1999--American Beauty, Sam Mendes

1999--American Beauty, Sam Mendes

Nominated: The Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, The Insider, The Sixth Sense

Should have won: The Sixth Sense

Be sure to see: Audition, The Blair Witch Project, Sleepy Hollow, Toy Story 2

“Remember those posters that said 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life'? Well that's true of every day but one: The day you die.”-Lester Burnham

     On the surface, American Beauty seems to be about a man going through a mid-life crisis. But seeing how Lester Burnham handles his situations, I think he has too positive an attitude to consider it a crisis. Not to say he is happy, but he seems to find the positive in things around him. Lester hates his job. His wife, Carolyn, is a real estate agent. Their daughter, Jane, is a cheerleader with self esteem issues and hangs out with Angela, a fellow cheerleader. When Lester sees Angela, he becomes infatuated with her and begins imagining her nude and bathed in rose petals. His obsession with Angela becomes obvious to Jane, who is disgusted and to Angela, who is not. Next door is a mysterious family. A hard, abusive military father, a mother who is there physically but is emotionally detached, and a son, Ricky, the most curious character in the movie. He spends his time videotaping ordinary life events. A dead bird. A bag blowing in the wind. And Jane. Interestingly, he is infatuated with Jane but in a different way Lester is with Angela.

     Each character in the film has a distinct identity and plays a key role,even Ricky's mother who doesn't do or say much but I think that is her point; she might live in fear of her husband. But the movie belongs to Lester. How can he cope with getting older? He can quit his job and apply for a fast food position (he wants the least amount of responsibility) and buy a classic car because, well, he has always wanted to. Carolyn goes through issues of her own and copes with them in her own way, having an affair with a fellow real estate agent. The point Lester discovers this is a high point in the film. It is a funny scene but a line Lester delivers at the end has such a striking truth to it and the humor of Lester's initial line mixed with his ultimate attitude about the situation offer a strange mood to the scene. 

     At around 1:35 in or so the movie's mood turns a bit. The pace begins a slow burn and situations mount up. Ricky and his father; Jane and Angela; Ricky and Jane; Lester and Ricky's father; Lester and Angela. It builds up to a very interesting ending. I suppose there are many words to describe it but "interesting" seems to fit. I liked the movie a lot because when it is over, I can think about how all six of the major characters were unique and, well, interesting.

     This movie was originally written to be a play and I think it could work. Every characters is so distinct, if you landed a role you would have to be happy with whoever you got. I was particularly interested in Allison Janney's portrayal of the detached wife next door because in the other things I've seen her (Juno, The Help, the show Mom, etc.) she is always outspoken and energetic. Here she plays her role quietly, somberly, and a bit depressingly. 

     The movie is Sam Mendes' film debut. He would go on to direct some pretty solid films in Road to Perdition and Jarhead. He I read he used Sunset Boulevard, The Apartment, and Ordinary People as inspiration. Critic Roger Ebert said American Beauty is the best film debut for a director since Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe? It is quite a technical achievement for a first-timer. I have always been partial to Boyz n the Hood myself, as far as directorial debuts go.  My guess is it won over The Sixth Sense because it had a strong leading man and because of the triple H factor: Hollywood Hates Horror. But maybe not totally. It was certainly worthy of the award. And Kevin Spacey is spectacular as always. 

--Note: American Beauty won the Oscar for best original screenplay. In a sense, it was a loose adaptation of Lolita. That might seem like kind of a stretch but remember Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? was up for adapted screenplay from The Odyssey. That's also a pretty loose adaptation, don't you think?  

 

1998--Shakespeare In Love, John Madden

 

1998--Shakespeare in Love, John Madden

Nominated: Elizabeth, Life is Beautiful, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line

Should have won: Saving Private Ryan

Be sure to see: The Big Lebowski, The Newton Boys, There's Something About Mary, The Truman Show, Wild Things

"Pay attention and you will see how genius creates a legend,"--Ned Alleyn

     It is World War II and an army captain has been assigned to lead a unit into France to locate a soldier whose three brothers had been killed in combat. But when...wait, what was that? Saving Private Ryan didn't win best picture? What did? Shakespeare in What???

     When looking at the list of winners since the Oscars began, there have been some bad movies take the prize. 1998 marks the year when, though the winner was a pretty good movie (not bad at all), a massive “You have to be kidding me!” sentiment was yelled at television screens all over the world. 2005's Crash is generally considered the worst winner in history; Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan along with The English Patient stealing the Oscar from Fargo and Annie Hall ripping off Star Wars have all been accepted as huge upsets.

