Here is my subset of The Oscar Quest Rankings, specifically for Best Picture.
A reminder about the color code:
Films in RED are films that are essential. These are films you need to see, whether you like them or not. Though you’ll probably like most of them. A few of these may be part of a personal bias, but this is my list. Just think of the films in red as films you need to see if you want to be film literate (in the most basic sense). At least 70% of these are films that, if you haven’t seen them, you should be ashamed of yourself. These are the prerequisites you need to get into the class. (5-star films.)
Films in ORANGE are films that are my personal favorites (that aren’t already marked red). While not “essential” per say, these are films that I love dearly. They’re essential to me. They’re films that I will tell you that you need to see. I’d say that 80% of the time, these are going to be films that most people would enjoy. A few of them might be subjective to me, but on the whole, these are all very good films. I tried to limit the orange ones to only the best of the best, my absolute favorites. But either way, I love them, and you should definitely see at least 80% of them. (My 5-star films. At worst, most people’s 3-star films. Generally 4’s for everybody.) (more…)
At the bottom of all my Oscar Quest articles, after talking about the films and performances and how I ranked them in that specific category, I ranked all the nominees. This article is a collection of those rankings. (Any changes from what I originally wrote we’ll mediate as they pop up.)
There’s no real set criteria to explain how I ranked everything. I’m sure there’s some overly complicated formula I have in my head, but let’s not try to explain what goes on in my head. The general rules for the rankings are: almost always do my favorite films and performances take precedent. They’ll usually go first. Sometimes the order will be solely how I like the films, and sometimes they’ll be solely how I rate the performances. Most times, it’s a bit of both. Usually there’s a clear #1 (or lack thereof) that dictates how the rest of the list proceeds. There’s really no definitive explanation, so I’ll leave it at: I’ve Santa Claus’d this list multiple times, and I stand by every one of these rankings.
The goal of all of this was always to recommend films for you to see (being able to put forth my opinion on it was a bonus). Use this alongside The Oscar Quest: A Viewer’s Guide article as a way of finding films to see. With these, you can very quickly find out which films I love and think you should see, no reading required. And any reading you care to do is just a click away. Plus, by reading the articles and seeing the films (even if it’s just simply the small handful of ones I say you need to see), you’ll have more knowledge of the Oscars and their history than the av-er-age person, making you that much more qualified to say, “What? That? Fuck no, that shouldn’t have won!” Who doesn’t want that? (more…)
This is it, folks. This is what it’s all been building towards. One article encompassing everything. Here is a list of every film ever nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Director. A cheat sheet, of sorts. If you’re looking for Oscar films to watch, and don’t want to read all the articles (or say you’ve read the articles, but now want a list of films to see, and don’t want to reread them all), you can just go to this article and everything is right at your fingertips. Let me explain how it works:
The list descends by category (Picture, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director) and by year, starting with the most recent. Each film on the list will be color-coded based on how much I like it/how essential it is. I’ll explain the color code in a second. Using the colors, you can instantly know whether or not I think you should see a film as well as (generally) how I feel about it. You can also use The Oscar Quest: Rankings article to see how I ranked the films/performances in their specific categories. Between the two, you’ll have as much information as you can possibly get about my opinion of a film on its own and in the context of a category without reading anything.
And if that’s not enough, next to each category, when I list what year it is, I’ll link to the article I wrote about it, which contains in depth (or not) thoughts about the films, synopses, and just more specific information on how I rank it, how I figured out my vote, things like that. So, with this one article, you have as much or as little information you could want about every movie from this Oscar Quest. Aren’t I great? (more…)
Unforgiven. There’s really nothing more I need to say about 1992. It was a great year. Eastwood wins Best Director for it (which I talked about here). Al Pacino finally wins Best Actor, for Scent of a Woman (which I talked about here), Emma Thompson wins Best Actress for Howards End, and Marisa Tomei wins Best Supporting Actress for My Cousin Vinny. Really not a bad decision in the bunch.
