1993: The Year that My Enjoyment of the Escapade Fell Away with Harvey Keitel's Pants

Umm, yeah. So even though I can't say as I've totally enjoyed all of the movies I've watched, as I'm sure you can see, this year was especially bad. Except for the winner of course, which is probably one of the greatest films of all time (though also one of the hardest to watch). In fact, my theory is that the winner was so much better than every other movie that year that they chose the four most obscure films they could to go up against it. If that wasn't what happened then my opinion of the Academy is gonna go right back into the pit of Hell from whence it came.

The first movie to discuss for the year is easily the oddest choice for a Best Picture nominee that I've come across: The Fugitive. Not to say that I don't enjoy the movie exactly...but it's pretty much like every other 90s action/chase movie except that it's not as good as a lot of them. It has some once and future big names in it, that's for sure. But I mean, come on, really? NO JOKE there is more interesting character development to be found in Lethal Weapon and Die Hard than in this movie. Tommy Lee Jones does a good job, but Academy Award? That's a bit far, especially considering who he was up against (more on that at the end). Julianne Moore pops in for like five minutes, and apparently a whole subplot with her was cut. Well, the movie is already about fifteen minutes longer than it should be so I'd say that was a wise choice. Plus why would they have him trying to pick up some girl whilst he is solving the mystery of his wife's murder? Side note: Julianne Moore looks better now than she did then...odd. So I also didn't quite buy a romance between her and Harrison Ford. Good thing they cut it. In case you're unaware, the movie is based on a TV show (or miniseries maybe) and though I find the story to be compelling, I'm not a huge fan of murders being part of a big conspiracy. Because I feel like everybody does that. There's a slight implication in Batman Begins that Bruce's parents might have been killed by design, but I choose to think that Liam Neeson's character was just goading him on. It's WAY better when Batman is just some victim that let his parents' murder change the core of his being. So when it turns out that Harrison Ford's wife was killed because of some pharmaceutical company nonsense, I just groaned. I found the chase aspect of the movie and the clash of the two main characters far more interesting, with the wife's murder as a backdrop and not as a continuing plot point. I still found the movie was more enjoyable and more fast-paced than most of the other nonsense I've had to sit through lately, but I still find it to be a very strange choice for a nominee.

Next up on the list is one I had some mixed feelings about (but there was more good in the mix than anything) and that will leave the bad ones for last, perfect. But first, this movie is In the Name of the Father. The reason this movie should be viewed is it has Daniel Day-Lewis in it. So it should be watched, end of story. The film also features a great performance from an actor I've never heard of named Pete Postlethwaite (had to go back and forth on IMDB three times to spell that one). Emma Thompson is in it too, I feel like I've seen her in about a million things lately. I'm getting a bit tired of her actually, as she seems to play the snarky but confident 30-something British woman in basically every movie. But from an objective standpoint, I'd say she's not in this one enough. The film centers on a bombing in Ireland in the 70s and the men who are wrongfully accused of setting off the bomb (also their subsequent imprisonment). It's based on a true story, and so I give it props for raising awareness about a situation that most would be unaware of (and that I myself would be unaware of if I hadn't taken a British Empire class in my final semester). That being said, the whole "the cops are setting me up for something I didn't do and now I have to prove my innocence, which I of course do in the last ten minutes" thing gets a bit old. And the movie spends a bit too much time on the setup instead of the retrial that frees them all at the end. That being said, the film features some powerful acting and an unusually well-done and realistic script. It doesn't reach too far into the stylized or the clever, and thus retains a gritty and raw nature that is missing from most films of this type. The title of the film is also quite brilliant because it refers to not only the religious overtones of Ireland's strife but also the main character's desire to clear his father's name (especially after his father died in prison. Spoiler alert! Probably should've put that sooner). So all in all, I feel like if this was the first movie of its type that I had seen it would probably be the standard. But since I've seen it a lot in movies and on TV before it wasn't totally fascinating from an overall plot perspective. The delivery is excellent though, that's for sure.

But the delivery, the plot, and basically every aspect of The Piano was horrible. There's literally nothing good that I can say about it. But let me begin by posing a query: how is it that when a guy is cheating on his wife in a movie he's a douche and when a woman is cheating on her husband she's "empowered?" I say both cases are jerks. And in this movie, okay so the woman is married off to a man she's never met. We all know that's bad and terrible and the worst thing ever, because every movie that takes place in this time period or any time period surrounding it has the same plotline. Arranged marriages were bad for some people, WE GET IT. And so she begins an affair with a local tribesman, because he's charming? Well actuallly...he doesn't seem to talk much. Because he's attractive? Pretty sure he's not at all...I'm a straight guy but Harvey Keitel doesn't seem to be the epitome of the male figure to me. And now I'm scarred for life by seeing him naked (with the full Monty no less) and not that I'd want to see any dudes naked but at least if it's Brad Pitt I can say: "nice abs." Nope, at the end of the day the only discernible reason that she instantly wants to sleep with him when he walks into the room naked is that he took piano lessons from her. Maybe there's something I missed (like a completely different definition of the word "attractive" in 1800s New Zealand) but if not then it would seem like she should've been getting a lot more clients that were pre-teen boys (boom!) And actually this is an instance where they would've fared better with a Reader esque plotline, because I would've bought that. Speaking of things I don't buy, Harvey Keitel as a tribesman? Really? All they did was take a white guy and paint some stuff on his face. He even sounded like himself! If this was some summer action movie then it would've been called racist and insulting. But since it's a feminist movie written and directed by women and starring women with men in supporting roles, they could've had Harvey making nothing but exaggerated Indian noises while doing peyote and praying to the sun and nobody would've cared. In fact, a lot of nominees seem to be free from that type of criticism. More on that in my 1982 post (if I remember, that's a ways off). Bottom line: this movie is uninteresting drivel which I hope was only selected for its political overtones and not quality, because it has none.

