As Good As It Gets (1997)


Starring: Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, Greg Kinnear, Cuba Gooding Jr., Shirley Knight, Jesse James (his first film), Skeet Ulrich, Yeardley Smith, Harold Ramis

Director: James L. Brooks

Summary: An obsessive-compulsive writer comes out of his shell to help a struggling waitress and an injured artist

Other Nominations: Actor (Nicholson)*, Actress (Hunt)*, Supporting Actor (Kinnear), Original Screenplay, Musical/Comedy Score, Film Editing

The movie lost me within 10 minutes because of a fundamental problem. Jack Nicholson’s character is more than just lonely, obsessive-compulsive and abrasive-he throws someone else’s dog down a garbage chute in an apartment complex and makes homophobic, racist and anti-semitic remarks. He starts out too despicable to be convincingly redeemed by a dog and a woman, especially in the format of a 2 hour and 15 minute movie-this would be like if Jake LaMotta became a nice guy after he got a cat and a nicer girlfriend or something. Sure, there have been rom-com protagonists who have started with impure motives (Gregory Peck in Roman Holiday, Clark Gable in It Happened One Night) or have  significant character flaws, but they never start out as sadistic.

This is a shame, because the movie has a number of redeeming qualities to it. Hunt is very likeable and a great lead; not sure she should have won Best Actress, but she’s still the best part of the movie. Brooks knows how to write quality dialogue even if the script as a whole has some serious issues. Also credit to them that in 1997 they made Kinnear (who gives a good performance) more than just a stock “gay neighbor” (like George Carlin in Prince of Tides), him being gay is relatively unimportant, he’s just presented as a normal, fully fleshed out character. Ultimately though, the aforementioned big issue for me at least (along with it feeling cookie-cutter from a plotting standpoint) brought down what could have been a really solid rom-com.

Rating: C+

The Full Monty (1997)


Starring: Robert Carlyle, Mark Addy (his first feature film), Tom Wilkinson, William Snape (his first film), Steve Huison, Paul Barber, Hugo Speer

Director: Peter Cattaneo

Summary: Six unemployed steel workers form a male striptease act

Other Nominations: Director, Original Screenplay, Musical/Comedy Score*

Don’t have a lot to say about this one-it has an original premise, is decently funny, the characters are fine, and it’s just 90 minutes. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this, but I am surprised it was nominated for Best Picture, considering 1) it wasn’t really exceptional, in conjunction with 2) how rare it is for a non-romantic comedy to get nominated (the only other one this decade was Fargo and this is a totally different type of comedy than that movie). If you want to watch something fairly light on a Sunday afternoon and have an hour and a half, then you could certainly do a lot worse than this, it’s just that I’m surprised a low-budget, no name comedy from England got nominated over something like Amistad, a movie scientifically engineered to win Oscars, Boogie Nights, a much more interesting movie that actually got 3 nominations that year, or The Sweet Hereafter which got Best Director and Screenplay nominations and is considered one of the best movies of the 1990s.

Rating: C+

Good Will Hunting (1997)


Starring: Matt Damon, Robin Williams, Ben Affleck, Minnie Driver, Stellan Skarsgard, Casey Affleck, George Plimpton

Director: Gus Van Sant

Summary: A child abuse survivor reveals a surprising genius for mathematics

Other Nominations: Director, Actor (Damon), Supporting Actor (Williams)*, Supporting Actress (Driver), Original Screenplay*, Original Song (“Miss Misery”), Original Dramatic Score, Film Editing

It’s still remarkable that this was the first screenplay for either Damon and Affleck, because it’s what makes this film something really memorable. The dialogue is really good for the most part, the characters and their struggles are well-written and developed, and the “bigger” moments feel more realistic and restrained than in lesser screenplays. I like everyone in the movie, but Williams is the standout-partially because he gets the best part and a lot of the best dialogue, and partially because he’s great at expressing both self-assuredness and melancholy without going over the top. If I had a criticism, it would be that it gets overly-sentimental sometimes, which tonally feels off compared to how grounded the movie usually is. Overall though, a very good movie with a great screenplay and some strong performances.

Rating: B+

L.A. Confidential (1997)


Starring: Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe, Kevin Spacey, James Cromwell, Kim Basinger, Danny DeVito, David Strathaim, Simon Baker (his first film)

Director: Curtis Hanson

Summary: Detectives clash while investigating political corruption

Other Nominations: Director, Supporting Actress (Basinger)*, Adapted Screenplay*, Original Dramatic Score, Sound, Art Direction, Cinematography, Film Editing

While it does nothing all that new and covers ground that other great film noirs have, it was fresh for the time period and the execution is so good that it’s still a real joy to watch. Everything here feels so vibrant and alive, moving quickly with a lean and mean screenplay that trimmed what was a focus on eight characters in the source novel to just three, with great results. While the story is solid, it really is the three main characters arcs that carry the story along with the strong performances from those playing them (and really the performances of everyone involved). Basinger was the only one who got a nomination (and she won), which surprises me considering 1) Spacey is excellent and should have gotten a Supporting Actor nom, and 2) Basinger’s relatively small role compared to other members of the cast, although she’s perfect in it. Finally, the score feels nearly identical to Chinatown’s but hey, no need to fix what’s not broke for a noir set in Los Angeles. If you like noirs, this is a great one.

Rating: A-

*Titanic (1997)*


Starring: Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Billy Zane, Frances Fisher, Gloria Stuart, Kathy Bates, Bill Paxton, David Warner, Victor Garber

Director: James Cameron

Summary: Lovers from opposite sides of the tracks find their love tested during the maiden voyage of the doomed ocean liner

Other Nominations: Director*, Actress (Winslet), Supporting Actress (Stuart), Original Song (“My Heart Will Go On”)*, Original Dramatic Score*, Sound Editing*, Sound*, Art Direction*, Cinematography*, Makeup, Costume Design*, Film Editing*, Visual Effects*

Why was Titanic the box office monster that it was, a film that was #1 in the U.S. for 15 weeks? (To compare, the current highest grossing U.S. film ever, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, was #1 for just 3 weeks. It’s because much like Casablanca, it had something for everyone: an effective romance, attractive leads with great chemistry, spectacle, drama, history with an incredible attention for detail, action, and extremely accessible and uncomplicated story with some very memorable scenes that people still remember. It also makes perfect use of CGI to enhance practical effects not replace them and features and excellent score-“My Heart Will Go On” as used in the film is perfect, even if everybody got sick of it in 1998.

Unlike Casablanca though, there are a fair amount of script problems-there had to be considering it had a record-tying 14 nominations yet none for Original Screenplay. The dialogue is relatively weak; it lacks depth for the most part (although the scene with Rose and her mother putting on her corset sticks out as an exception); Billy Zane is an over the top cartoon villain when we really didn’t need one; and finally, it’s overly long and didn’t need to be 3 hours and 15 minutes. The biggest cuts could have been made after the Titanic gets hit by the iceberg, it doesn’t need to be almost half the movie even if they wanted it to feel as close to real-time as possible. While this is not a great movie, I think it has gotten more criticism than it deserves from some circles over the years. It’s an extremely watchable romance that’s epic in scale even if it’s lacking in some of the script areas and it’s longer than it needs to be.

Rating: B

1997 in Review

One Notable Film from 1997


1997 saw the release of three extraordinary anime films: the first was Hayao Miyazaki’s Princess Mononoke, the Studio Ghibli classic that was the all-time highest grossing film in the history of Japan at the time and the studio’s breakthrough film in the west. The second was Satoshi Kon’s Perfect Blue, a brilliant psychological thriller about female identity and gender roles in Japanese society. The third is the film I’ll talk about in depth, and is one of my all-time favorites, one who’s scenes I remember more vividly than probably any other film: Hideaki Anno’s End of Evangelion.

Neon Genesis Evangelion was an anime series that aired for 26 episodes from 1995-96 and really changed the game for what was then a very stagnant industry in terms of content. What started as an enjoyable action-mecha series (i.e. Mobile Suit Gundam, Voltron) with strong characters eventually became a densely layered, bleak and introspective look into depression, self-hatred and the understanding others through its deeply flawed but extraordinarily memorable and well-developed characters. It became a surprise smash hit, but most fans at the time were (extremely) unhappy with the way the series ended. On one hand, the TV finale does provide a great thematic conclusion; on the other hand, it’s clear they had totally run out of time and money, it provided almost no resolution to most of the plot elements of the series or to the personal arcs of everyone besides the main character and was too abstract for most of the audience. So, fans demanded an ending that was more straight-forward and concrete and in 1997 they got End of Evangelion.

End of Evangelion is like if David Lynch directed Bojack Horseman; if you didn’t know it coming in, the opening scenes make it VERY clear that this is going to be an experience. It’s one of the best directed, most visually stunning and powerful pieces of animation I’ve ever seen and it puts you through a wringer like few others will-the kind of film that after the final scene plays, you just kind of sit there silently for a while trying to process what you just watched, feeling empty and drained, but in the best way possible. It’s a movie and series that people still discuss and interpret and find new things to talk about some 20 years after its release, which is a testament to the depth of its characters and themes as well as the fantastic direction from Anno. It also is immensely rewarding on rewatches like few others. I would highly recommend End of Evangelion (which you should not watch before seeing the show) to anyone who’s either an anime fan or a fan of character studies or stories with psychological themes.

Other Notable Films from 1997

Nil By Mouth

The Sweet Hereafter

Men in Black

Boogie Nights

Jackie Brown


Starship Troopers

Waiting for Guffman


Wag the Dog

Air Force One

The Fifth Element

Chasing Amy

1997 in Review

L.A. Confidential: A-

Good Will Hunting: B+

Titanic: B (Won Best Picture)

As Good As It Gets: C+

The Full Monty: C+

Titanic won Best Picture because it was a cultural phenomenon-it was released in December and was still #1 at the Box Office by the time the Oscars were awarded at the end of March. For that reason, I can’t really argue with its choice, even if I thought there were better movies among the nominees, especially L.A. Confidential which is the modern classic of the film noir genre.

For 1998: Two movies that both have Queen Elizabeth as a character (both depictions getting Oscar nominations) and have Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes in them; Roberto Benigni became only the fourth person to be nominated for Director, Actor and Screenplay for the same film (Orson Welles, Woody Allen and Warren Beatty being the others); and the first two WWII combat movies nominated for Best Picture since The Longest Day in 1962, which probably split each’s vote at the Oscars and prevented either from winning Best Picture. But first, the best of list covering the last decade.

Best of 1988-1997

Best of the Nominees

  1. Goodfellas (1990)
  2. Schindler’s List (1993)
  3. Remains of the Day (1993)
  4. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
  5. Silence of the Lambs (1991)
  6. L.A. Confidential (1997)
  7. Unforgiven (1992)
  8. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
  9. Field of Dreams (1989)
  10. Pulp Fiction (1994)

Ranking the Best Picture Winners

  1. Schindler’s List (1993)
  2. Silence of the Lambs (1991)
  3. Unforgiven (1992)
  4. Forrest Gump (1994)
  5. Rain Man (1988)
  6. Titanic (1997)
  7. Dances With Wolves (1990)
  8. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
  9. Braveheart (1995)
  10. The English Patient (1996)

Best Actor/Actress/Director

Actor: Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs, Howards End, Remains of the Day); Runner-Up: Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump, Apollo 13)

Actress: Emma Thompson (Howard’s End, Remains of the Day, In the Name of the Father, Sense and Sensibility); Runner-Up: Jodie Foster (Silence of the Lambs)

Director: James Ivory (Howards End, Remains of the Day); Runner-Up: Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas)

*The English Patient (1996)*


Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Kristin Scott Thomas, Juliette Binoche, Naveen Andrews, Willem Dafoe, Colin Firth

Director: Anthony Minghella

Summary: A man dying from third-degree burns remembers a tragic wartime romance

Other Nominations: Director*, Actor (Fiennes), Actress (Scott Thomas), Supporting Actress (Binoche)*, Adapted Screenplay, Original Dramatic Score*, Sound*, Art Direction*, Cinematography*, Costume Design*, Film Editing*

I’m not going to go full Elaine on it and say it sucked, but this was a very weak for a Best Picture winner. The biggest issue (besides it being painfully slow) is that it’s primarily a love story yet there’s zero spark in this brooding romance. I didn’t see a lot of chemistry between Fiennes and Scott Thomas (even if I like her and Binoche’s performance in the movie in general), and it doesn’t help that the movie lacks the focus necessary to really develop it as it has too many subplots for its own good. For a 162 minute movie with a romance at its core, it somehow rushes the attraction between the characters and doesn’t put a lot of depth into the female love interest. It either needed to be a 3 and a half hour uber epic (as if it wasn’t dull enough a lot of the time) or it needed to be a smaller, tighter story focusing mostly on the main romance and the main themes without meandering so much.

I will say thought that the cinematography and locations are clear highlights (this is a beautiful looking and extremely polished film) and the themes (especially those about borders, nationality and morality) work where love stories falter. The movie has enough merits for me to like it over similar films (such as Out of Africa), but it was too prestige movie-style dour and unfocused for me to really be interested in it.

Rating: C

Fargo (1996)


Starring: Frances McDormand, William H. Macy, Steve Buscemi, Peter Stormare, Harve Presnell, Kristin Rudrud

Director: Joel Coen

Summary: A man’s inept crime falls apart due to his & his henchmen’s bungling and the persistent police work of a pregnant police officer

Other Nominations: Director, Actress (McDormand)*, Supporting Actor (Macy), Original Screenplay*, Cinematography, Film Editing

If there’s one thing the Coen brothers are exceptional at, it’s building memorable characters and a living, breathing world for them to inhabit; rarely is this better exemplified than in Fargo. Most famously, you have two remarkably complex characters in a movie with a 98-minute run time: Marge Gunderson, who’s the kind of person we would all like to know-kind, polite, supportive, intelligent and humble-and makes a huge impression despite not actually being on screen that much, and Jerry Lundegaard who’s an incompetent and unassuming scumbag who wants to be more than he is but doesn’t even deserve what he has. While these characters are outstanding, they are also elevated by terrific performances from McDormand and Macy, along with a great cast in general. McDormand winning the Oscar is a bit surprising because of her screentime and also because accent aside, it’s not that showy a part, at least in comparison to something like Brenda Blethyn’s performance in Secrets & Lies (who was probably the co-favorite going into the ceremony). The other thing I love is the melancholy score throughout that fits perfectly with the cold, snowy backdrop of the film.

So after all that, why do I not feel it’s an outright great film? It’s hard for me to say other than I didn’t fall in love with it. Maybe it’s because the black humor, a significant part of the movie, was solid but never really produced any laughs out of me. For whatever reason, in spite of its merits, it didn’t produce the kind of reaction out of me, mentally or emotionally, that’s part of a “great movie” experience for me. While it’s not one of my top Coen brothers films, it’s still a really good pitch-black comedy with strong characters and performances.

Rating: B+

Jerry Maguire (1996)


Starring: Tom Cruise, Renee Zellweger, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jonathan Lipnicki (his first role), Bonnie Hunt, Jay Mohr, Regina King, Kelly Preston, Jerry O’Connell

Director: Cameron Crowe

Summary: A sports agent strikes out on his own after he loses his job

Other Nominations: Actor (Cruise), Supporting Actor (Gooding Jr.)*, Original Screenplay, Film Editing

A very middling Best Picture nominee, although perfectly enjoyable I guess. The film’s theme is “can you have a soul and success in a cutthroat, ruthless, totally money-driven industry?”; since this movie plays out as predictably as possible, the answer is of course yes. Cruise is fine and I liked Zellweger a lot, but it’s pretty shocking to me that Gooding Jr. won the Oscar for a performance that didn’t really stand out to me as exceptional-especially in comparison to William H. Macy for Fargo, Armin Mueller-Stahl for Shine or Edward Norton for Primal Fear. Nothing is really problematic here, except that Maguire getting fired didn’t have a good enough build-up: he was fired because of his mission statement I guess, but it feels absurd for the company to fire their top agent at the drop of a hat simply because he was critical of the industry in a memo. Unless it was actually because Mohr’s character basically staged a coup? Anyway, it stuck out to me that the plot point that gets the whole plot rolling is executed poorly. It was fine, but still an uninspired choice.

Rating: C+