Finally bringing this year to a close. I feel like I've been doing this year for months and months. It's always nice to bring a year to a close and move on. I'm almost to the 80s which is a huge milestone whenever I hit it. On paper, this doesn't look like too bad of a group with some very recognizable and strong films. I'll have to see if that holds up as true!
1992 Best Picture
Unforgiven
This was kind of the no brainer winner for 1992. Look at the rest of this group and what are you going to take? Maybe Howards End but that wouldn't have held up as a good winner. Unforgiven was your winner from the beginning because it's honestly a damn good film. If you haven't seen it by now, go do that and then come back. It's essentially a dark, more realistic portrayal of life in the west or at least in a Western. It sort of turns everything that's typical about the Western genre on it's head. The man who would have been the hero in the past is a complicated, nuanced, brutal depiction of a sheriff. That's Gene Hackman, who more than deserved his Oscar win. Then you've got Eastwood's character who is really a kind of villain but Eastwood makes himself into a hero of sorts by the end, which is the main thing I dislike about the film. That's a minor thing, though, as the rest of the film is so interesting and evocative that it's a great Best Picture winner. As I said in the other reviews for this film, it is essentially a scathing take on the brutality of violence - even violence perpetrated by the so-called good guys. It's not romantic or idealistic or something to chuckle at; it's violence and murder and mayhem through and through. That's what I really love about this film is how it shines a light on all the hypocrisy of other Western films when it comes to the wanton killing and violence. I think it's a provocative message even if Eastwood and the writer say it wasn't their outright intent. It's great when a film can make you think about something like that without beating you over the head with the message at every chance. The acting is all pretty good, though Eastwood isn't my favorite. The scenes are wonderfully shot and the film has a very brisk pace that's nice to see when there are so many meandering, slow films that confuse length with quality. It's a really great ode to the end of the Westerns (at least at that time) and a really great Oscar winner.
The Crying Game
As I will say for the other nominees from this film, you should definitely watch this film first before reading anything about it because it will get spoiled for you and going in blind will allow for the moment to have a bigger impact when you don't know it's coming. And that's sort of the crux of this film. It has this big moment that is pretty shocking by even today's standards that throws the film into a different light so to speak. It makes the film about more than just an IRA member on the lam falling in love. It starts off with Forest Whitaker being kidnapped by some IRA members in hopes they can free a fellow prisoner. Big issue here is that Whitaker's accent is beyond god awful. I don't know why they couldn't find someone else to play the part because his terrible accent is very distracting. Not much happens for the first 35-40 minutes as Stephen Rea and Whitaker start to bond a little and then there's an escape attempt where Whitaker is killed and the IRA hideout is blown up. Rea flees to England and meets up with Whitaker's girl to tell her what happened but he instead falls in love with her and they date and then when about to have sex, the woman reveals her penis in full view to us. A big shocking twist of a moment that is supposed to make you question notions of love and all that. But this is really all the film has going for it. The IRA stuff is generic and boring. But the transgender reveal is a big deal and transforms the film from being by the numbers Irish-British drama to something entirely different. Except I don't think the impact lasts long enough to sustain the rest of the film. It's still mostly boring and once the film moves on from it's big reveal it goes back to being uninteresting for the most part. Rea and Davidson get back together and the IRA members find Rea and make him join a plot to kill some judge and Davidson explodes in anger and kills Miranda Richardson. It's all over the place at the end but still doesn't feel like an important Oscar film, regardless of it's shocking moment and use of a transgender character. I'm thinking that's partially why it was nominated here, that and the fact that films about Irish issues seemed to be the big rage in the early 90s. After hearing about this for awhile, I was expecting more of a classic instead of a dud. But I guess that's why you have to watch the films for yourself and form your own opinion about them.
A Few Good Men
Not going to lie, I've got a soft spot for these types of films. They are purely entertaining and not important as say a Schindler's List, but still enjoyable all the same. Like in 1993 with The Fugitive or Babe in 1995, there are those popular, entertaining, popcorn flicks that deliver an enjoyable movie watching experience. Not all make it to Oscar, of course, but I'm fine with the ones that do. I'd also probably be okay with Die Hard making it on the Best Picture list but that's another discussion. Now, don't get me wrong, this film has it's fair share of flaws but it is highly entertaining and nowhere near actual Best Picture winner worthy. So I feel like being really harsh about the film is somewhat pointless. Cruise is a little too polished and douche bro-y in the beginning before he settles into being super awesome lawyer guy. Nicholson is the typical bad guy but elevates the character with his performance. Demi Moore is the hard ass, take me seriously, eye candy who is a smart lawyer that gains everyone's respect by the end. The fun is watching them all go toe to toe and butt heads and flex their acting muscles. The story is fun and interesting as most courtroom dramas are because you spend your time trying to figure out how one side is going to win the case in the final hour. Which for this film is probably my biggest issue. If the story had let everything play out and then showing Cruise tripping up Nicholson in court and catching him in a lie, the effect would have been much more powerful. Instead, we got the tactic force fed to us in case we didn't understand what was going on, I guess. It was lazy, needlessly expository writing. The writing, by the way, came from Aaron Sorkin which I didn't realize until after I watched it again and looked it up but makes sense with it's snappy, polished feel. The best scenes are of course the courtroom scenes where Cruise and Nicholson bring their star power to a boiling point. It's a good film, I'm fine with it being nominated knowing it wasn't ever going to win, and it's something I can enjoy without using too much of my brain and thinking too hard about - a win all around.
