On the Quality of Things, #11
Wade & The Oscars - A Marriage Made in Purgatory

by Wade Stuckwisch
illustration by Jacob Chabot

I will make one guarantee regarding this year's Oscars: Charlize Theron will win the Oscar for Best Actress for her role in "Monster." I haven't even seen the movie - all I saw was the trailer a couple months ago. Just the trailer was enough to convince me that Charlize Theron will walk away with the Oscar for Best Actresss. You can bet on it.

(Note: neither Wade Stuckwisch nor Great Hoboes of New York will be responsible for funds lost on betting on the Oscars. Be advised that Wade is a notoriously lousy gambler.)

Usually I use this column at this time of the year to yak about the Oscars. Honestly, this year, I'm just not that enthusiastic about the Oscars. Usually I would complain about my favorite movie of the year getting snubbed, or about some entirely unworthy picture being a front-runner. But this year, for the first time I can remember, my favorite movie of the year actually got nominated, that picture of course being "Lost In Translation." Not that it'll win - I still have enough faith in the power of major studios to believe that, while Miramax have been blessed with a tremendous and very deserved history of Oscar wins, a really miniscule independent studio like Focus Features doesn't have a prayer to promote a picture all the way to the podium on Oscar night. (I add, as a caveat to that conjecture, that a major studio may own Focus and I just don't know it, in which case all bets are off.) Speaking of, how about "Cold Mountain" getting snubbed in favor of "Seabiscuit"? I pity anyone who had to be within a 100-yard radius of Harvey Weinstein the day that got announced. I haven't seen either so I can't be a fair judge as to the equity of that decision.

As for the probable winner, I honestly feel like the Best Picture category is a toss-up this year. The question that springs to mind most often regarding this year's nominees is, "Sure, it was good, but was it Oscar good?" "Master and Commander" was impressive, but it wasn't exactly astounding. "Mystic River" was moving, not to mention bestowed with brilliant performances by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, but it wasn't exactly memorable. (Seeing it, I couldn't help but compare it less than favorably to previous Oscar nominee "In The Bedroom." Plus, I kept thinking about how it was directed by the same guy responsible for "Blood Work." I know that's a completely unfair comparison, buy hey, "Blood Work" was a really, really awful movie.) As I said, I haven't seen "Seabiscuit," but others I've met have compared the experience to "a warm bowl of oatmeal" - heartwarming and satisfying but bland. So that leaves "Return of the King" and "Lost in Translation": a fantastic film cursed by its genre and an miraculous film too small to be a winner. On the other hand, the fact that a female director has never won an Oscar for Best Picture or Best Director could garner a significant number of votes for Sofia Coppola and "Lost in Translation." (I like the odds that Coppola will win for Best Director, which is comforting since she really deserves it.) And considering that nothing really distinguishes "Mystic River," "Master and Commander" and "Seabiscuit" from each other, theoretically they could all split the vote and "Return of the King" could sprint ahead for the win in the last leg. And how cool would that be? I feel like I'm personally too close to "Return of the King's" source material to make an unbiased judgment, but apart from "Lost in Translation" it was definitely my favorite picture of the year. Plus, can the possibly Academy ignore three fantastic and, incidentally, extremely profitable movies? I guess we'll see this Sunday, won't we?

But enough with the gambling metaphors and Oscar babble. I'm figuring that everyone is probably tired of hearing about the Oscars at this point anyway, since every critic talks about them to no end this time of year. (Since the other option would be to discuss movies like "Torque" and "Catch That Kid," I think that failing is forgivable.) So I'm going to devote the rest of this column to a few movies that probably won't be seeing much red carpet action this February 29th. (Insert Molly Ringwald lesbian joke here…)

The Last Samurai: Speaking of films not good enough to get an Oscar, there was this competent but somewhat disappointing Tom Cruise vehicle. There are very few movies with a budget this size that I have ever actually sat and watched and actively felt that they were poorly directed. Despite having pretty sets, a fantastic setting and a premise with potential, somehow it seemed to trip over its own feet whenever it came to point a camera, cut two pieces of film together or maintain any sense of drama. I would add that Tom Cruise seemed flat, but I think he was simply out-performed by several of the other actors in the film, especially Ken Watanabe. What this movie lacked in star power or deft direction, however, was more than compensated for with ninjas. Samurai versus ninjas? You gotta love that. Worth the price of a rental, but perhaps not worth a special trip to the video store.

Big Fish: Hold on, Tim Burton made a GOOD movie? Seriously? About damn time! This movie more than makes up for "Planet of the Apes." And considering how bad that movie was ("Hey, how about this for a climactic twist… GOD drops from the sky! No-one's ever done that before!") I think that says it all. Ewan MacGregor was born to play a cocky wunderkind. Now somebody please keep Tim Burton away from big studio paychecks so he keeps making good movies like this.

Something's Gotta Give: How on earth did Diane Keaton get an Oscar nomination for this movie? I mean it was a good movie, and it's nice to see Hollywood realizes that they can occasionally target an older audience with something sophisticated. Diane Keaton, on the other hand, was awful in this movie. Basically she had two moods for the whole movie - giggly and spastic - and she was barely believable emoting either. It was definitely a more mature and realistic look at relationships than most romantic comedies, up until someone decided the movie needed a tacked-on happy ending. Wait, does that qualify as a spoiler? Oops. Personally, I think the audience expects that by now.

Peter Pan: When I started seeing ads for this movie, my first two thoughts were, "Why is everything dark blue?" and, "What is Peter Pan doing in 'The Matrix'?" Luckily, this update of "Peter Pan" defied my expectations. The story delved much deeper into the more serious themes of the book than, say, the Disney version, and the odd dark color scheme actually worked quite well once you got into the movie. However, I still don't believe in faeries and I don't care who knows it. Ha ha ha ha ha. I love being a curmudgeon!

Along Came Polly: If it's true that most Hollywood movies are made to appeal to 17-year old boys, most romantic comedies must be targeted at very, very stupid people. That said, "Along Came Polly" seemed to be aimed simultaneously at 17-year old boys and an older, slightly more discerning audience. Yes, I'm a die-hard cynic, which does not make me an ideal audience for most romantic comedies, but who doesn't love toilet humor? Philip Seymour Hoffman is hilarious as Ben Stiller's grotesquely discombobulated best friend, who also happens to be the former star of a popular '80s movie. Hank Azaria and Alec Baldwin are quite amusing as well, and Ben Stiller and Jennifer Anniston make a better couple than, let's say, some other actors names Ben and Jen I can think of. Not bad.

The Butterfly Effect: You know, all of us are angry and male and in our 20s at some point (unless you're a girl or under 20, I guess), and then some girl rejects us, and we get the idea to write a really appallingly negative screenplay where everyone is a rape victim or a murderer, but most of us don't actually do it and get someone to put Ashton Kuchner in it. I guess overall "Butterfly Effect" wasn't a bad movie, but all the juvenile angst was just a touch over-the-top. Also, whoever covered "Behind Blue Eyes" for the closing credits deserves to be blown up by an exploding mailbox several times. (I think it was Limp Bizkit. Just one more reason to hate Fred Durst, I guess.)

Barbershop 2: Awesome. Fantastic. Best movie of the year so far. And it had Tom Hayden's kid and Kenan from "Good Burger" in it. Unfortunately I never saw the original, which I'm told this sequel pales in comparison to. But it's still better than, say, any movie Ashton Kutchner's ever done. (And he was in "Dude, Where's My Car?")

The Cooler: Man, I had almost forgotten what it was like to see a movie based on interesting characters instead of exploding explosive things. The whole old Vegas/new Vegas casino story thing has been done to death at this point, which serves to blunt the effectiveness of this movie to an extent. But the character conflicts are interesting enough to keep you in the story, and William H. Macy, Alec Baldwin and Maria Bello are a treat to watch. Hooray! Make ten sequels!

Monster: OK I lied, I did see this movie, but it was after I wrote the intro for this article. So when Charlize Theron wins for Best Actress, I retain all claims to clairvoyance. Christina Ricci somehow seems much less out of place as a young awkward lesbian than most of the roles she's been in recently. Theron and Ricci and downright awe-inspiring in this movie, and it was both much less brutal and much less preachy than I feared it could be. Great movie, go see it.

50 First Dates: OK, let's squeeze one more in before the submission deadline rolls around. God, the middle of this movie was boring. I mean it's admittedly hard to do a romantic comedy involving brain damage with a shred of seriousness and have it still be funny, and somehow these guys did it. On the other hand, a lot of the Adam Sandler-isms in this movie are getting a little tired (wacky characters with funny foreign accents, there's a gender-ambiguous person, Rob Schneider has an especially unfunny foreign accent) but the story of the movie is played out well and comes to a satisfying conclusion without being sappy or forced. On a scale of "yes" or "no," I would say, "yes."

OK gotta go. If there are any spelling, grammatical, or major factual mistakes in this article, I blame Tyler.

-February 26, 2004