Sci-Fi films that earn at least one Nighthawk nomination, only 15 of them aren’t nominated for Visual Effects and five of those are animated films.  The only Sci-Fi films to earn more than one nomination and not a VE nom are The Thing from Another World, 1984 and Solaris.  While the six Star Wars films win four awards and two noms (losing to Two Towers and King Kong) the Star Trek films only manage five nominations losing to massive Sci-Fi films every time (Alien, ET, Aliens, T2, Independence Day).  In 1984, Sci-Fi accounts for all four nominees but not the winner (Temple of Doom).
Twenty three Sci-Fi films have won the Oscar, including seven films in the 80’s but only one (Avatar) in the 00’s.  Additionally, 24 films have earned nominations.  Oddly, in the 70’s and 80’s, the only Sci-Fi film to lose to a film that wasn’t Sci-Fi was Ghostbusters while since then, of the 15 nominees that lost, the only two to lose to another Sci-Fi film were Star Trek and District 9.  This category includes 47 of the 73 Sci-Fi films that have ever earned Oscar nominations.  Also, only five films have won an Oscar without winning in Visual Effects (see Oscar piece below).  James Cameron dominates here, having directed four different films that won the Oscar (Aliens, Abyss, T2, Avatar) aside from having won it as well with a Drama.
Nine films have won the BAFTA and 15 more have earned a nomination and that’s only because it took until 1982 before they began the award.  Since 1982, only three Sci-Fi films have earned a BAFTA nom without earning a VE nom (1984, Planet of the Apes, Moon).  Ironically, in 1982, the first year of the award, three Sci-Fi films were nominated (ET, Tron, Blade Runner) and they all lost (to Poltergeist).
The BFCA award began in 2009 and all three winners (Avatar, Inception, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) have been Sci-Fi as well as four other nominees.  The VES began in 2002 and Sci-Fi has been the most dominant genre with Avatar (340 points, 6 wins, 5 more noms) tied for the most points and Transformers (180 points, 4 wins, one more nom) also near the top.  Four films have won the biggest award (Visual Effects in an Effects Driven Film): Transformers, Avatar, Inception, Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

  • Best Sound Editing
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
  3. Alien
  4. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
  5. Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Analysis:  That’s only five of 12 perfect 9’s in this category (the others, in chronological order are 2001, Empire, Jedi, Fifth Element, AotC, Minority Report and Sith).  Only nine films win the Nighthawk though (Thing from Another World, 2001, Star Wars, Alien, Empire, Aliens, T2, Phantom Menace, Inception) with all of this films except Thing also winning VE with a whopping 43 other nominees.  Like with VE, that includes all of the nominees in 1984 but not the winner.  Thing from Another World, Star Trek III and Solaris are the only Sci-Fi films that earn a SE nom but not a VE nom.
There have been eight Oscar winners (Star Wars and Close Encounters won two special awards, ET, Back to the Future, Aliens, T2, Matrix, Inception).  There have been 15 other nominees.  Surprisingly, as recently as 1992-96, the genre went five straight years without a nominee.  A ridiculous number of Sci-Fi films have won the MPSE (in excess of 20) and with the increase in categories, even more have won multiple awards and received multiple nominations in recent years.  In total, 45 Sci-Fi films have earned at least one MPSE nomination.  Since the expansion in categories in 1997, the only years that haven’t had at least one Sci-Fi nominee are 2006 and 2008.

  • Best Costume Design:
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
  3. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  4. The Fountain
  5. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Analysis:  Star Wars is the only Nighthawk winner with Empire and Phantom Menace the only other nominees.
Star Wars is also the only Oscar winner though the original Planet of the Apes, Tron, 2010 and 12 Monkeys were all nominated.
Blade Runner won the BAFTA while Star Wars, Alien, Flash Gordon and the 2001 Planet of the Apes all earned noms.  Seven films have managed CDG nominations but none of them have won the award.

  • Best Makeup
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  4. Alien
  5. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Analysis:  Nine films win the Nighthawk (2001, Star Wars, Alien, Jedi, Aliens, T2, Fifth Element, Phantom Menace, District 9).  Another 23 films earn nominations (including the other three Star Wars films).
Four films have won the Oscar (Planet of the Apes (the original), T2, Men in Black, Star Trek).  In addition, six more films have been nominated, though, to be fair, none of my Top 5 were eligible (three predate the award, one was in a year where Planet of the Apes won a special award and the final one had no award given that year).
There were four early BAFTA nominees (ET, Blade Runner, Jedi, Aliens) and the only since is the 2001 Planet of the ApesAvatar, Star Trek and District 9 all received BFCA noms in 2009 but lost.  Bicentennial Man, Planet of the Apes and AI won MUAHSG awards while Terminator 3 was nominated.

  • Best Technical Aspects
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Alien
  3. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  5. The Fountain

Analysis:  A tallying up of all the Tech categories.  2001 is hurt by the lack of an original score while both Alien and 2001 are held back by weaker costumes as well.  The next four films on the list are the other four Star Wars films.  Perhaps not surprisingly, there are only four Sci-Fi films that have earned points from me at all without earning any Tech points.  Three of those are Animated films that just barely earn points for Picture (and thus Animated Film).  The other is Tank Girl which earns points for Song.

  • Best Original Song:
  1. “The Power of Love”  (Back to the Future)
  2. “Ghostbusters”  (Ghosbusters)
  3. “Mockingbird Girl”  (Tank Girl)
  4. “Back in Time”  (Back to the Future)
  5. “Flash”  (Flash Gordon)

Analysis:  Three of these songs earn Nighthawk noms (the first three).
The only three Oscar nominees are the first two as well as “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing” from Armageddon (a song, I must admit, that has grown on me considerably since the initial release).  The top two also earned Globe noms as well as some song from Avatar I can’t even remember.  “Ghostbusters” actually won the BAFTA during their short-lived category.

  • Best Animated Film:
  1. Metropolis (2001)
  2. Steamboy
  3. Perfect Blue
  4. Paprika
  5. Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

Analysis:  These are the only five animated films I classify as Sci-FI and earn more than *** (they are all low ***.5).  They all also earn Nighthawk noms.
Even though four of these films (all but Perfect Blue) were eligible for Animated Film, none of them earned Oscar noms.  Ghost in the Shell 2 did earn an Annie nom.

  • Best Foreign Film:
  1. Metropolis
  2. Solyaris
  3. Metropolis (2001)
  4. Steamboy
  5. Perfect Blue

note:  The original Metropolis is the only Nighthawk winner and Solyaris is the only other nominee (and certainly was worthy of the award but ran up against Aguirre).  They are both high **** while the other three are low ***.5.
There have been no Oscar nominees (and indeed, only one Oscar submission) and 2046‘s LAFC win is the only award for any film.

  • Best Film (by my points system):
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Alien
  3. The Fountain
  4. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  5. Inception

Analysis:  The top four films are all among the (relatively) rare number of films with over 100 total points with Star Wars in 9th place all-time, first among Sci-Fi (obviously) and second for the 70’s (behind only The Godfather).

  • Best Film  (weighted points system)
  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Alien
  3. The Fountain
  4. Inception
  5. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Analysis:  With better scores in the bigger categories, Inception moves past Empire here.

Best Films With No Top 5 Finishes:

  • E.T.
  • Forbidden Planet

note:  The only medium **** films to not earn any Top 5 finishes.

Worst Film with a Top 5 Finish:

  • Tank Girl

Note:  A full 28 points worse than any other Top 5 finisher.

Nighthawk Notables

  • Best Film to Watch Over and Over:  Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  • Best Line  (comedic):  “You stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerfherder!”  “Who’s scruffy-looking?” (Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)
  • Best Line  (dramatic):  “I am your father.”  (James Earl Jones in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)
  • Worst Line:  “Rico, I’m dying.”  “No Diz, you’ll be fine.”  “But it’s okay, because I got to have you.”  (Dina Meyer and Casper Van Dien in Starship Troopers)
  • Best Opening:  Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  • Best Ending:  Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
  • Best Scene:  the Genesis countdown in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  • Most Terrifying Scene:  the barricade scene in Aliens
  • Most Gut-Wrenching Scene:  the stomach scene in Alien
  • Most Heart-Wrenching Scene:  Spock’s death in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  • Best Death Scene:  Alec Guinness in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  • Best Kiss:  Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford on the Falcon in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  • Best Use of a Song:  “Johnny B. Goode”  (Back to the Future)
  • Best Use of Classical Music:  “Also Sprach Zarathustra”  (2001: A Space Odyssey)
  • Best Soundtrack:  Back to the Future
  • Best Guilty Pleasure:  Battlestar Galactica
  • Funniest Film:  Ghostbusters
  • Most Terrifying Film:  Alien
  • Worst Film I Saw in the Theater:  Lost in Space
  • Worst Film by a Top 100 Director:  Quintet (Robert Altman)
  • Read the Book, SKIP the Film:  Sphere
  • Performance to Fall in Love With:  Carrie Fisher in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  • Sexiest Performance:  Zoe Saldana in Star Trek
  • Highest Attractiveness / Acting Ability Ratio:  Heather Graham in Lost in Space
  • Coolest Performance:  Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  • Best Poster:  Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
  • Best Tagline:  “In space no one can hear you scream”  (Alien)
  • Best Trailer:  Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (Special Edition)
  • Best Voice Performance:  James Earl Jones in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  • Best Cameo:  Kate Mulgrew in Star Trek: Nemesis
  • Sexiest Cameo:  Rachel Nichols in Star Trek
  • Funniest Cameo:  Huey Lewis in Back to the Future

 

note:  It doesn’t include categories that are covered in some of the lists above like Worst Film, Most Over-rated Film, Best Ensemble, etc and some categories are covered in the Franchise list at the end of the post.

Soundtracks I Own:  2001, Star Wars (all of them, including the box set with the extras disc), Star Trek II, Star Trek (compilation), Back to the Future

At the Theater

By the end of 2011, I had probably seen over 1000 films in the theater at some point or another.  I had certainly been to the movies well over 1000 times.  And the list of Sci-Fi films I have seen in the theater is lengthy, far out of proportion to other genres that I have covered so far.

I will start with films I have seen at least 10 times in the theater: Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Revenge of the Sith.  Now we’ll do the chronological list of Sci-Fi films I have seen multiple times in the theaters: Metropolis, Back to the Future, Star Trek VI, Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones.  Here are the Sci-Fi films I saw in the theater but just once: Star Trek II, ET, Star Trek III, Star Trek IV, Star Trek V, Back to the Future Part II, Total Recall, Back to the Future Part III, Predator 2, Terminator 2, Alien3, Lawnmower Man, Star Trek: Generations, Stargate, 12 Monkeys, Strange Days, Star Trek: First Contact, Mars Attacks, Independence Day, The Fifth Element, Men in Black, Starship Troopers, Alien Resurrection, Star Trek: Insurrection, Armageddon, Lost in Space, AI, Planet of the Apes, Minority Report, Star Trek: Nemesis, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, War of the Worlds, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Star Trek.

So, that’s a total of 44 films and, by my count, about 115 trips to the theater.  Compare that to the 102 combined films (with 105 trips) for the six genres I have already covered (Crime, Horror, Mystery, Suspense, War, Western) which add up to something like 5 times as many total films that I have seen.

Awards


Academy Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  73
  • Number of Films That Have Won Oscars:  28
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  45
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  11
  • Best Picture Nominations:  5
  • Total Number of Nominations:  200
  • Total Number of Wins:  53
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Visual Effects  (47)
  • Number of Films with Nominations I Haven’t Seen:  0
  • Directors with Most Oscar Nominated Films:  Steven Spielberg  (5)
  • Best Film with No Oscar Nominations:  Metropolis
  • Best English Language Film with No Oscar Nominations:  The Fountain

Oscar Oddities:

  • Star Wars, the first Sci-Fi film ever nominated for Best Picture is still, through 2011, the only Sci-Fi film ever nominated for Picture, Director, Screenplay and an acting category.
  • The only other film even with Picture, Director and Screenplay is ET while no other film has managed any three of the four.
  • Only a handful even have two.  Avatar has Picture and Director.  District 9 and Inception have Picture and Screenplay.  2001 has Director and Screenplay.  Close Encounters has Director and Supporting Actress.
  • Cocoon is the only film to win a major category (Supporting Actor).
  • The only films with more than one nomination to win all of their nominations are The Matrix (4 for 4) and Cocoon (2 for 2).
  • 34 of the 45 films with multiple nominations earned a VE nom.  Every film with more than 4 noms earned a VE nom.  Oddly, the only films with 4 noms to not earn a VE nom were in three successive years (1984, 1985, 1986 – 2010, Back to the Future, Star Trek IV).
  • Of the 28 films to win at least one Oscar, 23 of them won VE.
  • The only Sci-Fi film to win more than one Oscar and not win VE is Close Encounters which, of course, lost VE to Star Wars.
  • Thanks to several franchises (Star Wars, Alien, Apes), 20th Century-Fox dominates the Oscars, accounting for nearly a third of the nominations (64) and over 40% of the wins (23) including 10 in VE.

Most Oscar Nominations

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  11
  2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  9
  3. E.T.  –  9
  4. Avatar  –  9
  5. Inception  –  8
  6. Aliens  –  7
  7. Terminator 2: Judgment Day  –  6
  8. Fantastic Voyage  –  5
  9. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi  –  5
  10. ten films  –  4

note:  You will see in most places that Star Wars earned 10 Oscar nominations.  But you will also see it listed with 7 wins and it lost Picture, Director, Screenplay and Supporting Actor.  The answer is that Star Wars won a special award for its Sound Editing which is considered an Oscar but not one of its nominations.  I include special awards as a nomination if they are in a category that is given out as a regular award in other years so I count it with 11 nominations.  Likewise, They Shoot Horses Don’t They is often listed as the film with the most Oscar nominations without a Best Picture nomination (9) but since Close Encounters also earned a special Sound Editing award in 1977, I count it with 9 as well.

Most Oscar Wins:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  7
  2. E.T.  –  4
  3. Terminator 2: Judgment Day  –  4
  4. The Matrix  –  4
  5. Inception  –  4

note:  All five of these films won Sound, VE and SE.  Of the four that won four, they were four different awards (Score for ET, Makeup for T2, Editing for Matrix, Cinematography for Inception while Star Wars‘ other three Oscars were in those first three listed).

Most Oscar Points:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  455
  2. E.T.  –  355
  3. Avatar  –  315
  4. Inception  –  305
  5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  275
  6. Aliens  –  205
  7. Terminator 2: Judgment Day  –  190
  8. The Matrix  –  170
  9. Fantastic Voyage  –  150
  10. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  145

Most Films Nominated in a Franchise:

  1. Star Wars  –  6
  2. Star Trek  –  5
  3. Alien  /  Transformers  –  3

Most Nominations for a Franchise:

  1. Star Wars  –  25
  2. Star Trek  –  14
  3. Alien  –  10

Most Films Nominated for a Director:

  1. Steven Spielberg  –  5
  2. George Lucas  –  4
  3. James Cameron  –  4
  4. Michael Bay  –  4

Most Nominations for a Director:

  1. James Cameron  –  26
  2. Steven Spielberg  –  24
  3. George Lucas  –  16
  4. Michael Bay  –  11

Most Oscars for a Director:

  1. James Cameron  –  10
  2. George Lucas  –  7
  3. Steven Spielberg  –  6

Critics Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Won Critics Awards:  8
  • Number of Films With Multiple Awards:  5
  • Best Picture Wins:  4
  • Total Number of Awards:  21
  • Category With the Most Awards:  Cinematography  (5)

Most Awards:

  1. E.T.  –  6
  2. Brazil  –  4
  3. 2046  –  4
  4. Inception  –  3
  5. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  2

Most Points:

  1. E.T.  –  487
  2. Brazil  –  324
  3. 2046  –  175
  4. Inception  –  157
  5. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  150

Most Points by Critics Group:

  • NYFC:  2046  –  90
  • LAFC:  Brazil  –  270
  • NSFC:  E.T.  –  90
  • BSFC:  E.T.  –  240
  • CFC:  Inception  –  130
  • NBR:  n/a

Notes:

  • Though the NYFC dates back to 1935, 2046, which was released in 2005, is the only Sci-Fi film to win any awards.
  • The NBR dates back to 1932 and no Sci-Fi film has won an award there.
  • By contrast, the LAFC began in 1975 and two years later they gave Best Picture to Star Wars, the first Sci-Fi film to win any critics awards.
  • Over half of the 21 awards given to Sci-Fi films have come from the LAFC (11).

Golden Globes

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  24
  • Number of Films That Have Won Globes:  4
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  9
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  2
  • Best Picture Nominations:  9
  • Total Number of Nominations:  47
  • Total Number of Wins:  6
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Score  (16)
  • Best Film with No Globe Nominations:  2001: A Space Odyssey

notes:

  • 24 films earn Globe noms – the exact same as Horror – and 47 noms – 1 short of Horror.
  • With Sci-Fi films traditionally not doing well in major categories, it should be no surprise that 19 of the 47 nominations are in Score or Song.

Most Globe Nominations:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  4
  2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  4
  3. E.T.  –  4
  4. Back to the Future  –  4
  5. Avatar  /  Inception  –  4

Most Globes:

  1. E.T.  –  2
  2. Avatar  –  2
  3. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  1
  4. 12 Monkeys  –  1

Most Globe Points:

  1. E.T.  –  235
  2. Avatar  –  225
  3. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  175
  4. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  160
  5. Inception  –  160

Guild Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  64
  • Number of Films That Have Won Guild Awards:  36
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  17
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  11
  • Best Picture Nominations:  4
  • Total Number of Nominations:  211
  • Total Number of Wins:  57
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Sound Editing  (45) *
  • Best Film with No Guild Nominations:  Alien

notes:

  • Because the VES and MPSE have so many categories, I decided to do the “most” category by film number rather than total nominations.  Avatar, for instance, won 6 VES awards among 11 nominations.
  • As mentioned, of Avatar‘s record 22 nominations (which ties the all-time record with Return of the King), 11 were from the VES and 3 more from the MPSE.
  • While Avatar and Inception won the same number of guild awards, Avatar‘s were only from three different guilds while Inception‘s were from five.

Most Guild Nominations:

  1. Avatar  –  22
  2. Inception  –  15
  3. Star Trek  –  11
  4. Transformers  –  8
  5. District 9  –  8

Most Guild Wins:

  1. Avatar  –  9
  2. Inception  –  9
  3. The War of the Worlds (2005)  –  4
  4. Transformers  –  4
  5. The Matrix  –  3

Most Guild Points:

  1. Avatar  –  700
  2. Inception  –  585
  3. Star Trek  –  270
  4. Transformers  –  240
  5. District 9  –  235
  6. The Matrix  –  205
  7. The War of the Worlds (2005)  –  200
  8. E.T.  –  190
  9. Transformers: Dark of the Moon  –  180
  10. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones  /  Rise of the Planet of the Apes  –  160

Most Guild Points (adjusted):

note:  By “adjusted”, I mean a maximum of 40 points each from the VES or MPSE.

  1. Inception  –  405
  2. Avatar  –  340
  3. Star Trek  –  250
  4. District 9  –  195
  5. E.T.  –  190
  6. The Matrix  –  165
  7. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  150
  8. Minority Report  –  125
  9. Tron: Legacy  –  115
  10. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  110

Highest Guild Point Percentage:

  1. E.T.  –  16.24%
  2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  12.40%
  3. Avatar  –  11.99%
  4. Inception  –  10.02%
  5. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  9.09%

The BAFTAs

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  33
  • Number of Films That Have Won BAFTAs:  17
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  22
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  9
  • Best Picture Nominations:  7
  • Total Number of Nominations:  117
  • Total Number of Wins:  29
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Visual Effects  (24)
  • Best Film with No BAFTA Nominations:  The Fountain

notes:

  • Of the 29 BAFTA wins, all of them are in Tech categories (9 – VE, 7 – AD, 6 – Sound, 3 – Score, 2 – Cinematography, 1 – CD, 1 – Makeup).
  • Of the 9 films to win multiple BAFTAs, all of them won either Sound or Art Direction and of the 21 BAFTAs those films won, all but 4 of them were VE, AD or Sound.
  • Though only seven films have earned a Picture nomination, two of them (Star Wars, Close Encounters) were in the same year.
  • Like the Oscars, only one film has earned Picture, Director, Screenplay and an acting nomination but it wasn’t Star Wars, it was Close Encounters.
  • Five films have earned the big 5 Tech noms (Editing, Cinematography, Score, Sound, AD) and two of them were in the same year but it wasn’t the same year as Picture (ET, Blade Runner).
  • Blade Runner is the only Sci-Fi film nominated in all eight Tech categories.  It was the first film that could do it (VE and Makeup began in 1982) and until 1988 was the only film at all to do it.  It remains the only film to earn all eight noms but no other noms.

Most BAFTA Noms:

  1. E.T.  –  10
  2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  9
  3. Inception  –  9
  4. Blade Runner  –  8
  5. Avatar  –  8
  6. District 9  –  7
  7. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  6
  8. Alien  –  6
  9. Back to the Future  –  5
  10. The Matrix  –  5

Most BAFTA Wins:

  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  3
  2. Blade Runner  –  3
  3. Inception  –  3
  4. six films  –  2

Most BAFTA Points:

  1. Inception  –  330
  2. E.T.  –  305
  3. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  300
  4. Avatar  –  270
  5. Blade Runner  –  220
  6. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  200
  7. District 9  –  195
  8. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  180
  9. Alien  –  175
  10. Back to the Future  –  155

Broadcast Film Critics Awards
(Critic’s Choice Awards)

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  10
  • Number of Films That Have Won BFCA:  5
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  7
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  3
  • Best Picture Nominations:  2
  • Total Number of Nominations:  33
  • Total Number of Wins:  14
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Visual Effects  (7)
  • Best Film with No BFCA Nominations:  Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  • Most Nominations:  Inception  (9)
  • Most Wins:  Inception  /  Avatar  (5)

BFCA Points:

  1. Inception  –  380
  2. Avatar  –  325
  3. Minority Report  –  140
  4. District 9  –  90
  5. Rise of the Planet of the Apes  –  70

All Awards

Most Nominations:

  1. Avatar  –  51
  2. Inception  –  48
  3. E.T.  –  33
  4. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  26
  5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  26
  6. District 9  –  25
  7. Star Trek  –  20
  8. The Matrix  –  16
  9. Back to the Future  –  14
  10. Aliens  –  13

Most Awards:

  1. Inception  –  24
  2. Avatar  –  22
  3. E.T.  –  13
  4. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  12
  5. The Matrix  –  9
  6. Brazil  –  6
  7. Terminator 2: Judgment Day  –  6
  8. eight films  –  4

note:  It’s worth noting that Star Wars won 7 Oscars, or more awards there than all but four other Sci-Fi films have won total.
note:  It’s also worth noting that Fantastic Voyage is the earliest film to win 4 awards and the first Sci-Fi film to win more than two awards.

Total Awards Points

  1. Inception  –  1751
  2. Avatar  –  1655
  3. E.T.  –  1506
  4. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  1044
  5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  838
  6. District 9  –  686
  7. The Matrix  –  505
  8. Brazil  –  464
  9. Back to the Future  –  409
  10. Star Trek  –  403

Highest Awards Points Percentage:

  1. E.T.  –  13.06%
  2. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  9.43%
  3. Inception  –  8.30%
  4. Avatar  –  7.88%
  5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  7.57%
  6. Brazil  –  3.96%
  7. 2001: A Space Odyssey  –  3.67%
  8. Back to the Future  –  3.49%
  9. District 9  –  3.26%
  10. Aliens  –  3.03%

note:  This is why I do the percentage, because it gives a historical perspective.
note:  I should mention Blade Runner which isn’t on any of the four lists above but was 11th in noms (12), tied for 8th in wins (4), 14th in points (330) and 12th in percentage (2.86%).

Lists

I won’t do a lot of lists because that’s the whole point of TSPDT – they put a ridiculous amount of lists in the blender and come out with the “definitive” one.  Their lists includes lists by genre, so you can always go there and look at their source lists.

The TSPDT Top 25 Sci-Fi Films:

  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (#3)
  2. Blade Runner (#38)
  3. Stalker (#52)
  4. Metropolis (#59)
  5. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (#115)
  6. E.T.  (#119)
  7. Alien (#129)
  8. Brazil (#183)
  9. Solaris (#190)
  10. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (#203)
  11. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (#274)
  12. The Matrix (#290)
  13. Videodrome (#292)
  14. Back to the Future (#302)
  15. Aliens (#341)
  16. The Terminator (#446)
  17. A.I. (#522)
  18. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (#610)
  19. Ghostbusters (#704)
  20. Avatar (#737)
  21. Starship Troopers (#768)
  22. Akira (#822)
  23. The Day the Earth Stood Still (#841)
  24. The Incredible Shrinking Man (#867)
  25. Forbidden Planet (#872)

note:  These are the current (2019) rankings from TSPDT and there are several things to note so I will do them below as bullet points.

  • I used the Horror list as the template for writing this and while Horror is often thought of as a genre without a lot of respect, Horror managed 25 films in the Top 400.
  • There are only two films in the Top 1000 that didn’t make this list – 2046 (#875) and The Man Who Fell to Earth (#965).  2046 was, just a few years ago, higher than several films on this list.
  • I normally wouldn’t point this out until the post-2011 section but I’ll mention it here: the inclusion of Avatar but not Under the Skin which ranks considerably higher than Avatar on TSPDT’s 21st Century List (#56 as opposed to #106) shows how strange the way TSPDT makes their lists is.
  • That point is also made in that The Thing from Another World (which I personally rank much higher than several films on their list) used to be a Top 500 film and today isn’t even in the Top 1000.

AFI:

  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  2. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  3. E.T.
  4. A Clockwork Orange
  5. The Day the Earth Stood Still
  6. Blade Runner
  7. Alien
  8. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  9. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
  10. Back to the Future

note:  Because the AFI did a straight list, I can’t adjust for the fact that two of their films (Clockwork, Body Snatchers) are films I classify as Horror.

The IMDb Voters Top 10 Sci-Fi Films:

  1. Inception
  2. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  3. The Matrix
  4. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  5. Back to the Future
  6. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
  7. Alien
  8. Aliens
  9. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  10. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office  (through December 31, 2011)

  1. Avatar  –  $760.50 mil
  2. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  $460.99 mil
  3. E.T.  –  $435.11 mil
  4. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace  –  $431.08 mil
  5. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen  –  $402.11 mil
  6. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith  –  $380.27 mil
  7. Transformers: Dark of the Moon  –  $352.39 mil
  8. Transformers  –  $319.24 mil
  9. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones  –  $310.67 mil
  10. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi  –  $309.30 mil

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office (all-time, adjusted to December 31, 2011)

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope –  $1412.48 mil
  2. E.T. –  $1124.90 mil
  3. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back –  $778.57 mil
  4. Avatar –  $771.66 mil
  5. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi –  $745.89 mil
  6. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace –  $676.17 mil
  7. Ghostbusters –  $564.40 mil
  8. Independence Day –  $549.30 mil
  9. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith –  $470.44 mil
  10. Back to the Future –  $468.27 mil

Not Sci-Fi

As mentioned below in my notes on some of the books, lots of people have larger classifications for what is a Sci-Fi film.  The AFI list had two films that I don’t classify in Sci-Fi and some of the books include a lots of films that have even marginal Sci-Fi elements and Fantasy elements.  Listed below are ten films that are often listed among the best Sci-Fi films but that I don’t classify as Sci-Fi.  They are listed chronologically.

  1. Frankenstein  (Horror)
  2. The Invisible Man  (Horror)
  3. Godzilla  (Horror)
  4. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea  (Fantasy)
  5. Invasion of the Body Snatchers  (Horror)
  6. The Fly  (Horror)
  7. A Clockwork Orange  (Horror)
  8. Sleeper  (Comedy)
  9. Jurassic Park  (Horror)
  10. Wall-E  (Kids)

Books

note:  As always, not a complete list but just the books I either own or was able to get from the library to write a piece on.  There are a lot more I could have gotten.

A Pictorial History of Science Fiction Films, Jeff Rovin, 1975

Not a bad book but rather ill-timed, coming just before the explosion of Sci-Fi films in the late 70’s.  Still, it does a good job of covering the films that had come up to that point and has a lot of stills.  This is part of a wave of coffee table books that started coming out around this time that covered both genres and great movies in general and can often be found in used bookstores (and especially libraries).

Science Fiction Gold: Film Classics of the 50s, Dennis Saleh, 1979

Because it specifically covers 50s films, it doesn’t matter that it was published so long ago.  Not a bad guide (soft cover coffee table style with plenty of stills) to the major Sci-Fi films of the decade.

Twenty All-Time Great Science Fiction Films, Kenneth Von Gunden and Stuart H. Stock, 1982

A terribly stupid book.  First of all, how can you consider Dr. Strangelove for this list and include The Magnetic Monster but not Metropolis?  There is nothing in the introduction that says it will be English language only.  It also gives no reason for stopping with 1971.  This book was published in 1982, after Star Wars, Close Encounters and Alien.  There is no excuse for them not being included.  A terrible book with a list not worth including.

A Pictorial History of Science Fiction Films, David Shipman, 1985

This book has a strange idea of what it considers Science Fiction, throwing in any Fantasy films it wants (like Sinbad films, for example).  But it’s a decent enough, if old coffee table book with plenty of color stills.

Vintage Science Fiction Films, 1896-1949, Michael Benson, 1985

One of a number of books from publisher McFarland & Company on this list.  Not all that useful partially because the amount of Sci-Fi films in that era is so small (meaning a lot of the films in the book are ones I don’t consider Sci-Fi but rather Horror or Fantasy) and because Benson just writes about all of them as a constant narrative, so it’s hard to focus on anything.

The Great Science Fiction Pictures II, James Robert Parish and Michael R. Pitts, 1990

When they wrote the first book, it was 1977 and so they missed out on the new wave of Sci-Fi films.  The problem is that for the purposes of their book the word “great” in the title has no real meaning.  It basically includes any Sci-Fi films.  Not a bad guide to what was available through 1990.

The Overlook Film Encyclopedia: Science Fiction, Phil Hardy, ed., 1991 (revised ed.)

The title of this book is a bit confusing.  The four volumes in the series (Westerns, Sci Fi, Horror, Gangster) were published as The Aurum Film Encyclopedia in the UK then published in the US as the Overlook Film Encyclopedia but with only the cover changed – the title page still says Aurum.  Either way, it’s an exhaustive look at the genre and a key book for any fan.  It organizes films by years which is tricky because it’s inconsistent (for instance, 1969 has The Love Bug and Beneath the Planet of the Apes, the former of which is a 1968 film and the latter is from 1970).  It’s best used to find more obscure foreign titles which it documents quite well.

Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Film Sequels, Series and Remakes, Kim R. Holston and Tom Winchester, 1997

Another McFarland book, this one is quite useful though it would have been more useful in Horror (I found it just as I published that post).  It has pieces on almost anything that was a series and does you the favor of grouping them together under the original film (with notes under other films of where to look for the series).  The analysis part isn’t useful (they must be the only people who think that Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II are equally rated films) but that’s a small part of the book anyway.  A useful resource.  They recently published a second volume that goes up through 2016 but my library doesn’t have it so I haven’t read it.

Eye on Science Fiction: 20 Interviews with Classic SF and Horror Filmmakers, Tom Weaver, 2003

By “classic”, what Weaver means is films made in the 50’s and a lot of them are terrible.  It’s really a standard of time not quality.  But it is interesting to get interviews with more bit people involved with making those films.

The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies, John Scalzi, 2005

Like all the Rough Guides, a perfect place to start.  Its Canon isn’t the best (and only 30 of the 50 on its list do I count as Sci-Fi) but it is a great place to figure out what movies you need to see and it mentions almost all major films in the genre somewhere in the book.

Keep Watching the Skies!: American Science Fiction Movies of the Fifties, Bill Warren, 2010

This is a voluminous work and an important one.  It was originally published over the course of time in two volumes but Warren went back and re-did the whole thing and published it in one giant volume in 2010.  He gives full weight to the films, not just capsule reviews, covering 283 films but giving them 900 pages with films deserving more getting more (Forbidden Planet, for example, gets 11 pages).  Warren is quite generous in his definition.  I found it quite odd that I had one film I classify as Sci-Fi that he dismissed as pure fantasy (The Flight That Disappeared) when well over half the films in the book I don’t consider Sci-Fi and he puts in such films as The Crimson Pirate and Road to Hong Kong.  But it’s a must for any fan of the genre because it gives you so much.  When I first went through it, in June of 2019, there were actually 111 films in it I hadn’t seen (now there are only 22) but of the 261 I have seen, I only classify just under half of them as Sci-Fi (129).

sci-fi chronicles, Guy Haley, ed., 2014

This is a really good book with a strong visual presentation that covers the entire history of Sci-Fi starting in 1818 with the publication of Frankenstein.  It presents major works, authors and franchises in a great way.  A must-have for any fan of Sci-Fi.  My only beef is that Robotech, which has been a highly lauded franchise across multiple platforms is nowhere to be found.

Hollywood Presents Jules Verne: The Father of Science Fiction on Screen, Brian Taves, 2015

The author is a film archivist for the Library of Congress so he knows what he’s talking about.  The problem is that because Verne doesn’t have a unifying character, the book kind of travels all over the place, especially since he presents it as a narrative rather than a film guide.

The Sci-Fi Movie Guide: The Universe of Film from Alien to Zardoz, Chris Barsanti, 2015

A useful guide in that it covers a wide range of films with a paragraph for each one.  On the other hand, it doesn’t use a star system so you have to actually read any review to find out what it thinks.  Also, while it has plenty of stills, many of them are generic and have nothing to do with the films they reference.

TCM: must-see Sci-Fi, Sloan de Forest, 2018

A fairly good selection of 50 Sci-Fi films.  It does use a bit too much from the 50’s and includes, of course, a number of films I don’t list as Sci-Fi.  The book was clearly designed to pass over sequels (so no Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Terminator 2) but there are still some odd exceptions towards the end, jumping from District 9 to Arrival without including Inception, Gravity or Interstellar, the former two a very odd omission given how few Sci-Fi films have been nominated for Best Picture.

Reviews

The Best Sci-Fi Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

Forbidden Planet  (1956, dir. Fred M. Wilcox)

Watching the opening credits of Forbidden Planet, you don’t necessarily have high hopes.  Yes, it’s MGM and they’ve clearly given it a budget as it’s one of the first major studio Sci-Fi films to be in color.  But its stars are Walter Pidgeon (long after his days as an Oscar nominee), Anne Francis (beautiful but not much of an actress) and Leslie Nielson (in his one of his first film roles and you might have trouble taking him seriously).  It was also the first film using an electronic score and the director, Fred M. Wilcox, was a low-level MGM contract director who used to work on Lassie films.

But then something happens.  You start to listen to the story and you think about when this film was made.  You look at the men on the ship traveling faster than light to another planet and you realize these were very new things at the time (Wikipedia claims it’s the first film to have either of those things) and that this is clearly a precursor to Star Trek.  Imagine what happens when you boldly go where you have never gone before.  Of course, as I have mentioned many times (usually in regard to Godard), just because something is new doesn’t make it good.  But this film isn’t just good, it’s great.  That’s because it has a boundless imagination.  This film doesn’t just go to another planet, it goes with some extraordinary visual effects (that still look good) and some really imaginative story-telling.

An expedition lead by Commander Adams lands on Altair IV even after being warned off by Dr. Morbius.  It turns out Morbius (and his beautiful, leggy daughter Altaira (who shows off those legs in almost every outfit she wears in the film)) are all that’s left of the previous expedition who were all torn apart by some unseen creature.  But after they land, the same kind of things start to happen again.  A monstrous invisible creature that leaves massive footprints and bends the metal stairway of the ship tears apart several men.  It even attacks through a force field and its horrible dimensions take a vague, blurry shape (provided by a Disney animator on loan to the visual effects team and it’s part of what is so brilliant about the film).

If the idea of a shipwrecked father and daughter (who has been raised apart from society) dealing with new arrivals sounds vaguely familiar then you’ve read Shakespeare’s The Tempest (or know the plot).  Indeed, this film opens up the idea of Science Fiction films by taking a plot that had been done before and simply moving it out into space.  This not only allows for some good story-telling, but because of the Sci-Fi aspects, it allows the filmmakers to expand on the ideas.  Instead of a nature sprite named Ariel helping the exiles, instead it’s a brilliant, strong robot named Robby who can carry 10 tons with ease, protect the doctor and his daughter or even synthesize 60 gallons of bourbon.  What’s more, Robby would continue to be used in Sci-Fi films and television shows for years after this.

