Oscar Bait
(01/08/01)
It’s
that time of year again when movie studios get serious. It’s almost as if in December, all the execs
get together and say, “Crap! Oscar
nominations happen in two months, and we’re marketing ‘Dude, Where’s My Car!’ Quick, find me something three hours long with
a serious pedigree!” This year, in
particular, is an odd beast; it’s been average as far as movie years go, but
seems so much worse thanks to last year’s bumper crop that critics huddle
together in dark corners to whisper nervously about whether or not the Academy
will even be able to find five Oscar nominees for each category this
year, much less pick a winner. So after
a summer’s worth of cinematic junk food, around Christmas I saw two Serious
Movies (and one fluffy comedy—I just couldn’t resist, okay?). Here’s what I thought.
I’ll
begin with Taylor Hackford’s “Proof Of Life.” Yes, those of you who were around to see the genesis of my
still-continuing Russell
Crowe obsession aren’t surprised at all that I plunked down $7 for this one. I talked a friend of mine into seeing it
with me. On our way out of the theatre,
I asked her, “What’s the verdict?” She
sighed and said, “There certainly was a lot of luscious Russell Crowe in that
movie, wasn’t there?”
That’s
about all that can be said about “Proof Of Life,” which is about two-thirds of
a really, really great movie sadly hampered by this summer’s little Russell
Crowe/Meg Ryan drama. Adapted loosely
from a Vanity Fair article and a nonfiction book, it tells the tale of hostage
negotiator Terry Thorne (well portrayed by Russell Crowe), who gets sent to various
dangerous places to do “K&R” (kidnap and rescue) operations for the rich
and powerful. Meanwhile, in the
fictional South American country of Tecala, Alice (Meg Ryan) and her architect
husband (David Morse) have just had a tremendous fight when he gets kidnapped
by revolutionaries. Enter Terry, who
promises to get Alice’s husband back but ends up falling in love with her in
the process. Think “Casablanca” for the
new millennium—sort of.
I
say “sort of” because “Proof Of Life” almost, but not quite, succeeds in its
quest to be a romantic adventure story to rival the classics. It’s a movie about big stuff—love, duty,
honor, promises—the kind of thing Humphrey Bogart would be making, were he alive
today. The setup of this film is
astonishingly detailed and true-to-life, and captures the intricate day-to-day
rhythms of life in Latin America perfectly.
But although it’s beautifully filmed and acted, and aided by a typically
superb score from Danny Elfman, it really doesn’t go anywhere. After almost two hours of setup, things get
wrapped up rather abruptly with a commando raid that, while well done, doesn’t
do justice to what had come before. The
movie ties up loose ends, yet the viewer feels as though something is
missing. Also we’re supposed to believe
Terry and Alice fall in love although they only have a few scenes where their
conversation gets past the level of, “I’m worried about my husband.” “Don’t worry, I’ll get him back alive.” I understand that large parts of the Terry
and Alice romance were cut in the wake of Crowe and Ryan’s real-life
relationship; it’s too bad that had to happen, because this movie would have
been better if things hadn’t gotten messy in real life. And no, I’m not just saying that out of
jealousy. (c: The Verdict: You could do worse, but renting
“Casablanca” is a better idea. 3 out of
5.
Considerably
less highbrow, but far more popular, is the Jay-Roach-directed “Meet The
Parents.” Roach is best known for
the “Austin Powers” series, if that tells you anything about what to expect
from this movie. Ben Stiller is
typically funny as a young man meeting his girlfriend’s family for the first
time, and trying to impress them enough to get her father’s permission to marry
her. The odds are stacked against
Stiller from the start: not only is he a male nurse with the unfortunate name
of Gaylord Focker, but his prospective fiancee’s father is a glowering former
CIA agent who goes so far as to give his potential son-in-law a lie detector
test (Robert De Niro, stealing absolutely every scene he is in). Over the course of the movie, Stiller
manages to break his girlfriend’s sister’s nose on the day before her wedding, blurt
out the lyrics to “Day By Day” while attempting to say grace, flood a septic
tank, and spray-paint a cat, all the while paving the way to a standard happy
Hollywood ending.
“Meet
The Parents” is an intermittently hilarious mishmash of credibility-stretching and
somewhat tasteless misadventures. Some
of the jokes are truly great (such as one extended sequence involving a bottle
of wine, an urn containing De Niro’s mother’s ashes, and an incontinent cat),
while others fall flat on their face.
In short, it’s a slightly more realistic version of “Austin Powers,”
with all the pleasures and caveats one would expect from that sort of goofy,
sophomoric comedy. The Verdict: It’s
nothing special, but there are far worse ways to while away an afternoon. 3.5 out of 5.
Which
brings me at last to “Cast Away.”
I had mixed feelings going into this one. Robert Zemeckis is one of those directors (along with Tim Burton,
Ridley Scott, and Kevin Smith) who could film his kid’s tenth birthday party and
release it as a feature film, and I would pay full price to see it. But still, the story of a man lost on a
desert island reeked of “Survivor” profiteering. And could Tom Hanks, one of the more overrated actors of our
generation, carry a whole movie on his shoulders? The answer is a resounding yes.
Tom
Hanks plays a workaholic Federal Express employee who tells his underlings, “We
must never permit ourselves the sin of losing track of time” and alternately
loves and neglects his long-suffering girlfriend (Helen Hunt). These scenes are the only part of “Cast Away”
that feel slow and stilted, although they did provide some necessary exposition
(and it was great to see Hanks being a jerk for once!). It isn’t until Hanks’ plane goes down in a
scarily realistic crash scene which “The Perfectly
Depressing Storm” could have taken some cues from that things really get
off the ground, so to speak. Denied
every luxury but time (and a few FedEx packages which conveniently wash up on shore),
Hanks must struggle to survive in a beautiful, leisurely (but never boring—this
is the shortest two-and-a-half hour movie I’ve ever seen!) sequence which takes
up a good 90 minutes of the movie’s running time. For these scenes, “Cast Away” is essentially a silent film and a
one-character play where Hanks makes fire, forages for food and shelter, practices
some truly disgusting home dentistry, and befriends a volleyball named Wilson. (As stupid as that sounds, it works. In fact, I felt pity for the volleyball. A freakin’ volleyball! How does Zemeckis do it?!)
Anybody
who’s seen the previews will know that Hanks eventually gets back to
civilization. Other reviewers are
probably going to gripe about that, but I didn’t have a problem with it. Hanks’ return to society was so anti-cliché
that revealing that part of his fate didn’t reveal anything; there was much,
much more left to say. His situation
was outrageous and extraordinary, but through it all it never stretched
credibility. His reunion with his
girlfriend, the uncertain yet hopeful ending—perfectly played by all involved.A
lesser movie would have tied everything up with a neat moral message and a
pretty bow and been terrible because of it, but “Cast Away” isn’t afraid to get
dark, thoughtful, and philosophical. Here,
Hanks certainly has a final speech, but it’s not about “how I learned the true
meaning of life.” He talks about
hitting bottom, losing all hope, and having everything and everyone turn
against you—yet continuing to live and breathe, even though you can find no
reason or meaning in it. What kind of
blockbuster movie is this, anyway? Apparently,
the kind that doesn’t come along too often, and truly has something to say.
In
short, “Cast Away” is an experiment and a smashing success. Zemeckis has redeemed himself nicely from
the mess that was “What
Lies Beneath,” and those willing to follow him on this harrowing emotional journey
will surely not be disappointed. My
only question is how a mediocrity-enamored, non-risk-taking major studio was
ever coerced into releasing this piece of art.
This is one of the best films of the year. The Verdict: I don’t even like Tom Hanks. I shudder to think how much those of you who
do will love this movie. 4.5 out of 5.
Copyright (c) 2000 by Beth Kinderman. This is my original work, so please respect it.