1990--Dances With Wolves, Kevin Costner

 

1990--Dances With Wolves, Kevin Costner

Nominated: Awakenings, Ghost, Godfather III, Goodfellas

Should have won: Dances With Wolves

Be sure to see: Darkman, Home Alone, Jacob's Ladder, Misery, Total Recall.

“The man the soldiers are looking for no longer exists. Now there is only a Sioux named Dances With Wolves.”--Ten Bears

     1980's winner Ordinary People is a movie that won best picture, I agreed with the choice, but most people say Raging Bull should have won. Now, a decade later, history repeats itself. Though Goodfellas is in the general consensus of being the choice of best picture of 1990, the statue was awarded to Dances With Wolves. Most cry foul; I agree with the decision.

     In his directorial debut, Kevin Costner took a genre that was considered dead and brought it back to the masses. A few crowd pleasing westerns popped up here and there like Young Guns or Silverado but the seriousness of Dances With Wolves struck a new tone. Also, a nice change in the genre is how the film depicted the Indians. Compared to classic westerns where many Indians were caricatures, each were full fledged characters with personalities and a purpose.

     In1865, Lieutenant John Dunbar requests to be sent to an outpost deep into the western frontier. He wants to see the land before civilization does and at 450 miles away, he might have some time to do so. He sets out with a guide who is soon dispatched by members of the Pawnee tribe. Dunbar finds an abandoned post and keeps a journal. He lives in solitude save for a wolf friend he names Two Socks. Soon he confronts members of a neighboring Sioux tribe (not Pawnee) and tries to communicate. He is accepted and learns of their ways.

     At a four hour running time, this synopses barely skims the surface. There are so many aspects of the film that captivates the audience. The cinematography captures the vast wilderness beautifully, the score is moving, and the sets are convincing. But this movie was more about its characters. At first, the Indians torment Dunbar by stealing his horses. Eventually, he has enough and chooses to confront them on their own turf, unaware of the consequences. Some are cautious but Kicking Bird (Graham Greene in an Oscar nominated role; he would lose to Joe Pesci who gives the shortest acceptance speech in history) is curious. As they gain Dunbar's trust, the audience gets familiar with them just as Dunbar does. Because there is a white woman at the camp who they had captured years earlier, she remembers some English and the language barrier which had frustrated Dunbar and Kicking Bird collapses slightly. She is known as Stands with Fist and one thing I didn't get was in the flashback when she is explaining how she came to live with the tribe she is a very young girl. But she tells Dunbar she was very old when she came to live with the people. I guess that was a mistake. But in time Dunbar is accepted, learns the language, and becomes a part of the tribe.

     In the best scene, the Sioux and Dunbar go on a buffalo hunt. It is one of the most beautifully photographed scenes I've ever seen. Thousands of buffalo run chaotically while the men run beside them. Some of the buffalo get trampled, I noticed, and I get the feeling the PETA people were not on the set because it looked authentic to me.

     Deep into the movie (2:18 in) we finally understand the title. Dunbar, who had previously been known as “the lieutenant” to the Sioux, is given a new name and he later realizes there is no more Dunbar. After a colossal fight with another tribe (another fantastic sequence) he hears his new name being chanted over and over and has a revelation. Not to trip over a great scene but I thought I saw a warrior wearing blue jeans. Just something to check out if you get the chance.

     As if the movie was not epic enough, in the final act we see a cavalry has arrived at the fort. Dunbar (or Dances With Wolves) has returned to retrieve his journal because the location of his Sioux friends is recorded in it. He is captured to the confusion of the cavalry on why a white man is speaking such a language. Two Socks makes an emotional return in this segment.

     The movie is full of drama and action (not easy to do) but even at almost four hours the movie captivated me. It is such a large scale movie and is completely deserving of its win, despite the brilliance of Goodfellas which is also a must see modern masterpiece in its own right. Dances With Wolves jump-started the 1990s and is one of the best films of the decade for sure. And I'd say it is the second best Oscar winner of the '90s.