I won’t fully explain what happens because if you haven’t seen it, you should.  It’s got an inventive score, fantastic visual effects and a really good story at its core.  But I will mention that the film was followed up, years later, by a brilliant stage jukebox musical (that mostly reuses the story rather than being a sequel like the title suggests) called Return to the Forbidden Planet which would use pre-existing 50’s and 60’s hits and a lot of Shakespeare jokes (“What light through yonder airlock breaks?”  “Beware the ids that march!”  That last one will make a lot more sense after you see the film as Veronica discovered when I said it twice while we were watching it) which I was lucky enough to see in a 1996 revival in London.  This is, quite frankly, a Sci-Fi treasure, the first great American Sci-Fi film and one that should be treasured (and in at least one sense is, because the Film Registry at the Library of Congress added it in 2013).

The Worst Sci-Fi Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster  (1965, dir. Robert Gaffney)

According to Wikipedia, the budget on this film was $60,000.  I’m guessing that most of that went to actual film itself and if not, then the producers were ripped off.  The cast certainly didn’t deserve to be paid at all.  This is a Sci-Fi film but the visual effects look like they could have been taken care of with a couple of hundred bucks.  In high school, my friends and I used a friend’s video camera and made better films than this.

What is the plot of this film, you may ask.  Perhaps the writers might have deserved to be paid.  The answer to that is definitely no.  In some sort of atomic war, all of the women on Mars have died (why all the women you may ask and I’ll tell you – because then the plot can revolve around the Martians grabbing women from Earth and since they apparently land on the beaches of Puerto Rico, all the women they will grab will be in bikinis).  However, they will also bring along some kind of mutant being and they will shoot down an android astronaut and those two will battle and give the film a title, something I will deal with in a minute.

The presence of all the women in bikinis is a desperate ploy, of course, to have anything in this film that might appeal to anyone.  Indeed, at least it brings a measure of sex into the film which is a step above Plan 9, though not enough to move this film off a flat score of zero.  The film is just a complete and utter failure on every single level.

The final level of failure is in marketing.  The title of this film is Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster, something clearly thought of after the fact since the android (who is disfigured in the attack) has the first name of Frank.  The film has absolutely nothing to do with any version of the classic Shelley novel in any way shape or form.  What’s more, it has a slough of alternate titles (the U.K. title was a more appropriate Duel of the Space Monsters) including Frankenstein Meets the Space MenMars Attacks Puerto RicoMars Invades Puerto Rico and Operation San Juan.  All of them are losers and so is the film.

Bonus Review

Alien³  (1992, dir. David Fincher)

One of the nice things about the Alien trilogy back when it was still a trilogy was that the three films, all made by talented directors, were, in one sense, of different genres.  While they are all Sci-Fi films (and I classify them all as such), the first film was a Horror film, the second one was an Action-War film and the third film is a Prison Drama.  Yes, in all three of them you have an unstoppable killer alien, all three have solid performances from Sigourney Weaver (well this one has a solid performance while the first two had much better than that), an interesting supporting cast (this film does that much better than the second one) and some key moments involving androids (much less so in this film than the first two).

After the second film, there was a question over how the third one would come about, since they had pretty much blown up the planet.  Since it was starring Sigourney Weaver the likely answer was going to be that some alien stowed aboard (although that doesn’t actually work very well – a big plot hole in this film is what happened between the two films and how that would have ended up with what we get here).  But what was really interesting in the trailers and commercials was a scene that showed the alien coming right up to Sigourney’s face.  So either that was the conclusion (and Sigourney would find some way out of it because surely they wouldn’t kill off the main character and prevent further sequels) or there’s something more going on.

I won’t explain precisely what is going on because if you really haven’t seen the film, what is happening and what happens at the end are actually very bold moves that I thought showed some good thinking from the filmmakers.  There are in fact, some things to really recommend this film.  The first is that after working in commercials and videos (most notably “Express Yourself” and “Vogue”), this is the feature debut of David Fincher, one of the best and most important directors of the last quarter century.  Fincher provides a dark and dank atmosphere to the film that lets the horror creep along and suddenly grab you, much more like the first film than the non-stop action of the second.  Second, it has a talented British cast long before they were particularly known such as Charles Dance as a sympathetic doctor (as sympathetic as you can be when you have been exiled to a prison planet as a prisoner), Paul McGann as a psychopath and Pete Postlethwaite as one of the smarter inmates who still can’t outsmart the alien.  Plus, it has an interesting, unexpected performance from Lance Henriksen that will surprise people that remember him from the previous film.

It is far from a perfect film and as such is a big drop from the first two films which were high **** and low **** (this one is mid ***).  At times it is too dark, after some additional strong females in the previous film we’ve just got Weaver, it short-shrifts the ending of the previous one by undoing any good aspects of it and even at less than two hours it starts to drag.  But it’s an interesting film and it does have a bold ending even if the next group of filmmakers would give it short-shrift as well.

Post-2011

All-Time List:  With the other genres I have already done (Westerns, War, Crime, Mystery, Suspense, Horror) there were no more than 4 new films in the Top 50 all-time.  But Sci-Fi has had a wave of really good films that have completely rewritten the Top 50.  So, I will do an entirely new Top 50.  The films in bold are the films released since 2011.

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Metropolis
  3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  4. Alien
  5. Gravity
  6. Inception
  7. The Fountain
  8. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  9. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
  10. Minority Report
  11. Arrival
  12. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
  13. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  14. Interstellar
  15. Brazil
  16. Solyaris
  17. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  18. Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
  19. The Martian
  20. Solaris
  21. E.T.
  22. Forbidden Planet
  23. Back to the Future
  24. 12 Monkeys
  25. District 9
  26. A.I.
  27. Prometheus
  28. Ghostbusters
  29. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  30. Aliens
  31. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  32. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
    ***.5
  33. The Fifth Element
  34. Star Trek: First Contact
  35. Blade Runner
  36. Ex Machina
  37. Tomorrowland
  38. Captain Marvel
  39. Blade Runner 2049
  40. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  41. Guardians of the Galaxy
  42. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
  43. The Thing from Another World
  44. Passengers
  45. Total Recall
  46. Dark City
  47. Looper
  48. Star Trek
  49. Existenz
  50. Cocoon

note:  These are the other films I would have normally listed at the top anyway.  The first three are good enough to have made the original Top 50 but not the new one.  The next two I saw in the theater (and have been reviewed) and Jupiter Ascending will, at a future date, get a full review as the worst film of 2015.  The numbers listed include all Sci-Fi films, which now run to 586 total.

Directors:  Ridley Scott is now #1 with 197 points while Christopher Nolan is at #2 with 150 points.  Ridley Scott now has five Sci-Fi films with an average of 87.2 which means he definitely deserves mention.  Spielberg added a sixth Sci-Fi film but Ready Player One brought down his average.

Sub-Genres:  Arrival, of course, is one of the best of the Alien Arrival sub-genre.  The first films of the Comic Book-MCU franchise have been placed in Sci-Fi (Captain Marvel and the two Guardians films) although almost all of them could go here.  Dystopia has become huge with three separate YA franchises hitting screens (Hunger Games, Divergent, Maze Runner).  Space Travel has had some of its best films (Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian).  Several franchises are starting to hit enough films to have their own listing (Alien, Predator, Terminator, Transformers) but all will be dealt with at the bottom while the three already listed have all gotten at least two new films each.

Nighthawks:  The top five changes a lot.  Gravity, obviously, is in for Picture and is in for Director as well.  Arrival is actually the winner in Adapted Screenplay while The Martian is also in the Top 5.  Matt Damon (The Martian) wins actor with Matthew McConaughey (Intersteller) in the Top 5.  Amy Adams (Arrival) barely wins Actress over Sandra Bullock (Gravity) with Anne Hathaway (Interstellar) also in the Top 5.  Alicia Vikander (Ex Machina) is in the Top 5 of Supporting Actress (#2 actually).  Arrival sneaks into the Top 5 in Editing.  Gravity lands in the Top 5 in Cinematography and Score.  There have been six more perfect 9’s in Sound, eight more in Visual Effects and eight more in Sound Editing though none quite make the Top 5.  Force Awakens and Gravity sneak into 4th and 5th all-time in Tech points.  Interstellar ties Empire for 5th most total points with in weighted points, Intersteller comes in 3rd and Gravity in 4th while Arrival places in 6th (ahead of Inception).

Awards:  There is a lot here because there have been several prominent Sci-Fi films that have done very well with the awards groups.  Indeed, just Gravity and all the awards (and which specific awards) it won would be enough for a long piece here.
Gravity, of course, would be the big Oscar film post-2011.  It would tie the record for wins (7), come up one short for noms (10) and set a record for points (465).  It would be the first Sci-Fi film to win one of the big four awards (Director) and the first to win Editing, Cinematography and Score.  But it would be Arrival that would be the first film since ET to earn Picture, Director and Screenplay noms.  While John Williams would earn two more noms, Gravity would be the first film to win Score not scored by Williams (it’s Steven Price).  Visual Effects would continue to be the main category with four Sci-Fi films winning the award and only three of the 19 Sci-Fi films nominated since 2011 not nominated for VE (Arrival, Passengers, Star Trek Beyond – all in 2016).  Star Wars has added 4 more films and 12 more nominations to its franchise while Star Trek has added two of each.  The Alien franchise is still third in noms having earned none for its two new films but Planet of the Apes now has four nominated films.
The Martian would be the first Sci-Fi film to win Best Picture – Comedy at the Globes and Best Actor in either category.  Its two wins tie for the most while Gravity wins Director.  The Martian (215) and Gravity (200) would land in the Top 5 for points with Gravity’s 4 noms tied for the most.  Ex Machina would be the first film nominated for Supporting Actress.  While all three of the Sci-Fi films nominated for Song before 2011 also earned other noms (Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Avatar), the three nominated after 2011 (the first three Hunger Games films) would earn no other noms.
Gravity would become the first (and through 2018, the only) film to win a major BAFTA award (British Film, Director).  Its six wins are also over half of the total (11) Sci-Fi wins since 2011 and its 11 noms are a new high for a Sci-Fi film as are its 540 points.  Arrival (the only other Best Picture nominee) had nine noms.  Under the Skin is the only Sci-Fi film since 2011 to earn a nomination at all but not in VE.  VE accounts for three of the five BAFTAs that Gravity didn’t win (Interstellar, Force Awakens, Blade Runner) with Sound (Arrival) and Cinematography (Blade Runner) being the other two.  The Martian would be the first film nominated for Actor, Gravity the first for Actress (followed by Arrival) and Ex Machina the first for Supporting Actress.  The only major category no Sci-Fi film has been nominated for since 2011 is the only acting category it had been nominated in before 2011: Supporting Actor.  There have now been 40 Sci-Fi films nominated for VE.
Gravity sets a new high at the guilds with 740 points and there are also Force Awakens (390), Blade Runner 2049 (410), Arrival (365), War for the Planet of the Apes (300) and The Martian (295).  Gravity would be the first winner for both the PGA and DGA and Arrival would be the first to win the WGA in Adapted.  We get the first two SAG noms (Damon, Bullock).  Gravity earns the second most VES points (280).  Gravity tops with 18 noms and sets a new record with 12 wins while several films hit double digits in noms topped by Blade Runner (16) and Force Awakens (15).  Catching Fire becomes the first Sci-Fi film to win the CDG.  With the ADG having expanded, five years in a row (2013-2017) had Sci-Fi winners.  The VES continues to be dominant with 30 of the 44 Sci-Fi films that earn guild noms earning at least one VES nom.  Only four Sci-Fi films manage a guild nom without either the ADG, VES or CDG (Looper – WGA, Jupiter Ascending and Transformers: The Last Knight – MPSE, Ghost in the Shell – MUAHG).
The BFCA is vastly different now.  Gravity tied the wins record (5) and set a points record (385).  Arrival ties the nominations record (9).  Arrival became the first to win a Screenplay award and Gravity and Arrival were the first to be nominated for Actress.  Ex Machina is the first to be nominated for Supporting Actress.  VE continues to dominate (14 of the 20 Sci-Fi films nominated at the BFCA since 2011 earned a VE nom).
The LAFC continues to be the main critics award in terms of Sci-Fi films, awarding 7 of the 19 awards given since 2011, including the only Picture award since then (Gravity).  The NBR finally gave an award to a film starting in 2012 (Looper – Screenplay).  Gravity is now #1 for awards (8) and #2 for points (461).  Most of the awards given since 2011 are for Editing (2), Cinematography (5), Score (2) or Art Direction (3).  But the major awards won since 2011 are Director (Gravity, The Martian), Adapted Screenplay (The Martian), Original Screenplay (Looper) and the first critics awards in Sci-Fi for Actor (Damon), Actress (Adams) and Supporting Actress (two for Vikander).
For the all-time awards, Gravity sets a new high in nominations (59), wins (39) and points (2600) while coming second in percentage (11.75%).  Also in the Top for those are Arrival (39, 6, 1263, 5.64%), Blade Runner 2049 (39, 13, 1044, 4.63%) and The Martian (37, 6, 1208, 5.52%).  Interstellar (26 noms) and Force Awakens (25 noms) are high in noms but much less in the other three categories though the six wins each for Intersteller and War for the Planet of the Apes do land in the Top 10.

Nighthawk Notables

note:  I’m just going to do a whole new list just for post-2011.

  • Best Film to Watch Over and Over:  Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  • Best Line  (comedic):  “That’s not how the force works.” (Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens)
  • Best Line  (dramatic):  “We’ll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent.”  (Felicity Jones in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story)
  • Best Opening:  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
  • Best Ending:  Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  • Best Scene:  Rey calling the lightsaber in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  • Most Terrifying Scene:  the fire in Gravity
  • Most Gut-Wrenching Scene:  the end of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
  • Most Heart-Wrenching Scene:  Han’s death in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  • Best Death Scene:  Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  • Final Scene Way Better than the Rest of the Film:  Star Trek Beyond
  • Best Kiss:  Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto in Star Trek Into Darkness
  • Best Use of a Song:  “Just a Girl”  (Captain Marvel)
  • Best Guilty Pleasure:  John Carter
  • Funniest Film:  Guardians of the Galaxy
  • Most Terrifying Film:  Prometheus
  • Worst Film by a Top 100 Director:  The Zero Thereom (Terry Gilliam)
  • Watch the Film, SKIP the Book:  The Martian
  • Read the Story, SKIP the Film:  “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale”  (Total Recall)
  • Performance to Fall in Love With:  Felicity Jones in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
  • Sexiest Performance:  Brie Larson in Captain Marvel
  • Highest Attractiveness / Acting Ability Ratio:  Mila Kunis in Jupiter Ascending
  • Coolest Performance:  Donald Glover in Solo: A Star Wars Story
  • Best Tagline:  “Help is only 140 million miles away”  (The Martian)
  • Best Trailer:  Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
  • Best Voice Performance:  Bradley Cooper in Guardians of the Galaxy
  • Best Mo-Cap Performance:  Phoebe Waller-Bridge in Solo: A Star Wars Story
  • Best Cameo:  Mark Hamill in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  • Funniest Cameo:  Stan Lee in Captain Marvel

Soundtracks:  All four Star Wars films (with the fifth almost certainly in a few months), Gravity

Theater:  Of the first six genres covered, I have seen 10 films in the theater since 2011 which is also the same amount of times I saw Force Awakens.  So, I have been to the theater to see Star Wars films (23) far more times than those six other genres and that’s with the next Star Wars film not coming out until December.  However, aside from the four Star Wars films, the only Sci-Fi films I have seen in the theater since 2011 are Star Trek: Into Darkness, Gravity, Interstellar, Star Trek Beyond, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol II and Captain Marvel.  I could say that 2012 was the last year I didn’t see a Sci-Fi film in the theater but it’s just as relevant to point out that from when I moved to Boston in August of 2005 until the summer of 2013 the only Sci-Fi film I saw in the theater was Star Trek.

Lists

Interstellar ranks 5th on the IMDb Top 250 among Sci-Fi.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office  (through September 2019)

  1. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens  –  $936.66 mil
  2. Avatar  –  $760.50 mil
  3. Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi  –  $620.18 mil
  4. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story  –  $532.17 mil
  5. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace  –  $474.54 mil
  6. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  $460.99 mil
  7. E.T.  –  $435.11 mil
  8. Captain Marvel  –  $426.48 mil
  9. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  –  $424.66 mil
  10. The Hunger Games  –  $408.01 mil

note:  Since I am posting this before December 2019, the odds that this won’t change with the release of Rise of Skywalker are basically zero.  Also, since the third films in the previous two trilogies considerably outgrossed the second films there are good odds it will make the adjusted list below as well.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office  (no sequels)

  1. Avatar  –  $760.50 mil
  2. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  $460.99 mil
  3. E.T.  –  $435.11 mil
  4. Transformers  –  $319.24 mil
  5. Independence Day  –  $306.16 mil
  6. Inception  –  $292.57 mil
  7. Gravity  –  $274.09 mil
  8. Men in Black  –  $250.69 mil
  9. Ghostbusters  –  $242.21 mil
  10. War of the Worlds  –  $234.80 mil

note:  For the purposes of this list, franchise films that aren’t direct sequels are still considered sequels.
note:  Interestingly, seven of these (all but Transformers, Men in Black and War of the Worlds) were completely original films.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office Adjusted  (through September 2019)

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  –  $1604.85 mil
  2. E.T. –  $1278.10 mil
  3. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens –  $974.11 mil
  4. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back  –  $884.60 mil
  5. Avatar –  $876.75 mil
  6. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi  –  $847.47 mil
  7. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace –  $813.71 mil
  8. Ghostbusters  –  $641.27 mil
  9. Independence Day  –  $624.11 mil
  10. Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi –  $609.02 mil

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office Adjusted  (no Star Wars films)

  1. E.T. –  $1278.10 mil
  2. Avatar –  $876.75 mil
  3. Ghostbusters  –  $641.27 mil
  4. Independence Day  –  $624.11 mil
  5. Back to the Future  –  $532.04 mil
  6. Close Encounters of the Third Kind  –  $503.86 mil
  7. Men in Black  –  $492.09 mil
  8. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen  –  $485.64 mil
  9. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  –  $460.54 mil
  10. The Hunger Games  –  $458.27 mil

Franchises

Because so many Sci-Fi franchises are ongoing, I have decided to list them down here so I can cover films all the way up through today.  I am listing them in a variety of ways with a variety of statistics.

If a list below notes a franchise, that means something with at least four films.  Also, for a franchise, I consider something in a franchise to have multiple sequels at which point remakes count.  The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds, in their various iterations aren’t included, but the Planet of the Apes remakes all count as parts of the larger franchise.  For the purposes, I only include films I classify as Sci-Fi (so, for example, Star Wars: Clone Wars, isn’t included in Star Wars because I list it as a Kids film).

Most Films:

  1. Star Trek  –  13
  2. Star Wars  –  10
  3. Planet of the Apes  –  9
  4. Alien  –  7
  5. Predator  –  6
  6. Transformers  –  6
  7. Terminator  –  5
  8. Hunger Games  –  4

note:  Two films fall into both Alien and Predator.
note:  I haven’t yet seen the fourth Men in Black yet.

Most Nighthawk Nominations:

  1. Star Wars  –  71
  2. Star Trek  –  27
  3. Alien  –  21
  4. Back to the Future  –  7
  5. Planet of the Apes  –  6

Most Nighthawk Awards:

  1. Star Wars  –  31
  2. Alien  –  11
  3. Terminator  –  4
  4. Star Trek  –  3
  5. Back to the Future  –  2

Ten Best Films That Earned a Sequel or Started a Franchise:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  3. Alien
  4. Back to the Future
  5. Ghostbusters
  6. Blade Runner
  7. Cocoon
  8. Men in Black
  9. Ghost in the Shell
  10. Planet of the Apes

Ten Best Sequels / Franchise Films:

  1. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  2. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
  3. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  4. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  5. Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
  6. Prometheus
  7. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  8. Aliens
  9. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  10. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Ten Worst Sequels (#10 being the worst)

  1. Independence Day: Resurgence
  2. Predator 2
  3. The Matrix Revolutions
  4. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
  5. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
  6. Transformers: Age of Extinction
  7. Transformers: The Last Knight
  8. Universal Soldier: The Return
  9. Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace
  10. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Five Best Films to Earn a Remake:

  1. Metropolis
  2. Solyaris
  3. Ghostbusters
  4. The Thing from Another World
  5. Total Recall

Five Best Remakes:

  1. Solaris
  2. 12 Monkeys
  3. District 9
  4. The War of the Worlds  (2005)
  5. Metropolis  (2001)  (loosely)

Franchises by Average Film Score:

  1. Star Wars  (90.2)
  2. Star Trek  (73.8)
  3. Alien  (70.0)
  4. Hunger Games  (65.0)
  5. Planet of the Apes  (61.2)
  6. Terminator  (60.6)
  7. Predator  (37.2)
  8. Transformers  (20.3)

note:  Bumblebee literally doubled Transformers‘ average.

Sequel / Trilogy Lists:

  • Best Sequel in Relation to Original:  Blade Runner 2049 (0 point dif)
  • Worst Sequel in Relation to Original:  Independence Day: Resurgence  (50 point dif)
  • Best Trilogy:  Back to the Future  (81.0)
  • Worst Trilogy:  The Matrix  (45.0)

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office – Franchise / Trilogy Totals

  1. Star Wars –  $4520.57 mil
  2. Transformers –  $1576.55 mil
  3. Hunger Games  –  $1451.53 mil
  4. Star Trek  –  $1400.95 mil
  5. Marvel Cinematic Universe  –  $1149.81 mil
  6. Planet of the Apes  –  $794.02 mil
  7. Men in Black  –  $699.88 mil
  8. Terminator  –  $608.66 mil
  9. The Matrix  –  $592.37 mil
  10. Alien  –  $551.70 mil

note:  Includes Men in Black: International though I have not yet seen it (applies to all four lists).
note:  Both Star Wars and Terminator have new films coming out before the end of the year (applies to all four lists).
note:  Only includes three MCU films (the two Guardians films, Captain Marvel) (applies to all four lists).
note:  Was very surprised to realize how low the Predator films are (combined gross of $315 mil).
note:  Force Awakens would be #6 on this list and even taking it out Star Wars would still be #1 by a mile.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office – Franchise / Trilogy Adjusted Totals

  1. Star Wars –  $7487.38 mil
  2. Star Trek –  $2556.42 mil
  3. Transformers  –  $1834.44 mil
  4. Hunger Games  –  $1577.70 mil
  5. Planet of the Apes  –  $1362.83 mil
  6. Marvel Cinematic Universe  –  $1190.28 mil
  7. Alien  –  $1090.05 mil
  8. Men in Black  –  $1066.39 mil
  9. Ghostbusters  –  $1032.44 mil
  10. Terminator  –  $1015.23 mil

note:  Counting A New Hope alone, Star Wars would still be #1 and ANH would be #4.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office – Franchise / Trilogy Average

  1. Star Wars –  $452.05 mil
  2. Marvel Cinematic Universe –  $383.27 mil
  3. Hunger Games  –  $362.88 mil
  4. Transformers  –  $262.75 mil
  5. The Matrix  –  $197.45 mil
  6. Men in Black  –  $174.97 mil
  7. Ghostbusters  –  $161.01 mil
  8. Back to the Future  –  $138.92 mil
  9. Terminator  –  $121.73 mil
  10. Divergent  –  $115.77 mil

note:  Avatar made so much that they could do six sequels without making any money and still make this list but they still have to make the films.
note:  Terminator: Dark Fate has to make $236 mil in order for the average to pass Back to the Future.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office – Franchise / Trilogy Adjusted Average

  1. Star Wars –  $748.73 mil
  2. Marvel Cinematic Universe –  $396.76 mil
  3. Hunger Games  –  $394.42 mil
  4. Ghostbusters  –  $344.14 mil
  5. Back to the Future  –  $327.78 mil
  6. The Matrix  –  $310.98 mil
  7. Transformers  –  $305.74 mil
  8. Men in Black  –  $266.59 mil
  9. Terminator  –  $203.04 mil
  10. Star Trek  –  $196.64 mil

note:  I looked at 15 franchises and trilogies for these lists and Maze Runner ($242 total, $80 avg) and Predator ($315 total, $52 avg) were the only ones to not make any of the four Top 10 lists.

And, just for fun:

Best Actual Ad from a Magazine:

Best Mid-riff:

Funniest Behind the Scenes Shot:

Cutest Behind the Scenes Shot:

Best Bumper Sticker:

Best Cosplay from Someone Who Wants to Be in the Movies:

Best Toy Collection:

Best Looking Group of Guys in 2019:

Best Snarky Response on Twitter:

Best Meme:

Happiest Kid:

Best Obsession:

A Century of Film: Visual Effects

$
0
0


A Century of Film


Visual Effects

Visual Effects might seem like a new thing, stemming first from 2001 and then from Star Wars with increasingly developed technology leading to amazing new things on-screen.  But they have actually been there from the start.  A Trip to the Moon, the first great film ever made, back in 1902, used brilliant Visual Effects to show its incredible trip.

With Sci-Fi films mostly on the back burner until the 50’s, most early forays into the effects came from flight, from some fantasy or from on-screen fires.

Though nothing before 1968 earns a perfect 9, there were many films that were close, films like King Kong or The Wizard of Oz or the increasing quality in the 50’s with films like War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Forbidden Planet.  Then came the amazing work of Ray Harryhausen with films like Jason and the Argonauts.  Then came 2001, followed almost a decade later by Star Wars and Close Encounters.

With Star Wars came the creation of ILM which became the foremost effects designer in film history.  Lucas hadn’t just created a new movement with Star Wars but two companies (THX provided the right sound for the effects) that could help shepherd the movement.

Things continue to move forward, with leaps forward with films like T2 (CGI on-screen) and Jurassic Park (combination of animatronics and CGI) and companies like Weta.  At this point, almost anything we imagine we can see on-screen.  What’s more, as long as we can have directors like Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Christopher Nolan, we can rest assured that we have stories that make great use of those effects rather than just empty spectacles.

My Top 5 Visual Effects in Film History:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Jurassic Park
  3. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  5. Terminator 2: Judgment Day

The other 9 Point Films (chronological):

  • Close Encounters of the Third Kind
  • Alien
  • Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
  • Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  • Who Framed Roger Rabbit
  • Independence Day
  • The Fifth Element
  • Titanic
  • Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
  • The Matrix
  • Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
  • A.I.
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
  • Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
  • Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
  • King Kong
  • Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  • The Fountain
  • Pan’s Labyrinth
  • District 9
  • Avatar
  • Inception

note:  I rate all aspects of film on a 9 point scale.  They also correspond to the 100 point scale for Best Picture.  Films above *** (76-99) all land on the scale.  1 point is for 76-79, just worth mentioning.  2 points is for 80-83, a weak mention, 3 points is for 84-87, near great, 4 points is for 88-89 (which is ****), a solid nominee, 5 points is for 90-91, a very solid nominee, 6 points is for 92-93, a weak winner, a 7 points is for 94-95, a worthwhile winner, 8 points is 96-97, the kind of winner you can’t complain about even if it’s not your #1 choice and 9 points is for 98-99, the very best of all-time.  The above list are my 9 point films for Sound through 2011, listed chronologically.


The Artists

Gordon Jennings

Gordon Jennings is in the Top 10 for Oscar points but he really should be tied for 2nd because two of his Oscars were awarded during a time when the Academy didn’t recognize the person doing the effects (When Worlds Collide, The War of the Worlds).  With those two films, he was also partially responsible for the rise of good effects combining with the rise of Sci-Fi as a genre.  Jennings earned more Oscar points than anyone else in this category in the 40’s and was #1 all-time until 1957.
Key Films:  When Worlds Collide, The War of the Worlds

A. Arnold Gillespie

In 1957, Gillespie took away the top Oscar spot from Gordon Jennings.  He would tie for the 2nd most points in the 40’s and earn the most points in the 50’s (after the Academy started listing the artists again) and would stay at the #1 spot until 1989.  As the key effects man at MGM he was responsible for their major films during the Studio Era and beyond.
Key Films:  The Wizard of Oz, Forbidden Planet, Ben-Hur

Dennis Muren

One of the most important hires that ILM made after Lucas founded the company during the making of Star Wars.  Muren worked on the original trilogy but was also a key member of the staff through the next two decades, winning eight Oscars and helping the transition from practical effects to CGI that helped herald in films like T2 and Jurassic Park.  No one else is even close in Oscar points.
Key Films:  Empire Strikes Back, ET, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park

Richard Edlund

Edlund, like Muren, started with Star Wars (though Edlund, unlike Muren, was actually an Oscar winner for the film).  After winning four Oscars with ILM he founded Boss Films, an effects company that handled films like Ghostbusters, Die Hard and Hunt for Red October.  He’s third all-time in Oscar points.
Key Films:  Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET

Joe Letteri

After working for ILM, doing some work on Jurassic Park and the special Edition of Star Wars, Letteri joined Weta in 2001, too late to win an Oscar for Fellowship but in time to win four Oscars since.
Key Films:  Return of the King, Avatar, King Kong, Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Of the four Oscar winners for Empire, two of them (Edlund in the middle, Muren to his left) are in the Top 3.

The Academy Awards

Summary:

This was actually one of the original Tech categories at the 1st Academy Awards when it was called Engineering Effects and made Wings the first Picture winner to also win Visual Effects something that wouldn’t happen again for over 30 years.

As related in my full post on the category, it was then dropped for over a decade until it resurfaced in 1939 with Special Effects (which also meant Sound Effects).  From 1939 to 1945 there was no limit on nominees but then starting in 1946 there were just two nominees.  With an occasional year with three nominees or even an occasional year with just a special award and technically no nominees, the award continued like this until 1962, even with the rise of Sci-Fi films meaning there were films worthy of being rewarded.

Starting in 1963, the sound effects were finally culled from the award and it was simply called Special Visual Effects (the “Special” was dropped in 1977).  From 1963 to 1971 it continued with two nominees.  From 1972 to 1980, it was just a special award, including in 1976 when two awards were given with 1977 (two nominees) and 1979 (five nominees) the exceptions.

Starting in 1981, it went back to regular with two nominees, had three the next year and the year after that was just a special award again.  Starting in 1984, it finally found some regularity, settling in with three nominees (except 1990, when it was a special award again).  It would take until 2010 for it finally to become a category with a full five nominees just like everything else.

Directors:

Though James Cameron now holds the top mark for total Oscars in this category with five after Avatar won the Oscar in 2009 (also Aliens, Abyss, T2, Titanic), Steven Spielberg is still kind of the tops here (as in most Tech categories).  Aside from winning four Oscars (Raiders, ET, Temple of Doom, Jurassic Park) his films have also amassed seven other nominations (Close Encounters, 1941, Poltergeist, Hook, Lost World, AI, War of the Worlds) while Cameron only has one other (True Lies).  Also of note are Peter Jackson (four Oscars in just five years) and Cecil B. DeMille (two Oscars, four other nominations in the early years of the category).

Franchises:

This might seem like a recent development, but this category was the first to really go in for sequels.  From 1940 to 1942 Universal had one of its “Invisible” films earn a nomination every year.  Next up was Thunderball, the first Bond film in this category and it won the Oscar.  The late 70’s began the real franchise push; the last three Oscar winners of the decade (and another 1979 nominee) would all have sequels that would earn nominations.  There’s far too many sequels to count up at this point that earned nominations but the following have all won the Oscar, in one case without the original even earning a nomination: Empire, Jedi, Temple of Doom, T2, Two Towers, Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, Dead Man’s ChestStar Wars, of course, has been the most dominant franchise, with three Oscars and two other nominations.

Genres:

Sci-Fi, in spite of not being around much before 1950 (which years account for 31.8% of the nominees) has the most nominations (22.43%) and winners (31.08%).  Drama is in second (21.03% – noms, 17.47% – wins) followed by Fantasy (12.15% – noms, 13.51% – wins).  Among all categories, of course, Sci-Fi and Fantasy combine for less than 5% of the nominated films.  Just since 1950, it’s much higher with Sci-Fi and Fantasy accounting for almost half the nominees.  The only genre without a nomination is Crime while Western, Mystery and Suspense have never won.  The height for Sci-Fi was 1976 to 1991 when it won 12 of 17 Oscars in the category.

Best Picture:

What many might find very surprising is that this is the longest crossover history with Best Picture of any other category.  Wings, the original Best Picture winner earned only one other nomination, Engineering Effects, which it won.  It would take 31 years before another film won both awards (Ben-Hur) and another 34 before it happened again (Forrest Gump) but then Titanic, Gladiator and Return of the King made it four in one decade.  Four more Best Picture winners have earned nominations, three in the early “Special Effects” days (Gone with the Wind, Rebecca, Mrs Miniver) as well as Patton.  Though it didn’t happen the first time until 1956, 16 films have won VE with a Picture nom including six since 2000.  But only 11 films have earned nominations in both categories.  Since the VE nominations were reduced to two in 1946, the only BP nominee (and it was a winner) to earn a VE nom and not lose to a fellow BP nom was Patton.

Foreign Films:

It has never happened.  Maybe the effects artists just are somewhat biased because Crouching Tiger and Pan’s Labyrinth were both better than nominated films in their years.

Single Nominations:

There have been 71 films to earn a VE nom and nothing else which almost a third of the nominees.  Since 1985, there have been 25, which is just about one a year though it’s often two every two years.  Of those 11 won the Oscar but since 1965 the only two to do it are Innerspace and Death Becomes Her.

Other Categories:

Visual Effects crosses over with all the main Tech categories (Editing, Cinematography, Score, Sound, AD) at least 50 times and doesn’t cross over with a major category more than the 37 times it crosses over with Picture.  Hell, it crosses over with Makeup and Song more than it does with any of the acting categories.  The only categories it crosses over with less than Actress (8) are Animated Film and Foreign Film which are zero.  The highest crossover is with Sound (77) and Art Direction (74).  No film has won both VE and Original Screenplay or VE and Supporting Actress while Actress (Mary Poppins) and Supporting Actor (Ben-Hur) only have one each.  There are at least three winning crossovers with every Tech category including Makeup.

The Academy Awards Top 10:

  1. Dennis Muren  –  460
  2. A. Arnold Gillespie  –  300
  3. Richard Edlund  –  280
  4. Ken Ralston  –  260
  5. Gordon Jennings  –  220
  6. John Frazier  –  220
  7. Fred Sersen  –  200
  8. Joe Letteri  –  200
  9. Farciot Edouart  –  180
  10. L. B. Abbott  /  Stan Winston  –  180

note:  Wins are worth 40 points and nominations are worth 20.

Top 5 Oscar Winners:

  1. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  2. Jurassic Park
  3. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
  4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  5. Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Worst 5 Oscar Winners:

  1. Plymouth Adventure
  2. Dr. Dolittle
  3. I Wanted Wings
  4. Portrait of Jennie
  5. Green Dolphin Street

Worst 5 Oscar Nominees:

  1. So Proudly We Hail
  2. Boys from Syracuse
  3. Boom Town
  4. Tulsa
  5. Plymouth Adventure

Top 5 Oscar Years:

  1. 1977  (Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind)
  2. 2009  (Avatar, District 9, Star Trek)
  3. 2005  (King Kong, War of the Worlds, Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe)
  4. 2002  (Two Towers, Attack of the Clones, Spider-Man)
  5. 2003  (Return of the King, AI, Pearl Harbor)

Top 5 Oscars Years by Oscar Score:

  1. 1977  –  100  (Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind)
  2. 2009  –  100  (Avatar, District 9, Star Trek)
  3. 2003  –  100  (Return of the King, AI, Pearl Harbor)
  4. 1988  –  100  (Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Die Hard, Willow)
  5. 2008  –  100  (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Iron Man, The Dark Knight)

note:  The difference between this list and the previous one is that the first one is a flat total based on my 9 point scale.  In this one, it’s comparing my top three films to the ones the Oscars actually nominated.  So, in the first one, it’s how good are the nominees.  In this one it’s how good are the nominees compared to what else was eligible.  Because there are more than 5 years with perfect 100 scores in this category, I went with the five best years that also earned a perfect 100 score.

Worst 5 Oscar Years:

note:  These are the same as the worst 5 years by Oscar Score which all earn a zero.

  1. 1943  (Crash Dive, So Proudly We Hail, Air Force, North Star, Bombardier, Stand by for Action)
  2. 1946  (Blithe Spirit, A Stolen Life)
  3. 1947  (Green Dolphin Street, Unconquered)
  4. 1941  (I Wanted Wings, That Hamilton Woman, Aloma of the South Seas, Topper Returns, A Yank in the RAF, Flight Command, Invisible Woman, Sea Wolf)
  5. 1967  (Dr. Dolittle, Tobruk)

Top 5 Films to win the Oscar (based on quality of film not visual effects):

  1. Raiders of the Lost Ark
  2. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
  3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
  4. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  5. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Worst 5 Films to win the Oscar  (based on quality of film not visual effects):

  1. Doctor Dolittle
  2. Cleopatra
  3. Earthquake
  4. The Hindenburg
  5. Logan’s Run

Worst 5 Films to earn an Oscar nomination (based on quality of film not visual effects):

  1. Krakatoa, East of Java
  2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
  3. Dragonheart
  4. Transformers
  5. Pearl Harbor

Years in Which the Worst of the Nominees Won the Oscar:

note:  I’ve excluded years where there were only two nominees.

  • 1992:  Death Becomes Her over Alien3, Batman Returns
  • 1998:  What Dreams May Come over Armageddon, Mighty Joe Young
  • 2000:  Gladiator over The Perfect Storm, Hollow Man
  • 2008:  The Curious Case of Benjamin Button over Iron Man, The Dark Knight

Oscar Nominees I Haven’t Seen

note:  This is one of the categories where I haven’t managed to see every nominee.  There are two nominees that I still haven’t managed to see.

  • The Private Life of Helen of Troy, 1927-28
  • Women in War, 1940

Oscar Scores By Decade:

  • 1930’s:  86.7
  • 1940’s:  48.3
  • 1950’s:  61.9
  • 1960’s:  54.1
  • 1970’s:  93.0
  • 1980’s:  93.3
  • 1990’s:  79.0
  • 2000’s:  87.9
  • 2010’s:  77.1
  • All-Time:  82.9

The BAFTA Awards

Summary:

Visual Effects wouldn’t become a BAFTA category until 1982 so many films at the forefront of VE wouldn’t get awarded.  The BAFTAs also proved they weren’t just following the Oscars in the first awards when the award went to Poltergeist over ET.  In the first decade, the BAFTA would agree with the Oscar half the time but of the other five films, the BAFTA winner wouldn’t even earn an Oscar nomination and it was very similar the second decade as well.  Lately, though, the BAFTA goes to the Oscar winner about three out of every four years.

Franchises:

The BAFTAs would embrace franchises right away (partially because the award started so late) with five of the first ten winners being sequels.  After that, however, the second decade would have zero winners that were sequels (and only five out of a total 43 nominees).  But the third decade would reverse again with four more sequels winning the award.  In that third decade (2002-2011), every year would have at least one sequel among the nominees and all but two would have at least two (the only two that didn’t have at least two were because they had no Harry Potter film – every Harry Potter film earned a nomination).

Genres:

Out of 30 winners, Sci-Fi (10) and Fantasy (7) have dominated.  Surprisingly, Sci-Fi only accounts for 18% of the nominees while Fantasy has almost 22%.  Action accounts for 17% of the nominees but only has one winner (Twister).  Notably, nine of those losing Action films are Comic Book films.  Comedy is the opposition of Action, accounting for well less than 10% of the nominees but three winners (Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Death Becomes Her, Forrest Gump).

Best Picture:

If crossover at the Oscars has been small, it’s been much less at the BAFTAs.  Two films have won both Picture and VE: Fellowship and Return of the King.  Six other Picture winners earned VE noms (Killing Fields, Purple Rose of Cairo, Last Emperor, Gladiator, Aviator, Hurt Locker).  Six more films earned Picture noms and won VE while 13 films have earned nominations in both categories.

Single Nominees:

35 films have earned just a Visual Effects nomination, which is over 1/4 of all the VE nominees.  Of those, 9 have won the BAFTA which is 30% of the winners.  It was more common in early years and has only happened twice since 1997 (Day After Tomorrow, Golden Compass).  Death Becomes Her and Golden Compass hold the distinction of being the only two films to win both the Oscar and BAFTA but to earn no other nominations from either group.

Foreign Films:

No Foreign film has yet won the BAFTA, but they have been better with nominations, giving well-deserved ones to Crouching Tiger, House of Flying Daggers and Pan’s Labyrinth.

Other Categories:

Except for the less-involved categories (Song, Animated Film, Foreign Film), every category has had at least five films nominated alongside Visual Effects (and even those three have at least one each).  The only crossover for Song didn’t win either and no Animated Film or Foreign Film nominee has won Visual Effects.  But those aren’t the only ones.  There are no winning crossovers with British Film (in fact, no film nominated for both has ever won either).  No VE winning film has ever won an acting award at all.  No winner of Editing or Score has ever won VE.  Art Direction has the most crossover for winners (five films win both) while Sound has the most with nominations (59 films nominated for both).  But of the 30 VE winners, 19 of them won no other BAFTAs and six of the other 11 only won Sound or Art Direction to go along with VE with one film winning Sound, AD and VE.

The BAFTA Top 10:

  1. Ken Ralston  –  240
  2. Dennis Muren  –  220
  3. Michael Lantieri  –  220
  4. John Richardson  –  220
  5. Neil Corbould  –  200
  6. Joe Letteri  –  200
  7. George Gibbs  –  180
  8. John Frazier  –  180
  9. Chris Corbould  –  160
  10. Stan Winston  /  Stefen Fangmeier  /  Tim Burke  –  140

Top 5 BAFTA Winners:

  1. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
  2. Jurassic Park
  3. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  4. King Kong  (2005)
  5. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Worst 5 BAFTA Winners:

  1. The Witches of Eastwick
  2. Honey I Shrunk the Kids
  3. Death Becomes Her
  4. Back to the Future Part II
  5. The Perfect Storm

Worst 5 BAFTA Nominees:

  1. The Mission
  2. The Killing Fields
  3. The Witches of Eastwick
  4. Dick Tracy
  5. Vertical Limit

Top 3 BAFTA Years  (4 Nominees):

  1. 1997  (The Fifth Element, Titanic, Men in Black, The Borrowers)
  2. 1982  (Poltergeist, E.T., Blade Runner, Tron)
  3. 1989  (Back to the Future Part II, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Batman, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen)

Top 3 BAFTA Years  (5 Nominees):

  1. 2006  (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, Pan’s Labyrinth, Superman Returns, Casino Royale, Children of Men)
  2. 2004  (Day After Tomorrow, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Spider-Man 2, The Aviator, House of Flying Daggers)
  3. 2009  (Avatar, District 9, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Star Trek, The Hurt Locker)

Years in Which the Worst of the Nominees Won the BAFTA:

  • 1987:  The Witches of Eastwick over The Fly, Little Shop of Horrors, Full Metal Jacket
  • 2004:  The Day After Tomorrow over Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Spider-Man 2, The Aviator, House of Flying Daggers

The Broadcast Film Critics Awards  (Critics Choice)

Summary:

Like most of the Tech awards at the BFCA, this award only finally came into existence in 2009.  Thankfully they kept with the consensus, giving the award to both Avatar and Inception before siding with the VES in going with Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

The Visual Effects Society Awards

Summary:

The VES Awards began in 2002, a year too late for Fellowship of the RingFellowship likely would have done great because in that first year, with 11 categories, Two Towers won eight awards (losing one and ineligible in the other two).  Since then, no film has managed to win more than 6 awards (Dead Man’s Chest, Avatar).  The two LOTR films would win 12 awards with another five nominations while the first three Pirates films would win 10 awards and earn a total of 22 nominations.  With a decade down, in their primary category (Visual Effects in a Visual Effects Driven Film), the VES has agreed with both the Oscars and BAFTAs seven times (Towers, King, King Kong, Dead Man’s Chest, Benjamin Button, Avatar, Inception) while agreeing with neither one the other three times (Azkaban, Transformers, Rise of the Planet of the Apes).  Of note, in 2011, the Oscar went to Hugo which won the Supporting Visual Effects award at the VES, which occasionally has had other films nominated that earned a VE nom from the Oscars or BAFTAs.

Top 10 Points for One Film at the VES:

  1. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers  –  340
  2. Avatar  –  340
  3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King  –  240
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest  –  240
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl  –  200
  6. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End  –  200
  7. Spider-Man 2  –  180
  8. Transformers  –  180
  9. The Aviator  –  160
  10. Ratatouille /  The Curious Case of Benjamin Button  /  Inception  /  Rango  –  160

The Nighthawk Awards

note:  Because my awards go, retroactively, all the way back through 1912, there are a lot more nominees and winners than in the other awards.  But I don’t always have a full slate of nominees and some years I don’t have any nominees.

Directors:

Tim Burton has the second most nominations with eight but none of his films have ever won.  James Cameron and Peter Jackson are behind him with six noms each but Cameron’s films have 3 wins (Aliens, Abyss, T2) and PJ’s have five (Heavenly Creatures, Lord of the Rings, King Kong).  Of course, like with all the Tech categories, it’s dominated by Steven Spielberg.  His films have amassed five wins (Jaws, Raiders, ET, Temple, Jurassic Park) but an astounding 15 total nominations.

Franchises:

Unlike other Tech categories where franchises earn a lot of noms but not a lot of wins, the wins are plentiful and they begin all the way back in 1935 with Bride of Frankenstein.  There’s a gap after that to Thunderball and then The Golden Voyage of Sinbad.  But after there are 10 more franchise films that win the Nighthawk.  First films in a franchise that both win the Nighthawk and have a sequel win the Nighthawk are Frankenstein, Star Wars, Alien, Raiders and Fellowship.

Genres:

Sci-Fi has the most wins (31.70%) and since 1950 has won about 40% of the time, followed by Fantasy (14.63%).  No Musical, Mystery or Western has ever won.  Sci-Fi accounts for 26.69% of the nominees although it’s more than 30% of the nominees since 1950.

Best Picture:

There is a lot more crossover than at the other awards groups.  Seventeen films win both Picture and VE at the Nighthawks including nine films that won VE at the Oscars but not Picture (2001, Star Wars, Alien, Raiders, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Fellowship, Two Towers, Inception, Hugo).  Another 14 films win VE with a Picture nom.  Seven films are nominated for VE while winning Picture, five of which won Picture at the Oscars without a VE nom: Sunrise, All Quiet, From Here to Eternity, Lawrence of Arabia, Godfather.  Another 21 films are nominated for both awards.

Foreign Film:

Four Foreign films have won the Nighthawk for VE: Metropolis, Woman in the Moon, La Belle et La Bete, Crouching Tiger while another 10 have earned nominations.

Single Nominations:

A full 1/5 of the films nominated for VE earn no other nominations.  This was relatively rare before Star Wars (20 films in 50 years) but much more prevalent since (36 films in 35 years).  This includes nine winners (Thief of Bagdad, Woman in the Moon, Day the Earth Stood Still, Time Machine, Jack the Giant Killer, Golden Voyage of Sinbad, Innerspace, Abyss, Babe), by far the most among Tech categories.  Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has the distinction of being the only **** film to earn a VE nom and no other noms.

Other Categories:

By far the biggest crossover is with Sound Editing.  34 films win both awards and 174 films are nominated for both.  Oddly, of the 107 films nominated for VE but not SE, over half aren’t nominated for anything else, and of the remaining 51 films, 34 of them are nominated for Makeup.  So, only 17 films are nominated for VE and earn multiple nominations but not SE or Makeup and four of those films are Silent and can’t be nominated for SE.  There are crossover winners with every category.  Indeed, just with Crouching Tiger and Bonnie and Clyde there are crossovers with everything but Animated Film (which Roger Rabbit covers).

My Top 10

This is where I would normally do a list of the Top 10 visual effects artists and how many points they have (with more specialized lists as well based on my point systems).  However, in the early days of Hollywood, those artists often weren’t even credited (in some years in the 40’s and 50’s, the Oscar doesn’t even go to a specific person) and it’s hard to know who should get the credit as well.  Different awards groups credit different people for the same films and some groups (like the BFCA) don’t list anyone at all.  Trying to go through all 500+ films that are on my total list for the award and figure out who the points should go to is simply too complex.

Top 5 Films to win the Nighthawk (based on quality of film not visual effects):

  1. The Wizard of Oz
  2. Bonnie and Clyde
  3. Raiders of the Lost Ark
  4. Citizen Kane
  5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Worst 5 Films to win the Nighthawk (based on quality of film not visual effects):

  1. King Kong  (1976)
  2. In Old Chicago
  3. Bwana Devil
  4. San Francisco
  5. The Golden Voyage of Sinbad

Worst 5 Films to earn a Nighthawk nomination  (based on quality of film not visual effects):

  1. Starship Troopers
  2. Hollow Man
  3. Poltergeist II: The Other Side
  4. Earthquake
  5. Mutiny on the Bounty  (1962)

Top 5 6th Place Finishers at the Nighthawks:

  1. The Host
  2. The Day After Tomorrow
  3. Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
  4. The Matrix Reloaded
  5. Pearl Harbor

The Nighthawk Winners:

  • 1925-26:  The Thief of Bagdad
  • 1927-28:  Metropolis
  • 1928-29:  Steamboat Bill Jr.
  • 1929-30:  Hell’s Angels
  • 1930-31:  Woman in the Moon
  • 1931-32:  Frankenstein
  • 1932-33:  King Kong
  • 1935:  The Bride of Frankenstein
  • 1936:   San Francisco
  • 1937:   In Old Chicago
  • 1939:  The Wizard of Oz  (Oscar)
  • 1940:  The Thief of Baghdad  (Oscar)
  • 1941:  Citizen Kane
  • 1942:  Reap the Wild Wind  (Oscar)
  • 1944:  Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo  (Oscar)
  • 1945:  Spellbound  (Oscar)
  • 1946:  Henry V
  • 1948:  La Belle et La Bete
  • 1949:  Mighty Joe Young  (Oscar)
  • 1950:  Destination Moon  (Oscar)
  • 1951:  The Day the Earth Stood Still
  • 1952:  Bwana Devil
  • 1953:  War of the Worlds  (Oscar)
  • 1954:  20,000 Leagues Under the Sea  (Oscar)
  • 1955:  The Dam Busters  (Oscar)
  • 1956:  Forbidden Planet  (Oscar)
  • 1957:  The Bridge on the River Kwai
  • 1958:  The 7th Voyage of Sinbad
  • 1959:  Ben Hur  (Oscar)
  • 1960:  The Time Machine  (Oscar)
  • 1961:  Mysterious Island
  • 1962:  Jack the Giant Killer
  • 1963:  Jason and the Argonauts
  • 1964:  Mary Poppins  (Oscar)
  • 1965:  Thunderball  (Oscar)
  • 1966:  Fantastic Voyage  (Oscar)
  • 1967:  Bonnie and Clyde
  • 1968:  2001: A Space Odyssey  (Oscar)
  • 1969:  Marooned  (Oscar)
  • 1970:  Patton  (Oscar)
  • 1971:  Bedknobs and Broomsticks  (Oscar)
  • 1972:  The Poseidon Adventure  (Oscar)
  • 1973:  The Exorcist
  • 1974:  The Golden Voyage of Sinbad
  • 1975:  Jaws
  • 1976:  King Kong  (Oscar)
  • 1977:  Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope  (Oscar)
  • 1978:  Superman  (Oscar)
  • 1979:  Alien  (Oscar)
  • 1980:  Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back  (Oscar)
  • 1981:  Raiders of the Lost Ark  (Oscar)
  • 1982:  E.T.  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1983:  Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1984:  Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1985:  Back to the Future  (BAFTA)
  • 1986:  Aliens  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1987:  Innerspace  (Oscar)
  • 1988:  Who Framed Roger Rabbit  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1989:  The Abyss  (Oscar)
  • 1990:  Total Recall  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1991:  Terminator 2: Judgment Day  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1992:  Bram Stoker’s Dracula  (BAFTA)
  • 1993:  Jurassic Park  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1994:  Heavenly Creatures
  • 1995:  Babe  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1996:  Independence Day  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 1997:  The Fifth Element  (BAFTA)
  • 1998:  Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
  • 1999:  Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 2000:  Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon  (BAFTA)
  • 2001:  The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring  (Oscar, BAFTA)
  • 2002:  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2003:  The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2004:  Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2005:  King Kong  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2006:  The Fountain  (VES)
  • 2007:  Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix  (BAFTA)
  • 2008:  Iron Man  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2009:  District 9  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES, BFCA)
  • 2010:  Inception  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES, BFCA)
  • 2011:  Hugo  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES, BFCA)

Consensus Awards

Most Awards (not including the Nighthawk):

note:  All of these films won either all three awards (pre-2009) or all four awards

  • The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
  • King Kong
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  • Avatar
  • Inception

Films That Win the Oscar and BAFTA (pre-VES)

  • Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  • Aliens
  • Who Framed Roger Rabbit
  • Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  • Death Becomes Her
  • Jurassic Park
  • Forrest Gump
  • The Matrix
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Consensus Chart:

note:  The chart below I imported from Excel and I hope it isn’t too confusing.  It’s about as big as I could make to still have it fit.  It just fits out the nominees for the major groups from 2009 to 2011.
note:  The VES has varied the number of nominees over the years but in years where the are more than 5 nominees or even when there are multiple VES winners listed that’s because usually I only include the VES award for Best Visual Effects in a Visual Effects Driven Motion Picture.  However, if an Oscar, BAFTA or BFCA nominee is a film that doesn’t qualify for that award at the VES but earns a nomination or win in either Supporting Visual Effects or the Animated Award, then I will include their VES points as well.
note:  Because of different eligibility years, sometimes there are multiple BAFTA awards in a single year.

YR FILM AA BAFTA VES BFCA RT WT N W %
1982 Poltergeist 20 40 60 60 2 1 33.33%
1982 E.T. 40 20 60 60 2 1 33.33%
1982 Blade Runner 20 20 40 40 2 0 22.22%
1982 Tron 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1983 Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi 40 40 80 80 2 2 57.14%
1983 Wargames 20 20 20 1 0 14.29%
1983 Dark Crystal 20 20 20 1 0 14.29%
1983 Zelig 20 20 20 1 0 14.29%
1984 Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom 40 40 80 80 2 2 50.00%
1984 Ghostbusters 20 20 40 40 2 0 25.00%
1984 Company of Wolves 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1984 Killing Fields, The 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1985 Brazil 40 40 40 1 1 22.22%
1985 Cocoon 40 40 40 1 1 22.22%
1985 Purple Rose of Cairo 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1985 Back to the Future 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1985 Legend 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1985 Return to Oz 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1985 Young Sherlock Holmes 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1986 Aliens 40 40 80 80 2 2 44.44%
1986 Labyrinth 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1986 Dreamchild 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1986 Mission, The 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1986 Little Shop of Horrors 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1986 Poltergeist II: The Other Side 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1987 Witches of Eastwick 40 40 40 1 1 25.00%
1987 Innerspace 40 40 40 1 1 25.00%
1987 Fly 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1987 Full Metal Jacket 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1987 Little Shop of Horrors 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1987 Predator 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1988 Who Framed Roger Rabbit 40 40 80 80 2 2 44.44%
1988 Last Emperor, The 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1988 Robocop 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1988 Beetlejuice 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1988 Die Hard 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1988 Willow 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1989 Back to the Future Part II 20 40 60 60 2 1 27.27%
1989 Honey I Shrunk the Kids 40 40 40 1 1 18.18%
1989 Adventures of Baron Munchausen 20 20 40 40 2 0 18.18%
1989 Abyss 40 40 40 1 1 18.18%
1989 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 20 20 20 1 0 9.09%
1989 Batman 20 20 20 1 0 9.09%
1990 Total Recall 40 20 60 60 2 1 60.00%
1990 Dick Tracy 20 20 20 1 0 20.00%
1990 Ghost 20 20 20 1 0 20.00%
1991 Terminator 2: Judgment Day 40 40 80 80 2 2 44.44%
1991 Backdraft 20 20 40 40 2 0 22.22%
1991 Edward Scissorhands 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1991 Prospero’s Books 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1991 Hook 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1992 Death Becomes Her 40 40 80 80 2 2 44.44%
1992 Alien3 20 20 40 40 2 0 22.22%
1992 Batman Returns 20 20 40 40 2 0 22.22%
1992 Beauty and the Beast 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1993 Jurassic Park 40 40 80 80 2 2 44.44%
1993 Aladdin 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1993 Bram Stoker’s Dracula 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1993 Fugitive 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1993 Cliffhanger 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1993 Nightmare Before Christmas 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1994 Forrest Gump 40 40 80 80 2 2 44.44%
1994 Mask 20 20 40 40 2 0 22.22%
1994 True Lies 20 20 40 40 2 0 22.22%
1994 Speed 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1995 Apollo 13 20 40 60 60 2 1 37.50%
1995 Babe 40 20 60 60 2 1 37.50%
1995 Goldeneye 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1995 Waterworld 20 20 20 1 0 12.50%
1996 Twister 20 40 60 60 2 1 33.33%
1996 Independence Day 40 20 60 60 2 1 33.33%
1996 Toy Story 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1996 Nutty Professor 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1996 Dragonheart 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1997 Titanic 40 20 60 60 2 1 33.33%
1997 Fifth Element 40 40 40 1 1 22.22%
1997 Men in Black 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1997 Borrowers 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1997 Lost World 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1997 Starship Troopers 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1998 Saving Private Ryan 40 40 40 1 1 22.22%
1998 What Dreams May Come 40 40 40 1 1 22.22%
1998 Antz 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1998 Truman Show, The 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1998 Babe: Pig in the City 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1998 Armageddon 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1998 Mighty Joe Young 20 20 20 1 0 11.11%
1999 Matrix 40 40 80 80 2 2 40.00%
1999 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 20 20 40 40 2 0 20.00%
1999 Bug’s Life 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
1999 Sleepy Hollow 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
1999 Mummy 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
1999 Stuart Little 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2000 Perfect Storm 20 40 60 60 2 1 30.00%
2000 Gladiator 40 20 60 60 2 1 30.00%
2000 Vertical Limit 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2000 Chicken Run 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2000 Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2000 Hollow Man 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2001 Lord of the Rings, The: The Fellowship of the Ring 40 40 80 80 2 2 40.00%
2001 A.I. 20 20 40 40 2 0 20.00%
2001 Moulin Rouge 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2001 Shrek 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2001 Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2001 Pearl Harbor 20 20 20 1 0 10.00%
2002 Lord of the Rings, The: The Two Towers 40 40 40 120 120 3 3 42.86%
2002 Spider-Man 20 20 40 40 2 0 14.29%
2002 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones 20 20 40 40 2 0 14.29%
2002 Minority Report 20 20 20 1 0 7.14%
2002 Gangs of New York 20 20 20 1 0 7.14%
2002 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 20 20 20 1 0 7.14%
2002 Men in Black II 20 20 20 1 0 7.14%
2003 Lord of the Rings, The: The Return of the King 40 40 40 120 120 3 3 40.00%
2003 Pirates of the Caribbean, The: The Curse of the Black Pearl 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 20.00%
2003 Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 20.00%
2003 Big Fish 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2003 Kill Bill Vol 1 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2003 Matrix Reloaded 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2004 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 20 20 40 80 80 3 1 25.00%
2004 Spider-Man 2 40 20 20 80 80 3 1 25.00%
2004 Day After Tomorrow 40 20 60 60 2 1 18.75%
2004 Aviator, The 20 40 60 60 2 1 18.75%
2004 House of Flying Daggers 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2004 I, Robot 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2005 King Kong 40 40 40 120 120 3 3 40.00%
2005 Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 20.00%
2005 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 20 20 40 40 2 0 13.33%
2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2005 Batman Begins 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2005 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2005 War of the Worlds 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2006 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest 40 40 40 120 120 3 3 40.00%
2006 Children of Men 20 20 40 40 2 0 13.33%
2006 Superman Returns 20 20 40 40 2 0 13.33%
2006 Casino Royale 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2006 Pan’s Labyrinth 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2006 Charlotte’s Web 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2006 Fountain 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2006 Poseidon 20 20 20 1 0 6.67%
2007 Golden Compass 40 40 20 100 100 3 2 31.25%
2007 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 18.75%
2007 Transformers 20 40 60 60 2 1 18.75%
2007 Spider-Man 3 20 20 40 40 2 0 12.50%
2007 Bourne Ultimatum 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2007 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2007 I Am Legend 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2008 Curious Case of Benjamin Button 40 40 40 120 120 3 3 37.50%
2008 Iron Man 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 18.75%
2008 Dark Knight 20 20 40 40 2 0 12.50%
2008 Quantum of Solace 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2008 Cloverfield 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2008 Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2008 Hellboy II: The Golden Army 20 20 20 1 0 6.25%
2009 Avatar 40 40 40 40 160 152 4 4 36.54%
2009 District 9 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 18.27%
2009 Star Trek 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 18.27%
2009 2012 20 20 40 36 2 0 8.65%
2009 Hurt Locker, The 20 20 20 1 0 4.81%
2009 Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince 20 20 20 1 0 4.81%
2009 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 20 20 20 1 0 4.81%
2009 Lovely Bones 20 20 16 1 0 3.85%
2010 Inception 40 40 40 40 160 152 4 4 31.67%
2010 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 15.83%
2010 Alice in Wonderland 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 15.83%
2010 Black Swan 20 20 40 40 2 0 8.33%
2010 Toy Story 3 20 20 40 40 2 0 8.33%
2010 Iron Man 2 20 20 40 40 2 0 8.33%
2010 Tron: Legacy 20 20 40 36 2 0 7.50%
2010 Hereafter 20 20 20 1 0 4.17%
2011 Hugo 40 20 40 20 120 116 4 2 21.64%
2011 Rise of the Planet of the Apes 20 20 40 40 120 112 4 2 20.90%
2011 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 20 40 20 20 100 96 4 1 17.91%
2011 War Horse 20 20 40 40 2 0 7.46%
2011 Adventures of Tintin 20 20 40 40 2 0 7.46%
2011 Transformers: Dark of the Moon 20 20 40 40 2 0 7.46%
2011 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 20 20 20 1 0 3.73%
2011 Captain America: The First Avenger 20 20 20 1 0 3.73%
2011 Real Steel 20 20 20 1 0 3.73%
2011 Super 8 20 20 16 1 0 2.99%
2011 Tree of Life 20 20 16 1 0 2.99%

Lists

  • Best Oscar Winner Snubbed by the BAFTAs:  The Abyss
  • Best BAFTA Winner Snubbed by the Oscars:  The Fifth Element
  • Best Oscar Nominee Snubbed by the BAFTAs:  Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
  • Best BAFTA Nominee Snubbed by the Oscars:  Pan’s Labyrinth
  • Best Film Snubbed by the Oscars and BAFTAs but Nominated by the VES:  The Fountain
  • Best Film Snubbed by all four groups:  Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
  • Worst Oscar Winner:  Plymouth Adventure
  • Worst BAFTA Winner:  The Witches of Eastwick
  • Worst VES Winner:  Transformers
  • Average Nighthawk Winner  (9 point scale):  5.35
  • Average Oscar Winner  (9 point scale):  4.54
  • Average BAFTA Winner  (9 point scale):  6.77
  • Average VES Winner  (9 point scale):  7.90
  • Average Nighthawk 2nd Place  (9 point scale):  4.09
  • Average Nighthawk Nominee  (9 point scale):  4.32
  • Average Oscar Nominee  (9 point scale):  3.26
  • Average BAFTA Nominee  (9 point scale):  4.66
  • Average VES Nominee  (9 point scale):  5.70
  • Total Oscar Score:  82.90
  • Average Oscar Winner Rank:  2.03
  • Average Oscar Winner Rank Among Nominees:  1.39

See It Only for The Visual Effects

note:  Of the 16,000+ films I have seen through 2011, there are 13 that earn points for Visual Effects but nothing else.  Of those 13, 7 of them are ***, so are good films.  Of the other six, four of them earn only a 1 or 2 in VE.  These are the last, ranked by the Visual Effects.

  1. Hollow Man  (2000, **)
  2. Poltergeist II: The Other Side  (1986, **)

Since 2011

Oscar Notes:  Since 2011, Spielberg has had one more film nominated and Peter Jackson has had two.  Star Wars, as a franchise has earned four more nominations.  The Marvel Cinematic Universe has managed seven nominations since 2011, only missing out in 2015.  The only sequel, however, to actually win the Oscar is Blade Runner 2049.  Since 2011, Disney, thanks to those two franchises, has accounted for 14 of the 35 nominations with Fox (7) and Warner Bros (7) accounting for most of the rest.  Sci-Fi continues to dominate with 4 of the 6 winners and almost half the nominees.  Two VE winners and three other nominees have been nominated for Picture but none have won the award.  There have still been no Foreign nominees.  Though almost half the nominees since 2011 earned no other noms, only Jungle Book has won the award without another nom.  Kubo and the Two Strings became the first film to earn VE and Animated Film nominations.  Joe Letteri has risen up the ranks so he is now tied for 3rd with 280 points.

BAFTA Notes:  Three franchise films have won the BAFTA since 2011: Force Awakens, Blade Runner, Black Panther.  Like at the Oscars, Sci-Fi has mostly dominated with four wins and almost half the nominations.  Films have won VE but no Picture winner has earned a VE nomination since 2011; on the other hand, Gravity became the first film to win British Film and VE (indeed, the first to win either when nominated for both).  Like the Oscars, almost half the nominees have earned no other nominations though two winners (Jungle Book, Black Panther) have won the award.  Gravity became the first film to win both Score and VE and with 6 wins has more awards than any other VE winner.  While Return of the King was the only film by 2011 to win Cinematography and VE, three more films have done it since (Life of Pi, Gravity, Blade Runner).  Joe Letteri and Neil Corbould have risen from their 5th place tie to 1st (Letteri – 300) and 2nd place (Corbould – 260).

BFCA Notes:  The BFCA has mostly stuck with the consensus (Life of Pi, Gravity, Jungle Book) or gone along with the VES in awarding the Apes films (Dawn, War).  In the other two years, they went their own way completely (Mad Max) and agreed with the BAFTAs the other time giving the award to a film that the Oscars and VES blanked completely (Black Panther).  With the exception of 2014, there has been at least one film every year that the BFCA nominated that received no other noms (Cloud Atlas, The Walk, Edge of Tomorrow, Jurassic World, A Monster Calls, Thor: Ragnarok, Wonder Woman, Mary Poppins Returns, Mission: Impossible – Fallout).  Thanks to voting too early, they missed out on nominating each of the Star Wars films from 2015 to 2017, the only group not to nominate those films.  The BFCA hasn’t had a weak year since 2012 but had its strongest field in 2014 (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Battle of Five Armies, Guardians, Interstellar, Edge of Tomorrow).

VES Notes:  For the most part, you can see the BFCA; the VES has agreed with them since 2012 all but twice (Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War).  Since 2011, the VES has also had its two most notable snubs, passing up the Oscar winner in 2015 (Ex Machina) and the BAFTA and BFCA winner in 2018 (Black Panther).  Since 2011, the VES has had one of its best slate of nominees (2017 – War for the Planet of the Apes, Guardians 2, Skull Island, Last Jedi, BR 2049, matching the Oscars though with different winners) and one of its worst (2015 – Force Awakens, Mad Max, Martian, Furious 7, San Andreas).

Nighthawk Notes:  Since 2011, Peter Jackson has another win (Unexpected Journey) and two more noms (the other two Hobbit films) so he’s ahead of Spielberg on wins but still well short on nominations.  That also means another Jackson Middle-Earth film wins as do three more Star Wars films (all but Solo).  There has been much less crossover with Picture since 2011 with only Gravity winning both awards, Force Awakens and First Man winning VE with a Picture nom and Revenant, Arrival and Dunkirk earning noms for both.

9 point Effects Since 2011:

  • The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
  • Life of Pi
  • Gravity
  • The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
  • Interstellar
  • The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
  • Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
  • Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
  • Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
  • First Man
  • Avengers: Infinity War
  • Ready Player One
  • Solo: A Star Wars Story
  • The Lion King
  • Captain Marvel

The Nighthawk Winners:

  • 2012:  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES, BFCA)
  • 2013:  Gravity  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES, BFCA)
  • 2014:  Interstellar  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES, BFCA)
  • 2015:  Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2016:  Rogue One: A Star Wars Story  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2017:  Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES)
  • 2018:  First Man  (Oscar, BAFTA, VES, BFCA)

Chart / Consensus Notes:

2012 Life of Pi 40 40 40 40 160 152 4 4 33.33% 1
2012 Avengers 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 16.67% 2
2012 Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 16.67% 2
2012 Prometheus 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 13.16% 4
2012 Dark Knight Rises 20 20 40 36 2 0 7.89% 5
2012 Battleship 20 20 20 1 0 4.39% x
2012 Snow White and the Huntsman 20 20 20 1 0 4.39% x
2012 Cloud Atlas 20 20 16 1 0 3.51% x
2013 Gravity 40 40 40 40 160 152 4 4 30.65% 1
2013 Star Trek Into Darkness 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 15.32% 2
2013 Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 15.32% 2
2013 Iron Man 3 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 15.32% 2
2013 Lone Ranger 20 40 60 60 2 1 12.10% 5
2013 Pacific Rim 20 20 20 60 56 3 0 11.29% x
2014 Interstellar 40 40 20 20 120 116 4 2 22.66% 1
2014 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 20 20 40 40 120 112 4 2 21.88% 2
2014 Guardians of the Galaxy 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 14.84% 3
2014 X-Men: Days of Future Past 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 11.72% 4
2014 Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies 20 20 20 60 56 3 0 10.94% 5
2014 Walk 20 20 40 36 2 0 7.03% x
2014 Maleficent 20 20 20 1 0 3.91% x
2014 Captain America: The Winter Soldier 20 20 20 1 0 3.91% x
2014 Edge of Tomorrow 20 20 16 1 0 3.13% x
2015 Star Wars: The Force Awakens 20 40 40 100 100 3 2 20.16% 1
2015 Mad Max: Fury Road 20 20 20 40 100 92 4 1 18.55% 2
2015 Martian 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 15.32% 3
2015 Ex Machina 40 20 20 80 76 3 1 15.32% 3
2015 Revenant 20 40 20 80 76 3 1 15.32% 3
2015 Ant-Man 20 20 20 1 0 4.03% x
2015 Furious 7 20 20 20 1 0 4.03% x
2015 San Andreas 20 20 20 1 0 4.03% x
2015 Jurassic World 20 20 16 1 0 3.23% x
2016 Jungle Book 40 40 40 40 160 152 4 4 28.36% 1
2016 Doctor Strange 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 14.18% 2
2016 Rogue One 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 11.19% 3
2016 Deepwater Horizon 20 40 60 60 2 1 11.19% 3
2016 Kubo and the Two Strings 20 40 60 60 2 1 11.19% 3
2016 Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 20 20 20 60 56 3 0 10.45% x
2016 Arrival 20 20 40 36 2 0 6.72% x
2016 Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children 20 20 20 1 0 3.73% x
2016 A Monster Calls 20 20 16 1 0 2.99% x
2017 Blade Runner 2049 40 40 20 20 120 116 4 2 22.66% 1
2017 War for the Planet of the Apes 20 20 40 40 120 112 4 2 21.88% 2
2017 Dunkirk 20 40 20 80 76 3 1 14.84% 3
2017 Star Wars: The Last Jedi 20 20 20 60 60 3 0 11.72% 4
2017 Kong: Skull Island 20 20 40 40 2 0 7.81% 5
2017 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 20 20 40 40 2 0 7.81% 5
2017 Shape of Water, The 20 20 40 36 2 0 7.03% x
2017 Thor: Ragnarok 20 20 16 1 0 3.13% x
2017 Wonder Woman 20 20 16 1 0 3.13% x
2018 First Man 40 20 40 20 120 116 4 2 22.66% 1
2018 Avengers: Infinity War 20 20 40 20 100 96 4 1 18.75% 2
2018 Ready Player One 20 20 20 20 80 76 4 0 14.84% 3
2018 Black Panther 40 40 80 72 2 2 14.06% 4
2018 Solo: A Star Wars Story 20 20 40 40 2 0 7.81% 5
2018 Christopher Robin 20 20 40 40 2 0 7.81% 5
2018 Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald 20 20 20 1 0 3.91% x
2018 Welcome to Marwen 20 20 20 1 0 3.91% x
2018 Mary Poppins Returns 20 20 16 1 0 3.13% x
2018 Mission: Impossible – Fallout 20 20 16 1 0 3.13% x

See It Only For the Visual Effects:

The only film that meets the above criteria (below ***, no points except VE, at least a 3) is Welcome to Marwen which is **.  However, I feel I should point out War for the Planet of the Apes which earns an 8 and earns no other points (though at least is a *** film), the only film (before or after 2011) to earn higher than a 6 and earn no other points.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1992

$
0
0

“The air was white, and when they alighted it tasted like cold pennies.  At times they passed through a clot of grey.  Mrs. Wilcox’s vitality was low that morning, and it was Margaret who decided on a horse for this little girl, a golliwog for that, for the rector’s wife a copper warming-tray.”  (p 60, Norton Critical Edition)

My Top 10

  1. Howards End
  2. The Player
  3. The Last of the Mohicans
  4. A Few Good Men
  5. Flirting
  6. Glengarry Glen Ross
  7. Raise the Red Lantern
  8. Enchanted April
  9. Aladdin
  10. A River Runs Through It

note:  The list goes well past 10 as listed below though none of the other films on my list earned nominations (so they’re all in the top list at the bottom) and the rest of the list is all fairly weak.

Consensus Nominees:

  1. The Player  (296 pts)
  2. Howards End  (192 pts)
  3. Scent of a Woman  (184 pts)
  4. Enchanted April  (80 pts)
  5. Glengarry Glenn Ross  (40 pts)
  6. A River Runs Through It  (40 pts)

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • Howards End
  • Enchanted April
  • The Player
  • A River Runs Through It
  • Scent of a Woman

WGA:

  • The Player
  • Enchanted April
  • Glengarry Glen Ross
  • Howards End
  • Scent of a Woman

Golden Globes:

  • Scent of a Woman
  • A Few Good Men
  • Howards End
  • The Player

Nominees that are Original:  Unforgiven

BAFTA:

  • Howards End
  • The Player
  • Scent of a Woman  (1993)

note:  The other two BAFTA nominees in 1992 were a 1991 eligible film (JFK) and a 1993 eligible film (Strictly Ballroom).

CFC:

  • The Player

My Top 10

Howards End

The Film:

I have reviewed this film actually twice already, once when I reviewed it as part of the novel (see below) and the second time as part of the Best Picture project.  I could have even reviewed it a third time for the Nighthawk Awards as it is one of the five best films of 1992.  It is at once a magnificent film and a magnificent adaptation.  There are only six examples in which both the original novel and the film version are ranked higher than this combination.  It was also the film where Emma Thompson stopped being known as Kenneth Branagh’s wife and started being known for her tremendous talent as an actress.

The Source:

Howards End by E.M. Forster  (1910)

I ranked this at #45 all-time, the highest of E.M. Forster’s novels and that is saying quite a bit.  As I mentioned in my original review, “Only connect…” is the epigraph to the novel and that theme runs straight through the book but it is perhaps a quote late in the book that sums up, not only the novel itself, but almost everything that Forster writes about in all of his works: “They had nothing in common but the English language, and tried by its help to express what neither of them understood.”

The Adaptation:

This is a first-rate faithful adaptation and Jhabvala had to write barely any dialogue for the film (most of what we hear on screen is straight from the novel) and more deciding what to cut (for instance, the eight month separation between the sisters in which Helen is away hiding the fact that she is pregnant is quite compressed).  There are a few other things that are cut, mostly scenes that cut away from the ongoing story between the two sisters and their relationships with the Wilcoxes and poor Leonard Bast.  But most of the novel is onscreen and almost everything we see onscreen came straight from the novel.

The Credits:

Director: James Ivory.  Based upon the novel by E.M. Forster.  Screenplay: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala.

The Player

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the five best films of the year.  Sadly, of course, I couldn’t review it for my Best Picture post because the Oscar voters insanely decided that Scent of a Woman was a better film because, and there is no other way to put this, they are complete fucking idiots.  At least the directors and writers knew some quality when they saw it, nominating it for both awards.  One of the most brilliant satires on Hollywood ever made.

The Source:

The Player by Michael Tolkin  (1988)

This is a smart, short little novel.  What is has to say about Hollywood isn’t particularly pleasant.  It’s the story of Griffin Mill, an executive at a major Hollywood studio.  He’s been getting threatening postcards from a writer he never called back, which limits it to just about every writer in Hollywood.  In desperation, Griffin decides which writer it is and then ends up killing him.  Now he’s trying to hold on to his job and hold off the police.  Tolkin’s novel is not very nice about the people in Hollywood or the movies they make and everything is part of a pretty bitter satire.  In the end, things work out for Griffin, a kind of Hollywood ending he would like, but also a really nasty point of view.  But it is smart about what is about and is pretty entertaining and a definitely quick read.

The Adaptation:

Most of the book ends up in the film, but things get expanded.  With Altman’s connections he manages to really bring more and more people and take the satire of Hollywood to another novel.  This is especially apparent in the way he makes use of Cynthia Stevenson’s character.  Bonnie is a character in the novel, but a much less important one and the way she is discarded both personally and professionally by Griffin really help heighten the satire of Hollywood.  And there are other things, of course, that come from it being a film (like the masterful opening shot) that couldn’t be thought of for a novel.  But the ending also has a considerably different ring to it – yes, in some ways it is the same, but in the conversation on the phone (not in the original novel), it really adds one final level of satire in the film’s cynical look at Hollywood.

The fact that it was similar to the book is amazing given the reaction to it from Tolkin himself: “The writer, Michael Tolkin, complained that he went to the dailies and he didn’t recognize any of the dialogue,” says David Brown the producer in Robert Altman: The Oral Biography by Mitchell Zuckoff (p 410).  As for the ending?  Well you can thank Altman, Robbins and some marijuana for that.  They were getting high and trying to come up with an ending and Robbins asked how they ended M*A*S*H “and he goes, ‘Well, Radar comes on the loudspeaker and says, ‘This is a movie directed by Robert Altman and blah, blah, blah.’  And that’s what tipped it for me.  I said, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa.  What if the writer pitches to Griffin the story you just saw of the movie?  And that is a totally stoned thought.”  (Robbins quoted in Zuckoff, p 419)

The Credits:

Directed by Robert Altman.  Screenplay by Michael Tolkin based on his novel.

The Last of the Mohicans

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film, years ago, for my piece on Michael Mann as one of my Top 100 Directors (a position he currently doesn’t hold any longer and given the films he’s made since then, is unlikely to get back on the list).  I also placed it on my Top 100 Favorite Films.  It is a favorite and I do watch it a lot, but it’s really the end that I watch a lot.  Any time it’s on television I will keep watching until it’s over, until we’ve gotten through the brilliant piece of editing, cinematography and score that concludes the film in a scene as well made and constructed as anything else in film history.  This is one of the great Adventure films of all-time with brilliant elements of romance and tragedy brought in as well.  Kudos to the Academy for recognizing its Sound but how on earth did everyone miss out on rewarding its Cinematography and Score?

The Source:

The Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757 by James Fenimore Cooper (1826)

As I have said before, when I listed it among other such books, while the film is fantastic, the book, to me, is basically unreadable.  While there are many who admire the book (Melville, Conrad and Lawrence are among its most notable admirers), I am certainly not alone in finding it unreadable (just try looking up Mark Twain and Cooper and you can see what Twain thinks of Cooper’s writing in general and this book in particular).  I’ll give you one particular paragraph so you can decide for yourself, first, what is actually happening, and second, if you would want to read 400 pages of this:

“The Huron sprang like a tiger on his offending and already retreating countryman, but the falling form of Uncas separated the unnatural combatants.  Diverted from his object by this interruption, and maddened by the murder he had just witnessed, Magua buried his weapon in the back of the prostrate Delaware, uttering an unearthly shout, as he committed the dastardly deed.  But Uncus arose from the blow, as the wounded panther turns upon his foe, and stuck the murderer of Cora to his feet, by an effort, in which the last of his failing strength was expended.  Then, with a stern and steady look, he turned to le Subtil, and indicated, by the expression of his eye, all that he would do, had not the power deserted him.  The latter seized the nerveless arm of the unresisting Delaware, and passed his knife into his bosom three several times, before his victim, still keeping his gaze riveted on his enemy with a look of inextinguishable scorn, fell dead at his feet.”

The Adaptation:

So, first of all, if you manage to penetrate that paragraph enough to understand what has happened and second, if you have seen this film but not read the original novel then you are probably pretty confused.  Cora is dead, not at the hands of Magua, but from another tribesman and then Uncas is killed after that.  Well, all of that just shows how different this film is from the original novel.  In fact, this film bears more similarities with the 1936 version (which was the first to add a romance between Hawkeye and one of the daughters) than the original novel and even acknowledges that in the credits.  It is that film version that also offers the idea of Hawkeye and Heywood both offering to sacrifice themselves for the woman they love.  Of course, in that version, it is Alice that they love as opposed to Cora.  For this version, among many other changes, Uncas loves Alice and dies for her and she makes the choice after he is dead to kill herself (actually, that came in the 1936 version though it was badly done not artfully done and it was Cora there and Alice here).  There are trappings from the original novel in the film – the whole basic plot, of course, and the main characters themselves (except that in the original novel Cora is a half-sister to Alice and her hair is dark because she is part mulatto).  But the romance of the film (which plays much farther into the tragedy as well, with Heywood’s death added to this version of the film) is an addition of, first, the 1936 film, and then changed somewhat and refined for this film.

The Credits:

Directed by Michael Mann.  Based upon the novel by James Fenimore Cooper.  And the 1936 screenplay by Philip Dunne.  Adaptation by John L. Balderston and Paul Perez and Daniel Moore.  Screenplay by Michael Mann and Christopher Crowe.

A Few Good Men

The Film:

Watching this film this time, for who knows how many times, I was thinking, I should make this a higher **** film.  It’s close to Howards End and Reservoir Dogs for that final spot in the Best Picture race.  Imagine my surprise then, to go back to my review, written several years ago, and realize I didn’t even have it at **** to begin with, but ***.5.  Given how much the film resonated with real-world events that didn’t even occur until years after the events, I’m surprised I rated it so low.  I’ve gone back and moved it up.  It still sits at 4th for Adapted Screenplay because of the quality of the three scripts above it, but it shouldn’t be over-looked by any means.  It really is a great film, with remarkable performances all around, lead, of course, by Nicholson’s film-stealing performance.  I also must say, has there ever in the history of film been a better looking legal team than Tom Cruise and Demi Moore in this film?

The Source:

A Few Good Men by Aaron Sorkin  (1989)

This play was actually derived from real events that happened in Cuba in 1986.  Sorkin managed to turn it into a hit play that earned Tom Hulce a Tony nomination though I still have trouble seeing anyone other than Tom Cruise, with his great flippant attitude as Kaffee.  Aaron Sorkin, now one of the better known writers in Hollywood, was only 28 when the play was first produced.

It’s an interesting play that doesn’t use a large number of scenes in one location but rather sets up a variety of different locations and continually changes places without ever changing scenes.  It is a fantastically written play with great dialogue that can occasionally get quite funny without ever breaking the dramatic tension.

The Adaptation:

The vast majority of what we see on the screen contains the same dialogue as was heard on stage.  But on stage, there was a minimum of scenery and most of the locations were done through suggestion rather than elaborate decorations.  So the film doesn’t technically open up the play in the same sense that lots of film adaptations of plays do, but it does in the sense that we actually get the locations of the various things out in the real world.

There are a number of lines that get moved slightly into different places in the film than they were in the play, perhaps because the film fleshes out longer scenes while the play actually didn’t do that, the opposite of the case in most film adaptations of plays.

The one difference is that the conclusion between Cruise and Nicholson is slightly different than in the original play (where it is proved the flight logs were changed) and it is more that Cruise goads Nicholson into admitting things than actually proves it.  It definitely provides a more powerful dramatic conclusion and given the bluster that Nicholson provides in the performance, is completely realistic.

The Credits:

Directed by Rob Reiner.  Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin based on his play.

Flirting

The Film:

I wouldn’t know who Noah Taylor was until 1996.  When I first saw Shine, in the movie theater when it first came out, I was confused as to why this actor Geoffrey Rush (who I also didn’t know at the time) was getting serious Oscar attention while Noah Taylor, who played the same role as a teenager, was basically being overlooked (not completely – he was SAG nominated and he was nominated by the Aussies themselves, though he lost to Rush).  It wouldn’t be for over a decade that I would finally see Flirting, the wonderful 1991 Australian film (maybe – it won the Australian Film Institute Award in 1990) which stars Taylor as young Danny Embling, a lonely misfit away at boarding school dealing with bullying, stupidity and sexuality.

I want to say I first saw Flirting after the publication of Roger Ebert’s book that contained all of his four star reviews.  Then I wondered how I could have not seen it before.  It starred Noah Taylor who had established himself as one of the most fascinating actors around, Thandie Newton, who I hadn’t loved in Mission Impossible 2 and Charly but would, years after this, grow to love for her performances in Westworld and the double combination of Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts.  By this time, Kidman was already known in the States because between the time this was filmed and the time it was released in the States she had gone on to major Hollywood productions like Days of Thunder, Billy Bathgate and Far and Away and had married Tom Cruise but Watts wouldn’t break through in America for almost another decade when Mulholland Drive would establish her as one of the best and sexiest actresses alive.

It’s fascinating to watch all of these actors long before they were so well known on the international scene.  They are just kids (Kidman, the oldest of them, was still in her early 20’s) and they bring a sense of realism that you often don’t find in American films about teenagers.  They all have their own bits of awkwardness and not wanting to be where they are.  Taylor has gone off to boarding school after the events portrayed in The Year My Voice Broke (see below).  Newton is there, looking out of place (it is thought at first she might be a native but her father is Ugandan and her mother is Kenyan-British) while her father is lecturing at university.  In their shyness and loneliness, they begin a touching romance that never feels forced.  Kidman gets the role that had been essentially been played by Ben Mendelsohn in the first film, the somewhat bully who is actually a bit protective of these misfits.

Flirting is a great film, one that was widely acclaimed in Australia but which flew almost completely under the radar in the United States.  Even with Kidman in the cast, the entire theatrical run in the States made less than the opening weekend of Dead Calm, released when she was still relatively unknown and it would take years before the others would become known in the States.  But is a very real film with realistic dialogue, characters who feel very authentic and solid performances from everyone involved.  If it is a film that you have somehow missed, you definitely should take the time to go see it.

The Source:

The Year My Voice Broke, written by John Duigan, Directed by John Duigan  (1987)

As mentioned above, I first saw Flirting around 2008 or so after the Ebert book was published.  But, even though the Ebert review mentions the previous film (getting the title wrong), I still didn’t actually seek it out, perhaps because, while Flirting had Thandie Newton, Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts, the original film had none of them.  But I really should have because Noah Taylor is a fascinating and wonderful actor.  Taylor was 17 when the film was made but he looks even younger as Danny Embling.  Danny, if you have seen Flirting, is awkward and a bit shy and while he’s smart and funny, he is often bullied for his looks and for being awkward and lonely.  That’s something that had carried over from this film which was made three years earlier and takes place maybe a couple of years earlier (he’s still living at home through this film while he’s off at boarding school through all of Flirting).

Danny is starting to move into puberty and he is falling in love.  There are two problems with that.  The first is that he’s falling in love with his best friend and as is often the case with such loves, she continues to really just think of him as a friend.  The second is that she’s blonde and rather good looking and he’s awkward and she’s kind of out of his league.  That becomes more apparent when the local roguish bloke named Trevor also takes a fancy to her.  Yet, Danny can’t really take out his anger on Trevor because Trevor helps protect Danny from bullies (at one point rescuing him from being pushed into a toilet and smashing the two guys who are doing it into a trailer) and is genuinely fond of Danny.  I was reminded somewhat of the Nicole Kidman role in Flirting (although she is less fond of Danny) but even more of the film Lucas.  While writer/director John Duigan has talked about the two films were based on him growing up what I really was reminded of was how in Lucas we also had the shy kid in love with the friend while the friend is more taken with the more charming, athletic guy who also serves as kind of a protector.

This is a good film.  It doesn’t quite have the impact of Flirting and doesn’t have the same outstanding cast (Loene Carmen, the lead female here that Danny is in love with can’t compare as an actress to Newton, Kidman or Watts).  The dialogue is still realistic but it just didn’t carry the same impact.  But one thing that the film does have in common is a star who would wait a long time to bloom forth on the international scene becase the rugged Trevor is played by Ben Mendelsohn, a good 25 years before he would really start to become known to American audiences and get to play villain roles in Batman and Star Wars films.

The Adaptation:

The only character carried over from the first film is Danny and you can easily watch the second film without ever knowing the first film existed (which I think is what happened to me the first time I saw Flirting, about a decade ago).  It does give you a better insight into Danny and who he is at the school if you’ve seen The Year My Voice Broke.  Since the character is both written and directed by Duigan both times and is in fact explicitly based on Duigan’s memoirs of growing up, it makes sense of course that the Danny in Flirting is just a natural extension of him in the first film.  Flirting is the same kind of thing that I have done with my own characters – not so much a sequel as a further story of what happens to the same character after the events of the first story are over.

The Credits:

Written and Directed by John Duigan.

Glengarry Glen Ross

The Film:

“We’re adding a little something to this month’s sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you’re fired.”  That’s Blake, the guy sent from the main office to a little downtown real estate office to get the point through to the guys who have been wasting their time away trying to sell something, anything and stay ahead of the game.  He’s played by Alec Baldwin and it’s hard to know whether to put Baldwin in the supporting actor list because he’s so damn good but he’s also only in the film such an incredibly short time (as compared to Al Pacino who was very deservedly Oscar nominated for a much larger performance in this film as the one guy in the office who’s not a total screw-up).  Baldwin has rarely been better and his performance has been much quoted by guys ever since the day the film landed.

It’s all about the film, of course.  The play had been a hit (winning the Pulitzer) but it didn’t have a ton in the way of star power (though Joe Mantegna won the Tony) while the film has Jack Lemmon’s last great performance, the other (much better) Oscar nominated performance from Al Pacino in the year he won Best Actor, very strong performances from established vets Ed Harris, Alan Arkin and Jonathan Pryce and a really good performance from Kevin Spacey that helped pave the way to his own Oscar a few years later.  What’s more, the brilliant small performance from Alec Baldwin is completely a creation of the film – the character wasn’t even in the play.

This is, in pretty much every way, the ultimate male film.  It’s written by a playwright who has never shown much interest in female characters and neither the play nor the film has one.  It’s about four male salesmen and their lackluster manager who are striving to out-compete the others only to have a boss from downtown come in and show them who has the brass balls to come in and tear them apart.  It’s all about power and domination.  And yet, for many, this wouldn’t be viewed as the ultimate male movie at all because in the end, it just comes down to a lot of showing off and talking and no actual action (the only real thing that happens in the film is that the office is burgled and that takes place offscreen and we only find out who did it because the person who did it accidentally gives it away in the worst way possible) but then again, there are many who would say that it’s exactly what makes it such a male movie – all machismo talk, no action.

The film isn’t perfect – it’s a bit too much to take at times and the direction is far from stellar.  But somehow the Academy missed out on Jack Lemmon’s last great performance, one of the best of a long and storied career.  At least they got Pacino right – he gives a far more nuanced, far more complete performance than the ridiculously over the top one mentioned down below that actually, somehow, won him the Oscar.  This film is absolutely not for everyone but if great acting is what you want, then it’s for you.

The Source:

Glengarry Glen Ross: A Play by David Mamet  (1983)

This is a hell of a play, a seven character piece all male, about struggling real estate agents and what they will do in order to survive.  It was a big hit when it first came out, winning the Tony and the Pulitzer.  It is powerful enough that it continues to be revived even though it would hard for anything to ever capture the energy of the actors in the film version.

The Adaptation:

Mamet adapted his own play and adds a lot to the beginning.  As mentioned above, the entire scene with Baldwin is entirely added for the film.  It’s a brilliant move (it kind of needed it as even with the Baldwin scene the film only runs 100 minutes and without it would have been kind of short).  There are some other changes, but once we actually get into the action of the original play (after the Baldwin scene, when the men have left the office and gone to the restaurant) things hold fairly close to the play.

The Credits:

Directed by James Foley.  Based on the Play by David Mamet.  Screenplay by David Mamet.

大紅燈籠高高掛
(Raise the Red Lantern)

The Film:

A young, beautiful woman comes to lives in a large household.  Until recently she was a college student but her father has died and in an effort to keep the family afloat she has accepted a proposal of marriage from a very rich man.  That she is young and beautiful is painful to his other three wives, all of whom she will have to deal with in order to keep herself afloat, not financially, but mentally.

The director-actress duo making the film are Zhang Yimou and Gong Li and they are both key to the success of the film, a film that was nominated for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars the year before and somehow managed to lose to Mediterraneo which is a nice enough Comedy but I can’t imagine how anyone who has seen this film could possibly have voted for that film.  Yimou and Li had made their debut together a few years previously with Red Sorghum, a film that showed how talented Li was and how brilliant Yimou was at making use of bright, brilliant colors.  Again, we get brilliant colors, as Yimou makes the household come to life, no more so than the idea of a red lantern that is hung up by whichever of the wives the master of the house decides to bed down with for the night.

What poor Songlian (Li) will learn as she moves forward is that she will be battling not just the other wives but also her own servants.  She knows that getting pregnant is the fastest way to making a solid claim (especially if it’s a boy) but it’s clear from her expressions that she’s not certain how much she wants to play this game.  She also doesn’t realize at first which wife is the real danger to her.

Yimou makes an interesting choice with the film, choosing never to allow us to see the master’s face.  He is just this ever-present power floating over all the actions in the film without ever really being there.  Songlian is young and beautiful but she knows that there is more to happiness than that even if using those things are the major key to finding her happiness.

Unfortunately, since it had been nominated for Foreign Film the year before it was ineligible in the other categories in its actual eligibility year which meant that the luscious cinematography and vibrant colors of the art direction and costumes were ineligible even though they all absolutely should have been nominated.  What’s more, in a year where the awful direction of Martin Brest in Scent of a Woman earned a nomination it meant that Zhang Yimou’s deft touch and brilliant direction was also ineligible.

The Source:

妻妾成群 by Su Tong  (1990)

The original title is translated as “Wives and Concubines” which is how the title appears in the credits of the film.  However, by the time the novella was published in English (it’s the first of three novellas in a collection and it runs just under 100 pages), the film had already been an international hit and the title was changed to reflect the film’s title which makes sense on a marketing level but not on an artistic level for reasons I explain below.  It’s a bit of a depressing tale of a woman who marries a rich man who already has three wives and the problems that befall her as the various wives try to outdo the others for the favor of their husband.  Things take a very dark turn towards the end (though more of a darker one in the film than in the book which again I will explain below).  One thing to note is that the English translation (by Michael S. Duke) translates the wive’s names and so, instead of Songlian like in the film, we get the story of Lotus (Duke explains why in the Translator’s Note: “the women’s names carry thematically important references to nature and the cycles of nature”).

The Adaptation:

As mentioned above, the title was changed from the original to the movie title for the English publication (as it was, apparently, for later printings in China as well).  What makes that such an odd artistic choice is that the all-important red lantern that gets hung by the part of the household for whichever wife will be getting the husband for the night (and are covered up when the husband discovers that Songlian is not actually pregnant, not to mention the thematic presence of such lanterns in the quarters of the maid) is entirely a creation of the filmmakers.  It is not present at all in the original story.  It’s a brilliant addition to the story, especially since Yimou is so good with color but to then have it become the title of the original story is just strange.

Most of the rest of the film does come fairly straight from the book with a lot of fairly close dialogue (as well as I can tell given translations and subtitles) but one big change is that in the film, Songlian is at least indirectly responsible for what happens to the third wife if not directly responsible while in the book she bears no responsibility for the actions whatsoever.  That makes her eventual fate, which is the same in both book and film, more understandable in the film with guilt eating away at her as opposed to simply being overwhelmed by the horror of what she witnesses.

The Credits:

Directed by Zhang Yimou.  Original Novel <<Wives and Concubines>> by Su Tong.  Scriptwriter: Ni Zhen.
note:  These credits are how they appear on the screen in the DVD (not from subtitles).

Enchanted April

The Film:

It’s a dreary day in London (statistics tell me that less than 20% of the English population lives in London but I swear you would think from watching films and reading novels that everyone in England lives in London or in a country estate) so when a rather miserable woman (Josie Lawrence) dealing with a dreary marriage (Alfred Molina doing a splendid job at playing a bore) to go along with that March weather in London sees an advertisement for a castle for let in Italy for all of April she can’t get it out of her head.  At her local club she approaches a woman she has never spoken to (the brilliant Miranda Richardson in the lead role to go along with her magnificent supporting roles in Damage and The Crying Game that finally made her a big name after years in the industry) and they decide this is something they might actually be able to do.  Her husband (Jim Broadbent) has some good money because he writes risque books (under a pseudonym and no one who knows him as a writer knows his actual name or that he is married).  But it’s not quite enough money so they bring in two other women, one a young, beautiful, rich woman desperate to get away from her life (which actually includes knowing Broadbent as an author) played by Polly Walker in a role that, if you don’t think she looks exactly like Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago then you are blind, and an old stodgy woman (Joan Plowright) who brags about her life with Carlisle and Tennyson but is very displeased to be asked by Lawrence if she knew Keats (“Keats!  No I didn’t, and I didn’t know Shakespeare or Chaucer either.”).  All the pieces are now in place.

After that, well, actually, not a whole lot happens.  That’s an interesting thing about this film which isn’t a Merchant-Ivory production though, with nice costumes a period setting and based on an older British novel with a female oriented story, it’s understandable that it should be mistaken for such.  What’s more, given how little will actually happen in the film until three men intrude on the privacy of the four women at the end of the film, it’s fascinating how good and enjoyable the film is to watch.  In some ways, it’s an example of what can happen when we just sit back and watch good acting (especially Richardson who somehow didn’t get an Oscar nomination and Plowright who did and surprisingly lost to Marisa Tomei) but it’s also an example of just good dialogue when the women are together.

Molina has almost no interest in Lawrence outside of her cooking until he arrives and suddenly manages to see things in a new light.  Richardson loves Broadbent but he is so taken with celebrity and fame that he almost blows his marriage through chance and the only reason he doesn’t is because he acts really fast with Walker reacting just as fast (in what is easily the funniest scene in the film).  Walker discovers when she is away from all her admirers that she actually has something to say and when someone comes along who is interested in listening to it, she is also able to find a different measure of happiness than she has before.  As for Plowright, well, she continues to get in her digs whenever she can but she also begins to realize that just because she has been lonely she doesn’t have to continue to be so.

I remember admiring this film when I first saw it, after its video release.  But I didn’t remember a lot about it and was surprised to see how much of the film is just resting back a little and allowing the four actresses to live in the skins of their characters.  Now that I have read the book it isn’t so surprising (see below) but it’s nice to see as well, a film that just allows the characters to be who they are without feeling the need to talk all the time.

The Source:

The Enchanted April by Elizabeth Von Arnim (1922)

The Introduction to this novel in the NYRB edition by Cathleen Schine points out something interesting that you might not expect having either read the book or seen the film: “When Elizabeth Von Arnim wrote The Enchanted April in 1921, she was fifty-six years old.  It is difficult when reading this deliciously fresh novel to remember that she was, in fact, a child of the Victorian age, closer in age to the story’s grim old Mrs. Fisher than to the three younger women who inhabit a glorious Italian castle for the month of April.”

Schine gets the novel right.  It is deliciously fresh and reading the three younger women, who are far more the focus than Mrs. Fisher, it would be easy to assume that the author was their age.  So it’s to Von Arnim’s credit that she does such a good job of understanding younger women of that age who were struggling in their marriages and trying to find a voice for themselves since she had found hers so much earlier on.  The characters very much come to life in the book and while the film version is quite faithful, there’s no reason you shouldn’t dive into the book as well.

The Adaptation:

There are some small deviations through the story and there are moments in the film that weren’t dialogue in the book.  But the biggest difference is that in the book we don’t see what happens with Broadbent’s character before the women leave for Italy and don’t know until he arrives that he is already acquainted with Walker’s character.  In the book, he simply shows up to see her but in the film we already are aware of his infatuation with her and their meeting in front of his wife is handled just slightly differently (with less humor) but it would still be similar to anyone who had read the book.  Overall, it’s quite a faithful rendition with much of the dialogue in the film coming straight from the book.

The Credits:

Director: Mike Newell.  Screenplay: Peter Barnes.  From the novel by Elizabeth Von Arnim.

Aladdin

The Film:

It was Thanksgiving of 1992 and I was sitting in a theater at a mall in Albany, NY with six other people, all of whom were between the ages of 16 and 21 and we were enjoying the hell out of Aladdin (which was a nice contrast from the night before when we had enjoyed the hell out of Bram Stoker’s Dracula).  We all of us had gone through childhood at an age when the animated Disney films in theaters were sub-par and didn’t come out all that often while we had hit mostly hit double digits and even our teens without them being widely available to buy on video (because films would go in and out of the vault).  So, when The Little Mermaid had redefined everything for the studio we had been anywhere between 18 and 13.  But we had found it and we had found Beauty and the Beast so when Aladdin was opening and we were together for Thanksgiving (the three Newkirk girls, two boyfriends, one other guy and me) we headed over there and the theater was mostly empty, perhaps because it was too late a showing for the kids.  But we were there and we loved the hell out of it.  From the opening song (“Arabian Nights”) to the brilliant, off the wall performance of Robin Williams that redefined what a voice performance could do (as well as basically ensuring that from this point on, it was going to be all about bigger stars getting those jobs rather than just voice actors), we were sold on this film.

While everyone has probably seen the film and even if they hadn’t would already know the classic story of the diamond in the rough who is the one able to go into the cave and retrieve the magic lamp and then has his wonderful adventures with the genie before marrying the princess, it’s easy to forget some key things about the film.  Because this wasn’t the film that kicked off the Disney Renaissance (The Little Mermaid), the first animated film to earn a Best Picture nomination (Beauty and the Beast) or the colossal runaway box office hit (The Lion King) this is the film that gets overlooked.  It might surprise you to learn then that this is the only Disney Animated Film since 1955 to be the #1 film at the box office in its release year and it was not only the #1 film domestically but worldwide as well.  Because the other three films have all gotten re-releases and added significant amounts to the original box office takes, Aladdin‘s $217 million gross looks like less than it is but when it was done at the box office, it was the #12 film of all-time and if not for the difference between matinee tickets and cheaper tickets for kids it probably would have been in the Top 10.

Aladdin was also in a tricky position when it came to its music, which was such a key part of the Disney Renaissance.  Howard Ashman, who had died well before Beauty and the Beast was even released, had written lyrics for three songs including two of the key ones in the film (“Friend Like Me”, “Prince Ali”) but not for the big ballad the film needed as the love song.  So Tim Rice was brought in but that meant that Ashman wouldn’t win yet another posthumous Oscar though “A Whole New World” turned out to be an absolutely phenomenal song that would be the only Disney song to win the Grammy for Record of the Year.

So it’s worth going back to the original film and remembering just how remarkable it is.  While The Lion King would become the standard against which animated box office would be measured, it’s Aladdin that I always return to.  When it comes to films like Lilo & Stitch, Tangled, Frozen and Moana, it’s always Aladdin that I think of when I think that the new film is the best Disney has done since…

That’s because Aladdin has everything you could ever need.  It has fantastic songs, most notably “A Whole New World”, the one time that the Academy actually recognized the best song in the Disney film and gave it the Oscar and also has a magnificent score that sadly gets overshadowed at the Nighthawk Awards by what are probably the two non-John Williams soundtracks that I have listened to the most in my lifetime (The Last of the Mohicans, The Power of One).  It has a hero we really root for, a princess who isn’t going to take shit from anybody (I love her fake seduction of Jafar), a truly worthwhile villain even if he doesn’t get his own song and most of all, the fantastic voiceover performance from Robin Williams.

It’s a little weird to go back now and if you’re not old enough to understand a lot of the contemporary references that Williams stuck into his genie monologues, then it can look a little weird.  But he’s so wonderfully manic and he brings the film to life.  It’s not a coincidence that when Williams died and people flocked to the Boston Public Gardens, to the bench that he had sat on with Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting and started writing various Williams lines in chalk, Thomas wrote “Well I feel sheepish” and I wrote “I’m history, no I’m mythology.”  Because that’s how we chose to remember one of the great all-time film (and stand-up) comedians, with a warm and friendly performance that invited you in.

The Source:

Alaeddin; or, The Wonderful Lamp

I don’t list an author or a year for this story because it’s hard to attribute either.  It first appears in print in 1710 in French, translated by Antoine Galland from the original Arabic provided to him by Hanna Diyab, a Syrian storyteller who might have actually originated the tale as it wasn’t found in original versions of 1001 Nights.  Yet, it had been added by 1839-1842 when the four volume edition was printed in Arabic that would become the source for Richard Burton’s unexpurgated translation in the 1880’s and it was the Burton version that I read.  Even that can mean different things because I read the original Burton (available in the link above) rather than the Signet version which had adapted the Burton version to contain more modern English (and reduce the erotic, though that’s less of an issue in this tale than in others in the collection) and add in paragraph breaks.  It’s actually the last point that makes the Burton a more difficult read rather than the original language because this tale runs just over 80 pages in my edition and to read it straight through without a paragraph break makes it difficult.

It’s a fascinating story though, one of the most enjoyably fantastical of the tales (perhaps because it isn’t one) dealing with not one but two different genies (Aladdin actually has a ring with one less powerful genie in addition to the lamp with the more powerful one).

The Adaptation:

The Disney version, as is so often the case, only takes the bare bones (sorcerer who brings Aladdin to get him the lamp, betrays Aladdin, Aladdin gets the genie and the girl, eventually gets rid of the sorcerer and will become Sultan when he is done).  Most of the rest is fairly different.  One point of interest is where the film and story take place (this was a point of contention in watching this film after reading Anthony Lane’s review of the 2019 version talking about the long convoluted history of the tale that the rug is pretty fast because it flies them all the way to China and back in a night and Veronica pointed out that the story could be in China especially since it’s in the Burton and the original (“It hath reached me, O King of the Age, that there dwelt in a city of the cities of China a man which was a tailor, withal a pauper, and he had one son, Alaeddin hight.”) but, aside from the rest of the text that seems to place the story in Arabia, the song itself that opens the film explicitly places this particular film in Arabia).

The Credits:

Produced and Directed by John Musker, Ron Clements.  Songs by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken, Alan Menken and Tim Rice.  Screenplay by Ron Clements and John Musker, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio.

A River Runs Through It

The Film:

If I were to say that this is the birth of a star, you would probably misunderstand what I was talking about.  You would think, naturally, that I am referring to the emergence of Brad Pitt into (almost) full-fledged stardom.  Really, I am referring to that “introducing” credit in the end credits, the young actor named Joseph Gordon-Leavitt with that terrible haircut and who only gets a few minutes.  Yet, it’s a good few minutes and it’s better hair than he would have on Third Rock.  Pitt, on the other hand, is both a promise of the film and part of the problem.

Now, first of all, Pitt had already been born as a star in his small role in Thelma and Louise.  Second of all, Pitt had also shown that trying to carry a film could be a disaster, as witness Cool World, released earlier the same year.  Third, Pitt isn’t the star of the film.  Yes, he brings the film some energy as Paul, playing it more as a star turn in a character role rather than the dead-eyed lifelessness that accompanies so many of his lead performances, which brings some life to the film, which it needs since Tom Skerritt’s performance as the preacher father of the two young men who are brought up to live by the two laws of religion and fly-fishing has to play his role so straight and narrow.  But Paul isn’t the main character of the story.  Instead it’s Norman, the writer who lives the story (and later writes it ostensibly as a novel but really as a memoir) is played by Craig Sheffer and good lord is he a weight almost dragging the film into the water.  He’s so lifeless in his performance that you wonder why the fish aren’t leaping out of the river trying to eat him.

Robert Redford, in his first film as a director, Ordinary People, had shown that he could masterfully instruct actors and move them around in a human drama.  In his second film, The Milgaro Beanfield War, he really established that he could take the look of a film, the cinematography and the music, and tell a decent story with decent acting but which really focused on those two things.  In A River Runs Through It it seems like he wants to combine the two.  But his masterful narration and the performance of Pitt aren’t enough to overcome the parts of the film that want to drag it down.  In the end, it’s still a very good film because the cinematography and the music and the look of the film are so masterful that they are able to overcome any problem with the acting.  The script is even strong as it follows the two brothers, one trying to escape into a world with words and a beautiful woman and one who can’t seem to escape the troubles that haunt his life.  But in the end, it’s the look of the film that is long remembered after the end credits have passed, not the words that get uttered on screen and certainly not the performances of those who say them.

The Source:

A River Runs Through It by Norman MacLean  (1976)

This is a beautifully written novella or short novel or story or whatever you want to call it.  That does not, however, make it an interesting one.  Over a decade now I wrote about my “Susan Orlean” test when I wrote about trying (unsuccessfully) to read The Orchid Thief and how I couldn’t get through it because even though Orlean is a talented writer, she wasn’t talented enough to get me through a story that was about flowers.  Now MacLean is close to that same level which means his sentences are beautifully formed and the story ends with both a great first line (“In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing.”) and a magnificent closing (“Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it.  The river was cut by the world’s great flood and runs over the rocks from the basement of time.  On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops.  Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs.  I am haunted by waters.”).  Unfortunately, in between is an awful lot about fly fishing and the beauty of the language just wasn’t enough to get me past how insanely boring it is to read about fly fishing.  So, if you know someone who likes to fish, absolutely buy them this book.  If not, you’ll have to decide whether the person going to read it can get past that.

The Adaptation:

It’s a really faithful adaptation, straight through to using director Robert Redford to narrate actual lines from the book (including the opening and closing lines).  The only worthwhile difference is that Norman is already married to Jessie in the book at the point where he has to deal with taking her brother fly-fishing.

The Credits:

Directed by Robert Redford.  Based Upon the Story by Norman Maclean.  Screenplay by Richard Friedenberg.

Consensus Nominee

Scent of a Woman

The Film:

The more I have to endure this film, the more it infuriates me.  I watched it first when it came out on video and my first thought was, “They gave Al Pacino an Oscar for this?  Did they not see Malcolm X?”.  I watched it again when I did my Best Picture project and I hated it even more.  This time I didn’t suffer through it as much because I went through it so quickly (helped by the fact that it’s not really an adaptation – see below).  Hopefully, unless I do some future series about acting categories, I can avoid ever seeing this stupid film again.  For the record, by the way, if this film were in its rightful place on the list below, it would be between Waterland and Rampage.

