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.