I actually kinda like and really like the two movies I mentioned in my title, but coming up with titles is taxing, you know? Especially when the movies have nothing I can really allude to (nothing interesting anyway). It was actually a pretty good year, but nothing out of the ordinary. No over-the-top excellent films and no crap ones either. Unfortunate as this will be the last of the 90s blogs, and the adventure that awaits us next is daunting...because the 80s had some crap if the music and the hairstyles are any indication.
But before we deal with that we'll discuss the year in question, beginning with Awakenings. I had never actually heard of this movie until it showed up on the list, which is unfortunate because it's quite a well-done little movie. It tells the true story (or mostly true I suppose, there's always embellishment) of a group of borderline-catatonic people and their awakenings from that state of being via a new drug. And by "new" I mean: new in 1969. I'm not sure what the correct term is for the disease that the people in the movie have...they're not really catatonic but they certainly can't move and communicate much either. Suffice it to say they're in positions that I wouldn't wish on anybody (not even Michael Bay. Maybe James Cameron). Although that's the crux of the story and although Robert DeNiro was the one nominated for Best Actor that year for playing the main "awakened one" (if you will) I think that the movie is really about the doctor (played by Robin Williams). He's a bit of a misanthrope and so he likes working with patients that aren't going to give him a bunch of crap all the time (if you're thinking I could relate, you are quite correct). And even though one of his nurses is quite obviously interested in him, he's too awkward about it to care. I can only relate to the awkward aspect of that piece of the story...but anyway, by means of a sidenote the nurse is played by Julie Kavner. If you don't know who that is, it's because you haven't seen all 450+ episodes of The Simpsons like I have. And after all that it's tough to listen to her because Marge is all I can think about when I hear the voice. I faced a similar dilemma in 1997 for those who remember. And since Julie is the other cast member who does like 3 voices instead of about 37, she sounds exactly the same. Aaaaaaaaand we're bringing it back to the movie: okay so at first it's pretty uplifting because when all the people wake up they are able to live the lives they'd been denied for so long. But then the side effects of the drug start to present themselves, and this coupled with the shock of being awakened some 30 years after you went to sleep caused many of the patients to unravel (including DeNiro). And so they are forced to go back to somewhere inbetween where they had started and where they were with the drug. It was all very sad, but moving. There is redemption though: because DeNiro gets on Williams' case about not living his life even though he's been blessed with one and that he's "the one who's really asleep." And thus, good ole' Patch Adams decides to finally go out with Marge Simpson (there's an image). Predictable, but sweet. I liked it, it made me feel nice on a boring summer day.
One of the strangest choices for a nominee that I've come across is Ghost. The movie is actually pretty good, even though it reeks of the eighties. But Best Picture nominee? That's a bit silly, actually really silly. But first let's hit some of the highlights. Patrick Swayze was a great choice for the movie, for much the same reason that (stick with me on this one) Matt Damon was the perfect choice for the Bourne movies. Because you don't expect Matt Damon to beat the crap out of a bunch of people, and then he does. Well, you don't expect Patrick Swayze to start taking advantage of his new abilities as a ghost to help save Demi Moore, which is good because if he had been played by Bruce Willis or someone then you'd keep waiting for him to shoot some guy and make a joke. Patrick is the everyman, and so when he's trying to stop Demi from suffering the same fate that he did, you really feel for the guy. His hair is longer than hers in this movie though...which is really weird. Especially since she can't really act and her only positive attribute is that she's hot (but not with short hair, she's no Natalie Portman). Some of the effects in the movie are pretty cheesy but they are thankfully kept to a minimum. What isn't kept to a minimum is the presence of Whoopi Goldberg. I had very mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I really enjoyed the scenes she was in and the dynamic she had with Swayze (she was the only one who could hear him after he was dead). But I also felt that really took away from the main crux of the movie, which was the love story aspect. But on the other other hand, Demi Moore is stupid, so who knows? And why did Whoopi get an Oscar for playing an eccentric black woman? Doesn't sound too taxing to me...and can I also mention that I found the scene where they're making the clay jar pretty not effective? I think it's partially because I always thought he was dead in that scene and that he was reconnecting with her via "Unchained Melody." So I always thought that was pretty cool. Well, he's actually alive and she's bored and messing with clay so he's like, "hey let's make movie magic for some reason!" I thought the more effective scene was the one right after that where they have like a tone poem sex scene...if that makes any sense. Maybe it's just me, because according to my mother, my lack of response to that scene makes me a heartless robot (slight hyperbole). All of that aside, fun movie. But nominee? Please.