The next movie before the winner is another Emma Thompson British period piece (and there's another one in 1992 I notice...yay) entitled The Remains of the Day. Now here's a greets example of how a movie can have one redeeming quality that makes it not only watchable but even enjoyable at times. And that one quality is nome other than Sir Anthony Hopkins. And this is also yet another British adapted screenplay nominee that has some solid writing, but zero creativity. Much like the other British films I've lamented over lately, aside from 1996's offering which should've even count as a script, there doesn't seem to be much happening except a bunch of snooty British people are sitting around and reflecting on how they used to run everything and now they've got nothing. Well at least this movie has an interesting lead character and Mr. Hopkins delivers brilliantly as he always does. Emma is good too, but I think she really pales in comparison, although I suppose that's appropriate for the story. And the story is basically that a butler reflects on how his boss may have played a part in sparking WWII back in the day, but also about how he lost the love of his life (Emma) because he was too devoted to his job. So it's a nice, reflective story with a romanticism to it even though it's pretty depressing. But it spends SO much time with the snooty British stuff that the whole meaning is almost lost. I do really like the title though, as it refers to a reflection on one's life during the twilight years, and also how Britain is in its twilight years in the wake of WWII. So the underlying themes are good, and Anthony is good, but the film is too plagued with nonsense to retain many of its underlying themes.

But a movie that retains its brilliance across more than three hours is Schindler's List. This is easily Spielberg's best work, hands down. It's also one of the best movies of the 90s, if not the best. And certainly one of the best movies of all time. So yeah, it's pretty good. And for all of the awards it received, there should've been two more. One being Best Supporting Actor for Ralph Fiennes who gives an incredibly chilling portrayal of a ruthless Nazi. But he doesn't overdo it, he underplays it to highlight the inherent evil of the character. And he was beaten by Tommy Lee Jones? His whole role was chasing Harrison Ford around for several hours! Senseless I tell you. The other injustice is the lead actor himself: Liam Neeson. Forget the 3-plus hours of Oscar-caliber work that he puts in. Just based on the penultimate scene alone where he breaks down and cries over those he was unable to save he should've gotten the award. But he lost to Tom Hanks for Philadelphia. Absurd. Maybe they should've made Oscar Schindler a gay guy with AIDS, then it probably would've been a done deal. But all cynicism aside, I actually find this to be quite an uplifting film. Because even though the film depicts some unspeakably horrible things, it leaves you with this profound hope at the end. And Spielberg only uses color a few times within the movie: once when the ceremonial candles are being lit in a Jewish home (I won't insult the culture by looking up what those candles are called and pretending like I knew it the whole time), once to highlight the red in a girl's clothing as she walks through the horrific landscape, and then the last scene is in color. So basically, color represented hope in the movie. But they don't throw it in your face, so it's all quite powerful. I could go on forever about the movie, but really instead I think I should just tell everyone to go watch it. Everyone should see it once. And I know it's pretty rough stuff, but the payoff at the end is totally worth it.

So that's it for 1993, some great performances and one outstanding film. But really kind of a waste of a year. And who knows when I'll put up 1992? It has another period piece which means I'll move heaven and earth to avoid watching it. Before I close, I wrote this on my iPad. Sweet. Anyway, the next entry will include some amount of good men (a few, perhaps?) two very crotchety and awesome old guys, and one organ that's in a place it shouldn't be...scared yet?

2010: The Year that My Nice Year System was Tossed Away in Favor of a Special Lost Interlude

So I haven't watched any Best Picture nominees in like two weeks. Partially because I get sick of watching them, they all seem the same after a while (and if they're different, I've probably already seen them). I was also busy with finals, graduation, and going to a wedding. But now that my life is boring again, I can have plenty of opportunities to blather on. And since I screwed up my perfect little lineup of years on the blog, I'll probably have more interludes in the future if I feel like it. I might do my long-awaited top 5 heroes, or what I like to call "film pariahs" which are movies people should like but they don't.

But for now, I'd like to talk about the other big plan I had this weekend, it was the culmination of the last six years of devotion: the finale of Lost. Just to tell you a few things up front: I'm writing things as though you've seen everything so don't read it if you haven't seen the finale, don't yell at me if you've only seen an episode or two and think you can adequately discern what I'm saying, and also remember: I think it was the greatest ending to a television show of all time. Which is exactly what I expected, and with expectations that high I was shocked that they delivered. Also, feel free to contact me with questions, I love to ponder stuff about the show and answer questions about it for people when I can. Before I get into the specifics of the finale, I'd like to address why a lot of people will probably be upset. They make themselves that way. Because they literally ask questions that they wouldn't ask on other TV shows, and then they get all upset when they're not answered. The show does such a good job of raising big questions and then answering them way later on, that people want to know EVERYTHING about everything on the show. That's just silly. Here's an equivalent, think about this for a second: applying the same logic, if someone is revealed to be an alcoholic on 24, would you say: why is he an alcoholic? When did he become an alcoholic? Is his father an alcoholic? What's his favorite whiskey? Of course not! You just roll with it. So when Lost shows you that there was a protector of the Island before Jacob, don't ask who they were, you're just supposed to accept that there have been protectors probably since the beginning of time and there will probably be more protectors until the end of everything. And I kept telling people this whole season that if you go back and look at the questions we had at the very beginning of the show, (what did Kate do? How did Locke end up in a wheelchair? Who are the Others?) those have all been answered. And if they haven't been answered explicitly, many of them are heavily implied and/or inferred. I guess people wanted the finale to consist of Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse sitting in a chair running through a laundry list of questions and giving answers out. Instead of changing their artistic vision to suit angry viewers, they did what they wanted. And that's why it all ended so perfectly. In fact, the only time they gave in to viewer demands was when they added the characters of Nikki and Paulo, and then they got yelled at for doing so. There's no pleasing some people! So why try?

