FARGO
YEAR = 1996
GENRE= Crime, Black Comedy
LENGTH=100 min.
MPAA=R
DIR. =Joel and Ethan Coen
STAR =William H. Macy, Steve Buscemi, Frances McDormand
ACADEMY AWARDS=Director, Actress (McDormand), Original Screenplay
Nominations: Picture,
AFI RANK = 84
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT=NO

GRADE= 8

A rather depressing black comedy from the Coen Brothers, about the desperation and banality of life in provincial America. The gruesome series of events centered around a staged kidnapping of a corrupt car salesman's wife , unfold in such a matter-of-factly, almost documentary-style fashion that the movie is never particularly exciting to watch. But the plot is really not the main point of "Fargo": it's the portrayal of a stagnant and mindless society, a study in human-animal behavior, if you will: brutal, unflinching yet sarcastic enough to inspire laughter. None of the characters are designed to invoke sympathy: even the consistently bland policewoman whom the unenlightened might mistake for a hero. Other modern directors also operate by these principles, mainly Neil LeButte and Todd Solondtz (not to mention Mike Judge), but many of their characters are far more involving. Which is not to say that "Fargo" is a mediocre film (the Coens certainly achieve their purpose), it just has no aspiration for true greatness. Fargo's significance is too early to judge, but with years to come it will only increase, especially in the light of at least three snow-filled crime dramas made within two years of its release. It seems that the Coens had almost launched a miniature genre: Film Blanc.

Back to Top

PULP FICTION
YEAR = 1994
GENRE=Crime, Black Comedy
LENGTH=153 min.
MPAA=R
DIR. = Quentin Tarantino
STAR = John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel
ACADEMY AWARDS= Original Screenplay
Nominations= Picture, Director, Actor (Travolta), Actress (Thurman), Sup. Actor (Jackson)
AFI RANK = 95
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT= YES
GRADE = 10

Much ink has been spilled in the film's praise, so I will only contribute a few undoubtedly redundant statements. "Pulp Fiction" is not just a film: it's an EVENT that is central to its decade, a phenomenon capturing the spirit of its era and causing such severe turmoil in the industry, that virtually every crime film made after 1994 was indebted to it in some form or another. Furthermore, it should be termed "absolute masterpiece", since it oversatisfies every requirement of pure cinema: cinema as maximum entertainment. Tarantino seems to be perfectly aware of how to make a classic: the ingenious harmony of the plot structure, dialogue, casting, editing, in other words everything from the soundtrack to the obligatory inside jokes. "Pulp Fiction" is every bit as good as the character-driven gangster films of the past; even better: it casts the seriousness of Noir aside and injects itself with a vital dose of Screwball Comedy of the "hip", sardonic, 90's kind. Never before did such grandiose self-indulgence as Tarantino's produce such genuinely enjoyable and exhilarating results. It is a movie that's simply a pleasure, in fact in true fans such as myself, it had been known to cause a state of mild euphoria, even on the tenth viewing.

Back to Top

FORREST GUMP
YEAR = 1994
GENRE=Comedy
LENGTH=142 min
MPAA=PG-13
DIR. = Robert Zemeckis
STAR = Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise
ACADEMY AWARDS= Picture, Director, Actor (Hanks)
Nominations= Sup.Actor (Sinise), Visual Effects
AFI RANK = 71
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT=NO
GRADE = 2

A clear case of mass appeal prevailing over cinematic substance. The uber-conservative approach "Forrest Gump" takes to US history is frankly misrepresentational at best. In a technique reminiscent of Woody Allen's "Zelig", the title character involves himself in all of the most famous events of the last forty years. Basically, the movie vilifies the protest movements of the 60's and preaches blissful ignorance under the apparently Gump-invented slogan: "S**t happens". Why create a hero who celebrates stupidity as a national characteristic is anyone's guess. Any true American patriot with an intelligence quotient above 75 would be deeply offended by the disservice the film does to our country. But even on a purely objective level, "Forrest Gump" is deeply flawed. Not only does the film shamelessly borrow (or makes a very conspicuous "homage") from such masterpieces as "Midnight Cowboy"; it is also poorly structured. Lacking any visible climax, it has a potential to end at any point during its third hour. Alas, it pointlessly drags on and on, as Tom Hanks gets into even more of his "stupid" adventures.

Back to Top

SCHINDLER'S LIST
YEAR = 1993
GENRE: Drama, War, Historical, Biography, Epic
LENGTH=195min
MPAA =R
DIR. = Steven Spielberg
STAR = Liam Neison, Ben Kinglsey, Ralph Fiennes
ACADEMY AWARDS=Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Original Score
Nominations: Actor (Neeson), Sup. Actor (Fiennes), Costume Design, Sound, Makeup
AFI RANK = 9
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT= PERHAPS
GRADE = 7.5