Next up on the list is quite an interesting one to discuss: The Godfather Part III. The reason I say it's interesting is because even Tony Soprano talks about what a big disappointment it was. And I actually think that's a bit harsh. The first two movies are, without a doubt, two of the greatest movies of all time (in fact, the first one might just be the greatest). The third one is by no means a bad movie, it's a really good movie. The standard was just set way too high. Also, I think it's important to note that a bit too much time passed between when Coppola made the films. The first two came out in the 70s with two years in between and this one came out 16 years later. By that time, I believe the original composer had died, the filmmaking styles of Coppola (and films in general) had changed, and people like Robert Duvall had grown into their own careers and thus had to be written out. These all contribute to the movie being a bit too different from the originals to feel like home. But there are some welcome new additions with Andy Garcia and Joe Mantegna. There's also one very NOT welcome addition of Sofia Coppola. I used to say, "I'm sure she's a great writer/director but she's a terrible actress." But now that I've seen some of the movies she's made, I can honestly say she should pursue a career elsewhere. I realize she's the director's daughter and everything and he'd be a complete jerk for not casting her if she wanted to jumpstart her career. But up next to Pacino and Garcia, she just brings down every scene she's in. That being said, the rest of the film is definitely worth a watch, even if it's not as good as the first two. Michael Corleone has gotten soft in his old age, but this also gives us a chance to delve more into his psyche than we ever could before. And then you've got the immortal line, "just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." No matter how many times I see it spoofed, it's still a great line. The conclusion to the film and its ending, are excellent. No two ways about it. Whatever you want to say about the rest of the movie, the end of the film brings the trilogy to an appropriate and tragic end.
Next up is a film I'm actually somewhat underwhelmed by: Goodfellas. First, by means of a side note: the beginning of this paragraph was written several days ago and through the magic of the internet it seems as though no time has passed. Now I'm knee-deep in a 1988 period piece that once again demands I blog during it. But anyway, back to 1990: this film is much more of a precursor to The Sopranos than any of the Godfather films. My Creative Writing teacher in high school once described the latter as "moving artwork" and I can't think of a better way to put it. But the former is a hauntingly-real masterpiece with a complete lack of what I'd call "classical filmmaking." In other words, the world of The Godfather is beautiful. It looks beautiful, the music is beautiful and haunting, and the lifestyle is that of the golden age of the mob. Both Goodfellas and The Sopranos are all about the mob after the golden age. The mob in its decline. And there's something sad about that. This film, which I will finally talk about after all that blather, is usually looked at as Scorsese's best work. I'd disagree, though I'm still a big fan. The film uses only source music, with no original score. This isn't unusual for Marty, but there's usually some semblance of a score present. Instead, this movie chooses to go more the route of juxtaposition. Many times, you laugh while feeling guilty for laughing because something horrific is happening. I feel like I've mentioned this before on the blog, but I can't remember when or if it was actually for a paper for college, or both. Because I've lost my mind. Either way, this film is all about showing the mob lifestyle for what it is: destructive. Ray Liotta plays the main character, but he also largely functions as the voice of the audience. In the beginning he famously states, "as far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a wise guy." Throughout the movie he finds out what that entails, and how it's not as glamorous as he thought. The movie ends on a nice bookend to the first line, "I'm an average nobody...get to live the rest of my life like a schnook." I'm not sure what that word means, but I like it. Because he got off easy by being in witness protection, as the film shows that the "glorious" end for a mobster is prison or death. Umm...yeah. And see that exact thing is present in The Godfather but it seems more dignified! This one shows the complete lack of dignity and decency, a more realistic portrayal of the mob. On the other hand, it does place the movie in the category of: "it's good because of what it isn't" which is something that usually annoys me. I'll forgive it though, because it's Marty and because he does a great job directing it. And I think Joe Pesci's Oscar-winning performance is good, but a little Joe goes a long way. And after a while he becomes a bit annoying. DeNiro is great as always, playing a more ruthless character than he usually does. Or I should say, a less-classy ruthless guy than he usually does. The reason I said the film underwhelms me is that it's put up pretty high on a lot of top lists, so I was expecting much more a few years ago when I watched it. It's a really good movie, certainly deserving of the nomination and even would've deserved a win if it had been given one. But it's like #14 on IMDB or something (just checked, it's #16) which is a tad ridiculous.