Now then, all of that being said, I read that there are 20 minutes of deleted scenes from the finale which address key points that they wanted to show but didn't have time for, which isn't surprising since the finale went on for an extra half hour as it was. I think some of those might show how Ben got out from under the tree, a more concrete escape from the Island by Sawyer and Kate, MAYBE showing Desmond leaving the Island, etc. But all of those were implied anyway, because you know that Desmond is going to reunite with Penny. You don't need to see it, that would take away from the effect. There were any number of great touches throughout the episode (aside from the last twenty minutes or so which I'll address later) from just what I call the "that was pretty cool" perspective. So in other words, things that aren't necessarily relevant to the overall theme of the finale but that I thought were nice moments. The first one that comes to mind is the death of the smoke monster. When the Island's power supply was cut off, he no longer had any supernatural abilities (because as we saw in "Across the Sea," he was created by the Island's power source). And for the last several centuries, all he's been trying to do is leave the Island and he has killed many people in order to do so, including his own mother and the arranged murder of his brother Jacob. And at the end, his body lay dead on the rocks: a few feet from freedom. The fact that he died mere inches away from his ultimate goal was outstanding. I also liked the little moment where Richard gets a grey hair and is thus overcome with the love of life once more, now that his immortality has left him (this scene also saw the return of Richard's Theme from "Ab Aeterno," one of Michael Giacchino's best compositions for a character). And some will ask: why is his immortality gone? Because Jacob is dead, and everything that he did was dead with him. That's why Ben could kill Widmore (in the final chilling and excellent scene from Michael Emerson) and that's why Richard could age. How does someone set these rules? With the power of the Island, that's all we know. That's all you should need to know. If you really need to see Jacob on the hatch computer writing up a bunch of HTML nonsense that dictates who can do what then that's just silly.

From the beginning, the show has been about redemption. Frequently, characters face similar situations on the Island that they faced in their lives off of the Island, but they make different decisions. An early episode that exemplified this was "The Moth," which was a Charlie-centric story that focused on his heroin addiction. In it, the idea of the moth coming out of the cocoon is likened to Charlie going through a hardship and emerging a better man. And that's essentially what happened to all of the characters in one way or another. And for many of them, when they attained a sense of redemption, they were killed. And NOW we know why. Because when they died, they went on to live the lives that they should have lived in the Flash-Sideways timeline which, as it turns out, is actually the afterlife. I'd like to point out that I actually predicted that way back. Ask people, they'll tell you. But much like anything else on the show, the afterlife is a journey too. Because the characters have to come to grips with the way things worked out. That's why Ben didn't go into the church with the others, because he still had some issues to work through. But they left you with the impression that someday he'd be able to forgive himself for what he had done and move on. Also: the scene between him and Locke was truly incredible. In fact, I liked where they took Ben's character in general this whole season. He ended up being not such a bad guy after all. And all of that started when Ilana (a character who I believe was brought to the Island for the sole purpose I'm about to mention) had her conversation with Ben, in a scene that proves why Michael Emerson earned his Emmy. I already spoke on his motivations in my Favorite Villains Volume 3 post, and it was nice to hear that I was pretty much in tune with what the writers had in mind. But to hear him say it, and then to say that he was going to go with the ultimate bad guy "because he's the only one that will have me" was heartbreaking. He had turned himself into a monster to be accepted by a father that didn't care about him anyway. And now he has no place in society. But then Ilana says, "I'll have you." And you can see the change on his face, someone finally said to him: "I know what you are, and I want you to know that it's okay and I forgive you." And at that moment he attained his redemption. He was still causing some trouble there at the end of course, but only because it was fricking awesome.

This idea of forgiveness is what the conclusion to the show was all about, and I thought it was well-delivered and powerful. So powerful in fact, that I'm not sure I can even watch the finale again. Much like how "The Dark Tower" series by Stephen King are my favorite books but I've never gone back and read them after I finished the series. Because it was too powerful, too perfect. But since I have the complete Blu-Ray set ordered for this show, I'll probably have to watch it again. I kind of figured that they were all heading to some sort of afterlife, and it was ultimately confirmed when Jack enters the church. Because within the church were artifacts from various religions, there was a cross on the wall but there were also paintings and statues from other religions. When he's standing above his father's coffin, behind him is a stained glass window that has on it: a cross, a star of David, a Yin-Yang symbol, and the Islamic crescent (also two I didn't recognize). Obviously no church would have this outside of some hippie communes, so I figured it was somewhere beyond the stars (or across the sea I suppose). And it is then revealed to us that at one point or another, everyone has moved on. Those that escaped the Island, eventually died. Ben and Hurley ran things on the Island for a while, and they died (side note: I'd love to see a comic book of them running the Island, that'd be hilarious). Eventually, everyone dies as everyone must. Where, when, and how isn't important. What was important was the connection shared between them. And in the end, they all found each other. Some were missing for logistical reasons, but I'd like to think Michael and Walt are off playing with Vincent somewhere and that Richard was finally reunited with the love that he lost all those years ago. And so the theory of the characters being in Purgatory turned out to be true, just not in the way we thought. The Flash-Sideways was a kind of Purgatory, a last trial for them to come to terms with their lives as they had been. And I cannot wait to rewatch this season with that in mind.

Nor can I wait to rewatch the whole incredible journey. As many know, I've seen every episode of almost 100 different TV shows (maybe over 100 at this point) so I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about. And as far as I'm concerned, there's Lost and then there's everything else. It achieved what no other show ever has: great in the beginning, great throughout, and a phenomenal ending. There were one or two sub par episodes, but for me it wasn't like most shows where you say: this season was bad, or that season wasn't quite as good. Every season had a different focus but they all came together to some common themes: forgiveness and redemption. And it could've been SO hokey, but it wasn't. And much like "The Dark Tower" series, it ended where it began. It ended with Jack on the ground of the bamboo forest, this time by choice, having gone through a major transformation. I think Jimmy Kimmel had some unusually profound and accurate insight into the show, that it was ultimately about Jack's trial. Because he kept trying bigger and bigger things to either leave the Island or change his destiny because he was a man of science. But he became the man of faith, and learned to accept the things that had happened to him and move on. And so did everyone else in their own ways.

And thus ended the greatest saga of television history. I must admit that I feel kind of empty now that it's all over. I've invested so much time into analyzing it and analyzing the music and talking to people about it that now I need a new hobby. But whatever my new hobby is will suck by comparison. However, I'd like to think that much like the end of the show, wherein everyone was reunited with the people that had the most profound impact on them, someday I'll be reunited with the experiences I've had throughout the run of the show. I graduated high school and college during its run. I changed a lot in those six years, and this show was my constant. But now, like Jack I must move on to other things. And someday I'll pass by poor Ben Linus and enter that church myself, and if it's up to me I'll spend my time watching the show with my closest friends that shared the experience with me. There are no Candidates for the show's replacement, and nor should there be.

1994: The Year that You Got a Royale with Cheese in Your Box of Chocolates

This was probably one of the better years that I've been through, and the way that you can instantly discern this is I had already seen most of these movies before my escapade. And of the two that I recently watched, I liked 1 1/2 of them. BUT much like some other years that contain one of my favorite movies of all time, the winner shouldn't have won. I really like it, but it shouldn't have won. Also included in this year is IMDB's top rated movie. Another movie I like, but rated above every other movie, including The Godfather? That is literally obscene. But we'll get to that, I believe we're starting with the one I mostly enjoyed (checking list on Wikipedia) yep that's the one.

And that movie gets major props from me for its awesome title: Four Weddings and a Funeral. But the cleverness stops there. Well, that's not true. But the cleverness does stop after about forty-five minutes. Much like almost any comedy in the past decade or so (and pretty much since the beginning of film) the story loses its charm. I think the reason this happens so often within comedies is that the movies are structurally based on humor. But then the writers feel like they need a conflict and a resolution similar to the structure of a drama. But this means that comedy films are forced to change their structure about halfway through. And since you know it'll end happily anyway, there's no real conflict in the first place. I know I've mentioned this already a bunch of times, but it really does irk me. Comedies should all be similar in structure to The Full Monty, which was hilarious and quirky from beginning to end. It doesn't overstep its bounds. This movie, on the other hand, started out as being really clever and funny. And it remained that way I guess, but after a while it just became your generic romantic comedy. Also, I don't find Andie MacDowell particularly attractive...and I'm not trying to be obnoxious or anything but this guy falls hopelessly in love with this woman right from the beginning. Now, if this was after a particularly excellent conversation with her, I'd be cool with that. But since it's as soon as he spots her across the room, she should cause the viewer's jaw to drop as well. And she ends up leaving her husband for this guy, and he leaves his almost-wife at the altar to be with her. So really they're both pretty rotten. The film has a great cast and certainly some funny moments, but it didn't blow me away.

The film that does blow me away each and every time I watch it is Pulp Fiction. I have so much to say about this movie, I'll say almost nothing. Because it's about two and a half hours long and all of that is worth examining. In fact, I was thinking about pulling a 2003 on you guys and changing the rules with regards to the order I review the movies in (by putting this right before the winner, in the honorary winner position), but since I also have a lot to ramble about concerning IMDB's so-called "top film" I decided to stick with the usual system. But don't let this second-paragraph-after-the-prologue-in-my-review movie fool you: it's one of my all-time favorites and the fact that it didn't win is one of my other main beefs with the Academy right up there with the spurning of The Dark Knight. And what's this movie about? Not a whole lot really. It's an intertwining-stories film about various shady characters, told out of sequence. The stories themselves are more unusual than complex, but the delivery is mind-blowing and rightfully put Tarantino on the map (although he was already on some people's radars after his 1992 masterpiece: Reservoir Dogs). It's been said many times, but I'll mention it anyway. The movie and its characters are so special because of the dialogue. Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta are talking about overseas burgers, TV pilots, and foot massages for about six minutes before we see what they're up to (killing dumb college students who couldn't repay a mobster). And when we see that they're there to kill them, they still go on for a few minutes about burgers and such. And why? Because they're people just like anybody, and they're doing their everyday job. So why would they spend all day talking about killing people? That would get dull really quickly. It makes the characters so real and creates an enchanting, entertaining, and disturbing world. The film lives in the grey area and asks the viewers not to condemn or condone what the characters are doing, but simply to observe. Are we sick for enjoying the executions of the aforementioned college students? Perhaps. But isn't that why we're at the film, to be entertained? Definitely. So there you have it, the script of the film literally does what no other film before it ever did and there hasn't been a script like it since (except perhaps Inglourious Basterds). And at least it received Best Screenplay. But it didn't have 21 different ways to eat shrimp so I guess it wasn't good enough for the Academy.

Know what did have 21 different ways to eat shrimp? Not this next movie I'm talking about, that's for sure. The movie is Quiz Show and though it doesn't contain a three minute soliloquy by Christopher Walken about all the...interesting...ways that he was able to deliver Bruce Willis' dad's watch back to him, it's still a pretty great movie. It has my scorned buddy, Ralph Fiennes, in it. And oddly enough, I'd always seen him as the bad guy because of the movies I'd initially seen him in, but it seems those are the only films in which he's bad...so it's been an interesting experience for me. In this movie he plays the network confederate on the quiz show 21 (and by confederate, I mean the undercover dude that does the network's bidding while making the "experiment" or in this case game show seem legitimate, not the dudes who seceded after Lincoln was elected). It's one of those films that's not particularly interesting from a directorial point of view, or even as a script for that matter, but the actors are all very talented and the story is delivered very well. The film also addresses certain issues that I find fascinating, such as the manner in which TV influences us. Because I think its influences come from the small things, not from extreme violence and language and such. This movie shows that "reality" TV or in this case, a game show (which is reality TV if you think about it, or even if you don't think about it. It's really quite obvious) is really just creating something that looks like real life but isn't. They wanted someone to be winning that little kids could look up to and that people could see as a more successful version of themselves. Their justification was that: since actors are paid to pretend to be something they're not, what does it matter if our show does that too? And it's actually kind of a valid point. So there you go: the movie raises some interesting questions and has a great delivery of a true story. It's certainly one of the better real-life stories that I've seen on my escapade. Because instead of relying on suspense or some corporate monster to be taken down, it's about the people and how the situation changes them. That's the way it should be, so I give the film a lot of credit.

And I also give a lot of credit to The Shawshank Redemption, you'll never hear me say otherwise. BUT, number 1 IMDB? Really? That's absurd. No, absurd would be saying that Batman is a poorly-conceived character. This is more like asserting that Hannah Montana is a better and more interesting character than Batman. And I really do like this movie, the characters are great. It's funny and uplifting in its own way, the script is good, you name it and the film does it well. But what it boils down to is this: it's a prison escape movie. And within a prison escape movie, you know that the dude is going to escape. So there's no suspense there concerning that issue. How he escapes is still clever and it's still awesome to witness, but it's not like you don't see it coming. And though I think the characters are wonderfully crafted, they don't really change or go anywhere within the movie (except out of jail). They're pretty much the same people at the beginning as they are at the end. And that's fine, there is nothing wrong with that. But if a movie is number 1 on what is probably the most visited film website in existence, it better have some pretty freaking dynamic and interesting characters. And it better be directed with more innovation than pretty much anything ever has. And the music choices better be the best and most inspired choices the world has ever known. The film does none of these things. It's upsetting that I feel this way about the movie. Because if people would stop liking things too much, it'd be nice. If this movie was lower on the list, I'd be singing its praises incessantly. But since stupid IMDB people had to go and elevate it above The Godfather (which is one of my favorite movies, not my absolute favorite, but objectively it's probably the greatest movie ever made) and LOTR and literally every other movie in existence, that's enraging. It's the same line of thinking that makes me dislike a lot of these nominees. I'd enjoy them a lot more if I didn't have to live with the knowledge that the Academy likes them too much. So, by means of an abrupt conclusion: watch the movie, it's outstanding. But holy crap would you please rate it kinda low on IMDB and put the universe back in order? Course correct that junk!

That was a dorky joke. Side note: the only person who gets absolutely all of my jokes is me. But since I'm about half of my audience, that's probably fine. Key demographic of 18-49 year-old white males: nailed it. And what better movie to make 18-49 year-old white males feel good about themselves than Forrest Gump? Actually, there are plenty. That doesn't mean I don't like the movie, but I'd classify it as: cute. I know that sounds insulting, but it's a fun story, it's funny, it's uplifting, it's heartwarming. So that's what it is: cute. It tells a nice story and it does it well. It doesn't revolutionize the gangster genre though, just saying. But it does present a very interesting idea pertaining to the American dream (an idea so interesting that I was going to write a paper on it, until the professor pulled it from the curriculum due to Snowmageddon. Now instead of getting me an A it's filling up space on the blog). Basically the movie asserts that if you're in America, even if you're retarded (not being insulting, he actually is) you can still: influence the king of rock n' roll, meet the president, be a war hero, save poor people with a shrimp company, come up with a slogan, inspire the nation, and of course fall in love. I should point out that me saying that constitutes me being on my douche-cap that I have to wear when writing college papers, but I do think it's kind of true. And that's why it's an inspiring and charming movie. And Tom Hanks does a great job and everything, but Best Picture? Forget it. It deserves a nomination without question, and the manner in which they put Forrest into actual historical footage is pretty cool and worthy of note, but the movie isn't mind-blowing like two of the other nominees (including, yes, the one I ripped on for forever). I do also really like that he describes the Vietnam war and various assassinations in a manner befitting most Americans: cluelessly. So I find it funny that lots of people laugh at it, because it's supposed to be making fun of how people don't know stuff...and they don't know stuff...but I digress. Fun movie, go watch it.

In fact, go watch most of the 1994 nominees. Good year! SO refreshing after some of the other years I had to sit through. I do have a bunch of films left to sit through before my 1993 post. But luckily, I'll be graduating in a week. I'll be going from being a "student" which at least sounds useful, to a "graduate" which might as well be code for: "bum." Because all I'm doing this summer, besides working a bit, is burning through Netflix and trying to give my teleplay to a guy who gives it to a guy who gives it to a guy with connections. Also write my teleplay, I should probably do that first. But in the meantime, I can tell you that my next post will include: Indiana Jones on the run from Agent K, Qui-Gon Jinn delivering Jews from Voldemort, and an Oscar-winning member of the X-Men with a vampire fetish.

1995: The Year that They Can't Take Our Freedom but They Can Take Our Fattened Pigs

1995 is a year of let-downs. Either the movies are bad or they're not as good as I thought or they're depressing. Well, that's not entirely true. Both depressing films are also mostly uplifting. The winner for this year is an outstanding choice, but a bit of an odd one for the Academy...and I can't figure out why they made it. Maybe someone slipped something in their drinks and they made the correct decision by accident.

But first, let's look at a movie which is really good, but not as good as I was told by others. I can't believe I hadn't seen it until last week: Apollo 13. I feel like I would've gotten a lot more out of this movie if I had seen it either A)when it came out or B)without having seen every episode of every Star Trek. The best part of the movie for me was actually before they left in the space shuttle. Because that piece of the film is all a character study that looks at the different reasons why each astronaut feels compelled to go on the mission and why they feel it's an important human accomplishment in general. The actors are all very good and the ideas raised are all quite fascinating. Then the scene where the shuttle launches is outstanding, and the first part where they're up in space is pretty great too. And here's where I'll sound strange, but as soon as Houston was alerted of the problem: the movie instantly becomes fairly boring. Because you know that they're going to survive. So there's literally no suspense. And though I know it's based on a true story, it has to be judged by what it is as a film. And as a film, it reminded me of a great many episodes of Star Trek and Stargate and other sci-fi shows wherein the smart people have to pull together some crazy invention in order for the people in danger to survive. And from a film perspective, whether or not the invention is legit (like it is here) or it's some made up dilithium crystal nonsense from TV, really doesn't matter. The movie still could've left us with some suspense if it was a little shorter, but since it went on a bit longer than it should've the suspense that was present wore off. Now, after all of that whining: the acting is good (aside from Bill Paxton) and Ron Howard's directing is certainly good. But I feel like I missed my window of opportunity for enjoying this movie. I probably would've enjoyed it a lot more if I hadn't seen about a million movies and shows already. It's certainly quality, but since the Academy has seen even more movies than I have, I'm not really sure why it snagged the nomination aside from some big names and the feel-good story.

