The best 10 films of every decade from the 1940s to 2000s- new list

My choice. 
Why? Because I love lists. 

- The 40s:
The Great Dictator (1940)
Casablanca (1942)
Gaslight (1944)
Brief Encounter (1945)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
The Killers (1946)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Bicycle Thieves (1948)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
The Heiress (1949)

- The 50s:
All about Eve (1950)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957) 
12 Angry Men (1957)
Nights of Cabiria (1957)
Wild Strawberries (1957)
The Seventh Seal (1957) 
Vertigo (1958)

- The 60s:
The Apartment (1960)
Psycho (1960)
Winter Light (1963) 
8 ½ (1963)
The Woman in the Dunes (1964) 
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
My Fair Lady (1964)
Persona (1966)
Blowup (1966)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

- The 70s:
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Cries and Whispers (1972) 
The Godfather (1972)
Last Tango in Paris (1972)
The Godfather Part II (1974) 
The Conversation (1974)
Chinatown (1974) 
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Annie Hall (1977)

- The 80s:
Raging Bull (1980)
On Golden Pond (1981)
Sophie's Choice (1982) 
Ran (1985)
Rain Man (1988)
The Accused (1988)
My Left Foot (1989)
Monsieur Hire (1989)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Dekalog (1989) 

- The 90s:
Goodfellas (1990)
The Double Life of Veronique (1991)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Raise the Red Lantern (1991)
Three Colours: Blue (1993) 
To Live (1994)
Pulp Fiction (1994) 
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 
Happy Together (1997)
Festen (1998) 

- The 2000s:
Memento (2000)
The Pianist (2002)
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)
2046 (2004)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Babel (2006) 
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2007)

Oscars- new thoughts

1/ Here and there people give a list of great actors who haven't won an Oscar.
I can't list all of them here, but I would say, there are some actors who don't deserve an Oscar and are unlikely to win, such as: Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Will Smith, Harrison Ford, Liam Neeson, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr, Bill Murray, etc. They are all A-listers, they are all very famous and popular, but they haven't reached what can be called greatness yet. Just look at actors like Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks, Heath Ledger, etc. you'll see.
Even Leonardo DiCaprio, 1 of my favourite actors, can't be considered great. I have seen him in about 11 films, the latest "Django unchained". In film history there have been performances that are impeccable and can't be topped, such as Heath Ledger in "The dark knight", Robert De Niro in "Raging bull", Marlon Brando in "A streetcar named Desire", Joaquin Phoenix in "The master", Adrien Brody in "The pianist", Al Pacino in "Scent of a woman", John Malkovich in "In the line of fire"... but in the case of Leonardo DiCaprio he hasn't had a performance that can't be bettered, and his ability has a limit- he can't push it further. But, because getting an Oscar depends on lots of factors (which will be discussed later), and he's a serious actor who takes the opportunities as well as looks for good films, has ambition and works hard, he may have a chance and personally I hope he'll get one.

2/ People often forget, an Oscar is given for a single performance, not the career as a whole. It therefore depends on:
- The actor's talent.
The ones mentioned in 1/ are not good enough for an Oscar, for example.
And then there are actors who are so talented that the idea of them not winning is inconceivable, and they therefore must win sooner or later.
Sean Penn didn't get an Oscar for his unforgettable performances in "I am Sam" and "Carlito's way", but he later won for "Mystic river" and "Milk". Philip Seymour Hoffman was impressive and extraordinary in various roles without getting an Oscar but finally won for "Capote".
Meryl Streep in "Doubt" was much better than Kate Winslet in "The reader", the winner, but a few years later Meryl won for "The iron lady".
Gary Oldman, I haven't seen in many films, but it seems that people are right about his ability to transform into different characters and, very often, become unrecognisable, so I think sooner or later he'll win- the only problem is that filmmakers must give him the right roles instead of those small supporting roles in those unserious films.
- The role/ the character.
Depth of personality and emotions is favoured over eccentricity in behaviour and manner. That explains why Johnny Depp hasn't won and will not win. It also explains why Gary Oldman wasn't nominated until "Tinker tailor soldier spy". He may be considered 1 of the greatest actors of all time, for disappearing into characters, reinventing himself each time and inhabiting each role he plays, and thus has become the inspiration and role model for lots of actors, but as I've said an Oscar is given for a single performance, not the career as a whole. When a role is somehow limited, the actor, no matter how great, can't do anything more. So when Gary Oldman finally got what he called a role of a lifetime and was nominated for "Tinker tailor soldier spy", his subdued performance couldn't beat Jean Dujardin in "The artist" even though I don't think Jean Dujardin normally can't be called a very talented actor.
It's also why Daniel was perfect in "Gangs of New York" but the Oscar went to Adrien Brody- Adrien's role in "The pianist" is psychologically much deeper and more complicated.
- The performance itself.
There are Oscar winners that are not really incredible in their films in general: Colin Firth, Adrien Brody, Nicolas Cage, Jeremy Irons, Humphrey Bogart, James Stewart, Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Sandra Bullock, Charlize Theron, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Elizabeth Taylor, Audrey Hepburn, etc. But that doesn't mean they can't have a wonderful, Oscar-worthy performance. This again depends on lots of factors: the script, the character, the film director...
I do not necessarily mean they can't act, or have no talent. Those that can hardly act like Scarlett Johansson, Mia Wasikowska, Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Christina Ricci, Taylor Lautner... have no chance of winning or being nominated. Some actors and actresses have talent, they can be very good at conveying, expressing emotions, playing certain kinds of roles, and among those I mention above, there are some I like very much. But a great, incredible actor is someone who:
+ has flawless, can't-be-topped performances
+ has a wide range= plays a variety of characters that are very different from themselves and very different from each other, from physical appearances and personalities to mannerisms, gestures, accents, voices
+ can always be expected to be good and never disappoints even if the film is bad
On the 2nd point, James Stewart's always the same, for example. I like him very much, because of his voice and what I've read about him, but the guy's always himself. He's exactly the same in "Come live with me", "The man who knew too much", "The Philadelphia story", "Anatomy of a murder" and "It's a wonderful life". Julia Roberts delivered a mesmerising performance in "Erin Brockovich" and is very good at conveying emotions, but, to take her career as a whole, in different roles she's very much like herself in real life- gestures, the way of talking, etc.
(Johnny Depp also repeats himself. The only things that change are his costumes and make-ups. Gestures, mannerisms are pretty much the same).
- Also very important, other nominees.
Hugh Jackman did a wonderful job in "Les misérables", singing for the entire film. Unfortunately he was nominated the same year with Daniel Day-Lewis and Joaquin Phoenix.
Joaquin Phoenix was nominate twice, 1st time for "Walk the line", he was up against Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote", 2nd time for the "The master", against Daniel in "Lincoln".
Leonardo DiCaprio was extremely good in "The aviator", but among his fellow nominees was Jamie Foxx in "Ray".

3/ So, does being an Oscar winner mean anything?
Well, the Oscars, like any other award, have some limits. But it doesn't mean people should discard them altogether and call them bullshit (like Joaquin Phoenix, Ethan Hawke and many idiots in the internet have done). "Art is subjective" is a poor argument. People's opinions are not equally plausible. The fact that there's room for disagreement doesn't mean there's no standard, no distinction between good and bad. A person who says Robert De Niro can't act doesn't have a different opinion that can be equally respected as the opinion  of those who recognise his talent- he or she is just wrong. 
I would say, one should be careful with people who have 1 Oscar- some actors have 1 great role and a mediocre career. I mean, look at Nicolas Cage, Halle Berry and Adrien Brody. It gave me pain when I saw the title "Academy award winner" before the name Adrien Brody in the trailer of "InAPPropriate comedy". This guy makes the phrase "Academy award" stink. But when somebody has won more than once, it certainly means something. Daniel Day-Lewis has won 3 times, in 1990, 2008 and 2013, that definitely means something. While people may agree or disagree with the claim that he's the best actor of all time, or the best living actor, that he's a genius actor is universally accepted, anyone who has seen him in "My left foot", "There will be blood", "Gangs of New York", "Lincoln", "A room with a view", "In the name of the father"... can see that it's an indisputable fact. The same goes for Meryl Streep.
I wouldn't always use the Oscars as some kind of standard for comparison. For example, it's absurd to say Joe Pesci is more talented than Gary Oldman because Joe Pesci has won an Oscar for supporting role and Gary hasn't. I have also seen people who argue that 1 actor is a better actor with more nominations and therefore must be better than another in the same role. An example is the Joker, there's an argument that Jack Nicholson is much greater and has got 12 nominations, more than anybody else, and therefore he played the Joker better than Heath Ledger. That is purely absurd and very idiotic. On the other hand, the Oscars are still good and prestigious. I've seen some people say ridiculous things like, "Kristen Stewart deserves an Oscar", "why hasn't Brad Pitt won?", "Michael Fassbender should have got one for "Hunger"", "Leonardo DiCaprio should have won for "Titanic"", etc, etc. (Forget about Kristen Stewart) it is awarded to the best performance, not just a good performance, at least on principle. And most of the time, the winners do deserve it. So in spite of the limitations, the Oscars are still good and prestigious. 
(Ethan Hawke may say whatever he likes- I mean, who can forbid him?- but in the end, is he certain that he's indeed more talented than the Oscar winners? Is he really confident? And is he really great? I have also seen people in the internet who say the Oscars are bullshit/ pointless/ meaningless/ stupid, and then they mention a few actors who they think are talented, well....)

