You Know Who

Bruce Bennett's on Crack, this should have won the Oscar and every nomination it recieved was well deserved. As far as Kidman's performance is concerned it was brilliant and she deserved the Oscar she took home - unlike her performance in that over-rated shlock-fest The Others.

Pinocchio

Is this last post for real? The Hours is merely o.k. As for Nicole Kidman, she's been far better in other movies including Eyes Wide Shut, Moulin Rouge, The Others and Dead Calm. Hell, she was even better in Days of Thunder. O.k., so maybe I was just kidding about that last one, but seriously, she did not deserve an Oscar for The Hours. For the love of Pete, it wasn't even a lead performance. That picture was clearly an ensemble. Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore had equal screen time. Actually, the nominees that year were not that impressive, but of the list, Diane Laine gave the boldest performance. She would have been my pick with Salma Hayek coming in second for her work in Frida. Kidman is a great actress, but I'm convinced that she won the award due to the fact that she was ignored for her superior work the year before. By the way, who is this Bruce Bennett guy?

Nali Schmallsantz

I think everyone sold this movie out short. Granted that LOTR was the most colossal picture of the year but the hours was the best. Be on the look out for The Hours scribe Michael Cunningham's latest book adaptation - A Home at the End of the World. If they would have left the now famous Collin Farrell package in the film it would have made the LOTR puny by comparison.

The Boneman

Bruce Bennett I'm calling you out bro - I contend this is the most thoughtful, human and compassionate film released in the past 5 years. The performances are impeccible and you complain that it's just an exercise in mutual suicide, but if you were paying attention there was only one suicide in this film which was Virginia Woolf's and we already knew about her self-induced demise. I don't consider Ed Harris' jump from the window a suicide rather his decision to end his life on his own terms, his death was a given and his choice was one of bravery and consideration for others rather than an act of cowardice. Furthermore the ending was beautifully hopeful and touching, and was anything but a downer for anyone with a heart and a brain. Take me on. I think you're the smartest critic I know, but I lost a lot of respect for you in your seemingly ignorant bashing of this impeccible film. The best film to challenge LOTR and I think the most touchingly beautiful piece of cinema in recent memory. I stand prepared to debate this one to the finish.

Bruce

Has it been nearly two years since "The Hours" was released? My how time flies..everywhere except while watching this insufferable mess of a film. Call me out, fine. Say I'm on crack. (It's not true, but it might have helped me enjoy this film). Since for many viewers it resonated on an emotional level, let me quickly say: good for you. If a film that depicts its 3 lead women only as depressed, suicidal lesbians and the men in the film as narrowly drawn cariactures moves you--well I'm not here to try and stifle your tears. Let me instead give you this challenge: Analyze the movie based on some basic criteria and let's see if we can look at "The Hours" a bit more objectively.

Question #1 If the film did not feature a host of gifted actors would it have nearly the hype? What is the single most talked about angle of the film anyway? Nicole Kidman's prosethic nose. This film is so trite and heavy- handed, a star-filled cast had to be used to camaflouge it's lack of coherence. Kill me when you find a plot.

Question #2 What is the point of the film? What is it trying to say about the human condition? That depression only leads down one of two roads--jumping out a window or tonsil hockey with a member of the same sex? In other words, the script is dishonest because it never tempers its depression with any discussion or inclusion of alternatives in life. Everyone in the films is supposedly brilliant yet their reaction to life's trials is nearly like that of a mentally retarded person. The pacing, even for a somber movie is unbelievably droll. Don't get me wrong, movies with a serious tone that carry an aura of dread can be particularly effective. ("Traffic" " "In the Bedroom" "Philadelphia") But notice how when characters do so much self-pitying we care less about them?

Question #3 What is up with the music? Phillip Glass' excruciating score with its incessant crescendos that lead nowhere only makes matters worse.

