This is the grex movie review item.  Formerly titled "Siskel and Ebert and
Grex".  But since Siskel died during the last agora, that title is
officially retired.  So it is "Grex goes to the movies"!

292 responses total.

Tonight is the academy awards-- "Saving Private Ryan" should win best
picture IMO, Nick Nolte best actor for "Affliction" and Cate Blanchett
best actress for "Elizabeth".  Kathy Bates should win supporting actress
for "Primary Colors" and Billy Bob Thornton should win supporting actor.

those are who I would have voted for, not my personal predictions....

Elia Kazan is getting the honorary oscar to night, somewhat of a 
controversy since he cooperated with the McCarthy hearings back in the
fifties and caused a number of artisans to become blacklisted.  Its
a question of whether you can separate one's artistic achievvements with
one's life actions.  I think you can.  I mean I think Roman Polanski is
a great director (Chinatown one of my favorite movies), even though he
was a child molester.  I wouldnt object if they gave an honorary oscar
to him so I cant hold Elia Kazan's past against him even though he
obviously showed lousy judgement.

   I don't hold anything ill against Elia Kazan. It was the 50's and from
what I heard, all the names he named were already known to the subcommittee.
In any case, he made some damn fine films, and to not recognize his
contribution to the art of film is a shame. Henry fonda and Paul Newman
both busted thier asses and never got the recognition they deserved.
I cannot count the number of films that Fonda should have won for, starting
with "The Lady Eve" as well as "The Grapes of Wrath", and "Mister Roberts".
"On Golden Pond" was one of the worst movies he made, yet he had the grace
to do a great job with a shitty script.
   Paul Newman was excellent in "Hud", "The Long Hot Summer", "The Hustler",
and many more I can't bring to mind. In that respect, the Oscar means 
very little. Kazan is or was this generation's Scorsese. His movies are
brilliant and move you in ways you didn't even count on. I think Kazan's
best flick was "America, America". I'm glad he got what he did from the
Academy. It could have been a lot different.

The winners, from memory:

Picture: Shakespeare in Love
Director: Stephen Spielberg
Actor: Roberto Benigni
Actress: Gwyneth Paltrow
Supporting Actor: James Coburn
Supporting Actress: Judy Dench

Benigni won for Best Foreign Film, too.  At one point he was
standing on the back of Stephen Spielberg's seat.  Is he really
*like* that, or is it deliberate?  When I asked my son just now
if he remembered who won Best Supporting Actress, he said, "The
woman who played Queen Elizabeth for 8 minutes."  (Dench's total
time on camera.)  Jennifer Lopez presented the award for Best
Song, so I have no recollection of who won in that category.

Benigni has behaved that way every time I've seen him. Whether he's
really "like that" I don't know.

None of Richard's preferences panned out. "Shakespeare in Love" was best
picture (an upset). I would have liked to see Nolte win for "Affliction"
also, but was pleased that James Coburn won best supporting actor for
the same film.

(BTW, even after Sofia Loren correctly pronounced Benigni's
name several times -- beh-NIN-yee -- the stupid Americans kept
calling him beh-NEE-nee.  The "g" is not silent, gringos.)

The audience was quite civilized during the Elia Kazan 
presentation.  There were shots of a few grimly scowling
folks sitting there with their arms crossed.  I'm not
blaming them (am not sure I wouldn't've done the same).  
But even well-known far-leftists like Warren Beatty stood 
and applauded when Kazan appeared.  John applauding Judas.
Very classy.

Shakespeare in Love really came up big.  How amusing.  I saw it 
yesterday, too.  It's almost as if the Academy hasn't gotten Titanic out 
of their system yet.

        I caught _Forces of Nature_ over the weekend.  I'd invited two GREXers,
but neither was able to attend.  (the bastards!)