o O o 

On the other hand, I probably should learn from Klasien: when you disagree with somebody and are certain that you're right, you don't have to argue and try to convince anybody, because chances are, you can't, and when you're already certain that you're right, whether or not others agree doesn't matter. 
How can I convince those people who know nothing about cinema, good films and especially, great acting? Or that guy Dana Carvey, who mocked and attempted to make fun of Daniel Day-Lewis. Can I ever change his mind? No. But does it matter? No. Because the thing is, everybody knows, Daniel knows and the envious dude also knows, Daniel has won 112 awards including 3 Oscars, has made history, has become 1 of the greatest actors of all time and will become immortal, and in the next 50 years people will still watch and talk about him, but who will remember Dana Carvey? He has appeared in a film like "Jack& Jill". He may say anything- again, who can stop him?- but everybody can see that he's jealous, and thus, pathetic. 

Daniel Day-Lewis or Philip Seymour Hoffman?

Here and there I've seen polls asking people to compare these 2.
(right click- open image in a new tab)
Daniel Day-Lewis:


Philip Seymour Hoffman:



Is it possible to say?
Philip Seymour Hoffman has 1 disadvantage: his physical appearance. I don't mean actors have to be, or should be, good-looking. But his looks are a hindrance in that he can't play convincingly a character that is truly good or truly bad. His characters usually aren't really evil, brutal or cruel- they're just effeminate or weak or cowardly or creepy or perverted or nasty or cocky or awkward or flamboyant or desperately lonely or pathetic or..., in short, unpleasant, detestable and pathetic. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in my opinion, is braver. He takes unpleasant roles many people would say no to, he plays them fearlessly, honestly, creatively. "Capote" is 1 of the few films in which he's a leading actor, the name Philip Seymour Hoffman understandably often comes 2nd or 3rd or 4th or even later in the cast. It doesn't matter. Among actors who often play supporting roles, he stands out as the finest, or 1 of the finest at least. A very talented and versatile actor, who shows that many people have put too much focus on physical transformations (like getting super fat or super thin) without realising that the more important transformations take place on the inside, since he has played various different roles without changing much in his weight. 
This video shows very well his courage and versatility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXAeLWn5AYQ
I, however, can't imagine him in any of Daniel's roles.
On the other hand, I can't imagine Daniel in any of Philip's roles, either. I have seen him playing a gay character. I have seen him being cold-hearted, greedy, misanthropic, cruel, hateful, racist... I have seen him being stiff, pompous... But effeminate, weak, cowardly, nasty, pathetic? Daniel's talent is not to be doubted. He doesn't give the impression that he's acting- he transforms into the character. As I've said, I still once in a while find it difficult to believe it's really him in "There will be blood" and "Gangs of NY". But while he's incredibly talented, I think his physical appearance is an obstacle if he's supposed to play Philip Seymour Hoffman's roles. 
If asked to choose between these 2 brilliant, extraordinary actors, I still go for Daniel Day-Lewis. Not because of his offscreen qualities, but rather, the fact that, it's Daniel who made me realise what an actor can do, and totally changed my view on acting. He becomes the characters, plays such a wide range of characters so that no 2 performances are the same and at the same time, also impresses me, overwhelms me, strikes me in the head and touches me deeply. Philip Seymour Hoffman doesn't do so, though he's truly talented, 1 of the best in the US. I mean, he always gives a good performance, whenever I see his name I can expect him to be very good, but he's always good and at the same time his performances don't really hit me and overwhelm me the same way, I can't really pick a single outstanding, incredible role. The same goes for Meryl Streep. (That's why in some sense it's better to say Meryl Streep's male counterpart is Philip Seymour Hoffman, whereas Daniel Day-Lewis pretty much stands on his own). 

Daniel Day-Lewis meets the press

Here are Daniel's Oscar backstage videos.



Plus his 3 Oscar acceptance speeches.


The latest one is here, but embedding's been disabled. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKh_XFJ9TWc *
Extremely intelligent, witty, clever, thoughtful, charming (especially the 1st time), gentlemanly, calm, polite and humorous. Except for his dreadful sense of fashion, Daniel's basically perfect. An incredible, admirable, superb and unique actor, a great role model, an inspiring person, a depressingly wonderful man.
It's also interesting to note that he's different each time.
The 1st time, he was particularly careful, contemplative, thoughtful, with grace and a charmingly soft voice.
Later he somehow lost his dazzling look, but of course, remained smart, witty and therefore sexy.
The 3rd time, his answers were short and very humorous. It baffles me greatly how some people got the chance to meet and interview the 1st 3-time repicient of Oscar for best leading actor, in history, and could ask such silly, idiotic questions. Can't say if they were really stupid, or wanted to ask such questions merely to see his reaction. Whatever the case, Daniel was in total control and knew the answer to each and all of them. But yes, the 3rd time Daniel did seem to prove his sister Tamasin's description of him.
Too much praise, I suppose. But the more I know about him, the more I love him.
Now, how about a, say, 5-year-rest and a 4th Oscar? 









*: The way Meryl Streep presented it, there are 2 things I like. 
1st, in the introduction she praised the outstanding performances, which could win any other year and which made it difficult for the Academy to decide who should be the winner. Usually it's easy to see who has the best performance, but sometimes the competition can be very fierce. This year, while I can easily exclude Denzel Washington and Bradley Cooper, I understand that it's difficult to decide between Daniel Day-Lewis, Joaquin Phoenix and Hugh Jackman. Very often, I hear somebody say "He should have won an Oscar for that", and merely want to tell them to look at the year and consider the Oscar nominees that year. The Oscar's not given to a good performance, but the best performance, at least on principle. I feel sorry for both Joaquin and Hugh, both of whom have been amazing, especially Joaquin. 
I also know there are many people who think Hugh Jackman deserves the Oscar more than Daniel, but their argument is flawed- that Hugh can play equally well any of the other roles but the other nominees can't play his. The truth is, Daniel has sung in "Nine" and, as far as I know, Joaquin, in "Walk the line". But they can't sing as well as Hugh! Well, that's the point. I love Hugh Jackman, but there's no way he can reach Daniel's level. After Daniel he would still have had to beat Joaquin, but it's true that he could win another year. 
2nd, though it's outrageous that Meryl opened the envelope off camera, the way she said it was a bit funny, as though she thought 'well everybody knew Daniel Day-Lewis would win anyway'. 

My favourite actors and actresses

Group A:
Daniel Day-Lewis
Vivien Leigh
Meryl Streep
Robert De Niro
Marlon Brando
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Bette Davis
Cate Blanchett
Marion Cotillard
Heath Ledger

Group B:
Al Pacino
Sean Penn
Tom Hanks
Anthony Hopkins
Dustin Hoffman
Ellen Burstyn
Geoffrey Rush
Matthew McConaughey
Joaquin Phoenix 
Gong Li
Christian Bale
Faye Dunaway  
Gerard Depardieu
Vincent Cassel
John Malkovich
Michael Douglas
Audrey Hepburn
Glenn Close
Russell Crowe
Jodie Foster
Paul Newman
Tom Hiddleston
Jessica Chastain 
Ingrid Bergman
Daniel Craig
James Dean
Hugh Jackman
James Stewart
Anne Hathaway
Judi Dench
Fred Astaire
Ralph Fiennes
Charlie Chaplin
Emma Thompson
Alan Rickman
Ryan Gosling
Leslie Cheung
Leonardo DiCaprio
Amy Adams
Javier Bardem
Katharine Hepburn
Justin Timberlake
Rowan Atkinson
Clint Eastwood
Kate Winslet
Dakota Fanning
Haley Joel Osment
Ezra Miller
Jack Lemmon
Paul Dano
Julianne Moore
Tony Leung
Nicole Kidman
Jessica Lange
Peter Sellers 
Sam Rockwell 
Guy Pearce 
Tom Cruise
Emma Watson

Group C:
Monica Bellucci
Sophie Marceau
Audrey Tautou
Brad Pitt
Matt Damon
Rooney Mara
Angelina Jolie
Maggie Cheung
Maggie Q
Edward Norton
Natalie Portman
Juno Temple
Chris Evans
Gary Sinise
Demi Moore
Anna Karina

Penelope Cruz 

Juliette Binoche
Richard Gere

Robert Redford 

Winona Ryder 

Olivia Hussey 

Leonard Whiting 

Bruce Willis 

Rita Hayworth 

Bradley Cooper
Pierce Brosnan 

Marilyn Monroe

Armie Hammer
Olga Kurylenko 

Andrew Garfield 
Robert Downey Jr 

Elijah Wood 

Liam Neeson 

Eva Green 

Chris Hemsworth 

Louise Brooks
Ellen Page
Richard Armitage 
Diane Kruger 
Shirley MacLaine

85th Oscar- Daniel makes history!

7.58pm in Oslo: 
My predictions: 
- Best picture: Argo 
- Best foreign language film: Amour 
- Best film director: Steven Spielberg- Lincoln 
- Best actor in a leading role: Joaquin Phoenix- The master 
- Best actress in a leading role: Emmanuelle Riva- Amour 
- Best actor in a supporting role: Christoph Waltz- Django unchained 
- Best actress in a supporting role: Anne Hathaway- Les misérables

The results: 
- Best picture: Argo 
- Best foreign language film: Amour 
- Best film director: Ang Lee- Life of Pi 
- Best actor in a leading role: Daniel Day-Lewis- Lincoln 
- Best actress in a leading role: Jennifer Lawrence- Silver linings playbook
- Best actor in a supporting role: Christoph Waltz- Django unchained 
- Best actress in a supporting role: Anne Hathaway- Les misérables




And now it's me being emotional: 
YES YES YES YES YES YES. I WAS WRONG. NEVER BEEN HAPPIER. 
CONGRATULATE DANIEL FOR WINNING THE THIRD OSCAR, BREAKING THE RECORD AND AT THE SAME TIME BREAKING THE SPIELBERG CURSE, BECOMING THE FIRST ACTOR IN HISTORY TO HAVE WON 3 OSCARS FOR BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE AND THE FIRST ACTOR TO HAVE WON AN OSCAR FOR PORTRAYING A U.S PRESIDENT! 

Oscar 2012

2 interesting things I notice about this year's Oscar films:
- Retro:
+ "The Artist": a silent, B&W film about the end of the silent era of cinema in the 1920s with the emergence of talkies.
+ "Hugo": a film by Martin Scorsese about the 1st years of cinema, focusing on Georges Méliès's career.
+ "Midnight in Paris": a film by Woody Allen about an American man travelling to Paris and being transported to the 1920s.
- France:
+ "The Artist": a French film.
+ "Hugo": the story's set in Paris.
+ "Midnight in Paris": also set in Paris.
Anyway, this is the result of Oscar:
- Best supporting actress: Octavia Spencer in "The help".
- Best supporting actor: Christopher Plummer in "Beginners".
- Best adapted screenplay: "The descendants".
- Best original screenplay: "Midnight in Paris".
- Best actor: Jean Dujardin in "The artist".
- Best actress: Meryl Streep in "The iron lady".
- Best director: Michel Hazanavicius with "The artist".
- Best picture: "The artist". 
(as expected- I guessed that the award would be given to either "Hugo" or "The artist", and personally prefer "The artist", and was pretty sure the winner wouldn't be "The descendants", "Midnight in Paris" or "The tree of life"). 
Very happy that Meryl Streep, after so many times being nominated and getting nothing for years, finally receives an award she truly deserves, and that "The artist", the film I love, wins the most important awards.