The Big Miscellaneous

The End

No Country for Old Men (2007):

What’s It About?:  Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles across $2 Million in cash, and decides to keep it, which gets him in with some very bad people, specifically the methodical maniac Antoine Chigurh (Javier Bardem).  Even with the sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) looking out for him, it’s looking like Moss may be in well over his head.

How Good Is It?:  Technically, its brilliant. Its got an engaging story,  the cinematography is gorgeous and the actors are all fantastic.  No doubt about it, the Coen Brothers have provided the audience with another great film.  But it’s over my head.  Through most of the film, it’s easily acceptable and perfectly creepy: A perfect thriller.  But for the finale, the Coen’s decided to leave most everybody scratching their heads.  Loose ends are not only left loose, they’re practically frayed.  Were it not the Coens, I’d feel I’d been cheated; but because it’s the Coens, I’m just assuming they are a lot smarter than I am.

Was it Best Picture?: I don’t know.  It’s a beautiful valentine to film snobs, whilst remaining mostly accessible to everyone else.  Likewise for competitor There Will Be Blood.  But I was more enamored with Juno.  In a lot of ways, this Oscar battle was between the heart (Juno) and the mind (No Country), and in the end, the mind prevailed.  I’m not complaining, though.  As I said, I simply don’t know.

Here's Your F***in' Oscar

The Departed (2006):
What’s It About?: Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) is the local mob boss in Boston, whom the cops have been having trouble putting away. Billy Costagan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a cop who is deep undercover, risking his life to bring Costello down. And Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) is Costello’s rat, who worked his way into a position of authority in the police department. Amongst all the double-crossing, people die, Mark Wahlberg gets sassy, and all bets are off.
How Good Is It?: It’s bloody good, literally. It’s exciting, dangerous, witty, briliiant, stylish and smart. Martin Scorsese has been making quality films for years, and The Departed is no departure. But make no mistake, this is not the kind of film that could have won Best Picture even a decade ago. The older generation will likely find it too violent and too vulgar. But cinematically, it’s a clean, smart work of art.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes. Yeah, Little Miss Sunshine was the audience favorite, and deservedly so. But Scorsese has been aiming for Best Picture for, well, several decades, and his win is way past due. Some will say it is not be as good as Goodfellas,which lost to Dances With Wolves. Others may say its not as good as The Aviator, which lost to Million Dollar Baby. But it’s definitely good enough to beat Little Miss Sunshine, if only to usher in a long overdue change in the expected Best Picture quality. The times are changing again.

Swing... and a Miss

Crash (2005):
What’s It About?: A dozen or so individuals of different races and ethnicities come in and out of each other’s lives over the course of a day and a half in LA. In the process, they (hopefully) learn a little about themselves, each other, and the world in general.
How Good Is It?: Here’s the problem. Although there are a few racists in the midst, that’s really not the problem here. The problem is that the characters are impatient, egotistical, vengeful, and in general, assholes. Racism is really just the tip of the iceberg. The people may wax philosophical about their own ethnicities and biases, but it’s just a cover for the bigger picture: There are far too many people in the world who have lost the ability to communicate with each other, live with each other, and step outside their own aimless, miserable lives. Writer director Paul Haggis makes a well-intentioned swing with the premise, but he was in the totally wrong ballpark.
Was It Best Picture?: Nah. The big hoopla was between this and Brokeback Mountain, but neither would have been my choice. Both Munich and Good Night and Good Luck were exceptional pieces of work, and in my opinion, both were better than either of the two front-runners. Crash was the easiest, most generic of the options, and that’s why it took the prize.

Glove Story

Million Dollar Baby (2004):
What’s It About?: Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) wants to be a boxer and wants Frankie Gunn (Clint Eastwood) to train her. Unfortunately, Frankie doesn’t train girls. Quitting not being her strong suit, Maggie eventually gets Frankie to help her, and the two find themselves heading straight for a title fight. But things don’t always work out the way you plan.
How Good Is It?: It’s pretty darn good. It’s tight, smart, funny, and emotional. The ending, which is not necessarily on firm moral ground, at least has the convictions to back it up and weigh both sides. It’s only major flaw (although it is a biggie) is the Fitzgerald clan, which although not ruining the movie, definitely harms it quite a bit. Nevertheless, like Maggie, the film overcomes the obstacles in the end to become a reliable, pretty engaging picture.
Was it Best Picture?: Yeah. I haven’t seen The Aviator, which is supposed to be good, but I know Sideways isn’t better, good as it is. I’ve also never been led to believe that Finding Neverland or Ray were better either. It’s not the best movie ever made, but against the competition, Million Dollar Baby certainly has the goods. It works.

The 9-Hour Best Picture (or, A Hard Hobbit to Break)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003):
What’s It About?: Frodo Baggins and Sam Gangee try to survive their trek through Mordor, while Aragon, Gandalf, Pippin, Merry, Legolas and Gimli (and a few more thousand) take on Sauron’s army at Midas Tirith. Or, if you are not familiar with the story, the two teams of good guys continue on their separate mission to stop the bad guys. This involves talking trees, giant elephants, ghosts, glowing swords and lots of other cool things in the final part of trilogy.
How Good Is It?: It’s great, really. A few caveats, though. 1) It’s best on the big screen, when the battle of Minas Tirith practically jumps off the screen. 2) It’s best if you don’t wait three years after seeing The Two Towers to watch it. 3) And it’s best if you turn it off when the hawks carry the survivors from Mount Doom, something I was unable to do because of the science of the whole watching-every-Best-Picture thing. But even with those things, it’s an eye-popping and gorgeous spectacle, that’s exciting, riveting and hella entertaining.
Was it Best Picture?: Yes. Although, as I've stated before, Return of the King didn’t win as much as the whole trilogy did. These Oscars (Best Picture, and the other 400 it won that night) were for the 9+ hours of majesty that director Peter Jackson bestowed upon the world over a three-year period. And although Return was arguable the weakest in the series, there’s no denying that the series deserved it. Hell, even as the weakest entry, it was still heads and tails against the competition.

Chic-a-Go-Go

Chicago (2002):
What’s It About?: Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) is a wannabe starlet who in a fit of anger kills the man she is having an affair with. So she enlists the help of smooth-talking lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) who has never lost a case, but first has to change Roxie into the kind of girl a jury couldn’t hang. And then there’s Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), the girl who was front page news until Roxie came along. Unfortunately for both of them, there’s only enough room for one sensational story in Chicago.
How Good Is It?: It’s good enough. There’s a whole lotta razzle-dazzle, leading to no shortage of memorable and entertaining musical numbers. The cast is also pretty good, with Gere, John C. Reilly and Queen Latifah taking turns stealing the show. But it doesn’t have a whole lot to say about much of anything, aside from some snarky and obvious things about fame and the attention span of the blood-hungry public. As such, it really doesn’t fit in all that well with its contemporaries. But for what it is, it probably couldn’t be better.
Was it Best Picture?: I am of the opinion that this won as a way to honor the musical, which was experiencing a kind of comeback, thanks to Moulin Rouge!. I also think the Academy chose this because they failed to give the award to Moulin Rouge! the year before. As such, it’s hard for me not to picture it as an also-ran to a movie that didn’t win the year before. That’s probably meaner that it deserves though. The competition was better, including The Hours, The Pianist and Gangs of New York, but Chicago is a neat snapshot of a then-current fad. The best of the five nominees, the second Lord of the Rings film, was going to suffer the same fate as it’s predecessor: Being put to the side until the trilogy was completed. So, we got Chicago this year. Whatever.

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.

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.