     It is 1593 London and the play write William Shakespeare is suffering from writer's block. He has been trying to write a play called “Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter” and becomes inspired when he meets the lovely Viola de Lesseps. They fall in love but Viola is promised to the Earl of Wessex who intends on marrying her and taking her to America. Viola dreams of acting but, because women were forbidden to act on stage in those times, she poses as a man to rehearse. Her costume, hair, and fake facial hair serve as a sort of Clark Kent to Superman effect as William doesn't recognize her. There is a scene where they dance (she, as a woman of course) and then she flees to go home. He follows her and talks to her from the courtyard to her window echoing Cyrano de Bergerac only without the hidden person. Eventually, they fall in love and various scenes shuffle between the romance and the play. Viola continues to keep her gender hidden so she can continue to act. Then she has her revealing moment to William. By the time the play comes around, naturally the boy playing Juliet—er, Ethel—can't go on. Luckily Viola knows the part. But a woman on stage?! Here, in my mind, lies the true story of the movie though I'm willing to bet the romance between 

William and Viola were the filmmaker's view of the main theme. After all, check the title.

     This was all fine. I get it; it is a lovely romance and a movie based on Shakespeare that I would guess keeps even non-fans of such material interested. Adding Queen Elizabeth I into the mix was a good choice too. She had some great scenes and a memorable line about how play writes depict love. Judy Dench played her well and won the Oscar for supporting actress which is interesting because the Queen gets only eight minutes of screen time, the second shortest amount of time for any winner in history (Beatrice Straight has less time in Network). My favorite scene is when a rehearsal is disrupted and a sword fight breaks out. Usually I'm not big on comic relief. If something is supposed to be tense then keep it tense but this was an exception. As the fight ensues,the play's director is looking curiously at his script to find what page a fight is supposed to break out. It reminded me of the parade scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off when Ferris takes over a float and the directors of the parade are checking their schedules.

     Some scenes stand out like when the play finally does go on and how the audience reacts to a woman acting the part, and the redirection of a scene in rehearsal when it is suggested a woman is in their midst. My emotions ran from “Oh no!” to “Ha ha!” to “Awww.” 

     In all, I do recommend the movie. It was decent and if you are in the mood for a romance this should do the trick. The everlasting debate over Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan will never die. I found it interesting that of the five nominees, two depicted Queen Elizabeth and the actress playing the part in the movie that actually depicted her life (Elizabeth) did not beat the one where she was on screen for eight minutes. I also noticed that three of the nominees were war movies. I find that odd because two of the movies are similar, the remaining three are similar to each other, and yet the major debate of the year is how dissimilar the two leading contenders are. I also found it halarious it was directed by John Madden. I wanted to say “Boom!” and circle some of the actors.     

     Had the movie not won and someone asked me if I'd recommend it I'd say yes. It is a pretty good movie for what it is. But because it beat one of the best war movies ever made it developed a reputation of being lousy. It isn't lousy, it was just a lousy choice by the Academy.

1997--Titanic, James Cameron

1997—Titanic, James Cameron

Nominated: As Good as it Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, L.A. Confidential

Should have won: Amistad 

Be sure to see: The Fifth Element, Jackie Brown, The Relic

“Sleep soundly, young Rose. I have built you a good ship; strong and true. She's all the lifeboat you'll need.”--Thomas Andrews

     Many movies have a love it/hate it stigma. Movies where there seems to be no middle ground. Pulp Fiction comes to mind. Perhaps the best example of this is Titanic, meaning the 1997 version. As it stands, Titanic is the second of only three remakes to win best picture. The first and third are Ben-Hur, a 1959 remake of a 1925 film, and The Departed, 2006's winner which is a remake of a Chinese movie called Infernal Affairs. This Titanic might not be considered a remake by many because of the subplots, but let's face it, there have been many tellings of the sinking of the Titanic. There is a 1953 Barbara Stanwyck version (which I found better than this one) and a 1958 telling called A Night to Remember which I've never seen but have heard it was the best. 1933's winner Cavalcade hints at a Titanic cruise and there have been a number of other trips on the doomed ship to hit the silver screen. Of course this Oscar winner is by far the most popular.

     When Titanic bumped Jurassic Park from the all-time box office gross list, I never thought it would be topped. In my mind, it got the new title not because it was good enough for everyone to see but because of repeated customers consisting of flocks of teenage girls. These aren't facts, mind you, just what I figured. In 2009, Avatar (also directed by James Cameron; pretty impressive one director has the top two highest grossing movies ever made) finally took over the top spot, but debate will always linger. These figures do not take account of inflation. It is widely accepted that the true box office champ is Gone With the Wind.

     But as for the film itself, as mentioned it is a love it/hate it attitude people have. It seems hating on it is the accepted attitude and fans of the movie get bitter over it. I'll admit when I saw it when it came out, and then again about a year later, I hated it both times. I vowed never to watch it again and was outraged it won and Amistad (my choice for best picture) wasn't even nominated. Sixteen years later I sat down and watched it again for this blog and I'm not ashamed to say it sort of grew on me...slightly. I still can't believe it sold so many tickets; I still say it was nowhere near best picture of the year with Amistad, Good Will Hunting, As Good as it Gets, and L.A. Confidential released that year. I've always said not only is it not the best picture of 1997, it isn't even the best movie released that year named after a boat! It isn't the garbage that I once thought it was but I still had many problems with the movie. Those of you who know me know I don't go with public opinion; I march to the beat of my own drum. And if I say I didn't like it, it is because I didn't like it not because it is not cool to admit I do. It has its moments. It is an okay movie. But I still didn't love it that much.