The Source:

Profumo di Donna by Ruggero Maccari and Dino Risi  (1975)

This is the original Italian film, Scent of a Woman, that was an Oscar nominee for Best Adapted Screenplay back in 1975.  I have already reviewed it in full in this post.  I am not a fan but it’s better than this piece of shit.

The Adaptation:

To be fair (and I’m not inclined to be fair to this film, so I’m pushing it here), the credits make clear that this isn’t really an adaptation of either the original novel or the Italian film.  It simply takes the character and builds a new film around him.  Yes, the basic plot of the story – a blind army vet is being shepherded over a weekend by a younger man (well, boy really) and plans to kill himself at the end of it.  So, all the things that are changed (no more old love, the boy isn’t in the army) and all the things that are added (the idiotic school subplot which is perhaps the most infuriating thing about the novel) aren’t so much a change to the source as just what Bo Goldman wanted to do with this script.  They’re all terrible, but that’s not so much part of the adaptation as just part of the film.

The Credits:

Produced and Directed by Martin Brest.  Screenplay by Bo Goldman.
note:  The opening credits do not mention the source.  There is a note towards the end of the end credits: “Suggested by a character from ‘Profumo di Donna’ by Ruggero Maccari and Dino Risi, based on the novel “Il buio e il miele” by Giovanni Arpino.

 

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

note:  For both this and the following list, bear in mind that the Nighthawk Awards has a full list of every film I saw in the theater so you can go there for more personal reactions to a lot of the films.

  • Of Mice and Men  –  A low ***.5 version of the classic Steinbeck novel that was in my Top 200.
  • Gas Food Lodging  –  Adaptation of a YA novel (Don’t Look and It Won’t Hurt by Richard Peck) is good (high ***) but the film as a whole doesn’t quite match the level of the script.
  • Porco Rosso  –  Miyazaki once again adapts his own Manga for the screen, this one about a pilot who’s also an anthropomorphic pig.  At low ***.5 that actually makes it weak Miyazaki.
  • Damage  –  A film that has continually moved upwards in my estimation, Louis Malle directs the adaptation of Josephine Hart’s novel.  The only one of Miranda Richardson’s three really good performances in the year to earn her an Oscar nomination.
  • Bram Stoker’s Dracula  –  I’ve discussed it briefly here as one of my favorite films of all-time and reviewed it in full here.  Popped it in again just the other day because we had watched The Fearless Vampire Killers the night before and it made me want to watch this.
  • The Power of One  –  This film really struck me in three different ways when I first saw it (in the theater), none of which had to do with the film debut of a future James Bond (Daniel Craig).  The first was that I used to really be into films because of their message and this one’s anti-apartheid message was moving (if not subtle in the slightest).  The second was that my best friend John and I had both just read Joyce for the first time in AP English and we liked the idea of an epiphany and Fay Masterson was pale and very pretty and she was our epiphany (we literally called her that) and she was just six months older than us (little did we know her career would not really be worth noticing).  Third and most importantly, the score was absolutely amazing and I bought the soundtrack on tape within a week and it was one of the first soundtracks that I converted to CD and I still listen to it in its entirety a lot (with the possible exception of Glory there is probably not a non-John Williams score soundtrack I have listened to more from start to finish).  Based on a novel by Bryce Courtenay, it’s high ***.
  • A League of Their Own  –  Also high ***, it’s smart and funny and, ironic given that it’s a film mostly about women, has one of Tom Hanks’ most under-appreciated performances.  The credits don’t read like it’s adapted but it’s based on a story by Kelly Candaele who made a 1987 short documentary that the film derives from so the old oscars.org listed it as adapted.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • Malcolm X  –  The rare high ***.5 film on this part of the list in any year.  Spike’s direction is very good and Denzel is fantastic but I think the meandering script is what keeps it from being a great film.  Based, of course, on The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X and Alex Haley.
  • The Ox  –  Best Foreign Film nominee from the year before from Sweden.  Stars three of Bergman’s stars (Ullmann, von Sydow, Josephson) and directed by his longtime cinematography Sven Nykvist, so it’s ironic that the writing is the weakest part of the film.  Based on the novel by Siv Cedering.  Low ***.5.
  • A Midnight Clear  –  Based on the novel by William Wharton, this high *** War film is about a German platoon that wants to surrender towards the end of the war.
  • Batman Returns  –  I had loved the first film and this film had Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman.  It was going to be great, right?  It was not and I explain why here.  Just so we have a clear idea of where this year sits in my own personal history, this film was released the morning after I graduated from high school.
  • Noises Off  –  I first saw this in college with my roommate Jamie (who had done the play, by Michael Frayn, on stage) and I think we like it a lot more than most.  It has a wonderful ensemble cast and was the last film role for one of my favorites (Denholm Elliott).  Given that three of the actors had untimely deaths (Elliott, Christopher Reeve, John Ritter), I’m surprised no one ever mentioned a curse, but than again, both Michael Caine and Carol Burnett are in the mid 80’s.  This was the film that made me realize how sexy Marilu Henner is.
  • Patriot Games  –  I saw this opening day because I had read the book (by Tom Clancy) and just a couple of months later, while on my trip to college, my mother and I drove past the Naval Academy so I could see where they filmed some of the scenes.  Still solid.  First film where I ever saw Sean Bean and of course he died.  Also has Thora Birch as Harrison’s daughter, years before American Beauty and Ghost World.
  • White Dog  –  Samuel Fuller’s 1982 film of Romain Gary’s book was shelved by Paramount causing Fuller to leave the country and never direct another film in America.  The old oscars.org listed this as its LA release after it had played New York’s Film Forum the year before.  Social Drama about racism that was shelved because of fears it was racist and later released on DVD by Criterion.  We’re down to mid *** with this film.
  • Chaplin  –  Based on both Chaplin’s autobiography and a biography of him because making films about real-life events is what Richard Attenborough does.  I re-watched this for the first time in over 25 years after starting this list because I felt that Downey’s performance deserved it, even if the rest of the film didn’t.  Based on Chaplin’s autobiography as well as a biography.
  • The Mambo Kings  –  Solid film based on the Pulitzer winning novel by Oscar Hijuelos (The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love), an award I rated a B (good but not great book but not great other options).
  • Cabeza de Vaca  –  The 1990 Oscar submission from Mexico, the title literally translates to “Head of the Cow” (see, Señora Perez, I didn’t forget all my Spanish 102).  Solid Adventure film based on a journal from 1542.
  • Alien³  –  I am kinder to this film than most for reasons I make clear in my full review here.
  • The Muppet Christmas Carol  –  People who were younger than 18 in 1992 may have fonder memories of this film than I do.  It’s an okay version of the classic Dickens story but it was also the first film with the new voice of Kermit after Jim Henson’s death in 1990 which is part of why they tried to keep his time on-screen to a minimum because the voice didn’t sound particularly right.
  • Gô-hime  –  One of the last films from former Oscar nominee Hiroshi Teshigahara (Woman in the Dunes).  Based on a novel by Masaharu Fuji.
  • Barefoot Gen  –  A 1983 Anime film based on a Manga series.  Three years later it would get a dubbed release in the States as well.
  • The Oil-Hell Murder  –  The Japanese Oscar submission from 1989 based on an 18th Century play by Chikamatsu Monzaemon.
  • FernGully: The Last Rainforest  –  Apparently it was a book first which I assume is just as cheesy as the film.  Not by by any means, just cheesy.
  • Used People  –  Based on the play The Grandma Plays, this is a charming enough Romantic Comedy with Shirley MacLaine and Marcello Mastroianni (they both earned Globe noms).
  • Where Angels Fear to Tread  –  E.M. Forster’s first novel isn’t up to the level set by his later masterworks but is good enough.  The film isn’t up to the level of other film adaptations either (obviously) in spite of several Forster alumni (Judy Davis, Helena Bonham Carter, Rupert Graves).  Down to low ***.
  • The Child of Man  –  The first year of the post-USSR Oscars brings forth the first (and until 2008 only) submission from Latvia.  Based on a novel by Jānis Klīdzējs.
  • Tous les matins du monde  –  French Drama based on the novel by Pascal Quignard though the film actually beat the book by about two weeks.
  • Golgo 13: The Professional  –  Another Anime film made in 1983 based on a Manga finally hitting the States.
  • The Cry of the Owl  –  Also a late arrival, this is Claude Chabrol’s 1987 adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel.
  • Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland  –  The original comic strip by Winsor McCay is one of the earliest, most important and most influential comic strips of all-time.  The film, a Japanese-American collaboration, however, is mostly mediocre.
  • Single White Female  –  Suspense thriller based on the novel SWF Seeks Same has some moments but for a recent Oscar nominee (Barbet Schroeder) it’s a letdown.
  • Wayne’s World  –  Now we’ve reached **.5.  I enjoyed this film in the theater and I had enjoyed the skit on SNL.  But “enjoyed” and “thinks it’s actually a good film” are not synonymous.  I am thankful that the soundtrack introduced me to the song “Dream Weaver”.
  • Lethal Weapon 3  –  There’s an amusing side-note to me seeing this in the theater noted in the NA.  Tolerable third film in the series made a bit more tolerable by the addition of Rene Russo.
  • Storyville  –  You can tell it’s not good because Joanna Whalley-Kilmer is in it.  Seriously, I’ve seen most of her post-1989 work and there isn’t a single good film among them.  Based on some novel called Juryman.
  • Marquis  –  A 1989 surrealistic French film based on the writings of de Sade.  So, you know, not for kids.  Mid **.5.
  • Freddie as F.R.O.7.  –  And now we drop quickly to low **.  Bizarre James Bond parody with an animated frog.  Maybe that’s why the old oscars.org considered it adapted because I don’t see anything that marks it as such.
  • Prelude to a Kiss  –  The beginning of the descent of Alec Baldwin’s career that wouldn’t right itself until State and Main in 2000.  Mediocre romance with Meg Ryan based on the play by Craig Lucas.
  • Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me  –  The show had been weird and brilliant at first and then just became weird (or as Homer puts it in the episode “Lisa’s Sax” while watching the show: “Brilliant.  (chuckles).  I have absolutely no idea what’s going on.”).  The film just stays at weird and stumbles to even rise above mediocrity.  Just stick with the show (I don’t want to say the original because I haven’t seen the new version but have heard very good things).
  • Police Story III: Super Cop  –  Jackie Chan continues to punch and kick people.
  • Night and the City  –  The original film is simply brilliant (as can be seen in my review here).  This version, with Robert De Niro and Jessica Lange should be better, especially since Irwin Winkler (Scorsese’s long-time producer who had directed De Niro quite well the year before in Guilty by Suspicion) directed it.  But it just never works and especially when compared to the 1950 version it’s a big letdown.
  • Lorenzo’s Oil  –  I re-watched this in grad school for some reason and thought even less of it then, having had another decade of appreciating film than when it first came out.  A solid performance from Susan Sarandon can’t save it from sappiness.  Also, either I made a mistake at one point copying down info from the old oscars.org or they bizarrely listed it as adapted because it was nominated for Best Original Screenplay and though it’s based on a true story it doesn’t seem to have a previous source.
  • K2  –  This was apparently a stage play first.  At least the film gave you some actual views of the mountain.  Still not good enough to bother with though.
  • Edward II  –  Just because Derek Jarman tragically died relatively young (early 50’s) doesn’t mean I have to think his film aren’t overrated.  This postmodern version of the Marlowe play has an interesting performance from Tilda Swinton but not much else to recommend it.
  • City of Joy  –  Directed by a two-time Oscar nominee (Roland Jaffe), this Social Drama about a doctor (Patrick Swayze) working in the slums of Calcutta was designed as pure Oscar bait but they forgot to make it good.  Also didn’t help that it was a box-office bomb.  High **.  Based on the novel by Dominique Lapierre.
  • Swordsman 2  –  Middle part of the trilogy starring Jet Li.
  • The Lawnmower Man  –  Bears almost no resemblance to the original Stephen King story.  Does have solid Visual Effects or so I remember from seeing it in the theater 27 years ago.
  • Bébé’s Kids  –  Actually nominated for an Annie, this mess of an Animated Film was based on comedic sketches from Robin Harris.
  • Rock-a-Doodle  –  A dumb animated film based on a play by Edmond Rostand (Cyrano de Bergerac) of all people.
  • Candyman  –  Bernard Rose, who would later make terrible film versions of Anna Karenina and Frankenstein makes a bad film from a Clive Barker short story.
  • The Lover  –  It’s erotic with good cinematography and Jane March is very sensual but she can’t act so this version of Marguerite Duras’ novel is low **.
  • Waterland  –  This adaptation of the Graham Swift novel has Jeremy Irons but it also has Ethan Hawke.
  • Rampage  –  Based on a novel by William P. Wood that was loosely based on a real serial killer.  This William Friedkin film was filmed in 1986 and played the Boston Film Festival in 1987 and a 1988 European release so this *.5 film shouldn’t have been Oscar eligible by the time Friedkin re-edited it, gave it a new ending and got it a 1992 U.S. release but somehow it was.
  • Home Alone 2: Lost in New York  –  Because I watched this as an adult and don’t have rose-tinted glasses for it, I can definitely say it sucks.  The first film at least had some decent qualities; this one has none.
  • Godzilla & Mothra: The Battle for Earth  –  Designed originally as a stand-alone Mothra film but perhaps because the moth hadn’t been in a film in almost 25 years, the producers decided to plop Godzilla in there.  It gets quite wacktastic towards the end.
  • Shining Through  –  Fox knew they had a stinker on their hands so they buried this World War II Drama with Michael Douglas and Melanie Griffith in January but it came to back to life at the Razzies, winning three including Worst Picture and Actress.  Based on a novel by Susan Isaacs.
  • Memoirs of an Invisible Man  –  I had no interest in seeing this clearly terrible film (based on the novel by H. F. Saint) until William Goldman released Which Lie Did I Tell in 2000 in which he talked about how Chase wanted to stress the loneliness of invisibility until Goldman finally said (he says in the book he doesn’t remember saying it but a 1988 newspaper report quoted him): “I’m sorry, but I’m too old and too rich to put up with this shit.”  The film finally emerged years later and it was just shit.
  • Freejack  –  Terrible Sci-Fi film based (loosely) on the novel Immortality Inc.  Has a random straight acting performance from Mick Jagger.
  • Honey, I Blew Up the Kid  –  The original film got Disney the threat of a lawsuit, not because of the idea but because the original production company (Doric Films) had an agreement with two homeowners to use their houses for the film.  When Disney bought the script, rather than pay the homeowners, they actually recreated the houses on a set in Mexico.  After the threatened lawsuit, Disney paid a nominal amount (small for Disney – nice for the homeowners) and one copy each of the movie on video.  I know this because my grandfather was one of the homeowners and I have copies of all the letters sent to Disney, a final letter in response and the actual settlement contract (my mom has the video).  That house on-screen, including the attic and kitchen and the backyard is where my mother grew up.  Oh, and this sequel is brainless and terrible which is too bad because in spite of the lawsuit the original is a good and fun film.
  • Pet Sematary Two  –  The first one sucked.  This one sucked more.  The only connection to the original King novel (and first film) is the concept, not any of the characters.  We jump directly from *.5 to .5 with this film.
  • Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth  –  We don’t get two Stephen King films in a row because Sleepwalkers was original with a King screenplay.  Instead, we end with this horrible sequel to a Clive Barker film.
  • Once Upon a Crime  –  Not quite the worst film of the year but the worst adapted film I’ve seen, a remake of a 1960 Italian film called Crimen.  Simply terrible ensemble Comedy starring John Candy and directed by Eugene Levy.

note:  18 fewer films than the year before on this list whereas I’ve seen 20 fewer films than the year before total, so more original scripts this year even though the original scripts, as a whole, were better the year before.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

  • Romeo – Juliet  –  Listed on the IMDb as Romeo.Juliet but I have used the title as it was listed on the old oscars.org.  Eligible film using cats voiced by big British actors (John Hurt, Ben Kingsley, Vanessa Redgrave, Maggie Smith) to depict the story.  Completely unable to find but, since I hate cats and am not a big fan of the play, not a big loss for me.
  • Sunset  –  Not eligible but received an LA release according to the old oscars.org.  Only listed as Zakat on the IMDb.  Little seen (21 votes on the IMDb) film based on the works of Isaac Babel.

Not only have I seen every Top 100 film at the box office for this year, but there won’t be another Top 100 film I haven’t seen until 2005, so I’ll dispense with that part for a number of posts.  CrissCross (#134, $3.05 mil) is the highest grossing adaptation I haven’t seen while Aces: Iron Eagle III (#142, $2.51 mil) is the highest grossing sequel I haven’t seen.

A Century of Film: Orion Pictures

$
0
0

A Century of Film


Orion


The Studio

In 1978, the United Artists heads were tired of being told what to do by parent company Transamerica and the head of Transamerica, Jack Beckett, said “if the people at United Artists don’t like it, they can quit and go off on their own.”  Which is what they did, leaving the next day and forming Orion Pictures, with a financing and distributing affiliation with Warner Brothers.

Advertisements appeared in trades soon thereafter warning UA that they had made a huge mistake, which seemed to be a good warning when Heaven’s Gate would help sink the studio within a couple of years.  By that time, Orion was doing well.

The first film released by Orion wasn’t actually released by Orion.  A Little Romance came out on April 27, 1979 but was actually distributed by Warner Brothers as would be almost all of their films until the fall of 1982.  That would include, the studio’s first big hits, both of which starred Dudley Moore (10, Arthur).

The severing of the deal with Warners lead to several changes.  First, Orion bought Filmways and used it as its in-house distributor (films released before Orion before then, you will note appear on Box Office Mojo as Warners films).  Second, Orion began its in-house art-house distribution wing, Orion Classics (the vast majority of which were foreign films).  Third, though not important for this project, Orion began to produce television as well.  At the same time, less important for box office, but quite important for prestige, Orion managed to land Woody Allen and all of Allen’s films until early 1992 would be made for the studio.

Orion would start to land major critical success in 1984 with the release of Amadeus, which dominated at the Oscars.  The next year, however, would be a harbinger of the studio’s future with no film even making it to $30 million.  1986 would move the studio up, with its first big hit in five years (Back to School), then its first $100 million movie (Platoon) while the latter, combined with Hannah and Her Sisters would mean that Orion would take home five of the eight biggest Oscars.  Unfortunately, that was the high water mark.

For the next several years, the studio would struggle.  While it would have a number of critical success stories, none were big enough (one Best Picture nomination) and while it would have some solid success at the box office (RoboCop, Throw Momma from the Train, Bull Durham), nothing would break $60 million and there were no Top 10 films (and some years, not even a Top 20 film).

Orion would finally hit the jackpot twice within a few months.  In November of 1990, Dances with Wolves, by far the biggest hit the studio would ever release, would come out and it won seven Oscars just after the release of Silence of the Lambs the following February, which would be the studio’s third biggest hit and would also win five Oscars.  But those two films couldn’t save the struggling studio and too many box office flops like Great Balls of Fire, Valmont and State of Grace meant that by the end of 1991, in spite of all the recent Oscars (four Best Picture wins in eight years), Orion was declaring bankruptcy.

For most of 1992 and 1993, Orion lay dormant (except for Orion Classics) but a deal emerged for it to release a bunch of completed films sitting in its vault (including Blue Sky, which would go on to win an Oscar for its star while its director had been dead for three years).  Unfortunately, the 1994 slate of Orion films all tanked (the seven films combined for less than $20 million) and it killed a proposed deal that would have revived the studio.  Through 1997, Orion continued to push out some films as did Orion Classics but then the studio was sold to MGM and a brave period where it shone was completely over.

In its heyday (1983-1991), Orion and Orion Classics combined released 167 Oscar eligible films, more than any studio during that period except Warner Brothers.  During that time it was nominated for 100 Academy Awards of which it won 33 including Picture, Director and a Screenplay award four times each.  But fewer than 20 of those films made even $30 million at the box office and a considerable number of them lost money and unfortunately, the film industry, as much as we admire its art, is also still a business.

Notable Orion Films

  • A Little Romance  (1979)  –  first Orion release
  • 10  (1979)  –  first big Orion hit
  • A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy  (1982)  –  first Woody Allen film for Orion
  • Beyond the Door  (1982)  –  first Orion Classics release
  • Amadeus  (1984)  –  first Orion Best Picture nominee (and winner)
  • Platoon  (1986)  –  second Best Picture winner, first Orion film to break $100 million
  • Dances with Wolves  (1990)  –  third Best Picture winner, biggest hit by Orion by a long way
  • The Silence of the Lambs  (1991)  –  fourth Best Picture winner, final Orion film to break $100 million – makes more money than every film released by Orion for the next three years combined
  • Shadows and Fog  (1992)  –  Woody Allen’s final film for Orion
  • The Locusts  (1997)  –  final Orion release

The Directors

Woody Allen

  • Films:  11
  • Years:  1982  –  1992
  • Average Film:  81.7
  • Best Film:  Hannah and Her Sisters
  • Worst Film:  Another Woman

Allen moved to Orion after his year off in 1981 (Allen has always generally made one film a year).  He would average film a year for Orion (he made two in 1987 but none in 1991) and he would be their biggest awards person by far.  He won an Oscar (with eight other noms), would win a Globe (with two other noms), win four BAFTAs (with three other noms) and three WGA awards (with three other noms and two DGA noms).  He wasn’t big box office (Hannah is the only film in Orion’s Top 25 and that’s barely and Crimes and Misdemeanors the only other one in the Top 50) but he had three of the Top 10 awards films and two more in the Top 20.

Jonathan Demme

  • Films:  3
  • Years:  1986  –  1991
  • Average Film:  89.7
  • Best Film:  The Silence of the Lambs
  • Worst Film:  Married to the Mob

Jonathan Demme was never prolific but he took his time and made really good films.  His other film for Orion is Something Wild and all three films are vibrantly alive and fascinating and they are the bulk (minus Melvin and Howard) of what established Demme’s critical acclaim.

The Stars

Dudley Moore

This may seem strange.  Dudley Moore was never a particularly big star.  But he was the star of the first two big Orion hits, the only two films in Orion’s first two years to make over $50 million and until 1986, the two biggest hit in the studio’s history and that’s aside from earning an Oscar nomination and a Globe win for Arthur.  The only other actor to appear in two of Orion’s Top 10 films at the box office is Kevin Costner.
Essential Viewing:  Arthur, “10”

Mia Farrow

The decade that Woody Allen spent at Orion also overlapped with his time with Mia Farrow.  She wasn’t big box office, of course, and she never earned an Oscar nomination but during the decade she earned three Globe noms, two BAFTA noms and won the NBR, all in Allen films for Orion.
Essential Viewing:  Broadway Danny Rose, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters

Kevin Costner

Costner has just the three films with Orion but they are key.  The first helped him become a star, the second established him as a star and a great actor and the third was the biggest hit in the studio’s history, not to mention winning Costner the Oscar.
Essential Viewing:  No Way Out, Bull Durham, Dances with Wolves

Genres

Orion wasn’t big on genre films.  Almost 2/3 of their films were either Dramas or Comedies and in some genres (Kids, War, Western) they made almost no films.  Yet, they have a very strange relationship with genre films and the Oscars.  From 1979 to 2001, when Orion was a prominent company, only five genre films (non-Comedy / Drama) won Best Picture at the Oscar and four of them were the four films from Orion: Amadeus, Platoon, Dances with Wolves and Silence of the Lambs.  Even if you don’t want to count Amadeus, the other three are singularly strange.  Platoon is just one of two War films made by Orion (the only one directly by Orion as opposed to Orion Classics) and it’s the only War film to win Best Picture between 1978 and 2009.  Dances with Wolves is the only Western the studio made and it was the first Western to win Best Picture in almost 60 years.  I only list 10 of the Orion films as Suspense and yet, with Silence of the Lambs, it has the only one to ever win the Oscar.

All of the Orion films, ranked

note:  This is a list of all of Orion’s films (with four exceptions, listed at the bottom) in rank order.  Films in light green are Orion Classics releases.

  1. The Silence of the Lambs
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters
  3. Ran
  4. Amadeus
  5. Platoon
  6. Dances with Wolves
  7. Au Revoir, Les Enfants
  8. Crimes and Misdemeanors
  9. The Purple Rose of Cairo
  10. Europa Europa
  11. The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  12. Zelig
  13. Manon of the Spring
  14. Mississippi Burning
  15. Bull Durham
  16. Wings of Desire
  17. Excalibur
  18. Raise the Red Lantern
  19. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
  20. Jean de Florette
  21. Broadway Danny Rose
  22. My Beautiful Laundrette
  23. May Fools
  24. House of Games
    ***.5
  25. Monty Python’s Life of Brian
  26. Radio Days
  27. Jesus of Montreal
  28. The Sacrifice
  29. Something Wild
  30. The Cotton Club
  31. Married to the Mob
  32. Babette’s Feast
  33. Eight Men Out
  34. The Bounty
  35. Leningrad Cowboys Go America
  36. Open Doors
  37. No Way Out
  38. Jeffrey
  39. September
  40. Cyrano de Bergerac
  41. Colonel Redl
  42. Camille Claudel
    ***
  43. The Falcon and the Snowman
  44. F/X
  45. Prisoner of the Mountains
  46. First Blood
  47. Life and Nothing But
  48. Rhapsody in August
  49. Hoosiers
  50. Mystery Train
  51. Monsieur Hire
  52. Valmont
  53. Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels
  54. Pauline at the Beach
  55. Caddyshack
  56. Gorky Park
  57. Mermaids
  58. Under Fire
  59. The Terminator
  60. Ed’s Next Move
  61. Ulee’s Gold
  62. Arthur
  63. La Lectrice
  64. Desperately Seeking Susan
  65. Little Man Tate
  66. Without a Clue
  67. Best Seller
  68. A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy
  69. Chocolat
  70. Another Country
  71. Dim Sum
  72. Miami Blues
  73. Prince of the City
  74. El Amor Brujo
  75. At Close Range
  76. My Mother’s Castle
  77. Carmen
  78. Summer
  79. The Music Teacher
  80. Trees Lounge
  81. My Father’s Glory
  82. State of Grace
  83. Time After Time
  84. Shadows and Fog
  85. MacArthur’s Children
  86. Alice
  87. Henry IV
  88. A Month in the Country
  89. A Tale of Springtime
  90. The Adjuster
  91. Sharky’s Machine
  92. Too Beautiful For You
  93. Throw Momma from the Train
  94. A Great Wall
  95. Bar Girls
  96. Boyfriends and Girlfriends
  97. Colors
  98. Where the Green Ants Dream
  99. Love Without Pity
  100. Full Moon in Paris
  101. A Little Romance
  102. Swann in Love
  103. The Great Santini
  104. Devil in the Flesh
  105. Promises in the Dark
  106. F/X 2: The Deadly Art of Illusion
  107. Sugar Cane Alley
  108. My New Partner
  109. Heart of Dixie
  110. Heart Beat
    **.5
  111. Flesh and Blood
  112. Another Woman
  113. Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins
  114. UHF
  115. “10”
  116. The House on Carroll Street
  117. The Hand
  118. The Wanderers
  119. Heartbreakers
  120. Hammett
  121. Split Image
  122. The Mean Season
  123. End of the Line
  124. The Woman in Red
  125. Dancing in Water
  126. Wolfen
  127. Married to It
  128. Restless Natives
  129. Farewell to the King
  130. Simon
  131. Over the Edge
  132. Malone
  133. Original Gangstas
  134. Rita, Sue and Bob Too
  135. Privates on Parade
  136. The Escape Artist
  137. Slacker
  138. Prancer
    **
  139. RoboCop
  140. The Heavenly Kid
  141. Absolute Beginners
  142. Nostradamus
  143. There Goes My Baby
  144. Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure
  145. Strangers Kiss
  146. Beyond the Door
  147. The Believers
  148. The Three Amigos
  149. Love Field
  150. The Favor
  151. Harry & Son
  152. The Locusts
  153. The Couch Trip
  154. Back to School
  155. The Bay Boy
  156. Making Mr. Right
  157. Great Balls of Fire
  158. Cherry 2000
  159. Beat Street
  160. Hotel Colonial
  161. Just Between Friends
  162. Rollover
  163. Blue Sky
  164. City of Industry
  165. The In Crowd
  166. Cadillac Man
  167. Breathless
  168. Everybody Wins
  169. Strange Invaders
  170. Lost Angels
  171. Easy Money
  172. Maybe… Maybe Not
  173. The Fiendish Plot of Fu Manchu
  174. The Package
  175. Dominick and Eugene
  176. China Moon
  177. Secret Admirer
  178. Lone Wolf McQuade
  179. The Hotel New Hampshire
  180. Eve of Destruction
  181. Haunted Honeymoon
  182. Article 99
  183. Lionheart
  184. The Dark Half
  185. Maxie
  186. Beer
  187. She-Devil
  188. Die Laughing
  189. Class
    *.5
  190. Rain Without Thunder
  191. Up the Creek
  192. Phat Beach
  193. The Hot Spot
  194. The Awakening
  195. Yellowbeard
  196. No Man’s Land
  197. The Return of the Living Dead
  198. Madhouse
  199. Love at Large
  200. The Last of the Finest
  201. One Woman or Two
    *
  202. Zeram
  203. 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag
  204. Rude Awakening
  205. Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey
  206. Johnny Be Good
  207. Under the Rainbow
  208. Mystery Date
  209. Erik the Viking
  210. Sphinx
  211. Monkey Shines
  212. Navy SEALs
  213. Code of Silence
  214. The Arrival
  215. The First Power
  216. RoboCop 2
    .5
  217. Amityville II: The Possession
  218. RoboCop 3
  219. The Substitute
  220. Cheech and Chong’s The Corsican Brothers
  221. Amityville 3-D
  222. Speed Zone
  223. Clifford
  224. Car 54, Where Are You?
  225. Mac and Me
  226. Boxing Helena

note:  Orion, between its regular studio (161) and Orion Classics (69) released 230 films over the course of its lifetime.  Three of those are documentaries (A.K., The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe (recording of a one woman play), Theremin: An Electronic Odyssey) and thus not listed and there is one Orion film I haven’t seen (Scandalous).

Notes on Films

note:  These are just tidbits on some of the films.  The films are listed in alphabetical order.  Unless I have something specific to say, I don’t mention films that have full reviews elsewhere or films that I saw in the theater from 1989 to 2005 (they are all mentioned in those Nighthawk Awards).

  • The Believers  –  I feel I should point out that I actually saw this film in Spanish class in high school because our teacher wanted to show us native religious beliefs.  The opening scenes has left me with a lifelong fear of standing in liquid on the floor in the kitchen.
  • Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure  –  I am breaking the policy against writing about films I saw in the theater because I feel this merits it.  This is not a good film and it’s barely funny.  I can’t fathom why people are excited about another sequel.
  • Caddyshack  –  I feel I should point out that I had my father watch this film when we had a gopher problem at our house and at the end of the film, said “Don’t do that.”
  • The Cotton Club  –  Coppola’s Harlem Gangster epic doesn’t get the credit it deserves.  It looks great and it’s really very good.  Perhaps the new re-edited release will help its reputation.
  • The Dark Half  –  For the most part, the better Stephen King books make the better films and vice versa.  This is the biggest inverse relationship between the quality of the book (which is solid) and the quality of the film for King (the opposite is Carrie which is a fairly bad book but a really good film).
  • Leningrad Cowboys Go America  –  Even if you never see the film (but you should) at least listen to their version of “Space Tractor“.
  • Monty Python’s Life of Brian  –  Of the many brilliant moments in this film, the most memorable the first time we watched it was watching the Roman centurion bully those defacing the statue and watching my friend Jay curl up into a ball and say “It’s Mr. Barrett!” (his Latin teacher).
  • My Beautiful Laundrette  –  Make certain to watch this right after or before watching A Room with a View (not an Orion film) so you can marvel at what Daniel Day-Lewis did in one year.
  • She-Devil  –  Always remind yourself that the Globes love Meryl so much they nominated her for this rather than Winona Ryder in Heathers.
  • UHF  –  My Nighthawk Notables don’t have a “Listen to the Soundtrack, Don’t Bother with the Film” category but this would win.  The soundtrack is even better because the two best songs on it (“The Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota”, “Spam”) aren’t actually in the film.
  • Under the Rainbow  –  Part of me thinks I should watch it again because I’m not sure I’ve seen it since I was a kid when it was on Cinemax a lot.  On the other hand, even as a kid I knew it was just awful so why put myself through that again?  I think this might have been the first film I ever saw with a women in her underwear (my first celebrity crush – Carrie Fisher).
  • Yellowbeard  –  After Python, John Cleese did Fawlty Towers, Jones and Palin teamed up for Ripping Yarns, Eric Idle did the Rutles, Gilliam did numerous brilliant films and poor Graham Chapman came up with this piece of shit.

The 8 Most Under-Rated Orion Films

These eight films are the most over-looked by far.  None of them appear on the TSPDT list.  What’s more, none of these films was nominated for an Oscar in any category or won a critics award for Foreign Film.  In fact, many of these films received no awards attention at all (one BAFTA nom and one Globe nom are the total awards haul).  The first two are **** and the rest are ***.5.  Three of these films below actually received full reviews in my Year in Film posts for being over-looked.

  1. May Fools
  2. House of Games
  3. Eight Men Out
  4. The Bounty
  5. Leningrad Cowboys Go America
  6. September
  7. Jeffrey
  8. No Way Out

The Best Orion Films by Genre

  • Action:  n/a
  • Adventure:  The Bounty
  • Comedy:  Hannah and Her Sisters
  • Crime:  The Cotton Club
  • Drama:  Ran
  • Fantasy:  Wings of Desire
  • Horror:  n/a
  • Kids:  n/a
  • Musical:  Amadeus
  • Mystery:  n/a
  • Sci-Fi:  n/a
  • Suspense:  The Silence of the Lambs
  • War:  Platoon
  • Western:  Dances with Wolves

note:  Any genre without a film listed means no film earned a ***.5 or ****.

The Worst Orion Films by Genre

  • Action:  The Substitute
  • Adventure:  Sphinx
  • Comedy:  Car 54, Where Are You?
  • Crime:  Breathless
  • Drama:  Boxing Helena
  • Fantasy:  The Heavenly Kid
  • Horror:  Amityville 3-D
  • Kids:  Mac and Me
  • Musical:  The In Crowd
  • Mystery:  Love at Large
  • Sci-Fi:  The Arrival
  • Suspense:  China Moon
  • War:  n/a
  • Western:  n/a

note:  Any genre without a film listed means no film earned ** or below.
note:  Boxing Helena is 40 points worse than any other Drama.

The Most Over-Rated Orion Films

  1. Slacker
    I’ve never gotten the appeal of Linklater films and this is no exception.
  2. RoboCop
    I know it tried for something more than just mindless violence, but with Verhoeven directing and Peter Weller starring, I just don’t think it made it.  Much better than the sequels at least.
  3. Hammett
    Wim Wenders takes a weird look at the great writer.  There are critics who really love this film but even though I love Hammett’s writing, I found it a dreadful bore.

The Statistics

Total Films 1912-2011: 227  (14th)

Total Percentage of All Films 1912-2011:  1.32%
Total Percentage of All Films 1979-1997:  5.22%

  • 1970-1979:  8  (9.57%)  (22nd)
  • 1980-1989:  152  (7.35%)  (3rd)
  • 1990-1999:  67  (2.51%)  (12th)

note:  Normally at this point, I do the percentage I’ve seen by decade.  But I’m only missing one film, so it’s 99.35% for the 80’s (99.11% if I don’t count Orion Classics) and 100% for the 70’s and 90’s with 99.57% overall (99.38% for just Orion).

Biggest Years:

  • 1988:  22
  • 1987, 1990:  21
  • 1985:  20

note:  In 1987, Orion not only has the most films (21) but with 20 of them Oscar eligible, it had the most eligible films from any studio by a decent margin.  In 1990, I have seen as many Orion films (21) as any other studio.

Biggest Years by Percentage of All Films:

  • 1988:  10.00%
  • 1985:  9.52%
  • 1984:  8.84%
  • 1987:  8.75%
  • 1990:  8.43%

Best Year:

  • 1988:  5 Top 10 films, 8 Top 20 films
  • 1986:  4 Top 10 films, 7 Top 20 films

Average Film By Decade:

note:  The first number is total for all Orion, the second number is Orion itself and the third is Orion Classics.

  • 1970-1979:  66.83
  • 1980-1989:  59.12  /  55.52  /  69.30
  • 1990-1999:  51.69  /  41.76  /  67.35
  • TOTAL:  57.12  /  52.42  /  68.53

Best Years for Average Film (minimum 5 films):

  • Total
    • 1986:  68.06
    • 1979:  66.83
    • 1988:  63.45
  • Orion
    • 1979:  66.83
    • 1986:  66.00
    • 1987:  59.85
  • Orion Classics
    • 1988:  79.60
    • 1990:  78.14
    • 1985:  72.29

Worst Years for Average Film (minimum 5 films):

  • Total:  1994:  32.75
  • Orion:  1994:  30.57
  • Orion Classics:  1984:  60.17

Star Rating:

note:  The percentage breakdown for all Orion films by star rating.  The second number is just Orion and the third number is Orion Classics.

  • ****:  10.62%  /  8.75%  /  15.15%
  • ***.5:  7.96%  /  5.63%  /  13.64%
  • ***:  30.09%  /  21.25%  /  48.48%
  • **.5:  12.39%  /  13.75%  /  9.09%
  • **:  22.57%  /  29.38%  /  6.06%
  • *.5:  5.31%  /  6.25%  /  3.03%
  • *:  6.64%  /  9.38%  /  0.00%
  • .5:  4.42%  /  5.63%  /  1.52%
  • 0:  0.00%

Orion Classics accounts for 66 of 226 films or 29.20% but it accounts for 46% of the good, very good and great films (*** and above).

Eras:

  • Top 10 Most Films every year from 1979 to 1991

Orion grew so quickly that by 1984 it was one of the top studios in terms of total films being produced each year and had actually reached my Top 20 for all-time films.  By 1989, it was in the Top 10 all-time, up to 180 films, but eventually Miramax would catch it and knock it back out of the Top 10 by the end of the decade.  It still sits comfortably in the Top 15 though.

The Top Films:

Orion would be the first studio to win three Nighthawks in a row (1984-86) even if one of those is from Orion Classics.  The only other studio to do it since is New Line (which did it with three films from the same series).  In 1988 it became only the second studio to have 5 Top 10 films and that same year became the only studio to score 8 Top 20 films.

  • Nighthawk Winner:  1984, 1985, 1986, 1991
  • 5 Films in the Top 10:  1988
  • 4 Films in the Top 10:  1986
  • 3 Films in the Top 10:  1984
  • 8 Films in the Top 20:  1988
  • 7 Films in the Top 20:  1986
  • 5 Films in the Top 20:  1987
  • Top 10 Films:  24
  • First Year in the Top 10:  1981
  • Latest Year in the Top 10:  1992
  • Top 20 Films:  36
  • Best Decade for Top 20 Films:  1980’s  (29)

Nighthawk Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  40
  • Number of Films That Have Won Nighthawks:  12
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  29
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  5
  • Best Picture Nominations:  11
  • Total Number of Nominations:  156
  • Total Number of Wins:  41
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Original Screenplay  (15)
  • Director with Most Nighthawk Nominated Films:  Woody Allen  (6)
  • Best Film with No Nighthawks:  Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Best Film with No Nighthawk Nominations:  Married to the Mob
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Drama Nominations:  25
  • Number of Films That Have Earned Comedy Nominations:  17
  • Number of Films That Have Won Drama Awards:  29
  • Number of Films That Have Won Comedy Awards:  28
  • Drama Picture Nominations:  13
  • Comedy Picture Nominations:  11
  • Total Number of Drama Nominations:  67
  • Total Number of Comedy Nominations:  71
  • Total Number of Drama Wins:  15
  • Total Number of Comedy Wins:  20
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Picture  (13 – Drama  /  11 – Comedy)  /  Original Screenplay  (11 – Drama  /  13  –  Comedy)
  • Best Drama Film With No Nominations:  Open Doors
  • Best Comedy Film With No Nominations:  Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
  • Most 2nd Place Finishes:  Excalibur  (5)
  • Most 6th Place Finishes:  Jean de Florette  /  Mississippi Burning  /  Crimes and Misdemeanors  (3)
  • Most Top 10 Finishes:  Ran  (16)
  • Most Top 20 Finishes:  Ran  (16)
  • Films With at Least One Top 10 Finish:  57
  • Best Film Without a Top 10 Finish:  Prisoner of the Mountains
  • Films With at Least One Top 20 Finish:  79
  • Best Film Without a Top 20 Finish:  Monsieur Hire

Most Nighthawk Nominations:

  1. Ran  –  15
  2. Excalibur  –  12
  3. Amadeus  –  12
  4. The Silence of the Lambs  –  12
  5. Dances with Wolves  –  10
  6. Platoon  –  9
  7. Zelig  –  7
  8. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  7
  9. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  7
  10. The Unbearable Lightness of Being  /  Raise the Red Lantern  –  6

Most Nighthawks:

  1. Ran  –  11
  2. Amadeus  –  9
  3. The Silence of the Lambs  –  7
  4. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  5
  5. Platoon  –  2

Most Nighthawk Points:

  1. Ran  –  705
  2. Amadeus  –  610
  3. The Silence of the Lambs  –  605
  4. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  430
  5. Excalibur  –  325
  6. Dances with Wolves  –  320
  7. Platoon  –  300
  8. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  245
  9. The Unbearable Lightness of Being  –  235
  10. Zelig  –  220

Most Drama Nominations:

  1. Ran  –  6
  2. Mississippi Burning  –  6
  3. Excalibur  –  5
  4. The Unbearable Lightness of Being  –  5
  5. The Silence of the Lambs  –  5

Most Comedy Nominations:

  1. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  8
  2. Amadeus  –  7
  3. Broadway Danny Rose  –  6
  4. Something Wild  –  6
  5. Zelig  /  Bull Durham  –  5

Most Drama Wins:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  5
  2. Ran  –  4
  3. Platoon  –  2
  4. Au Revoir Les Enfants  –  2
  5. My Beautiful Laundrette  /  Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  1

Most Comedy Wins:

  1. Amadeus  –  6
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  5
  3. May Fools  –  3
  4. Arthur  –  2
  5. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  2

Most Drama Points:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  410
  2. Ran  –  395
  3. Platoon  –  230
  4. Mississippi Burning  –  230
  5. Au Revoir Les Enfants  –  225
  6. Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  205
  7. The Unbearable Lightness of Being  –  200
  8. Excalibur  –  195
  9. Dances with Wolves  –  165
  10. The Cotton Club  /  Europa Europa  –  135

Most Comedy Points:

  1. Amadeus  –  495
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  485
  3. May Fools  –  285
  4. Broadway Danny Rose  –  270
  5. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  260
  6. Something Wild  –  235
  7. Zelig  –  205
  8. Arthur  –  195
  9. Bull Durham  –  190
  10. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown  –  170

All-Time Nighthawk Awards

  • Best Picture
  1. The Silence of the Lambs
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters
  3. Ran
  4. Amadeus
  5. Platoon

Analysis:  These films are a pretty damn good Top 5 for any studio.  Four of them win the Nighthawk and the one that doesn’t (Platoon) loses to another (Hannah).  That also gives Orion three straight wins in the mid-80’s.  Another six Orion films earn Picture noms.  Four Orion films win Drama, including three in a row (Ran, Platoon, Au Revoir Les Enfants).  Also four Comedy films win including three in a row (Amadeus, Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah) as well as May Fools.  That means in 1985 and 1986, Orion wins both awards and it wins eight out of 16 awards from 1984 to 1991.  There are nine other Drama nominees and seven other Comedy nominees.  In 1988 alone, Orion has three Drama and two Comedy nominees.  In all, Orion has 24 Top 10 films and 36 Top 20 films which means that over 10% of all their films are Top 10 films.
Orion won four Oscars in eight years from 1984 to 1991 (Amadeus, Platoon, Dances, Silence).  It was the first studio to win back-to-back awards since 1976-77 and made Orion the first non-major to win back-to-back awards.  Surprisingly, its wins (4) outnumber its nominees (2) with just Hannah and Her Sisters (losing to another Orion film) and Mississippi Burning failing to win.
Orion scored three Drama wins at the Globes (Amadeus, Platoon, Dances) and two Comedy wins (Arthur, Hannah).  In 1986, it became the first studio since 1974 and the first non-major ever to win both awards.  It has also earned six Drama (Prince of the City, Cotton Club, Mississippi Burning, Unbearable Lightness, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Silence) and one Comedy nomination (Purple Rose).
Purple Rose of Cairo wins the BAFTA as does Jean de Florette, a Classics release.  There are another 8 BAFTA nominees, giving Orion 10 of the 35 nominees from 1985 to 1991.  Because it was the era without the Best British Film category, no film appears there.  Because it was just the 2nd and 3rd PGA awards, Orion became the first film to win back-to-back awards, winning with Dances and Silence.
Silence is the biggest critics film with four wins (NY, Boston, Chicago, NBR).  Ran (NSFC, BSFC), Hannah (NY, LA) and Mississippi Burning (CFC, NBR) all won two awards each.  Amadeus, Bull Durham, Unbearable, Crimes and Dances all won one award each.  Because of that, Orion took four of the 1988 awards with three different films.

  • Best Director
  1. Akira Kurosawa  (Ran)
  2. Jonathan Demme  (The Silence of the Lambs)
  3. Woody Allen  (Hannah and Her Sisters)
  4. Oliver Stone  (Platoon)
  5. Milos Forman  (Amadeus)

Analysis:  Once again, four of the five win the Nighthawk with Stone losing to another Orion film.  Seven other films earn nominations, the same for Picture except Agnieska Holland (Europa Europa) and Zhang Yimou (Raise the Red Lantern) instead of Au Revoir.  Kurosawa, Demme and Stone win the Drama award while Allen and Forman win the Comedy awards with Orion taking both awards in 1986.  There are also nine other Drama nominees and seven other Comedy nominees.
All four Orion films that won Picture also won Director which isn’t that common historically but makes sense in the Orion era (from 1979 to 1997, the Orion era, only two films won Picture without winning Director).  Five other films earned Director nominations, two for Woody Allen (Broadway Danny Rose, Crimes) and one for Kurosawa (Ran).  In the heyday for Orion (1984-1991), the only year in which Orion didn’t have a Director nomination was 1987.
Three directors won the Globe (Forman, Stone, Costner) with five more earning nominations (Sidney Lumet – Prince of the City, Coppola – Cotton Club, Allen, Alan Parker – Mississippi, Demme).  There are three BAFTA winners (Allen, Stone – different BAFTA eligibility years and Louis Malle for Au Revoir) and six other nominees making nine nominees in just six years.  Forman, Stone, Costner and Demme won the DGA while Allen, Parker and Allen (Crimes) earned noms.
Demme won four critics awards (NYFC, BSFC, CFC, NBR) and Allen won two (NYFC, NBR).  There were also one won each for Lumet, Forman, Kurosawa, Stone, Parker, Philip Kaufman (Unbearable), Allen (Crimes) and Costner.

  • Best Adapted Screenplay:
  1. The Silence of the Lambs
  2. Amadeus
  3. Ran
  4. The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  5. Dances with Wolves

Analysis:  The top three win the Nighthawk while the other two are joined as Nighthawk nominees by Excalibur, Manon of the Spring and Europa EuropaRan and Silence win Drama with eight nominees and Amadeus wins Comedy with Jeffrey as a nominee.
Amadeus, Dances and Silence all win the Oscar while A Little Romance (the first Orion film), Prince of the City, Unbearable and Europa earn noms.
Amadeus and Dances win the Globe with Silence earning a nom.  Jean de Florette and Unbearable win the BAFTA with Another Country, Amadeus, Ran, Babette’s Feast, Cyrano, Dances and Silence all earning noms (including three of the four noms in 1991).  Dances and Silence win the WGA with noms for A Little Romance, Great Santini, Prince of the City and UnbearableAmadeus wins the LAFC and Silence wins the CFC.

  • Best Original Screenplay:
  1. Hannah and Her Sisters
  2. The Purple Rose of Cairo
  3. Bull Durham
  4. Au Revoir, Les Enfants
  5. Crimes and Misdemeanors

Analysis:  I could have easily done a strong Top 5 with just Woody Allen (with Zelig and Radio Days as the final two).  The first two win the Nighthawk while there are 12 other nominees and while Radio Days doesn’t earn a nom Broadway Danny Rose does, still giving Allen five Orion nominations.  Allen wins one Drama award (Crimes) and two Comedy (Purple Rose, Cairo) with My Beautiful Laundrette and Au Revoir also winning Drama and May Fools also winning Comedy.  There are also 8 Drama noms and 13 Comedy noms.  In all, between the two writing categories, there are only 6 films that earn Nighthawk Globe noms without a Screenplay nom.
Hannah wins the Oscar with 10 other films earning noms.  Allen earns six Oscar noms in total for Orion (Hannah, Broadway, Purple Rose, Radio Days, Crimes, Alice) in just seven years and Orion manages three nominations in 1986.
Purple Rose wins the Globe with Platoon, Hannah, House of Games and Mississippi Burning earning noms.
Woody Allen wins three straight BAFTAs (Broadway, Purple Rose, Hannah) and earns two other noms (Radio Days, Crimes) while there are also noms for Laundrette and Au Revoir.
Woody Allen wins three WGA awards (Broadway, Hannah, Crimes) while Arthur and Bull Durham also win.  Allen earns three other noms (Purple Rose, Radio Days, Alice) while Platoon is also nominated.
Bull Durham wins four critics awards (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BSFC) while Allen manages five wins (two each for Purple Rose and Hannah and one for Crimes).  Laundrette wins two awards while Pauline at the Beach wins one.

  • Best Actor:
  1. Anthony Hopkins  (The Silence of the Lambs)
  2. Tom Hulce  (Amadeus)
  3. F. Murray Abraham  (Amadeus)
  4. Gene Hackman  (Mississippi Burning)
  5. Tatsuya Nakadai  (Ran)

Analysis:  Hopkins and Hulce both win the Nighthawk while the other three earn nominations, as does Kevin Costner for Bull Durham.  Hopkins wins Drama while Hulce wins Comedy.  Aside from Nakadai and Hackman there are also Drama noms for Hopkins again (The Bounty), Yves Montand (Jean de Florette) and Daniel Day-Lewis (Unbearable).  Aside from Abraham and Costner, Comedy noms include Woody Allen three times (Zelig, Broadway, Hannah) as well as Dudley Moore (Arthur) and Jeff Daniels (Something Wild).
Abraham and Hopkins win the Oscar while Robert Duvall (Great Santini), Moore, Hulce, Hackman, Costner (Dances), Gerard Depardieu (Cyrano de Bergerac) and Peter Fonda (Ulee’s Gold) earn noms.
Abraham and Fonda win the Globe Drama with noms for Treat Williams (Prince of the City), Hulce, Hackman, Hulce again (Dominick and Eugene), Costner and Hopkins earn noms.  Moore wins the Globe Comedy with two noms for Jeff Daniels (Purple Rose, Something Wild) and one each for Danny DeVito (Throw Momma from the Train) and Michael Caine (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels).
Montand and Hopkins win the BAFTA while Woody Allen, Michael Caine (both for Hannah), Abraham, Costner (Dances) and Depardieu earn noms.  Fonda is the only SAG nominee.  Hopkins wins two critics awards (but two more in supporting) and there are one each for Abraham, Hackman, Day-Lewis and Fonda.

  • Best Actress
  1. Jodie Foster  (The Silence of the Lambs)
  2. Isabelle Adjani  (Camille Claudel)
  3. Gong Li  (Raise the Red Lantern)
  4. Carmen Maura  (Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown)
  5. Mia Farrow  (Broadway Danny Rose)

Analysis:  Foster wins the Nighthawk with the other four earning noms as does Melanie Griffith (Something Wild).  Foster wins the Drama award with noms for Adjani, Li and Cher (Mermaids).  Farrow wins the Comedy awards with noms for Farrow thrice more (Zelig, Purple Rose, Alice), Maura, Griffith, Susan Sarandon (Bull Durham) and Michelle Pfeiffer (Married to the Mob) giving Orion three Comedy noms in 1988.
Orion had won the other three acting Oscars before it earned its first nomination in Actress in 1989 (Adjani).  Foster and Jessica Lange (Blue Sky) won the Oscar with a nomination for Michelle Pfeiffer (Love Field).
At the Globes, Orion won two Drama awards (Foster, Lange) but earned only two other noms (Marsha Mason (Promises in the Dark) and Pfeiffer).  No Orion performance won the Comedy award in spite of 10 nominations, some of which were definitely deserved (Farrow for Broadway, Purple Rose, Alice, Griffith, Sarandon, Pfeiffer) and some of which definitely were not (Liza Minnelli for Arthur which is hardly a lead, Rosanna Arquette for Desperately Seeking Susan, Glenn Close for Maxie, Meryl for She-Devil).
Foster won the BAFTA with noms for Farrow (twice – Purple Rose and Hannah) and Stephane Audran (Babette’s Feast).  Lange earned a SAG nom.
Foster won the NYFC and CFC, Sarandon won the BSFC, Farrow won the NBR (for Alice) and Lange won the LAFC.

  • Best Supporting Actor:
  1. Michael Caine  (Hannah and Her Sisters)
  2. Martin Landau  (Crimes and Misdemeanors)
  3. Patrick Stewart  (Jeffrey)
  4. Daniel Day-Lewis  (My Beautiful Laundrette)
  5. Nicol Williamson  (Excalibur)

Analysis:  Caine wins the Nighthawk while the other four earn nominations as do John Gielgud (Arthur), Peter (Ran) and Willem Dafoe (Platoon).  There are no Drama winners, just nominees (Williamson, Peter, Day-Lewis, Landau, Daniel Auteuil (Manon) and Brad Dourif (Mississippi Burning).  There are, however, four Comedy winners: Gielgud, Caine, Stewart and Jeffrey Jones (Amadeus) as well as noms for Nick Apollo Forte (Broadway Danny Rose), Ray Liotta (Something Wild), Tim Robbins (Bull Durham), Dean Stockwell (Married to the Mob) and Nathan Lane (Jeffrey).
Gielgud and Caine win the Oscar.  Caine’s comes in 1986 when Orion has four of the nominees (Dafoe and Tom Berenger for Platoon, Dennis Hopper for Hoosiers).  There are also noms for Michael O’Keefe (Great Santini), Stockwell, Landau and Graham Greene (Dances).
Gielgud and Berenger win Globes with noms for Laurence Olivier (A Little Romance), Gene Hackman (Under Fire), Jones, Joel Grey (Remo Williams), Caine, Hopper and Liotta.
Auteuil wins the BAFTA with noms for Gielgud, Michael Elphick (Gorky Park), Day-Lewis and Alan Alda (Crimes).
Stockwell wins three critics awards (NYFC, NSFC, BSFC) with two wins each for Gielgud, Day-Lewis, Alda and Anthony Hopkins for Silence while Liotta and Hopper win one each.
In other words, there are a lot of strong supporting performances but aside from Gielgud, Caine and Hopper, there’s not actually a lot of consensus on them.

  • Best Supporting Actress:
  1. Dianne Wiest  (Hannah and Her Sisters)
  2. Mieko Harada  (Ran)
  3. Frances McDormand  (Mississippi Burning)
  4. Helen Mirren  (Excalibur)
  5. Lena Olin  (The Unbearable Lightness of Being)

Analysis:  Only Harada wins the Nighthawk while the other four are all nominated.  Also nominated are Elizabeth Berridge (Amadeus) and Mary McDonnell (Dances).  Wiest, Liza Minnelli (Arthur – in a very weak field), Berridge and Dominique Blanc (May Fools) win the Comedy award while Harada wins the Drama award.  There are also Comedy noms for Barbara Hershey, Carrie Fisher (both for Hannah), Anne Ramsey (Throw Momma from the Train), Mercedes Ruehl (Married to the Mob) and Sigourney Weaver (Jeffrey) while only Nighthawk nominated performances earn Drama noms.
Wiest wins the Oscar with noms for Ramsey, McDormand and McDonnell.  There are no Globe winners but noms for Kathleen Beller (Promises in the Dark), Joanna Pacula (Gorky Park), Wiest, Ramsey, Olin, McDonnell and Winona Ryder (Mermaids).  Rosanna Arquette wins the BAFTA for Desperately Seeking Susan while Hershey, Wiest (but for Radio Days) and Anjelica Huston (Crimes) earn nominations.
Weist dominates the critics, sweeping all five awards (before the CFC).  Meanwhile, Orion is also strong in 1988 (Ruehl wins two and McDormand wins two) and 1990 (Jennifer Jason Leigh wins two for Miami Blues, Ryder wins one).

  • Best Ensemble
  1. Hannah and Her Sisters
  2. Amadeus
  3. Ran
  4. The Silence of the Lambs
  5. Mississippi Burning

Analysis:  This is based on the total points for acting for all members of the cast.  Hannah is at the top, not only because of the great supporting performances, but because it’s one of just two Orion films to earn acting points in all four categories (Married to the Mob is the other).

  • Best Editing:
  1. The Silence of the Lambs
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters
  3. Platoon
  4. Amadeus
  5. Ran

Analysis:  Amadeus, Hannah and Silence win the Nighthawk.  Zelig, Broadway, Ran, Purple Rose, Platoon, Manon and Dances all earn noms.
Platoon and Dances won the Oscar while Amadeus, Cotton Club, Hannah, RoboCop, Mississippi Burning and Silence all earned noms.
Three films won the BAFTA (Amadeus, Platoon, Mississippi Burning) while seven more earned noms (Another Country, Under Fire, Hannah, Radio Days, Crimes, Silence, Dances).
Orion did well at ACE with four wins (Amadeus, Platoon, Mississippi Burning, Dances) and two more noms (Hoosiers, Silence).

  • Best Cinematography:
  1. Ran
  2. Platoon
  3. Excalibur
  4. The Silence of the Lambs
  5. Amadeus

Analysis:  It’s a great Top 5 when you can’t fit in Dances with Wolves and The Unbearable Lightness of BeingRan, Platoon, Unbearable and Silence all win the Nighthawk.  Excalibur, Zelig, Amadeus, Jean de Florette, Dances and Raise the Red Lantern all earn noms.
Mississippi Burning and Dances win the Oscar with nominations for Excalibur, Amadeus, Ran, Platoon and Unbearable.
For eight years, the BAFTA went to Orion every other year: 1985 (Amadeus), 1987 (Jean de Florette), 1989 (Mississippi Burning) and 1991 (Cyrano).  Nominations also went to Ran, Platoon, Babette’s Feast, Silence and Dances.
Dances won the ASC while Unbearable and Mississippi Burning both earned noms.
Wings of Desire won three critics awards (NYFC, LAFC, NSFC) with two each for Ran and Raise the Red Lantern and one each for Unbearable, Dances and Silence.

  • Best Original Score:
  1. Dances with Wolves
  2. Ran
  3. The Silence of the Lambs
  4. The Cotton Club
  5. Jean de Florette

Analysis:  Dances wins the Nighthawk with noms for Ran and Silence.
A Little Romance and Dances won the Oscar with nominations for Under Fire and Hoosiers.  No film has won the Globe though Romance, Under Fire and Dances all earned noms.  Cyrano won the BAFTA with noms for Arthur, Mississippi Burning, Silence and DancesRan and Europa each won the LAFC.

  • Best Sound:
  1. Amadeus
  2. Platoon
  3. Excalibur
  4. Ran
  5. Dances with Wolves

Analysis:  Amadeus, Ran and Platoon win the Nighthawk with Excalibur, The Bounty, Eight Men Out, Dances and Silence earning noms.
Amadeus, Platoon and Dances won the Oscar with noms for RoboCop, Mississippi Burning and SilenceAmadeus and Mississippi Burning won the BAFTA with noms for Cotton Club, Radio Days, Silence and Dances.

  • Best Art Direction:
  1. Amadeus
  2. Ran
  3. Excalibur
  4. Raise the Red Lantern
  5. The Cotton Club

Analysis:  Amadeus and Ran easily win the Nighthawk while the other three earn nominations as do 7 other films (Zelig, Purple Rose, Hannah, Unbearable, Valmont, Dances, Silence).
Amadeus won the Oscar with Cotton Club, Ran, Hannah, Radio Days, Dances and Cyrano earning noms.  Radio Days won the BAFTA with Amadeus, Ran, Jean de Florette and Cyrano earning noms.

  • Best Visual Effects
  1. Excalibur
  2. The Terminator
  3. Ran
  4. F/X

Analysis:  A weak group but visual effects weren’t what Orion was about.  Excalibur is the only one that even earns a Nighthawk nom.
Purple Rose of Cairo and RoboCop both earned BAFTA noms, the only nominations from any awards group.

  • Best Sound Editing
  1. Ran
  2. Excalibur
  3. Platoon
  4. The Bounty
  5. The Silence of the Lambs

Analysis:  Ran wins the Nighthawk with Excalibur, Platoon and Silence earning noms.
RoboCop is the only Oscar nominee (and it won).  Wolfen won the MPSE while The Cotton Club earned a nom.

  • Best Costume Design:
  1. Amadeus
  2. Ran
  3. Raise the Red Lantern
  4. Dances with Wolves
  5. Excalibur

Analysis:  A hell of a Top 5 with a choice between two magnificent designs for the winner.  Amadeus and Ran both win the Nighthawk with 10 other films earning Nighthawk noms.
Amadeus, Ran and Cyrano de Bergerac won the Oscar while Valmont and Dances earned noms.  Bizarrely, neither Amadeus nor Ran wins the BAFTA (though both earn noms) while Cotton Club (over Amadeus), Radio Days and Cyrano do and Excalibur, Swanns Way and Valmont also earn noms.  The CDG didn’t start until after Orion was done.

  • Best Makeup
  1. Ran
  2. Excalibur
  3. Amadeus
  4. The Silence of the Lambs
  5. Dances with Wolves

Analysis:  Amadeus and Ran win the Nighthawk while Life of Brian, Excalibur, Purple Rose, F/X and Silence earn noms.
Amadeus won the Oscar while Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins and Cyrano earned noms (the nom for Cyrano was mocked by Siskel and Ebert).  Amadeus, Ran and Cyrano won the BAFTA with noms for Jean de Florette, Robocop and Dances.

  • Best Technical Aspects
  1. Ran
  2. Excalibur
  3. Dances with Wolves
  4. Amadeus
  5. The Silence of the Lambs

Analysis:  Ran and Excalibur make the top because of effects (Visual and Sound) while Amadeus is hurt by a lack of an original score.  There is a 14 point drop after Silence so this really is the Top 5 by a considerable margin.

  • Best Original Song:
  1. “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”  (Monty Python’s Life of Brian)
  2. “Live to Tell”  (At Close Range)
  3. “Into the Groove”  (Desperately Seeking Susan)
  4. “I’m Alright”  (Caddyshack)
  5. “Arthur’s Theme (The Best That You Can Do)”  (Arthur)

Analysis:  It kills me but “Bright Side” doesn’t win the Nighthawk (because of “Rainbow Connection”) though “Arthur’s Theme” does and “Bright Side” and “I’m Alright” earn Nighthawk noms.
“Arthur’s Theme” and “I Just Called To Say I Love You” (Woman in Red) win the Oscar but there are no other nominations.  Both songs also win the Globe while “When a Woman Loves a Man” (Bull Durham) earns a nom.  “I Just Called…” also earns a BAFTA nom.

  • Best Animated Film:
  1. n/a

Analysis:  Orion has never released an Animated film.

  • Best Foreign Film:
  1. Ran
  2. Au Revoir, Les Enfants
  3. Europa Europa
  4. Manon of the Spring
  5. Wings of Desire

Analysis:  A really damn good Top 5, all released by Orion Classics, of course, as was all of Orion’s Foreign films.  The Top 4 all win the Nighthawk while Wings is one of nine Nighthawk nominees.  Orion wins three Nighthawks in a row (85-87) and earns a total of 13 nominations in just seven years.
Somehow, Orion wins only one Oscar (Babette’s Feast) though among its 11 nominations are three much better films (Au Revoir, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Raise the Red Lantern) with the first actually losing to Babette.
At the Globes, Cyrano de Bergerac and Europa Europa win while 10 other films earn nominations including two each in 1985 and 1987-89.
Orion dominates at the BAFTAs, winning five straight awards (Colonel Redl, Ran, Sacrifice, Babette’s Feast, Life and Nothing But) and a sixth in eight years (Raise the Red Lantern).  In total, in just eight years (1985-92), Orion wins six awards and earns a total of 17 nominations with three nominations each in 1985, 1987 and 1988.
In eight years (1985-92), 12 different Orion films manage to win 20 Foreign Film awards from the various critics groups including at least from every group.  Ran leads with four awards followed by Europa and Lantern with three each and Women and Au Revoir with two.  Three different films win an award in 1987 (Jean de Florette, Manon of the Spring, Au Revoir) and three films win four awards in 1988 (Women, Wings of Desire, Au Revoir again).

  • Best Film (by my points system):
  1. Ran
  2. Amadeus
  3. The Silence of the Lambs
  4. Dances with Wolves
  5. Excalibur

Analysis:  Adding up all of my points.  Ran soars ahead of Amadeus based on two categories: Score and Sound Editing.  There’s a 10 point drop after Excalibur to the next film.

  • Best Film  (weighted points system)
  1. Ran
  2. The Silence of the Lambs
  3. Amadeus
  4. Hannah and Her Sisters
  5. Dances with Wolves

Analysis:  Silence passes Amadeus because Amadeus has a lot of points in weaker categories while Hannah‘s strong acting knocks Excalibur out of the Top 5.

Best Films With No Top 5 Finishers:

  • Zelig

Worst Film with a Top 5 Finish:

  • At Close Range

Nighthawk Notables

  • Best Film to Watch Over and Over:  Monty Python’s Life of Brian
  • Best Line  (comedic):  “Yoko Ono.”  Patrick Stewart in Jeffrey
  • Best Line  (dramatic):  “I’m having an old friend for dinner.”  (Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs)
  • Best Opening:  Hannah and Her Sisters
  • Best Ending:  The Silence of the Lambs
  • Best Scene:  Lector’s escape in The Silence of the Lambs
  • Funniest Scene:  Crash telling the batter the pitch in Bull Durham
  • Best Kiss:  Susan Sarandon and Kevin Costner  (Bull Durham)
  • Best Death Scene:  The Judean People’s Front Crack Suicide Squad  (Monty Python’s Life of Brian)
  • Most Gut-Wrenching Scene:  the river scene in Europa Europa
  • Most Heart-Wrenching Scene:  the arrest in Au revoir les enfants
  • Best Use of a Song (dramatic):  “The Tracks of My Tears”  (Platoon)
  • Best Use of a Song (comedic):  “Spatula City”  (UHF)
  • Best Soundtrack:  Amadeus
  • Best Soundtrack (original songs):  UHF
  • Best Soundtrack (compilation):  Platoon
  • Best Original Song from a Bad Film:  “Easy Money”  (Easy Money)
  • Funniest Film:  Monty Python’s Life of Brian
  • Worst Film by a Top 100 Director:  Rollover  (Alan J. Pakula)
  • Best Sequel:  Manon of the Spring
  • Worst Sequel:  Amityville 3-D
  • Best Remake:  Manon of the Spring
  • Best Guilty Pleasure:  UHF
  • Read the Book, SKIP the Film:  The Hotel New Hampshire
  • Performance to Fall in Love With:  Juliette Binoche in The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  • Sexiest Performance:  Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham
  • Highest Attractiveness / Acting Ability Ratio:  Jennifer Connelly in The Hot Spot
  • Jailbait:  Winona Ryder in Great Balls of Fire
  • Coolest Performance:  Kevin Costner in Bull Durham
  • Best Tagline:  “Love is an adventure when one of you is sure and the other one is positive”  (Jeffrey)
  • Best Cameo:  Nathan Line  /  Sigourney Weaver in Jeffrey

note:  As usual, several categories that are normally here (Best Ensemble, Most Over-Rated) are given a fuller treatment above and so aren’t listed here.

note:  Soundtracks I Own from UA Films (chronological):  Amadeus, UHF
note:  Soundtrack I used to Own from UA Films (on tape or vinyl):  Platoon, Dances with Wolves

At the Theater:  By the end of 2011, I had probably seen over 1000 films in the theater at some point or another and had definitely been to the movies over 1000 times.  These are the only Orion films I saw in the theater: Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, F/X 2, Jeffrey.

Awards

Academy Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  45
  • Number of Films That Have Won Oscars:  14
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  20
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  6
  • Best Picture Nominations:  6
  • Total Number of Nominations:  114
  • Total Number of Wins:  37
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Foreign Film  (12)
  • Number of Films with Nominations I Haven’t Seen:  0
  • Directors with Most Oscar Nominated Films:  Woody Allen  (6)
  • Best Film with No Oscar Nominations:  Manon of the Spring
  • Best English Language Film with No Oscar Nominations:  House of Games
  • Year with Most UA Nominated Films:  1988  (6)
  • Year with Most UA Nominations:  1990  (19)
  • Year with Most UA Oscars:  1984  (9)

Oscar Oddities:

  • Every Orion film with more than 3 nominations won at least one Oscar.
  • Fully half of the 24 nominations earned by Orion Classics films were for Foreign Film.  However, Foreign Film only accounts for 1 of Classics’ three Oscars (the other two were for Costume Design for Ran and Cyrano).
  • Woody Allen alone earned nine Oscar nominations while with Orion – 3 for Director, 6 for Original Screenplay, winning the latter once.  Of the other 7 Oscar nominations for Allen films, two of them were wins (Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress for Hannah).

Most Oscar Nominations

  1. Dances with Wolves  –  12
  2. Amadeus  –  11
  3. Platoon  –  8
  4. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  7
  5. Mississippi Burning  –  7
  6. The Silence of the Lambs  –  7
  7. Cyrano de Bergerac  –  5
  8. Arthur  –  4
  9. Ran  –  4
  10. RoboCop  /  Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  3

Most Oscar Wins:

  1. Amadeus  –  8
  2. Dances with Wolves  –  7
  3. The Silence of the Lambs  –  5
  4. Platoon  –  4
  5. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  3

Most Oscar Points:

  1. West Side Story  –  610
  2. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest  –  515
  3. The Apartment  –  505
  4. Tom Jones  –  495
  5. Marty  –  445
  6. Rocky  –  440
  7. Rain Man  –  435
  8. Rebecca  –  425
  9. Judgment at Nuremberg  –  425
  10. Around the World in 80 Days  –  410

Oscar Nominated Films:

  • UA would have at least one film nominated every year from the 1st Oscars all the way until 1984.
  • UA lead with the most nominated films for four straight years (39-42) and for six out of seven from 39-45 and then five out of seven from 60-66.
  • UA has had the most (or tied for the most) nominated films 15 times.
  • UA started in 1st place for nominated films the first two Oscars.  By 1932, it dropped to third behind MGM and Paramount.  It passed Paramount back into 2nd in 1941 where it stayed until 1953.  It dropped to 4th in 1956 went back to 3rd in 1962 went back to 2nd in 1965 but in 1975 began the decline, moving down to 3rd, dropped to 4th in 1987 and to 5th in 1992 where it still sits.

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  10  (1st)
  • 1930’s:  45  (3rd)
  • 1940’s:  70  (1st)
  • 1950’s:  28  (6th)
  • 1960’s:  54  (1st)
  • 1970’s:  35  (3rd – tie)
  • 1980’s:  9  (11th)
  • 1990’s:  4  (16th – tie)
  • 2000’s:  4  (18th)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  259  (5th)

Oscar Nominations:

  • Columbia has lead in the total number of nominations 9 times, all between 1937 and 1976 with its 45 in 1940 an all-time high for any studio.
  • It started in 3rd place, went up to 2nd place in 1939, stayed until 1953, dropped to 4th in 1955, by 1961 was back up to 2nd where it stayed until 1972 before starting to go down eventually sinking down to its current place of 6th where it has been since 2006.

Years with Most Total Oscar Nominations:

  • 45:  1940
  • 35:  1960
  • 33:  1961
  • 27:  1939, 1963

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  13  (3rd – tie)
  • 1930’s:  107  (2nd)
  • 1940’s:  155  (4th)
  • 1950’s:  97  (6th)
  • 1960’s:  174  (1st)
  • 1970’s:  112  (3rd)
  • 1980’s:  33  (8th)
  • 1990’s:  5  (22nd)
  • 2000’s:  6  (22nd)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  702  (6th)

Oscar Wins:

  • The longest streak of years with at least one Oscar win is 1958 to 1972.
  • From 1933 to 1983, UA never went more than two straight years without winning an Oscar.
  • From 1958 to 1967 it won at least two Oscars every year.
  • UA has lead all studios in Oscar wins in seven different years.
  • Its 12 Oscars in 1961 is tied for the most and its 23 Oscars in 1960-61 is the most in back-to-back years.
  • By 1935, with only five total Oscars, UA was down in 7th place.  It would get as high as 4th but by 1958 and the start of its winning streak, it was still down in 6th place.  By the mid 60’s it was up to 3rd place where it stayed until 1985 and has slowly gone down having won only one Oscar since 1988 and it is now down in 6th place again.
  • UA’s 47 Oscars in the 60’s is the second most for any studio in any decade.