Another seemingly feel-good story that my cynical mind actually found quite depressing in parts was Babe. And before I get into my schtick with this movie, I'd like to point out that if they were going to nominate any kid's movie with deep themes that year, it should've been Toy Story. I recently watched this early foray into computer animation and it is OUTSTANDING. Seriously, the philosophical issues that it raises are staggering and really kind of frightening. Because Buzz Lightyear thinks he's a real person. Stop thinking of that as a joke, and think of this: what if you woke up and discovered that you were just a fabricated character on some complex computer game. That's a wonderfully creepy idea for a kid's movie. It also features the requisite high quality voice acting, music, and staggeringly-good-for-1995 computer animation. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now to the movie I'm actually supposed to be talking about. Babe is another one of these films that exists mostly to be adorable and uplifting but also has some pretty intense aspects to it. Aspects that ordinarily wouldn't be too dramatic, but since they're in a movie for kids they become even more shocking. For instance, the movie begins with a description of the pigs' living quarters that sound an awful lot like a concentration camp. Then all of the fat pigs are taken off to "pig heaven" which is "so good that no one comes back" and we all know what that means. When Babe has the opportunity to see more of the farm on which he lives he discovers the verifiable caste system that exists, especially with regards to the sheep-dogs viewing of the sheep as lesser forms of life. Then later in the movie Babe's surrogate mother gets killed by wolves and he gets blamed for it. Cheery, huh? Of course most of the movie is focused on the whole "don't be confined by the label you're given, break out and live freely" idea that while cheesy to some, is an important aspect of movies for kids. Why depress them too early? So the movie was overall quite adorable and unusually well-done, but I was also kind of startled/fascinated by the subtle hints of darker themes within the film.

Another seemingly uplifting movie that ended on some dark themes was Il Postino. By means of a side note, you can tell my brain is fried because it took me ten minutes to realize that the Josh Groban song that uses the main theme from this movie is his song, "Il Postino." Yay college. I actually owe a debt of gratitude to this movie. Because I had a very long day today, and thus needed a lot of sleep two nights ago. Well I got it, thanks to this movie. It put me to sleep promptly at 10:30. And the movie wasn't even bad at that point, it was just aimless. It's pretty much like Cyrano de Bergerac without the clever wordplay. Or swordfighting. Or quality. Basically, some Communist is on the run from the law and ends up in a small town in Italy (there's the film's first mistake. Sympathy for the Pinko? I think not). There, he meets a postman (that's what the title is in Italian. Sound much better in Italian). And this postman is trying to woo some hot waitress chick who not only isn't that hot, she doesn't even speak until they get married pretty much. So she's a possibly-mute, moderately-attractive chick in a small town in Italy in the fifties where no one leaves the small town and there's not a big pick of guys. And this dude needs to be able to poetrize this woman? Even I'm less bumbling around women than that. But all of that leads up to their wedding of course, which happens an hour into the movie. And 48 minutes remain. How did they fill up that leftover time? Not sure exactly, don't really remember. And I watched it less than 48 hours ago. 1995's winner I've seen once and that was four and a half years ago, but I can tell you plenty. But anyway, this movie ends with the postman reading some of his poetry at a Communist gathering and then he gets beaten to death by the cops during a riot afterwards. Charming. Umm...so they didn't have beatniks in Italy I guess? There was literally nowhere else he could share his poetry? Sure, it was all to honor his friend the Marquis de Comrade, but wouldn't any sort of skill in poetry have done that? Whatever. The movie's not particularly good. Might as well have nominated Toy Story, just saying.

And yet somehow I enjoyed it slightly more than this next one, Sense and Sensibility. This is a movie I was, no joke, expecting to like. Great cast, great composer, skilled director (though I hate all of his movies it seems) and it's always good to get a taste of classic literature even if it's just the adapted version. I also expected to like it because it's allegedly supposed to be satirizing high society much the way that The Importance of Being Earnest does. With one major difference of course: Earnest is brilliant and hilarious and this is terrible. Because satire should be FUNNY. Instead this movie does what Gosford Park did, which is satirize something by being the exemplification of it instead of being its intentionally-distorted image. Example: Arrested Development makes fun of rich people and you know this because it's hilarious. Keeping Up With The Kardashians (doesn't deserve italics) makes fun of rich people...? Or does it glorify how stupid they are? Who can tell? Because it's crap. And the fact that it was mentioned on my blog just now is probably a sign of the apocalypse. But anyway, this movie irks me for several reasons. First off, if it was set in any other time period with the exact same story, it wouldn't be a charming period piece to some, it would be a campy melodrama to all. Like the world's most mediocre episode of Gossip Girl and...sweet lordy I'm making some terrible references today! Putting something in a time period shouldn't be what makes it good. Furthermore, women swoon over this movie. And don't start calling me names, you know it's true. Well how is it that a movie that essentially portrays women as having no other purpose in life than to marry the perfect guy paints a particularly flattering picture of women? And then when I accidentally say something I didn't even know was insulting to women, I'm labeled a poorer and more clever version of Chris Brown. At one point in the movie, the older sister says it's silly that their lives should be dependant on such things. And I said, "thank you!" Well, they married the dudes at the end anyway. AND, in what bizarre and disturbing universe does 50-year-old Alan Rickman end up with 20-year-old Kate Winslet? I'd rather not think about it. Probably the same fantasy land where Bill Murray is with Scarlett Johansson, Jack Nicholson ends up with Helen Hunt, and Asian people can fly. But anyway, I digress because I dislike. The only highlight of this film was a young Dr. House in a very dry and witty role. If he was a main dude I'd have A)bought it and B)been entertained.

