1997: The Year that an Iceberg Wasn't the Size of Ben Affleck's Talent, with Tragic Results

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.