     The movie opens with the exploration of the wreckage of the doomed vessel via underwater camera, looking for a long lost priceless diamond worn by Louis XVI that went missing in 1792. Through insurance claims it is proven to have been aboard the ship. This expedition is headed by Brock Lovett, a man played by Bill Paxton, a bad actor who tends to pop up in some great movies like The Terminator, Weird Science, Aliens, Nightcrawler and True Lies. In the safe, they find no necklace but a drawing of a woman wearing it. It turns out this woman is Rose Bukater, a woman who is still alive at 101 years old. Rose is played by Gloria Stewart who was nominated for best supporting actress for this roll though all she does is sit in a chair. I wonder how many fantastic performances were snubbed that year for hers. By the way, if you want to see a better movie with Gloria Stewart in it see 1933's The Invisible Man. Anyway, she recognizes the drawing on television and seeks out the team to tell them her story. It is a story of how she and her wealthy family took the voyage across the Atlantic in the unsinkable ship, how she met a man from the lower class on board, and how they fell in love.

     The movie is sort of a true story since there really was a Titanic that was said to be unsinkable but met a fateful demise the morning of April 15, 1912. There is also a few characters in the movie based on real people like The Unsinkable Molly Brown (though her real name was actually Maggie), the captain, a couple of the guests and my favorite character, Thomas Andrews, who is the ship's architect. But the main characters are completely fictitious, which is fine. I can suspend my belief for the movie.

     The poor young man Rose meets is Jack Dawson who saves her from jumping off of the ship one night (though I don't think she would have) and they end up falling in love with each other. I know I could add a lot more to this plot but what is the point? It isn't much you haven’t seen before: Girl is engaged to guy. Guy mistreats girl. Girl meets other guy. Girl and new guy fall in love. One of my problems with this movie is if the roles were reversed and Jack is engaged and runs off to a girl he meets on the boat, he would be a cheating bastard. We all know this country has a “man bad; woman good” attitude. Don't believe me? Watch Maury sometime. The fact is, Rose is a cheater, straight up. But I don't blame the movie for going this route. I guess her fiance, Cal, is a bad guy; he did hit her once in the movie which isn't cool. But other than that, his only guilt is that he is rich and snobby. I don't think he was villainous enough to be that bad a guy, even when he uses a child to help save his own life. By the way, Jack is supposed to be poor. So poor that he later tells Rose's company he sleeps under bridges. But he also tells Rose all he has is ten dollars in his pocket. Ten dollars was a nice chunk of change in 1912 right? I went to google and found a rate calculator. According to that site, Jack had about $243. 

     The major problem I have with this movie is I didn't care about the romance that much. I wish they had made a movie about all of the passengers. Let me learn about the rich people, the poor people, and the crew. The best scenes in the movie (other than the crash) is after Jack and Rose chitchat about his drawings and the women gossip about Molly Brown, the captain speaks to Andrews about whether or not to speed up the ship so soon. I want to know about the background of the ship. I want to know about these people. The captain--what is his record like? What other boats has he guided across the ocean? All of the passengers, not just Jack and Rose. But I know it is told in flashback form so it must be through Rose's eyes. I get it. And I get who the intended audience is. I can accept that audience is not me and certainly don't blame James Cameron for making it that way. Money talks and obviously this movie made money shout. It also has a “Rich people are evil; poor people are divine” feel. One scene shows Rose's mother has servants on the boat. She looked like a maid. I suppose she could have been a crew member being hospitable to the guests but she was aiding in the fitting of a dress as though they were in a mansion at home. Did crew members of a ship do that? Maybe they did, I don't know.

     Rose tells Jack she can no longer see him and then goes back to him five minutes later, I would guess roughly three hours of real time passed. They are on a boat out in the open not in seclusion and they kiss. As mentioned, I find it funny how women think this is such a romantic movie but if the roles were reversed and Jack was the engaged audiences would hate him. But they end up in the iconic scene of the first half where Jack draws Rose's picture wearing only the locket. Four points I'd like to make are 1. Yes, Kate Winslet looked pretty good. Just being honest here. 2. I bet Rose's arm would fall asleep pretty fast in the pose she was in. 3. It should be noted that the closeups of Jack's hand drawing were of the hand of director James Cameron drawing and 4. The scene is capped by a big laugh. Of course they end up having sex, not in the drawing room but in a steamy car. You know it is hot in that car but in typical movie sex fashion, she covers her breasts to keep a PG-13 rating. I wonder how many realistic sex scenes there are in movies, including the post sex rest period.

     The ship doesn’t hit the iceberg until 1:38 in and I wish it had forty minutes before. Something I wondered about that scene is, after the ship hits, someone records the time. Since they are in the middle of the ocean, what time zone are they using?

     For me (and many people, men mostly I would presume) the whole movie builds up to the sinking of the ship. The entire sequence is very impressively done. It is the one part of this movie I though was better than the Stanwyk one. It was terrifyingly realistic, even with the little bloopers here and there like the rubber parts of the set that were supposed to be metal. It didn't matter. It sinks a bit, it breaks, and it sinks the rest of the way. It is a long, drawn out scene paying close attention to all of the peril. It is a very good sequence.

