The Big Miscellaneous

There Will Be Blood

Gladiator (2000):
What’s It About?: General Maximus (Russell Crowe) cements a victory for the Roman empire, and is rewarded by being named the new emperor-to-be. But the expected emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) finds out, kills his father and Maximus’ family, and tries to kill Maximus himself. Maximus eventually finds himself a gladiator in the coliseum, where he risks his life for the entertainment of the crowd and the new emperor, Commodus, himself. With vengeance in mind, Maximus tries to win the crowd’s favor and his own freedom, and kill the emperor above all.
How Good Is It?: It is in fact great film-making, but I was not all that into it. Phoenix and Crowe turn in swell performances, the effects are really good and the action is pretty impressive. So what prevented me from loving it? Just Braveheart five years previous, and most sword-and-sandals epics. It doesn’t have anything new to add, really, so even though its perfectly proficient, it’s essentially meaningless and forgettable.
Was it Best Picture?: Nah. Again, we already gave the Oscar to Braveheart in 1995, so awarding this is like overkill. My personal choice was and still is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which remains an elegant masterpiece, and unlike just about anything I’ve ever seen. True to form, Crouching Tiger is also still well-regarded, whereas Gladiator doesn’t seem to ever come up. The Oscars have a rich and interesting history, but Gladiator just kind of sits there in the film canon, taking up space.

Father Knows Best

American Beauty (1999):
What’s It About?: Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is in a loveless marriage with Caroline (Annette Bening), and at odds with his daughter Janie (Thora Birch). His new neighbor (Chris Cooper) is ever watchful of his son (Wes Bentley), who in turn falls for Janie. But when Les falls in love (or lust) with Janie’s best friend Angela (Mena Suvari), he has a mid-life crisis, throws caution to the wind, and sets himself up on a path to his imminent death.
How Good Is It?: The suburban rut never looked so good. With huge gobs of fascinating scenes, vastly impressive acting and gorgeous scene composition, American Beauty is one of the most appreciated of recent winners, in that it touches all types of people with a universal theme of isolation. The screenplay may lack a wee bit when it comes to certain things (character names, hackneyed scenarios), but it’s so creative, funny, true and sad that its easy to overlook them. The first Best Picture winner to make it into my DVD collection, it’s nearly impossible to forget, and magical in its own beautiful way.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes, and it ain’t easy. There's the audience favorite Sixth Sense, the critically lauded The Insider and the “we should have given something to Shawshank” follow-up The Green Mile to contend with, but American Beauty, especially in retrospect, wins in a walk. It’s as close to perfect as the Oscars have gotten in a long time.

Madden '98

Shakespeare in Love (1998):
What’s It About?: William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is having a bit of writer’s block while writing his new play, “Romeo and Ethel the Pirate’s Daughter.” This is in addition to money problems, relationship issues, overbearing bosses and the plague. But he finds his muse in Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a noble who is betrothed to an aggressive ass. She pretends to be a man to act in his new play, in turn changing the face of theater in olde England, and literature in the centuries to come.
How Good Is It?: It’s got a great screenplay, but as a film, it feels very slight. In fact, the screenplay is it’s only extremely great aspect. It’s well-made enough, and the acting is good, and the directing (by John Madden) is capable, but were the screenplay not as funny or smart as it was, the film would barely have made a blip.
Was it Best Picture?: No. Saving Private Ryan was a better choice, as was the great Life is Beautiful (which has received a backlash lately, but I still love it). Shakespeare deserved its screenplay win, but a few other wins (actress, supporting actress) make it obvious that the voters were being overly generous. It’s a good film, but it’s not so exceptional that it needed to be lauded.

What I've Seen

Here are the movies I've seen since the last time I updated:

Vertigo (on the big screen)
Them!
American History X
Spider-Man 3
Walk Hard
Across the Universe
Iron Man
The Third Man
This Film is Not Yet Rated
Gremlins
The Frighteners
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Kindergarten Cop
The Cable Guy
Citizen X
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

None of them were really good (at least not unexpectedly) and none were really bad. I'd write a bit about them, but I'm tired and packing. Maybe later.

Cameron Crows

Titanic (1997):
What’s It About?: As if you don’t know.. Upper class Rose (Kate Winslet) is engaged to the obnoxiously stuffy Cal (Billy Zane) and being set up for a loveless marriage. But when she meets lower-class hero Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), he teaches her about life, true love and happiness. Of course, this all happens on the ill-fated Titanic, so their love is gonna have more than the usual problems before long.
How Good Is It?: I said it when I first saw it, and I’ll say it again. Titanic is everything that’s great about the movies. The first 90 minutes is pure chick flick, but there’s enough solid emotion and charisma to make it watchable to guys. Then there’s the last 90 minutes, which presents some of the best CGI terror imaginable. It’s ratchets up the excitement by the minute, and is both extremely watchable, extremely thrilling, and extremely sad (okay, I cried a few times). On the negative side, Zane’s performance gets way too over-the-top before the film ends, and there are a few really obvious and distracting blue screens. But considering the run time exceeds three hours, those few minutes do almost nothing to hamper the rest of the film: a pure artiistic achievement.
Was it Best Picture?: Yep. The competiton was top-notch and probably technically better (L.A. Confidential is absolutely excellent, Good Will Hunting is really good, and The Full Monty is well-made fun) but Titanic leaves them all out at sea for sheer movie magic. From a story and acting perspective, it leaves a bit to be desired, but as a singular three-hour event, it’s pretty much our generation’s Gone With the Wind.

Patient, Indeed

The English Patient (1996):
What’s It About?: A mysterious burn victim who is about to die (Ralph Fiennes) is taken care of by a nurse (Juliet Binoche) as World War II comes to a close. As the man recalls his life before the accident, and his love for a married woman (Kristin Scott Thomas), a mysterious stranger (Willem Dafoe) shows up who has some secrets of his own.
How Good Is It?: It’s okay. It’s very elegant, although the bits of sudden violence (including a great, great airplane shot), sly humor, and credible drama make it feel at least a little like something more than overly-dramatic Oscar-bait. But even that goodwill is chiselled away bit by bit with a run time that’s about twice as long as it needs to be. There are too many characters, and too many sideplots (meaningless or not), that even though I didn’t dislike the movie inherently, I hated that I was stuck watching it for as long as I was. Even worse, it feels that long when watching it – At just over an hour into it, I was sure that there was very little story left to tell.
Was it Best Picture?: No. Hell, even before the Oscars aired, I remember Gene Siskel saying that Fargo was the better movie, but that the snobby Academy couldn’t give it to a movie like Fargo, and would award this one. He was right, of course, and the error of their ways becomes more apparent with each passing year, as Fargo remains a classic, and The English Patient has become a has-been. It’s really too bad.

Rebel Mel

Braveheart (1995):
What’s It About?: After an English Lord kills his wife, Scotsman William Wallace (Mel Gibson) tries to band together his fellow countrymen to fight against English rule. But not only is the king determined to bring him down, so are several Scottish noblemen as well.
How Good Is It?: It’s not overly exceptional, but it is good. It’s biggest asset are absolutely stirring battle sequences, which are amazingly choreographed in their ability to place you right in the middle of the battle, and give you an overview of it at the same time. The rest of the film, though didn’t have as much. Yes, there are some emotional moments, but nothing that would place it above any other movie of similar subject matter. The acting is good across the board, and the production values are also pretty excellent. It’s a good movie, most certainly, and its very capably done. But it’s not really all that exceptional. I should also point out that it suffers from being a smidgeon too long and a whole lot too violent. The tragedy of war is one thing, but there are scenes that really just made me think Mel was trying to shock me, rather than make upset me with brutality.
Was it Best Picture?: I guess. But only by default. Braveheart may not stand as a true classic, but neither would Babe or Apollo 13, the two other front runners. Again, it’s a good movie, but it probably wouldn’t even have been in the top three contenders of last year’s race.

March madness

Here are the movies I have watched since my last post:

The Science of Sleep
Balls of Fury
Knocked Up
Top Secret!
Creepshow
Funny Games
I Am Legend
Beowulf (kind of)
Shoot 'Em Up
Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (most of it)
The Crying Game
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
OSS-117: Cairo, Nest of Spies
Bon Cop, Bad Cop
Ultraviolet

So, I've watched lots of movies of all sorts. Silly comedies, controversial action, bad comic adaptations, neo-classics, film fest movies and even kids movies. None of them are ones I can wholeheartedly endorse, but there are plenty to recommend. I of course love Shoot 'Em Up, and OSS-117 is pretty dang funny. Bon Cop was a nice Canadian action comedy, and I really enjoyed what I saw of Magorium.

But the one that struck me hardest was Funny Games, although neither in a good way or bad way. The film is controversial in it's no-holds-barred look at the audience that watches these movies. So, essentially, it's a movie about me. Some people can't finish it, and some people (weird people) would love it. I fell into neither category. The truth is, it was just kind of there. I liked Michael Pitt's performance a lot, but I didn't get sick, wasn't worried about the characters. I liked a lot of the flourishes, too, including the hyped fourth-wall breaking and the "rewinding." So, why did it stick with me? Because it didn't bother me. That probably because I knew what I was getting in to, and because even though I am very fond of life, both mine and other people's, I recognized the characters as actors, and wasn't fazed. In other words, I'm bothered by the fact that it didn't bother me.

Hanks for the Memories

Forrest Gump (1994):
What’s It About?: Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) is a simpleton from Alabama, who unwittingly finds himself involved in many cultural touchstones from the 50’s through the 70’s, all for the love of one girl (Robin Wright).
How Good Is It?: It’s good. Some would say really good, and they are probably mostly right. Although there are a few unconvincing moments and effects (John Lennon, although to be fair, many of the manipulation effects get a little more obvious with each view), as well as some sequences that really just don’t work (the running), much of the film does shine as a sweet, wholly enjoyable baby boomer fantasy. It feels slight, but that’s going to happen with a ground-level movie about how precious life is.
Was it Best Picture?: This is one of the biggest fights in recent Oscar history, from a hindsight view. My generation was all about Pulp Fiction, whereas my parents were all over Forrest Gump. Then there’s the current #2 on the imdb, The Shawshank Redemption. Pulp Fiction, for all its excellence, was too divisive, with a vulgar and violent script, which turned off the elder voters. But those same people loved Forrest Gump because it spoke to their generation, with compatable excellence. So, did they make the right choice? No. Because Shawshank should have won over both of them, and probably would have satisfied both groups, to an extent. But either way they voted, some group was not gonna be happy.

My Trip Through the Oskars

Schindler’s List (1993):
What’s It About?: As the Nazi's determination to rid Poland of Jews reaches a breaking point, Nazi party member and war profiteer Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) decides to use some of them as cheap labor in his factory. But what starts out as possibly just a money-saving solution turns into a life-saving solution when he uses bribes and his good standing in the party to save more than a thousand Jews from certain death in Nazi death camps.
How Good Is It?: It's great. Ralph Fiennes' turn as the embodiment of evil in Amon Goeth is rattling, Neeson is really good, if not exactly brilliant, in an everyman kind of way, and the rest of the cast clearly has their heart and craft in the best of places. The screenplay is honest, brutal, infuriating and inspirational. Obviously, director Steven Spielberg is a clear master of his craft, and makes the whole movie resonate with truth and sadness. There is not a single moment wasted or a single extra scene that is not used to its true potential. But most importantly, the film is important. It's not a movie that you just throw in and watch sporadically. Although that might help take the edge off of its unsettling and depressing theme, that would completely destroy the whole point of the movie. This is a film to sit down and watch, and ponder and get upset at. It's horrifying in the scariest way imaginable.
Was it Best Picture?: Even before it was announced, there were very few who would have said no. Schindler's List is the embodiment of great cinema, even more so in the 90's where fear and the reality of violence (especially in nonfiction settings) were cultural motivators. Even if the competition was not as weak as it was, there would still be no denying the power and intensity of Schindler's List. It's one of the few Best Picture winners that is an absolute must-see, not only from the film-making aspect, but from the moral obligation one as well.

For a Few Hundred Dollars More

Unforgiven (1992):
What’s It About?: In the old west, Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood) is a former outlaw, having since given up violence and whiskey for the simple family life some years ago. But with his wife dead and his family in dire times, he decides to ride again and kill a few scumbags who got a slap on the wrist for a heinous crime, in order to claim a $1,000 bounty. With his former partner Ned (Morgan Freeman) and an untested youth by his side, he takes off on the expedition, only to find serious resistance from local sherrif Little Bill (Gene Hackman), who runs the town with his own brand of lawlessness and brutality.
How Good Is It?: Woo boy! Eastwood returns to his early western days with style and substance, making a film that could be a sort of sequel to his earlier Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns, only sans the spaghetti. It’s brutal and yet elegant, shining a harsh light on the western mythology, human weakness and the undending cycle of violence. It’s smart and efficient, and a great western, not to mention a great film in general. I loved it.
Was it Best Picture?: So, after loading the 80’s Best Picture winners with snobbery and ennui, the Academy seems to be atoning by choosing films with messages, serious drama and darker sides. In other words, this is not your stuffy 80’s picks. The Academy could have gone with lesser (albeit still good) fare such as The Crying Game, Howard’s End, A Few Good Men or Scent of a Woman, but they made a brilliant if underestimated choice by picking the second western in three years. Unforgiven is a marvel on many levels, and easily one of the best westerns ever made.