2012 Academy Award Winners

Academy Awards 2012
[for films released in 2011]





Most Awards: The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius) and Hugo (Martin Scorsese), 5 each [Iron Lady won 2]

Best Picture: The Artist 
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Best Actress: Meryl Streep, Iron Lady [This was Streep's third Oscar, and her 17th nomination, the most ever; her 3rd for acting ties her with Katharine Hepburn]
Best

Winner Breakdown: Best Visual Effects

Best Visual Effects:
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- Hugo
- Real Steel
- Rise of the Planet of the Apes
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon


Here comes a really unpopular opinion. The apes in Rise of the Planet of the Apes didn't like as good as everyone said. Sure, when you looked at them by themselves, or when they interact with each other, the look good. But they look so blatantly fake when they're next to humans that it was kind of silly. I had thought maybe I was the only one who thought this, but my dad sat down and watched the movie with me last week, and said the same thing. Anyone else? Sure, they looked amazing when you saw this: http://www.themagazine.ca/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RISE-OF-THE-PLANET-OF-THE-APES-.jpg , but looked silly here: http://bluraymedia.ign.com/bluray/image/article/121/1214134/2-1080p_1323219298_640w.jpg 


However, I don't think my opinion will chance the outcome of the winners. Rise of the Planet of the Apes will likely win, since it did do a good job, and it's from the same people who did Avatar. But I'd really love to see Harry Potter win here. It had some fantastic Visual Effects (as always), this film being the big showcase for that. If anyone upsets Apes win, it'll be Potter. However, don't count out Scorsese favourite Hugo, though I feel it very less likely to win in this category. 

Will Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Could Win: Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II
Dark Horse: Hugo
Who I Want to Win: Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II

Winner Breakdown: Art Direction

Art Direction:
- The Artist
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- Hugo
- Midnight in Paris
- War Horse


This is another category that I feel is super strong. There were again, so many other films that could've been nominated here too. It was definitely a good year for the Arts categories! But the 3 big contenders in this arena are Hugo, The Artist, and Harry Potter. Hugo was fantasic looking, with it's 1930's Gard du Nord train station setting, the silent films settings, and the automaton. The Artist had the glitzy 1920/30's Hollywood look, with snazzy set designs, and just making everything look genuinely old. And then Harry Potter. Harry Potter has been nominated for Art Direction, 3 times before, making this its 4th time. And it's been deserving every single year. We had the destroyed Hogwarts, the glass boat house, the flashback scenes, etc. The 3 big winners at the Art Directors Guild awards was The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, and Harry Potter. While that doesn't exactly rule who wins, it gives Harry Potter a step up, and the Artist a step down, though only slightly. Again, Hugo has tons of nominations, and I expect it'll win a lot of them. Hugo probably has the best chance of winning it here. However, the Academy could decide to give it to Potter, after all the times it's been nominated, and not excluding the great Direction it had again for this film. If anyone will upset Hugo, it'll be Harry Potter, though don't count the Artist out. It may sweep because of it's front-runner status. 

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II
Dark Horse: Midnight in Paris
Who I Want to Win: Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II

Winner Breakdown: Costume Design

Costume Design:- Anonymous
- The Artist
- Hugo
- Jane Eyre
- W.E.


To be honest, I'd say there's a pretty solid year for costume design, and there were many other's that could've made the list (My Week With Marilyn, Midnight in Paris, War Horse, etc). So, this is really anyone's game in this category, though I'd say most likely to win is Hugo. Hugo's been nominated in all technical/art categories except Makeup, and I expect, for the most part, it'll sweep, here in included. Hugo had a great array of costumes, from the Paris 1930's, to the Silent Film era, and all those film costumes. However, hot on it's heels is The Artist, which was 1930's Hollywood, filled with Tuxedos, flapper dresses, and an array of costumes used in- lookie here- Silent films! However, I'd say it'll most likely go to Hugo, though I'd love to see something like Jane Eyre win, simply because it did have great costumes and it's not up for anything else. But I'd say count on Hugo, but I'm not ruling anything out to steal it. Anyone could easily take it. 

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse:W.E.
Who I Want to Win: Hugo

Winner Breakdown: Film Editing

Film Editing:
- The Artist
- The Descendants
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball


This is another one of those categories where I understand it, but have a hard time noticing it when I watch the actual films. But what I do know about this category is has correlations with Best Picture. 5 our of the last 10 awards has the Best Picture winner also won editing. And those within the editing nominees are usually also Best Picture nominees. While TGWTDT was not a Best Picture nominee, I don't think you should count it out just yet. However, Hugo, having nabbed tons of nominations in the technical fields, and The Artist being the frontrunner, I'd say the race is between these two. But I wouldn't count any of these films out of the race. Yes, The Descendants and Moneyball are less likely, but I'd say they still have a shot. I'd even like to see Moneyball win, since I thought it was extremely well put together, and isn't likely to win much (or anything) this year. However, I'm officially predicting Hugo to win, but if anyone will steal it, it'll be The Artist, and equally challenging opponent.


Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball

Winners Breakdown: Sound Mixing & Editing

I'm going to start breaking down each category (or 2 at a time) and let you know my thoughts on who I want to win, and who I think will win. Starting it off with the Sound Categories! 


Sound Editing:
-Drive
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War Horse

Now, I'm no expert on Sound Editing. I know it's the creation of Sound Effects, but that's really about it. But when it comes to Sound Effects, and just general sound recording in films, I'd say Hugo and War Horse will be the biggest competitors, and I'm leaning more towards Hugo because of how many nominations it's received it'll most likely sweep in the Technical Awards. But don't count out the others. The real underdog here is Drive. This being it's only nomination, I wouldn't be surprised to see it win in this category.

