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.
No comments:
Post a Comment