2007--No Country for Old Men, Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

 

2007--No Country for Old Men, Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

Nominated: Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will be Blood

Should have won: No Country for Old Men

Be sure to see: Cloverfield, The Condemned, Grindhouse, The Host, Into the Wild, 30 Days of Night

“If the rule you followed brought you to this, what good is the rule?”--Anton Chigurh

     Joel and Ethan Coen provided me with my funniest movie of all time in 1987 with Raising Arizona, one of the best movies of the 1990s with Fargo, and the best Oscar winning movie of the new century so far with No Country for Old Men. It is a relentless chase movie, essentially. The Coens call it a movie about a good guy, a bad guy, and a guy in between.

    In the wide open Texas desert, hunter Lewellen Moss stumbles upon a crime scene. Dead bodies, heroine, and a briefcase with $2 million are littered about. After taking the cash and having a near death experience with the perpetrators' dog, Moss is pursued by Anton Chigurgh, one of the most indiscriminate killers in movie history; one character compares him to the bubonic plague. After escaping custody he kills random people, taking their cars. His weapon of choice is unlike any I've ever seen in a movie. No bullet is found yet there is no exit wound. This bit of news confuses Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. Chigurgh is also the only person I've ever seen put a silencer on a shotgun. Taking up the rear in this chase is the good guy the Coens were talking about, Sheriff Bell, a man on the verge of retirement. Also involved in the mix is a bounty hunter looking for Chigurgh named Carson Wells who understands the type of man Chigurgh is.

    Many people feel the movie belongs to Javier Bardem in his (deserved) Oscar winning role as the psychotic killer but I feel Josh Brolin as Moss gets the movie rolling. Though Chigurh is relentless, Moss is pretty tough himself, though a few of his decisions were not thought out too well, particularly the scene where he decides to bring water to a dying man. It is such a ridiculous thing to do it made me wish it wasn't a part of the movie. But then I realize it has to be in order to get the ball rolling.

    Complaints I've heard of the film are the dialogue being hard to understand because everyone mumbles, the death of one key character is too abrupt, and that weird abrupt ending. As for the ending, it might be the worst ending I've ever seen to a great movie, certainly the most abrupt (though An American Werewolf in London gets a nod for abruptness). I saw it in the theater twice and both times when it ended everyone said “What the hell?” or booed. The abruptness of one character dying, the vagueness of what happens to the villain, and the poor ending are lingering questions but don't really set the movie back a single step.

    The movie is like a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Chigurh tracking Moss because of a homing device in the briefcase. By the time Moss discovers it, Chigurh is right on his tail. In one of the best scenes, after a shootout between the two, Chigurh is injured goes to a drugstore to get supplies to heal his wounds. The distraction he creates to get in is creative and exciting.

   The movie is set in 1980 which might explain why it was so easy for him to get in the back or why the border between the United States and Mexico is so laid back. Most scenes in the movie stand out but pretty much every moment Chigurh is in strikes a chord. He has a sinister way of deciding who to kill. He will flip a coin, tell the person to call it, and depending on what side lands, the fate of the person is made. One particular piece of dialogue between him and a gas station attendant reads brilliantly. Chigurh's advice to the man on what to do with the coin might stick with the man until the day he dies.

    No Country for Old Men is definitely worth a look and deserving of the Oscar, thought There Will Be Blood fans might have a word or two about that. I preferred the winner. I loved the mood the movie produces. It just has an ending that is either completely appropriate or one of the worst of all time, depending on your outlook. You can form your own opinion or you can flip a quarter and call it.

 

2006--The Departed, Martin Scorsese

 

2006--The Departed, Martin Scorsese

Nominated: Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen,

Should have won: The Last King of Scotland

Be sure to see: Feast, The Hills Have Eyes, Monster House, Stranger than Fiction,We Are Marshall

“I don't want to be a product of my environment; I want my environment to be a product of me.”--Frank Costello

     A remake of a 2002 Chinese movie called Internal Affairs, The Departed is only the second remake to win best picture joining 1959's Ben-Hur, a remake of a 1926 film. I suppose you could say Titanic too. It wasn't really a remake but there have been other tellings of the fated ship. It also holds the record for the most uses of the word “fuck” in a movie that won the Oscar, uttering it 237 times. Many people think Goodfellas should have beaten Dances With Wolves (I'm not one of them), and if it had, it would hold the record spurting it a whopping 296 times. Beyond that trivia, The Departed is also a decent cop thriller.

    Billy Costigan goes undercover as a mole and since his family has mob ties, he should fit right in. Meanwhile, Colin Sullivan works as a mole for the local crime boss, Frank (not Lou) Costello. It is hard to believe The Departed is the first Martin Scorsese movie to win best picture; many consider him to be the best living director. In a previous Oscar ceremony when Three 6 Mafia won the Academy Award for best song, host Jon Stewart said one of the funniest off the cuff lines in the Oscar show's history: “For those of you keeping score at home, Three 6 Mafia one Oscar, Martin Scorsese zero.” There have certainly been movies from Scorsese I enjoyed more than The Departed, but I still liked it a lot. It is difficult to say if I agree with the win. I seem to enjoy Little Miss Sunshine the most out of the nominees though The Last King of Scotland is my pick. But perhaps in the grand scheme of things, the award probably went to the correct film. It is good but I think it just comes down to the fact that I don't enjoy gun movies unless it is military, and this one sure had some gunfire.

     As good as the movie is, a few things distracted me. The annoying Boston accents were unbearably grating on the ears. But the movie is set there so that was necessary, and I can say they were not as annoying as the accents in Mystic River, at least. And two aspect of the the cell phones bugged me. First how many times a phone is used. Someone should play a drinking game with how many times a phone is answered or dialed. Also, the Foley artist had fun with the phones. I'm assuming that wasn't the actual sound of the phones closing every time someone hung up. It seemed to me it was made certain the audience was intended to hear every phone close, like in the booth they were saying “This guy is closing his phone, lets make a precise slicing and clicking noise, and make it louder than any real phone could ever be slid closed.” Eh, maybe it is just something that caught my ear, not yours.

     I also got a little distracted because of the abundance of well known actors in it. Odd thing to say about a stellar cast but at times when another recognizable person popped up I could have made yet another drinking game. Sometimes a loaded cast is good, but not when it diverts you from the action.

     I liked The Departed though the review doesn't make it seem as such. Police and mob movies just aren't my thing. It does have one of the most abruptly surprising deaths I've ever seen; I certainly didn't see it coming. It just doesn't seem like the Scorsese movie that should finally win an Oscar when looking at his past achievements. It is good I just don't find it to be one of Scorsese's finest hours. But I'm not a fan of the genre; maybe someone who is can shed some insight on if this really is a top notch crime thriller.

 

2005--Crash, Paul Haggis

2005--Crash, Paul Haggis

Nominated: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich

Should have won: King Kong

Be sure to see: The Devil's Rejects, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, A History of Violence, Sin City, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,Walk the Line

“I guess the big mystery is who gathered all those remarkably different cultures together and taught them all how to park their cars on their lawns.”--Det. Graham Waters

     I'm not typically one to go with the masses. I like to think outside the box and if something is a shoe-in for “the best” or “the worst” of something, I tend to take a step back and see if I agree. Usually I don't. Crash is generally considered the worst movie to win best picture and in this case, I'll go with the masses.

     Hate is a strong word and I would use that word over “dislike” for only eight of the best picture winners. When I saw Midnight Cowboy a while back I didn't think any best picture winner would rank below it but in this case, Crash bumps it to the second spot. Funny because I have seen two movies called Crash and neither were any good. The other was a surprisingly bad movie from a good director, David Cronenberg, from 1996. Cronenberg directed The Fly and Videodrome, so an NC-17 movie from that mind sounded good to me. It was pretty horrible but at least it wasn't up for an Oscar. 2005's movie of the same title nabbed the award. My guess is it won via affirmative action; if it didn't win, people would be mad. Critics seem to like it but most people don't. It gets blasted on imdb regularly. The misguided message is one thing but some of the technical aspects were distracting, too. The weird music toward the beginning makes it difficult to hear the dialogue.

