ROTTEN TOMATOES: RT's Best of the Best Pictures Countdown, Now Updated With No Country for Old Men!

RT's Best of the Best Pictures Countdown, Now Updated With No Country for Old Men!

Where do the Coens stack up?

by Sara Schieron | February 26, 2008

After multiple lauded films were left to the wayside by the Academy (as well as Fargo's not capitalizing on its 1997 nomination) the Coen Brothers finally won their long-awaited Best Picture Oscar with No Country for Old Men. So where does this put them in the history of Academy's Best Picture Winners? The Tomatometer knows: check out our newly updated Best of the Best Pictures countdown, cataloging every last movie to have taken home the prestigious award.

Placing between All The King's Men (96 percent on the Tomatometer) and The Lost Weekend (96 percent), No Country ("only" 94 percent, but our complicated Bayesian formula is kind to the movie) is the 27^th best reviewed Best Picture winner in the ceremony's 80-year history -- an honor worthy of a sticker on the DVD package. We're just saying.

The Coens have been working their way up the proverbial ladder in order to reach Sunday's triple Oscar heights (they also won for directing and adapting Cormac McCarthy's novel). Their previous win for Fargo's screenplay was followed by another nomination in the same category in 2001 for O Brother, Where Art Thou?. And Fargo was likewise nominated for Best Picture, though eventually lost out to The English Patient.

While the Coens' work has always been of an unspeakably high caliber, they've never been poised to sweep the Oscars until No Country. Fargo was big for them, garnering them a Cesar, plenty of awards from national and British film circles, and a Palme D'Or. They've had BAFTAs (No Country, Oh Brother Where art Thou, and Fargo) for Best Foreign Film, and Eddies (given by the American Cinema Editors) for their editing, always under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes. However, their streak with No Country puts them in a category of ritual winners that suggests a career of marathon noms and wins. Walt Disney's the record-holder with 26 Oscars against 64 nominations in his lifetime, but...the Coens still have a few good decades left in them.

At any rate, congratulations to the Coens. And RT readers, we suggest you guys click here and jump onto the Best of the Best feature like it's a satchel filled with a million bucks.

Related Items

Movie:

Awards Tour 2007

(1-20 of 27 posts) | Reply

Bardego writes:
on Feb 26 2008 04:55 PM

It just makes me so happy that Crash, A Beautiful Mind, and Forrest Gump are among the bottom ten.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Feb 26 2008 05:15 PM

If there have been 80 Academy Awards, then why are there 81 movies?

(Reply to this)

Alex Vo writes:
on Feb 26 2008 05:27 PM

The first Academy Awards split the award between Best Production/Picture (Wings) and Artistic Quality of Production (Sunrise).

The decision to include both movies in our list has been somewhat controversial, but I think they're good for posterity.

(Reply to this)

CoUcH ToMaToE DoUgIe writes:
on Feb 26 2008 06:39 PM

Wow, looking at this list always makes me think and it get me

mad but in the end having the right number one is all i need to be happy:)

and Bardego, I agree with you on Crash but beautiful mind and forst gump are

masterpieces that should be fully respected and obviously should be much

higher on the list. in my opinion , just within the top 50 sounds exactly

right. Overall, though i think a good debate would be which movie on this

list upsets you the most? if anyone's intersted I'll start: i believe having

Shakespear in love at 35 is way too high. hell, they put it infront of rocky

and i have feeling people won't be remembering that movie 30 years from now.

And also, what is everyone's reaction for "No country of Old Men" being

ranked at the very high spot of 27? I am not sure i completely agree with

that placing? so, r.t. community- your thoughts??

(Reply to this)

Pilgermann writes:
on Feb 26 2008 06:51 PM

Three that standout that never deserved best picture awards: GLADIATOR (although I do like it), CHICAGO, and especially AMERICAN BEAUTY.

(Reply to this)

Siler_117 writes:
on Feb 26 2008 08:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#1604957)
I do agree about American Beauty and Gladiator, loved Gladiator and liked American Beauty, but Chicago deserved the win that year..it takes more talent to sing and act than just act...which is why i was disappointed when Depp lost this year. Daniel Day Lewis comes out with one movie every four or five years, and gets nominated for a large chunk of them...kinda gets old. lets hope now the academy will start recognizing the younger actors that are up and coming, such as Ryan Gosling, and not just nominate them, but give them the recognition they deserve. but i regress, chicago was good and deserved the best picture win.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Feb 26 2008 10:03 PM

Are you kidding me? Gladiator completely deserved the award. You have no idea what you are talking about. Chicago should be last on the list and Crash should be right in front of it. Never talk again

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Feb 26 2008 10:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#1604799)
It just makes me so unhappy that Crash, A Beautiful Mind, and Forrest Gump are among the bottom ten.

Oh, and I might add that I'm clearly in the ridiculously small minority who thought No Country for Old Men was a very well-made film and liked it, but didn't understand why it won Best Picture. And entering the list at #27? Really? It's all a mystery to me, even after everyone has seemingly explained the reasons for its win.... Great, but not spectacular. (Same with Gladiator. I just don't understand.)

:|

(Reply to this)

zooman writes:
on Feb 26 2008 10:47 PM

the list is not about the best best, its about the best following certain guidelines, and its just a formula, so it pretty much tells you which OSCAR WINNERS could be said were best reviewed in average by a certain number of specific critics. Anyway, I think No Country completely deserves it, an impressive masterpiece that should only grow with time. I like many don't think Gladiator should be there, and I really don't think Crash should be either, but that was the Academy... I dont think either that Shakespeare in Love should rank so high. I have no problem with Chicago (an example of how to bring broadway to movies at what so many after have so failed) and a beautiful mind being there, given the last one is at the bottom. But again, this is not about the actual best movies, it is about a specific measurement for a specific chart...

(Reply to this)

vader_of_vjun writes:
on Feb 26 2008 11:20 PM

Go All About Eve. That film's a juggernaut of greatness.

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Feb 27 2008 01:09 AM

In reply to this comment (#1605242)
You're right...I temporarily forgot about the whole RT Bayesian formula jazz. ;)

(Reply to this)

Sploich writes:
on Feb 27 2008 05:31 AM

I've seen 51/80 so far, so I figure I'll post my list for those who want to read it (nobody):
From Best to Worst of What I've Seen:

American Beauty, Forrest Gump, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Amadeus, A Beautiful Mind, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Gladiator, Kramer vs. Kramer, Gigi, It Happened One Night, The Lord of the Rings, Ordinary People, The Lost Weekend, Rebecca, Wings, Platoon, The Sting, Terms of Endearment, No Country for Old Men, Annie Hall, The English Patient, Schindler's List, Rain Man, Chicago, The Silence of the Lambs, Titanic, An American in Paris, West Side Story, All About Eve, Unforgiven, The Godfather, The Broadway Melody, Driving Miss Daisy, My Fair Lady, Casablanca, Million Dollar Baby, The Best Years of Our Lives, Around the World in Eighty Days, Cimarron, Grand Hotel, The Last Emperor, The Life of Emile Zola, Braveheart, The French Connetion, Mutiny on the Bounty, Shakespeare in Love, The Deer Hunter, The Departed, Crash, Midnight Cowboy

Just 29 to go!

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Feb 27 2008 05:40 AM

I love how for many of the older films they use the excuse they're "Cliched" for the reasons they're marked down. These films were made in the 30's and 40's PERHAPS the reason their plots have become cliched is because they were so good. Combine that with excuses like this brilliant movie was too long and you lose all credability.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Feb 27 2008 05:44 AM

Braveheart should have been much higher as well. Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but that SOB knows story structure :).

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Feb 27 2008 10:45 AM

a sachel filled with TWO millions bucks, Sara Schieron. duh.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Feb 27 2008 11:06 AM

oh and by the by CRASH SUCKED. it should never have been nominated and the best picture win threatened to discredit the oscars in my view. if either 'no country' or 'there will be blood' hadn't won this year, i would have all but given up hope.

think about it, crash came out in frickin april or something. how did people even remember it come voting time? it was ridiculous. just beating you over the head with every racial trope and cinematic cliche in the book.

and of course, hollywood voted for it because it was set in L.A. and I bet a lot of industry folk had sympathy for all of the failing actors whose careers it helped keep afloat (see Sandra Bullock, Brendan Frasier, Matt Dillon, Lorenz Tate, Tony Danza, Thandie Newton).

These are all B and C list actors who were on the skids before crash. then they got a second chance in a movie about redemption. a wide range of actors formed an ensemble cast in a film about the power of community and togetherness, right? jesus, gimme a break. what's lame is that this thought process likely occurred in the minds of voters.

so while oscar managed to redeem itself this year (even though P.T. anderson deserved to win for director), I will still take any opportunity to bemoan the wholly undue praise given to crash. crash sucked.

(Reply to this)

lilheclou writes:
on Feb 27 2008 11:28 AM

why so much hate on crash that was a good movie

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Feb 27 2008 01:01 PM

Gladiator should be higher.

(Reply to this)

Sploich writes:
on Feb 27 2008 03:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#1605816)
Crash was full of bad clich�s, less-than-fair acting and a worthless, very poorly written message. I don't have a problem with people liking it, but I do have a problem with people saying it was good. "Enjoyment" and "quality" are two things that should be kept separate. In other words, don't say "good," say "enjoyable."

(Reply to this)

zooman writes:
on Feb 27 2008 07:14 PM

I kind of agree with you about Crash (I wouldnt say though it was the actors who made it more important, there have been many cases with similar type of actors coming together for something similar but to little effect)and I totally aree with Sploich.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com