     According to the movie, 700 people found boats and around 1500 drown. One of whom is Jack and many have ripped Rose for not sharing the door she was using as a raft. On a MythBusters episode I believe they said it would tip with someone else on it anyway. In the midst of the madness of the sinking ship, there is a sweet image of an old couple cuddling in bed, facing their demise together, and one of a mother reading her doomed children a bedtime (dead time?) story. I heard there is a blooper just after that scene of the children running on the deck but I didn’t spot it. Maybe you can.  

     At the end Rose says there is no record for a Jack Dawson but why not? Sure not as a passenger on the boat since he won his ticket gambling but not even record of him as a citizen? He has no papers? And why didn't Lovett ever ask Rose where the necklace was? I realize it was Rose who sought him out, it was her purpose, but he had to have taken that opportunity to ask where it is. She mentions it in her tale, he never asked where it is. Now in the flashback, Cal says Rose has it in her coat but maybe old Rose didn't share that with Lovett's crew. I've always said there is so much license one can have when telling a first person story. Rose isn’t going to know what Cal says if she isn’t around but I'm sure she could assume he would have remembered it was in her coat. But Lovett would surely have asked about it since that was the goal of his expedition, right?

     All in all, the epic love story that is James Cameron's Titanic was nowhere near as bad as I remember it being when I was 20. But it could have been so much better. I had a lot of problems with it but there were a lot of positives, too...And I don't plan on revisiting it for another fifteen years. 

1996--The English Patient, Anthony Minghella

 

1996--The English Patient, Anthony Minghella

Nominated: Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Secrets and Lies, Shine

Should Have Won: Fargo

Be sure to see: Diabolique, The Frighteners, Kingpin, Ransom, Sling Blade

“You speak so many bloody languages and you never want to talk”--Karen Clifton

     Seinfeld fans might remember Elaine Benes suffering through The English Patient along side her friends and her boss who are mesmerized by the movie. “Stop telling your stupid story and just die!” I didn't hate it as much as Elaine did; in fact I didn't hate it at all. But when it ended I thought about how it beat Fargo and how Sling Blade wasn't even nominated and had my head-scratching moment of the day.

    It is Italy during World War II and a badly burned man is taken in by a nurse, Hana. As he begins to recuperate, he tells Hana stories of flying over the desert and his love and affair with a married woman. Hana eventually cares for the man but is in love with a soldier who is staying at the camp whose job it is to locate landmines and defuse bombs. Also a Canadian man is staying with them whose thumbs were cut off for committing adultery, though I don't remember why he was important to the plot.

     The movie has one of those moments where something happens at the beginning and is forgotten and you wonder what the point was, then later it comes back in a revelation, like the bookcase blocking the closet in Rosemary's Baby or the car crash at the beginning of John Q. In this case, it is a painting of swimmers on a cave wall. In the best scene, the soldier, Kip (Sayid from Lost) shows Hana the paintings via make-shift swing he pulls to raise her to the ceiling.

     Watching this movie I was reminded of my experience while watching 1985's winner Out of Africa. A lot of the technical aspects of the film were great but as a whole I didn't care as much. But it is a good love story that balances the war plot well. Think of how bad Titanic was. It is truly one of the most overrated movies of all time and certainly one of the worst to win best picture. Where it goes wrong is it tells a great tale of the unsinkable sinking ship that could have been one of the best historic tellings of any movie ever. It was ruined by focusing on a love story for three hours before the boat sinks instead of finding out about the other  passengers' lives. The English Patient does not suffer the same fate as this. Through the romance plot, there are still plenty of scenes dealing with the war and worldly events. It balanced the stories well. 

     I did not care for this movie but did not really dislike it. Perhaps it is saved because of the visual and technical aspects are very solid. But like Forrest Gump I'd put this movie third of the year for what should have won best picture. The non-nominated Sling Blade getting the silver and the obvious choice for best picture is the always entertaining gem of a crime story Fargo. Along with Annie Hall beating Star Wars, and the movie next up on this blog beating Saving Private Ryan, The English Patient beating Fargo is among the worst decisions in Oscar's best picture award history. I'd even put Fargo in the top 10 best movies of the decade. You betcha.

1995--Braveheart, Mel Gibson

 

1995—Braveheart, Mel Gibson

Nominated: Apollo 13, Babe, The Postman, Sense and Sensibility

Should Have Won: Braveheart

Be sure to see: Kids, Rumble in the Bronx, Species, Toy Story

“Fight and you may die. Run and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they'll never take our freedom?!”--William Wallace

     The opening monologue for Braveheart informs us that history is written by those who have hanged heroes. I find that disheartening because I would hope history is written by the heroes. Maybe it is saying when a hero faces a brutal end, his name will go down in history. If that is the case, William Wallace's certainly went down with a vengeance.

     1995's winner, like the winner two years before it, is certainly one of the Oscar winners that was a sure bet; I couldn't imagine any of the other nominees—or any other movie from that year—topping it. It tells the story of William Wallace, a man who leads a rebellion against King Edward the First in thirteenth century Scotland. The movie follows him from childhood to his role as the leader of the Scottish rebels, and there are very few films to depict a character as devoted and brutal as Wallace was, though the featurette for the movie details monumentally brutal actions of the real Wallace not found in this picture.

     Braveheart has many aspects to make it a superior film. The weather added to the mood; Wallace's love for Murron, a local girl who he had known since childhood; the camaraderie of his fellow Scottish army; the score; and the cinematography. But I found two in particular that makes it stand out. One is Patrick McGoohan as the cold-hearted king, known commonly as Longshanks. You might recognize him as the judge in A Time to Kill. Every action he made, every line he gave made me hate this guy, which is what you are supposed to do with a villain. My two favorite scenes involving Longshanks are when he throws a man out the window for claiming to be a brilliant battle planner and my other is a line depicting his cruelty. In one of the fantastic battle sequences he orders his archers to shoot into the fight, even though his troops are in the mix, noting that even though his troops will be hit the arrows will hit the others as well, and they have reserves. Or in a different battle when he find out the Scottish reserves are nowhere nearby, he instructs his army commander to use the Irish and save the arrows because arrows cost money and the dead cost nothing. What a bastard.

     I'd say Longshanks is my favorite character but Wallace is the focal point to the story. His various personalities polarize each other because on the battlefield he is ruthless, unflinching, and barbaric. But we also see his tender side with Muran, his love since he was child, and his devotion to his friends.  All of the men who follow him are warriors, either bread that way or strive to be because they respect Wallace so much. There is an Irishman who joins them who both the men and we the audience are unsure about trusting at first. The moment we know he can be counted on is another great moment in the movie. As is Wallace's revenge on those who murder his love. Here we see the perfect example of the two sides of the character. We see his tenderness with his new bride but a few minutes later (screen minutes) people learn not to get on his bad side.

     I've beat around the bush here but need to move on to the second thing after Longshanks that make the movie stand out, the battle sequences. Jumping ahead for a moment, in 2000's winner Gladiator, there is a massive battle at the beginning which would be impossible to not compare to Braveheart's battles. You can read my take on that movie's battle later but I'll say now that that movie tries but gets it wrong. To me its battle scene seemed mostly auditory like the sound editors had a field day in the editing room, but Braveheart's are visual. The first battle is the Battle of Stirling which begins in one of the most intensely framed scenes of all time. With English troops charging on horseback, the Scots hold...and hold...and hold until the right moment. What comes next is a whirlwind of violence so cleverly done it fooled many animal rights activists. The dummy horses built for the scene are impossible to spot, even when you know what to look for. From an entertainment standpoint, the battle is fierce, intense, and violent. After watching it I went back and viewed it again from a technical standpoint looking for bloopers obvious acting from the extras. The editing and sound is so spot on it looked like it could have been a real battle and the extras make do with the situation as well. One particular kill, a bash to the head, looked grotesquely authentic, even in frame advance.

     The second battle is the battle at Falkirk which begins with a surprise on who is siding with whom. The battle is also intense and we again see Longshanks' cruelty. But along with the battles, the camaraderie, the romance, the score, Longshanks' actions, and moody cinematography, the movie gives us a moving and brilliantly shot final act depicting Wallace's outcome which I wouldn't dare spoil. The final few lines of dialogue in the film are emotional as well. I realize it seems like. It is a very good movie and the only thing I could possibly think of that could blemish it is if historians debunk it. If it is eventually revealed William Wallace is nothing like the movie depicts, I would be disappointed. Until that happens, I'd say I'd let Wallace lead me anywhere. 

 

1994--Forrest Gump, Robert Zemeckis

1994--Forrest Gump, Robert Zemeckis

Nominated: Four Weddings and a Funeral, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, The Shawshank Redemption

Should have won: Pulp Fiction

Be sure to see: The Crow, Dumb and Dumber, Interview With the Vampire, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, Natural Born Killers, Speed, True Lies

“Sometimes I guess there just aren't enough rocks.”--Forrest Gump

     There is a lot of hate directed at this movie, including by me, that is undeserved. Forrest Gump's major downfall was it was nominated in a great year. I think it is fair to say that outside of 1939 which was loaded with top notch films, Forrest Gump is the best movie ever made that won best picture but should have been third in the running, no pun intended (run, Forrest, run!). Chicago (2002) was also pretty good but not better than Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and Gangs of New York. But Forrest Gump is a fantastic movie with colorful characters and numerous memorable scenes.

     Tom Hanks won his second Academy Award in as many years for playing the man with an IQ of 75. The film follows Forrest through his childhood, college days, the army and beyond. There are some impressive effects (yes, kids, even for the '90s) and a lot of heart. Through effects, we follow Forrest to various historic moments in United States history. Some Gump haters say showing an everyman achieving the things Forrest does is unrealistic and I have read some say it is offensive to the mentally handicapped to have him experience such things in a clueless way. Critic Leonard Maltin says in his movie guide that these gimmicks didn't work; I disagree. I found them to be clever ways to show various parts of history, plugging our hero by circumstance in the midst of them.

     There is some debate on whether or not Jenny is a likeable character. Jenny is the only kid who was ever nice to Forrest and had stuck by his side for much of his life. Then she would abandon him and come back and abandon him again. Some say she is just living her life; others (like Weird Al Yankovich in his song “Gump”) feels Jenny was kind of a slut. She has a major arc at the end of this movie but I found lots of the hate toward her to be verified. I didn't find her likeable at all. 

     Gump seems to be a step behind the situations around him yet a step ahead of the people around him throughout the movie. He isn't bright enough to understand he is in the Watergate Hotel during the scandal, is in the middle of a desegregation story, or be successful as a shrimp boat captain because the weather demolished every boat but his. But the situations fall into play for him so he breaks the scandal by complaining the lights are keeping him awake, steps right into the middle of the desegregation coverage by returning a book a black student dropped, and becomes the most successful shrimper because he has no competition. He seems to influence history and people around him without even realizing it, even unwittingly helping invent the iconic "Have a nice day" shirt or "Shit happens" bumper stickers. He also provided a lot of hope for others when he started running across the country and back. People ran with him, thinking he was running for a purpose. As he says, he just felt like running. Again, he was a step behind running for hope since that wasn't his purpose, but all the people thought he was and decided to follow him.

     Though Hanks' performance will go down as one for the ages, I found the best performance to Gary Sinise. Sinise plays Lieutenant Dan Taylor, the leader of Gump's squad and, later on, Gump's partner in a shrimping business. For me, he steals every scene he's in. Every line; every action. It is Hanks' movie but Sinise makes it work. He would go on to lose the best supporting actor award to Martin Landau for Ed Wood. Pretty much everyone on earth agrees that award should have gone to Samuel L. Jackson for his role in Pulp Fiction but had Sinise won it wouldn't have been so bad. He owns the movie for me. I wouldn't have minded seeing him accept the award though Jackson clearly earned it. Jackson's loss is right up there with Haley Joel Osment's loss to Michael Caine, also in the supporting actor category.

     Tom Hanks is one of the most gifted actors of my time and can be in the discussion of all time. He is always good, even in bad movies like Splash or The Burbs (which I want to like so badly but just don't). Though Big is my personal favorite of his, it is obvious his most iconic and recognizable role is as Forrest. I don't think anyone else could have pulled it off. Forrest's innocence and ignorance of the world around him is played perfectly. Though he has an IQ of 75 and even acknowledges he isn't a smart man, he seems to have somewhat of a grasp on reality. But he also has a funny way of looking at his predicaments. I especially like the daydreaming look on his face while on the football field before running a kickoff back and his delivery of “thought?” when he is asked if he has given any thought to his future. Most people might wonder “future?” but not Forrest. It is one of my favorite single-word movie lines of all time.

     Forrest Gump is absolutely worth a look. It is an odd movie because it is much better than the hate it gets yet at the same time should not have won the Oscar despite the love it gets.  But the good certainly shines through the bad and, in its own way, really is a monumental achievement. It just so happens that it came out in a very strong year. So give the movie a watch (or re-watch) and then take a look at two much superior movies The Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction. Third place is where Gump should have run.

     That's all I have to say about that. 

1993--Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg

 

1993--Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg

Nominated: The Fugitive, In the Name of the Father, The Piano, Remains of the Day

Should have won: Schindler's List

Be sure to see: Dead Alive, Groundhog Day, Jurassic Park, The Nightmare Before Christmas, What's Eating Gilbert Grape

“Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire”--inscription found on the inside of a ring

     Prior to Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg had been nominated for best director three times, going 0-3 for Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and E.T.. The fourth time proved to be a charm. He has gone on record saying of all the movies he has been a part of, he hopes to be remembered for two of them, E.T. and Schindler's List. 1993's best picture winner had been an idea of Spielberg's for decades. Watching it gave me one of those rare feelings that it wasn't a movie but an experience. It is probably the most important Oscar winner ever made.

     It is September, 1939, and Germany has defeated Poland. Jews have been ordered to register family members and relocate to major cities. At the start of World War II, Oskar Schindler, a Nazi who owns a factory, has figured out a way to manipulate the system. He sympathizes with the Jews and gets them to work in his factory in an attempt to save their lives, but also for selfish reasons like cheap labor or because the Jewish children's fingers are small enough to reach certain mechanisms. As Jews are rounded up for the death camps, Schindler uses politics to achieve his goal. Take, for example, when his accountant is being taken away on a train to a camp by mistake, Schindler saves him but scolds him by asking what would happen if he were five minutes later. “Then where would I be?” he asks, focusing on himself. He has no concern for the accountant's well-being. By the end, his views and priorities have shifted to a more heartfelt side. He can be considered a hero by movie's end when early on he is all business-minded.

     Schindler's accountant is Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley, who I can never picture as anyone except Gandhi). All the while, the camp's commandant is Amon Goeth, one of the most evil villains in movie history. A man who kills Jewish people for fun, sniping those from his window he sees not working. Once, he pardons a boy for not cleaning a tub properly only to snipe him as he is leaving. When someone escapes the camp, Goeth shoots every other person he rounds up just as a lesson. Goeth is played by Ralph Fiennes to perfection. He lost the best supporting actor award that year to Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal of an United States Marshall in The Fugitive. For years I've agreed with that choice. Upon further review, well let's just say we are all entitled to change our minds now and then. Goeth is one of the most harrowing villains in movie history.

Though Schindler is the focal point of the movie, Goeth and his men's cruelty steal the show. People are killed at will. Some murdered for performing jobs too slowly, others are shot on a whim. A building is being constructed and when the architect speaks up that it needs to be torn down and rebuilt or it will collapse, the scene ends with a chilling visual and then a chilling suggestion by Goeth.

My favorite (if I can use that word for an experience like this) part of the film is a 17 minute long sequence of the Nazis rounding up Jewish families who are hiding in their houses. It is a very intense scene where we root for the residents to not be found but know how the outcome will be.

Contrasting Goeth's cruelty is Schindler's compassion, even though it is a little misguided for a while. When the workers are on trains that have stopped, he turns a water hose on and sprays in the windows. On one hand it is nice he's giving them water but on the other, nobody should be locked up unwillingly on a train like cattle. A guard says he shouldn't do that because it gives them hope and that is cruel. I found him to be a somewhat flawed character. He clearly has a heart but doesn't follow through with it completely.

Though the film is a starkly beautiful black and white, there is a little color in it. That color is a little girl's red coat. She walks down the street even with the horrors of murder around her. A lot has been said about the meaning of this character. The reason for the red coat and what ultimately becomes of the girl, I'll let you form your own opinions.

Schindler's new factory is run with different rules. More compassion. His humanity begins to shine through. And his speech to his workers and the soldiers as the war is ending is moving, brilliant, and, in a way, epic. Many emotional moments occur in the final few moments such as the workers being released, Goeth's ultimate demise, and Schindler's breakdown, the reason for it I won't spoil but it is a very powerful moment. The film ends with a documentary style segment of the real present day Schindler's Jews visiting his grave. The movie is one of the most powerful ever made; one everyone should see but not one I'd recommend popping in weekly. The movie is flawless though Oscar Schindler wasn't. The documentary of the film summed the man up this way: “Schindler didn't come to Poland to save the Jews; he came to make his fortune.” If that was truly his original vision then he officially has the most incredible character arc in movie history.

NOTE: I had a hard time figuring out what picture I wanted to use. I wanted one of Oscar Schindler; I wanted one of Goeth; I wanted one of the frightened people; perhaps children. I saw lots of moving pictures. I went with this one but it is just one of many striking images.

1992--Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood

 

1992--Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood

Nominated: The Crying Game, A Few Good Men, Howard's End, Scent of a Woman

Should have won: Unforgiven

Be sure to see: Aladdin, Army of Darkness, Candyman, Dead Alive, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle,

Last of the Mohicans

“It's a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have”--Will Munny

     Only the third western to win best picture but the second in three years, scriptwriter David Webb Peoples says Unforgiven is an anti-violence, protecting women film originally titled “The Cut-Whore Killings”. Sheriff Bill Daggett (perfectly played by Gene Hackman, but then again has he ever been miscast?), denies justice to a prostitute who has been cut. The other women send a kid to hire Will Munny to shoot the culprits. Munny is a widower and farmer. Considering it has been 11 years since he has fired a gun, he's out of the game and can't even mount his horse without falling off, but he accepts the money to support his children. Will and his friend Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) team up with a kid to take the manhunt.

     All of the characters are painted as individuals. The kid talks big and claims to have killed five men but when the action pops up he seems shaky. Ned has a moment of truth behind the trigger as well. The kid finally comes into his own after getting news from one of the prostitutes and when Will gets word of something tragic, travels to town to confront Daggett's men, and he comes into his own as well...and does he ever!

     The movie really belongs to Hackman. He played a similar role in the tongue-in-cheek The Quick and the Dead which is impossible to take seriously despite being presented in a serious way, as per director Sam Raimi's style. Here, he spreads fear just by his presence. I especially like the scene between him and a writer named Beauchamp in jail with a possibly loaded gun.

     The movie is a revenge story. The prostitutes want revenge against the men who injured one of them. And Will gets his own revenge later when the simple bounty to support his children becomes a little more personal. Like a western should have, there is a big shootout. It is one against many and in the real world the fight would be over in five seconds but not in an Eastwood movie . What happens is incredible yet, somehow, it is easy to believe. The shooting was set off by Will getting revenge for a body being put on display. He takes it out on the owner of the establishment. The man is played by Anthony James. This is a guy who keeps popping up the more I watch movies and he is always a sleazeball. In The Naked Gun 2 ½, The Teacher, Vanishing Point, In the Heat of the Night (another best picture winner), and as the owner of the whorehouse in this movie where he makes a grand exit, he always plays someone who is easy to dislike. The scene is capped off with Old Glory waving over the hero's shoulder. Was it on purpose?

     Clint Eastwood opted the script in 1983 but wanted the character to be older. So he waited until 1991 to begin filming. I guess he didn't believe in makeup. But it was well worth the wait. It won awards for best picture, supporting actor for Hackman, editing, and Eastwood won the directing award. It is Eastwood's tenth western and he has said it “summarized everything I feel about a western.” The western seems to be a dying genre. Occasionally one will pop up young movie goers seem to like such as Tombstone but they typically aren't big with fans. Hopefully the True Grit remake or Django Unchained offered a new surge in the genre. Unforgiven is a solid example of the genre. A good place for someone wanting to get into westerns to begin. It is not happy. It is dark. It is grim. It is very good.

1991--The Silence of the Lambs, Jonathan Demme

 

1991--The Silence of the Lambs, Jonathan Demme

Nominated: Beauty and the Beast, Bugsy, JFK, Prince of Tides

Should have won: Boyz n the Hood

Be sure to see: Cape Fear, Chopper Chicks in Zombietown, City Slickers, My Girl, The People Under the Stairs,  Terminator 2

“Most serial killers keep some sort of trophies from their victims”--Clarice Starling

“I didn't”--Hannibal Lecter

“No. No, you ate yours”--Clarice Starling

     In the 87 years of the Academy Awards, Silence of the Lambs is the only horror movie to win best picture of the year, and it took until the 64^th year of the awards to get it. Of course there are 12 horror movies I think should have won, especially Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist, and they are listed at the bottom of this piece. There are those who consider 1940's winner Rebecca to be horror but I don't. Heck, there are some that don't even consider this film to be horror despite the fact it deals with a cannibal and a man who wears YOU as clothing. Um, yeah, that's horror people.

     The FBI is tracking a serial killer who calls himself Buffalo Bill who has been starving, skinning, and wearing his victims. The character is modeled after Ed Gein, the Wisconsin weirdo who also inspired Norman Bates and Leatherface. FBI trainee Clarice Starling is put on the case and interviews Hannibal Lecter, a former psychiatrist and cannibalistic madman who is the hospital for the criminally insane, in hopes he might lead her to the killer. The clock is ticking as Bill's next victim will be a U.S. Senator's daughter who is kept in a hole, starving, until the right time to be skinned.

     This movie was pretty much a shoe-in for best picture. Of the other nominees, the most intriguing story is Beauty and the Beast becoming the first animated movie to be nominated for best picture. The only reason I put Boyz n the Hood as my should have won is because of what the directors had to deal with. Johnathan Demme had top notch actors, from top to bottom; John Singleton had mostly unseasoned actors with a few experienced ones here and there. Boyz n the Hood is a must see to anyone over the age of 13, regardless of race. It is well shot, directed, written, and acted but most importantly the message is a bull's eye. That being said, Silence of the Lambs is an achievement in its own right. It is a creepy, nail biting film with an unsettling ending. I don't blame the Academy for going this direction and, as a horror fan, am happy it was acknowledged. Yes, I put Boyz in the “should have won” line but perhaps as a wink and nudge. I can tell you I like watching it more than I do Silence of the Lambs, but the latter is the better all around film, so the Academy probably got it right.

     The film manages to capture fans of various genres. It can be gruesome in spots yet shies away from being overly gory, therefore not turning away potential audiences. Its grim, gray West Virginia overcasts offer a bleak mood and it is one of those rare films where we have a tendency to root for the bad guy...well one of them, anyway. The movie is filled with danger and having an inexperienced agent dealing with two deranged psychopaths heightens the danger even more. This movie comes recommended to most people, even the squeamish because even through some of the sick images a strong crime drama shines through.

     Two things to consider, one fact another opinion. Silence of the Lambs joins1934's It Happened One Night and 1975's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as the only three movies to ever win the five main categories at the Oscars: Best picture, director, actor, actress, and screenplay. 

  

     One other note I can't leave out: The American Film Institute made a list of the 50 greatest heroes and 50 greatest villains and Hannibal Lecter topped the list of villains. I can tell you this, I completely disagree with that choice; he isn't even the better villain IN THIS MOVIE!!! I've never appreciated the lack of respect Buffalo Bill and Ted Levine, the actor who played him, get. Without Hannibal Lecter, we could still have a movie about an agent tracking a serial killer; without Buffalo Bill, there would be no movie. 

     Horror fans take a lot of pride in this movie because, for the most part, the genre gets disrespected by non-fans. It is like this movie sneaks in through the back door disguised as a crime thriller, making audiences forget about the gruesome undertones. Also, look for Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead creator George Romero in a cameo. It has been nearly a quarter century since Silence of the Lambs won the Oscar. It is about time another horror picture is made that is worthy of winning a second one. 

--Note: Horror movies I think legitimately should have won best picture--Frankenstein (1931), Freaks (1932), King Kong (1933), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Cat People (1942), Psycho (1960),  Rosemary's Baby (1968),  The Exorcist (1973), The Sixth Sense (1999), Shadow of the Vampire (2000), King Kong (2005), Let the Right One In (2008),