        It was a very enjoyable and actually very intelligent movie about human
relationships, but it's intelligence was subtle, and quite unlike either the
neurotic-critical Woody Allen vein or the more recent Sarah Jessica-Parker
witty-critical self-dialogue, so I'm sure it's something that the critics will
miss.  But what else can you call a film that addresses issues such as the
attractiveness of the "beautiful fucked-up man" (or woman, quoting Sarah
MacLachlan) in spite of, or perhaps because of, their unresolved problems,
or the tendency for the same things that attract us to a person to be the
things that eventually drive us away?

I enjoyed watching Roberto Benigni...he was so happy and enthusiastic...Same
with Gwyneth Peltrow....it was cool to see real emotion from the people who
recieved the awards.

Since nobody has said anything...What did everybody think of Whoopie last
night? :)

  I loved her. She kept it interesting.

She certainly was a good sport about all the costume changes.

It wouldn't have surprised me if she instigated all of them. :)

She kept saying that she wouldn't be invited back....I think she should
be...commants?

I agree.  Maybe she and Billy should alternate?

Re #8, I'm so glad to hear someone else liked Forces of Nature.
The earliest reviews were very negative, but some more recent
ones are turning out to be better.  A problem I've noticed for many
critics is that they need to pigeon-hole every movie they see.  The
Entertainment Weekly reviewer saw Forces of Nature as a failed
screwball comedy, almost as if it was supposed to be a remake of
It Happened One Night.  But, as jazz points out in #8, this movie 
really doesn't fall into any neat category.  

        I've seen a couple of films of the genre, which is a small but
noticeable one - the responsible man meets up with the irresponsible and
"crazy" woman, and embarks on an adventure.  It's a powerful fantasy for both
genderst that incorporates much sexuality, but usually transcends sexuality.
Some of the examples I can recall are "Something Wild" (1986) and "Overnight
Delivery" (1997) both of which I enjoyed.

        It's definitely more intellectual than the latter;  and probably the
former too - although I would credit the former with being a very early
example of the genre as it exists today and worthy in it's own regard.  I
think it's that "Forces of Nature" really doesn't make the audience feel
anything, in particular, other than the thrill of the ride, but gives them
ample opportunity to think, that resulted in it's initial poor reviews.  It's
one of the better films I've seen this year.

I agree with eeyore in #9 - I am impressed to see real emotion from people
you expect to be fake (because being fake is what they do for a living).

"Shakespeare in Love" won due to demographics...a majority of 
academy voters who actually vote are women.  what are women going to
vote for when they have a choice between Shakespeare and a war 
movie three hours long with *no* female characters?  "
"Saving Private Ryan" also had the distinct disadvantage of having
come out last summer.  

I question also how academy voters who dont speak Italian voted for
Roberto Begnini as best actor.  How do you judge that one has done a
better job of acting than the other nominees when you dont understand the
words coming out of his mouth?  Sure you can read the sub-titles but I
dont think its nearly as easy to guage the emotion and impact of one's
acting unless you actually hear and understand the words he is speaking.  
If I was an academy voter, voting in an acting category, I would not
presume to make judgements about the acting of an actor who is acting
in a language I dont speak or understand.

But if he conveyed emotion that you could understand without relying on words,
doesn't that make him a *better* actor?

Yes.  And he did.  Have you seen the film?  He is magnificent.  I'm sort 
of amused by where the awards went.  I think Private Ryan was more hurt 
by Thin Red Line than by women demographics (that sounds awfully sexist, 
too).  They offset each other.  It was a great class of movies at any 
rate.  I'm glad that it takes more than gritty realism to win an Oscar.

Re Forces of Nature: I just heard that David Strickland, the
actor who played the successful lawyer who was in love with
Ben's fiancee' in the movie (he was also a regular on the TV 
series Suddenly Susan) hanged himself in a hotel room in Las 
Vegas yesterday.

I heard that too. Sounds like it may turn out to be another auto-erotic
asphyxiation death . . . . .

One theory I've read for why "Shakespeare in Love" beat out "Saving
Private Ryan": Academy members get videocassettes of nominees and watch
them at home. "Shakespeare in Love", being a more intimate film, plays
better on TV than "Saving Private Ryan", which needs the big screen.