Question #4 Have you seen Julianne Moore's performance in "Far From Heaven?" Compare her one note character in "The Hours" who reads a book and wants to kill herself (can anyone come up with some other compelling reason?) to her multi-facted character in "Heaven" and the difference in a well thought-out and intriguing screenplay versus one that never goes beyond its superficial self-importance is obvious.

Finally, Boneman. AIDS victim Ed Harris' character jumping out of the window was not REALLY suicide???? With that kind of fuzzy logic, you should have been a trial lawyer or a Clinton publicist.

Excuse me now..I have to go fill my pockets with stones and wade in the Virgin River.

BB

The Boneman

I do believe I've hit a nerve, the Comstock Nerve. Unfortuantely before I can respond to the planks of your rebuttal I'm going to need a good nap and a square meal. I'm going to win this little joust however, not because I'm the better writer, Bruce holds that distinction around these parts - but because he dead wrong (pun intended) about this film. PS. I'll concede the soundtrack.

sirdizzy

So what happened to the big lesbian suicide battle of the titans, come on boneman, weigh in, you can take this Gannett puppett. Where you at man?

The Boneman

Duly noted sirdizzy, I'm chomping at the bit to volley back, but much like last month I put off writing my boneman until the last minute and until I've got a workable draft, I'm not going to be able to invest the concentration requisite of besting Bruce Almighty - the dude can write, all I've got is the courage of my conviction about this film. It's comin' just give me a few HOURS!

Bruce Almighty

One slight modification to my sizzling comeback. Director Stephen Daldry IS capable of great work. "Billy Elliot" is one of the finest movies of the past few years and should have been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. You want compassion and sensitivity, this little film has it without the self-indulgence and pretentiousness of Daldry's last effort in gas-bag histrionics. I am anxious to see the musical version of "Billy Elliot" the music of which was just completed by Sir Elton.

Bone

Duly noted Bulldog - I apologize for the delay and hope it doesn't reflect poorly on my zeal. When you read my new Boneman you'll understand why I've had to second guess every word. Rest assured however, I shall defend The Hours with my strongest prose and have you believing it was the best film released during the LOTR era. Next to LOTR and House of the Dead.

The Boneman

Bruce - though it seems as if any film nominated for multiple Oscars could hardly be referred to as an insufferable mess - the truth is many are, hell some even win (cough) Gladiator (cough, cough) Unforgiven. As for your first point about the caliber of the players and would the film have worked with lesser known talent - absolutely. You've made so much about Kidman's prosthetic nose that it's as if you can't see past the damn thing. As a matter of fact I consider it her finest outing as an actress, because it allowed her to disappear and just act. I hadn't seen the film before she won the Oscar and so I was just going by your word - I was a fool. No one has ever been so deserving of an Oscar.

You refer to the material as trite and heavy-handed yet it was based on a Pulitzer prize winning book and unlike Oscars, Pulitzers are never given out to unworthy books. I read the book about a year before I saw the movie and the adaptation was impeccible. You also refer to the men in the film as narrowly drawn charicatures - to this I would agree to a point. I didn't care for Daniels turn - and I guess you could say John C. Rielly's was underwritten, but I think that was a matter of time constraints. I guess it's a hackneyed thing to bring up, but to suggest that Stephen Dillane's performance was anything short of miraculous could only be forcefully coerced from the mind of a catatonic dunce. After the big blow-out at the "train Station' when he casually asks if she's "hungry" - say what you will but I believe that to be the single most moving demonstration of unconditional love I've ever seen committed to film and yet it contained no sentimentality. Name a finer moment? I can think of two possibilities. 1 - When Scout finally meets Boo Radley when he steps out from behind the door and says "Hey Boo?" Or when Kevin Costner gets to play catch with his father. I would be interested to learn as to what you consider to be moments as fine as these? You mentioned such moments in Philadelphia, which contained several devastatingly emotional moments - so I know you're at least not an android.

As for Julianne Moores performance not being as good as her similar turn in Far From Heaven, (and I know Adam is in agreement with that) I can only say you couldn't have been paying close attention. Those queer moments of awkward silence between her and her son, were brilliant. Perhaps it's because I too was an only child with a mother that age in about the same era. But that stuff was so incredibly resonant that I'd prefer you don't even attempt to argue this point. Because I lived it, my mom was a little nuts and I was alone with her so don't trifle with me on this point. My point is that Moore was called upon to do much more as an actress in less time, and to my mind Far From Heaven is incredibly overrated. Particularly Quaid who gave the exact same performance the year before in Dinner With Friends.

As for the more utterly ridiculous contentions you made in your rebuttal, one can only assume that you didn't even see the film. You suggest that these women go running for lesbianism or pills because of their depression. When any fool would obviously understand that the fact that they "were" Lesbians (two of which during times when such things were far from socially acceptable), is what "caused" their depression. Some people are born gay. The Plot my dear Almight Bruce couldn't be more obvious Number one it's a study of lesbian women who share common psychological problems because of it and how the times have change societies outlook on homosexuality. Also the plot is about Richard who's mother (Moore) decides against suicide in favor of flight and how this affects his life, and how it all comes full circle thanks to the mad genius of Virginia Woolf.

Who by the way is the only suicide in the film and she was manic depressive, and schitzophrenic. As for Ed Harris that was Euthanasia not suicide. Come on, he wasn't going to last the day.

No this isn't a movie that's strong on plot it's a wonderfully nuanced study of human behavior - human, not lesbian, or suicidal people - - just people with problems just like you or I. And as for a plot line your beloved Far From Heaven Can be summed up thusly - uptight 50's housewife, finds out her successful husband is gay, attempts to have relationship with black man, (when these things just weren't done) is ostracized from her community and the film ends unrequited and frustrating. It did look awfully good - I'll give you that and Dennis Haysberg to boot.

You're up

Bruce

Boneman. Well done, my friend. I will keep my response short. You've made it easy for me. You were so in love with the book that the movie was visual affirmation of your predisposed feelings of rapture. This can happen quite often, its happened to me too. Our deep and profound feeling for a book can cause us to overlook an adaptations's flaws or give more credit than is due. In other words, in contrast to a neophyte going in to see a film with no prior knowledge, you would have both the advantage of familiarity of the material but, in my opinion, the disadvantage of bias. You will have to admit, you were probably rooting for the film. I commend you on your ability to see the films' weaknesses and admit them and if you sat back and added them up I think you would see "The Hours" as a film with good intentions but not a classic. Not me, of course, I still find it repugnant and overblown on nearly every level. But then, I think "Gladiator" and "Unforgiven" are two of the finest movies of the past 20 years. And I agree with Pinocchio, in terms of Kidman's performance, I can't think of another role in her sumptous career that has NOT been more affecting than her one-note rhinoplastic pity party performance in "The Hours." And that's a mouthful. I'm out.

Bone

First of all you're skirting the issue - you can't dismiss the film on the basis of whether or not I might have been a tad too enamored of the book. I believe it can be scientifically proven that the Hours is a brilliant movie and your facile response only strengthens my resolve. But to hell with the Hours - you liked Gladiator? Please tell me you're kidding - oh Bruce please - three times I have unsuccessfully tried to stay conscious through that shlepic dud. Worst movie to win an Oscar since Unforgiven - which was a movie that starred a guy who has never been heard from since - because he sucked. There was absolutely no redeeming human value to that film and it wins an Oscar?

I'm at a loss.

