But the iceberg was the size of James Cameron's ego, and there was the rub. In case you all haven't noticed, I don't particularly care for the man. I also can't think of one of his movies that I've seen that I haven't enjoyed. I also can't think of a Chris Nolan movie that I haven't enjoyed and then said, "that was a masterpiece." And yet, does he walk around thinking of himself as "King of the World and all that drivel? No. Well, I think we all know what movie won this year because it also used to be the highest grossing film of all time, before all those blue people came around of course (none of them have anything on Batman's opening weekend record though. A fact which that film's director, Chris Nolan, doesn't throw in people's faces). But I'll let the suspense simmer until the end anyway, because why break with pattern? I hate pattern-breakers.
So as we keep with tradition, the first movie to discuss for the year is As Good As It Gets. And it's unfortunate that the movie worked its way into my sentence the way it did, because it makes it sound like I'm being clever about how good it is. Well, let me be clear: a more proper title would've been Well, It Was There. This is probably why I shouldn't be in marketing. But I'm being completely serious. Does Jack Nicholson give a great performance? Certainly. Is it all that different from many of his other performances? Not exactly. The only difference with him in every movie seems to be how much or how little he lets his internal neurotic meter go. Although his turn as The Joker does remain pretty outstanding. But all of that aside, Helen Hunt out-acts him in my opinion, although maybe just because I don't think I've seen her in anything before. She's also kinda hot. Just saying. Either way, they both got Oscars so it's a moot point. The film goes on for about 15 minutes too long, but I overall enjoyed it. It's really the classic romantic comedy when you get down to it, except that it's a bit darker in tone and the main character (Jack) is an OCD maniac who makes Monk look like James Bond. The most enjoyable parts are the first hour where he's being neurotic and crazy, but once he starts to change it's sweet and nice but not as good. Also, the woman who voices Lisa Simpson is in it. And with the EXACT same voice. Very distracting! Plus, not to hate on the woman, but the other cast members of The Simpsons play like 30 different roles and she can't even change her voice an octave or two so that people take her character seriously? They'd have been better off getting Bart's real-world persona. But anyway, the movie is certainly not bad by any means but it's not particularly great either. There seems to be a pattern with comedies lately (and really just in general) where I stop enjoying it for 20 minutes in the middle when they have one too many conflicts thrown in there. It's a comedy! If you start having too many conflicts then the viewer's emotions are all over the place, and really it's futile because most comedies have a happy ending anyway. So you're just waiting for the conflict to end so you can start laughing again. Or maybe it's just me, I don't know.
Know what comedy had a perfect running time, knew exactly what it was, and managed to be funny and somewhat heart-warming? The Full Monty. I usually either really like or really hate things that come out of Britain (there's some 1996 crap I am going to rip apart) and this was one I really liked. Because it's not a movie that tells a big or important story, but it knows that. It's about some men who are past their prime and looking to earn a few bucks and also regain some of their confidence. And what better way than becoming a male stripper? I know I can't think of any (at least, none that don't involve suiting up and fighting crime). And in order to draw in a full crowd they advertise that they'll be giving the audience "the full monty," and I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself. Well thankfully the only crowd that has to see that is the one in the movie and the film's audience only has to endure the mostly-covered Monty. But when I thought about it, there's something a bit more to the whole idea than just the hilarity of some middle-aged guys going bottomless. It's a subtle theme within the plot, but it's there. None of the men are particularly attractive, nor are they unattractive (at least, not that I can attest to). They're very ordinary, everyday people. And society has kind of passed them by and they're stuck in these life situations that they can't really get out of. And they've made their peace with the fact that they're married to who they're married to, have the job they have, etc. But it's a depressing thing: to be stagnant and know that that's all you'll be. So they're essentially getting up and literally stripping down to the point where there's literally nothing hiding who they are from the world, and saying: "this is what I am! Like it or don't." In that way, it's really kind of an empowering movie, without having the characters be jerks about it or ruin other people's lives over it. And on top of all that: it's quirky and funny. It should by no means have been the winner, and it wasn't, but I'm glad the Academy recognized them for having some original thoughts and delivering them in a fun way.
Something completely not original but still delivered extremely well is Good Will Hunting. My only problem with this movie is the title. Because the first time I saw it was on TV, I thought it was about people searching for good will. And then I thought, "I wonder if their search for 'good will' as in, 'food, shelter, etc.' is representative of their search for goodness within the spectrum of the human soul." Well, that was all a load of nonsense that my brain cooked up, because if you correctly emphasize the title, it's obviously about a guy named Will Hunting who is good. The film features what is easily Ben Affleck's best dramatic performance. Mostly because he plays a version of himself with a heavier Boston accent than usual. The overall plot has been somewhat overused, although I'm not sure how overused it was back then. It's the classic, "acting out because of a dark and abusive past, until that one special person takes an interest and shows them the light" story. But it features a ton of great performances, including an Oscar-winning performance from none other than Robin Williams. What the film does correctly, and that other films don't seem to get sometimes, is it balances the comedy of the story with the drama perfectly. The humor never exists outside of the "real world" spectrum of humor. So nothing goofy happens to anybody, but things happen in a natural manner that make you laugh. But they never get too funny, or too serious. This makes the film feel surprisingly real. In addition, I like that they didn't just make Will a secret math genius, he also knew a lot about history, economics, etc. And he wasn't the stumbling, mumbling, bumbler that wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too many characters of his type turn into. He's clever, personable, and even charming. And he hides his issues well. He doesn't pull a Val Kilmer a la Batman Forever and walk up to an inkblot and say, "that looks like a BAT. I'm afraid of them you know, which is why I chose it as my...nevermind." Will Hunting has issues and he is what he is, but he doesn't advertise it. So all of these elements come together to make a pretty great film. It won for Best Screenplay if memory serves, and it was a well-deserved win.
Something I probably should've watched again is L.A. Confidential. The reason being that I've only seen it once, and that was a while ago. But I remember a good bit about it, and I was actually surprised to see it on the list when I spent like an hour and a half putting down all of the nominees for all the years (see what I do for you people?). It's definitely highly enjoyable and very well done as far as hard-boiled police dramas go. But it's not the type of film one usually sees nominated...but it's also the type of film one likes to see nominated...which means there must be an agenda. The overall plot is a classic whodunit, and it features always-great performances from the likes of Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, and Kevin Spacey. It also features an always-bland performance from Kim Basinger who...hang on. She won an Oscar for this performance? That can't be right. And yet, somehow it is. We live in a world where The Dark Knight isn't high brow enough for the Oscars and yet wannabe Baywatch alums are. She's not even good at playing a skanky blonde in this movie, a role that should come easily to her. But anyway, the movie does a good job of giving an updated version of all of those 40s noirs (which I absolutely love by the way). The film makes everyone from the cops to Hollywood look bad, and the "good" cops themselves all have opposing viewpoints on how to go about solving the mystery and deterring crime. This was actually kind of a fresh idea back then, because now we have The Wire and The Shield pretty much defining the modern crime narrative (both are outstanding). But this was one of the first mainstream films to really show the gritty nature of the job, without making it a "cool" gritty, since Dirty Harry (and he actually did make it pretty cool come to think of it). So for approaching a somewhat tired genre in a fresh way, I applaud them. But somebody in the Academy had to be skanking it up with Kim Basinger. Seriously. Because good movies that people go to see and don't have an agenda usually don't get noticed. I'll have to watch it again, this is seriously starting to bother me.
But not as much as certain events surrounding this next movie bother me. Yes, here it is. Titanic. The blockbuster to end all blockbusters (until recently). And yes, I really like the movie. But only once it hits the iceberg. It's one of my mom's favorite movies of all time, and I'm only slightly paraphrasing when I say that she said, "before they hit the iceberg it has one of the worst scripts ever." And this is pretty true. It doesn't seem that bad until the rest of the movie is so good, and then you say: "get that Bill Paxton crap out of here!" And I am well-versed in the happenings of the actual Titanic, because my mother has every book known to man about it. Just like my dad has all the books about the Alamo and I have all the books about serial killers (Christmas is cheery at our house). And it's apparently incredibly accurate once it starts to sink. And this is where the movie gets incredible. The spectacle cannot be denied, and the acting is all top-notch once Bill Paxton stops poking in. It's all aided by James Horner's outstanding score, which got him the award for Best Music. The film is stirring, epic, and just plain awesome. BUT, 11 awards? Really? Because the way I see it, this movie is tied for most awards ever but only 2/3 of it is worth awards of any kind (or maybe even 1/2, can't remember exactly when not even God sunk the ship). Because the way I see it, Ben-Hur is 3 hours and 40 minutes: all of them outstanding. Return of the King is 3 hours and 20 minutes: all of them better than any minute of any other movie. Unless you're talking about the extended cut, which is 4 hours and 10 minutes of incredible. So essentially, we're dealing with a movie that should either have 5 1/2 Oscars instead of 11, or a movie that should have 11 Oscars without heads. And top-grossing movie of all time? Really? Ah, but I have an explanation. This movie is rated PG-13. What's the significance you say? This movie contains extended shots of Kate Winslet's naked breasts. And Kate Winslet naked + movie that pre-teen boys can get into + Leonardo DiCaprio + movie that tweener girls can get into in droves = movie gold. Just like how the new highest-grosser, Avatar, has the formula: movie with simple enough plot that stupid people can understand + 3D effects with "pretty colors" stupid people can enjoy + additional couple of bucks for 3D effects every time someone buys a ticket = extreme profit. So this is where my hatred of James Cameron comes in. He is the epitome of Hollywood nonsense. He's better at selling things to people than he is at making a good movie. And I applaud him for doing so, he could put the cast of Mad Men out of business and probably snatch January Jones right from Don Draper's lap. But he could try and try for a hundred years and never produce anything close to what Tarantino, Nolan, or Spielberg put out every time they make a movie. Now see, Spielberg knows how to attract viewers of all types. Now there's a director. BUT, all prejudices aside, I do give Cameron credit for this film, which is easily his best work. It absolutely blew me away when I watched it, and I would never say otherwise. But King of the World: Cameron is not.
Well, there's my extra-ranty rundown of 1997. On the note of oddly-rated films, I suggest everyone check out the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which deals with the ratings system on a whole and how it's ridiculous. Because 1997's winner has mass death, some outright violence, and the steam in that car was not coming from a wok (just saying). But anyway, I'll be back next time with some excellent stuff and some crap I truly detest. But, I have to finish the films first. What I can tell you is that it will include: Mr. Pink in a blender, Tom Cruise ruining his career by being good, and so many whiny British people that you'll want to toss the tea overboard all over again.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
1998: The Year that the Academy was Fixated on Corsets and The Third Reich
Yeah I was going to come up with some clever way of tying together several plotlines like I have been doing, but the movies in this year all seem to be surrounding the same two subjects: Victorian England and World War II. They're also all really freaking good movies. It's probably the best year of nominees that I've seen so far. In fact, I probably shouldn't be telling you this, but this entry probably won't be as entertaining as usual since I liked everything. Who am I kidding? It's me! Of course it'll be awesome.
First up is a movie I thought might be well-done but boring, and turned out to be one I plan on purchasing. It's the period piece Elizabeth, and I knew it would be good as soon as I noticed that the writer is the guy that writes every episode of The Tudors. As the film begins it feels like a lot of the biopics I've recently watched on my escapade: well-acted, authentic looking, and not particularly exciting. But once it got going, I was hooked. First off, Cate Blanchett just has this really raw attractive quality to her. She is both beautiful and powerful, as I had already seen in LOTR (where she was legitimately scary a few times). On that note, Queen Mary (Elizabeth's sister and predecessor) is way hotter on the TV show than she is in the movie...but that's my only complaint. The film has an epic, awesome score (which I also want to buy) and I've never heard of the director but they did a really good job. The supporting cast is also excellent, and includes Geoffrey Rush, Richard Attenborough, and Joseph Fiennes (Voldemort's nicer brother). When the assassination attempts start rolling in, the film turns into the female version of The Godfather. Sweet. And the film caps it all off by having a quasi-superheroic final scene wherein she suits up (1500s style) and undergoes a transformation to become The Virgin Queen. Which would be a terrible superhero name, but as compared to all of those "The Greats" and "The Terribles" it's pretty cool. All of this is enhanced by the playing of Mozart's "Requiem" which is probably my favorite classical piece of all time, as it has also figured prominently on Smallville and in Watchmen. So overall, the movie is well-done and awesome, especially since I wasn't expecting much going in.
The next movie made me cry like three times. And the tears didn't just well up, they overflowed. It was pretty crazy, but it's a powerful and uplifting film: Life is Beautiful. And it's odd to mention how uplifting it is because a good chunk of the movie takes place in a concentration camp. But that just shows you that fiction can make you feel anything for literally any situation. Plus, a lot of the movie covers the main character's life before the concentration camp as well. The combination of the writing, the music, and the performance from Roberto Benigni (who also co-wrote and directed the movie) makes the film magical. That's the only word for it, it just makes you feel happy when you watch it. Because the main character goes from being poor to being a verifiable slave, but he finds ways to make it all seem positive and even funny. While a prisoner of the Nazis, he made it his top priority to hide what was really going on from his son by convincing him that they were all in an extended game of sorts, and whoever won got to keep a tank. The idea that a father loved his son to the extent that he created an elaborate narrative to make a horrible situation bearable and even enjoyable is a powerful idea. And learn this well hippies: it's possible to convey love and peace within a film in a non-blatant and actually effective way. So I give major credit to Mr. Benigni, who basically made the whole movie himself when you think about it. And every aspect of the film is well-done, and approaches a tired topic in an uplifting and original way. So for this reason, not only do I applaud the Academy for giving the film a nomination, I highly recommend anyone and everyone to watch it.
Something I certainly can't recommend to everybody is Saving Private Ryan. Not because it's bad, it's outstanding, but because it's incredibly graphic (even by my standards). The movie presents some problems though: it's actually so good that it's ruined World War II movies forever. It doesn't spend time raising philosophical issues like the next movie in this blog does, nor does it have a story that is particularly interesting. In fact, I remember someone being on Who Wants to be a Millionaire talking about how he told his studio to pass on the script and felt like a moron. But I can understand that, it's almost three hours long and here's the plot: the last son of an otherwise dead family is lost in enemy territory and we have to get him back. Pretty straightforward. But the delivery is absolutely incredible. So incredible, in fact, that literally every other war movie about any other war is compared to it. This should be avoided, because the comparison would rule in this film's favor every time. The spectacle of the battles is astounding. They are intensely realistic while still retaining a cinematic quality. They are frighteningly violent and yet sometimes almost have a beauty to them: like moving paintings. There are some solid performances in there from Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, and a young Jeremy Davies. And then of course there's Private Ryan himself: Matt Damon (there's also a great cameo of sorts from Ted Danson). The film is a perfect example of a movie with a simple plot that still achieves excellent character development, story progression, and visuals. It also features a great musical score from the always incredible John Williams, who has been nominated over 40 times (and even that isn't enough I say). So if you like war movies, especially World War II movies, and you haven't seen this then shame on you. It's pretty much as good as it gets within its genre.
Which is part of why I didn't enjoy this next movie as I might have under other circumstances: The Thin Red Line. Let me just say right now: it's an incredibly well-done film with a thought-provoking and well-written script and features some great performances from a lot of big name actors. But for the past few weeks, I've had to watch a lot of World War II movies (as I'm sure you've noticed). I've also been watching The Pacific every week (excellent show) and before it started up I re-watched Band of Brothers to prepare. So I'm seriously kind of WWII-ed out. I feel like I've been in the Pacific for months now. So I'm watching this movie, and I'm thinking, "what's that you say, script-writer? War is bad? Humanity is evil? Yeah thanks for letting me know, I'm aware." So I think I'll give it another watch someday when I'm not so heavily involved in other films of its type. Because objectively, I was watching it and recognizing everything that was good about it. But it did nothing for me emotionally, and I think that's just because after a while it all looks the same (thankfully, I saw SPR years ago and several times since, and can thus offer a more accurate opinion on my thoughts). Same weapons, same environment, overall same message. Something that this film does a little bit differently is it kind of has a battle scene and then a tone poem format. So there's fighting, then contemplating, repeat as needed. This loses its effect after a while, but not until near the end of the movie. Which is saying something as it's about 3 hours long, and this is after the director apparently cut out another 2 hours which contained entire performances from other big-name actors. And on that note: I actually have an issue with "cameos" in movies of this type. Because you're totally in this movie, and a major character dies, and then right before the end: George Clooney shows up for a briefing. And instead of having the movie soak in, you go: "it's George Clooney!" There was a similar instance earlier in the film with John Travolta, who I just can't take too seriously anywhere. The only time I've seen this technique done well was in Apocalypse Now where Harrison Ford shows up at the beginning and essentially lures you into a false sense of security. I'd say more about that, but you'll instead have to wait for my 1979 write-up, which I'm sure will be coming your way sometime in the next decade.