Just like I was entertained by the year's winner, a stirring and exciting film that I like to call Braveheart. Since what I have to say about the movie isn't particularly interesting, I'll start with something I do find interesting. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, the man can direct a freaking movie. So what if he's a raging jerk when he's drunk? I challenge you to find anyone in Hollywood who isn't. Hollywood is the world's biggest cesspool of narcissists, perverts, and bigots of one sort or another. But we care about them for the work they do, not the kind of people they are. I quite frankly might be frightened to spend an evening with Tarantino, but the man is a genius. Aaaaaaaaaaand we're bringing it back to the movie, a strikingly well-done piece with just the right pacing, great battle scenes, great actors, and an all-important music score delivered splendidly by James Horner. But I think the most important aspect of that is the pacing, and that's the part people overlook the most. If the movie didn't have just the right amount of backstory/love story with William Wallace's wife, Murron, then the scene where she's killed would mean nothing. But, if they spent too much time on it then the viewer would feel like they were getting screwed because they paid for an epic battle film and only got half of one. The setup delivers so perfectly that even though you know what's coming, you feel it. And you share in the rage that sparks the revolution. The rest of the movie is fairly standard fare for a movie of its type, and though it may not be terribly original in some of its overall themes (freedom, fighting for a just cause, martyrs inspiring great victories) it certainly delivers them better than most. And the famous, or infamous depending on how often you've seen it spoofed, "Freedom!" scene at the end is truly stirring. So it's by no means a light movie, but it's outstanding. I still get chills thinking about some of the scenes and I watched it when I was like 17 or something. I'd watch it again, but the obscene amount of TV I watch won't allow it until the summer.

Well, I apologize for all of the TMZ-inspired references today. I was working at the gym for nine and a half hours today so I think I got some meathead DNA stuck in my brain. There's an image. Whichever way, 1995 was a very mixed bag. And not in a particularly good way. I have one movie for 1994 left because I planned my Netflix deliveries slightly poorly this time around and jumped into 1993 by accident. But what I can tell you is that the next entry will include: a briefcase that no one knows the contents of, a poster that contains freedom from captivity, and some chocolates that, according to momma, contain who knows what?

1996: The Year that They Showed Me the Money Right Before They Wood-Chipped It

The movies were all over the place this year. Both in quality and in plot description. There were two movies in there that I really didn't like at all. I mean, at all. As in, I tried really hard to find things that I liked about them. Even when a movie is pretty terrible I can usually find some redeeming quality about it. Maybe a performance struck me, or the usage of a certain piece of music, etc. I just watched Evil Dead 3: Army of Darkness and I even got a few things out of that. But not from these movies.

But first, a movie I really like. And one I can't believe I hadn't seen before, because it's exactly my kind of film: Fargo. This is an early Coen brothers movie, before they had the prestige to list both of them as the director. And though they had several films prior to this one, this was the film that put them on the map. And if it came out in a different year, it may well have won for Best Picture. The film is actually kind of Tarantino esque because it features a fair few scenes that are devoted to criminals having delightfully mundane conversations. All of this made even more hilarious and slightly disturbing by the fact that they all have North Dakota/Minnesota/Canada accents (eh?). I also love that it's not in any way based on a true story, but they said it was so people would be more willing to suspend disbelief. This is a fascinating phenomenon that I myself have pondered: that people will believe anything if you tell them it happened but if it's fictional and something a bit off happens they go, "oh yeah right!" That's dumb. Because A) you know it's fake and if it makes sense character-wise that's all I care about and B) many of those things we say would never happen, happen frequently. Looking back, very select events that could have easily happened differently led to me going to the college I go to, majoring in the major I major in, and writing about written things I like to write about (vague enough for you?). Point being: suck it up and watch the movie. Anyway, all I'll tell you of the plot is that William H. Macy's character hires some goons to kidnap his wife so her dad will pay the ransom money, and he'll get to keep a cut of the money. Much hilarity/tragedy ensues. The acting is top-notch, and earned Frances McDormand an Oscar, but what really brings it home is the outstanding script, which also won an Oscar. The Coens really set the standard impossibly high for themselves with this movie, I highly enjoyed it every step of the way. In addition to enjoying it, it's a verifiable little masterpiece of a movie. Go watch it! (warning: beware of humans being forced into wood chippers)

A movie that's also funny but in a completely different and totally not-twisted way, is Jerry Maguire. I was actually a bit worried about watching this movie, because all of the famous lines have been spoofed and referenced so many times that I felt like I'd just laugh when I saw them (and not because I was supposed to). But thankfully, the more ridiculous phrases ("show me the money!" and "help me, help you. help me...help you!") are actually made fun of within the movie too. And the ones that are supposed to make even grown men swoon, did indeed make me swoon. Can I start calling myself a grown man? I guess...that's frightening. And I hate to admit this, but Tom Cruise did a really good job in this movie. Wow that actually caused me physical pain. Because I realized that he's essentially been playing this same role in every other movie he's in, except this is where it belongs. And I never dislike him the way I dislike Ben Affleck in stuff, I just think that other people would be better suited for whatever role he happens to be playing. He's in a lot of movies I like, but I like them in spite of him. And now I know why: he has succumbed to Will Ferrell's Anchorman syndrome wherein one character is so good for them that they just keep playing it over and over...like a Sisyphean prima donna. The other actors in the movie seemed to recover and do other roles later in life, although I don't know if you could call what Cuba Gooding Jr. did in Snow Dogs a "role." And he rightfully won for this movie...what happened? The other casting is also the biggest part of what makes the movie a success. They found the perfect actresses to play the two love interests: Kelly Preston as the crazy hot chick who he thankfully tosses aside and Renee Zellweger as the adorable single mom. Though it's blatantly obvious, his inner change as seen by the women he's with is an effective tool within the film. I do think that much like one of 1997's nominees, the movie goes on a bit too long. There are a few too many little conflicts within the film and it slows it down needlessly. But I overall enjoyed it, and I think it was deserving of the nomination for the great cast, sharp writing, and good use of source music. Plus, nothing this year had a shot against the winner anyway.

But that doesn't mean they should go nominating any British piece of crap that comes before them. That's the only explanation I can think of for why they would nominate Secrets & Lies. There is maybe, MAYBE, a performance or two within the film worthy of a nomination (not really, even that would be a stretch) but the film itself? No. No no no no no. This movie has literally no redeeming qualities. And by that I don't mean, "it doesn't have a good moral of the story" I mean "there's nothing special about it at all." The basic plot is that...hang on. What am I saying? "Basic plot" isn't a good term because it implies that there is a plot beyond what I'm about to say. And there isn't. It's about an adopted black woman who finds out that her birth mother was white, and the relationship they form. Then there are some irrelevant side-stories about the other family members doing nothing of significance. For almost two and a half hours. Painful. First off, if you're going to cast someone as the perceived-as-black daughter of a white woman, don't cast someone who has really dark skin. That doesn't make any sense. And I know, I know, maybe she gave the best screen test of all the actresses who came in. But it just comes off as ridiculous. It would've been at home in a Simpsons episode wherein we find out that Bart is actually Apu's long lost son. And it would be funny because of the absurdity. This movie is supposed to be serious. That's another thing, it's not funny at all. Even movies like The Pianist have a moment or two for laughs. And it's fine if a movie wants no laughs, but at least do something interesting with your drama if you're all about the drama. The movie also features some British accents that made me want to Beethoven my hearing out of existence. But here's the kicker: the movie was nominated for Best Screenplay, and apparently the actors improvised every scene after being given an overall description of what needed to be accomplished. This could work for a single scene a la the excellent "contender" scene from On The Waterfront. And I will point out that there's a scene in this movie with a continuous eight minute shot of just acting, and that was pretty impressive, and maybe did benefit from improvisation. But not the whole freaking movie! No wonder it came off so poorly, THAT'S WHY WE WRITE SCRIPTS. Well apparently writing a brief outline was good enough for a nomination that year. But a movie about Batman 12 years later? Forget it.

Know what else you should forget? Shine, another movie with potential that just didn't make it. The overall plot is about a brilliant pianist (Geoffrey Rush in an Oscar-winning performance) who descends into madness and then comes back to sanity. That makes it sound really good. But it's not. First off, Geoffrey Rush is an outstanding actor who deserves a nomination for a ton of his roles. But not this one. How many times have we seen neurotic genius guy who mumbles? Pretty much all the time. And he's not even in the movie enough to be called the main actor because a lot of the story chronicles his childhood and the person is played by a different actor. At least it's mercifully only about 105 minutes, because that was all I could take. And oddly enough, I feel as though if there had been more of the movie then it would have been better. Because it heavily implies his descent into madness, but we never really see and feel it. And we watch him go and play the piano again after being in the asylum but we never really see and feel why he recovered his sanity. So it all played like the poorly-done spark notes version of the guy's life. At least the piano solos were nice to listen to and they're performed by the man on whom the story is based, which is kind of cool. But that's the only good quality to the film, the writing is bland, the acting is jejune, and it really all feels like a TV biopic. In fact, I now rescind my labeling of The Queen as feeling like a TV biopic, and replace it with this movie. Perhaps they did just pull it out of a hat, because the winner for the year is quite outstanding.

And the sad thing is, you've probably never heard of it: The English Patient. I'm actually searching for things to say about it, because everything is so good that it's hard to pick which ones to talk about. For starters, Ralph Fiennes needs to stop getting snuffed by the Oscars. In 1993 he should've won Supporting and he lost to Tommy Lee Jones of all people. For his role in The Fugitive! Is that a joke? In fact, 1993 had a few injustices, but that's for a future blog. In 1996, Ralph was struck down by none other than the aforementioned Geoffrey Rush performance. ARE you kidding me? Ralph acts better through the disfigured makeup he has on than most people do with full use of their facial expressions. And in the flashbacks where he's not disfigured? Even better. This is tragic. Seriously. That dude needs an Oscar. But luckily the film did win 9...so at least everything else was recognized. The scenery and music are especially striking, and really pull you into the world and the time period. Much like most of my favorites, I don't want to say too much about the plot because it'd be an insult to the people who delivered it so perfectly. Basically it's about a downed pilot who may or may not remember who he is, and we gradually find out about his past in a series of flashbacks. The film doesn't overdo anything, the performances are all so wonderfully real (including one from Naveen Andrews, the future Sayid on Lost. He's British in real life and I've only seen him play an Iraqi on the show and an Indian guy in this movie, which shows he's got skills). And the story is the perfect example of a simply-told story with complex themes and issues. I'd also like to point to a specific scene that I thought was particularly outstanding, and though it's a bit of a minor spoiler, I really want to talk about it. Part of the backstory is that the main character started up an affair with a married woman, and one of their quasi intense (but clothed and fairly tasteful) love scenes took place on Christmas. Well, during this scene we can hear a choir in the background singing "Silent Night." This was a ridiculously good choice, because it causes a conflict in the viewer's mind akin to the conflict within the characters. Because the viewers are being drawn in by the passion while a song based in religion and moral purity is playing. So it creates this wonderfully dichotomous atmosphere wherein neither the viewers nor the characters know how to feel about the situation. It reminded me of this British thriller I saw once, the name of which sadly escapes me, where a woman has a cross hanging in her cleavage. And my professor explained that the director wanted to: "turn on the male audience and then make them feel guilty for being turned on." Because these feelings of shame are what fueled the actions of the main character in that movie, who was a serial killer of women. Aaaaaaaaaaand that's what we call a tangent. Main point being: The English Patient has all the elements I expect from a Best Picture nominee, and the reason I rip on so many other films that are nominated is that they're included on the same list of films that include actual masterpieces.

So 1996 was an interesting mix of new personal favorites and complete nonsense. Though I do make myself look good all the time, anyone can plainly see that I know a lot about movies and television. I've probably spent about a quarter of my life watching the things, so I know what I'm talking about. And if I say there's nothing there, then the Academy knows there's nothing there. Or they're a bunch of quacks. Either way, I'd like to overthrow them. But that's for another time. For now, I'll tell you that I have 2 or the 1995 nominees left to watch but it will include: Bill Paxton sadly not being stranded in outer space, disturbing children's movies that also manage to be adorable, and what will very likely turn out to be more uppity British nonsense.