Adam

Wow!!! What a thread! I love it! Let me be the voice of reason for I didn't hate the film nor did I love it. I'm somewhere in the middle. For starters, I have to back Bruce up on the whole Nicole Kidman thing. I could care less about the fake nose. I want to focus on the performance. Her turn was merely passable. There was nothing particularly extraordinary about it. Boneman--to say this is Kidman's best turn is...well...absurd. Of course this entire discussion is simply a matter of opinion but allow me to express mine. Kidman was stronger in both Eyes Wide Shut (talk about uninhibited), and To Die For (seductive and quite funny). Hell, she even showed more depth in the underrated Birthday Girl which I just had a chance to see for the first time. For that matter, check out her creative work in Moulin Rouge. She deserves extra credit for doing that part and keeping a straight face. As for the Oscar, I don't think she deserved it, but not for the reasons you're probably thinking. Kidman, Streep and Moore shared equal screen time in that picture therefore--techinically speaking--it was really more of an ensemble. Quite frankly, Diane Laine should have won for her gutsy work in Unfaithful. Julianne Moore would have been my second choice for her outstanding work in Far From Heaven, a part that has a lot in common with the role she played in The Hours. The big difference is that in Far From Heaven, her performance had far more depth to it. At any rate, who really gives a crap about the Oscars. Sure, they're fun to watch, but quite often, they're nothing more than a popularity contest. Those who often deserve to win don't. How else can you explain the fact that Martin Scorsese, Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick never won a best director Oscar?

I too am at a loss for words as to why the hell Ed Harris was nomintated for this film. Is he a great actor? Hell yes he is, but his turn in The Hours was completely dull. And Boneman, no matter how you slice it, his character committed suicide.

On the other side of the coin, The Hours certainly isn't a waste. From Bruce's review, you'd think it's one of the worst movies ever made. No way. I could spend months naming movies that were far worse. At the very least, The Hours is a visual stunner, and featured some of the best cinematography of the year. I also have to back the Boneman up on Gladiator. An o.k. movie but certainly not the best of the year. Bruce, do you really think that was one of the best movies of the last twenty years? If so, I would agree--if that list was comprised of over 10,000 titles.

By the same token, I'd have to say the Boneman is on crack if he really thinks that The Hours was the most thoughtful, human, compassionate film of the last five years. What about Lost in Translation, In America, Things You Can Tell Just By Looking at Her, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? And the list goes on!

In the end, I sort of had the same reaction to The Hours that I had to Cold Mountain. They're both beautiful to look at and feature respectable performances, but in both cases, I didn't find myself emotionally connected. At the very least though, The Hours causes debates like the one you two have been having. The same couldn't be said for House of the Dead.

MOVIES RULE!!!!

The Boneman

Alright, Alright - you got me. In a previous lifetime I was a lesbian and I was so miserable I threw myself in front of a twenty mule team wagon. I hope you sleep well you insensitive bastards . . .. .!

Bruce Almighty

I knew it! Can we call you Lezboneman from now on? Hehehe. Okay we've killed "The Hours" so let's shift topics. Gladiator was not even my favorite film that year--I would have chosen "Traffic" or "Crouching Tiger" but I did feel the film had an epic quality that will continue to make it popular through the years. And "Unforgiven?" Who is the guy that "sucked so bad he hasn't been heard from since"? Clint Eastwood? Morgan Freeman? Gene Hackman? Richard friggin Harris? Perhaps you err? I can't believe you didn't get the point of that movie. Not to oversimplify. But here is a brief synopis: When bad men, trying to be good, do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Chew on that for awhile. No, the distinction for worst Big Picture Oscar winner of recent years is a tie. American Beauty and The English Patient. Need confirmation? Which movies have you seen more times and would want to see RIGHT NOW if you had the chance--the aforementioned dreck or "The Sixth Sense," "The Insider" (which lost to Beauty) or "Fargo" or even "Jerry Maguire" (which lost to Patient)? You guys are up.

Lezboneman

Thanks for the synopsis of Unforgiven - I'd forgotten how riveting and inspired that story was. Dude - I'm talking about the kid who played the main character - they called him the Missinsipid Kid or something. That ranks as one of the worst performances in any movie ever and I'm including family reunion home movies. I checked imdb and he hasn't been in a film since - I think they drummed the talentless pinhead outta Dodge. What character indeed?

I have a definite split with you on your other opinions - can't agree with you on American Beauty - no question the best film of that year - but cheers to our mutual loathing of the English Patient. I've been more entertained watching catepillars going across the sidewalk. Oh and wake me up when the inepic glory of Gladiator is over. Such a brilliant writer . . . such misguided opinions. But That's the beauty of the Almighty . . . his ways are mysterious.