 

1989--Driving Miss Daisy, Bruce Beresford

 

1989--Driving Miss Daisy, Bruce Beresford

Nominated: Born on the Fourth of July, Dead Poet's Society, Field of Dreams, My Left Foot

Should have won: Field of Dreams

Be sure to see: Batman, Do the Right Thing, Glory, Lean on Me, Lisa, The Little Mermaid, Pet Sematary, Phantom of the Opera, Wired

“Mama, cars don't behave. They are behaved upon.”--Boolie Werthan

     Before even watching Driving Miss Daisy I was intrigued by trivia, tidbits, and—of course—my opinions of it winning (which I know is unfair to prejudge). But now. even after viewing it, I am still baffled how this movie could win over Field of Dreams and am amazed that not only is it not the best movie of 1989, it is the third best Morgan Freeman movie of 1989! Both Glory and Lean on Me were better movies, Glory being best picture caliber. Beyond Freeman, it should be noted that Jessica Tandy's win at 81 makes her the oldest best actress winner ever. It is the last PG rated movie to win best picture (most since then have been R with a couple PG-13s thrown in) and it joins Wings (1928), Grand Hotel (1932) and Argo (2012) as the only four best picture winners to not be nominated for best director. I also noticed that the score sounded like the beginning of “Sail Away” by The Temptations, my all time favorite group, but that is more of a personal observation than trivia.

     Driving Miss Daisy is an obscure buddy movie that spans 25 years from 1948-1973. After elderly Daisy Werthan backs her car over a wall and into the neighbor's yard, her son decides it is time for her to get out from behind the wheel. He hires Hoke, a man he saw fix an elevator that was stuck, as a chauffeur. Hoke is warned that Daisy is stubborn and high strung but to stand his ground. Hoke is also stubborn in his own right but as the years pass they develop a unique friendship.

     Based on a stage play, the film flows pretty smoothly; nothing drags. There is a nice moment when Miss Daisy discovers Hoke can't read and develops her own method to help him read a headstone in the cemetery. One thing I didn't understand was how he was illiterate yet he was able to read a Christmas present she gave him; maybe time had passed and he learned to read and I just didn't pick up on it. By the way, should someone who can't read be allowed to drive? What about road signs? Is it safe?

     The supporting characters each play key roles, though the movie belongs to the two leads. It also touches on race relations like going to watch Martin Luther King's speech or upon driving to Alabama they get questioned by police officers who are a little baffled at seeing a black man driving a Jewish woman.  Overall, Driving Miss Daisy is a very good movie. Pleasant, is a good word for it. I bet the stage version is pretty good. James Earl Jones and Angela Lansbury have played the roles. I thought driving a fake car on stage seems like it would be hokey, not pun intended, but it is pulled off by using a bench.

     I enjoyed the dialogue-driven script, it helped me care more about the characters. But in the Oscar's history this might fall in the lower-middle of the pack. Maybe 1989 was just one of those strong years. Driving Miss Daisy is pretty good but shouldn't have won, and it gets the bronze medal of 1989 Morgan Freeman movies for me. 

 

1988--Rain Man, Barry Levinson

1988--Rain Man, Barry Levinson

Nominated: The Accidental Tourist, Dangerous Liaisons, Mississippi Burning, Working Girl

Should have Won: Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Be sure to see: Big, Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Pumpkinhead, Scarecrows, Terror at the Opera

“Ray, do you know what autistic is? You know that word? Are you autistic?”--Small Town Doctor

“I don't think so.”--Raymond Babbitt

     When fast-talking, self-centered Charlie Babbit's estranged father dies, he is left his father's car and rose bushes. $3 million (though later in the movie it is said to be $2 million) was left to someone else. Upon investigating, Charlie discovers that that someone is Raymond, his older brother he never knew who is a patient at Walbrook. Raymond is autistic and every part of his life is a routine. Charlie takes Raymond (kidnaps in a way) to figure the situation out. The buddy road trip movie is a tired genre but Rain Man takes on a whole new direction with the matter.

     Years ago I watched Rain Man in a film class and I remember the teacher telling us every story should have a hero's journey. The intro, call to action, faces the challenge, journeys back, etc. that follows the hero through the story. Some people in the class thought Charlie was the hero and others figured it was Raymond. I don't remember who I said the hero was but one thing I look for in a flawed character is if he or she has an arc. Charlie is flawed in a way because he is selfish and wants, or in his mind, deserves his father's money. He especially doesn’t feel his brother, who has no concept of money, deserves it. Who is the real hero on this journey?