This year's winner is kind of an arthouse film, but not in bad way. It's a wonderfully-written movie with an almost perfect cast: Shakespeare in Love. And I know: it sounds like a Hallmark adaptation of a Danielle Steele novel. Which is why I gave my mom the crazy eyebrows when she made me watch it. But I figured, "Gwyneth Paltrow is in it so it won't be too painful." Well as happens far too often, I was completely enveloped in this movie as soon as it began. Though the title refers to the Bard himself, the movie is more about his lover than anyone else. And as I said, the casting is almost perfect. Shakespeare is played by Voldemort's nicer brother...wait a minute. Joseph Fiennes is in this one too? So that means that in 1998 he was paid cash money to make out with Cate Blanchett and then make out with Gwyneth Paltrow? I'm clearly in the wrong line of work. This will be my final blog. Forget writing, the place to be is in front of the camera. But since my pasty white skin would likely blind audiences I guess I'd have to venture outdoors to achieve this goal, so forget it. Anyway, if I can remember the point I was making it's that the cast is almost perfect. I forget how long it takes for the movie to be almost ruined, but I think it's about an hour or so. Because from the beginning you're completely involved in this world to the extent that you forget you're watching a movie. Until freaking Ben Affleck comes along. As soon as you hear his voice, you're pretty much punched in the face with the fact that he doesn't belong in Victorian England (or in front of the camera at all really). The only time that Boston jerk did a great job was when he played a Boston jerk in a 1997 movie I'll talk about next time. This whole situation is reminiscent of Spartacus, wherein Tony Curtis (an otherwise good actor) ruins the illusion of Ancient Rome by having an accent that sounds more like he's calling a cab than helping to lead an uprising. Ben Affleck was dating Gwyneth at the time apparently. So put him in the background! Don't let him speak! People shouldn't have been surprised when she named her kid Apple, this clearly establishes her as a crazy person. But she does an outstanding job and deserves every bit of that Oscar. The reason I rant so much isn't just that BA annoys me, it's that I really don't want to say much about the movie. And why? Because the way in which it is done is so brilliant and powerful that it wouldn't be as good if I told you. So go watch it! Just trust me on this one, I trusted my mom on this one and it paid off. I'd say don't tell her that I said so, but she's pretty much half of my fanbase so the sentiment would be futile.
Well that's it for 1998: a year that was a bit monotonous with its overall themes but certainly had a lot of quality. Don't worry, 1997 will be crazy and all over the place again. It will include full frontal male nudity that thankfully remains implied, Jack Nicholson throwing adorable dogs down garbage chutes, and the supervillain origin story of my mortal enemy: James Cameron.
First up is a movie I thought might be well-done but boring, and turned out to be one I plan on purchasing. It's the period piece Elizabeth, and I knew it would be good as soon as I noticed that the writer is the guy that writes every episode of The Tudors. As the film begins it feels like a lot of the biopics I've recently watched on my escapade: well-acted, authentic looking, and not particularly exciting. But once it got going, I was hooked. First off, Cate Blanchett just has this really raw attractive quality to her. She is both beautiful and powerful, as I had already seen in LOTR (where she was legitimately scary a few times). On that note, Queen Mary (Elizabeth's sister and predecessor) is way hotter on the TV show than she is in the movie...but that's my only complaint. The film has an epic, awesome score (which I also want to buy) and I've never heard of the director but they did a really good job. The supporting cast is also excellent, and includes Geoffrey Rush, Richard Attenborough, and Joseph Fiennes (Voldemort's nicer brother). When the assassination attempts start rolling in, the film turns into the female version of The Godfather. Sweet. And the film caps it all off by having a quasi-superheroic final scene wherein she suits up (1500s style) and undergoes a transformation to become The Virgin Queen. Which would be a terrible superhero name, but as compared to all of those "The Greats" and "The Terribles" it's pretty cool. All of this is enhanced by the playing of Mozart's "Requiem" which is probably my favorite classical piece of all time, as it has also figured prominently on Smallville and in Watchmen. So overall, the movie is well-done and awesome, especially since I wasn't expecting much going in.
The next movie made me cry like three times. And the tears didn't just well up, they overflowed. It was pretty crazy, but it's a powerful and uplifting film: Life is Beautiful. And it's odd to mention how uplifting it is because a good chunk of the movie takes place in a concentration camp. But that just shows you that fiction can make you feel anything for literally any situation. Plus, a lot of the movie covers the main character's life before the concentration camp as well. The combination of the writing, the music, and the performance from Roberto Benigni (who also co-wrote and directed the movie) makes the film magical. That's the only word for it, it just makes you feel happy when you watch it. Because the main character goes from being poor to being a verifiable slave, but he finds ways to make it all seem positive and even funny. While a prisoner of the Nazis, he made it his top priority to hide what was really going on from his son by convincing him that they were all in an extended game of sorts, and whoever won got to keep a tank. The idea that a father loved his son to the extent that he created an elaborate narrative to make a horrible situation bearable and even enjoyable is a powerful idea. And learn this well hippies: it's possible to convey love and peace within a film in a non-blatant and actually effective way. So I give major credit to Mr. Benigni, who basically made the whole movie himself when you think about it. And every aspect of the film is well-done, and approaches a tired topic in an uplifting and original way. So for this reason, not only do I applaud the Academy for giving the film a nomination, I highly recommend anyone and everyone to watch it.
Something I certainly can't recommend to everybody is Saving Private Ryan. Not because it's bad, it's outstanding, but because it's incredibly graphic (even by my standards). The movie presents some problems though: it's actually so good that it's ruined World War II movies forever. It doesn't spend time raising philosophical issues like the next movie in this blog does, nor does it have a story that is particularly interesting. In fact, I remember someone being on Who Wants to be a Millionaire talking about how he told his studio to pass on the script and felt like a moron. But I can understand that, it's almost three hours long and here's the plot: the last son of an otherwise dead family is lost in enemy territory and we have to get him back. Pretty straightforward. But the delivery is absolutely incredible. So incredible, in fact, that literally every other war movie about any other war is compared to it. This should be avoided, because the comparison would rule in this film's favor every time. The spectacle of the battles is astounding. They are intensely realistic while still retaining a cinematic quality. They are frighteningly violent and yet sometimes almost have a beauty to them: like moving paintings. There are some solid performances in there from Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, and a young Jeremy Davies. And then of course there's Private Ryan himself: Matt Damon (there's also a great cameo of sorts from Ted Danson). The film is a perfect example of a movie with a simple plot that still achieves excellent character development, story progression, and visuals. It also features a great musical score from the always incredible John Williams, who has been nominated over 40 times (and even that isn't enough I say). So if you like war movies, especially World War II movies, and you haven't seen this then shame on you. It's pretty much as good as it gets within its genre.
Which is part of why I didn't enjoy this next movie as I might have under other circumstances: The Thin Red Line. Let me just say right now: it's an incredibly well-done film with a thought-provoking and well-written script and features some great performances from a lot of big name actors. But for the past few weeks, I've had to watch a lot of World War II movies (as I'm sure you've noticed). I've also been watching The Pacific every week (excellent show) and before it started up I re-watched Band of Brothers to prepare. So I'm seriously kind of WWII-ed out. I feel like I've been in the Pacific for months now. So I'm watching this movie, and I'm thinking, "what's that you say, script-writer? War is bad? Humanity is evil? Yeah thanks for letting me know, I'm aware." So I think I'll give it another watch someday when I'm not so heavily involved in other films of its type. Because objectively, I was watching it and recognizing everything that was good about it. But it did nothing for me emotionally, and I think that's just because after a while it all looks the same (thankfully, I saw SPR years ago and several times since, and can thus offer a more accurate opinion on my thoughts). Same weapons, same environment, overall same message. Something that this film does a little bit differently is it kind of has a battle scene and then a tone poem format. So there's fighting, then contemplating, repeat as needed. This loses its effect after a while, but not until near the end of the movie. Which is saying something as it's about 3 hours long, and this is after the director apparently cut out another 2 hours which contained entire performances from other big-name actors. And on that note: I actually have an issue with "cameos" in movies of this type. Because you're totally in this movie, and a major character dies, and then right before the end: George Clooney shows up for a briefing. And instead of having the movie soak in, you go: "it's George Clooney!" There was a similar instance earlier in the film with John Travolta, who I just can't take too seriously anywhere. The only time I've seen this technique done well was in Apocalypse Now where Harrison Ford shows up at the beginning and essentially lures you into a false sense of security. I'd say more about that, but you'll instead have to wait for my 1979 write-up, which I'm sure will be coming your way sometime in the next decade.
This year's winner is kind of an arthouse film, but not in bad way. It's a wonderfully-written movie with an almost perfect cast: Shakespeare in Love. And I know: it sounds like a Hallmark adaptation of a Danielle Steele novel. Which is why I gave my mom the crazy eyebrows when she made me watch it. But I figured, "Gwyneth Paltrow is in it so it won't be too painful." Well as happens far too often, I was completely enveloped in this movie as soon as it began. Though the title refers to the Bard himself, the movie is more about his lover than anyone else. And as I said, the casting is almost perfect. Shakespeare is played by Voldemort's nicer brother...wait a minute. Joseph Fiennes is in this one too? So that means that in 1998 he was paid cash money to make out with Cate Blanchett and then make out with Gwyneth Paltrow? I'm clearly in the wrong line of work. This will be my final blog. Forget writing, the place to be is in front of the camera. But since my pasty white skin would likely blind audiences I guess I'd have to venture outdoors to achieve this goal, so forget it. Anyway, if I can remember the point I was making it's that the cast is almost perfect. I forget how long it takes for the movie to be almost ruined, but I think it's about an hour or so. Because from the beginning you're completely involved in this world to the extent that you forget you're watching a movie. Until freaking Ben Affleck comes along. As soon as you hear his voice, you're pretty much punched in the face with the fact that he doesn't belong in Victorian England (or in front of the camera at all really). The only time that Boston jerk did a great job was when he played a Boston jerk in a 1997 movie I'll talk about next time. This whole situation is reminiscent of Spartacus, wherein Tony Curtis (an otherwise good actor) ruins the illusion of Ancient Rome by having an accent that sounds more like he's calling a cab than helping to lead an uprising. Ben Affleck was dating Gwyneth at the time apparently. So put him in the background! Don't let him speak! People shouldn't have been surprised when she named her kid Apple, this clearly establishes her as a crazy person. But she does an outstanding job and deserves every bit of that Oscar. The reason I rant so much isn't just that BA annoys me, it's that I really don't want to say much about the movie. And why? Because the way in which it is done is so brilliant and powerful that it wouldn't be as good if I told you. So go watch it! Just trust me on this one, I trusted my mom on this one and it paid off. I'd say don't tell her that I said so, but she's pretty much half of my fanbase so the sentiment would be futile.
Well that's it for 1998: a year that was a bit monotonous with its overall themes but certainly had a lot of quality. Don't worry, 1997 will be crazy and all over the place again. It will include full frontal male nudity that thankfully remains implied, Jack Nicholson throwing adorable dogs down garbage chutes, and the supervillain origin story of my mortal enemy: James Cameron.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
1999: The Year that Lex Luthor had a Midlife Crisis During Spider-Man's Coming of Age
Now that we're getting back there in years, I've seen fewer and fewer nominees. I had only seen one of these movies prior to about a week ago. Which is pretty cool, because I think my analysis of ones I saw a while ago actually isn't as good as ones I've seen recently. But it's also bad in a sense because I watch them so closely together sometimes that it affects my viewership (check my 2002 post for clarification). This year contains some pretty excellent stuff, and there's also a healthy amount of "meh." Want to know what's missing from the list? The Matrix. Call me crazy if you wish, but they nominated freaking Avatar because it ushered in a new era of film. Well so did The Matrix. And it actually has a plot too. A pretty original plot. But as we all know, if people are fighting and they're not speaking Mandarin, it's a no-go for the Oscars.
Nominated in its place (and I phrase it that way because it's the least deserving of this year's nominees) was The Cider House Rules. I'm not even sure what to say about this movie, it's just kind of there. The acting is solid, but not great. And although I'm a big Michael Caine fan, this isn't one of his more impressive performances, and I don't quite buy his American accent. Not to detract from his performance too much, it was definitely good, it just wasn't award-worthy. And it's unfortunate that he won for this and not something like The Man Who Would Be King, where he gives a far superior performance (and wasn't even nominated). And my next qualm is obviously not the fault of the filmmakers, since it came out three years beforehand, but I really can't see Tobey Maguire as someone besides Spider-Man. I thus can't see him as being able to woo the other main cast member: Charlize Theron. The story itself is a slightly darker version of the usual coming-of-age story. It goes exactly where you expect and everything, but the tone was a bit off for me. Because it deals with heavy issues in a not heavy way. But it also deals with them in a not funny way. So the whole movie just kind of sits there, and you think to yourself: "that's bad...I guess...am I supposed to laugh here? Not sure..." I'd also like to know how someone comes up with a story like this (the man who wrote the book adapted the movie too). It probably went like this: "so what if there was like, this place that provided babies for adoption? And then like, they also do abortions back when they're illegal. And the main dude's successor like doesn't want to participate, until he goes and picks apples with this chick who has a dark secret about her pregnancy...and then he changes his mind and becomes like the original dude! That'd be a great story." I wish I was hyperbolizing (should be a word). But I'm not, it's melodrama and I'm not a particular fan. It's not a bad movie, but it's not particularly great either.
Something that is particularly great is The Green Mile. And I'm not sure why I hadn't seen this movie before because I'm a Stephen King fan, a Frank Darabont fan,a Tom Hanks fan, a Michael Clarke Duncan fan...so I should've watched it long ago. And I think Michael Clarke Duncan should've beaten out Michael Caine for Best Supporting Actor, he does a really great job. The performance is subtle in its own way, gentle and imposing at the same time. You fear him and yet you care about him. These paradoxes should always net awards I think (similar to what I said about Joaquin in 2000). The movie itself is about "the green mile" which is a colloquial term for death row. MCD's character is falsely accused of a heinous crime, but as they soon discover he has another secret: he is a healer. And I mean, he's a healer to the point that he can cure cancer and bring dead mice back to life. The overall plot description doesn't extend too far beyond that, but it's all about the subtleties. And though the film is a bit over 3 hours long, it's all filled in with excellent stuff. It's more of an ideology-driven movie than a plot-driven movie. It's a study of human nature and the definitions of morality. And this is why I prefer it to The Shawshank Redemption. And I know pretty much no one agrees with me, like, anywhere. But I'm not saying you have to agree with me, because a valid argument can be made for either (whereas most other things I am, in fact, telling you what to think because anything else would be madness). I just feel that this film exhibits some more interesting themes and has a better overall cast. Also, this is probably one of the best adaptations from a book that I've seen, and it lost the Adapted Screenplay award to the coming-of-age movie I mentioned. What's up with that? Although I side with film adaptations above books more than most people (or at least respect both in their own right) this should be recognized by everyone as probably the best Stephen King adaptation that there is (Shawshank shouldn't count as much simply because it's a short story). So it definitely deserved the nomination, and while it's not as original as the movie that actually won, it's probably the year's second best.
A film that falls into the middle of the 1999 spectrum is The Insider. I have similar feelings toward this film that I had toward Erin Brockovich, and they're not dissimilar. This film is about Big Tobacco being sneaky and the other one is about Big Drinking Water being sneaky. Both based on true stories that were very significant. Both also have basically no suspense because you know where the story is going before you even start watching it. But this film goes to more interesting places. Because while Erin's life was strongly enriched by her efforts against The Man, Russell Crowe's character had his life torn apart. So he comes off as a lot more heroic, and I think it hurt my viewing of Erin a bit because this guy sacrificed his happiness and his livelihood to try to quell corruption. The movie implies that he's not an unhappy man in the end run, but still: he spends most of the movie in silent torture. It's also interesting that the people who helped him investigate (just as it happened in real life) weren't law enforcement, they were the minds behind 60 Minutes. This made the story a lot more interesting and effective because they could employ methods that law enforcement or politicians wouldn't be able to employ. Not because they're Jack Bauer esque, but just because they're sneaky and clever. Of course, so are the police in a lot of movies (just not so much in real life, as they must live in constant fear of public backlash). The film also features some really big names besides Russell Crowe: Al Pacino, Christopher Plummer, and Michael Gambon just to name a few. While this allows for some great performances, no one besides the main two have enough time to really flesh out their characters. Which is fine I guess, but it can be a bit of a waste when you're looking forward to a character coming back and they never do. All in all, it's a pretty solid film but I think it gained a nomination because it was timely.
Not that they would've known this, but I feel that this next movie wasn't the one that should've been nominated. The film is The Sixth Sense, and I really like it, but the next year had Unbreakable which is outstanding. These are easily Shyamalan's best work, and I think that if you watch them you'll see that though the man is clearly out of good ideas, he should direct someone else's ideas instead. Because he's an outstanding director. I keep meaning to do a blog entry about Unbreakable, because in many ways it was the film that altered my perceptions of film. But that's a story for another time. To get back to this movie: it's definitely well-done. The first time I watched it, I was watching it solely because I heard it had a big twist. Well, having seen almost every episode of the original Twilight Zone, I predicted the twist very near to the beginning of the movie. And if you're one of the 3 people in the world who don't know it already, I won't spoil it for you. Suffice it to say that even way back then, I thought the reveal and the delivery of the twist was still excellent. Upon viewing the film in more recent years, there's a lot more to it than the twist. Say what you want about Shyamalan, but he's a truly talented director, especially when it comes to how he frames his shots. Many of his shots are like gothic artwork, telling you more about the characters and the story than the dialogue (which is different from how most filmmakers work). As I said, this is especially brilliant in Unbreakable, but it's still good here. It also contains a great performance from Haley Joel Osment (where has that kid gone?) and a shockingly poignant performance from Bruce Willis. The film's plot is relatively simple (if you find the crazy and the supernatural simple, as I do). There's a kid who sees dead people and a therapist who helps him deal with it. But the delivery is excellent, and it also has some interesting ideas pertaining to the kind of heroic loneliness usually reserved for superhero films. Because he has a gift and he's separated from mankind, but he has to use it to help people in a way that no one else can. So don't let M. Night's recent reputation taint your opinion of the film.
This year's winner is truly innovative and though I wouldn't recommend it to anybody without knowing they could deal with its heavy themes, it's a masterpiece: American Beauty. I will say that I'm glad I saw it recently because that way it wasn't over-hyped for me. Plus if I had seen it when it came out I would've been scarred for life (I was 11). The film features an outstanding performance from Kevin Spacey (who's good in everything he's in) as well as some great supporting performances. The musical score is minimalist and perfect for the atmosphere of the film. The plot itself centers around various people who are trying to break out of the molds of their lives. In fact, the movie sums itself up perfectly in a much more poetic way than I ever could, when the teenage temptress Angela says: "I don't think there's anything worse than being ordinary." They're all trying to avoid being ordinary so they won't be forgotten, or so they can say that they lived for something important. The thing that struck me when I was watching it is that no matter what they do they'll still be ordinary. Because even if you break the mold of being midlife crisis dude, there were millions of guys that already broke the mold in the exact same manner that you did. So to me, one of the major themes of the movie is that nothing is original and you have to find the beauty in everyday life because it's mundane, not in spite of that fact. So that's kind of depressing...but also kind of comforting in a sense. And whatever happened to Sam Mendes? He's a very talented director and also one of the few that effectively uses symbols as motifs in his films. To be more specific, in his film Road To Perdition water/ice is used to symbolize death. In this movie, roses are used to symbolize the main character's sex drive (I tried to think of a more palatable way to put it but I can't). So for instance in all of his fantasies surrounding his daughter's friend, roses or rose petals are involved. More interestingly, at the beginning of the movie his wife is seen snipping the stems of roses in the garden (I'll let you figure that one out for yourself). The film is definitely "artsy" and there are plenty of people who would hate it, or be uncomfortable with it, or not get it. And that's fine, but I really like it and I stand by the Academy's decision with more fervor than I usually do.
Overall, 1999 had some pretty great stuff. And it's the first year in my escapades since 2008 where I watched most of them in a row because I hadn't seen them before. So that was a unique and pretty awesome experience. Of course, it also means that my blog entries will be slowing down if I watch all of the years at the same pace. But since I'm graduating soon and will thus have even more time to watch films and blog about them, that means that pretty soon they'll be coming in fast. Presuming I can watch and post from the cardboard box on the street that will be my home, unless I hear back from some jobs soon...but enough of that drivel. Next entry will include a heart-warming movie about a concentration camp, an uplifting movie about Normandy beach, and a Best Picture winner that contains Ben Affleck.
Nominated in its place (and I phrase it that way because it's the least deserving of this year's nominees) was The Cider House Rules. I'm not even sure what to say about this movie, it's just kind of there. The acting is solid, but not great. And although I'm a big Michael Caine fan, this isn't one of his more impressive performances, and I don't quite buy his American accent. Not to detract from his performance too much, it was definitely good, it just wasn't award-worthy. And it's unfortunate that he won for this and not something like The Man Who Would Be King, where he gives a far superior performance (and wasn't even nominated). And my next qualm is obviously not the fault of the filmmakers, since it came out three years beforehand, but I really can't see Tobey Maguire as someone besides Spider-Man. I thus can't see him as being able to woo the other main cast member: Charlize Theron. The story itself is a slightly darker version of the usual coming-of-age story. It goes exactly where you expect and everything, but the tone was a bit off for me. Because it deals with heavy issues in a not heavy way. But it also deals with them in a not funny way. So the whole movie just kind of sits there, and you think to yourself: "that's bad...I guess...am I supposed to laugh here? Not sure..." I'd also like to know how someone comes up with a story like this (the man who wrote the book adapted the movie too). It probably went like this: "so what if there was like, this place that provided babies for adoption? And then like, they also do abortions back when they're illegal. And the main dude's successor like doesn't want to participate, until he goes and picks apples with this chick who has a dark secret about her pregnancy...and then he changes his mind and becomes like the original dude! That'd be a great story." I wish I was hyperbolizing (should be a word). But I'm not, it's melodrama and I'm not a particular fan. It's not a bad movie, but it's not particularly great either.
Something that is particularly great is The Green Mile. And I'm not sure why I hadn't seen this movie before because I'm a Stephen King fan, a Frank Darabont fan,a Tom Hanks fan, a Michael Clarke Duncan fan...so I should've watched it long ago. And I think Michael Clarke Duncan should've beaten out Michael Caine for Best Supporting Actor, he does a really great job. The performance is subtle in its own way, gentle and imposing at the same time. You fear him and yet you care about him. These paradoxes should always net awards I think (similar to what I said about Joaquin in 2000). The movie itself is about "the green mile" which is a colloquial term for death row. MCD's character is falsely accused of a heinous crime, but as they soon discover he has another secret: he is a healer. And I mean, he's a healer to the point that he can cure cancer and bring dead mice back to life. The overall plot description doesn't extend too far beyond that, but it's all about the subtleties. And though the film is a bit over 3 hours long, it's all filled in with excellent stuff. It's more of an ideology-driven movie than a plot-driven movie. It's a study of human nature and the definitions of morality. And this is why I prefer it to The Shawshank Redemption. And I know pretty much no one agrees with me, like, anywhere. But I'm not saying you have to agree with me, because a valid argument can be made for either (whereas most other things I am, in fact, telling you what to think because anything else would be madness). I just feel that this film exhibits some more interesting themes and has a better overall cast. Also, this is probably one of the best adaptations from a book that I've seen, and it lost the Adapted Screenplay award to the coming-of-age movie I mentioned. What's up with that? Although I side with film adaptations above books more than most people (or at least respect both in their own right) this should be recognized by everyone as probably the best Stephen King adaptation that there is (Shawshank shouldn't count as much simply because it's a short story). So it definitely deserved the nomination, and while it's not as original as the movie that actually won, it's probably the year's second best.
A film that falls into the middle of the 1999 spectrum is The Insider. I have similar feelings toward this film that I had toward Erin Brockovich, and they're not dissimilar. This film is about Big Tobacco being sneaky and the other one is about Big Drinking Water being sneaky. Both based on true stories that were very significant. Both also have basically no suspense because you know where the story is going before you even start watching it. But this film goes to more interesting places. Because while Erin's life was strongly enriched by her efforts against The Man, Russell Crowe's character had his life torn apart. So he comes off as a lot more heroic, and I think it hurt my viewing of Erin a bit because this guy sacrificed his happiness and his livelihood to try to quell corruption. The movie implies that he's not an unhappy man in the end run, but still: he spends most of the movie in silent torture. It's also interesting that the people who helped him investigate (just as it happened in real life) weren't law enforcement, they were the minds behind 60 Minutes. This made the story a lot more interesting and effective because they could employ methods that law enforcement or politicians wouldn't be able to employ. Not because they're Jack Bauer esque, but just because they're sneaky and clever. Of course, so are the police in a lot of movies (just not so much in real life, as they must live in constant fear of public backlash). The film also features some really big names besides Russell Crowe: Al Pacino, Christopher Plummer, and Michael Gambon just to name a few. While this allows for some great performances, no one besides the main two have enough time to really flesh out their characters. Which is fine I guess, but it can be a bit of a waste when you're looking forward to a character coming back and they never do. All in all, it's a pretty solid film but I think it gained a nomination because it was timely.
Not that they would've known this, but I feel that this next movie wasn't the one that should've been nominated. The film is The Sixth Sense, and I really like it, but the next year had Unbreakable which is outstanding. These are easily Shyamalan's best work, and I think that if you watch them you'll see that though the man is clearly out of good ideas, he should direct someone else's ideas instead. Because he's an outstanding director. I keep meaning to do a blog entry about Unbreakable, because in many ways it was the film that altered my perceptions of film. But that's a story for another time. To get back to this movie: it's definitely well-done. The first time I watched it, I was watching it solely because I heard it had a big twist. Well, having seen almost every episode of the original Twilight Zone, I predicted the twist very near to the beginning of the movie. And if you're one of the 3 people in the world who don't know it already, I won't spoil it for you. Suffice it to say that even way back then, I thought the reveal and the delivery of the twist was still excellent. Upon viewing the film in more recent years, there's a lot more to it than the twist. Say what you want about Shyamalan, but he's a truly talented director, especially when it comes to how he frames his shots. Many of his shots are like gothic artwork, telling you more about the characters and the story than the dialogue (which is different from how most filmmakers work). As I said, this is especially brilliant in Unbreakable, but it's still good here. It also contains a great performance from Haley Joel Osment (where has that kid gone?) and a shockingly poignant performance from Bruce Willis. The film's plot is relatively simple (if you find the crazy and the supernatural simple, as I do). There's a kid who sees dead people and a therapist who helps him deal with it. But the delivery is excellent, and it also has some interesting ideas pertaining to the kind of heroic loneliness usually reserved for superhero films. Because he has a gift and he's separated from mankind, but he has to use it to help people in a way that no one else can. So don't let M. Night's recent reputation taint your opinion of the film.
This year's winner is truly innovative and though I wouldn't recommend it to anybody without knowing they could deal with its heavy themes, it's a masterpiece: American Beauty. I will say that I'm glad I saw it recently because that way it wasn't over-hyped for me. Plus if I had seen it when it came out I would've been scarred for life (I was 11). The film features an outstanding performance from Kevin Spacey (who's good in everything he's in) as well as some great supporting performances. The musical score is minimalist and perfect for the atmosphere of the film. The plot itself centers around various people who are trying to break out of the molds of their lives. In fact, the movie sums itself up perfectly in a much more poetic way than I ever could, when the teenage temptress Angela says: "I don't think there's anything worse than being ordinary." They're all trying to avoid being ordinary so they won't be forgotten, or so they can say that they lived for something important. The thing that struck me when I was watching it is that no matter what they do they'll still be ordinary. Because even if you break the mold of being midlife crisis dude, there were millions of guys that already broke the mold in the exact same manner that you did. So to me, one of the major themes of the movie is that nothing is original and you have to find the beauty in everyday life because it's mundane, not in spite of that fact. So that's kind of depressing...but also kind of comforting in a sense. And whatever happened to Sam Mendes? He's a very talented director and also one of the few that effectively uses symbols as motifs in his films. To be more specific, in his film Road To Perdition water/ice is used to symbolize death. In this movie, roses are used to symbolize the main character's sex drive (I tried to think of a more palatable way to put it but I can't). So for instance in all of his fantasies surrounding his daughter's friend, roses or rose petals are involved. More interestingly, at the beginning of the movie his wife is seen snipping the stems of roses in the garden (I'll let you figure that one out for yourself). The film is definitely "artsy" and there are plenty of people who would hate it, or be uncomfortable with it, or not get it. And that's fine, but I really like it and I stand by the Academy's decision with more fervor than I usually do.
Overall, 1999 had some pretty great stuff. And it's the first year in my escapades since 2008 where I watched most of them in a row because I hadn't seen them before. So that was a unique and pretty awesome experience. Of course, it also means that my blog entries will be slowing down if I watch all of the years at the same pace. But since I'm graduating soon and will thus have even more time to watch films and blog about them, that means that pretty soon they'll be coming in fast. Presuming I can watch and post from the cardboard box on the street that will be my home, unless I hear back from some jobs soon...but enough of that drivel. Next entry will include a heart-warming movie about a concentration camp, an uplifting movie about Normandy beach, and a Best Picture winner that contains Ben Affleck.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
2000: The Year that the General Became a Slave, Became a Gladiator, and Rescued a Nation from Stupid Tree-Flying Movies
Ah the year 2000. The turn of the century. I'm Benjamin Buttoning myself as I go on my escapade because I remember when a lot of these films came out and how different my perception of them would've been at the time. Well it's an interesting year for films. The winner is a freaking awesome film which may or may not have deserved the award (actually maybe not from an objective standing point, but it's hard for me to say that because it's one of my favorites). There's also a so-so film, an excellent film, a magical film, and a piece of crap. And none of that was in the order I list them, nor do I feel like changing it.
The magical film is Chocolat. The title by itself makes you want to puke because it sounds all French and gross. I love Alex Trebek but when he whips out the French it's not cool. Even Jack Bauer speaking French would be a bit nauseating. But the movie is awesome. Before I watched it, my mother described it to me as: "like Mary Poppins for grown-ups" and I couldn't think of a better way to describe it. There's no deep, philosophical meaning. Just good, old-fashioned "moral of the story" storytelling. But it's done in such a refreshing and magical way that I loved every minute of it. And Johnny Depp is in it. So it's automatically awesome. The basic plot is that a woman with a knack for deducing everyone's favorite kind of chocolate comes into town in a Mary Poppins esque manner and concordantly frees them from their bonds of normalcy and societal restraint. She shakes up the established order in a heavily religious French town and is perceived by some as an interloper, but by most as a hero who gave the town the breath of life it so desperately needed. The ensemble cast is great all the way around, and features some pretty hefty names (some of whom weren't quite as hefty back then, so props to the filmmakers for using them). It's never really explained how a lot of the things in the film happen, but nor should they be. As a big fan (bordering and even surpassing the level of obsession) of TV's Lost, I know that some things are better left unsaid. As the producers of that show pointed out: "if George Lucas had said where the Force comes from, it's not nearly as interesting anymore." So this movie doesn't bother to explain the more mystical aspects of the film, it just wants you to feel the emotions and go on the journey with the characters. Enhancing all of this is Rachel Portman's outstanding score. I had never heard of her before, but she writes some really good music. She lost to the composer who did the movie I hate that I'll mention in a second, which twists that knife even deeper in my soul. But back to being positive: it's also nice to have watched a movie I can recommend to basically anybody because as much as I love films like Mystic River, I wouldn't go around recommending it for fear of inducing mass-depression.
The movie that's a piece of crap gives me mass-depression because I thought it was going to be awesome. I was dragged to it when it was in theaters and so was a good friend of mine, I think because my dad didn't want to sit through the torture alone. We were told it was going to be a sweet martial arts movie with lots of fighting. Lies! Or perhaps: misleads! The movie is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and it reminds me of a sketch I saw on Monty Python. Not in a good way. The sketch involves a fake foreign film that entirely consists of a head of cabbage on a stool, and then fake critics come on and rave about it. That's how this movie makes me feel. Because though The Matrix has one of the first truly original storylines in a long time while blending Eastern philosophy, Western religion, and awesome fight scenes (which are crazy but explained by the fact that they take place in a computer world) it would have been laughed out of the Academy. And yet, when a movie has a pretty unoriginal storyline and preposterous fight scenes (that have no explanation for how ridiculous they are) it is lauded by the Academy. And why? Because it's foreign. And you have to "understand and appreciate other cultures." Well, I do. When it's not crap. The movie Hero has similarly crazy fight scenes, but it's also a tall tale so it makes sense. That movie is awesome. In fact, any crazy Asian movie with crazy fight scenes can be forgiven when they have a slapstick tone (as many of them do). But when it's trying to be serious and has fight scenes thrown in that involve people floating on treetops, that's just dumb. And since everyone in the movie clearly has superhuman abilities, why is it that at the end of the movie the girl has to ride the world's slowest mule in order to get the antidote to save the dude? Why didn't she just call Pegasus down to fly her there? Or the Phoenix? I'm of course being facetious (mostly) but seriously though, I can't even believe that it was nominated for Best Picture. That's what really upsets me here. If I watched the movie again, I'd probably enjoy it more but still have issues with it. It doesn't take a genius like me to figure out what went on here, but it does take a cynic like me to say it out loud. Basically, the "Best Foreign Language Film" award was brand new this year, and I think this movie was supposed to be the figurehead for foreign films. Because it's Asian enough to be foreign, but not quite as nutty as some of the other movies of its type (and thus it doesn't fit in with itself, which I don't like). So it's a Westernized version of an Asian martial arts film. It was never going to win Best Picture, just make people aware of films of its type. But since it's not actually representative of films of its type, the Academy is doing what they accuse people like me of doing: not being tuned in with other cultures. If they really liked this type of movie, there are better ones out there that I've seen which get no recognition. So there you go, mystery solved. Politics: revealed.
In the middle ground between the movie I detest and the excellent one is the so-so one: Erin Brockovich. I definitely enjoyed this movie, but it's kind of a 100 minute movie pretending to be a 120 minute movie. The middle of the film just kind of sits there, but the beginning is excellent and the end is expected but well-delivered. There were also like half an hour's worth of deleted scenes, which is crazy because the movie was already a bit longer than it should've been. I think Steven Soderbergh was a bit out of his element when he was directing this movie. Because there's not a whole lot for him to do, but his talents are still evident (just not nearly as evident as his other film that was nominated this year, for which he won Best Director). Julia Roberts certainly gives an excellent performance as the title character, but I feel that her supporting cast didn't receive enough recognition. There are a lot of fairly significant actors in the film, all of whom do a good job (including Albert Finney and Aaron Eckhart). Poor Aaron Eckhart is always getting overlooked. He gave an outstanding performance as Two-Face, which also went largely unnoticed. So Julia's is a great performance, but I don't think it's a show-stealer. The plot itself is of course based on a true story revolving around a class action lawsuit against a water company. So in its own way the story is the classic sports film, and of course the classic David v. Goliath. So it's cool that it represents the modern representation of this struggle as the average person versus the faceless corporation. However, given that the movie itself is more of a "hey isn't this a cool story" instead of a film that's actually really well done, I think the nomination was a bit far. Julia's nomination and win was well-deserved, but the movie itself is enjoyable and not award-worthy.
On the other hand, the excellent movie is Steven Soderbergh's masterpiece: Traffic. I really do go back and forth on whether or not this should have been the winner or not. Because I really, really love the film that won. But this is quite honestly the better movie I think. It's incredibly well-directed, well-written, thought-provoking, and it features an outstanding ensemble cast. With all of those hyphenated words how can you refuse? The film also avoids having a wholly conclusive ending, leaving you with the thought that the debates and the conflicts go on. The film features an intertwining stories approach, and it probably does it better than any other of its kind that I've seen (especially as compared to that falsely-nominated 2006 junk). Soderbergh makes the separate storylines instantly identifiable by having each one tinted with a distinctive hue (blue, yellow, and...red? It's been a while, and I don't have it in front of me. They're all apropos though). This makes the transition from story to story both more jolting and easier to take, if that makes any sense. Because it's like: boom! Now it's blue-tinted. But then you instantly go: "oh! This is Michael Douglas' story." Which reminds me: I haven't said what it's about. Basically it's about the drug trade and it focuses on three different aspects of it: the politics, the cops, and the dealers (but there are two separate stories within the dealers: the higher-ups and the soldiers on the ground). Most importantly: the movie doesn't tell you what to think of anything. It gives you food for thought on the issue, but it doesn't preach (at least not too much). The only qualm I have with the film's reception is that though I feel Benicio Del Toro's performance in the movie was excellent, I thought that Michael Douglas, Don Cheadle, and Catherine Zeta-Jones gave performances of equal caliber. When you have a good ensemble cast, an award shouldn't be given to one of the people because the movie isn't dependent on just one person. But that being said, they're good performances and the movie itself is brilliant. The Best Director Oscar was well-deserved.
And that brings us to that year's winner, a movie I hold very near and dear to my heart because it was the first R-rated movie I ever watched: Gladiator. And when I watched it, I said to myself: "this is everything I dreamed R-rated movies would be. People's heads get sliced off and stuff." As I got older and continued to view the film, I said: "this is a legitimately really good movie." As I stated before, I go back and forth on whether it should have won or not. Because while it's not as original as Traffic I think that it tells a good story and tells it well. And because years 1996-99 were all kind of "arthouse" films I think the Academy was looking for a movie that's just really good. Not controversial or contemplative, just really good (although the 1997 winner's box office is hardly arthouse, it's not exactly what one would call mainstream either in a lot of ways). So for this reason, and the fact that I love it, I stand by the Academy's decision. It's probably Ridley Scott's best work (and he is an overlooked director) and as far as classically-told movies go, it's pretty much as good as it gets. It centers around a Roman general in the waning days of the Empire, and how he struggles for revenge against the corrupt Emperor Commodus. So it also kind of represents the end of tyranny and its defeat at the hands of the common man. So there is some semblance of deeper meaning there: the emergence of democracy. The movie addresses the fact that the everyday man had his livelihood taken from him by the big government, and the man doesn't want to take it anymore. So he sticks it to the Man (capitalized M). He sticks it to him right in his neck (sweet). And remember when I said Benicio was great but shouldn't have won? The larger reason is because I think Joaquin Phoenix's performance as the Emperor should have gotten the Oscar. Benecio gave a subtly brilliant performance, but Joaquin stole every scene that he was in. He played a character that was internally weak but possessed near-unlimited power. It's not easy to appear vulnerable and powerful. The person who did win an Oscar in the movie was Russell Crowe, who gave a solid performance to be sure, but Oscar-worthy? Probably not. The film also features one of Hans Zimmer's best musical scores, which is saying a lot. And on a very general level of viewership: the battle scenes are fricking awesome. Seriously. I've seen my fair share of battles, and contrary to what some may think, a good battle scene takes a very talented director to put together. And Ridley Scott really shows his skills here. The battles are realistic enough to be believable and cinematic enough to be enjoyable. So it doesn't venture into the area of the TV show Spartacus (way too over-the-top to be serious, but still awesome) or the movie Spartacus (a bit too realistic to really take in the viewer at times). Funny how that works isn't it?
So except for one token hiccup, 2000 was a solid year. It brought in the new century with a little bit of everything. And taking a step back from artistic merit, I'm really glad a movie won that people actually went to see and enjoyed. Because too often are movies released that only people like me can enjoy. And I know that sounds strange coming from me, I'm clearly too tired right now to be my usual misanthrope. But it's true though, movies should win on occasion not because they have interesting cinematography or conflicting ideas on existentialism. But just because you walked out of it and said, "that was awesome." And on that note: 1999's winner is purely arthouse. Other highlights of the year include John McClane coming back from the dead, Tom Hanks eluding death for far too long, and Batman's butler helping Spider-Man avoid the draft during WWII.
The magical film is Chocolat. The title by itself makes you want to puke because it sounds all French and gross. I love Alex Trebek but when he whips out the French it's not cool. Even Jack Bauer speaking French would be a bit nauseating. But the movie is awesome. Before I watched it, my mother described it to me as: "like Mary Poppins for grown-ups" and I couldn't think of a better way to describe it. There's no deep, philosophical meaning. Just good, old-fashioned "moral of the story" storytelling. But it's done in such a refreshing and magical way that I loved every minute of it. And Johnny Depp is in it. So it's automatically awesome. The basic plot is that a woman with a knack for deducing everyone's favorite kind of chocolate comes into town in a Mary Poppins esque manner and concordantly frees them from their bonds of normalcy and societal restraint. She shakes up the established order in a heavily religious French town and is perceived by some as an interloper, but by most as a hero who gave the town the breath of life it so desperately needed. The ensemble cast is great all the way around, and features some pretty hefty names (some of whom weren't quite as hefty back then, so props to the filmmakers for using them). It's never really explained how a lot of the things in the film happen, but nor should they be. As a big fan (bordering and even surpassing the level of obsession) of TV's Lost, I know that some things are better left unsaid. As the producers of that show pointed out: "if George Lucas had said where the Force comes from, it's not nearly as interesting anymore." So this movie doesn't bother to explain the more mystical aspects of the film, it just wants you to feel the emotions and go on the journey with the characters. Enhancing all of this is Rachel Portman's outstanding score. I had never heard of her before, but she writes some really good music. She lost to the composer who did the movie I hate that I'll mention in a second, which twists that knife even deeper in my soul. But back to being positive: it's also nice to have watched a movie I can recommend to basically anybody because as much as I love films like Mystic River, I wouldn't go around recommending it for fear of inducing mass-depression.
The movie that's a piece of crap gives me mass-depression because I thought it was going to be awesome. I was dragged to it when it was in theaters and so was a good friend of mine, I think because my dad didn't want to sit through the torture alone. We were told it was going to be a sweet martial arts movie with lots of fighting. Lies! Or perhaps: misleads! The movie is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and it reminds me of a sketch I saw on Monty Python. Not in a good way. The sketch involves a fake foreign film that entirely consists of a head of cabbage on a stool, and then fake critics come on and rave about it. That's how this movie makes me feel. Because though The Matrix has one of the first truly original storylines in a long time while blending Eastern philosophy, Western religion, and awesome fight scenes (which are crazy but explained by the fact that they take place in a computer world) it would have been laughed out of the Academy. And yet, when a movie has a pretty unoriginal storyline and preposterous fight scenes (that have no explanation for how ridiculous they are) it is lauded by the Academy. And why? Because it's foreign. And you have to "understand and appreciate other cultures." Well, I do. When it's not crap. The movie Hero has similarly crazy fight scenes, but it's also a tall tale so it makes sense. That movie is awesome. In fact, any crazy Asian movie with crazy fight scenes can be forgiven when they have a slapstick tone (as many of them do). But when it's trying to be serious and has fight scenes thrown in that involve people floating on treetops, that's just dumb. And since everyone in the movie clearly has superhuman abilities, why is it that at the end of the movie the girl has to ride the world's slowest mule in order to get the antidote to save the dude? Why didn't she just call Pegasus down to fly her there? Or the Phoenix? I'm of course being facetious (mostly) but seriously though, I can't even believe that it was nominated for Best Picture. That's what really upsets me here. If I watched the movie again, I'd probably enjoy it more but still have issues with it. It doesn't take a genius like me to figure out what went on here, but it does take a cynic like me to say it out loud. Basically, the "Best Foreign Language Film" award was brand new this year, and I think this movie was supposed to be the figurehead for foreign films. Because it's Asian enough to be foreign, but not quite as nutty as some of the other movies of its type (and thus it doesn't fit in with itself, which I don't like). So it's a Westernized version of an Asian martial arts film. It was never going to win Best Picture, just make people aware of films of its type. But since it's not actually representative of films of its type, the Academy is doing what they accuse people like me of doing: not being tuned in with other cultures. If they really liked this type of movie, there are better ones out there that I've seen which get no recognition. So there you go, mystery solved. Politics: revealed.
In the middle ground between the movie I detest and the excellent one is the so-so one: Erin Brockovich. I definitely enjoyed this movie, but it's kind of a 100 minute movie pretending to be a 120 minute movie. The middle of the film just kind of sits there, but the beginning is excellent and the end is expected but well-delivered. There were also like half an hour's worth of deleted scenes, which is crazy because the movie was already a bit longer than it should've been. I think Steven Soderbergh was a bit out of his element when he was directing this movie. Because there's not a whole lot for him to do, but his talents are still evident (just not nearly as evident as his other film that was nominated this year, for which he won Best Director). Julia Roberts certainly gives an excellent performance as the title character, but I feel that her supporting cast didn't receive enough recognition. There are a lot of fairly significant actors in the film, all of whom do a good job (including Albert Finney and Aaron Eckhart). Poor Aaron Eckhart is always getting overlooked. He gave an outstanding performance as Two-Face, which also went largely unnoticed. So Julia's is a great performance, but I don't think it's a show-stealer. The plot itself is of course based on a true story revolving around a class action lawsuit against a water company. So in its own way the story is the classic sports film, and of course the classic David v. Goliath. So it's cool that it represents the modern representation of this struggle as the average person versus the faceless corporation. However, given that the movie itself is more of a "hey isn't this a cool story" instead of a film that's actually really well done, I think the nomination was a bit far. Julia's nomination and win was well-deserved, but the movie itself is enjoyable and not award-worthy.
On the other hand, the excellent movie is Steven Soderbergh's masterpiece: Traffic. I really do go back and forth on whether or not this should have been the winner or not. Because I really, really love the film that won. But this is quite honestly the better movie I think. It's incredibly well-directed, well-written, thought-provoking, and it features an outstanding ensemble cast. With all of those hyphenated words how can you refuse? The film also avoids having a wholly conclusive ending, leaving you with the thought that the debates and the conflicts go on. The film features an intertwining stories approach, and it probably does it better than any other of its kind that I've seen (especially as compared to that falsely-nominated 2006 junk). Soderbergh makes the separate storylines instantly identifiable by having each one tinted with a distinctive hue (blue, yellow, and...red? It's been a while, and I don't have it in front of me. They're all apropos though). This makes the transition from story to story both more jolting and easier to take, if that makes any sense. Because it's like: boom! Now it's blue-tinted. But then you instantly go: "oh! This is Michael Douglas' story." Which reminds me: I haven't said what it's about. Basically it's about the drug trade and it focuses on three different aspects of it: the politics, the cops, and the dealers (but there are two separate stories within the dealers: the higher-ups and the soldiers on the ground). Most importantly: the movie doesn't tell you what to think of anything. It gives you food for thought on the issue, but it doesn't preach (at least not too much). The only qualm I have with the film's reception is that though I feel Benicio Del Toro's performance in the movie was excellent, I thought that Michael Douglas, Don Cheadle, and Catherine Zeta-Jones gave performances of equal caliber. When you have a good ensemble cast, an award shouldn't be given to one of the people because the movie isn't dependent on just one person. But that being said, they're good performances and the movie itself is brilliant. The Best Director Oscar was well-deserved.
And that brings us to that year's winner, a movie I hold very near and dear to my heart because it was the first R-rated movie I ever watched: Gladiator. And when I watched it, I said to myself: "this is everything I dreamed R-rated movies would be. People's heads get sliced off and stuff." As I got older and continued to view the film, I said: "this is a legitimately really good movie." As I stated before, I go back and forth on whether it should have won or not. Because while it's not as original as Traffic I think that it tells a good story and tells it well. And because years 1996-99 were all kind of "arthouse" films I think the Academy was looking for a movie that's just really good. Not controversial or contemplative, just really good (although the 1997 winner's box office is hardly arthouse, it's not exactly what one would call mainstream either in a lot of ways). So for this reason, and the fact that I love it, I stand by the Academy's decision. It's probably Ridley Scott's best work (and he is an overlooked director) and as far as classically-told movies go, it's pretty much as good as it gets. It centers around a Roman general in the waning days of the Empire, and how he struggles for revenge against the corrupt Emperor Commodus. So it also kind of represents the end of tyranny and its defeat at the hands of the common man. So there is some semblance of deeper meaning there: the emergence of democracy. The movie addresses the fact that the everyday man had his livelihood taken from him by the big government, and the man doesn't want to take it anymore. So he sticks it to the Man (capitalized M). He sticks it to him right in his neck (sweet). And remember when I said Benicio was great but shouldn't have won? The larger reason is because I think Joaquin Phoenix's performance as the Emperor should have gotten the Oscar. Benecio gave a subtly brilliant performance, but Joaquin stole every scene that he was in. He played a character that was internally weak but possessed near-unlimited power. It's not easy to appear vulnerable and powerful. The person who did win an Oscar in the movie was Russell Crowe, who gave a solid performance to be sure, but Oscar-worthy? Probably not. The film also features one of Hans Zimmer's best musical scores, which is saying a lot. And on a very general level of viewership: the battle scenes are fricking awesome. Seriously. I've seen my fair share of battles, and contrary to what some may think, a good battle scene takes a very talented director to put together. And Ridley Scott really shows his skills here. The battles are realistic enough to be believable and cinematic enough to be enjoyable. So it doesn't venture into the area of the TV show Spartacus (way too over-the-top to be serious, but still awesome) or the movie Spartacus (a bit too realistic to really take in the viewer at times). Funny how that works isn't it?
So except for one token hiccup, 2000 was a solid year. It brought in the new century with a little bit of everything. And taking a step back from artistic merit, I'm really glad a movie won that people actually went to see and enjoyed. Because too often are movies released that only people like me can enjoy. And I know that sounds strange coming from me, I'm clearly too tired right now to be my usual misanthrope. But it's true though, movies should win on occasion not because they have interesting cinematography or conflicting ideas on existentialism. But just because you walked out of it and said, "that was awesome." And on that note: 1999's winner is purely arthouse. Other highlights of the year include John McClane coming back from the dead, Tom Hanks eluding death for far too long, and Batman's butler helping Spider-Man avoid the draft during WWII.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
2001: The Year that British People Sat and Did Nothing for Over Two Hours and French People Were Awesome
Based on my title, this year is all screwy. And by screwy, I mean awesome. Except for that one movie which was pretty useless. Ordinarily after sentences like that, many would put something like, "in my opinion" or as our culture has shortened it to: "IMO" or even worse "IMHO." The H is for "humble," a word I find almost as useless as its meaning. Because if you say something it's obviously in your opinion. It's really just something to tag on to make sure people don't get mad. Forget that crap, I hope people do get mad at stuff I say sometimes. Because as much as I like to dream about a society where everyone is me, then I wouldn't be awesome anymore. I'd be some dude. That's not cool. So let's rip on those British people.
The movie is entitled Gosford Park. Even its title annoys me because it's almost impossible to come up with a clever alternate title that describes my dislike of the film. Well, one that's not a huge stretch anyway. The movie is essentially about a bunch of British people sitting around and talking about nothing. And not awesome "Tarantino nothing" dialogue either. Boring dialogue to the point that I wished the cameraman would've left the dinner party and gone and filmed literally anything else. Croque in back of the bed and breakfast? Sounds great. Spider spinning a web in the attic? That's the miracle of nature right there. View of the night sky in wait of the one or two shooting stars that might go by? Sign me up. Because the movie is supposed to be making fun of British high society sitting around and being pompous and annoying. And they do this by having a bunch of British people sitting around and being pompous and annoying for 2 hours and 17 minutes. Now see, The Boondock Saints kind of makes fun of ridiculous action movies by being a ridiculous action movie. So it makes its point, and you can still enjoy mobsters getting shot in slow motion. If pompous British people are so enjoyable to be around then their whole empire probably wouldn't have revolted like it did (just a thought). Plus, it's a bit pointless to satire a phenomenon that is almost entirely gone (not the pompousness, just the empire). The highlight of the movie is easily the opening credits, because it's where you say: "hey! Look at all of the great actors that are in this!" Too bad none of them have anything to do. Kind of like how Lost in Translation begins with a close-up shot of scantily clad Scarlett Johansson, and the movie is downhill from there. There are of course plot developments along the way, someone is someone else's long lost son, someone gets killed, someone is pregnant, yadda yadda. I don't remember who the killer was, and I watched it last night. Did they even say conclusively who it was? Not sure. Because I don't care. And I zoned out during the movie. And not only was it nominated for Best Picture, it won for Best Screenplay. Absurd. And, by the way, in the credits it said it was based on "an idea" by so-and-so. Well, A) a "hey wouldn't this be neat?" idea doesn't constitute making a whole movie and B) he probably got this idea while watching Pride and Prejudice and playing Clue. Very creative. Really.
Know what movie I thought was going to be a Rom-Com and ended up being a fascinating study in human nature? No, not Win a Date With Tad Hamilton. Nice guess though. It's actually In the Bedroom, and the movie is classically well done. It centers around a college-bound boy who has become involved with a mother of two in the middle of a divorce (her divorce, not his). And then something happens that made me glad I literally read nothing about it beforehand (and why you should stop reading if you care. Actually don't, because my blog is a more important addition to American pop culture than the movie). The son is murdered by the husband during an altercation, and the rest of the film is about the effect that this has on the boy's parents. Unlike the movie I previously mentioned, this movie is largely about some people sitting around talking but it's fascinating. There is also the brilliant scene near the beginning from which the movie takes its title. The scene describes the part of a net used to catch lobsters that is called "the bedroom." And when there are more than 2 people (oops, I mean lobsters) in the bedroom at a time, they turn on each other. The scene foreshadows the events of the film without throwing it in your face. Very nicely done. The last half an hour or so of the movie depicts the father capturing his son's murderer and killing him. The whole movie leads up to this decision in a way that makes it very believable without being so blatant that he had no other choice in the matter. So in other words, it's not like the culprit was running around killing other people and no one would stop him. The father makes a very human, "somewhat understandable and somewhat not" decision. The only reason I put quotes there is it looks sloppy otherwise, it's not a quote from the movie. That'd be dumb. But anyway, the acting, writing, directing, and everything in this movie is really good. I'm not sure if I'd have given it the award or not, but it is definitely deserving of the nomination.
All right then, I think we all know my feelings toward The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I won't even waste your time by repeating what I already said. Bottom line: if you haven't seen it, there's something wrong with you. If you've seen it and you don't like it: do yourself a favor and don't inform me of this. The only interesting thing of note about this one that can't be said of the others is that it's the only film in the trilogy to have an actor nominated (Ian McKellen). And surprisingly, I'm glad he didn't win, but only because everyone in the movie does an equally excellent job and it's almost silly to single out just one person. Unless it's Andy Serkis in 2002 and 2003, because he had no one to act off of and thus his accomplishments were more amazing. And if he'd won in 2003 the movie would have more awards than anybody. Sigh...okay I can't take it, I'll say it again: in a perfect world all three would've won. Just like how The Sopranos won a bunch of years, because it's probably the greatest television show of all time. On a personal note, I still remember seeing this movie and thinking to myself: this is the greatest movie I've ever seen. I was only 13, but every time I've seen any of the films since, I think the same thing to myself. My tastes have changed, my abilities to analyze film have heightened, and every time I watch one I'm afraid I won't like it. But they just keep getting better as I get older. And I've seen them about a million times and they still deeply move me more than most movies do on a first viewing. So even though Time magazine might not think so, these are the best movies of the decade, and some of the best of all time. And that's how we'll remember them culturally, and they'll live on. Suck on that James Cameron.
Now here we're coming up on another movie that changed as I got older. Not from "amazing" to "fricking amazing" but instead from "weird looking" to "immensely entertaining and quite well done." The movie is Moulin Rouge! and don't even think about forgetting the exclamation point. Because remember: the musical isn't Oklahoma...I guess...it's Oklahoma! When this movie first came out I saw commercials and thought to myself, "that looks really strange." So for all of these years that was kind of the image in my mind. Then when it came time to watch it for my escapade, I thought, "well maybe I can think of something good to say about it, it might not be so bad." Well, the film begins with a stage curtain pulling back to reveal the 20th Century Fox logo and the conductor in front of the stage is conducting the stage band as they play the 20th Century Fox fanfare. At this point I said, "crap...this is going to be awesome." But I love being wrong when this happens (actually only when it results in this happening). The movie is visually incredible, and the songs are outstanding. Oddly enough, they sing a ton of modern songs and it takes place in the late 19th century. Apparently the director wanted Ewan McGregor's character to be like the character Orpheus in Greek mythology, who had access to secret musical knowledge that no one had yet heard. This is why they have him singing songs that haven't been written yet. The director also explained that he chose to have the production level and visual nature of the singing and dancing at the Moulin Rouge more comparable to a modern show for a specific reason. He explained that a far less exciting show would've given audiences of the day an adrenaline rush, but not today. So he was basically adjusting the excitement for inflation. But here's where I come down on musicals: anything ridiculous or slightly ridiculous that happens is fine. Because the fact that everyone in the movie is singing and dancing tells you the absurdity of the situation and that it clearly isn't taking place in real life. So as long as they establish early in the musical what kind of tone it will have, I'm cool with it. So if the phantom of the opera broke out with Bon Jovi's "It's My Life," before he snatches Christine, it'd be a bit ridiculous because the show doesn't have that tone (it'd be kind of badass though). But this movie can do what it wants, did do what it wanted, and I loved every minute of it. And are you watching this, The Hours? Do you see how Nicole Kidman should look? She should look like the gorgeous woman that she is, not the little-known wicked witch of the Mid-West. All of that being said, the story itself is fairly ordinary, but the delivery is excellent and I even got choked up a bit at the end (something I usually reserve for movies with more intense conflicts). So, well done Baz Luhrmann. Well done sir. Whether or not I'd have given it the award is unknown, I actually might have. But I also really like the winner, so it's a tough call.
And the winner for this year is A Beautiful Mind. Quite an excellent film. I think Russell Crowe was robbed of the Oscar that year. He had won the previous year for that movie about the gladiator, which he was good but not great in. Denzel Washington won in this year because he had been screwed in 1999 for that movie where he plays that boxer they call the hurricane. See how often awards are carried over because they weren't given when they should have been? How does the Academy keep track of all the mistakes they need to set right? It'd be impressive if not for the fact that it's their own fault for being stupid. But anyway, this film is one of Ron Howard's finest pieces of work and that's saying something. He's quite a talented, and somewhat overlooked, director. He could've made an excellent Alamo movie, and wanted to, but stupid Disney didn't like his ideas (they must've said: "people might actually go see this movie and it might actually be good so we don't want it"). But anyway, this film that I was originally talking about centers on the real-life brilliant mathematician John Nash. It focuses on his isolation in college, his eventual work with the government, and his struggles with schizophrenia. This addresses something I find quite fascinating in that it's almost comic book esque but it happens in real life: intelligence comes with a price. If you're really smart, you likely have other issues. Because quite honestly, the people you spend your life with aren't as smart as you and it does things to your brain. This very personal story is powerfully acted, funny at times, tragic at others, but ultimately uplifting. Because even John Nash was no match for his own mind when it turned against him, but the love of his wife kept him sane. This could very easily become cheesy but it never does. Because they don't tell you that particular plot point, they show it to you. And that's always more powerful than a bunch of exposition. The film would be good enough on its own, but James Horner's excellent music really gives it that extra something it needs to become worthy of the Oscar. The movie might not have held its ground in a more competitive year of nominees (wouldn't have had a shot in 2003 or 2004) but as compared to the films it was up against, it earns its place at the top.
So overall 2001 was a pretty great year. There was that one token hiccup of course, but almost every year has one. 2000 has one that I really can't stand, haven't seen for a long time, and should probably rewatch. But I refuse. My time is precious and I have important things to do. The people of Hyrule need me. Revolver Ocelot is on the loose. Bowser captured Princess Peach again. Should be good times. So tune in next time for my very first R-rated movie, more delightful French people (becoming a frightening trend), and Catherine Zeta-Jones going Vader on some unfortunate people.
The movie is entitled Gosford Park. Even its title annoys me because it's almost impossible to come up with a clever alternate title that describes my dislike of the film. Well, one that's not a huge stretch anyway. The movie is essentially about a bunch of British people sitting around and talking about nothing. And not awesome "Tarantino nothing" dialogue either. Boring dialogue to the point that I wished the cameraman would've left the dinner party and gone and filmed literally anything else. Croque in back of the bed and breakfast? Sounds great. Spider spinning a web in the attic? That's the miracle of nature right there. View of the night sky in wait of the one or two shooting stars that might go by? Sign me up. Because the movie is supposed to be making fun of British high society sitting around and being pompous and annoying. And they do this by having a bunch of British people sitting around and being pompous and annoying for 2 hours and 17 minutes. Now see, The Boondock Saints kind of makes fun of ridiculous action movies by being a ridiculous action movie. So it makes its point, and you can still enjoy mobsters getting shot in slow motion. If pompous British people are so enjoyable to be around then their whole empire probably wouldn't have revolted like it did (just a thought). Plus, it's a bit pointless to satire a phenomenon that is almost entirely gone (not the pompousness, just the empire). The highlight of the movie is easily the opening credits, because it's where you say: "hey! Look at all of the great actors that are in this!" Too bad none of them have anything to do. Kind of like how Lost in Translation begins with a close-up shot of scantily clad Scarlett Johansson, and the movie is downhill from there. There are of course plot developments along the way, someone is someone else's long lost son, someone gets killed, someone is pregnant, yadda yadda. I don't remember who the killer was, and I watched it last night. Did they even say conclusively who it was? Not sure. Because I don't care. And I zoned out during the movie. And not only was it nominated for Best Picture, it won for Best Screenplay. Absurd. And, by the way, in the credits it said it was based on "an idea" by so-and-so. Well, A) a "hey wouldn't this be neat?" idea doesn't constitute making a whole movie and B) he probably got this idea while watching Pride and Prejudice and playing Clue. Very creative. Really.
Know what movie I thought was going to be a Rom-Com and ended up being a fascinating study in human nature? No, not Win a Date With Tad Hamilton. Nice guess though. It's actually In the Bedroom, and the movie is classically well done. It centers around a college-bound boy who has become involved with a mother of two in the middle of a divorce (her divorce, not his). And then something happens that made me glad I literally read nothing about it beforehand (and why you should stop reading if you care. Actually don't, because my blog is a more important addition to American pop culture than the movie). The son is murdered by the husband during an altercation, and the rest of the film is about the effect that this has on the boy's parents. Unlike the movie I previously mentioned, this movie is largely about some people sitting around talking but it's fascinating. There is also the brilliant scene near the beginning from which the movie takes its title. The scene describes the part of a net used to catch lobsters that is called "the bedroom." And when there are more than 2 people (oops, I mean lobsters) in the bedroom at a time, they turn on each other. The scene foreshadows the events of the film without throwing it in your face. Very nicely done. The last half an hour or so of the movie depicts the father capturing his son's murderer and killing him. The whole movie leads up to this decision in a way that makes it very believable without being so blatant that he had no other choice in the matter. So in other words, it's not like the culprit was running around killing other people and no one would stop him. The father makes a very human, "somewhat understandable and somewhat not" decision. The only reason I put quotes there is it looks sloppy otherwise, it's not a quote from the movie. That'd be dumb. But anyway, the acting, writing, directing, and everything in this movie is really good. I'm not sure if I'd have given it the award or not, but it is definitely deserving of the nomination.
All right then, I think we all know my feelings toward The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I won't even waste your time by repeating what I already said. Bottom line: if you haven't seen it, there's something wrong with you. If you've seen it and you don't like it: do yourself a favor and don't inform me of this. The only interesting thing of note about this one that can't be said of the others is that it's the only film in the trilogy to have an actor nominated (Ian McKellen). And surprisingly, I'm glad he didn't win, but only because everyone in the movie does an equally excellent job and it's almost silly to single out just one person. Unless it's Andy Serkis in 2002 and 2003, because he had no one to act off of and thus his accomplishments were more amazing. And if he'd won in 2003 the movie would have more awards than anybody. Sigh...okay I can't take it, I'll say it again: in a perfect world all three would've won. Just like how The Sopranos won a bunch of years, because it's probably the greatest television show of all time. On a personal note, I still remember seeing this movie and thinking to myself: this is the greatest movie I've ever seen. I was only 13, but every time I've seen any of the films since, I think the same thing to myself. My tastes have changed, my abilities to analyze film have heightened, and every time I watch one I'm afraid I won't like it. But they just keep getting better as I get older. And I've seen them about a million times and they still deeply move me more than most movies do on a first viewing. So even though Time magazine might not think so, these are the best movies of the decade, and some of the best of all time. And that's how we'll remember them culturally, and they'll live on. Suck on that James Cameron.
Now here we're coming up on another movie that changed as I got older. Not from "amazing" to "fricking amazing" but instead from "weird looking" to "immensely entertaining and quite well done." The movie is Moulin Rouge! and don't even think about forgetting the exclamation point. Because remember: the musical isn't Oklahoma...I guess...it's Oklahoma! When this movie first came out I saw commercials and thought to myself, "that looks really strange." So for all of these years that was kind of the image in my mind. Then when it came time to watch it for my escapade, I thought, "well maybe I can think of something good to say about it, it might not be so bad." Well, the film begins with a stage curtain pulling back to reveal the 20th Century Fox logo and the conductor in front of the stage is conducting the stage band as they play the 20th Century Fox fanfare. At this point I said, "crap...this is going to be awesome." But I love being wrong when this happens (actually only when it results in this happening). The movie is visually incredible, and the songs are outstanding. Oddly enough, they sing a ton of modern songs and it takes place in the late 19th century. Apparently the director wanted Ewan McGregor's character to be like the character Orpheus in Greek mythology, who had access to secret musical knowledge that no one had yet heard. This is why they have him singing songs that haven't been written yet. The director also explained that he chose to have the production level and visual nature of the singing and dancing at the Moulin Rouge more comparable to a modern show for a specific reason. He explained that a far less exciting show would've given audiences of the day an adrenaline rush, but not today. So he was basically adjusting the excitement for inflation. But here's where I come down on musicals: anything ridiculous or slightly ridiculous that happens is fine. Because the fact that everyone in the movie is singing and dancing tells you the absurdity of the situation and that it clearly isn't taking place in real life. So as long as they establish early in the musical what kind of tone it will have, I'm cool with it. So if the phantom of the opera broke out with Bon Jovi's "It's My Life," before he snatches Christine, it'd be a bit ridiculous because the show doesn't have that tone (it'd be kind of badass though). But this movie can do what it wants, did do what it wanted, and I loved every minute of it. And are you watching this, The Hours? Do you see how Nicole Kidman should look? She should look like the gorgeous woman that she is, not the little-known wicked witch of the Mid-West. All of that being said, the story itself is fairly ordinary, but the delivery is excellent and I even got choked up a bit at the end (something I usually reserve for movies with more intense conflicts). So, well done Baz Luhrmann. Well done sir. Whether or not I'd have given it the award is unknown, I actually might have. But I also really like the winner, so it's a tough call.
And the winner for this year is A Beautiful Mind. Quite an excellent film. I think Russell Crowe was robbed of the Oscar that year. He had won the previous year for that movie about the gladiator, which he was good but not great in. Denzel Washington won in this year because he had been screwed in 1999 for that movie where he plays that boxer they call the hurricane. See how often awards are carried over because they weren't given when they should have been? How does the Academy keep track of all the mistakes they need to set right? It'd be impressive if not for the fact that it's their own fault for being stupid. But anyway, this film is one of Ron Howard's finest pieces of work and that's saying something. He's quite a talented, and somewhat overlooked, director. He could've made an excellent Alamo movie, and wanted to, but stupid Disney didn't like his ideas (they must've said: "people might actually go see this movie and it might actually be good so we don't want it"). But anyway, this film that I was originally talking about centers on the real-life brilliant mathematician John Nash. It focuses on his isolation in college, his eventual work with the government, and his struggles with schizophrenia. This addresses something I find quite fascinating in that it's almost comic book esque but it happens in real life: intelligence comes with a price. If you're really smart, you likely have other issues. Because quite honestly, the people you spend your life with aren't as smart as you and it does things to your brain. This very personal story is powerfully acted, funny at times, tragic at others, but ultimately uplifting. Because even John Nash was no match for his own mind when it turned against him, but the love of his wife kept him sane. This could very easily become cheesy but it never does. Because they don't tell you that particular plot point, they show it to you. And that's always more powerful than a bunch of exposition. The film would be good enough on its own, but James Horner's excellent music really gives it that extra something it needs to become worthy of the Oscar. The movie might not have held its ground in a more competitive year of nominees (wouldn't have had a shot in 2003 or 2004) but as compared to the films it was up against, it earns its place at the top.
So overall 2001 was a pretty great year. There was that one token hiccup of course, but almost every year has one. 2000 has one that I really can't stand, haven't seen for a long time, and should probably rewatch. But I refuse. My time is precious and I have important things to do. The people of Hyrule need me. Revolver Ocelot is on the loose. Bowser captured Princess Peach again. Should be good times. So tune in next time for my very first R-rated movie, more delightful French people (becoming a frightening trend), and Catherine Zeta-Jones going Vader on some unfortunate people.
Monday, April 12, 2010
2002: The Year that John C. Reilly Engaged in Mob Warfare Before Being Abandoned by Two Wives
2002 is overall a pretty great year for film, but there always has to be that one exception that makes me mad, and thus gives ammo to this blog. So bravo Academy, your idiocy is fuel for my wit. All of that being said, I don't really agree with the year's winner in an objective sense, but I can also understand the reasoning behind its nomination and win. Don't you love when I'm being annoying and cryptic? Because you really want to look up the nominees and see if you can figure it out without having to read my blather, but you're just too lazy. I win again minions.
First up on the list is yet another overlooked Scorsese film. As I go through the years you'll further understand my 2006 sentiments (sidenote: another film that could've replaced The Queen was The Last King of Scotland. Not trying to make a gender statement about royalty positions or a political statement about European nonsense, it's just true). But anyway, the 2002 movie I was originally talking about is Gangs of New York. As though you couldn't figure this out before, I like long movies with big battles and great personal conflict. And this certainly applies. Much like he did two years later with that movie about the recluse (hard to explain, but the italics command doesn't work right on this computer, so I'll be avoiding the alternative of moving my mouse to the button at the top at all costs) Scorsese is really stepping out of his element here. Although maybe not, because the gangs are mobs of sorts and so it actually functions as an interesting sort of prequel to his other movies. Kind of a: "before Travis Bickle drove his cab and shot people here, before Tommy DeVito asked if he was amusing, these were the people who laid the groundwork." Or as the quasi-douchey song by U2 says during the credits, "these are the hands that built America." Although I did like that the modern song came in at the end to signify the coming of the modern world (much like how the old-world dispute at the end is taken down by cannon fire from the ships, which symbolize the new world) I just wish it wasn't U2. Check my Beyonce blog entry if you want to know why. Anyway, all of the acting is very solid in this movie (it's the only one this year where John C. Reilly doesn't get pushed around by his wife, so good for him) but I don't quite buy Leo's Irish accent. I mostly do, but he also has the misfortune of acting next to Daniel Day-Lewis. Contrary to what some may think, I like Leo as an actor, but he's no DDL. The surprisingly good performance is Cameron Diaz, who easily gives the best performance of her career. Not that that's particularly difficult, but I give credit to Scorsese for seeing something great in her. I think this movie would've had a better shot if the 6 or 7 movies that won before it weren't emotionally draining, because I think the Academy got sick of that and wanted something fresh. Also on an odd aside: why does this movie need to be on two discs? It's only 2 hours and 47, that's not too much really. I was just getting into the movie when it cut out and said to insert disc 2. Annoying. I blame orthodontists.
I just took a deep breath that's difficult to convey effectively with text. And why? Because not only did I not like this next movie, it actually made me mad. They could've easily nominated Adaptation in its place (which is a brilliant movie). The movie's title is The Hours but the title should've been: The Hours of My Life that I Won't Get Back. First off, I watched it right after watching that movie about the French place in the 1800s with the modern singing (it took me like 10 minutes to italicize my fake movie a second ago) where Nicole Kidman is ridiculously gorgeous. Then in this movie she looks like a witch (with a pretty fake looking nose I might add). I also watched it a few hours after watching that movie about the pianist (actual plot description, no italics needed. Oh wait, could've just mentioned the moulin rouge abstractly too...) and the reason this didn't help is Julianne Moore's plight in this movie is that she has to fit into 50s housewife society and bake a cake, and Adrien Brody's plight is that his whole family was killed in the holocaust along with most of his friends and his homelands were scorched by the Nazis and he only survived because he plays the piano well. And Julianne has to bake a cake. How sad. I understand the overall idea that she's trying to break free from this oppressive patriarchal society, and I can even respect that. But her husband (John C. Reilly, poor guy) did nothing wrong by falling in love with her and marrying her (which I'm sure she agreed to, after all). And it's not his fault that society is what it is. And her son certainly did nothing wrong at the ripe old age of 7. And yet, she abandons them anyway. Then her son grows up to need constant attention from Meryl Streep's character. And that's her plight. Well A) no one was putting a gun in her back to attend to him and B) it's no frigging wonder he needed all that female attention because his mom abandoned him at 7. He probably grew up thinking that something was so wrong with him that even his own mother wanted nothing to do with him. Forget about ruining Meryl's life, we're lucky the guy didn't become a supervillain. And then you've got Nicole Kidman playing Virginia Woolf, who was a bit off. She's upset because everyone thinks she's crazy. So she does the ultimate sane act and walks into a river until she's dead. Nice. She and Julianne are both secret lesbians by the way, how does that serve the story? Not sure. Although I'm told that from a female perspective the kiss between Julianne and her friend is one of comfort and not attraction. But I say: if it turns on frat boys then it's probably not platonic (and no I'm not subtly referring to myself as a frat boy). Plus, if you have to be a woman to understand possibly key plot points, what kind of a movie is that? Last I checked, most nominees can be enjoyed by men and women. You can't award a movie that only appeals to some people who get movies, it has to be all people who get movies. Or at least all people who have a shot at getting what your movie is about (not just the ones without Y chromosomes). Because if you're going down that road, why not give every award in the book to Yellow Submarine? Because sure, it just seems trippy to a lot of people, but if you're on LSD I'm sure it's pretty much the greatest movie ever. Bottom line: I didn't like it. Nothing worse than understanding the deeper meaning of a film and still going, "who cares?"
And now to completely switch gears to The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. I went a bit long on that last one, so I'll keep this one short. Bottom line: it would've been tacky to give all 3 LOTR movies the Best Picture so this one was an honorary nomination. Which is fine. Everyone knows it was the best movie that year (everyone worth talking to anyway). It has the greatest battle scene ever put to film and it also has everything I mentioned in my 2003 post with regards to the end of the trilogy. One thing I will point out though is that it's a crime that Andy Serkis wasn't nominated for his role as Gollum in this movie. The character is CGI, but he still had to act. In fact, he had to act largely by himself surrounded by nothing but green screen, his imagination, and a bunch of New Zealanders. That's fricking amazing. And he should've been recognized. They still gave Nicole Kidman an award that year, when she was under so much makeup that I wasn't attracted to her in the slightest (that's a lot of makeup). What's the difference? A clue: there isn't one. Also, Howard Shore won for his music in the other two, why not this one? At the time they said it didn't have enough "new" music, just old themes from the first one. Well, there's about 12 total seconds of music in the movie about the mountain that needs a chiropractor, and it still won Best Original Score. And I've listened to all 10+ hours of music from the trilogy many many times, so I think I know. Stupid Academy.
Well that turned out being a longer read than I thought. I just happened to remember my old vendettas. And oh yes, they go back. This next film I've already mentioned in passing, and I'm torn on whether I like it more than Scorsese's offering. It's The Pianist, and it features an outstanding performance from Adrien Brody. Interestingly it won Best Director, even though Roman Polanski isn't allowed in the country, and at the time I didn't like that but now I know why. Because it's really freaking good. And unlike The Queen (which began with the queen looking right into the camera as the title came up, cheesy) it features not only a great performance but also some great filmmaking, music, etc. I really did like the movie about the queen but it's a good example of movies that only feature a good performance and little else, and it doesn't take long to write. Side note: wow I'm tired and I have to write a paper for tomorrow. See what I sacrifice for you people? But anyway, throughout the first half an hour of this movie I was kind of thinking: "I've seen this before, and Spielberg did it better." But what makes this movie different and so good is that the main character is in a state of constant flux. His world keeps changing, the people helping him keep circulating, the amount of control and safety he has within a given situation keeps changing. So the film really takes you on his personal journey, and you really feel that survivor's guilt that plagues him throughout the entire movie. The only thing keeping him sane was the piano. And the scene where he mimes playing a real piano and hears the notes in his head really sent me over the edge. Because I love music in film and how it can really tell the whole story when done well. So the fact that music was keeping him sane through the horrors he witnessed and lived through was a really powerful undertone to the film. I think that when counting out the "political" reasons for this year's winner (I'll explain soon) and the fact that LOTR had 2003 down as its winning year from the beginning, this film was the year's best. But alas, it was not to be.
But I do love the year's winner, nonetheless. And after many years without any musicals, or any good musicals anyway, the movie with the moulin rouge paved the way for Chicago to step in and win. And though I think that the Academy was looking to give the win to something a bit different, it is a really good movie. Because first off, unlike most films (especially musicals) the characters in this movie aren't particularly good people. They're pretty rotten actually. And if there weren't any musical numbers, you'd probably just say: what a bunch of jerks. Kind of like how if Seinfeld wasn't hilarious, you'd want all of the characters deported for being horrible human beings. But it is funny. And this movie does have musical numbers. It's basically about two women who killed their lovers and how they use silver-tongued lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere in probably the only film I like him in) to get away with murder. Not to mention that one of them alienates poor John C. Reilly, who wonderfully and appropriately performs "Mr. Cellophane." That guy can't catch a break. As the song says: "you can look right through me, walk right by me, and never know I'm there." Why couldn't you just bake him that freaking cake Julianne Moore? I mean, really. The guy is emotionally dead. But it might be worth it because I love that song. Know what other song I like? All of the songs. In addition, the film is full of mini music videos, that each have their own style and artistry. So when they're singing the songs, they're also showing some of the underlying plot threads in fresh and interesting ways. My favorite is when Billy Flynn has the main character on his lap as though she is a puppet, and he then proceeds to talk to the press "through" her and thus make them look like the morons that they are. All of that being said, it's probably not the year's best movie but it's also likely the most unique. And I like when things that are often overlooked are given a tip of the hat. Not a bad choice Academy, I'm sure you made it by accident.
Well that's it for 2002. Almost an exclusively great year. Sigh...but I digress (and more than usual). So I'll just mention that the next entry will include: a movie I've tried to watch 2 or 3 times and still haven't finished, Nicole Kidman the way she ought to be, and further proof that I change my mind on occasion.
First up on the list is yet another overlooked Scorsese film. As I go through the years you'll further understand my 2006 sentiments (sidenote: another film that could've replaced The Queen was The Last King of Scotland. Not trying to make a gender statement about royalty positions or a political statement about European nonsense, it's just true). But anyway, the 2002 movie I was originally talking about is Gangs of New York. As though you couldn't figure this out before, I like long movies with big battles and great personal conflict. And this certainly applies. Much like he did two years later with that movie about the recluse (hard to explain, but the italics command doesn't work right on this computer, so I'll be avoiding the alternative of moving my mouse to the button at the top at all costs) Scorsese is really stepping out of his element here. Although maybe not, because the gangs are mobs of sorts and so it actually functions as an interesting sort of prequel to his other movies. Kind of a: "before Travis Bickle drove his cab and shot people here, before Tommy DeVito asked if he was amusing, these were the people who laid the groundwork." Or as the quasi-douchey song by U2 says during the credits, "these are the hands that built America." Although I did like that the modern song came in at the end to signify the coming of the modern world (much like how the old-world dispute at the end is taken down by cannon fire from the ships, which symbolize the new world) I just wish it wasn't U2. Check my Beyonce blog entry if you want to know why. Anyway, all of the acting is very solid in this movie (it's the only one this year where John C. Reilly doesn't get pushed around by his wife, so good for him) but I don't quite buy Leo's Irish accent. I mostly do, but he also has the misfortune of acting next to Daniel Day-Lewis. Contrary to what some may think, I like Leo as an actor, but he's no DDL. The surprisingly good performance is Cameron Diaz, who easily gives the best performance of her career. Not that that's particularly difficult, but I give credit to Scorsese for seeing something great in her. I think this movie would've had a better shot if the 6 or 7 movies that won before it weren't emotionally draining, because I think the Academy got sick of that and wanted something fresh. Also on an odd aside: why does this movie need to be on two discs? It's only 2 hours and 47, that's not too much really. I was just getting into the movie when it cut out and said to insert disc 2. Annoying. I blame orthodontists.
I just took a deep breath that's difficult to convey effectively with text. And why? Because not only did I not like this next movie, it actually made me mad. They could've easily nominated Adaptation in its place (which is a brilliant movie). The movie's title is The Hours but the title should've been: The Hours of My Life that I Won't Get Back. First off, I watched it right after watching that movie about the French place in the 1800s with the modern singing (it took me like 10 minutes to italicize my fake movie a second ago) where Nicole Kidman is ridiculously gorgeous. Then in this movie she looks like a witch (with a pretty fake looking nose I might add). I also watched it a few hours after watching that movie about the pianist (actual plot description, no italics needed. Oh wait, could've just mentioned the moulin rouge abstractly too...) and the reason this didn't help is Julianne Moore's plight in this movie is that she has to fit into 50s housewife society and bake a cake, and Adrien Brody's plight is that his whole family was killed in the holocaust along with most of his friends and his homelands were scorched by the Nazis and he only survived because he plays the piano well. And Julianne has to bake a cake. How sad. I understand the overall idea that she's trying to break free from this oppressive patriarchal society, and I can even respect that. But her husband (John C. Reilly, poor guy) did nothing wrong by falling in love with her and marrying her (which I'm sure she agreed to, after all). And it's not his fault that society is what it is. And her son certainly did nothing wrong at the ripe old age of 7. And yet, she abandons them anyway. Then her son grows up to need constant attention from Meryl Streep's character. And that's her plight. Well A) no one was putting a gun in her back to attend to him and B) it's no frigging wonder he needed all that female attention because his mom abandoned him at 7. He probably grew up thinking that something was so wrong with him that even his own mother wanted nothing to do with him. Forget about ruining Meryl's life, we're lucky the guy didn't become a supervillain. And then you've got Nicole Kidman playing Virginia Woolf, who was a bit off. She's upset because everyone thinks she's crazy. So she does the ultimate sane act and walks into a river until she's dead. Nice. She and Julianne are both secret lesbians by the way, how does that serve the story? Not sure. Although I'm told that from a female perspective the kiss between Julianne and her friend is one of comfort and not attraction. But I say: if it turns on frat boys then it's probably not platonic (and no I'm not subtly referring to myself as a frat boy). Plus, if you have to be a woman to understand possibly key plot points, what kind of a movie is that? Last I checked, most nominees can be enjoyed by men and women. You can't award a movie that only appeals to some people who get movies, it has to be all people who get movies. Or at least all people who have a shot at getting what your movie is about (not just the ones without Y chromosomes). Because if you're going down that road, why not give every award in the book to Yellow Submarine? Because sure, it just seems trippy to a lot of people, but if you're on LSD I'm sure it's pretty much the greatest movie ever. Bottom line: I didn't like it. Nothing worse than understanding the deeper meaning of a film and still going, "who cares?"
And now to completely switch gears to The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. I went a bit long on that last one, so I'll keep this one short. Bottom line: it would've been tacky to give all 3 LOTR movies the Best Picture so this one was an honorary nomination. Which is fine. Everyone knows it was the best movie that year (everyone worth talking to anyway). It has the greatest battle scene ever put to film and it also has everything I mentioned in my 2003 post with regards to the end of the trilogy. One thing I will point out though is that it's a crime that Andy Serkis wasn't nominated for his role as Gollum in this movie. The character is CGI, but he still had to act. In fact, he had to act largely by himself surrounded by nothing but green screen, his imagination, and a bunch of New Zealanders. That's fricking amazing. And he should've been recognized. They still gave Nicole Kidman an award that year, when she was under so much makeup that I wasn't attracted to her in the slightest (that's a lot of makeup). What's the difference? A clue: there isn't one. Also, Howard Shore won for his music in the other two, why not this one? At the time they said it didn't have enough "new" music, just old themes from the first one. Well, there's about 12 total seconds of music in the movie about the mountain that needs a chiropractor, and it still won Best Original Score. And I've listened to all 10+ hours of music from the trilogy many many times, so I think I know. Stupid Academy.
Well that turned out being a longer read than I thought. I just happened to remember my old vendettas. And oh yes, they go back. This next film I've already mentioned in passing, and I'm torn on whether I like it more than Scorsese's offering. It's The Pianist, and it features an outstanding performance from Adrien Brody. Interestingly it won Best Director, even though Roman Polanski isn't allowed in the country, and at the time I didn't like that but now I know why. Because it's really freaking good. And unlike The Queen (which began with the queen looking right into the camera as the title came up, cheesy) it features not only a great performance but also some great filmmaking, music, etc. I really did like the movie about the queen but it's a good example of movies that only feature a good performance and little else, and it doesn't take long to write. Side note: wow I'm tired and I have to write a paper for tomorrow. See what I sacrifice for you people? But anyway, throughout the first half an hour of this movie I was kind of thinking: "I've seen this before, and Spielberg did it better." But what makes this movie different and so good is that the main character is in a state of constant flux. His world keeps changing, the people helping him keep circulating, the amount of control and safety he has within a given situation keeps changing. So the film really takes you on his personal journey, and you really feel that survivor's guilt that plagues him throughout the entire movie. The only thing keeping him sane was the piano. And the scene where he mimes playing a real piano and hears the notes in his head really sent me over the edge. Because I love music in film and how it can really tell the whole story when done well. So the fact that music was keeping him sane through the horrors he witnessed and lived through was a really powerful undertone to the film. I think that when counting out the "political" reasons for this year's winner (I'll explain soon) and the fact that LOTR had 2003 down as its winning year from the beginning, this film was the year's best. But alas, it was not to be.
But I do love the year's winner, nonetheless. And after many years without any musicals, or any good musicals anyway, the movie with the moulin rouge paved the way for Chicago to step in and win. And though I think that the Academy was looking to give the win to something a bit different, it is a really good movie. Because first off, unlike most films (especially musicals) the characters in this movie aren't particularly good people. They're pretty rotten actually. And if there weren't any musical numbers, you'd probably just say: what a bunch of jerks. Kind of like how if Seinfeld wasn't hilarious, you'd want all of the characters deported for being horrible human beings. But it is funny. And this movie does have musical numbers. It's basically about two women who killed their lovers and how they use silver-tongued lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere in probably the only film I like him in) to get away with murder. Not to mention that one of them alienates poor John C. Reilly, who wonderfully and appropriately performs "Mr. Cellophane." That guy can't catch a break. As the song says: "you can look right through me, walk right by me, and never know I'm there." Why couldn't you just bake him that freaking cake Julianne Moore? I mean, really. The guy is emotionally dead. But it might be worth it because I love that song. Know what other song I like? All of the songs. In addition, the film is full of mini music videos, that each have their own style and artistry. So when they're singing the songs, they're also showing some of the underlying plot threads in fresh and interesting ways. My favorite is when Billy Flynn has the main character on his lap as though she is a puppet, and he then proceeds to talk to the press "through" her and thus make them look like the morons that they are. All of that being said, it's probably not the year's best movie but it's also likely the most unique. And I like when things that are often overlooked are given a tip of the hat. Not a bad choice Academy, I'm sure you made it by accident.
Well that's it for 2002. Almost an exclusively great year. Sigh...but I digress (and more than usual). So I'll just mention that the next entry will include: a movie I've tried to watch 2 or 3 times and still haven't finished, Nicole Kidman the way she ought to be, and further proof that I change my mind on occasion.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
2003: The Year that the King Returned to a Small Boston Suburb and Won the Triple Crown
Ah, 2003. I still remember that awards ceremony like it was not too long ago. Which it wasn't I guess. But I'll be saying the same thing from now until the end of time, because it was the year that the fantasy movie with lots of special effects and a big fan following that made lots of money won Best Picture. In the words of Johnny Drama: "Victory!" And some other movies came out too. I actually do feel sincere regret that one of them came out when it did, because even though LOTR is overall better in my mind, if this movie had come out any other year it would've and should've won. But enough regret, this year is awesome! Except for freaking Bill Murray ruining my life of course.
Well the movies start mid-alphabet this year, which is good because I want to put this movie to rest before I get to the good stuff. The movie is Lost in Translation. And yes, I meant that as a pun. Because whatever good movie was inside of Sofia Coppola's brain didn't translate well to my brain. Some might say that they didn't enjoy it but probably missed something good about it by not being attentive enough. I'm a genius, I miss nothing. The movie is dumb. Although before I rip it up, I do feel bad for Sofia Coppola, because no matter how good a movie is that she makes the only response she can hear is: "yeah it's pretty good, but her dad made the greatest movie of all time." That kinda sucks. But so does her movie. Are there interesting scenes/ideas conveyed in it? Yes. Do the actors do a good job? Yes (especially Bill Murray). But since the movie is about an odd "kinda" romance between Bill Murray's 53-year-old washed up actor character and Scarlett Johansson (who was 19 at the time, gross) I really can't take it seriously for a few reasons. The first of which being that her character's husband is ignoring her. Umm, yeah. She's pretty much a goddess. I mean, seriously. If Heath Ledger was engaged to her instead then he and Jake Gyllenhaal would've herded their sheep and left the mountain, no double entendre need apply. There's no way that anybody married to her would ignore her. Or if they do, it wouldn't be when they're still newlyweds. And it would be by some equally good looking jerk, not Phoebe Buffay's crazy brother. And even if that was true, in order for me to believe that she fell for a way older guy he'd either have to be A) Sean Connery (best aged man alive) B) George Clooney (when he gets older he'll be the best aged man alive) or C) Benjamin Button. They should have cast her character as someone who was good-looking enough to make the viewer go, "why is her husband ignoring her?" but not to the point where the audience is drooling. As a friend of mine pointed out, "that's one of the many reasons I can't take Valentine's Day seriously. The movie asks you to believe that Jessica Biel would have trouble finding a date." So there you have it. It would've been a silly enough movie to be nominated in any year, but among the giants of 2003 I have to just laugh.
Well it's all uphill from here my loyal X-Men. The next film is Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World and though I haven't seen it in a while, I watched it several times on DVD and also saw it in theaters. Something about it just struck me, and it occurs to me now that I should go back and watch it again because I'm sure I'd pick up on even more stuff. When I saw it, I was at an age where I was almost purely interested in movies that contained at least a fair amount of fighting. It was, after all, the beginning of the age of superhero films, the year of the Matrix sequels, and the first Pirates movie. And there is definitely a pretty big battle at the end of this movie, but most of it is really just about being on the open water and both the danger and the majesty that the crew encounters. I can't even really put my finger on what it's about besides that, but I really enjoy it the whole way through (and it's fairly long considering not much really happens throughout it). The acting is top notch from Russell Crowe (as usual) and Paul Bettany (also as usual but he's sadly not in as much stuff as he should be) and the scenery is just stunning. The film also includes fairly minor roles from the future young Augustus Caesar of Rome and also Dominic Monaghan who was then famous for playing Merry in LOTR and is now also famous for his role as Charlie Pace on Lost. But anyway, the film certainly falls short of the year's two best but it is incredibly well done and worthy of a nomination (also, it came out in the summer and got nominated which is pretty cool).
Well, I'm going to break my own rule. And the rules of space/time. And decency itself. I'm doing this by not going alphabetically for this next one. I'll explain later. Instead let's talk about Seabiscuit. Yes, it's your classic sports movie. And although I wouldn't really call horse racing a sport, you could also call Slumdog Millionaire a sports movie in a lot of ways even though sport has nothing to do with it. Basically any story that involves beating the odds and being inspirational at some sort of contest qualifies a film as being a sports movie. And this one is much the same, but it has some added value to it on top of that. I'd actually compare it to Cinderella Man in a lot of ways. Because both films take place during the depression and explore the idea of how a sports or public figure can help to raise a country's morale. So there is an underlying theme of the mass media's effect on culture (although it was hardly "mass" media back then, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at). And the acting is certainly good, the movie makes you cry and cheer at all of the right points, and Elizabeth Banks is in it. She's ADORABLE. That's the only word for her, she's just so loveable in basically everything she's in. Because she's definitely pretty, but not hot per se. She just has this warmth that she brings with her on the screen that I'm not sure how to describe. So you'll have to watch it yourself (or her run on Scrubs). So on one hand you could say that it's too similar to other movies of that type and thus not worthy of a nomination. But in this instance, I'd say that since nothing but LOTR had a shot that year anyway, why not throw something uplifting in there?
And on that note of being uplifting, I will now mention what is probably one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. But it's also (no joke) one of the best movies I've ever seen. And the reason I went outside of my pattern to mention it is because when I was watching it I truly felt regret over the fact that it didn't come out in a different year. If it had been up against pretty much any other movie it would've won. The movie is a masterpiece called Mystic River. And it is not for the faint of heart (it's mostly for the desensitized like myself). In fact, I distinctly remember my parents picking me up from a friend's house after having seen the movie, and they were both in this emotional stupor. I can expect that from my mom (no offense mom, but we all know you really feel the emotions in movies) but my dad? Nothing phases that guy! And he said, "it was too intense for me." Well I don't know what it says about me that I watched the movie without really being affected in that way, but I was certainly affected by how good it was. It was modern day Greek tragedy at its best. Everything about it is top notch: writing, directing, and especially the acting, for which two Oscars were given (Sean Penn and Tim Robbins). Let me reiterate that I enjoyed both of their deaths in Team America but you have to give credit to them for their performances. The basic plot is this: the film begins with three friends playing street hockey and one of them (Tim Robbins' character) is abducted and molested. See what I mean? Right off the bat it's pretty intense. He ends up escaping, and the film switches to modern day when they're all grown up and the daughter of Sean Penn's character is murdered. To say anything else would ruin it, but what follows is an intense study in the human soul. I literally don't want to say much more, but suffice it to say that only one character has any sort of redemption for his storyline at the end. But it's so powerfully done that I didn't really care about that, because to me it's about the delivery and not so much where the characters end up on paper. I can't decide whether I like Clint Eastwood's work here more than Million Dollar Baby or not, I think aspects of it are better. For instance, there's a nice little touch where all three boys' names are inscribed in the cement from when they were children. But the one who was abducted has his name unfinished because he was writing it when he was taken. It was a profound way of showing that his childhood was incomplete, part of it was stolen from him. Touches like that are what make Clint the artist that he is. And since he got his due the following year with the Academy, the year placement of this movie isn't quite as tragic I suppose.
Because it had no shot against The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. I love this whole trilogy so much that it's actually going to be difficult for me to condense my thoughts on it. All three movies are deserving of the Best Picture award, but it would've been tacky to give it to all three (kind of like how John Williams deserves an Oscar every time he writes music but then he'd have like 40 Oscars and no one else would have any). And it didn't just get Picture. It's tied for the most Oscars of all time with Ben-Hur and Titanic (and although I really like Titanic, putting it up there with the other two is pretty insulting. I'll explain why when I get to 1997). And it's for good reason. You quite literally can't come up with something that a movie can do well that these films don't have, especially this final installment. The ensemble cast is incredible, the battles/effects/makeup/production design is breathtaking. And although I've mentioned that John Williams is my favorite composer, the fact that Howard Shore took like three years to write the score for the three movies really shows. It may well be the best musical score of all time, and I'm being serious when I say that. It's so complex and beautiful, and he devoted so much time to it. That's what puts these films on basically an entirely different level from other movies. The people making them truly lived and breathed their roles every day for several years. And I know that I'll get hate mail from Tolkien lovers (of which I am one, but I won't hate mail myself, I'll just put a stickie on the fridge) for saying this, but I truly think that all of the changes they made from the books are good ones. I'll mention more for the other films as I get to them, but in the ROTK book, there's a whole separate 50 pages at the end with an entirely new adventure after they've defeated the big bad guy. That's just silly. Well I've already gone on long enough, because I won't give a rundown of the plot and all of these other things. Because honestly, if you haven't seen them: shame on you. Go watch them like right now. All three of them. You will thank me. They're long, to be certain, but they fill every second with something incredible. Peter Jackson did something truly immortal within filmmaking when he put together these 3 films. His attention to detail is astounding, and he has the unusual ability to both get great performances from his actors and still have summer-action-movie level of awesome when it comes to the battle scenes (George Lucas has great action, can't get in touch with his actors for crap. Coppola gets great performances, but I've never seen him do a battle. Have you?). I could literally go on forever, so I'll leave it at that.
Well in case you couldn't tell, I was pretty happy with the outcome for this year. Stupid Rolling Stone magazine made the trilogy number 10 on its top ten list of the decade,and while that's more than I'd expect from a bunch of hippies, it should be number 1. But aside from Sofia Coppola (who I was not referencing in my last paragraph, I was obviously talking about her father, the real director) wasting an hour and forty five minutes of my life, 2003 was a pretty great year overall. So great, in fact, that I'd already seen almost all of the movies before I started my escapade. And speaking of my escapade, my next installment will include: cellophane John C. Reilly, gang member John C. Reilly, and unintentional-member-of-evil-patriarchal-50s-society John C. Reilly.
Well the movies start mid-alphabet this year, which is good because I want to put this movie to rest before I get to the good stuff. The movie is Lost in Translation. And yes, I meant that as a pun. Because whatever good movie was inside of Sofia Coppola's brain didn't translate well to my brain. Some might say that they didn't enjoy it but probably missed something good about it by not being attentive enough. I'm a genius, I miss nothing. The movie is dumb. Although before I rip it up, I do feel bad for Sofia Coppola, because no matter how good a movie is that she makes the only response she can hear is: "yeah it's pretty good, but her dad made the greatest movie of all time." That kinda sucks. But so does her movie. Are there interesting scenes/ideas conveyed in it? Yes. Do the actors do a good job? Yes (especially Bill Murray). But since the movie is about an odd "kinda" romance between Bill Murray's 53-year-old washed up actor character and Scarlett Johansson (who was 19 at the time, gross) I really can't take it seriously for a few reasons. The first of which being that her character's husband is ignoring her. Umm, yeah. She's pretty much a goddess. I mean, seriously. If Heath Ledger was engaged to her instead then he and Jake Gyllenhaal would've herded their sheep and left the mountain, no double entendre need apply. There's no way that anybody married to her would ignore her. Or if they do, it wouldn't be when they're still newlyweds. And it would be by some equally good looking jerk, not Phoebe Buffay's crazy brother. And even if that was true, in order for me to believe that she fell for a way older guy he'd either have to be A) Sean Connery (best aged man alive) B) George Clooney (when he gets older he'll be the best aged man alive) or C) Benjamin Button. They should have cast her character as someone who was good-looking enough to make the viewer go, "why is her husband ignoring her?" but not to the point where the audience is drooling. As a friend of mine pointed out, "that's one of the many reasons I can't take Valentine's Day seriously. The movie asks you to believe that Jessica Biel would have trouble finding a date." So there you have it. It would've been a silly enough movie to be nominated in any year, but among the giants of 2003 I have to just laugh.
Well it's all uphill from here my loyal X-Men. The next film is Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World and though I haven't seen it in a while, I watched it several times on DVD and also saw it in theaters. Something about it just struck me, and it occurs to me now that I should go back and watch it again because I'm sure I'd pick up on even more stuff. When I saw it, I was at an age where I was almost purely interested in movies that contained at least a fair amount of fighting. It was, after all, the beginning of the age of superhero films, the year of the Matrix sequels, and the first Pirates movie. And there is definitely a pretty big battle at the end of this movie, but most of it is really just about being on the open water and both the danger and the majesty that the crew encounters. I can't even really put my finger on what it's about besides that, but I really enjoy it the whole way through (and it's fairly long considering not much really happens throughout it). The acting is top notch from Russell Crowe (as usual) and Paul Bettany (also as usual but he's sadly not in as much stuff as he should be) and the scenery is just stunning. The film also includes fairly minor roles from the future young Augustus Caesar of Rome and also Dominic Monaghan who was then famous for playing Merry in LOTR and is now also famous for his role as Charlie Pace on Lost. But anyway, the film certainly falls short of the year's two best but it is incredibly well done and worthy of a nomination (also, it came out in the summer and got nominated which is pretty cool).
Well, I'm going to break my own rule. And the rules of space/time. And decency itself. I'm doing this by not going alphabetically for this next one. I'll explain later. Instead let's talk about Seabiscuit. Yes, it's your classic sports movie. And although I wouldn't really call horse racing a sport, you could also call Slumdog Millionaire a sports movie in a lot of ways even though sport has nothing to do with it. Basically any story that involves beating the odds and being inspirational at some sort of contest qualifies a film as being a sports movie. And this one is much the same, but it has some added value to it on top of that. I'd actually compare it to Cinderella Man in a lot of ways. Because both films take place during the depression and explore the idea of how a sports or public figure can help to raise a country's morale. So there is an underlying theme of the mass media's effect on culture (although it was hardly "mass" media back then, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at). And the acting is certainly good, the movie makes you cry and cheer at all of the right points, and Elizabeth Banks is in it. She's ADORABLE. That's the only word for her, she's just so loveable in basically everything she's in. Because she's definitely pretty, but not hot per se. She just has this warmth that she brings with her on the screen that I'm not sure how to describe. So you'll have to watch it yourself (or her run on Scrubs). So on one hand you could say that it's too similar to other movies of that type and thus not worthy of a nomination. But in this instance, I'd say that since nothing but LOTR had a shot that year anyway, why not throw something uplifting in there?
And on that note of being uplifting, I will now mention what is probably one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. But it's also (no joke) one of the best movies I've ever seen. And the reason I went outside of my pattern to mention it is because when I was watching it I truly felt regret over the fact that it didn't come out in a different year. If it had been up against pretty much any other movie it would've won. The movie is a masterpiece called Mystic River. And it is not for the faint of heart (it's mostly for the desensitized like myself). In fact, I distinctly remember my parents picking me up from a friend's house after having seen the movie, and they were both in this emotional stupor. I can expect that from my mom (no offense mom, but we all know you really feel the emotions in movies) but my dad? Nothing phases that guy! And he said, "it was too intense for me." Well I don't know what it says about me that I watched the movie without really being affected in that way, but I was certainly affected by how good it was. It was modern day Greek tragedy at its best. Everything about it is top notch: writing, directing, and especially the acting, for which two Oscars were given (Sean Penn and Tim Robbins). Let me reiterate that I enjoyed both of their deaths in Team America but you have to give credit to them for their performances. The basic plot is this: the film begins with three friends playing street hockey and one of them (Tim Robbins' character) is abducted and molested. See what I mean? Right off the bat it's pretty intense. He ends up escaping, and the film switches to modern day when they're all grown up and the daughter of Sean Penn's character is murdered. To say anything else would ruin it, but what follows is an intense study in the human soul. I literally don't want to say much more, but suffice it to say that only one character has any sort of redemption for his storyline at the end. But it's so powerfully done that I didn't really care about that, because to me it's about the delivery and not so much where the characters end up on paper. I can't decide whether I like Clint Eastwood's work here more than Million Dollar Baby or not, I think aspects of it are better. For instance, there's a nice little touch where all three boys' names are inscribed in the cement from when they were children. But the one who was abducted has his name unfinished because he was writing it when he was taken. It was a profound way of showing that his childhood was incomplete, part of it was stolen from him. Touches like that are what make Clint the artist that he is. And since he got his due the following year with the Academy, the year placement of this movie isn't quite as tragic I suppose.
Because it had no shot against The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. I love this whole trilogy so much that it's actually going to be difficult for me to condense my thoughts on it. All three movies are deserving of the Best Picture award, but it would've been tacky to give it to all three (kind of like how John Williams deserves an Oscar every time he writes music but then he'd have like 40 Oscars and no one else would have any). And it didn't just get Picture. It's tied for the most Oscars of all time with Ben-Hur and Titanic (and although I really like Titanic, putting it up there with the other two is pretty insulting. I'll explain why when I get to 1997). And it's for good reason. You quite literally can't come up with something that a movie can do well that these films don't have, especially this final installment. The ensemble cast is incredible, the battles/effects/makeup/production design is breathtaking. And although I've mentioned that John Williams is my favorite composer, the fact that Howard Shore took like three years to write the score for the three movies really shows. It may well be the best musical score of all time, and I'm being serious when I say that. It's so complex and beautiful, and he devoted so much time to it. That's what puts these films on basically an entirely different level from other movies. The people making them truly lived and breathed their roles every day for several years. And I know that I'll get hate mail from Tolkien lovers (of which I am one, but I won't hate mail myself, I'll just put a stickie on the fridge) for saying this, but I truly think that all of the changes they made from the books are good ones. I'll mention more for the other films as I get to them, but in the ROTK book, there's a whole separate 50 pages at the end with an entirely new adventure after they've defeated the big bad guy. That's just silly. Well I've already gone on long enough, because I won't give a rundown of the plot and all of these other things. Because honestly, if you haven't seen them: shame on you. Go watch them like right now. All three of them. You will thank me. They're long, to be certain, but they fill every second with something incredible. Peter Jackson did something truly immortal within filmmaking when he put together these 3 films. His attention to detail is astounding, and he has the unusual ability to both get great performances from his actors and still have summer-action-movie level of awesome when it comes to the battle scenes (George Lucas has great action, can't get in touch with his actors for crap. Coppola gets great performances, but I've never seen him do a battle. Have you?). I could literally go on forever, so I'll leave it at that.
Well in case you couldn't tell, I was pretty happy with the outcome for this year. Stupid Rolling Stone magazine made the trilogy number 10 on its top ten list of the decade,and while that's more than I'd expect from a bunch of hippies, it should be number 1. But aside from Sofia Coppola (who I was not referencing in my last paragraph, I was obviously talking about her father, the real director) wasting an hour and forty five minutes of my life, 2003 was a pretty great year overall. So great, in fact, that I'd already seen almost all of the movies before I started my escapade. And speaking of my escapade, my next installment will include: cellophane John C. Reilly, gang member John C. Reilly, and unintentional-member-of-evil-patriarchal-50s-society John C. Reilly.
2004: The Year that Peter Pan Toured Wine Country and Went Blind
So I'm thinking about changing the name of this blog from "The Internal Workings of the Greatest Mind Alive Today (Excluding Fictional Characters)" to "The Adventures of the Greatest Mind Alive Today as He Journeys Deep into the Academy's Heart of Darkness (and Through Time)." I figure that after the 27 years it takes me to finish the Best Picture nominees, I'll change it back. Also, if all goes well this blog entry will go up on the same day as my 2005 one, so maybe people will ignore the 2005 one and not stone me to death. Which, of course, makes people go look at it. Kind of like how I wanted to write a book on how to write an A paper on a novel without reading the novel, but then I realized that my target audience wouldn't read my book.
2004 was awesome. There's nary a film in the bunch that I don't like. So this will probably be boring, because ripping on stuff is more fun (just wait for 2003, that Bill Murray movie will be shown no mercy). But let's start things off with The Aviator. I actually haven't seen this movie since it came out, which is unfortunate because I feel like I'd get a lot more out of it now. It was, in fact, my first Scorsese movie. Which is a bit odd because it's probably the least Scorsese-y (please don't say that out loud, it's even more ridiculous. People are staring at me) of all of his movies. In that no one gets shot, punched, etc. There's more of a musical score (composed by the excellent Howard Shore of LOTR fame) than most of his movies, and some of the filmmaking techniques are very unlike him in a really good way. For instance, aspects of the film itself reflect films in general for the time periods depicted. Wow, that sounded confusing. Let me try again: as time goes on in the movie, films evolved, and the way the movie is made evolves with them. So at one point in the movie, peas appear blue instead of green. This is accurate to the film stock of the time. The general atmosphere and tone of the conversations within the film also reflect the films of the time. This is part of what helps to take the film above being just a character study. As some may recall, my complaints pertaining to The Queen and Capote were that the films were good only because of the lead performance. But this movie isn't like that at all, the directing, writing, and supporting cast are all quite excellent. The fact that I remember so much about the movie having seen it only once 5 years ago, is a real testament to how good it is. And unlike other biopics, it doesn't leave you with any particular hope for the future. Most movies would end it on a positive note and then have a caption that says: "Howard Hughes eventually fell back into his reclusive lifestyle and then died that way in 19xx." And you go: "hmm that's sad. But what a good movie!" This film doesn't do that at all, it ends with him repeating "the way of the future" in front of the mirror over and over again, and you know just from the way it ends that things weren't going to go well for him. I don't think it's a better movie than the film that won, but it's definitely a close second.
Another movie I haven't seen since I saw it over five years ago (I am getting old) is Finding Neverland. It's not in the same caliber as some of the other nominees, but it's really good. It's a sweet, uplifting movie. It deals with somewhat heavy issues, but it's more about redemption and acceptance than dwelling on said issues. The film is another biopic of sorts (there were 3 of them nominated in this year) but much like the first one I mentioned it's filmed and treated more like a fictional story than a biopic. Which is appropriate because it centers around J.M. Barry, who created Peter Pan. The movie is more than just a biopic, it explores the effect that fiction has on people. Within the film, Neverland isn't just a place that he created for a story, it's a place that he escapes to in his mind to get away from the troubles of real life. And this world becomes the only solace for some children whose mother is dying. The movie is cleverly directed, well-written, and certainly well-acted by Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet (as though they've ever not done a good job in their lives). There's not really any deeper meaning to the film, nor does there need to be, but it's very well-delivered and enjoyable. And even though I like intense, depressing movies because they're often the most interesting and powerful, it's very refreshing to see a movie nominated that is sweet and nice and rated PG. And I'm being completely serious when I say that, because a movie shouldn't have to be sad to be good. And by means of an entertaining side note, I saw this movie with my Creative Writing teacher and we had quite a good time (any talent I might accidentally have is because of her and some other teachers I had through the years). And at one point in the movie when Johnny Depp's wife is shown sleeping separately from him, my teacher leaned over to me and said, "is she crazy? That's Johnny Depp!" It was pretty much the greatest thing ever. I added this anecdote after writing the next paragraph so the segue that once existed is now dead.
Actually, other than the winner and The Aviator, pretty much all of the movies from this year are fairly uplifting. At least as compared to other years. The third film on the list is yet another biopic (I'm really tired of writing that word), but it's the only one I'd actually call a biopic: Ray. This movie is a classic example of a movie that gives you exactly what you're expecting, but you still really enjoy it and it's still really well done. And Jamie Foxx (who up until this and Collateral was only in crap movies) gives a truly great performance as Ray Charles. He went so far as to wear contacts that actually made him blind during filming. Now, I can't even pretend to be too familiar with the mannerisms and voice characteristics of the real Ray Charles, because I'm only moderately familiar with them. But according to my dad, Jamie Foxx had it pretty much spot on. But even aside from the performance, it's a well done movie. It has a big supporting cast, all of which do a great job, and it tells a very human story with his triumphs and defeats. And during the portions of his life that involved drug abuse and philandering, the movie doesn't really portray him in either a sympathetic or a negative way, just a very real way. It's certainly better than most biopics I've seen, and I know it was a real passion project for the director (who had the rights for like 15 years before finally getting the movie made). The movie flirts with being a performance-based situation, but overall I do think there were enough other elements at play to warrant the nomination.
A movie I wasn't planning on enjoying was Sideways. But I definitely did. From the previews, all I saw was a movie that was focused on wine (a beverage I don't enjoy) and somehow Sandra Oh was involved and she frightens me. But, the list demanded that I watch it. So I specifically chose a time to watch it when I knew I'd have to split it in two parts, because I thought it'd be painful. Instead, I ended up cursing my decision after the opening scene. The movie is quirky in all the best ways, it has some real heart and character development in between the humor (as all good comedies should), and Sandra Oh is mercifully not in it as much as I thought. But Virginia Madsen is and she's adorable. The movie really ends up being almost entirely about the characters, and how Paul Giamatti's character is living the life that Thomas Haden Church's character would like to be living and vice versa. Paul's character is recently divorced with nothing better to do with his time than drink wine and try to have his book published (to no avail). Thomas' character is getting married to a (presumably) wonderful woman and settling down, and he hates it. The result is a slightly dark buddy movie with some really great writing (the scenes involving characters describing their favorite wines as though they were describing themselves are especially good) and an uplifting ending that thankfully avoids being cheesy. So I'd like to point out that this is yet another movie I expected to dislike and liked, which means that when I tell you something is crap that I expected to be crap I'm not being facetious (well, I am. But I'm not being superfluous. Or ostentatious).
Well, the winner for this year wasn't really a buddy movie, or uplifting. Nor was it particularly inspiring...in fact it was pretty depressing. But it's really freaking good. I'm talking, of course, about Million Dollar Baby. I love Clint Eastwood as an action hero, I love him even more as a director. The man has aged better than pretty much anybody. Not in the way he looks exactly (not to insult the man of course, because I'd rather not get lucky punk'ed). I'm talking about how he's transitioned from being a young action star to being the intense and awesome old guy. He's not trying to be the same thing he was thirty years ago (Roger Moore should have learned this lesson before his seventh Bond movie, or his first really) he's adapting to his age and making it work for him. And the man can really direct. As I mentioned in my 2005 post, the film is written by Paul Haggis who does a quite excellent job. For those unaware of the controversy surrounding the film, (spoilers ahead!) it starts out as a boxing movie and becomes a film dealing with the issue of euthanasia (oh no...I'm having serious 2005 blog post flashbacks here). But instead of making it about the issue itself in a larger sense, it becomes about the characters' feelings toward it and their feelings toward each other. And the movie is largely about people who are past their prime. Her character simply wanted to die when she was still in her prime, and not continue on to, in many ways, become someone who was once great and now wipes the floors (like Morgan Freeman's character). Or even worse than that: left unmoving in a bed with naught but her memories. But the movie doesn't really put forth a political position, if you ask me. As Clint himself said, "I went around shooting people with a .44 Magnum in a lot of my movies, but I don't exactly think that should be done in real life." So I think people kind of missed the point of the film, which is a shame because I'd say it is easily one of the decade's best. And I like that it starts out as a sports movie and then changes forms. Because that allows you to be jolted in much the same way that the characters were by the turn of events. In addition to the excellent directing and writing, the cast is also outstanding and both Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman received Oscars for their performances. As a side note, I'm not sure why but the fact that Clint's character has a dark past that's never fully revealed is something else I really liked. It brings that extra sense of realism to the film. Rarely do I end up enjoying a movie far more than I thought I would, but this was the case here.
Well, that's 2004. The next year is the best of them all. And why? Because it's the year LOTR won. The year of victory. And sure some other stuff was nominated that year too, but who cares? And yes I'll talk about them too, but what's the point? Well, if all I ever did was watch stuff that was as good as LOTR then that's all I'd ever watch pretty much. So I'll give the rest of them a good write-up too, unless they don't deserve one (a clue: one of them does not. Like, at all). So by means of a preview, the next blog will include Spider-Man riding a horse, Robin Hood sailing a ship, and Black Widow nonsensically falling for one of the Ghostbusters.
2004 was awesome. There's nary a film in the bunch that I don't like. So this will probably be boring, because ripping on stuff is more fun (just wait for 2003, that Bill Murray movie will be shown no mercy). But let's start things off with The Aviator. I actually haven't seen this movie since it came out, which is unfortunate because I feel like I'd get a lot more out of it now. It was, in fact, my first Scorsese movie. Which is a bit odd because it's probably the least Scorsese-y (please don't say that out loud, it's even more ridiculous. People are staring at me) of all of his movies. In that no one gets shot, punched, etc. There's more of a musical score (composed by the excellent Howard Shore of LOTR fame) than most of his movies, and some of the filmmaking techniques are very unlike him in a really good way. For instance, aspects of the film itself reflect films in general for the time periods depicted. Wow, that sounded confusing. Let me try again: as time goes on in the movie, films evolved, and the way the movie is made evolves with them. So at one point in the movie, peas appear blue instead of green. This is accurate to the film stock of the time. The general atmosphere and tone of the conversations within the film also reflect the films of the time. This is part of what helps to take the film above being just a character study. As some may recall, my complaints pertaining to The Queen and Capote were that the films were good only because of the lead performance. But this movie isn't like that at all, the directing, writing, and supporting cast are all quite excellent. The fact that I remember so much about the movie having seen it only once 5 years ago, is a real testament to how good it is. And unlike other biopics, it doesn't leave you with any particular hope for the future. Most movies would end it on a positive note and then have a caption that says: "Howard Hughes eventually fell back into his reclusive lifestyle and then died that way in 19xx." And you go: "hmm that's sad. But what a good movie!" This film doesn't do that at all, it ends with him repeating "the way of the future" in front of the mirror over and over again, and you know just from the way it ends that things weren't going to go well for him. I don't think it's a better movie than the film that won, but it's definitely a close second.
Another movie I haven't seen since I saw it over five years ago (I am getting old) is Finding Neverland. It's not in the same caliber as some of the other nominees, but it's really good. It's a sweet, uplifting movie. It deals with somewhat heavy issues, but it's more about redemption and acceptance than dwelling on said issues. The film is another biopic of sorts (there were 3 of them nominated in this year) but much like the first one I mentioned it's filmed and treated more like a fictional story than a biopic. Which is appropriate because it centers around J.M. Barry, who created Peter Pan. The movie is more than just a biopic, it explores the effect that fiction has on people. Within the film, Neverland isn't just a place that he created for a story, it's a place that he escapes to in his mind to get away from the troubles of real life. And this world becomes the only solace for some children whose mother is dying. The movie is cleverly directed, well-written, and certainly well-acted by Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet (as though they've ever not done a good job in their lives). There's not really any deeper meaning to the film, nor does there need to be, but it's very well-delivered and enjoyable. And even though I like intense, depressing movies because they're often the most interesting and powerful, it's very refreshing to see a movie nominated that is sweet and nice and rated PG. And I'm being completely serious when I say that, because a movie shouldn't have to be sad to be good. And by means of an entertaining side note, I saw this movie with my Creative Writing teacher and we had quite a good time (any talent I might accidentally have is because of her and some other teachers I had through the years). And at one point in the movie when Johnny Depp's wife is shown sleeping separately from him, my teacher leaned over to me and said, "is she crazy? That's Johnny Depp!" It was pretty much the greatest thing ever. I added this anecdote after writing the next paragraph so the segue that once existed is now dead.
Actually, other than the winner and The Aviator, pretty much all of the movies from this year are fairly uplifting. At least as compared to other years. The third film on the list is yet another biopic (I'm really tired of writing that word), but it's the only one I'd actually call a biopic: Ray. This movie is a classic example of a movie that gives you exactly what you're expecting, but you still really enjoy it and it's still really well done. And Jamie Foxx (who up until this and Collateral was only in crap movies) gives a truly great performance as Ray Charles. He went so far as to wear contacts that actually made him blind during filming. Now, I can't even pretend to be too familiar with the mannerisms and voice characteristics of the real Ray Charles, because I'm only moderately familiar with them. But according to my dad, Jamie Foxx had it pretty much spot on. But even aside from the performance, it's a well done movie. It has a big supporting cast, all of which do a great job, and it tells a very human story with his triumphs and defeats. And during the portions of his life that involved drug abuse and philandering, the movie doesn't really portray him in either a sympathetic or a negative way, just a very real way. It's certainly better than most biopics I've seen, and I know it was a real passion project for the director (who had the rights for like 15 years before finally getting the movie made). The movie flirts with being a performance-based situation, but overall I do think there were enough other elements at play to warrant the nomination.
A movie I wasn't planning on enjoying was Sideways. But I definitely did. From the previews, all I saw was a movie that was focused on wine (a beverage I don't enjoy) and somehow Sandra Oh was involved and she frightens me. But, the list demanded that I watch it. So I specifically chose a time to watch it when I knew I'd have to split it in two parts, because I thought it'd be painful. Instead, I ended up cursing my decision after the opening scene. The movie is quirky in all the best ways, it has some real heart and character development in between the humor (as all good comedies should), and Sandra Oh is mercifully not in it as much as I thought. But Virginia Madsen is and she's adorable. The movie really ends up being almost entirely about the characters, and how Paul Giamatti's character is living the life that Thomas Haden Church's character would like to be living and vice versa. Paul's character is recently divorced with nothing better to do with his time than drink wine and try to have his book published (to no avail). Thomas' character is getting married to a (presumably) wonderful woman and settling down, and he hates it. The result is a slightly dark buddy movie with some really great writing (the scenes involving characters describing their favorite wines as though they were describing themselves are especially good) and an uplifting ending that thankfully avoids being cheesy. So I'd like to point out that this is yet another movie I expected to dislike and liked, which means that when I tell you something is crap that I expected to be crap I'm not being facetious (well, I am. But I'm not being superfluous. Or ostentatious).
Well, the winner for this year wasn't really a buddy movie, or uplifting. Nor was it particularly inspiring...in fact it was pretty depressing. But it's really freaking good. I'm talking, of course, about Million Dollar Baby. I love Clint Eastwood as an action hero, I love him even more as a director. The man has aged better than pretty much anybody. Not in the way he looks exactly (not to insult the man of course, because I'd rather not get lucky punk'ed). I'm talking about how he's transitioned from being a young action star to being the intense and awesome old guy. He's not trying to be the same thing he was thirty years ago (Roger Moore should have learned this lesson before his seventh Bond movie, or his first really) he's adapting to his age and making it work for him. And the man can really direct. As I mentioned in my 2005 post, the film is written by Paul Haggis who does a quite excellent job. For those unaware of the controversy surrounding the film, (spoilers ahead!) it starts out as a boxing movie and becomes a film dealing with the issue of euthanasia (oh no...I'm having serious 2005 blog post flashbacks here). But instead of making it about the issue itself in a larger sense, it becomes about the characters' feelings toward it and their feelings toward each other. And the movie is largely about people who are past their prime. Her character simply wanted to die when she was still in her prime, and not continue on to, in many ways, become someone who was once great and now wipes the floors (like Morgan Freeman's character). Or even worse than that: left unmoving in a bed with naught but her memories. But the movie doesn't really put forth a political position, if you ask me. As Clint himself said, "I went around shooting people with a .44 Magnum in a lot of my movies, but I don't exactly think that should be done in real life." So I think people kind of missed the point of the film, which is a shame because I'd say it is easily one of the decade's best. And I like that it starts out as a sports movie and then changes forms. Because that allows you to be jolted in much the same way that the characters were by the turn of events. In addition to the excellent directing and writing, the cast is also outstanding and both Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman received Oscars for their performances. As a side note, I'm not sure why but the fact that Clint's character has a dark past that's never fully revealed is something else I really liked. It brings that extra sense of realism to the film. Rarely do I end up enjoying a movie far more than I thought I would, but this was the case here.
Well, that's 2004. The next year is the best of them all. And why? Because it's the year LOTR won. The year of victory. And sure some other stuff was nominated that year too, but who cares? And yes I'll talk about them too, but what's the point? Well, if all I ever did was watch stuff that was as good as LOTR then that's all I'd ever watch pretty much. So I'll give the rest of them a good write-up too, unless they don't deserve one (a clue: one of them does not. Like, at all). So by means of a preview, the next blog will include Spider-Man riding a horse, Robin Hood sailing a ship, and Black Widow nonsensically falling for one of the Ghostbusters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)