Adam

I hope you guys don't mind if I jump in again. Unforgiven receives far too much praise. It's a really good movie but I wouldn't call it greatness. Personally, I think Pale Rider works better as a western and Terminator 2 works better as a film that uses violence to push forth an anti violence message.

I'd also like to defend The English Patient. It sort of reminded me of Cold Mountain, only here, I felt emotionally connected. The love between Ralph Fiennes and Kirsten Scott Thomas was genuine, much more so than the apparent spark between Jude Law and Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain. Ironic given that both pictures were made by the same director. I also happen to think that The English Patient offers up far more depth than The Hours. I felt I knew these characters. The Hours offers very little character depth by comparison. And when you think about it, how could it? The Hours weaves it's story around three women in a mere two hours. Say what you will about English Patient's length. It allows us to get to know it's characters. It's better than both of the previously mentioned movies.

American Beauty is a picture perfect look into the lives of dysfunctional suburbanites. Spacey is suberb and Sam Mendes' theatrical directing approach perfectly compliments that film's sensibility. The Insider is outstanding, but American Beauty was more effective. I will say this though. Russell Crowe deserved the Oscar for The Insider and not Gladiator.

Gladiator is clearly the most overrated best picture winner of the last ten years. Yes, it is a visual marvel, but it doesn't do anything that Braveheart didn't already do in a much grander fashion. I think the Academy just felt they owed Ridley Scott. It's too bad really, because Black Hawk Down and Blade Runner were more worthy of the honor.

Bruce Almighty

I guess I just don't get the whole "picture perfect look inside dysfunction" that seems to sum up so many awful movies these days. The characters in "American Beauty" were false and melodramatic doing an incredible disservice to very talented actors. People give lots of latitude when "serious" films with "serious actors" are asked to perform contrived scenes that in more humble movies is considered insipid and pretentious. Two scenes come to mind from "American Beauty." The fake "fellatio" scene which looks stolen from a "Benny Hill" sitcom (later parodied by Austin Powers). Also consider Chris Cooper's overblown, cliched homophobic Nazi-ish military character. The characters in this movie are interesting on the surface and the film does have moments of beauty (the kid's home movie--of course) but the film hammers us over the head with its self-indulgent loathing for the idea of redemption or tolerance that again, we have "The Hours" disease. Cardboard characters that are cariactures not real people who we can identify with. Comparison: Even with its slighty overblown ending, "The House of Sand of Fog" gives us depth and an understanding of the characters involved. The ending is surprisingly tragic yet believable based on what the film has taught us. Same thing with "The Crossing Guard." The writing revels not simply the DYSFUNCTION but the motivations of its characters. It respects the individuals involved. It seeks not to SHOCK (i.e. "Requiem for a dream," "Trainspotting") but to examine and educate. Want another example. "Dirty Pretty Things" a movie which contains no stars, has a plot about as difficult to explain, about a subject (illegal immigrants)that most people think they have strong feelings about. Yet, by movies end, because of its thoughtful and honest writing we have characters that we are compelled to care about. I am shocked that you guys don't "get" "Unforgiven." But I grew up on Westerns so maybe its generational. There are so many interesting characters and layered meanings to this movie--it has more to say on one page of dialogue about the human condition than anything Oliver Stone will ever direct. I will say this about Sam Mendes--"Road to Perdition" was superior in every possible way to "American Beauty." I don't know how anyone can like "Open Range" and hate "Unforgiven." Oh well, more discussion I suspect.

Lezboneman

I've got a question for you Bruce - I just caught Stardust Memories on KUED - and I became curious as to which Woody Allen films you'd rank in your top three.

Part two - why do you suppose Charlotte Rampling didn't have a much more successful career - to this day I can't erase those images of her lying on the floor reading the magazine from my head?

Adam

For the record Bruce, I didn't hate Unforgiven, I just found it overrated. Open Range is better than people give it credit for.

