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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"a Sisyphean prima donna" Love it!
Post a Comment