The Big Miscellaneous

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.

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.

Shhhh....

Silence of the Lambs (1991):
What’s It About?: With a serial killer named “Buffalo Bill” on the loose, FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) enlists the help of notorious serial killer and cannibal Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) to solve the case. But Hannibal has a nasty habit of getting into people’s heads, and Clarice’s lack of experience may leave her vulnerable, and Bill’s newest victim dead.
How Good Is It?: It’s not the greatest movie ever made, but it’s really good. Jonathan Demme masters all the strokes of the great psychological thrillers, and there’s few moments that aren’t seeped in every day terror. Most importantly, Hopkins’ Lecter is one of cinema’s greatest villains, and the performance is legendary. Foster also holds her own with the right degree of vulnerability, and the supporting acting is pretty much dead on in creating human and believable characters. But make no mistake, Demme’s knowledgable direction keep the horror real and the suprises coming, and to this day it remains one of the best examples of a perfect thriller.
Was it Best Picture?: Hell yeah. The competition, though not necessarily weak, was nowhere near as strong as Silence, and I do believe that Silence is only the third “horror” film to be nominated (after The Exorcist and Jaws), and the only one to win. It’s also the most deserving of the three, as it’s really a great movie in its own right that just happens to have a deliciously gory and terrifying streak running through it. Horror doesn’t get anymore quality than this, at least not in the last decade.

So Sioux Me

Dances With Wolves (1990):
What’s It About?: During the Civil War, Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is transfered to a post in the western frontier, warding off the Native Americans. But finding the post deserted, Dunbar eventually decides to stave off the loneliness by befriending a neighboring Sioux tribe, where he comes to a better understanding of their ways, falls in love and becomes a “traitor” to his country.
How Good Is It?: Back in about 1991, there was a Far Side cartoon where about three people were gathered in a room for the “Didn’t Like Dances With Wolves Society." Since I first (and last) saw this film in 1991, I considered myself a member of this society. My 16-year belief was laid to rest, though, when I saw it again. I started off a little rigid with Costner’s dull narration, but about halfway through, realized I was actually thoroughly enoying it. Costner’s naïve, wide-eyed and curious character is really just a catalyst for the heart of the movie, a glorious epic about a glorious people, full of wonderful scenes and some nice emotional moments. It’s a great movie.
Was it Best Picture?: Not to beat a dead horse, but heading into it I was ready to say no. After all, both Goodfellas and The Godfather Part III lost to it, as did the good enough Awakenings and the laughable in retrospect Ghost. Yep, that Ghost. But all things considered, this was nice tight race between Dances and Goodfellas. So which should have won? Both are classics, and still highly regarded. And although Goodfellas is considered to be the better now (by far), it’s also more harsh and less friendly. In a perfect world, there would have a Picture/Director split, with Scorsese beating Costner, but Dances beating Goodfellas. Then again, in a perfect world, Goodfellas would have been released a year earlier and kicked the living crap out of Miss Daisy.

The Periodically Interesting Table of Sentiments

Driving Miss Daisy (1989):
What’s It About?: Stubborn Jewish widower Daisy Werthan (Jessica Tandy) loses her driver’s license, and is forced to accept Hoke (Morgan Freeman) as her new chauffeur, whether she wants him or not. But, over time, the two become friends and face a handful of life’s obstacles.
How Good Is It?: Obviously based on a play, it’s overly sentimental, a little amusing, and not actually boring. Practically begging audiences not to like it, Bruce Beresford directs the movie with little flair or energy, and were it not for somehwat fun and quirky performances by Tandy and Freeman, there’d be almost nothing to actually make it worth recommending. It’s not a bad movie, not by any stretch, but it’s so slight that I can’t imagine this being anyone’s favorite movie, which is a little odd for a Best Picture winner.
Was it Best Picture?: Err, no? The competiton, was laced with variety, but not very good variety: The equally sentimental but less fun Dead Poet’s Society, Oliver Stone’s heavy handed but not classic Born on the Fourth of July, Oscar-pandering My Left Foot (which may or may not better, I’ve not seen it) and the more fun, more honest Field of Dreams, which would have been my choice. It’s got to say something that Driving Miss Daisy wasn’t even nominated for director (the first time it had happened in at least half a century), and I can’t think that anybody would say it was the best movie this year. I’m guessing that the Academy voted for their top two, and Driving Miss Daisy was the consistent second-place finisher. But, hey, at least it’s a comedy.

Tom Cruise Crazy

Rain Man (1988):
What’s It About?: After hearing of his father’s death, immature Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) is distressed to find that his financial woes will not be solved by the expected inheritance winfall. Instead, he discovers Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), the autistic brother he never knew he had. Being in financial straits, Charlie “kidnaps” Raymond and takes him on a cross country road trip, where they eventually bond, and Charlie grows up.
How Good Is It?: It’s certainly not a bad movie in any respect, even if it’s not all there. Dustin Hoffman’s performance is clearly the most memorable standout in the film, but Cruise also handles himself very nicely. It also has a lot of wonderful little moments. There are enough of them that the film is more than worthwhile, but it still feels a little too forced, a little too flashy, and a little too predictable.
Was it Best Picture?: Maybe. It’s certainly better than Working Girl, a movie I had no use for. And although it’s not as good as Dangerous Liaisons, Rain Man has a certain flair that makes it seem really, really 80’s. As such, it’s a better snapshot of 1988 than Liaisons is, as much as that matters.

Tom Cruise Crazy

Rain Man (1988):
What’s It About?: After hearing of his father’s death, immature Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) is distressed to find that his financial woes will not be solved by the expected inheritance winfall. Instead, he discovers Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), the autistic brother he never knew he had. Being in financial straits, Charlie “kidnaps” Raymond and takes him on a cross country road trip, where they eventually bond, and Charlie grows up.
How Good Is It?: It’s certainly not a bad movie in any respect, even if it’s not all there. Dustin Hoffman’s performance is clearly the most memorable standout in the film, but Cruise also handles himself very nicely. It also has a lot of wonderful little moments. There are enough of them that it makes the film more than worthwhile, but the movie still feels a little too forced, a little too flashy, and a little too predictable.
Was it Best Picture?: Maybe. It’s certainly better than Working Girl, a movie I had no use for. And although it’s not as good as Dangerous Liaisons, Rain Man has a certain flair that makes it seem really, really 80’s. As such, it’s a better snapshot of 1988 than Liaisons is, as much as that matters.