As for American Beauty, it is a movie and not necessarily based in the real world. When I called it a picture perfect look into the lives of dysfunctional suburbanites, I meant as it was played within the context of the movie. These characters (love them or hate them) are interesting. Much more so than the dullards in Ang Lee's Ice Storm. Much of the tone of American Beauty is intentionally over the top. As for Chris Cooper's "overblown, cliched, homophobic Nazi-ish military character", you've obviously never known such people. They exist weather or not you want to believe it. Cooper is outstanding in this picture and the only thing that bummed me out about his character was all the stuff they left on the cutting room floor. His Frank Fitts is a perfect example of a man who fears what he doesn't understand. And when he comes to that understanding, it all makes perfect sense. American Beauty is a stunningly crafted film with depth, memorable characters and terrific humor. And it is infinitely more interesting than The House of Sand and Fog. That film featured decent performances (minus an absolutely awful turn by Ron Eldard-YUCK!), but much of it was unintentionally overplayed. Without giving too much away, I'll give you an example. Ben Kingsley's "Oscar Clip" scene in the hospital towards the end of the movie would have greatly benefited from a little restraint (as would the scene that occurs shortly after). And the big ending in which that police officer asks Jennifer Connelly who the house belongs to, doesn't work. Connelly's answer is supposed to resonate with power but it doesn't. Why? Because the film doesn't earn it. American Beauty on the other hand, has moments of real drama, but the overall tone suggests that it's a dark comedy and that's why it works so amazingly well.

And movies that shock (i.e. Requiem for a Dream) are pefectly capable of educating. Requeim for a Dream and Traffic were my two favorite films of 2000. Both films had the same goal, but I admired them for vastly different reasons. It isn't fair to put Trainspotting in the same group because it has a different purpose. Trainspotting (a movie I loved simpy because of it's energy--the same reason I love films like Pulp Fiction) is a hyperkinetic look into drug use while Traffic and Requeim for a Dream are clearly examples of films that show the kind of destruction addiction can cause. They--without a doubt--promote an anti-drug message. It doesn't matter if the film shocks or not. If it gets the point across, it gets the point across. Further more, it could be argued that a movie like "Requiem" is even more powerful in the eyes of some because it shows us with unflinching brutaility, what it's like to be addicted. It doesn't glamorize it (a serious misconception about the film). Each character in this picture loses in the end, even the innocent Sara Goldfarb (brilliantly played by Ellen Burnstyn), a lonely woman who becomes an addict for a much different reason than the other characters in the picture.

And by the way, I completely "get" Unforgiven. I like the film, I just don't love it. It isn't a generational thing, it's just a personal taste thing.

I do agree about Road to Perdition. And in fact it shares a similar theme with Unforgiven, only I found "Road" more powerful. I've seen that movie several times, and it gets better everytime I watch it. That's what great films are supposed to do.

Bruce Almighty

I am a big Woody Allen fan. Considering he has made nearly one film a year for 40 years and a good percentage of them are highly watchable he may be the most amazing director of our generation. Certainly the most prodigious. Of his recent work, I really liked "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" (which, tellingly, I enjoyed one evening all by myself at Stadium 8 here in St. George) "Small Time Crooks," "Everyone Says I love You" (A brilliant musical--who knew?)and "Mighty Aphrodite" which caused my infatuation with Mira Sorvino. Certainly "Crimes and Misdemeanors" "Purple Rose" and "Annie Hall" (which stands up pretty well after all these years but still should not have beaten "Star Wars" for best picture at the Oscars) are considered classics. I can still laugh uncontrollably at his early work especially "Sleeper" and "Play it again Sam." I can't remember much about "Stardust Memories" so I will have to go back and check it out. He is not for everyone but I admire his work tremendously. Most people don't know that for a time in the 60's he was a hilarious stand up comic--I mean really really good. Typically neurotic and cerebral but laugh till you cry funny.

p.s. Keep an eye out for my review of "Sky Captain..." you may be surprised at my reaction to the film.