There's more to it than that. First, "Saving Private Ryan" was neither
original nor very good. It was exceptional in its violence, and had a
few good scenes (e.g., the "cognitive dissonance" scene where the men
are going through dogtags of deceased soldiers, like it's a big joke), but
on the whole it was a mediocre movie with a corny, contrived ending.

Further, having a similar movie up for the nomination likely "split the
vote" to some degree. When four excellent British actresses were up
for Academy Awards for best supporting actress, for similar roles in
dramas, the award went to Marisa Tomei from My Cousin Vinnie. Probably
not the best, but certainly the stand-out.

The theory in #22 is at odds with last year's success by "Titanic", which also
needs a big screen.

I found "Saving Private Ryan" to be a much better film than
Aaron.  Individual characters were well drawn.  I was especially
fascinated by the character of the very bright but highly vulnerable
soldier, the one who freezes under fire.

It didn't do well at the Oscars for much the same reason "Affliction"
didn't do well.  Both were not all that much fun to watch and for
the most part people are looking for a good time when they chunk
down $8.00.

Right.... That's why Schindler's List won. Nothing but a good time, there.

The Academy does seem to worship the box office sometimes.
I tend to agree with Aaron about Saving Private Ryan, though.
I remember thinking it was marred by cliches, as exemplified
by that bright but vulnerable soldier who freezes under fire.  
I think you can find Steve Conte movies from the 1950s that
had that character.  What *really* gave away the movie's 
manipulative designs was the fruity John WIlliams music, with 
those heavenly choirs vocalising in the background.  Yech.  
I believe the movie was redeemed by the two big battle scenes,
especially the one at the beginning.  If Spielberg had simply
let it go on for three hours, he might have had something.  A little 
too avant-garde for him, though, and wouldn't've put many fannies
in the seats.

This response has been erased.

I wouldve rather seen either "the Truman show" or "Pleasantville"
as best picture-- everything else is so formulaic.  Those were movies
I'd never seen before.  "Saving Private Ryan", "Thin Red Line" were
great but genre films.  "Shakespeare in Love" same thing.  Ive seen
those movies many times before.

        "The Truman Show" was extraordinarily formulaic;  the idea's been done
several times before.

THe Truman Show was crap.  Saving Private Ryan rocked and should've got best
picture.  I agree on the demographic reasons.  I'm glad Life is Beautiful did
so well, because it was a fabulous production.  By the way, they got the best
actresses (in the same movie) mixed up!  

"Schindler's List" was a better story.

I haven't seen Shakespeare in Love, so I can't judge it.

Some article I read said that this was the first time in something like ten
years that best director and best picture had gone to different movies.  Given
that they're usually tied together, I wonder if dividing them up is a way of
declaring a tie.

Maybe 9 years; I remember that Driving Mis Daisy won best picture in 1990
but wasn't even nonimated for best director.

We rented BULWORTH (B-) the other day.  I think I was prejudiced
against it by Mr Cranky's list of things that hearing Warren Beatty 
try to rap is worse than.  (Eg, hammering the wrong end of a nail
into a steel girder with your penis.)  It is pretty bad, and requires a
bigger suspension of disbelief than usual for a movie.  In addition,
there is an obviously unintended but nonetheless disagreeable
strain of racism.  (The black drug czar who has an army of little
kids peddling for him becomes a saintly say-fellas-let's-clean-
up- the-neighborhood kind of guy after meeting the heroic white
Senator.)  The movie does have its moments, though.  It reminded
me a little of Mickey One, if anyone remembers that movie, with its
air of paranoid dread.  Also, it was great fun seeing Amiri Baraka
in the recurring cameo role of the street poet.  I wonder what chit
Beatty called in to get him to agree.

(remmers and md are two of the very few people on the face of this 
earth who remember "Mickey One".)

I think BULWORTH is a terrific film about being true to yourself and
media manipulation-- warren beatty should have been nominated for
best director.
.\

(I liked Mickey One, remmers.  Do you see the resemblance
with Bulworth?)

(Haven't seen "Bulworth"...)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss