Tag Archives: Steve Buscemi

1998 Best Movie Bracket

Best Movie of 1998

I watched several movies to make sure I was well versed including: Out of Sight, The Thin Red Line, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Buffalo 66, The Opposite of Sex, Blade, Rushmore, Happiness, and Dark City. While I did enjoy Buffalo 66, it didn’t have enough substance to knock any of my existing top 3 off their throne. My greatest struggle was over whether The Thin Red Line was going to dethrone another great war movie from the year. Let’s get to it.

Win: The Big Lebowski

His words are quoted, books have been written about him, gatherings are arranged in his honor, and the image of his long hair and flowing robes are legendary. No, I’m not talking about Jesus. Welcome to the modern cult of The Big Lebowski.

The Dude, or ‘El Duderino’ if you’re not into the whole brevity thing, is an aging (and unemployed) hippie who lives a modest life in his Venice, California, bungalow. It seems as if this was the role that Bridges was born to play. He even used much of his own wardrobe to outfit himself for the role.

It was released 12 weeks after the behemoth called Titanic and finished in 6th place in its opening week. After this disappointing start, it made just $17 million in its opening run. It has gone on to become what I would consider to be the definition of a cult classic. Knowledge of Joel and Ethan Coen’s strange tribute to Los Angeles has been spread by word of mouth, DVD sales, and home-viewing parties. Like all cult classics, it has taken on a life of its own. The film has gone on to spawn books, festivals held in various cities, innumerable online tribute videos, and even a religion.

Set in the Los Angeles area in 1991, The Dude roams the Earth with his two friends—Walter (John Goodman), a brash Vietnam war veteran, and Donny (Steve Buscemi), a meek and often befuddled man—in search of justice, the perfect White Russian cocktail and diversionary games of bowling.

So what is it about this movie that attracts its faithful adherents, and what makes film aficionados remember it fondly rather than just as another commercial flop from 20 years ago? If a viewer can get past the seemingly nonsensical premise and plot, one discovers a very funny movie that explores human relationships, friendships, and interactions such as only the exceptionally rare film really can.

Part of the film’s appeal definitely comes from the ethos of The Dude himself, which offers a compelling escapist contrast to the inhabitants of the highly competitive atmosphere of the late ‘90s through today. Not only does The Dude not have to carry a steady job, he is also fortunate enough to have two bowling buddies who are willing to fight and die for him. That is true friendship. We all yearn for friends as loyal as Walter and Donny, as eccentric as they may end up being.

For many, The Dude abides as a symbol of a functional savior of Slackerdom. “If only I could be that free, so unencumbered by material concerns,” says the cubicle dwelling drone, or middle manager, or executive, then I would be happy. This is as much of a functional escape, fantasy, or savior from the mundane as materialism provides. We all wish to have the completeness that the Dude has found in an absence of material possessions but in the companionship of close friends.

Place: Life is Beautiful

Roberto Begnini’s masterpiece is a grand opus on the power of the human spirit in the face of overwhelming struggle. It is the story of a loving father who discovers creative and humorous ways to shield his young son from the terrible realities of the holocaust surrounding them. It is similar to Chaplin’s Great Dictator as both are comic attacks on fascism.

Benigni initially accesses the emotions of his audience through simple comedy, which is a pleasant mix of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Romance ensues with his real life wife Nicoletta Braschi.  In the first section, we follow the delightful romance that will eventually lead to marriage and the creation of their precocious son Giosue, played by Giorgio Cantarini, whose only other role was the son of Russell Crowe’s father in Gladiator. The five year old greatly reminds me of Toto in Cinema Paradiso, and plays an equally important role in his film.

It is the first half where the audience can laugh the loudest and delight at the immense comedy talent of Benigni. Unlike so many films nowadays there is nothing crude or course, just his simple innocent humor, which is all the more effective. The way he ties together little strands in the film to create comedy elements shows a great writing ability, and a mastery of timing when it comes to their execution on screen. Various incidents related to the rise of anti-semitism and fascism in Italy show that there are sinister forces at work which come to the fore in the second half of the film.

During this second half, Guido attempts to keep from the boy the horrors of what is going on as they become part of the German’s final solution, and this eventually manifests itself as a game where the aim is to score 100 points, with the winner winning a real tank (which, of course appeals to the young boy). Comic moments are still present, the scene involving Guido’s translation of the rules of the camp is particularly notable, but it becomes somewhat more difficult to laugh when we consider the gravity of what is going on.

As this emphasis begins to shift, we realize that this is a film about human spirit above all else. Guido not only appeals to the audience through his comedy and sheer pleasantness, but also in his love for  his family and the measures that he will go to to protect them. This is certainly no Schindler’s List, but it never pretends to be. Occasionally, events seem a little contrived, but this seems to work in the film’s favor. The balance between emotional weight and historical credibility is perfect.

Benigni shines like a lantern throughout the picture, showing that he is a talent, not only in comedy terms, that far outshines his peers.  Please don’t let the fact that it is a foreign language film dissuade you. There are many that avoid films because they must read subtitles. The language itself adds a beauty of form to the film. Please see this film, and make up your own mind. It’s available to stream on Amazon Prime right now. It is appealing in so many different ways that I’m sure that you will not be disappointed.

Show: The Thin Red Line

This one was hard. I’m not a fan of war or a particularly big fan of war movies. I appreciate the soldiers who fight and die for noble causes, however if I dig deeply I find more and more of a pacifist. The Thin Red Line, based on the novel of the same name by James Jones, Is a war movie for people like me. It was released in the last months of 1998 in the wake of a little war film called Saving Private Ryan. Some have called that the greatest war movie ever and it is hard for me to argue against that point. However, since this is my list, The Thin Red Line has a superior tone and message, and takes the prize.

This film has a cast of over a dozen actors that you will easily recognize, yet there are no big names like Tom Hanks or Matt Damon. Instead we have Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel, Nick Nolte, Elias Koteas, Ben Chaplin, Adrien Brody, George Clooney, John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Jared Leto, John C. Reilly, and John Travolta.

If Saving Private Ryan is a novel about World War II then Thin Red Line is a poem about the war. One is a story, the other is a sermon. One is a ballad, the other is a symphony. For as much as they have in common they are completely different films.

To illustrate this point, lets see what happens when a man gets shot in both films. Spielberg would focus on the bloody face of his character whom we have come to know and understand. The blood would splatter and the agony would be on his face. Terrence Malick instead would show the shot and instead of focusing on the man, we focus on the idea of devastation and death. We would see the pool of blood on the ground mixing with the dirt, we would see the rays of sunlight breaking through tattered leaves as if heaven were reaching down to touch the newly fallen dead.

I loved this movie. It kept me thinking and realistically depicted war without glorifying it. It also spoke to the problems that I have with war without dishonoring those soldiers who gave their lives. This doesn’t even mention how beautiful the film is, it was shot by the underrated John Toll. If you’ve never seen it, I hope you will seek it out.

Honorable Mentions

  • A Bug’s Life
  • American History X
  • Buffalo 66
  • Elizabeth
  • Happiness
  • Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
  • Mulan
  • The Opposite of Sex
  • Out of Sight
  • Pleasantville
  • Primary Colors
  • Prince of Egypt
  • Saving Private Ryan
  • Shakespeare in Love
  • There’s Something About Mary
  • The Truman Show
  • Waking Ned Divine
  • What Dreams May Come

What do you think of my picks? Would you have changed something? What do you think of the great war movie debate of 1998? Let me know in the comments or on social media.

Going Forward as we Look Backward

We are getting into the years where I was not watching quite as many movies especially those with adult themes. I have caught many since I was a teenager, but I still have some blind spots. With that in mind, I’m going to add some structure to these Best Movie of the year posts.

First off, they will be monthly. By the last day of each month, I should have my final determination set. All posts will have a top 3 and an un-ranked honorable mentions list. Because I know how the internet works, I’m going to start the posts from here out by jumping directly into the top film of the year after a paragraph or two of introduction.

Also, because I do have more blind spots as we go further back in time, I want to devote some time to filling in those gaps. There is an amazing site that will allow us to watch movies together. It’s called Rabb.it and I have already created a group and watched several movies from 1998. I would encourage you to go there now and join my group so I can call you to the group when the show is starting. It’s nice because as you watch, you can chat about the movie and if things get interesting, we can even turn on our video/audio and have a virtual discussion. If you go to my Movie Nights page, you can also see the upcoming calendar.

I’m going to do my best to post my list of blind spots and keep the list of upcoming movies going. Not all movie nights will be blind spots for me. There are several movies that I hold in high regard or look on with disdain. I would like to re-watch some of those films to get a better picture of the year as a whole. When I post my blind spot list, I encourage you to give me your suggestions for what we should watch. I might throw in a poll as well.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Ebert – Original Review 1994

Ebert – Great Movies Review 2001

Pulp-Fiction-666
Writer/Director/Actor Quentin Tarantino with the stellar Harvey Keitel as the Wolf.

Continuing on the idea of watching the best movies that you can find on Netflix, I come to Pulp Fiction. Of course, Pulp Fiction is the film that simultaneously shot Quentin Tarantino into elite directorial status and cemented his place as one of the most innovative auteurs of all time.

His screenplay is divided into three stories, each introduced with a title card. First, there’s the story of the hit man who has to take his boss’s wife out for the evening while her husband is away. There’s the story of the aging boxer paid to throw a fight and the quest to retrieve a uniquely special family heirloom. Finally, there’s two hit men in a messy situation that needs a quick solution. These three separate stories are intertwined and not told linearly. Each story could easily stand on its own as a short film, but told as they are, each adds a further dimension to the others. The non-linear progression is not simply a gimmick, but rather an essential aspect of the film’s narrative.  Continue reading Pulp Fiction (1994)

Day 13 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

A Movie That Is A Guilty Pleasure

I have to say that 1997’s Jerry Bruckheimer produced Con Air is an extremely fun ride, and it is one of my favorite action films. If I see this one on TV I will almost always watch it. The film is so over-the-top with its characters, dialogue, and situations that it can’t be truly believable and I don’t think it is meant to be. I know that this is not a high quality film, it doesn’t answer any metaphysical questions. But it is a good popcorn movie and it is endlessly re-watchable, even 15 years after it was released. True to most Bruckheimer productions Con Air is loud, crazy, and completely mindless fun during its 123-minute running time.

I’m not even going to give a synopsis. If you haven’t seen this movie, it is a lot of fun and would be a great film for a date night. It has a great cast of extremely talented actors playing extremely colorful characters. Our leading man Cameron Poe (Nicholas Cage), Drug smuggler Joe “Pinball” Parker (Dave Chappelle), serial rapist “Johnny-23” (Danny Trejo), Nathan “Diamond Dog” Jones (Ving Rhames), mass murderer William “Billy Bedlam” Bedford (Nick Chinlund), the Hannibal Lecter wannabe Garland Green, a.k.a. “The Marietta Mangler,” (Steve Buscemi), and the notorious criminal mastermind Cyrus “the Virus” Grissom (John Malkovich). With a cast like that stuck on a plane together for at least half of the film, it has to be good.

Con Air is loud, brash, and over-the-top (did I say that it was over-the-top already?). It’s hard to believe that Michael Bay wasn’t in the director’s chair this time, since it contains many of his trademarks including fast editing, crazy characters, outlandish dialogue, stunning action sequences, explosions, car chases, and shootouts. In reality it was directed by Simon West, (who gave us The Mechanic this year and is currently working on The Expendables 2), in his directing debut. Con Air is one boldly energetic and exciting action flick. I’ve seen the movie well over a dozen times since it first came out in 1997 and it’s never lost its luster or ability to be exciting, brain-dead entertainment. It’s one wild ride that I am a bit ashamed to say that I love to take.

Great Quote: “What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to piss off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time? Wouldn’t you consider that to be insane?”- Garland Greene (Steve Buscemi)

Do you have a favorite movie that you are ashamed to say you like. Is it so bad it’s good? There were a lot of movies that I could have went with here, but probably because I love John Malkovich and Steve Buscemi, this one took the cake for me. What is your pick? Let me know in the comments below or on Facebook or Twitter. And if you decide to take the 30 Day Movie Challenge, please leave me a link to your quest so I can stalk you.

Monsters Inc. (2001)

I’m not very good at this whole “watch a movie a week and write a review on it” thing. I easily watch 3-5 movies a week, but the problem is, I would much rather watch another movie than write a review. Especially when it’s a movie like the one that is on the slate for today. But alas, I made a commitment and so I’m gonna keep it.

20110327-173353.jpgThe most difficult part of writing a review for Monster’s Inc. Is that it is an animated film and we tend to treat these movies simply for their entertainment value for kids. But I think that animated films can have great value apart from mindless entertainment. And that is the area in which Pixar films in recent years have excelled above their peers in the animation business.

Everybody is doing computer animation, but the thing that elevates Pixar’s films and recently some of Dreamworks’ offerings (Flushed Away (really, it’s actually pretty good), Kung Fu Panda, How To Train Your Dragon, and Megamind) is the story. It’s not just about hyper-realistic imagery and the creation of a fully submersible world. Those are all pointless if you don’t have a story with characters in which the audience of both children and adults will invest their emotions.

20110327-173258.jpgMonster’s Inc. at its core is the inversion of a horror film. Normally, kids are wetting their beds at the idea that monsters live in their closets and are going to come out to scare them. Monsters Inc. simply admits this epidemic of home invasion as fact and then goes inside the closet to tell the story from the monsters point of view. It turns out that monsters don’t particularly enjoy scaring children, it is simply their job. Monstropolis (the Narnia on the other end of these impressionable children’s wardrobes) runs on the screams of children. But because human children are flooded with violent movies and television shows at increasingly younger ages, they are getting harder to scare and consequently Monstropolis has a scream shortage.

It seems to me that most animation studios would have been content to leave the story there then throw in a lot of cultural references to make the movie funnier. But Pixar understands the value of irony and as it turns out in this universe, these monsters know just as little about us as we know about them, and that makes monsters deathly afraid of human children.

20110327-173112.jpgAdd to that two of the most likable characters in all of Pixar’s movies, second only to Woody and Buzz, and you’ve got a movie that went toe-to-toe with Shrek, and by all counts lost that battle. But I would invite you to rematch both films and decide for yourself which has aged better. I think that Monsters Inc. could do equally well today, but I’m not sure I could say that about Shrek.

Essentially Monsters Inc. is a great buddy comedy. On one side you have the purple spotted horned Bear-cat named Sully. He looks ferocious which makes him great at his job, but in reality, he is just a big softie. John Goodman did a good job voicing him as he is the most dynamic of the characters in the film. And playing the Laurel to his Hardy is the effervescent Billy Crystal placed in the body of a green volleyball with one giant eye and an even bigger mouth. They make an odd couple to be sure and lift what could have been a mediocre movie to Pixar gold.

20110327-173150.jpgAnymore, it is pointless to mention the superb animation that is present in these movies. But in its time, the computer animation rendering of every frame featuring Sully took 11 hours to complete because the movement of each of his 2,320,413 hairs. With a frame rate of 24 fps that is nearly a month of processor time to create a single second of footage.

This might not be the highest grossing or the best reviewed of any of the Pixar movies, but it is a solid and highly entertaining movie that I have confidence my kids will he showing their kids one day.