019. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

019. (21 Jan) Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991, Kevin Reynolds) 7



Kevin Costner and Christian Slater are easy scapegoats because they are, after all, unbelievably wretched here. But Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves fails on most basic levels. Despite all the period sets and costumes, it looks and feels like something a Renaissance fair would put on. As an adventure film, it's boring and obnoxiously self-serious. Without any fun or excitement, this is overlong, tiresome and ultimately painful.

325. Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker

325. (24 Dec) Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker (1991, Martin Kitrosser) 49



I guess that was my mistake skipping Silent Nights 2 through 4 because suddenly this franchise is about a malevolent Mickey Rooney and killer robots. Not that that's a bad direction, but certainly not what I was expecting. Weird Oedipal overtones, child abuse and lies about paternity make this some really messed up stuff. It's overcomplicated, far-fetched and altogether good fun, but it does trudge along rather slowly. I've seen far worse fifth installments.

198. Shadows and Fog

198. (10 Sep) Shadows and Fog (1991, Woody Allen) 39



Carlo Di Palma was hardly Woody Allen's best cinematographer and he's a definite liability considering Shadows and Fog is so much about composition. One can't help but wonder what Vilmos Zsigmond, Gordon Willis or Sven Nykvist might have accomplished in his stead. Despite an inexplicable $19 million budget, this looks murky and amateurish, matching a frustratingly obscure screenplay. It's all the more annoying that a particularly shrill Mia Farrow gets most of the screentime when Kathy Bates, Lily Tomlin, Madonna, John Cusack and Julie Kavner shine in bit parts.

179. The Ox

179. (29 Aug) The Ox (1991, Sven Nykvist) 59



At the very least, The Ox is further evidence that Sven Nykvist may have been the greatest cinematographer ever to live. He crafts a bleak world slowly drained of color, as a peasant family struggles after killing an ox to feed themselves. The stakes here are always high, but Nykvist has a tough time making soapy drama convincing and compelling. He gets broad performances from Stellan Skarsgard and Ewa Froling, while Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann fare better.

Double Feature: Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) & The Prince of Tides (1991)

Kiss of the Spider Woman:

This adaptation features an Oscar-winning performance by William Hurt as a gay man named Luis Malina, who shares a cell with political activist Valentin Arregui (Raul Julia) in a Brazilian prison. To pass the time, Luis describes a German movie he loves in great detail, and he even nurses Valentin back to health when he is poisoned. However, Luis is trying to get information out of his fellow inmate in order to secure an early release. But Luis falls in love with the man. In the meantime, Valentin learns to trust him, which creates a problem for Luis: whether to aid his new friend or betray him.

The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Director (Hector Babenco), Best Actor (Hurt), and Best Adapted Screenplay. With the film's only win, Hurt does give a good performance, but Julia deserved a nomination as well.

The Prince of Tides:

When his sister attempts suicide again, southerner Tom Wingo (Nick Nolte) visits New York City to meet with her psychiatrist, Dr. Lowenstein (Barbara Streisand). Together, they try to discover the root of his sister's depression, and their relationship becomes both personal and professional in the process. Both have troublesome marriages and both turn to each other for a brief period of happiness away from their disappointing lives. Though the film feels slightly dated, the performances and the score are above par for this kind of material.

The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Kate Nelligan), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score. Although the film did not win anything, the 7 nominations it received were, arguably, reward enough.

105. Child's Play 3

105. (04 May) Child's Play 3 (1991, Jack Bender) 36

102. Naked Lunch

102. (08 Apr) Naked Lunch (1991, David Cronenberg) 62

055. The Rapture

055. (18 Feb) The Rapture (1991, Michael Tolkin) 59



An imaginative look at the consuming nature of fundamentalism, Tolkin offers many surprises in his devious look at the coming of the end of days. Mimi Rogers is especially good here, creating an enigmatic, but engrossing character whose baffling foray into religion is scary enough to ring true. The finale is a bit literal (people disappearing as they accept God as their savior) and there's a great deal of rushed plotting.

009. The Haunted

009. (06 Jan) The Haunted (1991, Robert Mandel) 56



A haunted house telefilm in the vein of Poltergeist, there's enough atmosphere and weirdness in The Haunted to make it noteworthy. Add to that a very sincere and somehow Golden Globe-nominated performance by Sally Kirkland and you've got a pretty noteworthy TV horror movie. The scares here are relatively tame, but they're still unsettling. There's also some humor in how the family complains about media coverage about their haunting, despite the fact they contacted the press and later wrote a book chronicling their experiences.

A Word on Watching Older Movies

Everyone has their own reasons for watching older films.  Some do it because they like the memories old black and white films bring up, others do so to capture a director's or an actor's filmography, and some purely for entertainment.  I do it for all these reasons, but given the opportunity, I do it for another.  Yearly Perspective.

To understand exactly what I mean, you have to understand my philosophy on the Oscars.  I talked about it in an earlier blog, but I'll do some quick summarization for you.  I don't prescribe to the notion that the Oscars award the best films of the year, but rather they highlight some of the best in their nominations, just not necessarily their winners.  What I like most is trying to get into the mindset of someone deciding those races, as a voter.  And to do this well, you have to see all the nominees in all the races in all (or most of the important) categories.  For example, seeing all the Best Picture nominees of 1999 (and other major categories) before claiming that American Beauty is my favorite of the year.  This isn't simply for personal annual awards, but rather, to see how everything stacks up.  There are a ton of winners out there that get panned because they don't hold up over other winners...but in many of those cases, the year itself was weak in that category.

Recently, I've been diving back into 1987, 1991, and 2002.  Here and there, seeing as many films from those years as possible that I hadn't seen before and figuring out what I like best.  In the grand scheme of things, this process is more for my amusement.  I like it because it allows me some concentration on a year, much like I get to do when I'm living out and following the current Oscar race.  When you're in the middle of an Oscar season, you're granted time to mull over your favorites, seeing how certain performances relate to each other and how they are dwindled to five nominees.  In concentrating retrospectively, you get to do the same thing.  Most people revisit a movie, and then watch another one that was made 30 years earlier, and then go see Hop the next day.  I just find this activity interesting, it's a fun investigation of one particular year of at the Oscars.  Only then can you say with confidence just which film is your favorite of any given year.