I suspect I may be one of the only few Awards Picks contributors who was over the age of 10 in the ‘80s, hence the reason I’ve seen all of the Best Picture winners and probably the best person to analyze. That, and the fact only five of the AP experts even voted, including me (the others were Paul Popiel, Bryce Van Kooten, Ayinde Waring, Colin Campbell, Steve Gustafson. I gotta meet these guys).

It kind of makes me feel old, but then again, a good movie is a good movie no matter when it’s released (so fellow younger colleagues, rent the ones you haven’t seen!). Here’s the AP ranking scores — and how mine compare:

10. Driving Miss Daisy (1989) 7.33

My ranking: 8

Although it wasn’t last place for me, I think I understand the reasoning behind ranking this so low. Driving Miss Daisy shows the evolution of a friendship between a rich, demanding Southern Jewish women and her understanding black chauffeur – and that’s about it. While sweet and somewhat engaging, and sporting some truly wonderful performances by Jessica Tandy and Morgan Freeman, it also meanders with nothing of major significance ever happening. I think the Mos Def and Jack Black version in Be Kind Rewind might actually be better. The field of Best Pics noms for 1989, though, didn’t really inspire either, with films such as Dead Poets Society, Field of Dreams, Born on the Fourth of July and My Left Foot in the mix. All good films, just not outstanding. Here’s the Daisy trailer:

—

9. Out of Africa (1985) 7.00
My ranking: 4

First The English Patient and now Out of Africa. I guess I’m going to have to admit I’m a sucker for grand sweeping romantic dramas. I love Out of Africa and will most likely watch it every time I see it on cable simply because it’s just too gorgeous for words — people and locales included. How can you not marvel over that scene in which Meryl Streep and Robert Redford fly the plane over the lush African landscape and then make love afterward? Come on! That just melts me. Now, the competition was a little stiffer in 1985. I might have picked Witness had given the voting power or maybe even Prizzi’s Honor. But I’ll still back Africa every chance I get.

—

8 & 7. Ordinary People (1980) ties with Terms of Endearment (1983) 6.83
My rankings: Ordinary People 7; Terms of Endearment 6

In the field of the ‘80s Best Pics, these rank middle of the road for me but are still great films. Ordinary People is such a tour de force in acting from everyone involved, especially Mary Tyler Moore, who may or may not be showing her true colors as the cold woman who can’t love her surviving son after her favorite son dies in a boating accident. It’s a quietly painful character study to watch but extremely powerful. And what makes Terms stand out is as a disease of the week is how it focuses on the mother-daughter relationship more than anything else. And no one could write zippy dialogue better than writer/director James L. Brooks, who had his heyday in the ‘80s with this and Broadcast News, which was nominated in 1987.

Ordinary People clip (the one that soooo good):

—

Terms of Endearment clip:

—

6. Rain Man (1988) 5.83
My rank: 5

Another good middle of the pack flick, but I’ll always believe Tom Cruise got the shaft on this one. Yes, Dustin Hoffman was the one to reap all the accolades for playing the autistic savant, but sometimes I think portraying someone disabled is easier than playing it straight. This is Cruise’s film because he’s the one who goes through the most change. He goes from a callous young go-getter, who discovers he has mentally challenged older brother he never knew, to a guy who begins to finally care. Whatever you say about Cruise, this proved to me he can act. Here’s a great clip:

—

5. Chariots of Fire (1981) 5.67
My rank: 9

Of course, this is just my opinion, but Chariots of Fire never grabbed me, even though I see it for its worth. The underdog sports story, the great soundtrack, the running on the beach in their white shorts (see clip below). But kind of a yawner to me. If I had my druthers that year, I would have picked Best Pic nominee Raiders of the Lost Ark.

—

4. Amadeus (1984) 5.00
My rank: 2

Outstanding flick, by all accounts, and I stand by my higher ranking. As biopics go, this is entirely compelling because it’s told from the point of view of Mozart’s rival, rather than just a broad stroke, as usual biopics go (see Gandhi below). I think my favorite scene is when Tom Hulce’s Mozart is dying but still composing at an alarmingly fast pace, so much so that F. Murray Abraham’s Salieri, who is writing it down from him, can’t keep up. In fact, I think I need to see this one again soon. Here’s a clip that describes how much Salieri admired — and despised — Mozart. Classic.

—

3. Gandhi (1982)  4.33
My rank: 10

Yeah, I’m going to call the boring card on this one, as well. Again, I understand the appeal of doing a biopic on one of the most influential men of the 20^th century, and to be fair, I saw this in high school as a double feature and was really hungry throughout the film. But … watching a man NOT eat in protest over and over was just exhausting for me. Plus — and some of you might know this story — I was peeved Ben Kingsley’s turn as Gandhi won the Best Actor award over Paul Newman for The Verdict. I guess I hold grudges.

—

2. The Last Emperor (1987) 3.67
My rank: 3

Another truly beautiful and spectacular film about the life and times of the last Chinese emperor before Communism took over in the 1950s. I’m just realizing how many biopic Best Pic winners there were in the ‘80s. This one goes above and beyond, with stunning camerawork from director Bernardo Bertolucci and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro. Here’s the trailer:

—

1. Platoon (1986) 2.50
My rank: 1

So far, I’ve always agreed with my fellow AP contributors when it comes to the best film of the decade. Certainly, Platoon stands as the clear winner in every regard. As the one of the two quintessential Vietnam movies (the other is Apocalypse Now), this war flick covers all the bases, from great acting to intense action sequences to a meaningful center theme – good vs. evil, empathy vs. apathy, innocence vs. jadedness. Charlie Sheen never did anything better and director Oliver Stone could never top his masterpiece. Here’s Wilhem Dafoe’s classic death scene:

Oscar Decades Series

Completed:

2000s Best Picture
2000s Best Actor
2000s Best Actress
1990s Best Picture
1990s Best Actor
1990s Best Actress
1980s Best Picture

Up Next:

2000s Best Supporting Actor

As I look at the Best Picture winners of the 1990s, I notice something: Many of them are popular, big-budget commercial films, unlike the indie films dominating the Oscars in the last 10 years. Independent movies started to get more notice in the ’90s, which films such as Shine, Secrets & Lies, and other getting Best Pic nods, but the big crowd pleasers still won out. It’s fascinating to see how the filmmaking tides have changed.

