My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 4 - Goodfellas (1990)

Goodfellas (1990; Warner Bros.)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Nicholas Peleggi

Starring: Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci, Robert De Niro

Scorsese returns for his final film on my list.  Goodfellas is the astoundingly-told odyssee of a man’s rise through the ranks of a local crime family, and his ultimate fall.  Henry Hill (Liotta) grew up admiring the local gangs.  The mob guys were the ones with the fancy clothes, nice cars and most of all, the respect.  As he grew up, his ties to a local heavy-hitter named Jim Conway (De Niro) and his association with the violent and unpredictable Tommy (Pesci), drove him to climb the ranks in the Family, at his peak becoming a successful and respected leader.  All seems well, but as a shaky marriage crumbles, and addiction consumes his life, Hill’s legacy becomes a faded memory barely filling an otherwise hollow shell.

As I said in my article on Casino, Scorsese knows how to tell an epic character study that spans many years.  Goodfellas’ narrative is told from the perspective of a man who always loved what he had become, until finally we see what he becomes by the end of the story.  It seems like it may have even been glorifying the life of a gangster, until we see what happens to those who are deep inside.  It’s a hard-edge look at the lives of a few powerful guys and how everything can all so easily fall apart.

Liotta gives a career-defining performance here.  I’ve always liked him as an actor, but I have yet seen him recreate the excellence he showed here.  Scorsese can often bring the best out of his performers and Liotta seems like he was just right for this role.  Good looking, smart, fast, a strong commanding voice… everything he needed was there and he didn’t just take it and run, he owned it.  Every scene he is in is highlighted by a subtle acting style that reflects mood and tone so well that you feel sucked in.  Joe Pesci gives his most famous (and Oscar-winning) role here, notably in the classic “Am I funny to you?!” scene.  Lastly, De Niro gives one of his more understated performances here, never going too far into the extreme, rather finding a nice soft balance.  His emotional scenes are so good, and he has just enough presence to not be overshadowed while never feeling like he’s trying to steal the show, as De Niro is occasionally want to do.  

Goodfellas has gone down as one of the greatest films of all time, and like many movies that share this title, it was heavily snubbed by the tone-deaf Academy.  It received a number of nominations, but Liotta was snubbed his nomination shot, and the film lost the Best Picture nod to the absolutely dull Dances With Wolves, a film that only has a legacy of being the movie Avatar rips off.  1991’s awards have somewhat become notorious, and deservingly-so.  Have YOU heard of most of those movies?  Probably not.  Dances with Wolves, sure.  Awakenings was a good movie, yes.  However, Goodfellas’ Oscar-snub is just another mark on an already messy and unreliable record for The Academy Awards, with most of the more winning films going down as forgotten or mediocre pieces, while the movies that got the finger tend to be highly praised… I’m talking to YOU How Green Was My Valley?! (If you don’t know, look it up)

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 5- Reservior Dogs (1992)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Chris Penn

Reservior Dogs (1992;  Miramax Pictures)

The heist film is a classic genre with a long proud tradition of quality films.  Going all the way back to the silent era, the crime caper has been seminal in the action/thriller genres.  In 1992, Quentin Tarantino brought us Reservoir Dogs, a heist movie where the heist is only part of the story.  The core of the movie involves the interactions between a group of thieves hired to work a job for a local boss.  In an empty warehouse, the tough crew awaits their chance to meet up with their contractor, and finally split to leave this botch-job behind them, but nothing is that simple.  The entire job is a mess from the start, and while all of the hired men claim to be professionals, these guys do not work well together for the most part.  It all culminates in a series of disasters, betrayals and surprises that just make this a fun sit.  

The quality of this film comes down to a few key points.  First off, you have Tarantino’s trademark fast, witty banter and it is top-notch here.  The often funny dialogue and perfectly distinct personalities of the characters makes this film flow smoothly.  For a flick that takes place almost entirely in a mostly-empty warehouse with only a few interactions at a time, Dogs really never feels slow or flat.  It comes down to the dialogue and execution.  Second is the way violence is used in the movie.  While all of Tarantino's films are violent, unlike Kill Bill, which revels in it's 70's exploitation ways, Reservior Dogs' bloodier scenes are disturbing and really nail home the personalities of the characters involved.

There are a few notably memorable scenes, too, arguably the most famous of which involves Madsen, duct tape, a straight razor and Stealer’s Wheel.  If you know the scene you know this movie.  If you haven’t seen this famous movie moment, do not just go watch the one scene.  Instead, seek out Reservior Dogs in full and watch it through.  It isn’t a long movie, but it is a fun quotable, delightfully-exploitative and gritty picture full of everything Tarantino does best, all presented with a snappy screenplay and a spot-on cast of great actors in their prime.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 6: The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

The Silence of the Lambs (1991; Orion Pictures)

Director: Jonathan Demme

Writer: Ted Nally adapted from the novel by Thomas Harris

Starring: Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Ted Levine

I gave a nod to one of Demme’s other great 90’s classics Philadelphia previously on this list.  While Philadelphia was an excellent film with a career-changing performance for its star Tom Hanks, it did lack one thing, a really good villain.  For that matter....  Why don’t we just have two?!

The Silence of the Lambs is the story of a young FBI academy member named Clarice Starling who finds herself entangled in an investigation into the disappearance of a girl.  Believed to be the work of a serial killer who calls himself “Buffalo Bill”, the very desperate federal agency forces the nervous yet bright young Starling to interview yet another, far worse, killer: the cannibalistic psychopath Hannibal Lecter.  The hope of which being she would be able to appeal to him for a profile to aid in the apprehension of Bill, and the rescue of the missing girl.  

In hindsight it’s easy to miss, but The Silence of the Lambs was a very important demarcation point in procedural filmmaking.  Most commonly, the perspectives in these sorts of movies were fixed.  We would see events from one character, or at least from one side of an investigation.  This is in the vein of the classics of Agatha Christie, who crafted her tales in such a way to keep the reader guessing and involved in the mystery.  The Silence of the Lambs takes things in a different direction.  Instead of being trapped on one side of the struggle, or even being a fly on the wall, the story is told from a rather omnipotent perspective.  We see Clarice being called in to work on the case, we see the creepy and famous scene of her walking to the end of the "dungeon" to find an unsettling image of Lecter waiting stiffly for her arrival, but then we see a girl trapped in a well, we see an insane man dressing in drag and dancing almost comically in front of a mirror, and we even get some perspective from Bill’s dog!  The goal here is to craft a story from all of the facts simultaneously, dropping them all in at once, and all the audience can do is hope and wait.  It answers the question of whether or not you would WANT to know what happened, even if everything did not turn out alright.  

This is a film built entirely on the performance of Hopkins as Lecter.  Aside from the standard serial killer plot that wraps the film, this character is the image and identity of this movie.  Even those who have never seen Silence of the Lambs, any of the other Hannibal Lecter movies (not recommended) or the recent TV show, likely knew who Lecter was by reputation.  He has become the standard by which movie villain performances are measured, and for good reason.  Hopkins’ Oscar-winning performance sold this movie.  The plot is actually quite ludacris, Buffalo Bill is insane in a rather comical way and much of the cinematography is flat, except for a few notable scenes.  No.  This is about Lecter.  Hopkins’ performance is so good in this movie, that not only is he the lynchpin here, but his portrayal of the mad doctor makes it nearly impossible to really enjoy any other cracks at the character from other performers, and for me this includes Mads Mikkelsen, who is good, but nowhere near this good. 

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 23 - Barton Fink (1991)

Director: Joel Coen

Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen

Starring: John Turturro, John Goodman

The fourth film from the acclaimed Coen Brothers is a masterfully-complex, harrowing, slow burn (literally) of a black comedy.  The movie centers on the titular upstart playwright who is commissioned to write a screenplay for a B-grade Hollywood picture.  Despite being somewhat uncomfortable with the proposition, he travels from New York to Hollywood and checks into a dreary hotel.  The room is hot, dank, grim and he is unable to sleep due to the endless racket from his neighboring tenants.  As he struggles to even begin writing an outline, Fink is befriended by his neighbor Charlie, a noisy but friendly man whom he takes an immediately liking to.  As he continues to overcome the crippling frustration of writers’ block, Fink runs into conflict with an agent and a producer as well as a writer he looks up to, who is constantly protected by his seemingly-imprisoned wife.  Things eventually go haywire, however, as a shocking series of events unravels Finks idea of what Hollywood really is.

As the movie goes on, the film seems somewhat disjointed, and this is the problem I have with Barton Fink: It is damn hard to write about.  Anyone can write a short synopsis, but the film is a very detailed and intricate series of visual ideas and queues and, probably most essential, sounds.  Every sound in the movie reflects an image shown then or in a different scene, and much of it is so subtle as to be subconscious, as the sounds we hear trigger memories of moments we may or may not even really remember.  Every sound in the film helps paint a picture and while this is always the case with movies, Barton Fink’s sound, mixed with its eerie production design (the sets, setting, scene layout, ect.) create a moody tone that is intensified by the very dark contrast and saturation used in the hotel scenes.