And now this category. Another one of those, good decision by default, ones. There really wasn’t much else they could to here.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR – 1992
And the nominees were…
Gene Hackman, Unforgiven
Jaye Davidson, The Crying Game
Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men
Al Pacino, Glengarry Glen Ross
David Paymer, Mr. Saturday Night (more…)
Three months ago, I posted my Top Tens of the Decade. It was meant to be a list of the films I liked best over the past decade (that decade being 2000-2009. I also included 2010 because it was recent and because, I want to see how much it changes by the time it goes on the list it’s supposed to be on, Top Tens of Decade, 2010-2019). You can read my motivation for such a list in the link up there.
After I posted it, I thought (as I often do), “Wouldn’t it be interesting if I was able to make a list like that for every decade, going back to the creation of film?” And, being the narcissist I am, I also thought, “I should make one for other decades too, so people can see which films I like best, and then watch them.” Now, I don’t know how far back I’ll be able to go (might have some trouble in the 1920s, 10s and 00s), but I do know, being born in 1988, I certainly can do one for the 90s easily enough. That was my decade. So that’s what I’m gonna do right now.
This will be exactly like the Top Tens of 2000-2010. The only change, or rather, the only difference between this list and that list is, there won’t be a “Terrible Ten” list of films I hated. Because I just wasn’t that kind of viewer back then. I didn’t hate films the way I do now. That decade I was between 2 & 12. I was watching shit like Blank Check. But that’s what’s interesting about it. Not what I hated — what I loved.
Since these were my formative years, what I’m doing is, instead of a “Terrible Ten”, after the standard 11-15 (to make things easier next time I revisit the list), is putting what I’m calling a “Films of My Childhood” list at the bottom. That is, at the bottom of ever year, I’ll have a list of 5 landmark Films of My Childhood. These are the films that I loved (and still do, but largely out of nostalgia) and saw as a child. Ones that, if you’re my age, you’ll go, “Oh shit, I love Rookie of the Year!” Keep in mind, this is my list of films from my childhood. There might be a handful of films you think are missing. But, those are the films to put on your Top Tens of the Decade lists. Because I love when people make lists. I’d happily read yours. I’d be positively giddy to do so. Either way, this should be a nice nostalgia trip for you. Let’s get to the Top Tens: (more…)
1992 Best Actor is almost the male equivalent to Best Actress 1956, which I discussed (in crazy detail) yesterday. This category is so fucking stacked it’s ridiculous. And what’s weird about it is, if pretty much anyone in this category won, no one would have found it weird. I mean, clearly there’s a winner here, but, I think we all know the reason for that (“Hey, we fucked up back in the 70s, here’s one for you now!”).
I love 1992 as a year. Unforgiven wins Best Picture, Best Director for Eastwood, Best Supporting Actor for Gene Hackman. Then Emma Thompson (how can you not like Emma Thompson?) wins Best Actress for Howards End, and Best Supporting Actress goes to Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny. It’s great all around.
BEST ACTOR – 1992
And the nominees were…
Robert Downey Jr., Chaplin
Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven
Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman
Stephen Rea, The Crying Game
Denzel Washington, Malcolm X (more…)
1992 is a great year. I think they got pretty much everything right here. The degrees of getting it right are specific to each category, but I think every category was genuinely on the mark. I wonder how many years that’s happened with. I guess that’s another thing I’ll do at the end of all this. Tally up which years I agree with and disagree with the most. This one will be one of the better ones, I’m sure.
Unforgiven won Best Picture this year, and Gene Hackman won Best Supporting Actor for it as well. Best Actor was one of the biggest makeup Oscars in the world, to Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Best Actress was Emma Thompson, in Howards End. Best Supporting Actress was Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny. Great year, right?
BEST DIRECTOR – 1992
And the nominees are…
Robert Altman, The Player
Martin Brest, Scent of a Woman
Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven
James Ivory, Howards End
Neil Jordan, The Crying Game (more…)