     Raymond can memorize a phone book from A to G, knows what 4343X1234 is, and knows the square root of 2130 but he can't comprehend a car and a candy bar wouldn't cost the same. When he gets nervous he recites “Who's on first” and Charlie doesn't understand why Ray doesn't grasp that it is just a routine and there is nothing about the bit to comprehend. Ray keeps a very strict schedule because his mind doesn't know how not to keep it. This is the cause of many frustrating outbursts from Charlie,one in particular is on the side of the road when Ray wants to drive all the way back to Cincinnati to buy boxer shorts instead of the nearest store. Charlie pulls the car over, gets out and goes on a tirade about being able to buy them anywhere and all Ray has to add to the conversation is “K Mart. Boxer shorts.” I think the audience is supposed to shun Charlie for not being more understanding of Raymond's needs but I don't see it that way. He acts the way anyone would. It is new to him, like autism was for most people then, and reacts honestly.

     There is a big revelation of what the words “rain man” mean and here is where we see Charlie start to arc but it also leads to my biggest complaint of the movie. Charlie has been a selfish, temperamental man to his brother. After the scene when he understands who the rain man is, we see he begins to accept and perhaps love his brother. But then, after Raymond recites all the placements of songs on a jukebox and picks what cards Charlie is holding after throwing most down, he takes Raymond to the casinos to abuse his divine intellect to win money. They walk away from that casino with $86,000 and I suppose we are supposed to feel happy for them but I didn't because it wasn't their money, it was only Charlie's; Raymond just doesn't know to argue for his share. So Charlie's arc from selfish to caring for his brother went right back to money again.

     Rain Man is a great movie though, and Dustin Hoffman's performance will go down as one of the best of all time. It made me think, though. I had a psychology teacher tell us that everyone has some sort of compulsion. Not that autism is a compulsion but that strict schedule keeping is in a way. I can't remember all the things Raymond can but, though his mind is brilliant with numbers, my number memory has to be triggered by using years or sports numbers. Unnecessary statistics will stick with me forever and I can't explain it. Inside Raymond's simple mind is a complex system of repetition and structure that can't be explained either. But can we accept it? Probably because he is just a movie character. The real question I had even after the movie ended is whether or not Charlie really accepted it. 

 

1987--The Last Emperor, Bernoardo Bertolucci

 

1987--The Last Emperor, Bernardo Bertolucci

Nominated: Broadcast News, Fatal Attraction, Hope and Glory, Moonstruck

Should have won: Full Metal Jacket

Be sure to see: Bad Taste, Evil Dead 2, The Hidden, The Monster Squad, Predator, Princess Bride, Raising Arizona, Slaughterhouse

“Is it true, Mr. Johnston, that many people out there have had their heads cut off?”--Emperor Pu Yi

“It is true, Your Majesty. Many heads have been chopped off. It does not stop them thinking.”--Reginald Johnston

     The Last Emperor bookends very well. The opening is strong and I became very interested in what was to come of the new emperor, taking control at such a young age. And the final four minutes of the film were so effective I watched them twice. However, though the movie is visually brilliant and the score is perfect, it has to be one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. But boring is a subjective word. I also say 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most boring movies ever made and it is considered a masterpiece.

     It is 1908 and 3-year-old Pu Yi is named the new Emperor of the Chung dynasty by the Empress as she dies (in a decent death scene with an unfortunate blooper involving her eye...maybe). Before she dies, she tells young Pu Yi that because the Emperor is dead, he now rides the dragon, a neat metaphor. Even at such a young age, Pu Yi is respected and does as he pleases, including randomly opening up women's shirts and breastfeeding. This continues through half the movie, even when he is in his teens. I could write three or four more sentences, some serious, others not, but I'll just leave it at the fact Pu Yi clearly runs things. Okay, I'll say one, it should be called The Last Pimperor.

     But as Pu Yi grows up, he becomes less tough than he was when he was a toddler and it was about this point I began losing interest in the movie despite its grand style and historic epic feel. There are some aspects I enjoyed. The vivid colors, of course the score, and the acting by the toddler. The scene where Pu Yi unveils his new wife Wanrong reminded me of Christine unveiling the phantom in Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera; with a different climax, of course.

  

     I'm torn here because Pu Yi's story is a very good one and deserves to be told. From his early years as Emperor to his later years when he is captured by the Soviets, to his final days as a common gardener leading to that wonderful ending. The movie was just too boring. I recommend the movie but only if you have some time on your hands. I'd also like to note that the opening titles echoed the theme of one of my favorite westerns The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, so that's a good thing.

 

1986--Platoon, Oliver Stone

1986—Platoon, Oliver Stone

Nominated: Children of a Lesser God, Hannah and her Sisters, The Mission, A Room with a View

Should have won: Platoon

Be sure to see: Demons, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, The Fly, Henry: A Portrait of a Serial Killer, Stand By Me

“I like it here. You get to do what you want, nobody fucks with you. The only worry you got is dying and if that happens, you won't know about it anyway.”--Bunny

“We been kicking other people's asses for so long I figure it's time we got ours kicked”--Sgt. Elias

     Based on writer/director Oliver Stone's actual experience in Vietnam, Platoon opens with new recruits being ribbed by seasoned soldiers. Chris Taylor, a new recruit, narrates in the form of writing a letter to his grandmother. He wonders if he'll make it. He has doubts pretty early; he has a long way to go. Taylor is assigned to a platoon that eventually splits into two groups after confrontations. One group is led by the battle-scarred Sgt. Barnes who is a tough, no nonsense character; the other by Sgt. Elias who is more compassionate. Though this is supposedly taken from Stone's actual experiences, the splitting into groups reminded me of William Golding's Lord of the Flies.

     At first, the others are hard on Taylor, but after a round of shotgunning (in this case literally) marijuana, he seems to get along. But the movie turns serious, almost Apocalypse Now-like. A village is torched and Barnes could be court marshaled for it. The scene reminded me of 1980's Cannibal Holocaust. A movie I highly recommend only to those who can stomach it. You know who you are. If you aren't, here is your warning to steer clear. 

    

    Platoon moves very swiftly; it never drags. At times I felt like I was in there with the rest of the men, particularly in a very intense scene after Taylor's watch is over and he falls asleep. With the enemy approaching; the man on guard is asleep; there are scenes of ants that seem as relentless in their attacks as the soldiers do; and the wide openness of the jungle makes it impossible to predict which direction the enemy will attack. I enjoyed the movie Full Metal Jacket a lot but other than the hidden landmines, it is fairly easy to predict where the enemy will strike. It is kind of linear. The sniper is in the building. The troops fire at people fleeing from building to building, etc. In Platoon’s jungle, however, I would wish for eyes on the back of my head.

     Each character is given a distinct personality, particularly Barnes who is not someone anyone would want to tangle with, though most want to see him killed. But I was drawn to Bunny, though I didn't like his name. I am still unsure why they came up with that name for him because he was a pretty hard character though he doesn't pass the eyeball test for toughness.

     The movie has one of the most famous death scenes of all time and certainly the most famous to make it to the cover of the box and the publicity poster. Curiously, also on the poster you see USMC dog tags though the platoon in the film is from the Army. Seems to me like someone would have caught that. 

     Platoon is one of the best war movies ever made but I don't think it has much rewatchability value because of its intensity. I enjoyed it more than The Deer Hunter but not quite as much as Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, or even the early All Quiet on the Western Front.  

1985--Out of Africa, Sydney Pollack

 

1985--Out of Africa, Sydney Pollack

Nominated: The Color Purple, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Prizzi's Honor, Witness

Should have won: Witness

Be sure to see: Back to the Future, Demons, The Goonies, The Re-animator

“When the gods want to punish you they answer your prayers.”--Karen Blixen

     Out of Africa might be the only movie where every part was great except the movie itself. The acting was great, the cinematography was beautiful (especially in the opening credits, looking down on a train), the score is lovely, and the plot is interesting. But good Lord is this movie a snooze-fest!

     Karen Blixen goes to Kenya to marry Baron Bror Blixen-Finecke and start a coffee plantation. World War I breaks out and Bror joins the army leaving Karen to run the plantation solo. She meets Denys Hatton and has an affair. She wants to settle down but he isn't ready to give up the wildness of Africa.

     Thinking back, I can come up with a few scenes that stand out like Karen pleading on her knees to the British governor for the Africans to have the land so they have a place to live, and the best scene is when the lion attacks from the opposite side they (and we) were expecting. I also like the second time we see Denys. Karen comes upon a lion and her horse (along with her gun) runs off. Denys shows up and saves her, but not in the way one might expect.