Howards End
Always been interested in seeing if these Merchant-Ivory films were as good or as bad as people talk them up to be. Some people loathe these British films while some other people say they watch whichever one at least once a week/month. I've been fine with all the Merchant-Ivory films I've encountered so far, firmly in the middle with them. This film started out so promising that I was left wondering what the hell happened by the end. Seriously, the film starts out so interesting with the music and the shot of Vanessa Redgrave walking in a field. The characters are compelling and I want to find out more about them (Redgrave's character, for example), the direction is lively and fresh feeling, and the promises of class intrigue are numerous. But then after the beginning Redgrave's character exits the film and we start to get the stale, stuffy British class film you might expect. So for me, Howards End was a tale of two films. I was impressed with the first part and was hoping that the modern take on class struggles was going to be the entire film. Alas, the second part takes over where there is too much people sitting around talking and familial issues than what the first part led me to believe I'd be getting as far as the story goes. The lively direction is gone, in favor of boring shots of interiors and all that. The intrigue as to what is going to happen with all the different social classes interacting is gone, since the payoff was nowhere near exciting enough. I feel like Howards End could have been such a great, memorable film instead of a film that starts off exciting before turning back to the stale, stuff classical type of film we are used to seeing. I think if done today by say a Joe Wright or someone like that, this film could be electric and dazzling. It has the potential to be really interesting with all of the interplay of the social classes and whatnot. I would categorize this film as a let down for me, personally. The sad thing is that it legitimately feels like what the Academy would and should nominate for Best Picture back then. They love their big British prestige classic literature films. It's nice to have finally watched this film and I understand it's nomination but it won't be part of my consideration for the winner this year.
Scent of a Woman
Having read the Inside Oscar entry for 1992, this was never really a consideration even for Best Picture until it for some reason hit with the Golden Globes people. We all know they are star fuckers and for some reason can dictate what people in the Academy think based off of their choices which is ludicrous because they are like 45 shadow people controlling big developments in the Oscar pantheon, essentially. This had no traction before the Golden Globes and then built up steam to a surprise nomination. It's not that good of a film, though, so let's settle that right away. Al Pacino's win is a make up for his career and nothing else. The film is centered on a loud, abrasive, asshole Pacino who is a blind, ex-Army officer who wants to off himself. He enlists the care of Chris O'Donnell's insufferable, shitty, meek college kid and the two go off to New York City. I would say there is really a love-hate relationship with Pacino's performance but I think most sane people see it for what it is and hate or dislike it. Disliking it means what else are you left with? The film is too long for it's own good. Needs to be pared down by maybe an hour to really be effective. The college stuff is just so boring and cheesy and inconsequential. It's all set up so that we can have the big Pacino speech at the end to sway how we feel about him as not being such an asshole. There are some scenes that do resonate and stick out because of their tenderness like the tango scene which I do think is well done, even if a bit shoehorned in. The music is good but then you realize it was further developed into the great, transcendent scores for American Beauty and Shawshank Redemption (Thomas Newman really deserves an Oscar after 13 nominations). It's overall not the most compelling argument for a Best Picture nomination. Besides Pacino, there's just not much left to really enjoy.
This really not that bad of a Best Picture group. It's not strong, mind you, but not terrible. I'd quickly get rid of The Crying Game in favor of Glengarry Glen Ross because that film is flat out brilliant. I just feel like The Crying Game gets in on the basis of it's big reveal. Once you know it, there's not much to the film. Scent of a Woman is not very good either, buoyed mostly by Pacino. It's just very one note and not too interesting. Anything would probably have been better suited for this group. Then we get Howards End, which is actually a pretty good period piece Merchant-Ivory drama. It's watchable and fits the Oscar mold snugly so right in the middle is a perfect place for it. A Few Good Men is second purely because it's entertaining and a fun watch. It's not a masterpiece but you could do far worse for a BP nomination. The easy, undisputed winner is Unforgiven. It's a classic and something you can watch over and over without getting sick of it and holds up as a strong BP winner. Like I said not bad but not the best. A good middle of the road group with a great winner.
Oscar Winner: Unforgiven
My Winner: Unforgiven
A Few Good Men
Howards End
Scent of a Woman
The Crying Game
No comments:
Post a Comment