But what's more ridiculous is this year's winner, a film I have VERY mixed feelings about: Dances With Wolves. I set aside an entire afternoon to watch all 4 hours of this movie's director's cut, and I mostly enjoyed it. But the completely anti-climactic ending kind or ruins the whole thing for me. That being said, let's focus on positive stuff first: a lot of the scenery is stunning. Truly stunning. The buffalo hunting scene alone is worth sitting through the film. It's been a long time since a movie actually took my breath away and in two days I watched this movie and Lawrence of Arabia, and they both managed to do just that. I also thought the portrayal of the Sioux Indian tribe was excellent. They weren't shown to be a bunch of tree-hugging hippies like some would have you believe, because that's not what they were. Newsflash: the white guys in the movies can still be jerks if you portray the Native Americans accurately. They were a ruthless people, much like all people everywhere in the world. But they lived in harsh environments, and were thus more harsh as a result. Many who know me know that I'm a big advocate of accurate descriptions, even if they would seemingly not change the overall perception of something. In other words, Tony Soprano is a rotten guy, no getting around it. But don't call him a sociopath, because he's not. That would be inaccurate. The Native Americans got screwed, no getting around it. But don't tell me they were a bunch of nature-loving vegetarians that wouldn't hurt another human being, because that's absurd. So I was really happy with their portrayal in the film: as an honorable people who aren't to be trifled with. BUT here's the problem: Kevin Costner. I don't think he's a bad actor, but I don't think he's very good either. And 4 hours of Kevin Costner is a fricking lot of Kevin Costner. The supporting performances blow him out of the water, although I don't think Mary McDonnell is too good either as the white woman who was raised by the Sioux. Although I think I find her performance more annoying than bad...but either way, I suppose the movie has more pros than cons. The music is also quite good, and Costner's character as a whole is well-developed even if his delivery isn't particularly great. But I really had a problem with the ending. Because the whole movie everyone is going, "the white people are coming to take our lands." That impending doom hangs over the whole movie. So I was just waiting for the big battle at the end wherein Kevin would fight his own people and it'd be all emotional and horses! arrows! spears! Sounds pretty cool right? Too bad it never happened. When the whities finally approach the camp, a caption comes up that says: "the Sioux held their ground for 11 years and then they finally lost it." Then the movie ends. THAT'S IT? THAT'S FRICKING IT? I sat here for four hours so you could tell me the most interesting part of the story in a few short sentences? I hope, for their sake, that they ran out of money and couldn't film one and not that they thought that was an appropriate ending to an epic film. All of that aside, I enjoyed the film more than I thought I would and I'm not sure I agree with the Academy's decision I'm also not going to get upset about it. By means of a coda, follow this for a second: Dances is Lawrence of Arabia (with Indians), Pocahontas is Dances (for kids), The Last Samurai should've been called Dances with Ninjas, and Avatar should've been called Dances With All of the Above.
Expression of love for juxtaposition: check. Surprise at enjoyment of little known film: check. Rip on James Cameron: check. I deem this blog entry a success. I should have another one coming soon, as I'm also done with 1989. I just haven't blogged much lately because my computer is on the other side of the room and we got a sweet new couch I try to live on. So for any obsessive fans out there (hot ones only) do a search on recently-bought comfortable couches and you might just find my top-secret location. And with that, we bid adieu to the 90s. Until then, next year will include more Kevin Costner, more Tom Cruise, and more Daniel-Day Lewis. I bet you thought I'd only be pleased at one of those. Oddly: false.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment