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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment