The Part-Time Critic

25. Stalingrad (B-)

24. Poetic Justice (B)

23. This Boy's Life (B)

22. The Legend of Fong Sai-Yuk (B)

21. The Age of Innocence (B)

20. Hot Shots! Part Deux (B)

19. Searching for Bobby Fischer (B)

18. Rudy (B)

17. Philadelphia (B)

10. In the Name of the Father (A-): This film is the second collaboration between director Jim Sheridan and actor Daniel Day-Lewis and scored seven Academy Award nominations (winning none of them). The film is based on the true story of how Gerry Conlon, his father, and other members of his extended family were wrongly accused, framed, and imprisoned for an IRA bombing in London during the 1970’s. Rather than a examine the particulars of the IRA situation, the film uses the story of Gerry Conlon and the injustice done to him by the English government as a parable of vengeance and justice. Yes, the particulars of the story are important to inform and you do walk away with a general sense of what happened in this story, but the film is more pre-occupied with embodying the different responses we can make to injustice: should we just accept it (Gerry Conlon), violently react (Joe McAndrew), or peacefully protest it (Giuseppe Conlon)? Gerry Conlon is one of Daniel Day-Lewis best performances and I’m aware at the stiff competition that is. Daniel Day-Lewis becomes Gerry – an immature, ignorant, and unprincipled young man with no real direction or passions in life. After he’s dumb enough to steal roofing metal in Dublin causing an IRA riot his father Giuseppe sends him off to live in London. It’s there where he happens to be in the wrong place and time to be framed for an IRA pub bombing. I greatly enjoyed watching Conlon struggle to care in the face of injustice and though his father Giuseppe (who is imprisoned alongside him) starts a peaceful letter campaign, Gerry despairs. There’s a wonderful mid-section of the film in prison where the real bomber, Joe McAndrew, winds up and showcases what it looks like to stand up and violently respond to injustice. The lessons Gerry learns here become the heart of the movie and move him to accept his father’s (who is now dying) ways. It’s not a perfect movie, but it is a moving story of injustice and how our responses can to it can either continue to perpetuate injustice/violence, or can seek to disarm it. Well written, directed, and performed, this is one of the best court/prison films out there.

9. Shadowlands (A-): In Shadowlands, Anthony Hopkins tackles the famous Christian academic and writer of the children’s books like The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis. Hopkins depicts Lewis as a comfortable king of his land; an Oxford academic who writes, lectures, teaches, fellowships with his friends, and always wins debates. In his lectures he feels free to opine about how pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world, in his teaching he feels free to challenge his students, and in his fellowship he feels confident he’s always right. Into this wonderful Oxford existence, the middle-aged American divorcee Joy Gresham descends initially as a fan and letter writer to Lewis. After their first meeting, Joy’s bluntness and matter of fact nature challenges Lewis, befuddles him, and from Hopkins acting cues, you can tell he’s charmed by her. Their relationship blooms as she makes visits to Lewis’ house and stays for Christmas. Joy has the intellectual depth to stand toe to toe with Lewis and her lack of “society airs” allows her to crash through normal social barriers and put Lewis’ academic world on their heels. The leisurely film, directed by Richard Attenborough in his old-school classic style, recounts their eventual marriage (in secret and in public) that challenges Lewis’ views of friendship/love and then Joy’s tragic early death which challenges Lewis’ view of suffering and grief. The movie wisely shows Lewis giving his lecture on God’s use of suffering several times, until Joy’s suffering and death of course. Lewis struggles with his grief over Joy. It’s always easier to opine on death and suffering when its from the safety of a pen! The film’s screenplay by William Nicholson (he wrote a television version in the 80’s then adapted it to a play and then now to this film) captures the spirit of Lewis and Oxford well, distilling his reflections on love and grief earned during this consequential stretch of his life and making great use of his own words from his beloved writings. I love how the film sublimely ends bringing together so many of the films thematic and visual cues with a grieving Lewis and young Douglas (the son of Joy) sitting before the wardrobe that was an inspiration for his kids series as they weep (in “happiness”) over the Joy’s death. Powerful stuff for those willing to get past the slow and somewhat stilted nature of the film.

7. The Remains of the Day (A-): The Remains of the Day follows the comings and goings of the fictional Lord Fox’s major British country home Darlington House just before and after World War II. The story centers on Anthony Hopkins’ loyal butler Mr. Stevens (we never learn his first name) who runs the house at the highest of standards for Lord Fox. In talking to another butler, Stevens reveals his personal philosophy, “Mr. Benn, a man cannot call himself well-contented until he has done all he can to be of service to his employer. Of course, this assumes that one's employer is a superior person, not only in rank, or wealth, but in moral stature.” Stevens’ view is the mindset that dominates British society. To be “in service” – to be a maid, butler, housekeeper, etc. – in the Britain of old meant to make your entire life subservient to the pleasure of the aristocratic. A good life “in the service” was having the dignity of serving someone higher and assumedly better than yourself. Stevens believes this to his core and the film’s story goes about subtly challenging that view again and again. Where does our value truly come from? There first come challenges in the obvious ways, like never being called by your first name, doing hard work, living within the grounds of the great manor house. However, the film introduces smaller challenges like when Lord Fox asks Stevens to help share the truth about “the birds and the bees” to his adult godson (Hugh Grant) because it would be easier coming from Stevens. In another thread, Stevens invites his frail father to come work at the house as an under-butler. When it is clear Steven’s father has taken ill and likely on his death bed, it is clear that Steven’s is torn between his duty to serve the Lord (they are having an important dinner at the time) and the duty of a son. Stevens later hears of his father’s death and won’t immediately attend to him so he asks the housekeeper Ms. Kenton (Emma Thompson) to close his eyes for him. When he does later check on his father, it’s a short moment, and Steven’s ends it by asking the doctor to check on the feet of the house guests. Speaking of Ms. Kenton, the two are largely in charge of running the house and though they butt heads at times, it’s clear that there is a chemistry between them. When Ms. Kenton drops hints that she is open to something more, Stevens clearly feels torn between sharing his feelings and the thought that his entire life, even his love-life, is given over to the Lord he serves. Ultimately, he shoves down his feelings and puts on a good business face as he loses his chance with the lovely Ms. Kenton who goes off to marry another man late in the film. Throughout all of this, Anthony Hopkins’ performance is a masterclass of subtlety – always hiding the conflicts beneath the surface without becoming a complete cypher (this is much harder to do than you think.) The final thing the film challenges Stevens’ on is giving over his political voice/moral judgment to his Lord as well. The film, despite being largely fictional, gives us a glimpse into the politics of pre-World War II Britain and how Lords who saw themselves as integral to international affairs, hosting world diplomats and having conferences at their manors. It turns out that his Lord Fox favored appeasement of Germany and worked (well-intentioned) hard to that end. When discussions of the war and the Jews come up, Stevens is silent and demurs to the “moral superiority” of his Lord. We are treated to a framing story of Stevens after the war and downfall of his Lord, when the house is purchased by an American diplomat. Stevens wants to rehire Ms. Kenton and as he travels the countryside he finds himself hiding his affiliation with Lord Fox – ashamed of the reputation he deserved. More insightfully, it’s clear that Stevens realizes what a mistake his life was, that to have given over to Lord Fox was a foolish thing to do, and the pain of his regret is quietly moving. This is absolutely one of the best British costume dramas. Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Mr. Stevens is a great character study and window into a world that wasn’t as long ago as we’d like to believe.

4. Gettysburg (A) is a sweeping, detailed, and moving re-telling of the crucial Civil War battle of Gettysburg, The three-day battle in the small Pennsylvania town is largely told by following several different strands of characters ranging from the generals in charge down to the individual commanders and soldiers of various regiments and companies. The Confederate general Robert E. Lee, played with Southern grace, patience, and intelligence by Martin Sheen, and his right-hand man General Longstreet, played by Tom Berenger as more cynical and practical but no less intelligent, stand out most on the rebel side. Though we meet various generals and leaders on the side of the Union, none stand out like Jeff Daniel’s portrayal of the Maine college professor turned Union leader Joshua Chamberlain (sporting an iconic mustache). We first meet Colonel Joshua Chamberlain not long after he’s become a regiment commander and he has a small crisis to deal with, a beautiful little detail that gives us a glimpse into the character and context of the times. A small company has been taken prisoner for refusing to fight and given to Chamberlain’s command. Chamberlain must deal with them, force them to fight, or shoot them. He refuses to use force and instead speaks to them kindly and with a moving speech filled with details and themes about war aims. Chamberlain’s sincerity and vulnerability is instantly endearing here. He’s one of many strands the movie is able to juggle that give us both sympathetic and informative portraits of the individuals who made up the near 200,000 men involved in the battle. While it is still a Hollywood production complete with a stirring musical score, there is a unique commitment by the creative team to tell the story as historically and objectively as possible (if not a little too idealistically at times). The film is a long-simmering passion project of writer/director Ronald Maxwell as well as Ted Turner who helped to finance the film. It was filmed largely on the actual historical battle sites and used large numbers of Civil War battle re-enactors to fill out the large army sequences. Alongside the individual stories there is great care and attention paid to showing the maneuvering and strategy that led to the greatest battle on American soil. I do wish more maps or helicopter shots were used here, for unless you intuitively understand the geography of this battle, it can be hard to keep all of the various maneuvering and commanders clearly in your mind. We are shown portions of three major battles on each day: Buford’s stand and holding of the high ground on the first day, Chamberlain’s heroic defense of Little Round Top on the second day, and Pickett’s tragic charge on the final day. While these battles are dramatic and shot well, I do wish they were filmed with a little more gravity in their violence. Unfortunately, what we see is mostly old school film battles where people fall down when they are shot or jump as cannons explode near them – all bloodless. Violence in battle at the time of the film was largely kept to the Vietnam war and spared in World War 2 or Civil War depictions (with some exceptions of course) – seeing it as more noble or something. Thankfully that would largely all change after Saving Private Ryan in 1998. Given the commitment to historicity, I think a commitment to showing the atrocity and horror of war here would have been proper. These are minor problems for an otherwise masterful war film that should be sought out by cinephiles and history lovers alike.

Commentary: Schindler's List was a personal passion project that Spielberg identified in the 1980's and saved until he felt he was mature enough to tackle. I'm not sure another filmmaker alive or dead or yet to come has the compilation of skill/technique combined with a sense of populist storytelling that could have produced the masterpiece of Schindler's List. It's a film of fine balances: a focused yet expansive screenplay, an accessible yet artistically told story, a powerful and direct feel while remaining artistically composed and cinematic, and a portrayal of evil that is gut-wrenching yet finding the hope within. The film represents a once in a lifetime achievement of art and storytelling that could only have been crafted by the greatest director the medium has ever known. 

Commentary: The large ensemble cast of Schindler's List is headlined by three powerful performances: Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler, Ben Kingsley as Itzhak Stern, and Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth. Each performance captures their character perfectly - being dramatic enough to make a lasting impression, but not so dramatic that they ever feel "written" or inorganic to the time period. Each of the major characters feel plucked from history and brought into our faces. Beyond the central characters however, the enormous cast includes many moving and memorable portrayals of Jewish individuals/families throughout the various events of the story. When we get to the end where the actual surviving individuals from the story are paired with their onscreen performers to place rocks on Schindler's grave, one can't help but feel overwhelmed by the achievement the ensemble cast has pulled off.

Commentary: This might be one of the most stacked acting years of all-time and oddly one that lacks that one iconic performance to make it an easy choice. There's an immense amount of iconic supporting characters here with Ralph Fiennes' SS Commander Amon Goeth, Tommy Lee Jones' Federal Marshall Sam Gerard, and Val Kilmer's gunslinging Doc Holliday as true standouts. There's also some career best comedic performances from Robin Williams and Bill Murray here as well. At the end of the day, I think there's no performance better than Liam Neeson's Oskar Schindler. The confidence he shows in schmoozing with Nazi top brass, networking for black market goods, or wooing women is not easy to pull off as convincingly as he does. I love how subtly the story demonstrates Neeson's moral evolution - from an exploiter of Jewish labor, to arguing with Goeth about the true nature of power, to weeping over how many more he could have saved. It's a career best performance from a great actor delivering one of cinema's all-time great heroes. 