     This movie had a number of good scenes, but I didn't really care much for most of the plot, which is not a good sign. The back story of Karen's father's suicide brushed by so fast I wasn't sure if I heard correctly. I hate for this writeup to steer anyone away from the movie. I found it boring, true, but there really is a lot of great stuff going on in it. The visuals and score alone are enough to keep your interest. Plus it has my favorite pickup line I've ever heard. “See here now. I know how you feel about me and you know how I feel about you. We understand each other so let's lay down and get on with it.” Ah, if it were only that simple. 

 

1984--Amadeus, Milos Forman

1984—Amadeus, Milos Forman

Nominated: The Killing Fields, A Passage to India, Places in the Heart, A Soldier's Story

Should have won: Amadeus

Be sure to see: Beverly Hills Cop, Cloak and Dagger, Ghostbusters, Karate Kid, The Neverending Story, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Stop Making Sense, The Terminator, Toxic Avenger

“I am endowed with talent and you with money. If I offer mine you should offer yours.”--Wolfgang Mozart

     One of the great things about movies and televisions and plays is the concept of acting. It is unfortunate that actors can get typecast but when you act you play various roles; it is the nature of the profession. I bring this up because in this deep and elegant film you will find the lead who was in Animal House, the lead female part who was in The Funhouse a movie made by the man who brought you Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the role of the Emperor who is played by the principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Though they portrayed quirky characters separately in other roles, together, along with an extremely talented behind-the-camera crew, they produce this gorgeous pictorial of a timeless composer.

     The winner of an octet of Academy Awards, Amadeus follows the genius composer's life through the telling of his peer and rival Antonio Saleri, who is now in an insane asylum. Brilliant makeup by The Exorcist makeup wizard Dick Smith aged Saleri magnificently. Fittingly, for a movie about one of the greatest composers in history, the music drives the story. Director Milos Forman says it is possibly the first movie to have music as its leading character. I like this idea but I'm sure it wasn't the first. American Graffiti comes to mind, though that is soundtrack and not score. But the score is fantastic and the settings in Vienna are extremely authentic to the times. In fact, nothing even had to be changed because the locations look like they are right out of the era.

     It is mentioned that Mozart wrote his fist concerto at the age of four, symphony at seven and full scale opera at twelve. Pretty impressive for such a goofball. Or so Tom Hulce's performance would have us believe. I'm no history major so I'm not sure what Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was really like. In this pictorial of him, his laugh and demeanor are, well, downright silly.

     All the performances are stellar but Jeffrey Jones as Emperor Joseph II and Elizabeth Berridge as Constanze Mozart were my favorites. The best scene was when Mozart, bedridden after collapsing at an Opera, begins dictating The Requiem to Salieri. Amadeus is a curious title. I'm wondering why they didn't call it “Wolfgang”; Amadeus isn't even Mozart's middle name. It means “loves God”. Add it to Monster's Ball and The Jerk to movies where the title doesn't make sense. But the movie is completely deserving of the award and a monumental achievement. But I feel like other people might appreciate it more than I did. It was a very stimulating film to the eyes and ears but it just isn't my type of story, I suppose. But that doesn't mean I don't have a lot of appreciation for its accomplishments. 

 

1983--Terms of Endearment, James L. Brooks

1983--Terms of Endearment—James L. Brooks

Nominated: The Big Chill, The Dresser, The Right Stuff, Tender Mercies

Should have won: Return of the Jedi

Be sure to see: Christine, A Christmas Story, Cujo, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Videodrome

“Impatient boys sometimes miss dessert”--Aurora Greenway

     A curious way to present a movie's title card, Terms of Endearment appears as “Terms of Endearment xxx”. I guess it is meant as triple kisses but in a way I'm pretty sure I've seen another version of that title. The film opens with a new mother who dotes on her new sleeping baby. It is clear this child will be in her mother's mind through the whole movie, and does she ever. Fast forward a to the night before the child's wedding day. The mother tells her daughter not to marry. She doesn't like her new son- in-law, and everyone knows it.

     The woman is Aurora Greenway played by Shirley MacClaine and though she is the biggest (or perhaps second biggest) actor in the movie, most of the film focuses on her daughter, Emma, her new husband Flap (yes, Flap) and their children. They all live in Houston but Flap takes a teaching job in Iowa and they move away. This causes the movie to go in many directions and introduces new characters, all of which have important things to do.