Here’s the ranking scores from the AwardPicks experts:

10. The English Patient (1996) 7.87

9. Shakespeare in Love (1998) 7.67

8. Titanic (1997) 6.80

7. Dances with Wolves (1990) 6.73

6. Unforgiven (1992) 5.87

5. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 4.67

4. American Beauty (1999) 4.60

3. Forrest Gump (1994) 4.27

2. Braveheart (1995) 3.93

1. Schindler’s List (1993) 2.60

[NOTE: Staff writers who voted included Paul Popiel, Steve Neumann, Bryce Van Kooten, Ayinde Waring, Kit Bowen, Nate Freiberg. Savanna New, Michaela Zanello, Colin Campbell, Steve Gustafson, Christa Youngpeter, Adam Spunberg, Phil Wallace, Jeremy Martin and Jax Russo]

This time around, my picks did not necessarily jive with the rest (actually, Michaela Zanello and I were pretty much on the same wave length). Nonetheless, I will defend my reasons for ranking a film higher – or lower – than the rest of the voters. Starting with …

10. The English Patient

I’m not at all in line with the mass pop on this one. I ranked the film No. 4 because I truly believe it to be a wonderfully rich and romantic drama –– filled with stunning cinematography, a beautiful epic story and stellar performances by Kristin Scott Thomas, Ralph Fiennes and the Best Supporting Actress winner Juliette Binoche. Of course, I’ll nod when someone comes up to me and says, “How can you like that movie? It’s so friggin’ boring!” (much like the lament of Seinfeld‘s Elaine). I can see their point of view. I just don’t happen to agree because, for me, English Patient makes me sigh in that romantic, wish I were in a bath tub with Ralph Fiennes kind of way AND it’s terrifically well made. The fact English Patient beat Fargo that year was a little troubling, but I would have been happy if either film won — and for very many different reasons. Here’s an extended English Patient trailer, I guess basically for me and Michaela, who also gave it fourth place.

—

9. Shakespeare in Love

I’m pretty much in agreement with this ranking (eighth place on my list), and there’s a reason we feel this way: How in god’s name could a romantic period piece best the incredibly powerful war drama Saving Private Ryan? It was such an Academy Awards shocker and so inconceivable that you almost had to show some respect to Shakespeare distributor Harvey Weinstein for pulling off the marketing campaign of the millennium. Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy Shakespeare in Love immensely and will watch it every time it comes on cable. It’s lighthearted, it’s literary, it’s got another cutie Fiennes in it. But it cannot hold a candle to the craftsmanship, the heart and soul of Ryan, which SHOULD be what a Best Picture is all about. I know Steve Spielberg won the accolades just a few years before with Schindler’s List, but still. I think rather than watching a Shakespeare in Love trailer, it’s more befitting to watch the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan – just so you can remember what I’m talking about.

—

8. Titanic

As No. 7 on my list, Titanic falls into that middle-of-the-road category – not necessarily great but certainly a masterful piece of filmmaking. The first half of is where it falters a bit. The love story between Rose and Jack does what it sets out to do, drawing the audience in, getting them to care about the characters who will either live or die when the ship sinks. But the dialogue is a little too corny, the situations a little too generalized (kind of like Avatar). When the ship hits the iceberg, however, all bets are off. The way Cameron puts us there, showing every conceivable, horrifying detail, is nothing less than spectacular. So, in combination, it still stands as the best disaster movie of all-time and worthy of the Best Picture award. Here’s the trailer:

—

7. Dances with Wolves

OK, I will fully admit that I am not a big Western fan — save for a few (Unforgiven for example; more on that below) — so my ranking of Wolves in 10^th place comes with a little bias. There certainly are plenty of endearing moments in Wolves, but honestly, Kevin Costner’s glorified view on the frontier smacks of one cliché after another. And that last act, oy! Don’t get me started – the minute the bad white men shoot Dunbar’s horse AND the wolf, it completely turns me off. But I think what bothers me the most is how Dances with Wolves beat Goodfellas for Best Picture. Again, another clear-cut case of a better film losing out, this time to a sap-fest like Wolves. Here’s a montage from the film – thankfully without dialogue:

—

6. Unforgiven

Now Unforgiven is a Western I can stand by, also ranking it sixth on my list. It has some of the same markings of the genre – the good but tortured gunslinger, the bad but conflicted gunslinger and some definite ugly in between – but it distinguishes itself with its gritty, realistic take on the Old West. It also has some stellar performances from Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, and of course the master Westerner himself, Clint Eastwood, an Academy darling. This film shows the underbelly in a way I’d never seen in a Western, and so I appreciate it more. Here’s a clip that explains it all:

—

5. The Silence of the Lambs

This is my No. 5 as well. When Silence won, I remember I how impressed I was that the Academy had stepped out of their comfort zone a little and picked the psychological serial killer flick for the first time. But then again, it was the best film of that year, hands down, due in a large part to the incredible performances by Best Actor and Actress winners Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster. It’s just one of those films you can watch over and over again – eating liver, fava beans with a nice bottle of Chianti. Here’s the clip:

—

4. American Beauty

I placed American Beauty a few notches higher at No. 2 for the well, beauty, of it. From Alan Ball’s skewed musings on suburban life to Sam Mendes expert direction to the achingly good performances from Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening and Chris Cooper, the movie is a complete package. It may just be about the little things, but it’s done in such an artistic way, they seem larger than life. And in 1999, American Beauty also sets up what’s to come with independent movies. Here’s a great clip, in which Lester “quits” his job. Classic Spacey:

—

3. Forrest Gump

Another big disparity in the rankings, since I put Forrest Gump in ninth place on my list. Really, third? It’s an entertaining, feel-good, crowd pleaser, I’ll give you that, but like Dances with Wolves, it just seems like commercial fluff without much substance behind it. And also like Wolves, Gump‘s ending sort of pissed me off. I mean, I get it that Forrest’s inadvertent actions affect historical moments, blah, blah, blah, but to have Jenny die of AIDS? Please. It just goes one step further than it has to. In any event, I’m sure many will disagree with me, since I know some pretty serious Forrest Gump fans, but I would have picked Pulp Fiction or even The Shawshank Redemption over Gump as Best Pic of 1994. Here’s the Forrest Gump trailer:

—

2. Braveheart

This was third on my list, for obvious reasons. The film is one of those historical period pieces that not only paints graphic, epic battle sequences but tugs at the heart with a central love-revenge story. It has a badass Medieval Scottish hero named William Wallace, fighting for his rights against a British tyranny and the villainous King Edward Longshanks trying to stop him. And lastly, it showed how movie star Mel Gibson actually had some mad directing skills. Who knew? Braveheart is another complete package. Here’s the trailer:

—

1. Schindler’s List

At least there is one ranking most of us agreed on: Schindler’s List is by far the best film of the 1990s, nee perhaps of the last few decades. Steven Spielberg’s incredibly personal view on the Holocaust is told from the perspective of one real-life German businessman, played brilliantly by Liam Neeson, who used his influences and own money during WWII to save some 300 Jewish people from being killed. And Ralph Fiennes, who I’ll sigh over later in English Patient, plays a pot-bellied, horribly sadistic Nazi. It took me a while to get over that image of him – but I eventually did. Schindler’s List isn’t a movie I can watch very many times, takes too much out of me, but it does stand as a classic to be remembered and revered for years to come. This scene just slays me:

Oscar Decades Series

Completed:

2000s Best Picture
2000s Best Actor
2000s Best Actress
1990s Best Picture

Up Next:

1990s Best Actor

Training dragons never looked more fun. As the first animated gem of 2010, How to Train Your Dragon should see a clear path to an Oscar nomination.

As a sort of cross between the classic boy and his dog story and Dragonheart, HTYD does delight in so many ways. Told from the perspective of a young Viking named Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), we see how his remote seaside village is continually bombarded by various kinds of dragons. The village leader and Hiccup’s father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), rallies his fellow Vikings to hunt and kill as many of the beasts as they can, but the scrawny Hiccup doesn’t quite cut the mustard, much to his father’s chagrin.

Instead, Hiccup decides to use his ingenuity and invents a contraption that will bring down the most feared – and most rare – dragon of all, the Night Fury. When it actually works, Hiccup follows its trail and discovers that the beast is just as frightened and vulnerable as he is – and extremely intelligent. And so they form a bond. Hiccup helps the dragon he names Toothless heal, while Toothless teaches Hiccup about a dragon’s true, definitely more kindhearted and loyal nature. Needless to say, there’s no way in hell Hiccup could ever kill one now, even though he’s in training to do so. And it’s going to take all of the young Viking’s courage to convince his dad dragons really aren’t the enemy at all.

The vocal talent do a fine job bringing their animated characters to life. You can just see Baruchel’s (She’s Out of My League) neurotic mannerisms in Hiccup, and Butler’s bravado in Stoick. Also good are America Ferrara as the tough Viking-in-training Astrid and Hiccup’s object of desire; Superbad buddies Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Jonah Hill as fellow Viking trainees; and Craig Ferguson as the gruff trainer Gobber.

Dreamworks Animation knows a thing or two about story without having to talk down to the kids or put in too many pop-culture references that can be annoying. But HTYD might be their best effort yet, since it combines the elements of a touching story with some heart-stopping visuals. Sure, every other movie made these days is in 3D, and while for some, nothing really is gained by the technology (Clash of Titans, for example), others benefit greatly. HTYD fits in that latter category. The 3D animation absolutely dazzles – and gives the film a thrilling edge. The aerial sequences, flying on the back of a dragon, are as good – or better – than any live action shots, while the final climactic battle makes you grab your the arms of your theater seat. HTYD is simply an entertaining adventure from start to finish.

In nearly every industry, sport, or contest, there is an inevitable push to compare the best offerings of one year to another. This is especially true in film, where fans of certain movies rally vigorously behind their choices, hoping to fuse together that fine line between universal quality and personal taste.

The Academy provides us a wonderful annual contest, but there is no awards assembly to tackle the questions that really tickle us. What was the best film of the 70’s? Who had the best acting performance of the 90’s? Is such-and-such winner regarded as highly today as it was then? Why not have an Academy Awards of the Decade, a ceremony that reminisces in the great films of yesteryear, and then stacks them up against each other in an ultimate challenge of cream of the cream of the crop.