     We aren't supposed to stereotype but the movie doesn't help our cause to stray from doing so. There are even two car thieves who talk about blacks being typed as criminals moments before they carjack a couple. Was this supposed to be irony? Ludicris, a real life rapper, plays one of these characters, Anthony. . He talks about how bad black music is today but good yesterday. I totally agree with that; been preaching it for years. But I found it odd they gave him this dialogue. I hope he took it to heart for his next album. 

     Almost every character in this movie is unlikable, but most do find an arc. Officer Hanson, a good cop, does bad; Officer Ryan, a bad cop, does good; Jean, a rich white woman who is afraid of all other races, reconciles with her Hispanic housekeeper; an angry Middle Eastern storekeeper changes his heart after a confusing scene. Keith David, my favorite actor, plays the police captain and ignores Hanson's concerns of his racist partner. And on, and on. I might have spoiled some stuff in that paragraph but consider it a favor. It means you don't have to sit through the terrible movie.

     Usually, I say the score is any movie's best supporting character, but in the case of the big car crash (I guess the main scene in the movie because of the title), it was virtually impossible to hear the dialogue. The music was distracting. I suppose this is the main scene but it happened halfway through. It is one of those scenes where two characters who met under disheartening circumstances early on meet again under different ones.

     The only likeable character is Daniel, a locksmith who is Hispanic and a family man. When he tries to warn a shopkeeper about how to keep his store safe, the shopkeeper doesn't listen and faces dire consequences. Even though it was his own fault, he blames the locksmith and confronts him in an emotional scene. The payoff is a little confusing but I guess satisfying when we find out why it happened later. I'm torn on this scene. At first I think it was fate that circumstances turned out how they did but later we find out why it happened and I felt cheated. Further more, the father should have wailed on the guy for what potentially could have happened.

     The most confusing scene to me I'll try not to spoil. Anthony runs over a Chinese man on the street then later goes back to the crime and steals his van when he remembers the keys were in the door. In the back there is a surprise so when Anthony goes to sell the van to other thieves they want what is in the van too. This is when Anthony has his arc but I was confused why this “cargo” was in the van. Was the Chinese guy a bad guy after all? But later in the hospital he is set up as a nice guy. Either he is bad and part of an odd business of sale/trade or he is good and the “cargo” was just in there for no reason. We feel bad for him, then we are supposed to dislike him, and then we are supposed to feel for him again in the hospital. Someone needs to explain this to me.

     The timing is weird. Many times I wondered if it was the same night as another incidence. Along with the main crash the movie ends with another crash and a character involved is someone I think the filmmakers might have wanted us to like, but she was probably my least favorite in the movie. In fact, a scene between her and Officer Ryan sets up, I think, for the audience to be on her side but I sure wasn't. Ryan makes a 100% true speech about affirmative action that people don't want to admit is true these days. As the scene ends we are supposed to hate Ryan even more than we already do (after a disgusting incident he was a part of earlier) but I didn't. I saw him as someone with a heart after all, and she is offended when he sheds some truth on her. Maybe a lot of the audience sees her side of it but I saw his. I tried to notice in her crash at the end if the taillights worked. It might be key in who is at fault here but even in frame by frame I couldn't tell. It seemed to be important but the director didn't want us to know. Is that smart? I don't think so. If we are supposed to like this lady I figure Haggis would let us see her tail lights were working so we would see it wasn't her fault. That way she would be yet another character we have changed our minds about. I disliked her so I figured her lights were out so she'd be at fault. I hoped anyway. 

     In all, the film's message is muddled and simply wrong. Is it a wake up call to the real world? It didn't make me want to accept people's differences and destroy fear, it made me think all people are generally bad. And in the movie's case, this is true except for Daniel, the only redeeming and likeable person involved. It is simply a very bad movie, the worst to ever win best picture.

*Note: My bottom five winners are Crash (2005), Midnight Cowboy (1969), Tom Jones (1963), Mrs. Miniver (1942), Around the World in 80 Days (1956). 

Also, it is only the second movie with one syllable to win best picture after Wings, the first winner. Not that that is important but I figured I'd throw it out there. 

 

2004--Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood

2004--Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood

Nominated: The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, Sideways

Should have won: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Be sure to see: Hotel Rwanda, The Incredibles, Kill Bill Vol. 2, The Notebook, Open Water, Phantom of the Opera, Shaun of the Dead

“One hundred and ten.”--Eddie “Scrap iron” Dupris

     Only the third sports movie and second boxing movie to win best picture, Clint Eastwood's twenty-fifth feature length film behind the camera, Million Dollar Baby, is an exceptional character study of its main players. It also takes its viewers on a roller coaster of emotions; it is depressing, then uplifting, all leading to one of the most downbeat endings in cinema history, yet it is probably necessary.

     Like The Shawshank Redemption and March of the Penguins, it is narrated by Morgan Freeman. Freeman plays Eddie “Scrap iron” Dupris who lives in a back room in a local gym run by Frank Dunn, played by Eastwood. The gym is low key. People come to spar and train while Scrap and Dunn talk to each other in meaningless conversations, not unlike those characters on Seinfeld might have. Then someone catches their eye. That someone is Maggie Fitzgerald. Maggie stands away from all the men at a punching bag. She jabs at it, slowly and easily, and Frank steps in to investigate.

     He finds that Maggie is self-described trash and wants nothing more than for Frank to train her. He will have no part in training a woman, especially one he considers too old for the sport. But she persists and he takes her on. Through his tutelage and some natural grit, she makes a run of wining some bouts in furious fashion, matches rarely lasting more than one round.

     One of the aspects of the movie I enjoyed was the pace. Maggie starts taking Frank's advice little by little. Learning how to punch; how to hold her hands and how to movie her feet, even practicing her footwork at her waitress job. I appreciated all of the extra scenes that at first seemed to flesh out certain characters, and then the scene ricochets and reveals things about other characters. A conversation between Maggie and Scrap about Scrap's 109^th fight is a piece of poetry. Or take for instance Danger, a slow kid who wants to fight but will never amount to anything. Everyone seems to know this except him and when a guy with a bigger ego takes advantage of this, Scrap steps in steals the scene, delivering my favorite line in the movie which would make no sense unless you remember what he said earlier in the bar.

     Frank doesn't really like to take chances so, even though Maggie is demolishing her competition, he steers away from a particularly dangerous challenger, one who fights dirty and makes no apologies for it. He takes one chance by moving her up a class but she does fine. Then, like most sports movies, it leads to the “big game” or in this case big fight against Billie “The Blue Bear”, a real-life boxer and it shows.

     It is at this point the plot turns in a way that toyed with my emotions. My excited emotion I felt at the end of the fight deflates for a reason I won't spoil. When it happens it sets up the final act of the movie and I was depressed the entire time. Is this a wise decision by writer Paul Haggis? My first thought was no but then I remembered many distinguished movies with downbeat endings. I must admit though it was a rare time I forgot it is just a fictional movie. I wondered how many people wanted to kill The Blue Bear or, God forbid, Lucia Rijker the actress who portrayed her. One would hope people can separate fiction and reality but you never know.

     I've never been a fan of boxing, in fact I hate it, but like Rocky before it, Million Dollar Baby is a worthy contender for the Oscar. My pick still goes to the vastly unappreciated Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It was a very good movie despite my hatred for the sport. I found it odd when that, when I told someone I didn't want to see it because I didn't like boxing, he said "Oh it isn't about boxing but a boxer." I can't believe I fell for that one. 

2003--Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Peter Jackson

2003--Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King—Peter Jackson

Nominated: Lost in Translation, Master and Commander: The Far side of the world, Mystic River, Seabiscuit

Should have won: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Be sure to see: Big Fish, High Tension, House of 1000 Corpses, The Hunted, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Monster, Open Range

“Sorry, uncle. I'm afraid I've lost it.”--Frodo

     One of the most anticipated and largest productions of all time is The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The books had been around for decades and there was even an animated version being considered with The Beatles voicing the parts (thank God that never happened). I watched all three movies to get the full scope of the Oscar winning third chapter. The first entry in the trilogy was upset by A Beautiful Mind, a decent film but in no ways up to snuff with The Fellowship of the Ring. I found Fellowship mesmerizing yet at the same time a little draggy. The second in the series is The Two Towers was enthralling and satisfying. I have said that Forrest Gump and Chicago are two best picture winners that should have placed third in their years. Chicago should have taken the bronze behind Gangs of New York as the runner-up, with Two Towers winning. I didn't think it could be topped by the third but I was wrong. The story's well-deserved Oscar finally was awarded to the third entry, Return of the King. It also became the third sequel to win best picture after The Godfather part II and The Silence of the Lambs, the follow up to Manhunter.

     It would be difficult to give a synopsis of this movie without filling in the parts of the previous two, however, that would require ten hours worth of story. There are massive fans of the books and movies and, while I am a huge admirer, I can't say I'm a hardcore fan. I know there are numerous plot points that bypassed me and others I think I might understand. The movie starts with two men fishing and one hooks into a whopper, is pulled under, and discovers one of the sacred rings. It is my understanding one of the men is Smeagol who is the creepy Gollum in a more human form. Meanwhile two hobbits, Sam and Frodo, are still trekking through the woods and up the mountain like they were in the previous films. However, Smeagol is leading them. At least that is what they call him even though he is in the form of the creepy Gollum. If there is a good creature in Smeagol and a bad one in Gollum, then the human at the beginning is connected to which one? What character went with which name? Look, I'm admitting right now I'm a little confused with the story. Those of you who adore the books and films know what I'm trying to say though. Smeagol seems friendly and helpful but Sam (and we) know differently. In once scene, while the hobbits slept, he throws their last remaining piece of bread off the cliff and frames Sam as though he ate it. My question is why didn't he eat it himself? I can somehow picture Homer Simpson throwing it off the cliff in a “Take that!...D'oh!” fashion. Ha, and I think Ace Ventura did that with a torch in When Nature Calls.

     From a movie making standpoint, it is brilliant. The effects crew does an ingenious job of using the right amount of special effects to make it possible to pull off a film like this but not too much to make purists cringe with the non-authentic feel of the real world. I’ve heard it said a special effects technician has done his job when the viewer doesn't know it is an effect. Now obviously the visuals in this movie are impossible in the real world, thus making it obvious it is an effect; however, they are pulled off so well they might as well have been real. My favorite part was the attack with the giant elephants (and the walking trees in The Two Towers). These are two of the coolest sequences I've ever seen. The elephants rival the AT-ATs in The Empire Strikes Back. Just an amazing sequence of these humongous elephants stepping on horses and then, ultimately, being defeated. My question, however, is who is going to clean those things up? In a few days the area will be most unpleasant. I like to call it a “Yeah but then...” moment. Great battle. Yeah, but who is going to clean up the giant rotting elephant carcases? Ever see The Wizard of Oz?The best “yeah but then...” moment for me is the end of that movie. Everyone is happy and it ends. Yeah but then Mrs. Gulch is going to come take Toto away. Did they forget about that?

     The movie also does a fantastic job of making the actors who are playing hobbits look smaller next to other normal sized actors. They aren't always small stunt doubles; sometimes it is an effect trick. Even the use of locations to show distances make for spectacular visuals. Take for instance the relay fires on the mountaintops, indicating how far apart characters are or the location Frodo and Sam are in relation to the ensuing battle. The movies are just visual wonders. And I haven't even mentioned the spider fight.

     There are more than visuals to keep the film afloat, however. The important part of any movie is the story and this one juggles different story lines together with ease. We follow Sam, Frodo, and Smeagol on their quest on the mountain but then the movie goes back to Gandalf and his men and I enjoyed both stories. Other movies might keep you more interested in one than another. It got really interesting when Frodo, in a sense, fired Sam and went on alone. This is where the meeting with the giant spider occurs which is another thrilling segment. But the end of Frodo's fight with the spider and the end of his fight with Smeagol (well the first fight) both seemed underwhelming. Both had false payoffs but I won't spoil how, maybe I just did. My bad. But they are still good fights so they will be worth a look.

    The movie is fantastic but not flawless. The dwarf, Gimbly's, one-liners got old, even though he only delivered a few. And in a battle scene, there is a nice overhead shot of the armies charging each other and all of the bodies that should be lying behind them have disappeared. Also, there never seems to be any blood on the swords after someone is stabbed, not even the giant spider's.

     The only other part that irked me was the ending...all six of them. The final 20 minutes had tons of spots where the movie could have ended and there were a bunch of sappy, though perhaps necessary, moments.

Peter Jackson, who directed these movies and the surprisingly great King Kong remake (much better than the first 1976 remake but still not as good as the brilliant 1933 one) got his start in less respected but equally entertaining movies. After you check the Lord of the Rings movies out take a look at the disgusting little goodies Bad Taste and Dead Alive. Quite different styles than his recent work. It must be nice to not be typecast to one genre. 

 

2002--Chicago, Rob Marshall

2002—Chicago, Rob Marshall

Nominated: Gangs of New York, The Hours, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Pianist

Should Have Won: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Be sure to see: My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Punch Drunk Love, They, 28 Days Later, Whale Rider

“I don't mean to toot my own horn but if Jesus Christ lived in Chicago today and he had come to me and he had five thousand dollars, let's just say things would have turned out differently.”--Billy Flynn

     The first musical to win best picture in 34 years, Chicago tells the story of Roxy Hart, a wanna be Broadway star who is imprisoned when she kills her lover only to find that the star she admires most, Velma Kelly, is also imprisoned for murdering her adulterating husband. Roxy looked up to Velma because she aspired to be the kind of star Velma is, and after the murder she gets the headlines. This causes a riff in the prison and Warden Mama Morton steps in. Roxy hires Billy Flynn, a very suave and accomplished lawyer to take her case.

     Chicago was a head-scratcher for me. On one hand, I liked a great deal of it. I enjoy musicals and some of the numbers were very good, especially “Cell Block Tango” also known as “He had it comin'” where different inmates sing about how they killed their husbands and “They both reached for the gun” which is a really creepy ventriloquist scene. It is played out like Flynn is the ventriloquist and Roxy is the puppet. This song itself is pretty catchy but the visuals, particularly Renee Zelweger's obscure facial expression and arm movements, bring the scene home.

     What made this movie memorable are the songs (as it should be with any musical) and the editing. Technically it was very stellar and the scenes in between the numbers were great. Some musicals you don't really care about filler scenes but I did about these. I did enjoy the movie but something was amiss with it. It seemed to me like the performers were acting for us, the audience. For me, a great musical should let the performers just do their thing. It was almost like Zelweger and Catherine Zeta Jones were saying “Hey look at us up here dancing and stuff! Pretty fun, huh?” or the director was saying “Hey, look at these cuts here. Flashy, huh?” I don't know, it is tricky to say. I enjoyed what I saw; I even enjoyed some of these dance numbers but I look to Singin' in the Rain as the movie all musicals hold as their measuring stick. I see how Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor didn't have to do act like that for us. Perhaps it is because are phenomenal dancers or maybe because they are dancers acting in a movie whereas Zelweger and Zeta-Jones are actors dancing in a movie. 

 

     I liked during the court scene how they use musical numbers to interact what the actual scenes are, like Billy Flynn literally tap dancing cut in with him figuratively tap dancing his speech to the jury.  It is still a very good film. I enjoyed it a lot. I like that it was a musical even though it could have been fine as a prison drama without the songs. And the acting outside the music was fine too. In fact, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Queen Latifah were both nominated for supporting actress with Zeta-Jones nabbing the award from her costar. I agree with the win. For me the sum just wasn't equal to all of the parts. I liked the acting. I liked the musical numbers. I liked the editing. I liked the cinematography. But all together I was left saying “Yeah, that was a pretty decent movie” but not really feeling awed. I like musicals and prison movies are okay, so why didn't this work completely for me? The second Lord of the Rings installment and Gangs of New York should have edged it out. Add it to 1994 as another case where the third best film of the year took home the statue. Yes it is recommended. I liked it, but I think it was given the statue because it is a show business movie and the Academy Awards is a show business institution. That's Chicago. 