This grandiose opus that Spielberg directed to cement his name as a "serious" filmmaker, stands in a very dubious position : its very subject is so sacred and untouchable to the civilized world (including film critics), that questioning the film's integrity as of late has been almost equated to denying the Holocaust itself. The truth, however is bitter: "Schindler's List" is far from perfect. Spielberg, previously known for his family-oriented, gawking adventure yarns that usually were as far away from tangible reality as possible, indeed has surprised everyone with the heartwrenching brutality of the Jewish victims' suffering, which he vividly depicts. The most powerful scenes in the film work on a purely instinctive level: they're silent and do not involve familiar individuals, they play almost like some perversely voyeuristic yet priceless footage of Nazi atrocities. The wisely chosen, eloquent black and white cinematography is a definite highlight. Everything else, for the most part, has Spielberg at his old game: he was always best at spectacle, and worst at character development. A dozen or so Jews are singled out as "types", and are traced throughout the film. In over three hours, we learn absolutely nothing about them, they're merely sheep to be saved by Schindler. The man himself is provided with almost no real explanation for his change from an opportunistic slaveowner to a righteous saint-like figure. In the last ten minutes, he simply steps out of character and lapses into a stagy farewell; seductively tearjerking, but completely out of place in a movie that aspires to an authentic representation of the Holocaust. The only character that even begins to approach three-dimensionality is the local Nazi henchman , (Ralph Fineness), one of the most interesting portrayals of a villain in recent cinema. Despite its considerable problems, "Schinler's list" is still widely used to introduce the new, unsophisticated audience to the mid-twentieth century horrors: whether or not is should be, remains open to debate.

Back to Top

UNFORGIVEN
YEAR = 1992
GENRE= Western
LENGTH=131 min.
MPAA=R
DIR. = Clint Eastwood
STAR =Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman
ACADEMY AWARDS=Picture, Director, Sup. Actor (Hackman)
Nominations:Actor (Eastwood), Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Art Direction, Sound
AFI RANK = 98
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT= YES
GRADE=9

By far the best western of the last two decades (it almost inspired a revival of the dead genre), and Eastwood's best film, "Unforgiven" is a study of violence and the price of a human life with distinctly modern, yet timeless overtones. It's also the only film of the decade that truly deserved the "Best Picture" Oscar. Very much a product of Hollywood, but not in the sappy, contemporary sense, rather in a tradition that goes back to great Westerns of the past. As such, the film doesn't really stray from the formula: a mysterious, aging anti-hero aided by a superb supporting cast complete with requisite comic relief, unwittingly seeks justice in a small Wyoming town. Much of this territory, right down to the details, was visited before, but Eastwood manages to put a refreshing spin on things, that elevates this picture above the usual cliches.

Back to Top

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
YEAR = 1991
GENRE= Thriller, Horror
LENGTH=118m
MPAA=R
DIR. =Jonathan Demme
STAR = Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins
ACADEMY AWARDS= Picture, Director, Actor (Hopkins), Actress (Foster), Adapted Screenplay
Nominations: Editing, Sound
AFI RANK = 65
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT= NO
GRADE=7

A fairly standard thriller which seems to lose relevance with time. Except for a prominent female lead, the FBI agent played by Foster, there's nothing particularly innovative about it. Anthony Hopkins does his bit as chief psychopath Dr."Hannibal the Cannibal" Lector with appropriately understated, enjoyable malice, but there's not much else to the film. The plot is not especially exciting, and the antics of "Buffalo Bill", the serial killer on the loose, already feel campy and dated. Besides, the heavy-handed theatrics of these two lunatics were ripe for parody even upon the film's initial release.

Back to Top

GOODFELLAS
YEAR = 1990
GENRE= Crime, Drama
LENGTH=146m
MPAA=R
DIR. = Martin Scorcese
STAR = Robert DeNiro, Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci, Lorraine Bracco
ACADEMY AWARDS=Sup. Actor (Pesci)
Nominations:Picture, Director, Sup. Actress (Bracco), Adapted Screenplay, Editing
AFI RANK = 94
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT= YES
GRADE=9.5

The last great Scorcese picture. All of his trademark elements has been worked to perfection here: the diverse, mood-enchanting soundtrack; baroque camerawork; episodic, colorful narrative. This time, the auteur thoroughly examines the life of a gangster in its criminal aspects: from the foundation of his career path to its frightening demise. Even the thirties James Cagney classics cannot match this excellent film, whose main strength , aside from the directorial prowess, is its cast. Joe Pesci's much imitated, spontaneously violent and funny performance is now the stuff of legend; the normally stiff and conservative Academy had to recognize his talent with the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. "Goodfellas" might not be revolutionary in any sense, it simply represents the very best of the genre.

Back to Top

DANCES WITH WOLVES
YEAR = 1990
GENRE= Western
LENGTH=181m
MPAA=PG-13
DIR. =Kevin Costner
STAR = Kevin Costner, Mary McDonnel, Graham Greene
ACADEMY AWARDS= :Picture, Director, Cinematography, Editing, Score, Sound
Nominations:Actor (Costner), Sup. Acror (Greene), Sup. Actress (McDonnel), Art Direction, Costume Design
AFI RANK = 75
WORTHY OF PLACEMENT= NO
GRADE=5

Costner's expensive, ambitious saga, which supposedly does justice to Native Americans, is great to look at, but in any artistic sense is a failure. Any film set in the American West has at least one default redeeming quality: the landscape. But how about some substance? This one, despite its noble ideas, ends up simplistic and overblown. The audience is treated with a soft-core romance of two whites with late-eighties haircuts, while the Lakota tribe looks on in subtitles. Everyone else is greasy, bearded evil. Essentially, the movie is as condescending toward the Indians as anything before: it takes the tired perspective of a disillusioned, back-to-nature soldier, who , if not for his Civil War injuries, would probably join his blue-coated companions ,shooting wolves instead of "dancing" with them. Instead of actually exploring the tribe's true mentality, we're forced to look at it through the eyes of a clueless outsider.

Back to Top