Have no fear! With that idea in mind, we’ve staged a contest of our own here at AwardsPicks.com, gathering Top-10 lists from all of our premier writers. Who needs the Academy when you have us? Just as there is no accounting for the public’s taste, there is equally no predicting the whirlpool of opinion among critics and reviewers. We had many different orderings, but in the end, here is the will of the collective:

10. Chicago (2002): Average score of 8.43
9. Crash (2005): Average score of 6.93
8. A Beautiful Mind (2001): Average score of 6.50
7. Million Dollar Baby (2004): Average score of 5.79
6. Slumdog Millionaire (2008): Average score of 5.50
5. No Country for Old Men (2007): Average score of 5.43
4. The Hurt Locker (2009): Average score of 5.14
3. Gladiator (2000): Average score of 4.43
2. The Departed (2006): Average score of 4.21
1. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003): Average score of 2.64

(NOTE: Staff writers who voted include Paul Popiel, Steve Neumann, Bryce Van Kooten, Ayinde Waring, Kit Bowen, Nate Freiberg, Savanna New, Michaela, Zanello, Colin Campbell, Steve Gustafson, Christa Youngpeter, Adam Spunberg, Phil Wallace, and Jeremy Martin)

I am proud to say that my personal list, which you will see below, runs pretty close to the averages above. Before I delve into my selections, however, let’s make a few observations:

1. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is clearly the preferred choice, winning by nearly 1.5 points. Five of the 14 voters placed LOTR No. 1 on their lists, and of the remaining nine, five more have it in their top three. The lowest placement was fifth, by three voters. There is no question that Peter Jackson’s epic conclusion resonates most vividly as the superlative film of the decade.

2. The Departed and Gladiator are almost a wash, but they appear to have separated themselves from the pack. The Departed seems to be consistently recognized as among the top films, registering zero No. 1 votes but plenty between two and five. Gladiator, on the other hand, received three first-place votes, but it also polled last for two voters and seventh for two more. Evidently, Gladiator was more polarizing.

3. Recent honoree The Hurt Locker spearheads the next group of four films, all close in tabulation. No Country for Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire, and Million Dollar Baby are easily within range of each other. Amazingly, Million Dollar Baby drew three first-place votes, so Clint Eastwood’s feminist-boxer flick is officially the most diversely-viewed picture on the slate.

4. A Beautiful Mind and Crash form the next tier. Crash dependably falls in the bottom half among our data, but A Beautiful Mind struck a chord in a few cases, achieving as high as a No. 2 vote.

5. Chicago makes an extremely convincing caboose. No question about the general feeling here, as the oft-questioned winner snags four 10th-place votes, five ninth-place votes, and two eighth-place votes. Its highest recording is fourth.

Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Just because AwardsPicks.com endorses a certain assortment does not mean that has to be yours. As you review my list, please feel free to refresh your memory with the accompanying trailers, provided for your entertainment:

10. Chicago (2002)

Like many of my colleagues, I never quite understood how Chicago could have possibly won an Oscar. Its competition was Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and The Pianist. Looking back, The Hours – perceived by many at the time as an instant classic – has not lived up to expectation. Compelling as Nicole Kidman’s portrayal of Virginia Woolf may be, the movie is so painfully slow, very few people would ever want to endure it twice. Polanski’s masterpiece, The Pianist, paid penance for its director’s crimes, but the film itself is still quite powerful. Of course, everyone knows The Two Towers was the best movie that year, but the Academy members were saving their accolades for Return of the King.

—

9. Crash (2005)

Crash is all about Los Angeles. Hollywood is all about Los Angeles. Brokeback Mountain features homosexuals. Hollywood didn’t want to be considered too gay-friendly. Put those four thoughts together and you can see how Crash pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Oscars history. Perhaps the Academy should have given more credence to the pool, particularly to Spielberg’s Munich or other contenders Capote and Good Night, and Good Luck, but the bitterness over the Brokeback Mountain debacle still ices many people’s perceptions of Crash. I enjoyed Crash quite a bit and would rank it much higher than Chicago, but ninth seems about right on this compilation of winners.

—

8. Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Watching the trailer (a pretty awesome trailer), I do remember how much I enjoyed certain segments of this movie. Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, and Morgan Freeman all provide superb performances. I almost hate to sink it as low as eighth, but these are Best Pictures, after all. Its main competition was The Aviator, a battle that came down to the wire. Amusingly, it is probably the offbeat comedy, Sideways, that boasts the strongest legacy today among the public. Finding Neverland never carried serious consideration, but I loved it and thought it should have competed with the heavyweights (no pun intended).

—

7. A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Maybe an effective trailer, but it seems a little too marketed for the CW crowd. First up: A Beautiful Mind. Next: One Tree Hill. In all seriousness, this movie was absolutely carried by Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly. Without their inspiring performances, the film would not be half of what it was. Putting aside that The Fellowship of the Ring should have won – OF COURSE – let’s also appreciate the rest of the field. Moulin Rouge and Gosford Park were both sensational in their own way, and In the Bedroom possesses that creepy quality that stays with you well after a viewing. A Beautiful Mind was an excellent film, but it may have been the least among nominees in an extraordinary year.

—

6. The Hurt Locker (2009)

We’ve barely had a chance to digest what happened in these awards, but The Hurt Locker seems fairly popular among my co-writers. Over time, I may move The Hurt Locker up my list, but I still feel a grander loyalty to Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, and possibly An Education. As for Avatar, that’s like comparing apples and bombs.

—

5. No Country for Old Men (2007)

No Country for Old Men may not fit your usual Best Picture description, but it was about time the Coen Brothers received some overdue honors. A literally flawless depiction of Cormac McCarthy’s book, the film leaves an unforgettable impression, especially the performance of Javier Bardem. Juno – while an excellent effort – is not quite in the same league, Atonement fell apart in the second half, and There Will Be Blood was excruciating to sit through (don’t ever give that, or The Hours, to a person on suicide watch … seriously!). Michael Clayton was the worthiest challenger in my eyes, but difficult to argue with this film. That’s why it makes my top half.

—

4. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Now there is a trailer that gets your adrenaline soaring! I absolutely loved this movie, because it exposed us to something culturally-enriching, mixing unspeakably-horrible events within a hopeful fable. I also really enjoyed The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for its uniqueness, but nothing could overcome the momentum that Danny Boyle’s Slumdog brought to the cinematic world. Frost/Nixon was a nicely-executed adaptation of the play, Milk a grand effort, and The Reader subtly effective, but the only movie that year in Slumdog’s league for me was WALL-E.

—

3. Gladiator (2000)

A little more historical accuracy and Gladiator would have ascended to No. 2 on my list. Originally billed as a summer blockbuster, Ridley Scott brought much much more to the table. With an outstanding performance from Russell Crowe, as usual, Gladiator embodies what the big picture experience is all about. Chocolat was a delicious diversion, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon a fascinating import, and Traffic a mature rendition of the drug problems in America. Erin Brockovich? Spunky, but not a Best Picture. Still, Gladiator prevailed over a solid crop of films, and as the numbers suggest above, the movie continues to electrify its audiences today.

—

2. The Departed (2006)

I remember fidgeting at the edge of my seat and never stopping, both the first and second times I saw this movie. It sucks you in unapologetically and never lets you breathe. How Leonardo DiCaprio did not get nominated (they gave him the nomination for Blood Diamond instead) I will never know. Consider that you had Martin Scorsese, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg, and Martin Sheen among others, all assembled together to create the suspense of a lifetime. Letters from Iwo Jima, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine (very enjoyable), and The Queen were all stellar movies, but The Departed was a special Best Picture. My colleagues seem to agree.

—

1. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

No contest. NO CONTEST. No cinematic experience this decade even compared to this one (and by that, I mean the trilogy as a whole). Just watching the trailer raises hairs on my neck. I want to sprint to the nearest television and pop in the extended DVD, so I can be reunited with this ethereal world Peter Jackson created. Having these celestial films to look forward to every December was an unparalleled delight, and I can only hope The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings Prequel live up to the same standard. Among its competitors, I found Mystic River to be immensely powerful, and Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is vastly underrated. I’ll admit that Lost in Translation gave me a few butterflies, but the sheer scope of what Peter Jackson accomplished with Lord of the Rings may never be achieved again, nor should we expect it to be. Thank you, LOTR, for making life a little bit more wonderful.

Earlier this week, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times wrote a piece declaring The Hurt Locker a Hollywood dream. I found his diction a bit interesting, especially since “Hollywood” and “dream” have often intersected and The Hurt Locker was anything but a dreamlike experience. Somehow, I just can’t imagine too many kids going home and legitimately fantasizing about being on a hellish bomb squad. Those who did probably have the makeup of Jeremy Renner’s now-notorious character.

The basis of Turan’s argument is that The Hurt Locker embodies a more antiquated style of film, where smarts, guts, and the genuine pursuit of quality trump marketing and the crackling of 800-calorie popcorn. Avatar is the villain in this, of course, since it represents everything the Academy has tried to spring away from. Cameron’s showcase may be grandiose and exquisite, but it fronts generic characters and a regurgitated storyline, and – prepare yourselves – it’s popular! Contrast that with The Hurt Locker, which barely made an appearance on screens and still was relatively unknown by the general public until the Oscars rolled around. In a sense, the concept of “the little engine that could” aligned itself with a brilliantly-disturbing portrayal of war psychology.

As I told many of my Hurt Locker-toting colleagues, I enjoyed the film and thought it was – if not quite spectacular – at least worthy of the award. I now have it fourth on my personal list of 2009 movies. I recognize that the raw storyline leaves a battery-acid aftertaste of provocative thought, and the individual scenes are superbly constructed. Bigelow’s meticulous realism is always present, rejecting any unnatural sentimentality and refraining from agenda. In the eyes of many critics, The Hurt Locker was the first defining film on the Iraq War. I agree with that assertion.

The bigger question, of course, surrounds The Hurt Locker’s legacy as a Best Picture winner. Will it be remembered as one of the all-time greats, on par with Casablanca (1944, as mentioned by Turan) and Schindler’s List (1993), or shrink into obscurity like A Beautiful Mind (2001) and Million Dollar Baby (2004). I expect it to land somewhere in between, following the path of similar introspective war films; The Deer Hunter (1978) and Platoon (1986) come to mind in particular.

Meanwhile, the legacies of Avatar, Up in the Air, and Inglourious Basterds remain to be seen, especially in the case of Avatar. If Cameron’s technology becomes THE staple of future cinema, Avatar will ascend to heights beyond The Hurt Locker in the public consciousness. Similarly, Up in the Air has been described by some as a film that will persevere well beyond its years, even if the Academy showed it a surprising level of callousness on Oscar night. Inglourious Basterds has a wide range of potential, but something tells me it will long be remembered as Tarantino’s most underappreciated classic. Then again, he revealed such ingenuity here that maybe there are more masterpieces to come from his screwy mind. As the expression goes, time will tell.

But putting time and legacies aside, the present belongs to The Hurt Locker. Even if Avatar becomes known as the progressive movie that saved cinema, the plaque will always read in golden calligraphy: The Hurt Locker, 2009. Nobody can ever take that away. The Hurt Locker may indeed be Hollywood’s dream, but – let’s face it – it also needed the Academy’s endorsement. Avatar will do just fine on its own.

By Kit Bowen
TheMovieKit.com

Never have I’ve seen a Best Picture race be so (pardon the pun) up in the air.

It all started with the decision to do the whole 10 nominees thing. It’s fair to say most prognosticators, at this point, think this was probably one of the lamest moves the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences has ever made. I, on the other hand, still sort of like the idea of giving more films a chance. But this thinking may have backfired overall since the voters now have TOO many choices, especially with the new confusing system of voting for Best Pic, in which the voters rank the films one through 10. I’m not sure I get it – and I can bet most of the Academy voters don’t either.