Commentary: Angela Bassett gave a career defining performance as Tina Turner in the biopic What's Love Got to Do With It? Although Bassett doesn't sing in the film (Turner provides all the vocals), she finds a way to embody the beloved singer in a way that captures Turners physicality without ever feeling like it's just a fancy impression. Bassett handles the dramatic sequences well, including the tough to watch abuse sequences. Her performance is more than just about being a victim but shows us Turner's strength through it and allows us to sympathize with her reasoning in a situation where it would be easy for the audience to blame her for not leaving Ike earlier in her life. It's in the musical scenes where Bassett's physical embodiment of Turner truly comes to life. I've not seen much of the real Tina Tuner in my life, but even I was able to immediately notice how accurately Bassett was able to recreate the subtle moves and not so subtle face gyrations of Turner's performance style in Bassett's recreation. Bassett's Turner is so good that I think she has become the standard to compare all other female biopics too. 

Commentary: The screenplay for Schindler's List is a masterpiece. The decision to use the story of Oskar Schindler as a window into the holocaust turned out to be a genius one. The decision wasn't without risk however, Many people believe that the decision to center the story around a German rather than a Jewish character was irresponsible. I think if done poorly, then the critics might have been right. Instead, the final product assuages those concerns. Through a fictionalized version of Schindler's story, the film is able to provide a unique window into most of the major steps that led to the holocaust: the registrations of the Jews, stripping of businesses, being forced to wear the star, re-location to ghettos, imprisonment in camps, forced labor, and ultimately murder. Along with the major elements of the holocaust, the film also finds ways to include many of the grisly details and fates of the real world story: how some Jews took the chance to police their own people for better situations, the different types of working conditions within the concentration camps, different classes/types of people dealing their suffering, how children were handled, etc. In the end, Schindler becomes the entryway for the viewer because his character arc is largely meant to parallel the arc of the viewer watching it. As the story progresses and Schindler encounters Jews and observes their treatment at the hands of the Nazi authorities (he witnesses the liquidation of the ghetto from a hill overlooking the city), he undergoes a slow moral change. Like Schindler who observes the treatment of the Jews mostly from a distance, we the viewer are also watching this film from a distance...on a screen. We too must grow to care for them as we learn of their lives, their wishes, their families. and their plight. We have been told about the Holocaust in our schools (hopefully!), but they are largely just words on the paper, maybe with a a few pictures to help. Schindler's character arc mirrors the arc this story is attempting to give to the viewer as well. After we view what Schindler views, know what he now knows, will we grow to see these people as humans with value or will they just remain names on a list in history? That's a responsible and well-written screenplay!

Commentary: The Nightmare Before Christmas is a gorgeously animated stop-motion film that features a unique and quirky Christmas/Halloween crossover story. Jack Skellington is the Pumpkin King and he rules over Halloweentown ensuring a successful Halloween year after year. Unfortunately, Jack’s success has become routine and in search of something more fulfilling he wanders the woods and finds an entrance into Christmastown. Blown away by the ideas of Christmas he decides to capture Santa Claus and run Christmas himself. After Jack’s take on Christmas fails, he rescues Claus from the Boogie Woogie Man and Santa is able to save Christmas. It’s a simple story that’s all plot and no substance. There’s no reflection on the meaning of Halloween or Christmas, Jack doesn’t really gain any new insight about himself (except find a girlfriend). The true pleasure of the film is in the stop-motion animation, the art direction that feels like Dr. Suess and Tim Burton were mixed in a blender, the quirky characters, and the music. If you just sit back and not worry about the story, it’s possible to quite enjoy some of the memorable music and songs as well as characters (Boogie Man really stands out here). The problem for me is that I really do like my stories being about more than just things happening and on that note – I’ve always found this animated film rings a bit hollow.