 

2001--A Beautiful Mind, Ron Howard

 

2001--A Beautiful Mind—Ron Howard

Nominated: Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Moulon Rouge!

Should have won:Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Be sure to see: Ichi the Killer, Joy Ride, Lost and Delirious, Oh Brother Where Art Thou?, Waking Life, Winged Migration

“Now that I know you're real, who are you and what can I do for you?”--John Nash

     Maybe it is because the Academy loves movies about people with mental issues. Maybe it is because they knew there were still two more Lord of the Rings movies to come so they can award the final one. Or maybe they can say that this is actually a pretty good movie. Whatever the case may be, A Beautiful Mind beat Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring for best picture. Not as ridiculous as the 1998, 1996, or 1977 upsets considering the movie does seem like best picture material. I just wish Ron Howard had the guts to accept his award, thank the Academy, then ask if they were nuts like the main character in this film is.

     It tells the story of John Nash, a brilliant mathematician whose skills put Will Hunting to shame. However, along with his genius, he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Those close to him start to worry, especially when people who look like gangsters from a 1940s film noir want him to crack secret codes. It is hard to tell whether or not they can be trusted though they seem to have solid intentions. 

     Nash won the Carnegie scholarship and does math problems on his window. He looks at life in a way which makes everything seem important, even picking up women in a bar is a process of complete honesty. His pick up lines consist of blunt intentions. He eventually dates and marries one of his students who got around an issue in his classroom in a more convenient way than he did. The movie proceeds to tell this couple's story over a period of decades. It is romantic at times, and we know just how difficult it must have been for his wife, Alicia, to live with someone with this condition. 

     When it is revealed just how dangerous Nash's mind can be, it comes around the halfway point in the film. In other films that might be the big revealing shock placed at the end. I like that we see these issues unveiled so early because this movie isn't about twist endings; it is about Nash's mind. The title is somewhat appropriate because his genius does give him a beautiful mind however it is also dark, mysterious, and dangerous. His mental instabilities overtake his mind at times, making him distant to his wife, forget his baby in the bathtub, and one time push Alicia because he believed he was pushing her out of danger that was in his mind.

     Time passes and, through medication and a caring wife, he learns to cope with his problems. I hope it isn't a spoiler to reveal he wins the Nobel Prize. I've read than in most synopses of the film so I figure it was common knowledge. When he wins the Nobel Prize it is a sweet moment, but I wonder why his wife is out in the crowd instead of up front or in a special seat.

     A piece of Oscar trivia: No actor has ever won best actor in consecutive years that the movies he was in won best picture. Had Russel Crowe won for his role as John Nash that streak would have been broken. He won best actor the previous year in Gladiator which, of course, won best picture. Denzel Washtington's performance in Training Day kept this streak alive.

     Ultimately what I took from this movie is John Nash suffers from a condition that makes him brilliant yet delusional. Not a bad story and it is based on a real man who still (as of 2001 I guess) teaches at Princeton. It is pretty decent but I feel the term “best picture” should focus on the word “best” each and every year. Not most deserving or heartfelt. Voters shouldn’t consider that sequels will be coming out so they can award the final sequel and spread the wealth. Whatever was the best movie of the year should win best movie of the year. I think that is fair to say about any awards ceremony. A Beautiful Mind was very good and a touching human interest story. But let's be real here, it is a mental achievement while Lord of the Rings is a monumental achievement. 

*Note: It was very difficult to not reveal spoilers in this write up. 

2000--Gladiator, Ridley Scott

 

2000—Gladiator, Ridley Scott

Nominated: Chocolat, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Erin Brockovich, Traffic

Should have won: Shadow of the Vampire

Be sure to see: Battle Royale, The Cell, Chicken Run, Final Destination

“I'm required to kill so I kill. That's enough.”--Maximus Meridious

     With movies like Alien, Black Hawk Down, and Blade Runner, it seems a little off to me that Gladiator would be the Ridley Scott movie to capture the best picture Oscar. I've put off seeing the movie for years. It didn't appeal to me and it got to a point where I had a stubborn streak going where I just didn't want to see it simply for the sake of not seeing it. Once it occurred to me I had to see it to complete this list I surrendered. In a shameless segue, surrendering is something the movie's hero would never do.

     In the year 180 General Maximus Decimus Meridius is named keeper of Rome by the emperor. The emperor's son, Commodus, has other plans. Upon returning home, Maximus finds his wife and son have been murdered. Commodus kills his father, enslaves Maximus,and turns him over to a gladiator trader. Oliver Reed plays the trader and I could hardly recognize him as I compared him to his Curse of the Werewolf role and another best picture winner Oliver! as the nasty Bill Sikes. The remainder of the film is one grueling battle after another with enslaved gladiators fighting trained warriors to the death in front of cheering spectators. But all the while the heart of the picture remains the same: Maximus simply wants to go home. At least that is what the filmmakers say in the commentary. I might argue his goal is to avenge his family's murder since there is nobody to go home to. But, hey, who am I to argue with the creators?

     Though the heart is there, I felt the movie was more of a popcorn movie. The opening battle tries to outdo Braveheart but doesn't succeed. Visually it was fine but the sound editing was extremely cliché. Not that I blame the movie for that, most movies with knives or swords are guilty of it. You know what I mean, the sound of the blade slicing against metal even though it is just sitting there or being held. Another big scene was also lifted from one of the most exciting sequences in movie history, incidentally another best picture winner. In one of the battle scenes, there are horses and chariots carrying warriors armed with bows and arrows that whip around the arena, sometimes flipping dangerously out of control. This scene was very exciting but it was clearly lifted right out of 1959's winner Ben-Hur, a far superior movie. But it was still my favorite scene, mainly because of the carnage, particularly when one of the archers is cut in half. But pay particular attention to the scene you will notice a camera man in the chariot. In fact in the scene where Maximus taunts the crowd for being entertained at the violence, there is a cameraman in a t-shirt standing in the stands. There were many errors in the movie outside of continuity. I never hold continuity errors against a movie because every movie, no matter how prestigious, has them. But crew members getting into the shot is inexcusable and this movie had a lot. I went back and confirmed with imdb's goofs page and found I wasn't mistaken and saw they found more I hadn't noticed. But one of the biggest goofs is a factual error. In the film, Commodus gives a thumbs up to indicate he wanted the gladiator to live. This gesture actually meant death. A thumb up meant “kill” while a thumb down meant “put down your sword”. This is something Ridley Scott should have looked into.

     The performances were pretty good but I expected more out of Djimon Hounsou. This was only three years after Amistad (the snubbed movie that should have won for 1997), and his presence on screen should have been more powerful and prevalent. But, ultimately, he was forgotten. I found there was a deleted scene where Maximus fights a rhinoceros that could have been remarkable. It was scrapped because it would have cost an extra million dollars. I was also confused on why Maximus was known around the circuit as “the Spaniard” even though he was a white guy with an Australian accent. But the movie takes place 1,820 years before it was made. Maybe people in Spain talked that way in 180; I'm no historian. And it certainly is the bloodiest winner in history. It seems fitting to compare this movie to Ben-Hur because of the subject matter and to Braveheart because of the battles, bravery of the hero, and the closeness in the release years. If it is fair to do this, Gladiator pales in comparison to both. It was a fun movie with a good theme and exciting, bloody action. But ultimately it was a popcorn movie for me and certainly not best picture material. Jennifer Lopez' The Cell and a movie about the making of 1922's Nosferatu called Shadow of the Vampire are much better in every way.