So. That leaves the big hanging question: Which film is going to walk away with the prize? If you’ve been following the AwardPicks’ experts, myself included, you’ll know it’s basically down to three films: Avatar, Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker. Before we get into the grit on those three, however, let’s applaud the other nominees.

If these were the old days with just five nominees, then Up in the Air would have joined the three above without question. The delightful dramedy about life, love and the pursuit of air mileage points had a surge of frontrunner-ness when it first came out but has now faded into fourth position. Rounding out the top five would have most likely been the indie Precious, the gritty well-crafted film about a teenage girl’s fervent desire to escape her abusive reality.

The other five nominees give a nice, well-rounded view of the best of 2009. There’s the feel-good crowd-pleasing sports weepie The Blind Side, which surprised many when it made the list because of its TV movie-of-the-week subject matter, but holds up just the same. There’s the summer biggie District 9, which combines sci-fi action with social commentary in a highly charged, visual way. There’s Up, which certainly was one of the best of  ‘09 and will certainly win the Oscar for Best Animated Feature – but making the top 10 is just the Academy’s way of saying, “Yes, a Pixar movie CAN be a Best Picture nominee.” There’s An Education, which represents the British film contingency, a film about a young girl in London’s swinging ‘60s who discovers herself. And finally, A Serious Man, the Coen brothers semi-autobiographical black comedy about a 1970s Jewish, Midwestern college professor who’s got a lot on his plate.

Now we get to the top three choices. Proponents for Avatar say it should win for James Cameron’s sheer effort and vision. The story is a tad weak, yes, but the visual wonderment makes up for any shortcomings. Plus, its moniker as the highest grossing film of all time doesn’t hurt. Certainly didn’t hurt Best Pic winner Titanic.

Followers of The Hurt Locker say it has the edge because of its well-crafted, teeth-clenching war action combined with some superb acting. It’s got Kathryn Bigelow, who will most likely win for Best Director – and, its the critics’ favorite, hands down, winning almost all of the smaller awards.

Lastly, the pros for Quentin Tarantino’s Jewish-revenge fantasy Inglourious Basterds: glorious Tarantino-isms; long, lingering and simmering scenes; razor-sharp dialogue; and Harvey Weinstein, who is marketing the hell out of this thing, just like he did for surprise Best Pic winner Shakespeare in Love. His only disadvantage this time is that Basterds wasn’t as huge a box office hit as Shakespeare.

L.A Times’ The Envelope has published three anonymous ballots, in which two voters picked Basterds, while the other picked Avatar, and Entertainment Weekly got a hold of four ballots, in which three anonymous voters picked Avatar and one picked The Hurt Locker. Quite a conundrum, indeed. If you asked me three months ago, I would have gone with Basterds all the way. The subject matter alone would have sold it to the voters, in my opinion. But now, I’m siding with Avatar, simply because of its pedigree and contribution to the future of filmmaking.

If one of the other two win, however, I won’t be disappointed – just sad to have lost my $10.00.

Road to the Oscars series:

Podcasts – Kit Bowen, Nate Freiberg, Adam Spunberg, and Phil Wallace

February 4: Live Action Short – Kit Bowen

February 5: Animated Short – Kit Bowen

February 8: Documentary Short Subject – Christa Youngpeter

February 9: Documentary Feature – Nate Freiberg

February 10: Foreign Language Film – Paul Popiel

February 12: Animated Film – Nate Freiberg

February 15: Sound Mixing – Jeremy Martin

February 16: Sound Editing – Jeremy Martin

February 17: Original Song – Adam Spunberg and Savanna New

February 18: Visual Effects – Mallory Pickard

February 19: Original Score – Adam Spunberg

February 22: Makeup – Christa Youngpeter

February 23: Costume – Steve Neumann

February 24: Art Direction – Christa Youngpeter

February 25: Film Editing – Steve Neumann

February 26: Cinematography – Paul Popiel

February 27: Original Screenplay – Jeremy Martin

February 28: Adapted Screenplay – Jeremy Martin

March 1: Supporting Actress – Marla Seidell

March 2: Supporting Actor – Phil Wallace

March 3: Actress – Marla Seidell

March 4: Actor – Kit Bowen

March 5: Director – Adam Spunberg

March 5: Picture – Kit Bowen

March 7: The 82nd Annual Academy Awards!

As March 7 draws near, the Oscars have begun to feel more like a political race than an awards ceremony meant to celebrate the artistry, creativity, and ingenuity of the past year’s films.  After sending out an innocent but admittedly careless e-mail urging voters to choose his film over Avatar (and subsequently offending many members of the Academy), The Hurt Locker producer and Hollywood newcomer, Nicolas Chartier, has been banned from Sunday’s ceremony.  Many are wondering whether this highly publicized gaffe, as well as a lawsuit filed Tuesday against the makers of The Hurt Locker by Master Sergeant Jeffrey S. Sarver, will sway Academy members to redistribute their votes elsewhere.

Considering the Academy’s decision to ban Chartier from the ceremony to avoid further ruffling some already very tousled feathers, I can only assume that they will remain just as professional and thoughtful in their voting.  When the e-mail fiasco occurred, most members had already sent their votes in, and I sincerely doubt that any of these recent events affected the mindsets of those that had yet to make their selections at that point.  At the end of the day, this is a film-making competition, and I believe that the awards will be given – as they always have been – to the films that have been deemed most deserving, regardless of e-mails and lawsuits.

Given its Oscar frontrunner status and the attention it has garnered as of late, The Hurt Locker has been an easy target.  We have heard nary a peep from the media about other contenders’ chances for a gold statuette being diminished due to similar disputation.  What about the racism embedded in Avatar?  The villainous portrayal of Germans in Inglourious Basterds?  The shockingly makeup-free face of Mariah Carey in Precious?  Few people are even aware of the onslaught of criticism facing Crazy Heart producer and songwriter T-Bone Burnett for inadvertently tainting the legacy of late musician Stephen Bruton, after citing him as the inspiration for Bad Blake, the film’s alcoholic, has-been protagonist.

2009 was a stellar year for cinema, and in such a competitive contest as this, there is bound to be some drama, but I trust the Academy to focus on the craft and not the controversy.

After several months of hysterical tweeting and ravenous Advil consumption, we finally get the results of Best Picture expansion. As with many groundbreaking events in life, sometimes the actual transition has to happen before the effects can truly sink in. Now we can really pose the question: Has the Academy succeeded in bringing more mainstream interest to the show, or has its flagship category become too diluted?

Unfortunately, while the five extra nominees should quicken the pulses of a few eager fans, the end result is something of a charade. The biggest problem is that anyone can pick out the tag-alongs from the already-theres, and it has nothing to do with possessing some great insight or film savvy.

Best Picture may have expanded to 10 nominees, but the other categories remain unchanged. That includes Best Director, which – in the five-for-fighting days – often sported the same quintet as Picture. For 2009, we have Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, and Precious competing for Best Director honors. What does that say for District 9, An Education, A Serious Man, Up, and (gasp!) The Blind Side? Should we even bother putting them on the ballot when it’s so obvious that they’re the bottom feeders?

Put Directing aside and take a look at the Screenplay awards. Eight of the Best Picture nominations found a spot within Best Original Screenplay or Best Adapted Screenplay. Missing? The Blind Side and Avatar. We can excuse Avatar, since we all know it wasn’t the dialogue that drove that film (“Look at all that cheddar!”), but that’s strike two for The Blind Side.

What about Cinematography? Making it from the Best Picture list are Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Inglourious Basterds. While not a tell-all category by any means, The Blind Side’s omission from Best Director, a Best Screenplay, and Best Cinematography has pretty much assured any viewer that its inclusion was a sham. Sorry Michael Oher.

Perhaps one could argue that by giving a movie like The Blind Side a spot, the nomination itself serves as its own form of recognition. There is definitely some truth there, but how meaningful is that honor, truly, when the field has been so trivialized? The Blind Side simply does not belong.

On the flip side, the new format is not without benefit. At long last, we have an animated, Pixar film in Up that breaks the barrier. Expect that to be a trend in the coming years, as long as the 10-movie system is in place. Also, a thought-provoking sci-fi epic like District 9 gets a little more spotlight, and the glorious An Education (probably sixth on the Academy’s list) might enter the consciousness of the everyday filmgoer. These are all worthy causes.

In summary, I would have to say that the expansion has been a failure, but it is has its merits too. If the ceremony is in such need of a shakeup, why not compromise at eight films instead of 10? That way, at least all the nominees have a decent chance of garnering extra nominations in Directing, Screenplay, and/or Cinematography.

Of course, maybe the most sensible option would be to recall the famous song from worthy 1971-nominee Fiddler on the Roof: Tradition! Some things are best left as they were, if for no other reason than to honor the standards of yesteryear.

I categorically and respectfully disagree with Michaela Zanello’s judgment that Inglourious Basterds will win an Oscar by virtue of “default” if it does indeed win the Academy Award for Best Picture. The film is Quentin Tarantino’s career masterpiece, and I feel the implied “offbeat comedy” and “tragic melodrama” of the narrative should not only be recognized as alternatives to genre convention, but to real life perceptions of good and evil that have become so ingrained in our culture, perhaps ironically, through film.

Inglourious Basterds provides us with not one, but two beautiful princesses-to-be in addition to handsome, eligible bachelors complete with a “Once upon a time” beginning. There is a perfect set-up for the traditional orphaned and virtuous damsel-in-distress narrative (Melanie Laurent), and the lone shoe Diane Kruger loses in a tavern after her identity is discovered comfortably parallels the whimsically romantic Cinderella story.

But happy endings were hard to come by in Nazi-occupied France, and Tarantino created Basterds accordingly. Shoshanna’s happy ending cannot be found in the charming, quarterback-dreamy soldier who pursues her because this is France in 1944, and Prince Charming is a Nazi who would sooner take pride in his number of executions than his number of touchdowns. Similarly, Bridget von Hammersmark’s celebrity-charmed shoe exposes her identity, but it is not the Prince who comes calling for Cinderella’s hand– it is a notorious Nazi who comes calling for the German double-agent’s throat.

So where does one find their own happy ending, their own knight in shining armor, in the midst of a war on basic humanity? Tarantino leaves it to his own true love – cinema – to fulfill the conventional need. In a time when language defined a person’s identity and too frequently their fate, the revisionist narrative of Inglourious Basterds allows for the universal language of justice to immortalize itself via filmmaking— above the barriers of language, military rank, or societal reputation.

It is Shosanna (Laurent) who has the final say in the fate of the Third Reich. It is also Shoshanna’s character who has existed under the name Emmanuel since her family was executed before her eyes by Hans Landa’s Nazi henchmen. Shoshanna cannot play at the language game like von Hammersmark (Kruger) who shifts between German, French, and English as needed, nor can she veer from her virtuous instinct long enough even to ensure her own vitality after she finally takes down Zoller, a Nazi who is equally relentless in his quest to conquer Europe and Shoshanna.