     Aurora, after fifteen years of living next to Garrett, an astronaut (the always welcomed Jack Nicholson), finally meets him socially. They had discussed going to lunch years earlier but never got around to it. Their day on the town is peppered with surprises of Garrett's personality. In the meantime, things are shaky in Iowa. The children are growing up, Emma is getting frustrated and meets another man and Flap might or might not be having an affair with a student as well. What I didn’t like is how Emma points the blame of the affair right at her husband, never suggesting that what she has been up to is wrong as well.

     Though they are states apart, Aurora and Emma stay close, having phone conversations multiple times a day. They joke about the phone bill but what I found odd about the phone conversations they do not do the typical thing movie conversions do. Both ends of the line sound clear. You know how usually the person on screen is clear but the one over the line sounds muffled? It is as though both are in the room together, like Emma never left.

     What I liked is how the movie is never stale. It doesn't follow one story for very long and then moves to the other; it weaves them in and out. Aurora and the astronaut; Emma and Flap; the kids; Flap and the student; and even Flap and his mother-in-law who makes it clear she doesn't like him. We come to care about every character, even in their faults, and then something tragic happens. At this point I forgot I was watching characters and connected with everyone as human beings.

     Terms of Endearment is not really a family movie but it is about a family. Real emotions drive it from scene to scene. Each character is likeable even when they do unlikeable things. They can be related to and everyone has something important to say. 

 

1982--Gandhi, Richard Attenborough

1982—Gandhi--Richard Attenborough

Nominated: E.T., Missing, Tootsie, The Verdict

Should have won: Gandhi

Be sure to see: Basket Case, Diner, The Evil Dead, Friday 13th part 2, Poltergeist, The Thing

“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”--Mohondas K. Gandhi

     When looking at the history of the Oscars, if every best actor winner were taken into account with the role he played, Ben Kingsley's performance as Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi has to be at the top of the list of the greatest performances. According to the featurette, Kingsley became the man in such a way that, during filming, the people of India believed Gandhi's spirit had returned. Besides the perfect performance, the movie is a visual explosion. It has the record for the number of extras employed for one scene in movie history. 300,000 were used in Gandhi's funeral scene; of which 94,560 were paid a small fee while the remaining 200,000-plus were volunteers. The money that was paid ended up going to local schools. In today's movie making techniques, computers could add those people in. Perhaps, in 1982 it could have been done as well. They opted for the real thing in this case. It was almost like the people were part of the production design. Twenty-three thousand feet of film was used to shoot that scene.

     Upon returning to India, Mohandas K. Gandhi sees the British mistreating the Indian people. He retaliates, keeping his non-violent ways prominent. Gandhi, perhaps the second most peace loving man in history, keeps getting arrested for speaking against war. That was the ongoing theme to the film, which was very long. The people are mistreated by authorities and Gandhi has the courage to fight back without violence and encourages others to do so, too. He gets arrested. Then he does it again. And again. My favorite scene is when a man whose son had been killed kills a boy himself in revenge. He goes to Gandhi, knowing he is damned to hell for what he has done. The advice Gandhi tells him on how he can save his soul surprised me but in hindsight is dead on.

     The movie takes a page right out of the Lawrence of Arabia playbook, but I won't spoil what that is. Just know it is a curious decision I don't see too often. Upon watching an interview with director Richard Attenborough (as an actor, you might remember him as the guy who runs Jurassic Park) says he is proud of the film but, surprisingly, the Oscar should have gone to E.T. He found it to be the better film. That's a pretty bold statement. Perhaps I understand where he's coming from. E.T. takes a story, follows a good formula, and delivers a timeless experience. I agree most of the time a movie about the inspirational person wins and shouldn't (Forrest Gump, Rain Man) but this movie is different. It is one of the few movies based on a real person that, when it was over, made me desire to learn about the character I had watched. However, because of its length, it falls into the category of a movie I highly recommend you see once. I don't think I'd sit through it again. But of all the movies I've ever seen based on a real person, nothing tops this performance. Kingsley becomes Gandhi. As good as he is in his small but important role in Schindler's List, Gandhi will forever be the cornerstone of his career. It is one of the best movies I've ever seen yet at the same time falls into that category of excellent films I don't wish to see again.