By Decade:

  • 1920’s:  3  (3rd – tie)
  • 1930’s:  10  (6th)
  • 1940’s:  13  (7th)
  • 1950’s:  27  (5th)
  • 1960’s:  47  (1st)
  • 1970’s:  28  (2nd)
  • 1980’s:  7  (6th – tie)
  • 1990’s:  0
  • 2000’s:  1  (19th – tie)
  • 2010’s:  0
  • Total:  136  (6th)

Critics Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Won Critics Awards:  34
  • Number of Films With Multiple Awards:  18
  • Best Picture Wins:  15
  • Total Number of Awards:  111
  • Category With the Most Awards:  Foreign Film  (20)

Most Awards:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  16
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  11
  3. Ran  –  10
  4. Bull Durham  –  6
  5. Mississippi Burning  –  6

Most Points:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  1187
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  790
  3. Ran  –  540
  4. Bull Durham  –  457
  5. Mississippi Burning  –  400

Highest Points Percentage:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  31.52%
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  25.28%
  3. Ran  –  17.23%
  4. Bull Durham  –  14.10%
  5. Mississippi Burning  –  12.35%

Most Points by Critics Group:

  • NYFC:  The Silence of the Lambs  –  330
  • LAFC:  Amadeus  –  340
  • NSFC:  The Unbearable Lightness of Being  –  190
  • BSFC:  The Silence of the Lambs  –  300
  • CFC:  The Silence of the Lambs  –  430
  • NBR:  Mississippi Burning  –  320

notes:

  • Silence of the Lambs is rather unique.  Consider the following points:
    • At the time, it had the second most critics points in history and is still #9 all-time.
    • It has, by a long way, the most critics points for a film with no points from two groups (LAFC, NSFC).
    • It was the first film in history and until 2007 the only one to win four Picture awards while not earning any awards at all from the other two critics groups.  Ironically, the only other film to do this, No Country for Old Men, also failed to earn any awards from the same two groups.
    • It won four Picture, four Director and four acting awards for the same performance (Hopkins won two each for lead and supporting).  The only other film to do that is GoodFellas.
    • In spite of being the #1 film all-time at the CFC, in the Top 10 all-time for points at the NYFC and BSFC (and at the time was #1 at the BSFC) and in the Top 15 at the NBR, it earned no awards at all from the LAFC and NSFC.
    • It is the only film in history to win Picture, Director, Actor and Actress from two different groups (NYFC, CFC).
    • Only one other film in history has even earned two Picture, Director, Actor and Actress awards which is Leaving Las Vegas, which did it two years later and could only manage all four from the same group from one group, ironically, the LAFC, one of the two groups that gave Silence nothing.

Golden Globes

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  47
  • Number of Films That Have Won Globes:  12
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  17
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  4
  • Best Picture Nominations:  12
  • Total Number of Nominations:  89
  • Total Number of Wins:  22
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Actress  (15 – 4 Drama, 11 Comedy)
  • Best Film with No Globe Nominations:  Manon of the Spring
  • Best English Language Film with no Globe Nominations:  Excalibur

Most Globe Nominations:

  1. Amadeus  –  6
  2. Dances with Wolves  –  6
  3. Arthur  –  5
  4. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  5
  5. The Silence of the Lambs  –  5
  6. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  4
  7. Platoon  –  4
  8. Mississippi Burning  –  4
  9. Prince of the City  –  3
  10. Something Wild  –  3

Most Globes:

  1. Arthur  –  4
  2. Amadeus  –  4
  3. Platoon  –  3
  4. Dances with Wolves  –  3
  5. eight films  –  1

Most Globe Points:

  1. Amadeus  –  405
  2. Dances with Wolves  –  360
  3. Platoon  –  290
  4. Arthur  –  285
  5. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  245
  6. The Silence of the Lambs  –  240
  7. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  200
  8. Mississippi Burning  –  170
  9. Prince of the City  –  130
  10. Something Wild  –  100

Guild Awards

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  21
  • Number of Films That Have Won Guild Awards:  11
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  8
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  4
  • Best Picture Nominations:  2
  • Total Number of Nominations:  36
  • Total Number of Wins:  19
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Screenplay  (14)
  • Best Film with No Guild Nominations:  Ran
  • Best English Language Film with No Guild Nominations:  Zelig

note:  Because the proliferation of guild awards didn’t happen until the late 90’s (before 1994 there were only five guilds that gave awards) the awards here are a bit skewed which is why the number of nominations and awards per film are so small.  Of the 21 nominated films only two (Blue Sky, Ulee’s Gold) weren’t nominated for at least one of those four early guilds (DGA, WGA, ACE, ASC, MPSE).

Most Guild Nominations:

  1. Dances with Wolves  –  5
  2. The Silence of the Lambs  –  4
  3. Platoon  –  3
  4. Mississippi Burning  –  3
  5. four films  –  2

Most Guild Wins:

  1. Dances with Wolves  –  5
  2. The Silence of the Lambs  –  3
  3. Amadeus  –  2
  4. Platoon  –  2
  5. seven films  –  1

Most Guild Points:

  1. Dances with Wolves  –  370
  2. The Silence of the Lambs  –  295
  3. Platoon  –  180
  4. Amadeus  –  140
  5. Hannah and Her Sisters  /  Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  125

notes:

  • Dances with Wolves was the first film to ever win 5 guild awards.
  • Dances with Wolves set a new guilds record with 370 points that would stand until 1993.
  • For pre-1994 (before SAG started inflating the point totals), Dances with Wolves is 2nd all-time and Silence of the Lambs is 4th.
  • Dances and Silence were also the first two films to win the PGA, DGA and WGA.
  • Dances was the first film to win the PGA, DGA, WGA, ACE and ASC.  Through today, the only other film to achieve that is Slumdog Millionaire.
  • The back-to-back wins of the DGA and WGA for Dances and Silence made Orion the first studio to do that since UA in 1960-61.  No studio has done it since.  That also makes Orion to only studio to have back-to-back PGA-DGA-WGA winners.
  • Dances earned 27.21% of all the guild points in 1990, a record then and a record today.  No other film has ever gotten to 25%.  At 19.03%, Silence is at #7 all-time.  Only Universal (#2, 8) and Fox (#5, 9) has two films in the Top 10.

The BAFTAs

  • Number of Films That Have Earned Nominations:  39
  • Number of Films That Have Won BAFTAs:  20
  • Number of Films With Multiple Nominations:  20
  • Number of Films With Multiple Wins:  10
  • Best Picture Nominations:  10
  • Total Number of Nominations:  125
  • Total Number of Wins:  37
  • Category With the Most Nominations:  Foreign Film  (17)
  • Best Film with No BAFTA Nominations:  Bull Durham

Most BAFTA Noms:

  1. Jean de Florette  –  10
  2. Amadeus  –  9
  3. The Silence of the Lambs  –  9
  4. Dances with Wolves  –  9
  5. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  8
  6. Cyrano de Bergerac  –  8
  7. Radio Days  –  7
  8. Ran  –  6
  9. Babette’s Feast  –  6
  10. Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  6

Most BAFTA Wins:

  1. Amadeus  –  4
  2. Jean de Florette  –  4
  3. Cyrano de Bergerac  –  4
  4. Mississippi Burning  –  3
  5. six films  –  2

Most BAFTA Points:

  1. Jean de Florette  –  455
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  380
  3. The Silence of the Lambs  –  370
  4. Amadeus  –  320
  5. Dances with Wolves  –  275
  6. Cyrano de Bergerac  –  265
  7. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  235
  8. Radio Days  –  235
  9. Babette’s Feast  –  235
  10. Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  220

notes:

  • The Purple Rose of Cairo won Best Picture but only had four total nominations, the fewest for a Picture winner since 1974 (and no winner has had as few since).
  • On the other hand, Dances with Wolves went 0 for 9, the most nominations without a win since 1976 and still tied for 5th all-time.
  • Jean de Florette was the only foreign language film to win Best Picture between Lacombe Lucien (1974) and Roma (2018) and has the second most BAFTA points for a foreign language film behind only Crouching Tiger.

Broadcast Film Critics Awards  (Critic’s Choice Awards)

Because the BFCA arose after Orion had, for the most part, stopped making films, it never earned any nominations.

All Awards

Most Nominations:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  41
  2. Dances with Wolves  –  35
  3. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  33
  4. Amadeus  –  32
  5. Mississippi Burning  –  25
  6. Ran  –  21
  7. Platoon  –  19
  8. Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  17
  9. Cyrano de Bergerac  –  15
  10. Arthur  –  14

Most Awards:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  27
  2. Amadeus  –  22
  3. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  18
  4. Dances with Wolves  –  18
  5. Platoon  –  12
  6. Ran  –  11
  7. Mississippi Burning  –  11
  8. Arthur  –  9
  9. Cyrano de Bergerac  –  7
  10. Bull Durham  /  Crimes and Misdemeanors  /  Raise the Red Lantern  –  6

Total Awards Points

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  2470
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  1819
  3. Dances with Wolves  –  1683
  4. Amadeus  –  1665
  5. Mississippi Burning  –  1109
  6. Platoon  –  1045
  7. Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  839
  8. Ran  –  836
  9. Arthur  –  630
  10. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  623

Highest Awards Percentage:

  1. The Silence of the Lambs  –  20.04%
  2. Hannah and Her Sisters  –  15.35%
  3. Amadeus  –  14.73%
  4. Dances with Wolves  –  13.26%
  5. Mississippi Burning  –  9.15%
  6. Platoon  –  8.82%
  7. Ran  –  7.13%
  8. Crimes and Misdemeanors  –  6.89%
  9. Arthur  –  6.02%
  10. The Purple Rose of Cairo  –  5.31%

Lists

Lists for studios are harder because I have to come up with them myself.  There are no books that rank the best films by studio and no way to sort through them on the IMDb or TSPDT.

The TSPDT Top 15 Orion Films

  1. Ran  (#202)
  2. Crimes and Misdemeanors  (#276)
  3. The Sacrifice  (#297)
  4. Amadeus  (#330)
  5. The Silence of the Lambs  (#382)
  6. Monty Python’s Life of Brian  (#405)
  7. Raise the Red Lantern  (#410)
  8. The Terminator  (#446)
  9. Hannah and Her Sisters  (#537)
  10. The Purple Rose of Cairo  (#650)
  11. RoboCop  (#697)
  12. Zelig  (#715)
  13. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown  (#850)
  14. Au Revoir, Les Enfants  (#853)
  15. Excalibur  (#905)

note:  The numbers in parenthesis are the position on the most recent (2019) TSPDT list.  This is the entirety of Orion films that were on the list in 2018 and in 2019 the only exception is Broadway Danny Rose which went back into the Top 1000 at #948.

The IMDb Top 6 Orion Films

  1. The Silence of the Lambs
  2. Amadeus
  3. Ran
  4. Monty Python’s Life of Brian
  5. Platoon
  6. The Terminator

note:  Those are all the Orion films in the Top 250 at the IMDb.

Top 10 U.S. Domestic Box Office

  1. Dances with Wolves  –  $184.20 mil
  2. Platoon  –  $138.53 mil
  3. The Silence of the Lambs  –  $130.74 mil
  4. Arthur  –  $95.46 mil
  5. Back to School  –  $91.25 mil
  6. 10  –  $74.86 mil
  7. Throw Momma from the Train  –  $57.91 mil
  8. RoboCop  –  $53.42 mil
  9. Amadeus  –  $51.56 mil
  10. Bull Durham  –  $50.88 mil

note:  Prior to 1982, Orion’s films were distributed by Warner Bros, so if you look at the linked page above, you won’t find Arthur or 10.
note:  I am not including an adjusted list because the time period covered by these films is so short and doesn’t reflect a lot of box office change.  If adjusted to 1991, Arthur is slightly above Silence and 10 is slightly below it but there’s not much overall change.
note:  These are all Orion films.  The highest grossing Orion Classics film is Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown with $7.33 mil.

Books

Final Cut: Dreams and Disaster in the Making of Heaven’s Gate, Steven Bach, 1985

There don’t appear to have been any books written about Orion but this book covers the period of United Artists when several of their most important executives left and formed Orion.  That alone makes it the most valuable book you can read about the studio.  Most of the information used in my introduction was actually culled from several generic film books and the web.

Reviews

The Best Orion Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

Crimes and Misdemeanors  (1989, dir. Woody Allen)

I’d have to look back to be certain but this might have been the film that screwed the Academy up (and other academies as well).  This film is split into two storylines, one with Woody Allen and one with Martin Landau, making it an ensemble piece, but the Oscars gave their nomination to Landau in supporting, forever screwing up the idea of what a lead or a supporting role is (other examples since: Bruce Davison (Longtime Companion), William H. Macy (Fargo), Tom Cruise (Magnolia) and in television, Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones)).  There’s no question that Landau’s performance was worthy of a nomination and the supporting list was weaker than the lead contenders, so I guess it works.

This film comes down to a scene that might be the visual image that most people know from it because it’s there on the poster: of Martin Landau and Woody Allen sitting together at a wedding, talking about life.  Their conversation is one of the interesting things about a film that really balances on the edge between comedy and drama (I classify it as the latter), that walks the line also between whether or not there is a deeper meaning in everything.  Landau’s just finished doing things that are awful and has gotten away with it and yet he is almost gleeful at the approach of the rest of his life.  Allen, the natural comedian, has been living a tragi-comical life and it’s just fallen completely to pieces around him and he is in despair even though he’s come out of the much more funny storyline.

Landau is a man in good shape.  He’s a successful ophthalmologist and he seems to have a good home life.  His major problem is his mistress, who has started to realize that he will never leave his wife and is ready to start talking.  Of all of his options, he chooses the worst, which is having his gangster brother kill her and remove all evidence of him from her apartment.  That is the serious side of the film and it deals with a man forced with moral choices and how he will move after he has made a truly awful one.

Then there is the comedic side of the film.  Landau is trying to get rid of a lover.  Allen is trying to gain one.  He’s working on a documentary about his brother-in-law, an obnoxious television producer (played, in a hilarious turn by Alan Alda that was far different from his work on M*A*S*H and I think his potential Oscar nomination was cut short by the Academy deciding that Landau was supporting) but he’s falling for the woman working on the documentary with him (played by Mia Farrow).  His real passion is a documentary about a philosopher that no one cares about.  By the end of the film, he will have lost his chance for success, his chance for some art and even his chance for some sex and he will sit there with Landau at the same wedding and they will ruminate upon their lives.

This was one of the first films I ever saw that I would have to grow into.  It was, in fact, the first Woody Allen film I ever saw (because of the Oscar nominations) and it would take me several years to grow into its dark but also darkly funny story about the curves that life throws at us and how we adapt to them.

The Worst Orion Film I Haven’t Yet Reviewed

Mac and Me  (1988, dir. Stewart Raffill)

Apparently, I can blame Paul Rudd, at the very least.  Whenever I end up looking at the Wikipedia page for a truly awful film, I often read something like this, which is straight from the Wikipedia page for this film: “is widely regarded as one of the worst ever made. Despite this, the film has attained cult status.”  It’s astounding how many films that are considered among the worst ever made have also achieved cult status.

Paul Rudd is apparently a fan of this film and continually takes what might honestly be the worst scene in an entire film that is made up of worst scenes and uses it to essentially “rickroll” talk show hosts, presenting it as the supposed clip from his latest film.  It’s a scene where a young boy in a wheelchair (he really was in the wheelchair – he had spina bifida and this was his only film) goes flying down a hill and drops a long way into a lake.  The shot is terrible, first, because the kid was really involved in some of it and that’s just putting him way too much at risk, second, because the flying body going through the air is clearly just a dummy, third because the immediate shot of the alien reacting to the fall is ineptly done and fourth because that fall would have seriously injured him and possibly killed him and apparently all it does is make him wet.

The alien, MAC (an acronym for mysterious alien creature though it’s never treated as an acronym in any literature) is a cheap rip-off of E.T. because the producer apparently wanted an E.T. for the next generation in spite of it only having been six years since E.T. itself was actually released.  I was seven when E.T. came out and thirteen when this one was released.  Who were they aiming for?  I’ll tell you – McDonald’s patrons.  This film was helped along by McDonald’s who gave the film massive access in order to do pathetically blatant product promotion (also for Coke which was tied in with the McDonald’s).

This film is a shameless, talentless, pathetic rip-off of E.T..  It doesn’t have anything new to say (alien lands, hunted by government, helped by kids), is ineptly filmed on every level and at the end the kid in the wheelchair is even shot by a stray police bullet with the alien creature bringing him back to life.  The only reason I have seen it is that it was a Razzie nominee, the only reason I didn’t review it for 1988 was that Caddyshack II is just a little bit worse and the only reason I’m reviewing it now is that the only film made by Orion Pictures that was worse is Boxing Helena which I reviewed for 1993.

Bonus Review

Ed’s Next Move  (1996, dir. John C. Walsh)

“Saw you at McDonalds and your earrings dropped a bomb
And your fifty dollar hairdo didn’t do, it did you wrong
I can see I’ll never see you at the sandbox again
But I can’t see why you dressed up like my mom”

If you think the lyrics to the song “Camouflage” by Ed’s Redeeming Qualities are strange, you haven’t heard the song itself.  It has a bizarre charm, partially from the utterly wacktastic lyrics (which continue throughout all of their songs) as well as their musical arrangement.  This was the first song I heard by the band, listening to it in my friend Dave’s dorm room before he cracked up and left school, the same room where I first heard King Missile as well.  It was my freshman year of college and this was the kind of things that dorm rooms were made for – to make discoveries like this among people you might never have met otherwise.

Now this might seem like I have forgotten what I am writing, which is supposed to be a bonus review for Orion Pictures.  In previous posts, whether genre or studio, I have generally tried to review a film I saw in the theater, either in high school or college.  However, if you looked at the above list, I only saw five Orion films in the theater and have already reviewed three of them (two Best Picture winners and one over-looked film) which would leave either a lackluster sequel I haven’t seen since the theater and have no interest in revisiting or a crappy comedy I already rewatched this year because my wife has a thing for the lead actor and it was even dumber than I remembered and have no desire to write about.  So, like with some other studios (UA, MGM), I had to go elsewhere and this time I was deciding between a mediocre comedy with one of my favorite musical artists (UHF) or a considerably better comedy with a musical act that piqued my interest at an important time in my life and is lucky to have been remembered at all, let alone in a solid film.

So, yes, this tiny little indie band that had actually pretty much ceased to exist by the time this film was made in 1995 and released in 1996 (because one of the original band members, Dom Leone, had died back in 1989 and another, Carrie Bradley, had gone on to form the Breeders, which kills me, because I hate the song “Cannonball”) ended up in a film because the writer / director John C. Walsh knew one of the band members and kept listening to the songs as he was writing the film and asked them to be in the film (originally he was actually going to call the film Ed’s Redeeming Qualities and the band asked him not to).  The film won’t make full use of the hilarity that their lyrics can have, like some of the lyrics I have been singing over and over for 25+ years now:

“Your name is Bob and there’s nothing you can do
The ladies won’t go out with you because your name is Bob”

which is from “Bob” and which my college girlfriend Kari asked me to record for her so she could play it for her father (who, of course, is named Bob) and

“I didn’t have a map so I went to Virginia
Because I know how to get there and because that’s my girlfriend’s name
So I was in Virginia and Virginia was in Boston
Boston was indifferent; Virginia was the same”

which I once sang to the mother of a classmate of Thomas’ who was, of course, named Virginia (which is also the name of the song).

“I broke my watch when I put up my calendar /  I left my map on the roof of my car”

That quote’s a bit more relevant, as it comes from “Buck Tempo“, not only one of the songs from that original album (More Bad Times) that made me a fan but is also sung in a poignant scene in the movie when the band rehearses in the apartment.  When you’re watching the girl you’re falling for sing lines like “I need somebody to make it seem worth it  /  To search for a light switch or reach for a star” it can pull at your heartstrings and you won’t really know what to make of it when the next line is “Would you be my clock if I promise not to hang you too close to the window or the picture of the Pope”.

The film is not all music, of course.  It doesn’t actually even have that much music in it and what it does use decreases the instrumentation from the original recordings.  There’s barely 10 minutes in the film all of which can be viewed here with some annotations as well.  The film still has to stand on its own aside from the songs (and my nostalgia for them) and it actually does.  It’s hardly great but it is a solid *** romantic comedy about two people who seem like they should be very bad for each other but somehow manage to get past all the initial problems and find some measure of happiness.

The guy in the couple is Ed who has just moved to New York from Wisconsin who’s got a solid job but no concept of how to talk to a female.  He’s played by John Ross who has a casual handsomeness that seemed to push him into supporting roles in most films (much like another good looking guy from a comedy in this year that he kind of reminds me of, Dan Futterman in The Birdcage).  He’s got his life together but can’t find romance which isn’t actually helped by his ladies’ man roommate as Ed points out: “You allow for things I can’t even pronounce.”  Then he meets Lee who plays in Ed’s Redeeming Qualities (played by an actual actress, Callie Thorne, as you can see in the video from the film and not by an actual member of the band).  Roger Ebert sums Lee up pretty well: “a New Yorker who regards Wisconsin as a word association test for which the answer is ‘cheese.'”

But the film allows them to grow together, to get past his inability to speak and the oddness of her friends who sing lines like

“You twisted your ankle, I carried you
You got a divorce so I married you
You fell off a cliff so I buried you
I wish there more bad times to see you through”

which is from “More Bad Times”, the hilarious final song on the album (which is also used in the film) and which, if it sounds vaguely familiar, it means you heard the Presidents butcher the song and you should listen to the original.

This film is smart (its poster is a take on the classic New Yorker cover that saw the world as if it ended at the Hudson River), it’s interesting, it’s warm and it’s funny.  It did well at Sundance and was picked up by Orion Classics.  But it made just over $100,000 at the box office, not even good enough to make the Top 250 for the year and has generally been hard to find on video (and even though I have very fond feelings for the band in the film, I wouldn’t even hear about it until years later).  But, if you’re willing to pony up $2.99, you can view it at anytime thanks to YouTube and you might just find that it’s worth it, to search for that light switch or reach for that star.

Post-2011

From 1997 to 2016, Orion didn’t release any films.  After that, it gets a little confusing, although, any way it works, there’s not a lot to it.  On my spreadsheet, I list seven films, six of which I have seen (I haven’t yet seen Anna and the Apocalypse), none of which made much money (The Prodigy, at $14.85 mil, though is the highest grossing Orion film since October of 1991) and the only awards attention going to God’s Own Country (BAFTA nominee for Best British Film).  At the moment, it looks like Orion is dead again; with the 100th anniversary of United Artists prompting MGM to release films under that label again and MGM also owning Orion, they seem to have moved their planned future Orion releases to UA and there are no more planned releases for Orion.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 1994

$
0
0

This didn’t come straight from the book but neither did anything else in the film.

My Top 10

  1. Ed Wood
  2. The Shawshank Redemption
  3. Quiz Show
  4. Nobody’s Fool
  5. Grave of the Fireflies
  6. The Madness of King George
  7. Little Women
  8. Death and the Maiden
  9. Vanya on 42nd Street
  10. To Live

note:  There will be more to say about this in the Awards post which comes next.

Consensus Nominees:

  1. Forrest Gump  (232 pts)
  2. Quiz Show  (192 pts)
  3. The Madness of King George  (120 pts)
  4. The Shawshank Redemption  (112 pts)
  5. Ed Wood  (40 pts)
  6. Little Women  (40 pts)
  7. Nobody’s Fool  (40 pts)
  8. The Browning Version  (40 pts)

note:  For the first time since 1988, there are no critics awards for an adapted screenplay which is why the point totals are so low.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

  • Forrest Gump
  • The Madness of King George
  • Nobody’s Fool
  • Quiz Show
  • The Shawshank Redemption

WGA:

  • Forrest Gump
  • Little Women
  • The Madness of King George
  • Quiz Show
  • The Shawshank Redemption
  • Ed Wood  (nominated in Original)

Golden Globes:

  • Forrest Gump
  • Quiz Show
  • The Shawshank Redemption

Nominees that are Original:  Pulp Fiction, Four Weddings and a Funeral

note:  There was a 44 year stretch (1965-2008) where there were 5 Globe Screenplay nominees and 5 Oscar Picture nominees.  This is the fourth and final year, joining 1966, 1982 and 1984, in which the five films are the same in both categories.

BAFTA:

  • Quiz Show
  • The Browning Version
  • Forrest Gump
  • The Madness of King George  (1995)

note:  The other BAFTA nominee was The Joy Luck Club which was from 1993.

My Top 10

Ed Wood

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film, not just because it is the best film of 1994 (which it is and that’s saying something when you’re the #1 film in the same year as Pulp Fiction and Shawshank) but because it was my representative film for Tim Burton when I placed him in my Top 100 Directors.  This is a great film and I knew that when I saw it in the theaters, which far too few people did given that it landed at #136 for the year, behind The Road to Wellville, Mixed Nuts and The House of the Spirits (sadly, I saw the first two of those in the theater as well).  This might also be the best performance in Johnny Depp’s career and that is also saying something because no matter what you think of him as a person, as an actor he’s been amazing for a long time.

The Source:

Nightmare of Ecstasy: The Life and Art of Edward D. Wood, Jr. by Rudolph Grey  (1992)

Grey just missed being able to interview Wood, with Wood dying just as Grey was getting interested in his work.  But Grey was able to catch a lot of Wood’s contributors and friends and family and created this loving oral biography of Wood’s work and life.  It’s not as good as the film because it doesn’t have the loving performances of Depp and Landau and because the film had more focus to it (see below) but it is still a vital and important book on film history for being willing to shine a light on the kind of director that was ignored by most writers (though, for good reason).

The Adaptation:

In the DVD commentary, writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski talk about how they used Grey’s book as background but wanted to craft their own film.  Specifically, they wanted to craft a film that focused on the friendship between Ed Wood and Bela Lugosi which is why the film begins just before their first meeting and runs through the release of Plan Nine.  They even deliberately ignored the work that Wood did during that time that didn’t involve Bela (most notably the film Jailbait).  They also freely acknowledge that not only was the meeting between Ed and Orson Welles completely made up but that it also wasn’t fair to Charlton Heston since Heston was the only reason Welles got that job in the first place.  But it’s such a brilliant scene and works so well, I don’t really mind, especially since they are willing to admit that they made it up.  A lot of other parts of the film do come straight from pieces in the Grey book though, as they say, they focus on the friendship between Ed and Bela (even removing Bela’s wife from the film).  A good example of having good reasons to alter what really happened for the good of the story.

The Credits:

Directed by Tim Burton.  Written by Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski.
note:  Only the end credits mention the source: Based upon the book “Nightmare of Ecstasy” by Rudolph Grey.  Published by Feral House.

The Shawshank Redemption

The Film:

It’s one thing to have been in on Star Wars from the beginning.  It’s another thing to have seen a film before almost anyone else and know how great it was and wait for the rest to catch up.  They did, of course, a few years later, when this came out on video and when the IMDb debuted and it immediately moved up to the top.  That’s because the more people saw this film, with its great technical work, two magnificent acting performances and the feeling that hope can triumph after all, the more it became clear that everyone loved it and absolutely no one disliked it.  It was the film that everyone could agree on.  Fully reviewed here.

The Source:

Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption” by Stephen King  (1982)

This was actually written in 1979 just after he finished The Dead Zone but like all of the pieces in Different Seasons, wasn’t published until King decided to put this book together in 1982.  It’s the opening story in Different Seasons, the section called Hope Springs Eternal (which was my title for the script that I started writing for it and let’s face it – everyone agrees the title is terrible and was part of the reason why the film didn’t find a good footing at the box office).  It’s a fascinating story of poor Andy Dufresne, who spent years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit before finally managing one hell of an escape.  In spite of the brutality of some of the descriptions and poor Andy’s situation, by far the most hopeful of the works in the book and possibly the most hopeful thing King has ever written.

The Adaptation:

The first thing everyone notices (it certainly seemed strange to me at the time) was the casting of Morgan Freeman as a character described in the book as a red-headed Irishman but everyone forgets that Andy is described as quite small (it’s how he got through the pipe to freedom), not at all like Tim Robbins.  Aside from that, there are some significant differences (the guy who can help prove Andy’s innocence is killed in the film instead of transferred, the warden and the guard aren’t taken down by Andy, the money he goes to Mexico with is his, secreted away with his new identity instead of stolen from the warden) but all of those differences I think are part of what attract people to the film – awful things happen but the most awful people get their just desserts at the end of the film.  It’s also the right move to show Andy and Red reuniting in the film and another reason why people like the film so much.  The film also considerably cuts down Andy’s time in prison, moving his escape up eight years while Red is also around for the more important scenes instead of just giving us second-hand information.  The film is surprising in how many differences there are from the book while still keeping quite close to the story itself and the themes.

The Credits:

Directed by Frank Darabont.  Based on the Short Novel “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption” by Stephen King.  Screenplay by Frank Darabont.

Quiz Show

The Film:

I went to see Quiz Show on opening weekend.  There weren’t a lot of people there and they never really showed up later either.  That was unfortunate because it turned out to be one of the best films of the year, although thankfully the Academy noticed that.  As a result, I have already reviewed this film.  It’s a great film, tells a compelling story (with a few changes – see below) and has absolutely magnificent acting.  The Academy might have noticed the film itself but somehow they overlooked Ralph Fiennes just a year after overlooking him for the Oscar win for one of the greatest supporting actor performances of all-time.

The Source:

Remembering America: A Voice from the Sixties by Richard N. Goodwin  (1988)

I looked for this book for quite a while after originally seeing the film and I eventually found it in 2007 at a fantastic used bookstore along the Boston / Brookline line that is no longer there.  I remember reading it and being fascinated by it.  I had been interested in it because of it being the source for the film but really the book is a fantastic first-hand document of the Kennedy White House, the LBJ White House and the RFK presidential campaign.  It has a sentence that to me perfectly summed up not only JFK but Barack Obama before Obama even made it to the presidency: “Style is the archway through which power enters into historical memory: the judicious, dignified Washington, the poetic Lincoln, the ebullient Franklin Roosevelt.  Kennedy has not yet won a place in that company, but if he does it won’t be because of the space program or the missile crisis.  It will be because what he was helped remind us of what we could be.”  (p 237-238)

But the quiz show scandals only take up one chapter of a 27 chapter book (the real heart of the book starts in 1960 when he starts to work for JFK).  It is a thorough and detailed chapter that gets into Goodwin’s role in investigating the scandal (he really did push for this investigation after reading a piece in the Times about the results being sealed).  But if you go to the book for the scandal, you should stay for the rest of the book.  I’ve read lots of books by people who worked for JFK and of the ones not written by Schlesinger, this is the best.

The Adaptation:

Robert Redford will be the first to tell you that they changed things for dramatic effect in the film because he was making a film and not a documentary (there had actually already been a documentary which Redford acknowledged).  Some of the details in the film are extremely accurate, including the way Goodwin started the investigation but there are certainly things that are different, from the judge actually sending the information to Congress (he didn’t turn Goodwin down) to Stempel being introduced on the show as being from Brooklyn when he really was from Queens (the film just has him introduced from Queens) to a wider array of scenes between Van Doren and Goodwin (though they did meet several times and did have dinner together, the film expands their relationship).  It also compresses all of the actions (Van Doren had actually already left the show long before Goodwin began his investigation and most of the quiz show actions took place from 1956 to 1958 and that’s the investigation that was sealed before Goodwin got involved in 1959).  By the way, I don’t think Goodwin, even when young, was anywhere near as handsome as Rob Morrow, but I did ask his wife, Doris (who is not the wife portrayed in the film – that’s his first wife) if he looked like Morrow when he was young and she said he did (she might have been stretching things a bit but she’s also a brilliant writer and you should read all of her books if you get a chance).  It is true that Goodwin really tried to let Van Doren off without having to testify and that the telegram he sent made certain that they would have to subpoena him.

The Credits:

Directed by Robert Redford.  Based on the book “Remembering America: A Voice From the Sixties” by Richard N. Goodwin.  Screenplay by Paul Attanasio.

Nobody’s Fool

The Film:

When I saw this film, when it was first released and I was in college, I had never heard of Richard Russo.  I had no idea that this would be the start of my interest in a writer whose works transport them me every time I pick them up, one of my absolute favorite writers.  I simply knew I was watching a really good film, one of the best performances from Paul Newman in a long time (by this time I had already watched most, if not all of Newman’s Oscar nominated performances) and one that showed how brilliant he could still be even as he was approaching seventy.

Donald Sullivan, Sully to most who know him, is kind of a mess.  His knee is a disaster from a fall, he lives alone above his old eighth grade teacher, is constantly broke and has a crush on the wife of the man he often works for.  He’s the kind of man you can find in most small towns, the man who people like and enjoy his company, while also realizing he’s kind of an asshole and who is viewed as a good example of what not to be when you grow up.

We follow Sully through just a few days over the course of one Thanksgiving when his estranged son (that Sully didn’t raise) returns home with his own pending disasters (not having gotten tenure and a wife that’s about to walk out of him).  In that time, Sully will insult the man he works for, steal his snowblower (more than once), alienate his best friend and even punch a cop in the face (after goading him to the point where the cop shoots at him).  And yet, for all of that, he is kind of likable.  Is it because he’s the kind of man, even with only one working knee and without his boots on, will go chase down an old woman in the snow and then, without even pausing for coffee, help out in the local diner while the woman’s daughter returns her home?  Is it because he knows his limitations and tries to work within them even when he knows they are pinning him in?  Or is it because he’s just a likable guy and when he’s played by Paul Newman, he has the kind of roguish charm that Newman was always so brilliant at portraying?

Of all the actors who came to film trained in the method and working in the shadow of Brando (though they were less than a year apart in age), Newman was quite probably the best actor and he was certainly the one who had the best career with his seven Oscar nominations spread across almost 50 years.  He’s so good in this role as Sully that you almost don’t even realize how good the people around him are, from Jessica Tandy as his caring landlady to Bruce Willis as his obnoxious boss to a young Philip Seymour Hoffman as the idiotic cop.  And you fail to even realize what category the film belongs in which is why, after all these years of classifying it as a Drama and having just read the book for who knows how many times I have finally changed it to be a Comedy.  It’s just a wonderful film, falling just short of being a great one for reasons that I can’t really explicate very well.  But it’s one I keep returning to and I doubt I have watched it for the last time.

The Source:

Nobody’s Fool by Richard Russo  (1993)

Was Paul Newman waiting on this one?  Russo had written two fairly well regarded books (one of which, The Risk Pool, is in my Top 100) but neither had been made into films (in spite of rumors, The Risk Pool still hasn’t been made) yet, Nobody’s Fool was published in 1993 and was already a film in time for the 1994 awards season.  Perhaps Newman saw the perfect role for himself and he would have been correct.

I love this book, love returning to it and the town that is created here and yet, I can honestly say that this is, at best, my fourth favorite Russo novel.  Russo brilliantly knows how to create a place, coming perfectly to life in the first line: “Upper Main Street in the village of North Bath, just above the town’s two-block-long business district, was quietly residential for three more blocks, then became even more quietly rural along old Route 27A, a serpentine two-line blacktop that snaked its way through the Adirondacks of northern New York, with their tiny, down-at-the-heels resort towns, all the way to Montreal and prosperity.” and can also create a character within two sentences: “He was a careless man, there was no denying it.  He was careless with cigarettes, careless, without ever meaning to be, about people and circumstances.”

I have written about Russo before because not only The Risk Pool but also Empire Falls are in my Top 100 and his Straight Man is one of my favorite books but this is the only time he will show up in this project because his other books haven’t been made into films (though his Empire Falls was a magnificent HBO film with another fantastic Newman performance).  If you have never read him, I can not recommend these books highly enough.  There’s even a very enjoyable sequel to this book, Everybody’s Fool, which is also well worth reading, taking things up twenty years later.

The Adaptation:

How to make a faithful adaptation (which this is) of a novel that runs well over 500 pages?  Take out all the characters not connected to the main plot.  In the book, Ruth, Sully’s long-standing lover, is probably the fourth biggest character and there are whole subplots that revolve around her family.  They are all eliminated.  By focusing on what is going on with Sully and his son (even eliminating some of the subplots there, such as his son’s mistress or that his son is sleeping with Toby at the end of the book) and streamlines things.  Almost every line in the film comes straight from the book (and even those that don’t feel like they could have) but by just narrowing the focus, everything fits nicely into less than two hours.  Time is also compressed a bit (in the book it runs almost to New Year’s) but the opening and ending are exactly how they are in the book as are almost all the characters.  It’s one hell of an adaptation.

The Credits:

Written for the Screen and Directed by Robert Benton.  Based upon the Novel by Richard Russo.

火垂るの墓
(Grave of the Fireflies)

The Film:

I have often lamented that Leaving Las Vegas is the most depressing film ever made and yet I have watched it more than once.  But if that is so, what does that make this film?  The saddest film ever made, made even more unbearably sad because it is based on the real story of the man who wrote the original short story this film was based on?  Is this film one of the most potent anti-war films ever made, or, if it’s not an anti-war film specifically as director Isao Takahata claims it is not, does it just make it one of the most potent films ever in making us feel?  That’s perhaps even more powerful.  There have been a lot of films over the years that have shown the horror and waste of war, perhaps none so poetic as that final shot of All Quiet on the Western Front.  But this film, like many great stories, takes things a step further and becomes universal.  It is the vivid and tragic story of what happens to two young children, but we can take a step back and say this kind of thing happens not just because there is a war going on but because of the lack of basic human kindness.  When children like this die, it’s a failure for all humankind.