In other words, it is not the character of noble rank, the character who inhabits the right uniform, the character who says all the right things who achieves ultimate victory. It is the girl who cannot be defined by national, linguistic, or aesthetic expectations and the girl who refuses to play into the damsel-in-distress role who delivers the world from a government that operates within these rigorously defined borders. No less, she achieves immortality via film, a medium the Nazis heavily relied on to manipulate the public mindset and glorify their exploitations.

As Lieutenant Aldo Raine, Brad Pitt delivers a more scaled justice to his antagonist, Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz). Where Lieutenant Raine possesses an unwavering objective to achieve vigilante justice in Europe, Landa (“The Jew Hunter”) possesses an unwavering objective to become immortal in history books regardless of the means— to become infamous for the sake of being infamous. Raine’s quest to kill in order to let live versus Landa’s quest to kill in order to exterminate may illuminate Tarantino’s intentions in misspelling the film’s title— the traditional spelling is manipulated perhaps because when the proper form of anything is manipulated by evil (as by the “gentlemanly” character of Landa), then our definition of “proper” and “right” should be reconsidered.

After all, as a moonshine man who refuses to mask his Tennessee accent even in the midst of Nazi officers, it is unlikely that Aldo Raine would spell “bastards” any other way than phonetically— that is, with a Southern “e” in place of the proper “a”. The definition of the word “bastard” itself being “illegitimate” or “despicable” lends to the defiant and ironic misspelling. And when nationalistic Nazi forces hijack what society considers proper and legitimate language in order to normalize horrific behavior, then the ultimate tongue-in-cheek insult is not only to embrace a proper negative label like “bastard”, but to mock the atrocity rather than take offense to it.

In my opinion, Aldo Raine is the “e” in “Basterds”. He rejects appearance and properness as indications of truth or authority, and he is a non-Jewish American leading a team of Jewish-American soldiers (men who have no real nation during World War II— bastards) in an effort against men who have turned the idea of “motherland” into a vehicle for genocide and the abortion of an entire race of people. He is a figurative bastard of military parenting in his routine and voluntary defiance of the rules, and he plays father to a group of men who, solely by being born Jewish, have been labeled bastards of the world by the Nazis.

Accordingly, if Aldo Raine is the “e” in “Basterds”, then Hans Landa surely represents the “u” in “Inglourious”. It is a common vowel that marks the difference between American and Europeans spellings (“colour”, for instance), and for all intents and purposes, the distinction is unnecessary— it does not indicate an alternate definition or pronunciation, only an archaic formality in two separate forms of what is considered “proper” spelling.

Similarly, Hans Landa’s idea of distinction is superfluous and artificial; he equates appearance with identity in his virtueless, homicidal mission to become famed in one way or another, and appropriately, “inglorious” means “not famed or honored; dishonorable”. Tarantino dresses up the word “inglorious” with a “u” just as Landa dresses up his own monstrous intentions in overly formal language and mannerisms.

His character, though undeniably humorous, provides an unsettling explanation to years of questions that we have asked about Nazi Germany— mainly, how did so many people allow it to happen? Perhaps Hans Landa isn’t as much an offbeat comedic character as he is closer to the truth than Nazis portrayed in films past who are inevitably dark, twisted, and visibly evil. After all, sophistication is no indication of a person’s character. A man accustomed to and even entertained by the idea of genocide who also disguises himself as a gentleman is not less dangerous than a visibly ruthless killer, but infinitely more so— mainly because it is only individuals who know themselves and others outside of material culture who have the power to recognize such evil.

Even so, a story that begins with “Once upon a time” must provide some kind of happy ending. Despite the fact that Tarantino’s princesses consummate their wishes in death rather than marriage or procreation as the traditional fairy tale would have it, both play mother to all the victims of the war as both are instrumental in aborting Hitler and his cronies from the earth once and for all. Furthermore, Aldo Raine consummates his quest to abort Nazis from their stations of power in the final scene by permanently decorating “The Jew Hunter” with a carving that Private Utivich (B.J. Novak) fittingly claims is the Lieutenant’s masterpiece.

In classic fashion, Tarantino offers us an anti-happy-ending happy ending, a final scene of glorious justice in which the existence of millions of people is symbolically relinquished from a seemingly sophisticated society of monsters and returned in its free, undisguised form with the evil marked for all future generations to see— military violations, genre violations, historical violations, and misspellings be damned.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.” The Academy may not be naturally inclined to favor an inventive, revisionist war film for Best Picture or Best Screenplay, but it should seriously consider the positive implications of empowerment over the traditional depressing gravitas of traditional war films. Tarantino has hit a gold mine of cinematic possibility with a groundbreaking screenplay, an unforgettable and overwhelmingly likable cast, and a narrative that has relinquished itself from the grips of cinematic convention at the risk of creating something greater. My verdict: victory.

I would call Bright Star a delightful film, but it didn’t leave me (or any viewer, I presume) with much delight. Is it possible for something, so rooted in longing and hopelessness, to be pleasant? Do we find joy in delving into despondency, when that somber-inhibitor is done so well?

There were simply too many great movies in 2009 for me to give Bright Star an Oscar look, but it was worthy of my time and deeply touching. There are a few moments of sweet romance, simply raw, that catch the viewer unexpectedly. Even the poet John Keats and Miss Frances Brawne seem to question why they should ever love each other, but they do, to the point of fatalism.

Maybe we are spoiled in these modern times, to look back on fettered love stories and pass judgment on the inanity of it all. Boy loves girl, girl loves boy. So what if boy is a poor poet? Why should human beings ever torture themselves to such a degree, and can love truly be this wretched?

Bright Star evokes these kinds of emotions. Within the starcrossed yearning are some lovely scenes, and if you are of the disposition to contemplate the potency of love — supernatural in its grandeur, and crippling in its torment — then add it to your queue with gusto.