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