Or perhaps you don’t know what I am talking about, perhaps, in spite of this being one of the greatest animated films ever made, certainly one of the greatest animated films ever made that is not actually a Kids film, perhaps you have never seen it.  If that is the case, perhaps because you could not bear to watch it, or because you perhaps have never even heard of it, here is the story in a nutshell.  A young girl and her teenage brother are left on their own when their mother is killed in the Kobe firebombings in the last year of World War II (their father is away in the Navy).  At first they are taken in by their aunt, but eventually they just become two more mouths to feed to that aunt and are cast out to survive on their own (see – maybe the Dursleys weren’t that bad!).  Two children, left on their own, in a country losing the war, beaten into submission, with fire dropped from the sky, hoping, desperately to just find enough to eat.  There is often debate around the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan but this is a reminder that there were other horrible things happening to the people of Japan before Hiroshima.  Without taking a side on whether to blame the Japanese for not surrendering before it got to this point or my own country for dealing death from above, these children are abandoned by the people around them who are too concerned with their own survival to spare anything for those who are clearly dying.

And so they die.  First the little girl, dying in front of her brother even as he returns with food to try and keep her alive, then the brother, abandoned, forsaken, dead on the floor of a train station in the opening shot that sets up the film.  But it sets up the film of two ghosts, looking back, at the fireflies gathering around them in the gloom and we are reminded of the artistry of this film.  Even in the horrifying images (the destruction of a city, the death of a child), the animation is incredible in how vividly it brings the tale to life.

Though I am not religious, this film makes me want to believe in some sort of heaven.  From those opening moments, where we see the two ghosts reunited, not yet knowing what has brought them there, to the final shot of them in the gloaming, surrounded by the beauty of the fireflies, even the potential chance that they could be reunited, that they could find some measure of happiness in some sort of afterlife that was denied to them in this life, can help push at least some of the sadness away before it overwhelms you.  But then again, remember my essay about Why We Cry and you can understand why, not just for the brilliant animation, the fantastic writing and direction, you should be watching this film.  It makes you feel and in those feelings, it gives you a chance to remember that you are human.

The Source:

火垂るの墓 Hotaru no haka by Akiyuki Nosaka  (1967)

The best I was able to do was to get an illustrated short version of the book to go along with the film, clearly designed to help people learn English, as there are notes in Japanese about certain English phrases.  This follows very closely to the film, of course, because it’s designed to go along with it, and was printed in 1988.  The original story was translated for a magazine in 1978 but I wasn’t able to get hold of it.

Adaptation:

Even though I couldn’t find the source to read it, this page mentions that the film follows very closely to the source.

The Credits:

Written & Directed by Isao Takahata.  Original Story by Akiyuki Nosaka.
note:  As with all Japanese films, I am forced to rely on subtitles for the credits.

The Madness of King George

The Film:

I watched this film originally back in 1995 at some point, I think, probably around the time of the Oscar nominations.  I then had it on videotape for several years (it had been my grandmother’s, I think) without watching it but I watched it again in mid 2016 partially as preparation for the 1994 Nighthawk Awards (I watched several other films again as well) and partially because, since Veronica had never seen it and really loves Sherlock, that she might like to see a much younger Rupert Graves.  I had thought it a very good film the first time I saw it but it had grown in my estimation when I watched it again and it ended up as a high ***.5.  Watching it again now, in the middle of 2018 (a long time before this review will run but I needed to make use of the Boston libraries that had the play), while my admiration for the film has not dimmed, I wonder how I feel about the lead character.

Must everything come through a prism now?  Is that the way the world has to work?  I watched this film two years ago and saw a king stricken by madness.  It is a fantastic performance from Nigel Hawthorne, playing the poor, mad king, stricken down when his own mind won’t support where it is going.  The British situation is a messy one, with someone mad at the top, not enough support for the next in charge and in some sense none of them really matter because there is still Parliament to contend with.  In one sense, this is all just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

But let me deal with the elephant in my room, the man who acts like a madman while running rampant over the country.  When George III ruled over England, there was still a question of what royalty meant and there were even more questions about what was involved with madness.  So there were different attempts to make and in the end, it is Dr. Willis (played with rigid compulsion by Ian Holm), supported by the young soldier Greville (played by Graves) who manage, with the help of a sympathetic wife (the Oscar nominated Helen Mirren) to bring the king back around to his senses and forgo a major crisis at the same time that much of the world was changing (the end of the film takes place just three months before the fall of the Bastille).  Today, we have a much better idea of sanity, an idea of what is just idiocy and we live in a democracy so we have no one to thank but ourselves (and Russia) for the situation we find ourselves in.  But just look at the way that George acts at the beginning of the film, how he reacts to everything by bizarre instinct, how he snaps at everyone, how you never know when he might just declare war on another country or obsess about the past.  Does that sound like anyone else?

Thankfully, that passes as the king moves over solidly into madness and is taken out of the seat of power.  What we see now is a clash of personalities between the king and Dr. Willis and the only winner that matter is sanity.

This is a well-written film (see below for more) and it’s the first foray into film directing from Nicholas Hytner, who had directed the play on stage and was very well respected as a stage director.  It has wonderful sets and costumes and a well-rounded cast.  More importantly, as George III, the man who has long been reviled in this country for repressing the colonies and bringing about the revolution in the first place, Nigel Hawthorne somehow manages to arouse our sympathy in ways we never could have expected.

The Source:

The Madness of George III by Alan Bennett  (1991)

Alan Bennett flat out admits in the introduction that he had been obsessed with George III ever since his days at school, even before university.  But it took until well into his professional career (he had been known as a playwright for almost 30 years) before he tackled the Regency Crisis of 1788, the months when George’s madness overtook him to the point where Parliament considered handing things over to his son.  By this time, Bennett was well known enough that he could get Nigel Hawthorne as the King and Nicholas Hytner to direct it for the National Theater and it was a big hit on stage.  A very good play that at times deviates from the history because it works best for the storytelling, which Bennett is all too willing to admit (many of the events in the play come from the diaries of the real Greville who was not there for many of the scenes that Bennett places him in).

The Adaptation:

The film, adapted by Bennett, follows his original play very closely.  It adds a few small scenes and moves the locations of a lot of scenes (the original play was mostly two long acts with no real scene distinctions) but other than that stays very true to the original play.

The Credits:

Directed by Nicholas Hytner.  Screenplay by Alan Bennett.  Based on his stage play The Madness of George III.

Little Women

The Film:

There had been several versions of this before this one, either on film or on television.  There had never been a group of actresses this talented (it’s not a coincidence that the two youngest, Claire Danes and Kirsten Dunst, would go on to such strong careers) and even Katharine Hepburn hadn’t given a performance like Winona Ryder’s as Jo or Susan Sarandon’s as Mrs. March (although this cast has nothing on the one coming in just two months).

Do you not know the story of the March girls by now?  Have you never read the book or seen any of the other film versions?  They are all in their teen years (well, Amy is a little younger), with Jo the most spirited and literary one.  They deal with their father being off in the Civil War (they are well out of way of the war living in Concord, MA), their mother joining him after he is wounded and the attention of their next door neighbor, young Laurie (who falls for Jo pretty much right away, which is easy to see, not only because she is smart and fun and clever but because she is a beautiful young Winona Ryder).  But she doesn’t want to be tied down (at least until she meets the handsome older German tutor who has as much an interest in her mind as he does in her body).  She wants to be free.

This version of the novel is the best, not just because it has the best acting (though that is a key reason), not just because it has the best direction (Gillian Armstrong, the first female to direct a version of the novel has a sure hand) but because it makes it a strong story and not just a saccharine sweet version of it.  We care about these girls and this film makes a strong, mature version of the story.  It has good cinematography, a very good score (Oscar nominated) and fantastic Oscar nominated costumes.  But most of all, it comes down to that rightfully Oscar nominated performance from Ryder, coming right in the heart of her prime.

The Source:

Little Women by Louisa May Alcott  (1868/1869)

I have already reviewed the book once before because the 1933 film version with Katharine Hepburn (one of two versions – along with this one – that vies for the crown of best version of the novel although the new version from Greta Gerwig might put that to the test).  I’m not a particular fan of the book but if you’re going to get a copy, I recommend the copy linked above and picture to the right, the very copy I own because the Norton Annotated Editions are fantastic.

The Adaptation:

This version follows the book quite closely and makes more use of the war and Laurie’s love for Jo (and his eventual love for Amy) than previous versions do.  It’s the most faithful adaptation to date.

The Credits:

Directed by Gillian Armstrong.  Based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott.  Screenplay by Robin Swicord.

Death and the Maiden

The Film:

This was a strange year for Best Actress.  The leading contenders already had Oscars (Jodie Foster, Jessica Lange) with a couple of strong performances from terrible films (Miranda Richardson, Susan Sarandon).  But most of the best performances weren’t nominated and were sometimes barely noticed.  Linda Fiorentino’s performance in The Last Seduction wasn’t Oscar eligible.  Julianne Moore in Vanya on 42nd Street and Natalie Portman in Leon were ignored.  Jennifer Jason Leigh in Mrs Parker didn’t earn an Oscar nomination perhaps because the film made so little money.  Irene Jacob and Isabelle Adjani had to deal with being in foreign language films.  And of all of those, the best performance of the year in my mind was Sigourney Weaver in Death and the Maiden, a film released so late that it took me a long time before I eventually got hold of the Oscar eligibility list and was able to confirm that it even could have been nominated.  Weaver is a fascinating actress; she was Oscar nominated three times in three years in the late 80’s before she did most of her best work.  She didn’t earn a single Oscar or SAG nomination in the 90’s in spite of her amazing work in The Ice Storm, A Map of the World or this film.  She doesn’t act in nearly enough films but she is one of the best and most under-appreciated American actresses in film history.

In this film she plays Paulina, a woman who is still dealing with trauma.  She was tortured and raped by the recently toppled regime in the country she lives in (an unnamed South American country) and though her husband has now become important in the new democracy (he has just been asked to oversee the commission to look into the crimes of the previous regime), she is nervous enough that when a strange car pulls up at night she has a gun in her hand, ready to defend herself.  It’s just her husband, getting a ride home from a stranger because his car got a flat.  But when that same stranger returns for dinner, she steals his car, dumping it off a cliff and after he is asleep, ties him up and is prepared to kill him.  She is certain, from his voice, from his mannerisms, from his laugh, that he is the man who tortured and raped her, even though she had never seen his face.

What happens from here is a cat and mouse game that has a heightened degree of tension, not only because of what has happened to Paulina but because we are never quite allowed the full knowledge of truth.  This film is a reminder that Roman Polanski, whatever his faults and crimes, is a masterful director who is at much at home with adapting a chamber play (and never making us feel claustrophobic like a chamber play adapted to film can do) as he is with a wide open epic like Tess.  The tension is heightened, not only by a brilliant screenplay (adapted from the first rate play) and magnificent direction but by the performances at the heart of the film, most notably of course Ben Kingsley (who is always magnificent) and Weaver, who really should have won the Oscar and was rewarded for her magnificent performance with just a nomination from the Dallas-Forth Worth Critics Association.

The Source:

Death and the Maiden by Ariel Dorfman  (1990)

A fascinating play that springs from life, though not from autobiography.  Dorfman was raised in Chile (after living several years in Argentina) and witnessed the Pinochet regime (though not for long, becoming an exile soon after the coup).  This play is set up well with the statement at the beginning: “The time is the present and the place, a country that is probably Chile but could be any country that has given itself a democratic government just after a long period of dictatorship.”  With a woman who was tortured and raped now married to a man who will oversee the commission that will investigate such crimes from the regime, she meets a man she thinks might have been her torturer and rapist and we have a long dark night of the soul as they play off against each other without us ever really knowing what the truth of the matter is.  A powerhouse three person play (I wish I could have seen the 1992 Broadway premiere with Glenn Close, Gene Hackman and Richard Dreyfuss that you can see pictured on the book cover).

The Adaptation:

In Roman Polanski Interviews, Polanski is asked why he added a conclusion that did not appear in the play: “To make the story more coherent.  The play is ambiguous right up until the end, but I’d say this ambiguity is more accidental than by design.  Though I like the idea of a story where you don’t know who’s guilty until the last minute, this works only if it fits with the theme.  This wasn’t the case with Death and the Maiden which, quite simply, was in need of a third act, otherwise I felt it would be frustrating for the audience.”  (p 154)  In another interview, Polanski says that he’s faithful to the play outside of adding the conclusion.

Well, it is mostly faithful (Paulina steals the car much earlier forcing the doctor to stay in the film while he has already stayed and been tied up in the play by the time she gets rid of the car), I don’t necessarily feel that the ending of the film lacks ambiguity.  I suppose, with the conversation with the colleague (which doesn’t happen in the play), it is less ambiguous an ending than was in the original play, but it’s still not a clear ending, which is part of the strength of it.  But, for the most part, aside from that, it is fairly faithful.

The Credits:

Directed by Roman Polanski.  Based on the play by Ariel Dorfman.  Screenplay by Rafael Yglesias and Ariel Dorfman.

Vanya on 42nd Street

The Film:

I had put off watching this film for a long time because I wasn’t quite sure what it was.  Not that I wouldn’t have an interest, but if I wasn’t going to classify it as a feature film, it was a much lower priority.  Like My Dinner with Andre, I was unclear as to whether I should count this.  It seemed similar to Looking for Richard (which came out two years later but I saw that in the theater and didn’t see this until years afterwards) but the cast wasn’t quite as intriguing and though Chekhov is one of the world’s greatest playwrights, I am not immersed in Chekhov like I am in Shakespeare.  In the end, of course I watched it (though possibly not until I was covering all of Louis Malle for my Great Director project or possibly when it got released on Criterion) and it was an interesting experience.  Like My Dinner with Andre, I also wasn’t quite certain how to rate it.  It had some strong performances (most notably Julianne Moore, but that’s to be expected now as she is by far the best actor involved in the production but would have been a surprise in 1994) and it was an interesting way to stage the play (on essentially a bare stage in modern day dress).  In the end, like other films that end up in this quasi-space (including the already previously mentioned My Dinner with Andre), I gave it a 75.  That’s the very highest rating that still earns just *** which means it is not in consideration for my Best Picture award but it means there is a lot about the film to admire.

Some friends gather together on a New York street and discuss Chekhov while they are walking.  But then we are in a theater and the dialogue has changed slightly and if you know your Chekhov, you will realize that you have actually entered into a reading of the play Uncle Vanya.  If you were to discount that opening scene, it would be easier to realize that you are watching a film version of the play.  Yes, as mentioned, it is set on a bare stage and in modern day dress but the actors involved are no less committed to the project for all of that.  The main actors involved are Wallace Shawn (who is good but a key moment is undermined because his anguished cry is so similar to the one he used in The Princess Bride when it was used for comic effect rather than the dramatic one here), Larry Pine (much less known) and Julianne Moore (much less known at this time but this was one of the key roles in the 90’s that helped establish her as one of the best film actresses of all-time).

In the end, it’s an interesting way to approach the text, to see it broadly and plainly acted before us.  Unless you are serious about theater, it’s likely that you have never read Uncle Vanya (I have a Masters in literature and I never had to read it) and this is a way that allows the story to be a bit more accessible by stripping away the settings.  On the other hand, it also takes away from the scenery that really could be so much part of a filmed production.  But then again, I have seen a film production of it (the Konchalovsky 1970 version) and it wasn’t very good.  So maybe this was the right way to do it.  And it’s dithering like that, that is part of the reason that I rate this film at a 75.

The Source:

Дядя Ваня by Anton Chekhov  (1898)

Shakespeare scholars may disagree but the general consensus is on Hamlet.  For Tennessee Williams, it’s A Streetcar Named Desire.  Arthur Miller fans can debate over The Crucible or Death of a Salesman.  But what is Chekhov’s greatest play?  He is one of the greatest playwrights who ever lived and I can sit here and look at my Penguin copy of his plays and think to myself “Is it Uncle Vanya?  Or maybe Three Sisters?  No, maybe it’s The Cherry Orchard.  Oh, wait, it’s totally, The Seagull.”  And I could go on and on.  In the end, I would personally probably pick The Cherry Orchard but I would not try to talk anyone out of thinking it was Uncle Vanya.

Like many of Chekhov’s plays, it takes place on a rural estate.  Vanya manages the estate and he is the uncle to Sonya, who is supposed to inherit the estate one day from her father.  Her father, a well known professor, lives in town with his new, young, beautiful wife, but they are here for the actions of the play.  There is also Astrov the country doctor and it doesn’t help that both Astrov and Vanya are attracted to the new wife.  Over the course of the play, we’ll have arguments over the past and the future of the estate and we will have grievances brought forth and never really resolved.  It’s the actions of the people and the way they interact that makes it so great.  If you have never had a chance to see it or at least see this film, then at least go back and read the play (and while you’re at it, read the rest of them as well).

The Adaptation:

This version uses the David Mamet adaptation but it really isn’t all that different from the Elisaveta Fen translation that I have been reading and re-reading for well over 20 years now.  It’s a fairly faithful adaptation.

The Credits:

Directed by Louis Malle.  From Andre (right accent on e) Gregory’s ‘Vanya’.  Based on Anton Chekhov’s Play.  Adapted by David Mamet.

To Live

The Film:

While Chinese film had existed before Zhang Yimou, it had not been great and indeed, from the end of the Civil War in 1949 to the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976 it seemed to be nonexistent.  So Yimou seemed to emerge out of nowhere.  His decision to make a film version of the novel To Live, which covers the unfortunate events in the life of one man from the Revolution through the leaner years and straight on past the end of the Cultural Revolution seems an inspired idea.  In fact, it inspired China to ban the film itself.

Fugui is a cad.  He’s rich (he both comes from money and married into money) but he keeps wasting his time and money gambling while ignoring his parents, wife and children.  He loses his property to a friend of his and both of them ended up conscripted into the Army (and then ending up on the other side due to a series of events).  He eventually is able to make it home to his wife who is now deaf.  A series of unfortunate events wouldn’t begin to describe what he has been going through, enduring horrible realities as his country changes before his eyes.

Yet, somehow, none of this gets Fugui down.  He watches as the land is burned by its new owner (for which he is shot by the authorities) and eventually he will endure the accidental (but somehow absurd) death of his son and yet, he somehow manages to go on.  He lives, in the middle of all of this.

This film, as the novel before it, is the triumph of the desire to live in the middle of all the reasons why life is not worth living.  The horrible things continue to mount up,  Fugui’s daughter dies in childbirth when the doctor is unable to attend to her because he has eaten too many buns and can’t get up.  Yet, somehow he goes on.

This film doesn’t quite ever achieve the level that Yimou had set for himself (and his constant star, Gong Li) in Raise the Red Lantern, another film that deals with the attempt to keep living when everything around you is collapsing and it doesn’t have that level of vibrant color and detail..  But somehow this film inspires in the way Fugui just keeps managing to push himself forward, just looking for whatever next thing life will bring him to because it is still life and it is still the only thing that there is.

The Source:

活着 by Yu Hua (look for Chinese characters)  (1993)

Hua was inspired by the folk song “Old Black Joe”, a song “about an elderly black slave who experienced a life’s worth of hardships, including the passing of his entire family – yet he still looked upon the world with eyes of kindness, offering not the slightly complaint” and decided that his next novel would cover that same kind of character.  So we get Fugui, the man who starts out not really caring about life but eventually endures war, starvation, horrible misfortunes as all of his family die and yet is still pushing on at the end of the book, taking a break with his ox, the only thing he has left, and thinking that the break will end soon and they both just keep working.  It’s a good book, a celebration of life and a history of what China endured during the middle of the 20th Century, a fascinating social statement and social history at the same time.

The Adaptation:

If you look at the Wikipedia page for either the film or the novel you will see it mentioned that the film adds the shadow puppetry (Fugui in the film is a shadow puppeteer) and cuts the narrative device and the ox that Fugui has at the end of the film.  But whoever edited those clearly only read page 242 where the translator (Michael Berry) mentions those and not page 243 where Berry really clarifies the difference between the film and the novel: “After tracing much of twentieth-century China’s tumultuous history, the film ends with Fugui, Erxi and Kugen gathered around Jiazhen in bed, an image that suggests the possibility of a post-Communist utopia.  The novel, by contrast, closes with Fugui prodding his ox, showing Yu Hua’s version to be darker and more existential, with survival and end in itself.  Compared to the novel, Zhang Yimou’s film also allows more room for the hand of fate to hold sway; here Youqing’s death is attributed purely to accident, while in the novel it occurs after his blood is literally sucked dry to save the life of an important cadre.  Yu Hua’s reality is much more brutal, as is his social critique.”  And Berry doesn’t even mention that Fugui’s grandson and wife are still alive while both of them are dead by the end of the book (the grandson choking on beans that Fugui left for him to eat).

The Credits:

Directed by Zhang Yimou.  Adaptation from Yu Hua’s novel.  Script: Yu Hua and Lu Wei.  Screenplay: Lu Wei.

note:  One DVD release had no subtitles for the credits.  The other (the MGM DVD release) lists the ones above for subtitles.  I can’t recreate the original Mandarin characters.

Consensus Winner


Forrest Gump

The Film:

I think I have already said enough about this film in my review of it.  There is no denying its popularity, both with audiences (third biggest film of all-time upon initial release, #26 all-time adjusted for inflation as I write this) and the awards groups (the second most Oscar points in 33 years, the most Oscar nominations in 28 years, 4th most nominations from all groups together to that point).  But the critical consensus already was that Pulp Fiction was far superior and while this film has a brilliant soundtrack and two really interesting ideas (ripped off from superior films), it is never really equal to the parts that make it up.  I think, once those who watched it in the theater and couldn’t get enough eventually start to age, the next generation will pass this film by.  Actually, the best thing to do is listen to Weird Al’s “Gump” which is funnier than this film and much better than the stupid song it parodies.  It does have a truly fantastic soundtrack though, even if, bizarrely, “Running on Empty” isn’t on it when it’s one of the most prominently used songs in the film.

The Source:

Forrest Gump by Winston Groom  (1986)

Groom is lucky this film was made because his book wasn’t very good and he probably never would have become as successful as he did become had the film not suddenly made him a best-selling author (he would do two more books dealing with Gump, one of them just a collection of Gump sayings).  This is a book about an idiot (though not as dumb as the film makes him) who manages to become a success through a variety of circumstances.  It’s not very good and it does seem to be kind of a rip-off of Being There, which is a far superior book.

The Adaptation:

This is a good example of staying true to the idea without staying true to the details.  Did you know Gump was an astronaut and never kicked off a running craze?  If you did then you’ve actually read the book.  They tossed a lot of details and changed several characters (though keeping Gump’s longing for Jenny) but always stayed rather true to the ideas that Groom wrote about.  Faithful without being faithful.

The Credits:

Directed by Robert Zemeckis.  Based on the Novel by Winston Groom.  Screenplay by Eric Roth.

BAFTA Nominee


The Browning Version

The Film:

There have been a lot of inspirational teachers through the years of film history, from Chips to Brodie to Keating.  Then there is Mr. Crocker-Harris, the disliked Latin and Greek teacher at an English boarding school who is an inspiration to almost no one.  He began life in a well-regarded short play by Terence Rattigan (who was already well regarded for The Winslow Boy, produced two years before) but was adapted into a film in 1951 starring Michael Redgrave.  That film version, the easier to find and generally more well regarded was also written by Rattigan and he expanded his play including a key scene at the end.  In the original play, the teacher is leaving the school but we don’t hear his farewell speech whereas in the film version, he is inspired by the gift he receives from a student (the Browning version of the Agamemnon, thus the title) and gives a rousing speech that ends the film on a high note.  But it leaves us with a curious dilemma of how to view the film.

This is a teacher who has not been well regarded by either the students that he has taught or the school where he has been teaching or even by the wife that he has made miserable.  He has been played, in this version, by Albert Finney with a sad, resigned lack of dignity.  He knows he is disliked, he knows he has been cheated on, he knows that he is being forced out without dignity, grace or warmth.  What he learns over the course of the film is that he perhaps might have done things differently, even though it is not in his nature and that perhaps his life might have played out with more to show for it.  The gift is handled a bit awkwardly and it comes with an inscription that is meant somewhat with kindness but also can be seen as a gentle rebuke for a man determined to run things in a manner that is firm and honest if rarely gentle or kind.  Should this man have a farewell speech that will inspire?  It was a curious thing of Rattigan to make this change and it seems at odds with what we have been watching.

I don’t know that it lets the film down.  It is filmed with grace and dignity even if the Finney character is not allowed that.  Finney is really very good and there is a solid performance from Gretta Scachi as the wife who has made his life as miserable in a different way as he has made hers.  But I don’t know that the script really deserved to be singled out (it did not make my list but was BAFTA nominated and thus I am reviewing it).  But, if for no other reason than Finney’s performance and because it is often overlooked and because it is a solid film version of a well-regarded play it is worth seeing at least once.

The Source:

The Browning Version by Terence Rattigan  (1948)

A very solid one-act play, generally regarded as the best of his work.  It’s the story of a disliked teacher who is being forced into retirement because of health issues and must deal with the indignity of being denied a pension, asked to speak at the graduation after a teacher who has only been there a few years (but is a cricket hero at the school) and his wife having an affair with another teacher.  It was a success in London though not much of one on Broadway.  Nonetheless, as a very British play, it has been filmed twice and done for television on numerous occasions.  It provides an excellent role for a British actor to deal with repression and firmness without having the benefit of grace or even dignity (sorry, I keep repeating myself, but it’s really the best way to describe the character).

The Adaptation:

The credits acknowledge the original play, of course, but should really also make acknowledgement to the 1951 film version because the original play lacked the speech that Crocker-Harris makes at the end of the film that earns the admiration of the school; that was added for the initial film version.  There are still several variations made to this film (the teacher that his wife is having an affair with is now an American, things have been updated to 1994, though without many changes on that front, there is more to the way the students interact with each other)  This film version also takes a lot of the scenes in the original play and distributes them throughout the film, changing the locations and moving characters around for them.

The Credits:

Directed by Mike Figgis.  Based on the play by Terence Rattigan.  Screenplay by Ronald Harwood.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

note:  The following two lists are a bit different from all the other years in that all I mention is the source.  Full reviews will be found in an upcoming post (which is also why there are no links above or below – since they will all be linked in that post and it takes a lot of time to do all the links).

note:  As with every year from 1989 to 2005, you can find more about every film I saw in the theater in the Nighthawk Awards.

  • Interview with the Vampire  –  Based on the novel by Anne Rice.
  • The Crow  –  Adapted from the comic book.
  • Colonel Chabert  –  Adapted from the Balzac novel.
  • Queen Margot  –  Adapted from the Dumas novel.
  • Oleanna  –  David Mamet adapts his own play.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

  • The Bride with White Hair  –  Loosely based on the novel Baifa Monu Zhuan.
  • Savage Nights  –  Cyril Collard, who also directs and stars, adapts his own semi-autobiographical novel.
  • Neo-Tokyo  –  Anthology film based on three short stories by Taku Mayumura.  Normally wouldn’t be included on this list as it is less than an hour.
  • Imaginary Crimes  –  Based on the novel by Sheila Ballyntine that was inspired by her own childhood.
  • L’Enfer  –  Based on the screenplay from an unfinished Clouzot film.
  • Sátántangó  –  Adapted from the novel by László Krasnahorkai.
  • Silent Möbius  –  Based on the manga series.  Normally wouldn’t be included on this list as it less than an hour.
  • Moondance  –  Based on the novel The White Hare by Francis Stuart.
  • Star Trek: Generations  –  The seventh in the series, reviewed in full here.
  • Rice People  –  Based on the novel No Harvest But a Thorn by Shahnon Ahmad.
  • Bitter Moon  –  Based on the novel Evil Angels by Pascal Bruckner, originally published in French as Lunes de fiel.
  • The Castle of Cagliostro  –  In spite of the alternate title Lupin III, not in fact, a third film, but the second about the manga thief Arsene Lupin III.
  • Sara  –  Iranian version of Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, one of the great plays of all-time.
  • Maverick  –  Adapted from the 1957-62 television series that starred James Garner.
  • True Lies  –  Remake of the French film La Totale!.
  • La Vie de Bohème  –  Loosely based on the Henri Murger novel.
  • Police Story 2  –  Sequel to the 1985 film.
  • Legend of Drunken Master  –  Sequel to the 1978 film which is actually also included in this year.
  • A Shadow You Soon Will Be  –  Adapted from the novel by Osvaldo Soriano.
  • The Jungle Book  –  Also known as Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book which is ironic since it’s a very loose adaptation.
  • In the Heat of the Sun  –  Based loosely on Wild Beast by Wang Shuo.
  • Wes Craven’s New Nightmare  –  The seventh in the franchise.
  • Principio y Fin  –  Based on the novel The Beginning and the End (the translated title of this film) by Nobel winner Naguib Mahfouz.
  • Woyzeck  –  Based on the 18th Century play by Georg Büchner that had been left incomplete when he died (see more here).
  • Once a Cop  –  Spin-off film from the Police Story franchise.
  • I Only Want You to Love Me  –  A television film and normally not listed.  Based on a story from the non-fiction collection Lebenslänglich – Protokolle aus der Haft.
  • That Night’s Wife  –  Based on the novel by Oscar Schisgall.
  • Clear and Present Danger  –  Based on the novel by Tom Clancy which was the fourth Jack Ryan book but the third film.
  • Life and Death of the Hollywood Kid  –  Based on the novel by Junghyo Ahn.
  • December Bride  –  Based on the novel by Sam Hanna Bell.
  • Asterix Conquers America  –  The seventh animated Asterix film but based on the 22nd book.
  • Cross My Heart and Hope to Die  –  Loosely based on the novel by Lars Saabye Christensen.
  • The Wedding Gift  –  A British television film and normally not included.  Based on the non-fiction book Diana’s Story by Deric Longden.
  • What Happened Was…  –  Tom Noonan directs, writes and stars in the adaptation of his own play.
  • Project A Part II  –  Sequel to Project A which is also included in this year.
  • White Badge  –  Based on the novel by Ahn Jung-hyo.
  • Second Best  –  Based on the novel by David Cook.
  • Nell  –  Adapted from the play Idioglossia by David Handley.  Good move to change the title.
  • Once Upon a Time in China II  –  The second in the film series.
  • Cradle Song  –  Adapted from the play by Gregori Martinez Sierra.
  • Legends of the Fall  –  Based on the novella by Jim Harrison.
  • Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses  –  Sequel to Leningrad Cowboys Go America.
  • Ciao, Professore!  –  Inspired by the book Lo speriamo che me la cavo.
  • Disclosure  –  Based on the Michael Crichton novel which came out only 10 months before the film did.  It was the dividing line among the Crichton novels for me apparently because I read all the ones before it but didn’t read this one or any of the ones after it.
  • The Shadow  –  Based on the character that was originally created for radio in 1930.
  • Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein  –  Based on Mary Shelley’s fantastic novel which made my Top 200.  The most faithful of some 50 films adapted (in some manner) from the novel.
  • Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult  –  The third and final film in the series.
  • Foreign Student  –  Based on the novel by Philippe Labro.
  • White Fang 2: Myth of the White Wolf  –  Sequel to the 1991 film with only bare connections to the original London story.
  • Lassie  –  The 10th Lassie film, though the first since 1978.
  • Two Small Bodies  –  Based on the play by Neal Bell.
  • Swordsman III: The East is Red  –  The third in the series and at this point only loosely based on the novel The Smiling, Proud Wanderer.
  • A la mode  –  Based on the novel by Richard Morgieve,
  • The Swan Princess  –  Loosely adapted from Swan Lake.
  • Dr. Bethune  –  Based on a non-fiction book about the doctor.
  • Just Like a Woman  –  Based on the novel Geraldine, For the Love of a Transvestite.
  • The Beans of Egypt, Maine  –  Based on the novel by Carolyn Chute.
  • Angie  –  Based on the play Angie, I Says.
  • The Secret Rapture  –  David Hare adapts his own 1988 play.
  • Miracle on 34th Street  –  Based on the original 1947 classic.
  • Prince of Jutland  –  Though the story of Hamlet this goes back to the 12th century Saxo Grammaticus rather than Shakespeare.
  • Wicked City  –  Based on the first novel in the Wicked City series, Black Guard.
  • A Simple Twist of Fate  –  Film version of George Eliot’s Silas Marner.
  • My Girl 2  –  Sequel to the 1991 film.
  • Angels in the Outfield  –  Remake of the 1951 film though that one was originally about the Pirates and this is actually about the Angels.
  • Safe Passage  –  Based on the novel by Ellyn Bache.
  • The Princess and the Goblin  –  Animated version of George MacDonald’s 1872 novel.
  • A Million to Juan  –  Modern day film version of the Twain story “The Million Pound Note”.
  • The Cement Garden  –  Adaptation of Ian McEwan’s first novel.
  • Felidae  –  Animated adaptation of Akif Pirincci’s novel.
  • Thumbelina  –  Animated version of the Hans Christian Anderson tale.
  • D2: The Mighty Ducks  –  Sequel to the 1992 film.
  • The Trial  –  The 6th greatest novel ever written gets a new film version.
  • The Client  –  A much, much, much shittier source: John Grisham’s 1993 novel.
  • The Flintstones  –  The first primetime animated television series gets a live-action film.
  • Endgame  –  Not really a film but a filmed stage version directed by Samuel Beckett himself which makes sense since it’s his play.
  • Love Affair  –  Another remake of the 1939 film.
  • City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly’s Gold  –  Sequel to the 1991 film that I saw multiple times in the theater while I didn’t see this until this project.
  • Cobb  –  Film version of Al Stump’s book on one of the greatest players and biggest assholes to ever play baseball.
  • Andre  –  Based on a book that was based on a true story.
  • The House of the Spirits  –  Great Isabel Allende book as is made clear here.
  • It Runs in the Family  –  Also called My Summer Story because it’s a sequel to A Christmas Story, adapted from the same Shepherd book.
  • The Scout  –  Derived from an article by Roger Angell.
  • Tom & Viv  –  Based on the play by Michael Hastings.
  • A Good Man in Africa  –  Adapted from William Boyd’s novel.
  • My Father the Hero  –  Remake of the 1991 French film with Depardieu in the same role.
  • The Little Rascals  –  Feature length film version of the gang that had been in shorts and on television.
  • The Next Karate Kid  –  Fourth film in the franchise, though with a new kid in the title role.
  • Paris, France  –  The only NC-17 film of the year, based on the novel by Tom Walmsley.
  • 3 Ninjas Kick Back  –  Some films are filmed first and released later.  This is the third film in the franchise but released before the second because, well, honestly, who cares?
  • The Road to Wellville  –  Terrible T. Coraghessan Boyle novel becomes terrible film.
  • Major League II  –  Sequel to the first film, most notable for using the big line from the trailer of the first film (“that ball wouldn’t have been out of a lot of parks”) that hadn’t actually been in the first film.
  • Mother’s Boys  –  Based on the novel by Bernard Taylor.
  • Body Snatchers  –  Third film adaptation of Jack Finney’s novel.
  • House Party 3  –  Third in the series.
  • The Puppet Masters  –  Adaptation of Robert Heinlein’s 1951 novel.
  • Timecop  –  Based on the Dark Horse comic series.
  • Richie Rich  –  First it was a Harvey Comics series then it was a Saturday morning cartoon then came this.
  • Necronomicon  –  Loosely pulls together several Lovecraft stories.
  • The Specialist  –  Loosely based on a series of novels by John Shirley.
  • Night of the Demons 2  –  Sequel to the 1988 film.
  • No Escape  –  Based on the novel The Penal Colony.
  • Intersection  –  Remake of the 1970 French film The Things of Life.
  • Beverly Hills Cop III  –  Third in the series.
  • Double Dragon  –  Based on the video game series.
  • Even Cowgirls Get the Blues  –  Adapted from the Tom Robbins novel that I hated so much I literally threw it out a window.
  • Street Fighter  –  Another video game adaptation.
  • Mixed Nuts  –  Remake of the French film Santa Claus is a Stinker.
  • Surviving the Game  –  Latest adaptation of the short story “The Most Dangerous Game”.
  • Police Academy: Mission to Moscow  –  The seventh and thankfully last film in the franchise.
  • Car 54, Where are You?  –  Adaptation of the 50’s television show.
  • North  –  Adaptation of the novel North: The Novel with Too Long a Subtitle by Alan Zweibel.
  • Death Wish V: The Face of Death  –  The last in the original series though there would be a remake in 2018.
  • Leprechaun 2  –  Nominal sequel to the 1993 film.
  • Exit to Eden  –  Adaptation of Anne Rice’s erotic novel, published under the name Anne Rampling.

Adaptations I Haven’t Seen

  • The Hawk  –  Based on the novel by Peter Ransley.
  • Mr. Write  –  Based on the play by Howard J. Morris.

The only film BOM lists for 1994 that I haven’t seen is Bulletproof Heart (now listed on BOM as Killer with the switch over to IMDbPro) which is original (and is eligible in 1995).  The Hawk is listed (in 1993) but it only made $8906.

Viewing all 245 articles
Browse latest View live