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: War Horse
Dark Horse: Drive
Who I Want to Win: War Horse


Sound Mixing:
-The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War horse


Sound mixing I know a teeny bit more about. It's the mixing of levels of the already created sound, dialogue and music. Again, I'd probably say War Horse and Hugo are the big names here, but I particularly enjoyed the mixing in Moneyball- I actually noticed it. I'm betting for War Horse for this one (since it's either that or Hugo for both I figured it'd bet both on different categories, getting, likely, one right). Here I'd like to see Moneyball win. We'll see about that. 

Will Win:War Horse
Could Win: Hugo
Dark Horse:Moneyball
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball

BOARDWALK EMPIRE

HBO has a reputation for producing quality, cinematic television and BOARDWALK EMPIRE is a perfect example of this. Set in Atlantic City during the prohibition era, the show focuses around the city treasurer, one Enoch "Nucky" Thompson, played with great weight and resolve by Steve Buscemi. Often relegated to showy, albeit still mere, character roles, it is incredible to see Buscemi take the lead in this series and to see him do so with such impressive strength. He leads an ensemble made up of actors who are often not given their due, from Michael Pitt and Michael Shannon to Kelly McDonald and Michael Stuhlbarg. Altogether, they make up one of the most dynamic and effective ensembles on television today.

The first season, now available to rent or own on either DVD or Blu-ray, consists of twelve addictive installments. The series itself was created by Terence Winter, one of the main writers on another HBO gem, THE SOPRANOS, but the pilot episode itself, which reportedly cost $18 million to make, was directed by none other than Martin Scorsese. Scorsese, who also serves alongside Mark Wahlberg as an executive producer, is the Godfather of gangster cinema (sorry, Francis) and his gravitas anchors the series from the very beginning, allowing it to go to places that are often shocking and moving. The first season, based on the Nelson Johnson novel, Boardwalk Empire: The Birth, High Times and Corruption of Atlantic City, follows Nucky as he gets his bootlegging business off the ground, falls for a recent widow (McDonald) and struggles to ensure the Republican party, the one he controls from behind the scenes, remains in power. It is at times uncanny how some of the issues people wrestled with then are still prominent today.

BOARDWALK EMPIRE presents the golden age of gangstering and it does so with such class and subtlety that it burns directly into your mind, leaving you wanting to get back to that boardwalk as often as possible. If more television series took as much care with their stories and characters as this one does, I think its fair to say I would have a lot less free time on my hands.

The Departed

The Departed, 2006
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Nominated for 5 Oscars, Won 4
Won BP over Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen

Synopsis: Billy Costigan wants to be a cop. But with his family history of crime, no one will hire him. Until they need a man to go undercover, to be the mole in Frank Costello's crime ring. Costello's been avoiding the law, and being arrested for a long, long time, and Billy is the perfect spy. His family was friends with Frank Costello and his partners, and Billy gains Costello's trust very easily. Meanwhile, Colin Sullivan is an up-and-coming cop, rising in the Special Investigations Unit. He's brilliant, and has a pitch perfect past. And that makes him the perfect mole in the SIU. Being a friend and worker for Frank Costello since childhood, Sullivan is the perfect mole in the Boston Police force. But when both sides suspect a mole, Billy and Colin race to uncover the other, to save their own skins.

Before I write this review, I must say, Cop/Mafia/Gangster/Lots of swearing films aren't really my thing. This is going to gain the most positive review from me simply because I don't generally enjoy these types of films, and I can't appreciate films where the character have extremely limited and dirty vocabulary.

That being said, we move on. This film had an interesting premise, even if it sounded a tad bit cliche. The seemingly rough guy is the good guy, while the guy with the spotless past and the up-and-comer being the bad guy. But we know that right away. But the two sides don't, and the moles themselves don't know who the other one is.

The performances in this film were great. I thought Leonardo DiCaprio rocked the whole show and was surprised to see he wasn't nominated for the role (only to see he was nominated for Blood Diamond instead...I'm assuming he was fantastic in that role, I still haven't seen it.) Additionally, Matt Damon is pretty much always great, in my opinion. He played the good guy/bad guy really well (even if a lot of the movie he had a dopey-gaping look on his face). I was surprised to see Mark Walhberg nominated for his Supporting Role, having had very little screen time. I'd have liked him to have been in it more. (Though is it only me that thinks Matt Damon and Mark Walhberg could be twins? During the opening I was having trouble figuring out if Colin was Damon or Walhberg, until we saw Walhberg had thick dark hair. Good thing he did, or they'd have been indistinguishable)

The film was well told, if not a little long for my taste. We see both sides trying to weed out who the mole is. Colin Sullivan is near the top and is quickly able to conceal himself, while Billy Costigan is a little more exposed. Personally, I couldn't understand why Costello didn't figure it out. It was blatantly obvious to me, and I don't know why he didn't pick up on it.

Anyway, the film had lots of twists and turns, and was well told. We feel for both characters, both living double lives, trying to make their way through.

Overall, I thought it was just an okay film. I found nothing about it that was incredible, or amazing. While Leonardo DiCaprio was really good in it, it was otherwise just an average film. At least, those are my thoughts.

(short review, but I honestly don't have much to say about it. It was kind of whatever. Not bad, but not brilliant.)

7/10

Hugo

<!- google_ad_section_start ->
Hugo, 2011
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Possible Oscar Nominations Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Costume<!- google_ad_section_end ->

Synopsis: It is the 1930's. And a little orphan boy named Hugo Cabret, lives in a train station in Paris, France. His father died in a fire, but before he did, they learned how to fix things. Clocks, wind-up toys, etc. But they're best project was automaton. But it's broken and rusted, and missing pieces. After his father dies, Hugo goes to live with his uncle, apprenticing as a clock repairman in the station. But his uncle is gone too, before long, so he lives in the train station, with automaton, trying to fix and repair it. During this time, he meets a cranky old man who works at a toy shoppe in the station, and his adventuresome god-daughter, Isabelle. When Hugo discovers that Isabelle, and her god-father Papas Georges might have a connection to do with his broken automaton, he embarks on his biggest adventure yet.

Before I write anything, I must apologize. I didn't like this film. Yes, yes, I know. You're crying out "but it's Martin Scorsese!" and shouting "but it's won so many awards already!" and bellowing "there's so much Buzz for it!" but I, whom frequently has unpopular opinions, didn't enjoy the film that much. But let me review it properly.

I thought the story was paced well. It wasn't action packed, but it wasn't slow either. There was always a new development going on, and Hugo was discovering something new. Asa Butterfield, who played Hugo, I thought, was terrific. He completely stood his own ground, and led the film on a journey. He was a good crier, which seems to be a terrible hard thing to do, especially if you are a younger male actor. And he did cheerful really well, and mischevious, and the whole time I was quite convinced that Asa simply was Hugo, and had no doubt about it. He gave a great performance.

Another solid point for this film was the Score. Howard Shore's score was really darling, and I quite enjoyed it. It was cliche French, but this was the 1930's Paris! It was fanciful! It was cliche! And I think Shore did a splendid job. I'd love to see this nominated, and I'm sure it has a good chance.

The tribute to Silent Films was very well done. When we get a big reveal from one the characters, it is very well done. This is where we see some fantatsic art direction, costume, makeup, etc. That was my favourite part of the movie, and thought it was a great tribute to Silent Films, and the entertainment industry of those days. This was definitely the strongest part of the film, while I felt the storyline with Hugo and Isabelle, and the automaton was weak.

On the other hand, I saw this film in 3D. I don't know if it's because I don't fancy 3D that much, or if this is true, but I thought it was too 3D. Like, the 3D was too much that I almost felt like I was watching an animated film a lot of the time. It didn't look realistic, and I think that really bothered me. While the Art Direction in general was good, I didn't think it fantastic. Though this could be the fact that the 3D was trying way too hard. Anyone else agree, or am I crazy?

Overall, the film disappointed me. I try to never go into a film with any sort of high expectations, but it'd been talked up so much that I got my hopes up. Additionally, I probably would've liked it better in 2D. Things wouldn't have looked so animated and unrealistic and...distracting. Asa Butterfield certainly impressed me, as I mentioned, and Chloe Moretz was fun and charming as Isabelle. It was an interesting storyline, and after taking an Introduction to Film Studies class, I felt having the knowledge about silent films, and even having seen some of the ones glimpsed at was fun. The Silent film era was an interesting one, and I loved the focus on that, and the background in it, which was true and interesting.
<!- google_ad_section_start ->
Will it win Best Picture at this years Academy Awards? Certainly not, though it stands a very good chance for Art Direction, Costume and Original Score.<!- google_ad_section_end ->

Rating: 6.5/10



HUGO

Written by John Logan

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Starring Ben Kingsley, Sasha Baron Cohen, Chloe Grace Moretz and Asa Butterfield

Isabelle: We could get into trouble.

Hugo: That’s how you know it’s an adventure.

Before any image even appears on screen, master filmmaker, Martin Scorsese, sets his scene with the sounds of his central character, Hugo Cabret’s life. Clocks are ticking, gears are clicking and trains are passing. These are the sounds one knows well when one lives behind the faces of clocks in a grand Parisian railway station. Once Scorsese shows us the images to match his intriguing soundscape, there is no escape. You are instantly taken on a 3-Dimensional journey that floats high above the snow-filled Paris sky and swoops seamlessly into the busy station. The magical ride that is Scorsese’s HUGO has begun and you won’t want to get off.

As Hugo, played by the talented young actor, Asa Butterfield, darts in and around clock gears and busy crowds, it is immediately clear that HUGO features some of the best, if not the best, 3D work to emerge from its current renaissance. In the hands of a skilled and dynamic filmmaker like Scorsese, the levels of depth added to the screen are dazzling. It certainly helps that Hugo’s journey, based on the Brian Selznick picture book, and the setting in which it takes place, are so rich and colorful to begin with. The train station where Hugo lives is populated not only with travelers but quirky, if not somewhat cliched, characters, and his unintentional interaction with them leads him on an adventure he hopes will heal his tormented past. It isn’t long before Hugo soon learns that he’s not the only one whose past haunts him.

While Scorsese’s intuition as a filmmaker lends itself incredibly well to the 3D format, his ability to tell a focused story is somewhat lacking here. Famous for hard hitting gangster films and tortured characters, his first foray into family filmmaking is certainly exciting but somewhat misguided. At times, it isn’t clear whose story he is actually telling. Is HUGO about a boy, orphaned after the recent loss of his father (Jude Law), struggling to find a way to move on, or is it a love letter to the great film masters of the past? Scorsese plays homage to film history throughout HUGO and, in doing so, he accomplishes two things. For one, he honours his influences with great style while bravely bringing film itself forward with his own commendable technique. The unfortunate offshoot though is that he seems to distract himself from the story at hand with his own visual prowess.

The Documentaries of Martin Scorsese

Yesterday, we looked back at the feature films of Martin Scorsese, and I remarked that his documentaries deserved their own post – so that’s what I’m doing now. He has made 13 documentaries, but despite my best efforts, I have never been able to see either Street Scenes (1970), his first documentary, nor Made in Milan (1990) his short documentary about fashion designer Armani. I have seen the other 11 however, and like his feature work, I can’t say that any of them are bad – but they are not all great.

11. The Blues: Feels Like Going Home (2003)

Perhaps it’s just because I’m not a big fan of the blues, but to me, this was is the weakest documentary Scorsese has made. He produced this long documentary series for TV, and recruited some great directors to participate – Clint Eastwood, Mike Figgis, Wim Wenders, Charles Burnett, etc – but directed the first episode himself. It looks at the origins of blues music, and features some of the oldest recordings the genre has ever produced, talks to old masters, current musicians inspired by these old blues, and eventually travels to Africa to see where it all started. It is a fascinating little film, and for Blues fans a must. But for me, even though I liked it, I didn’t love it.

10. Italianamerican (1974)

This is essentially a 49 minute conversation that Scorsese has with his parents, Charlie and Catherine. For Scorsese fans, it is a must, as it gives us a personal glimpse into Scorsese and his upbringing, how it shaped him, and by extension, how it shaped his films. It helps that his parents, especially his mother, are excellent storytellers, who hold you in their grip from beginning to end. They story they tell, of being the children of poor Italian immigrants, is nothing you haven’t heard before, so if you’re not a Scorsese fan, this is probably of little interest. But for Scorsese devotees, it is fascinating.

9. Shine a Light (2008)

It must be said that Shine a Light is as good of a concert documentary about the Rolling Stones as was possible to make in 2008. The problem is that Scorsese is probably about 40 years too late to make a truly great one. The Stones just aren’t the same band they were in the 1960s and ‘70s, and the danger that made the Maysles Brothers’ great Stones doc Gimme Shelter is missing (to be fair, they did have a murder by the Hell’s Angels to work with). So Shine a Light becomes an exercise in nostalgia – and as that, it is wonderful. I loved hearing the old songs, especially when I saw the film in IMAX. Like all of Scorsese’s films, it is intricate set up, and he hires some of the best cinematographers in the world. And the Stones, it must be said, bring it. I don’t really have a problem with Shine a Light – it just isn’t as good as it would have been had it been made in 1968.

8. American Boy: A Profile of Steven Prince (1978)

If you’ve seen Taxi Driver, you most likely remember Steven Prince. He plays the gun dealer who lies out his wares for Bickle to see, and lovingly describes each one. This small role leaves a big mark on the film, and obviously this man left a mark on Martin Scorsese who in this film interviews Prince for an hour about his life. Prince is a natural born storyteller, and he tells his story marked by violence and drug use directly to the camera, and keeps us enraptured throughout. When his stories end, Scorsese holds on him for a few beats after, and shows us the scared kid underneath all that bravado. American Boy is not very well known to the general public, but if you’ve seen Richard Linklater’s Waking Life or Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, you’ll recognize a few of the stories originating here. You can only see this one on Youtube, but it’s worth it.

7. A Letter to Elia (2010)

Scorsese, along with former film critic Kent Jones, made this hour long tribute to director Elia Kazan last year to be included in the Elia Kazan Collection DVD box set. I’m sure some will complain that Scorsese skips many of Kazan’s films (including some of his best like A Streetcar Named Desire or A Face in the Crowd, both of which barely get mentioned) or that Scorsese barely mentions the controversial decision Kazan made to testify in front of HUAC. But neither of those things are really what this doc is about. This is a thank you note from one filmmaker to another, explaining what it is about his films that inspired Scorsese so much. Most of the running time is devoted to On the Waterfront and East of Eden (with more than a little Wild River and America, America thrown in). The result is a film that helps you see Kazan’s films in another light – and also helps to explain Scorsese’s own work. It is a fascinating tribute from one master to another.

6. George Harrison: Living in the Material World (2011)

Scorsese just released this nearly four hour documentary about George Harrison, the Quiet Beatle, and it is a fascinating portrait of a man who he must have related to. Both were born to working class parents and raised Catholic, and both have struggled to bring their actions in line with their faith – although Harrison takes his faith to another place than Scorsese does. The first half of the doc is better than the second half – it almost plays like an alternate history of the Beatles, since it has George, and not John and Paul, at its heart. The second half, about his life after the Beatles isn’t quite as good. It’s a little scattershot, but interesting nonetheless. If you’re a Beatles fan, you this is a must see. Same goes if you’re a Scorsese fan.

5. A Personal Journey Through American Movies with Martin Scorsese (1995)

You could ask for no better guide to American movies than Martin Scorsese, who is among the most passionate filmgoers in the world. There hardly seems to be a film he cannot talk intelligently about. This magnum, 3 hour, 45 minute documentary covers American films from the silent days right up until the late 1960s (where Scorsese stops, saying that since he started making movies then, it would be hard for him to comment on his own work and that of his contemporaries objectively). If you think this is going to be a dry history lessons, once again talking about the genius of Ford and Hawks and Welles and Kazan, etc, you’re wrong. The masters get their due, but Scorsese is just as passionate about many directors whose films are not routinely listed among canon titles. I’ve seen tons of old movies, and still filled up a page with suggestions while watching this film. I would suggest this documentary to anyone interested in film – no matter if you’re just getting started, or are a seasoned film buff.

4. My Voyage to Italy (1999)

Scorsese must have liked making A Personal Journey Through American Movies, because 4 years later, he made My Voyage to Italy, about Italian films. More narrowly focused than the previous film, this one concentrates on five directors – Roberto Rosselini, Vittorio De Sica, Luchino Visconti, Michelangelo Antonnini and Federico Fellini, who Scorsese admired at different times in his life for different reasons. Still hugely long (four hours), the film concentrates on a few films from each filmmaker, making you see those films in the way Scorsese does. If I prefer this to A Personal Journey, it’s because of that depth, but both of these films should be seen by anyone who loves movies.

3. Public Speaking (2010)

Public Speaking aired on HBO last year, but you barely heard a peep about it. Not even Roger Ebert reviewed the film – and he reviews everything Scorsese does. And that’s a real shame, because it is a wonderful doc. Like the documentary about his parents or about Steven Prince, this documentary is essentially a conversation. This time, Scorsese sits across from Fran Lebowitz, who became a famous writer in the 1970s for her essays that were met with great critical acclaim. She sat down to write the “Great American Novel” and produced nothing. In all the decades since, she has produced criticism of others work, but for her own work, has been met with writer’s block. The documentary is hugely entertaining, because Lebowitz is a great speaker, a great storyteller, acid tongued, witty and sometimes hilarious. She holds herself above just about everyone else. And yet, it is tinged with sadness because she was never able to be what she wanted to be – the great American writer. If you haven’t seen this film, and I doubt many have, see it. Now.

2. The Last Waltz (1978)

There is a sadness to The Last Waltz that makes it different from most concert movies. If Shine a Light was about the joy of performing, even after 40 years, that The Last Waltz is about the endless drudgery of fame and being in a band. After 16 years on the road, The Band cannot stand to stay out there any longer. This is their final concert, shot by Scorsese on Thanksgiving 1976. The movie, of course, contains some of the best rock music of all time by The Band, and their guest stars. And Scorsese, much like always, insisted on trying to storyboard everything, even though there are hiccups no one could expect. The result is one of the greatest concert documentaries of all time. It’s that sadness that makes the film better, deeper than most films of its kind.

1. No Direction Home: Bob Dylan (2005)

No Direction Home is one of the greatest rock documentaries of all time – and certainly the best one ever made about Bob Dylan, who despite an in depth interview for this film, and its massive four hour running time, remains a complete enigma. The film documents Dylan’s early life, but mainly concentrates on his early career – and the furor that erupted when he went from folk to rock music.  Scorsese’s film keeps the mystery of Dylan intact, mainly because Dylan keeps himself apart from everything. You get the sense that no one really knows him. No Direction Home is also a wonderful document of its time and place – a short sequence about the JFK assassination set to Dylan’s A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall is absolutely devastating. Scorsese spent a long time in the editing room for this film, but it was well worth it. The best documentary he has ever made, and one of the best I have ever seen.

Ranking the Films of Martin Scorsese

I have made no secret of my love of Martin Scorsese on this blog. He is my favorite filmmaker of all time – and I even named my dog after him. With his latest, Hugo, on the horizon, I thought I’d look back at the 22 features Scorsese has already made. I left out his shorts, and his documentaries (which really deserve their own consideration, so I’ll have one up soon) and concentrated solely on his theatrical features (including his segment for New York Stories). Everyone has their favorites, and I’m sure I’ll be blasted by some for my rankings, but that’s what makes it so interesting. I have to say that really, there isn’t a “bad” film in the bunch. Sure, the ones near the bottom aren’t as interesting and are definitely flawed but none of them are awful.

22. The Color of Money (1986)

I cannot help but wonder what is was that drew Scorsese to this material in the first place. Was it simply the lure of working with Paul Newman? Did he love The Hustler so much that he wanted no one else to make the sequel? I really don’t know, but of all of Scorsese’s films, this is one that feels the least like the master’s work. Yes, it is an entertaining little film, about disgraced pool shark Fast Eddie (Newman), taking a young man (Tom Cruise) under his wing and showing him the ropes. But the film is all surface, so as entertaining as it is; it fades from memory fairly quickly after it ends. Scorsese hasn’t worked as a director for hire often, but that’s what this one feels like.

21. Boxcar Bertha (1972)

It took Scorsese a few years to follow up his debut film, Who’s That Knocking at My Door?, and after being fired from The Honeymoon Killers, he probably figured he had to do pretty much anything. Boxcar Bertha, produced by Roger Corman, has all the hallmarks of the exploitation specialist films of the era – tons of sex and violence. And yet, it is also somewhat different from most films of its ilk. The tone of the film is not fun, but sad and foreboding. Death hangs over every scene. This doesn’t really make the film much better, but it does make the film more interesting for fans of Scorsese’s work. No one else has much of a reason to see the film, but there are moments (like the crucifixion scene) that show just what kind of talent Scorsese was sitting on.

20. New York, New York (1977)

Scorsese has always been a big fan of musicals, so it’s no surprise that he attempted to make one. The problem with New York, New York is pretty much that Scorsese tried to put too much of himself – and the themes that drives him – into the film. The result is a strangely depressing, often chaotic film that at times is a complete mess. It probably didn’t help that Scorsese was lost in cocaine addiction at the time (he’d enter rehab soon after the film was complete). But the filmmaking is always impressive – the visuals wonderful. And in fits and starts, the performances by Robert DeNiro and Liza Minelli quite good. Like Boxcar Bertha, it’s more a film for Scorsese fans than anyone else.

19. Kundun (1997)

Roger Ebert has a theory about Kundun – that for Scorsese, a man who has struggled with his demons, his lust and bringing it in line with his Catholic faith, a movie about the Dalai Lama, who has found inner peace, represents what Scorsese wishes he was like. It’s as of a good theory as anything else, I suppose. The filmmaking on display in Kundun is gorgeous – making the most of its locations. And yet, the film itself is rather dull and straight forward. For someone who made such a complex portrait of Jesus Christ, Kundun is far too content to see the Dalai Lama as a flawless deity, and not as a complete person. A fine film, sure, but nowhere near what Scorsese was capable of doing.

18. Cape Fear (1991)

With Cape Fear, Martin Scorsese took a Hollywood classic about good vs. evil and turned it into a story about guilt vs. guilt, bringing it more in line with his own feelings. Whereas Gregory Peck was honorable in the original, Nick Nolte’s lawyer in this remake is far from good – he did screw over his client and he has cheated on his wife. That still doesn’t give Robert DeNiro’s crazed ex-convict the right to torment him, but it does add a layer that was missing in the first film – as does making his daughter a teenager, and the sexual tension between her and her father’s tormenter (the scene in the school auditorium between DeNiro and Juliette Lewis is clearly the best in the movie). Yet, Scorsese’s Cape Fear is still a little too bloated, and at times way too over the top. I liked Robert DeNiro’s crazed madman here – he completely lets loose – but he doesn’t come close to generating the kind of terror Robert Mitchum did in the original (in a much more casual, low key manner). I don’t think either version of Cape Fear is a masterpiece, but the original is better – mainly because of Mitchum.

17. New York Stories – Life Lessons

I’m sure it seemed like a can’t miss idea to have Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Woody Allen each making a short film about New York and putting them together. But if you’ve seen New York Stories, you know that Coppola’s segment was embarrassingly awful, and Allen’s segment is pleasant but forgettable. The only reason to see the film at all is Scorsese’s segment, Life Lessons. It’s too bad it’s in a movie with the other two, and as such doesn’t get much recognition, because it’s actually very good. The film stars Nick Nolte as a brilliant artist, who needs turmoil in his life to fuel his work. In his younger assistant, Roseanna Arquette, he finds an ever abundant supply of pain to do just that. He uses her up, and spits her out. It is a harsh film, perhaps even a cruel one, but Scorsese’s direction is masterful. If you haven’t seen this one, check it out. Just stop once Scorsese’s segment is done.

16. Who’s That Knocking at My Door? (1968)

From the first frames of his first film, you know what drives Martin Scorsese. Right there in the opening scenes of this film, is the conflict between faith and violence – a statute of the Virgin Mary with Jesus, flashes out onto the street where violence is erupting. Scorsese came to filmmaking with obsessions already fully formed. This film is certainly rough around the edges – and includes sex scenes that make no sense that were added in later to make the film more marketable. And yet, right from the start, you can see Scorsese is a filmmaker full of talent, and he has something to say. This wouldn’t be where I’d start my journey through Scorsese’s films, because its one you appreciate more once you’ve seen his later, better films. But it is still an excellent debut film.

15. Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

Bringing Out the Dead was largely seen as a misfire in 1999, and I haven’t heard too much to contradict that in the 12 years since the film came out. But it is a film that I happen to think is underrated. It really is the flipside to Taxi Driver, about a man driving the streets of New York at night. Of course, Travis Bickle lashes out in anger and violence, but Nicolas Cage’s Frank, with his haunted eyes, is a paramedic, and he’s just trying to save people – and as a result, save himself. Heavily Catholic (the structure of the film, over three nights, suggests the time between Good Friday and Easter Sunday), Bringing Out the Dead concentrates on Frank as he tries to save himself. He has three partners over the three days (John Goodman, Ving Rhames and Tom Sizemore), who are all wildly different, but have at least figured out how to deal with their job – Frank hasn’t. This is not among the very best of Scorsese’s movies, but if you’ve only seen it once, you should give it another chance.

14. Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974)

To date, this is the only “women’s” movie on Scorsese’s resume. But while Scorsese has always excelled at portrayals of wounded masculinity, he shows a surprising sensitivity in this movie, about a young widow (Ellen Burstyn) who takes to the road with her son with dreams of being a singer, only to be stunted and end up working as a waitress. Burstyn won a richly deserved Oscar for her performance as a woman catching up to the feminist movement. Her scenes with Kris Kristofferson as her new suitor are excellent. Diane Ladd adds good cheer as her new best friend, and Harvey Keitel is truly scary as an earlier boyfriend. It took me three times to see Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore as the sad film I ultimately think it is. It ends on a seemingly happy note, but that isn’t necessarily true. Alice has worked hard to break out of the role of wife and mother during the course of the film, but in the end, it appears that she’ll be heading back in that direction. Maybe it’s enough that this time, she chooses it herself. Then again, maybe not. As unlike most of his films as it seems, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is a great movie – and a great Scorsese movie.

13. Mean Streets (1973)

Mean Streets marks the moment when Scorsese went from a promising director to a great one. It is a story close to his heart – about the neighborhood in which he grew up. There are echoes of Who’s That Knocking at My Door throughout the film, but this one is far more confident. It also marks the first of his many collaborations with Robert DeNiro, who gets the plum supporting role of Johnny Boy, an irresponsible, low level gangster, getting in trouble because he owes everyone money. The main character though is Charlie (Harvey Keitel), who is raked with guilt, over his affair with Johnny’s cousin, and because he’s thinking of abandoning Johnny to his fate. This is the first Scorsese film where violence and dread seems to hang over every scene – where the movie feels pulled towards its inevitable, violent conclusion. For many directors, Mean Streets would represent the apex of their career – that it doesn’t even come close for Scorsese says something about how great a filmmaker he really is.

12. The Aviator (2004)

The Aviator is an epic biopic of Howard Hughes, the legendary millionaire, aviator and Hollywood producer, who would eventually become a recluse who locked himself in Las Vegas hotel and wouldn’t see anyone. Scorsese shows how the obsessive compulsive Hughes got that point – and how that obsessive nature of his first led to success in business and in Hollywood. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a great performance as Hughes, as does Cate Blanchett (in an Oscar winning turn) as Katherine Hepburn. The movie gave Scorsese an excuse to revel in the old Hollywood he loved so much, and the result is fascinating portrait of a man who becomes trapped in his own mind. This is old school Hollywood filmmaking at its best.

11. Casino (1995)

I know to many, Casino will always be little more than the poor cousin of GoodFellas, as both are mob movies, and Joe Pesci plays a very similar character in both films. But I think that does a disservice for Casino, which is a superbly crafted, immensely entertaining mob epic. The film details the rise and fall of Ace Rothstein (Robert DeNiro) and his psycho associate Nicky (Joe Pesci), who are sent by the mob to make money in Vegas. Ace tries to do it the right way – by running a casino, and sending money back home. Nicky robs, steals, and murders his way through the town. And yet, it all falls apart because of a woman (Sharon Stone). Scorsese’s film is densely plotted at three hours, but it zips right by. The more times I see Casino, the more I love it – and I loved it the first time I saw it. This is more than just a GoodFellas clone.

10. Gangs of New York (2002)

Let me state this right off the bat – I know just how flawed Gangs of New York is, I just don’t really care. When I first saw the film back in 2002, the flaws were less evident, as I simply got lost in Scorsese’s hugely ambitious, old school New York crime film. The art direction, the cinematography, the costume design is all just about perfect. Daniel Day-Lewis’ huge, larger than life performance as Bill the Butcher still stands as one of my favorites of all time. Yes, the film is sloppy in places. And yes, this is DiCaprio’s worst performance in a Scorsese film, and the romance with Cameron Diaz adds nothing to the plot. But when Gangs of New York works – and so much of it does – few films can match it. Yes, it is flawed. But no, I don’t care.

9. After Hours (1985)

This is the only time that Scorsese has ever made an out and out comedy – and in doing made one of the best black comedies I can think of. The film is surrealistic, as it documents a regular office drone (Griffin Dunne) as he heads out late one night on what he hopes will be a booty call. The date doesn’t go as anticipated, and he has no way of getting home. Thus begins a journey into hell, where everyone he meets, everything he does, seems to make things worse for him. Scorsese was going through a tough time when he made After Hours, and he says he made it to rediscover why he loved making movies so much. Rarely has Scorsese overdosed on style as he does in this film, for which his wild camera work sets the perfect tone for this film. Many of Scorsese’s films take place in New York, and he has always been able to make the city into a character in his films. It has never seemed so crazy, so alive, as it does in After Hours.

8. Shutter Island (2010)

Scorsese’s latest feature is probably his most underrated. Many simply saw a genre exercise, with Scorsese showing his love of film noir, mixed with grand old horror films. And while there certainly is that element to the film – I do love the visual flourishes, the pounding score that scream those genres – Shutter Island is actually a deeper film than its surface appears. Sure, you can complain that the final plot twist is easy to see coming (and it is), but surprise is not always the most crucial element to storytelling. Scorsese has crafted a film about love and loss, about memory, about violence, and how it can be easier to give up, then move forward. The performances by Leonardo DiCaprio and Michelle Williams are absolutely brilliant. I have a feeling that in 10 years, Shutter Island will be much better regarded than it was when it was released last year.

7. The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

The Last Temptation of Christ was probably the most controversial film of the 1980s. Martin Scorsese received death threats, theaters showing the film received threats from people who said they were going to burn the building down. Why? Because Scorsese had the nerve to make a film that actually takes the life of Jesus Christ seriously. If Jesus was All Man and All God, like the Bible teaches, than he must have had the same doubts, the same desires as all men have. The Last Temptation of Christ does not diminish Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, but rather shows what may have tempted Jesus down. In the end, he doesn’t come down, and dies like he is supposed to. Why is that so controversial? Anyway, the controversy blinded many to what is actually an amazingly well made film – with a thoughtful performance by Willem Dafoe as Jesus, and impeccable filmmaking my Scorsese. Watch this one without any blinders on, and you’ll actually find it’s a very spiritual film – even if it doesn’t stick rigidly to the ideas expounded by the Church.

6. The Age of Innocence (1993)

The more times I see The Age of Innocence, the more I love it. This is a film about buried passion, where Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) is in love with a divorced woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) even though he is already engaged to May (Winona Ryder). This is only a problem because this is New York’s high society, in the 1870s, and it would be scandalous for someone of Archer’s position to break his engagement to a nice girl, from a good family like May, to run off with a divorcee like Pfieffer. But he cannot help himself, and he begins the affair. Everyone knows he is having an affair, and yet no one says anything. That would be rude. But underneath the prim and proper surface, there is seething jealously and resentment, and things are being said – and it’s not the words being used that sting, it’s how they are delivered. Daniel Day-Lewis is brilliant as Archer, a man torn between what is supposed to do and what he wants to do. The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent, but it’s Day-Lewis who carries the movie, right down to its sad final scene. The poor sap never knew what hit him. Although one normally doesn’t associate Scorsese with costume dramas, this one couldn’t be anymore a Scorsese film.

5. The Departed (2006)

The Departed was the film that finally won Martin Scorsese an Oscar – 30 years too late if you ask me. The Departed may just be the most deliriously entertaining film of Scorsese’s career – moving at a breakneck speed from its opening frames to its closing moments. The performance by Leonardo DiCaprio (looking like a wounded, cornered animal), Matt Damon, as a snake in the grass, Jack Nicholson, as the over the top crime kingpin, and Mark Wahlberg, gloriously profane, are all excellent, as is everyone in the supporting cast. And while the film is so entertaining, a tale of undercover cops and undercover criminals, there is much going on underneath the surface – as two men, who grew up without fathers, and pushed by their surrogates dads towards certain death - the enemy being a lot closer than you think. Like Shutter Island, I think many think of The Departed as little more than a genre exercise – Scorsese just making a fun B-picture. And while you can take the film on that level, and have a gloriously fun time at it, there is more than meets the eye here. A masterpiece.

4. Raging Bull (1980)

Raging Bull is widely seen as Scorsese’s best film, and while you can see I don’t agree with that, I do think the film is an absolute masterpiece. Roger Ebert has called it an Othello for our times, and that is as good of a description as any, as clearly Raging Bull is one of, if not the best, cinematic depiction of sexual jealously ever put to film. Robert DeNiro is amazing as Jake LaMotta, a boxer who was brutal both in and out of the ring. The boxing scenes are the bloodiest in any movie – and they hurt. You can feel the punches landing. But it’s outside the ring where Raging Bull is at its very best, as LaMotta leaves his first wife for his idea of female perfection, in the teenage Cathy Moriaty, and then can’t figure out why she married him. If she’ll sleep with him, she’ll sleep with anyone. The scene between DeNiro and Joe Pesci, as his brother, starting with “You fuck my wife” is the pinnacle of screen acting. So no, I don’t think Raging Bull is the best film Scorsese has ever made. But it doesn’t mean I love it any less than those you do.

3. The King of Comedy (1983)

There are days when I think The King of Comedy is the best film Martin Scorsese has ever made. It is certainly the most painful film on his resume. When I reviewed it a few years ago, I said the entire movie reminded me of that scene in Taxi Driver when Robert DeNiro is being rejected on the phone by Cybil Sheppard, and the camera pans and looks down the hallway, as if the scene is too painful to watch. The difference being that this time, the camera never looks away. There are less camera moves in The King of Comedy than any other Scorsese film – here it seems locked to ground, as it sits there and watches Rupert Pupkin (Robert DeNiro) being continually rejected by everyone – and never seeming to realize it. Everyone just wants him to go away, and that’s the one thing Pupkin won’t do. In many ways, The King of Comedy was years ahead of its time – it sees the celebrity obsessed culture ours would become as clearly and as prophetically as Sidney Lumet and Paddy Chayefsky’s Network did about the news industry becoming more and more entertainment. Scorsese was apparently depressed when he made The King of Comedy – and it shows in every scene, and I mean that in a good way, because only making the film the way he did would have resulted in it being as good as it is. Rupert Pupkin is every bit as violent and deranged as Travis Bickle – and the film is pretty much every bit as good as Taxi Driver.

2. GoodFellas (1990)

As great as The Godfather (and for that matter The Godfather Part II) is, GoodFellas is to me the best mob movie ever made. Scorsese’s film, chronicling the life of Henry Hill from his days as a low level street peddler for the mob in the 1950s, to his downfall due to drugs in the 1980s is the best because it provides a more street level view of the mob. In The Godfather, you could almost believe them when they said it was a business, here, with the all the violence on full display, you can’t make that same excuse. GoodFellas wallows in this violence, that comes often with no warning, and is quick, brutal and bloody. Ray Liotta has never been as good as he is here, and he is ably supported by Joe Pesci as his psychopathic sidekick, Robert DeNiro as his coldblooded mentor, Paul Sorvino as the mob boss and Lorraine Bracco, as the wife who doesn’t quite fit the same mold as other mob wives. The film moves fast, never slowly down for an instant, and it drives us towards its inevitable conclusion. I’m not sure I’ve watched any film more times than GoodFellas – and just writing this paragraph makes me want to go back and watch it all over again.

1. Taxi Driver (1976)

Taxi Driver will always be my favorite Martin Scorsese film because more than any of his other films, it was left an indelible mark on my psyche, and did so when I was just a teenager discovering my love of movies. It is film about Travis Bickle, Vietnam vet, home from the war but permanently psychologically damaged. He can’t sleep at night, so he takes a job as a taxi driver in New York, and as he cruises the streets, he grows more disgusted by everything he sees – that disgust leads to rage, which will eventually boil over. He tries to make a connection with others, but is constantly rejected. Played by Robert DeNiro in what is probably my favorite screen performance in history, Travis Bickle is a rather pathetic, petty little man, but one that once he enters your mind will most likely never leave. The supporting cast – Jodie Foster as a child prostitute, Harvey Keitel as her pimp, Peter Boyle as a cab driver who tries to reach Bickle, Cybil Sheppard as the object of his affection and Albert Brooks as her lacky, and Scorsese himself as a demented passenger are all great. Scorsese’s direction has never been better. This is a film that refuses to leave you alone. It is one of the greatest ever made.