One thing that makes this one difficult to really summarize is it is hard for me to really convey the plot without spoiling anything.  I used the word “disjointed”, and I mean that as a positive.  Barton Fink arrives in Hollywood an outsider.  He is intimidated by seemingly everyone, from the fast-talking, energetic Bellhop named “Chet!”, to the imposing figures of the film industry, who have sudden bipolar changes from excitement to anger in what seems like a single, jarring second.  We explore this strange world through Fink’s own experiences, and everything seems insurmountable.  Therefore, the events that dominate the third act of the film cannot be truly discussed without ruining the movie.  It would be like visiting a fortune teller to find out every detail of your next day.  Nothing would be a surprise.

Barton Fink is a “put yourself in his shoes” sort of film and that can only work if the direction and acting is just right.  The Coen Brothers have a long history of masterful films, from the chilling Blood Simple, to the cult classic The Big Lebowski, to the tense and powerful No Country For Old Men.  So, even though I only listed a few of their titles, it is easy to see why these two filmmakers are considered to some of the best (of not the best) filmmakers of their generation.  In their more-than-capable hands, John Turturro gives one of his best performances in his storied career.  He is an actor who dominated in some of the best films of the 90’s, but has, in recent years, fallen victim to dreadful blockbusters and moronic comedies, which has caused somewhat of a slump, despite steady work.  John Goodman, like Turturro, has a strong career spanning the last twenty-five years or so.  Starting in the 80’s as a bit and character actor before moving on to the super-hit TV series Roseanne (which lasted nearly a decade, a lifetime in sitcom-years).  Goodman became a household name by the early 90’s and during his time on the Award-winning show, he appeared in number of successes, and some of his performances stand out significantly, in-particular those he did with the Brothers Coen.  These are just three people involved in this complex movie which also features supporting performances from the likes of character actor Michael Lerner, Judy Davis, Steven Buscemi and Tony Shalhoub, just to name a few.  Ultimately, Barton Fink has the names, the brains, and the mood that makes for one hell of a climax.  If you have not see this movie, do yourself a favor: Watch it.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 24 - Misery (1990)

Misery (1990; Castle Rock Entertainment)

Director: Rob Reiner

Writers: Stephen King (Novel), William Goldman

Starring: James Caan, Kathy Bates

Rob Reiner used to direct good movies.  He does not do that anymore, and has had a rather bad track record since the mid 90’s, really starting with the dreadful bane of my existence that is North.  That said, during the 80’s and early 90’s he had a good run, and Misery is one of his best directorial works, lagging just behind the powerful A Few Good Men, the charming When Harry Met Sally and the fan-favorite fantasy The Princess Bride.  Reiner has a knack for visual style and Misery has a really cool idea behind it, focusing the camera mainly in a series of wide shots of a single room, putting the audience in the shoes of a man who is royally screwed, although, at least he is not the poor guy from Audition.

Misery follows the story of an author named Paul Sheldon.  After being injured in a car accident, Sheldon is nursed back to health by a woman named Annie who turns out to be a crazed fan.  Under her care, Sheldon is stuck in his present state, with nobody knowing where he is, and thus begins to finish the last novel of his beloved series in a bed in her cabin.  However, when Annie discovers his intent to kill off her favorite character, her already present insanity turns into utter rage, with events that build and tension that has a steady climb over the course of the film.

Misery is freaking terrifying.  It is not the lazy sort of horror with things jumping out at you shouting “BOO!”  No, this is a story where you are meant to empathize with Sheldon as an artist and a victim.  He cannot leave, he cannot fight her, he is almost entirely helpless through most of the film, and Annie knows it.  She has complete control over him, and as events play out, her attempts to keep him there to “fix” the story become more and more desperate, and violent, and a feeling of dread slowly fills the air over the course of the film.  It is a helpless situation that is elevated thanks to two very excellent performances from two superb talents.  Reiner’s direction goes a long way as well, with wide angle shots that appear as Sheldon’s perspective of the room, which has this strange effect of seeming smaller and smaller as the film goes on, and the low angle shots of Annie, stiffly towering over the severely injured man give a sense of intimidation very early in the movie, really before Annie even does anything all that crazy.  This is a creepy story executed flawlessly thanks to three talents in their prime.