| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 13:55:31
I have copied this from the worst films ever link, because I'm hoping someone might be interested enough to give a retrospective opinion after all this time.
I just watched it for the first time (22 years on!). This film was nominated for a rack of Oscars - only Anjelica Huston won for best supporting actress.
I didn't hate this film by any means, it was quite enjoyable - but I did wonder a little bit what the fuss was all about. Anjelica Huston was certainly convincing in her role - but I didn't feel any of the characters were particularly special. I found Nicholson quite unattractive in his role.
I didn't feel as if the film was Oscar special - although I realise Huston is a great film maker.
Why did it make such an impression at the time? What is it I'm missing about this film?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 04:45:41
Just watched this. Gotta agree with Shiv -- I don't really get this movie.
I mean, it's certainly not sexy, and it's certainly not funny. I'm kind of amazed that anyone would consider it a comedy -- there's no jokes and no attempts at jokes. Someone else is going to have to explain to me what exactly is supposed to be funny about this.
Someone upthread called it unsentimental, and I definitely agree with that. It is cold, bleak and uncaring. In fact, I'd call it Huston's "Match Point" -- it's a late-period work by a great director examining a cold, uncaring, amoral world. Not just immoral but amoral. That's why the sex isn't sexy -- there's no heat or passion. When Nicholson says he's in love, it's obviously bullshit -- maybe that's one of the jokes I didn't get.
I like "Match Point" more. It's got more momentum, it builds. "Prizzi's Honor" just kind of meanders, twists around -- also, it has my least favorite Nicholson performance, although his flatness may just have been matching his cold, flat surroundings. (Save for her breakthrough role in "Body Heat," I never really got the appeal of Kathleen Turner.) It's okay, I guess but I stand by my original analysis -- it got an Oscar nomination because Huston was getting old. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 21:38:50
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Maybe someone here likes all those movies I listed. I admit that I haven't seen all of them so I can't assess them. But my point is, they're all very, very middlebrow. None of them are true crowdpleasers (like, say, Best Picture nominees E.T. or Raiders of the Lost Ark), nor are they really unique, something truly unlike anything else (like Platoon or Raging Bull in there). Even among cineastes, they haven't really carved out a space in the collective consciousness. They won their awards and they disappeared. I guess under those criteria I shouldn't have included Dead Poets Society, but I did because it's bullshit and I hate it.
But honestly, if they all turned out to be boring as hell, I wouldn't be surprised. The ones I have seen, star rating out of four:
The Dresser (**1/2): Brought down by boring direction. A movie where two hams play two hams should not be this earthbound.
The Big Chill (**): Even duller. Who doesn't love boring, unlikeable yuppies whining about how they used to be cooler? Plus, they're all indistinguishable; imagine a Breakfast Club made up of five Emilio Estevezes and you'll get the idea.
On Golden Pond: (**1/2) Very sweet but too understated for my tastes.
My Left Foot: (**1/2) Fearless performance from Day-Lewis, but kind of awful in its shameless tardsploitation. So he can paint with his foot, so what? A friend summed this movie up as "Look what the cripple can do!" which I think is largely accurate.
Chariots of Fire: (*1/2) Bottom of the barrel. Worst sports movie ever made. A movie devoid of suspense, tension, emotion, everything except the need for Britain to pat itself on the back. Without the iconic first scene I'd rate it even lower.
Hannah and Her Sisters: (**1/2) One of those Woody Allen movies where the drama and comedy don't mix together well at all.
Dead Poets Society: (*1/2) Awful.
I could have included Ordinary People, Rain Man and Driving Miss Daisy too, but I like all those movies and they've all taken their place in people's hearts. Those have largely stood the test of time. But compare the '80s to the '70s and see how many bonafide test-of-time classics they nominated in either decade. The '70s overpowers them. And really, who's going to say their lives were changed by Tender Mercies?
There is another thread for Worst Films ever for discussing this kind of thing. I do NOT think Prizzi'a Honor is a bad film. I'm just trying to get an understanding of what made it stand out so much at the time. I didn't see it until now and for me it seems not to have stood the test of time in regard to the uniqueness others are describing to me. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 16:19:10
Well, of those 1980's Best Pics I would say that Chariots Of Fire is my favourite, but maybe MrBadIdea and me have seen different versions?! 
Only one version of Dead Poet's Society though. 
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 16:02:36
Maybe someone here likes all those movies I listed. I admit that I haven't seen all of them so I can't assess them. But my point is, they're all very, very middlebrow. None of them are true crowdpleasers (like, say, Best Picture nominees E.T. or Raiders of the Lost Ark), nor are they really unique, something truly unlike anything else (like Platoon or Raging Bull in there). Even among cineastes, they haven't really carved out a space in the collective consciousness. They won their awards and they disappeared. I guess under those criteria I shouldn't have included Dead Poets Society, but I did because it's bullshit and I hate it.
But honestly, if they all turned out to be boring as hell, I wouldn't be surprised. The ones I have seen, star rating out of four:
The Dresser (**1/2): Brought down by boring direction. A movie where two hams play two hams should not be this earthbound.
The Big Chill (**): Even duller. Who doesn't love boring, unlikeable yuppies whining about how they used to be cooler? Plus, they're all indistinguishable; imagine a Breakfast Club made up of five Emilio Estevezes and you'll get the idea.
On Golden Pond: (**1/2) Very sweet but too understated for my tastes.
My Left Foot: (**1/2) Fearless performance from Day-Lewis, but kind of awful in its shameless tardsploitation. So he can paint with his foot, so what? A friend summed this movie up as "Look what the cripple can do!" which I think is largely accurate.
Chariots of Fire: (*1/2) Bottom of the barrel. Worst sports movie ever made. A movie devoid of suspense, tension, emotion, everything except the need for Britain to pat itself on the back. Without the iconic first scene I'd rate it even lower.
Hannah and Her Sisters: (**1/2) One of those Woody Allen movies where the drama and comedy don't mix together well at all.
Dead Poets Society: (*1/2) Awful.
I could have included Ordinary People, Rain Man and Driving Miss Daisy too, but I like all those movies and they've all taken their place in people's hearts. Those have largely stood the test of time. But compare the '80s to the '70s and see how many bonafide test-of-time classics they nominated in either decade. The '70s overpowers them. And really, who's going to say their lives were changed by Tender Mercies? |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 14:59:05
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
However, back to 1985, the other films up for awards (if not for best picture) included:
The Color Purple
Kiss of the Spider Woman
Agnes of God
Ran
Other films that year were Desparately Seeking Susan, Dance With A Stranger and Mask.
I don't think Prizzi's Honor stands out that much amongst some of these films.
Prizzi's Honor won against The Color Purple, Kiss Of The Spider Woman, Ran and Witness.
I don't get particularly excited about who wins Oscars, but my choice would have been for Witness which I consider to be one of the greatest blends of action thriller with intelligent, insightful cinema and should have been rewarded for that. Great cinematography too. Oh, and Kelly McGinnis topless. What more could you ask? OK, Kelly naked, but you can't have everything.
Also from that year Back To The Future got no major nominations despite being, in my opinion, one of the wittiest family entertainment films ever made, and again I would choose that ahead of Prizzi's Honor.
Brazil was almost completely ignored for nominations.
As was First Blood II. OK, just joking about First Blood II.
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 10:45:05
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I haven't seen Prizzi's Honor either, but I will agree that '85 was a lousy year for the Oscars. When the most memorable best picture nominee of the year is Witness, something is wrong.
Hell, the '80s themselves were terrible for Oscars. I'm not a big fan of The Hours, Chocolat, Capote or The Queen, but they've certainly got more flavor than, oh, let's look down the list of '80s Best Picture nominees:
The Dresser
Out of Africa
Chariots of Fire
Children of a Lesser God
Places in the Heart
Tender Mercies
Hannah and Her Sisters
On Golden Pond
A Room with a View
The Big Chill
Dead Poets Society
My Left Foot
The Accidental Tourist
and so on.
However, back to 1985, the other films up for awards (if not for best picture) included:
The Color Purple
Kiss of the Spider Woman
Agnes of God
Ran
Other films that year were Desparately Seeking Susan, Dance With A Stranger and Mask.
I don't think Prizzi's Honor stands out that much amongst some of these films. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 10:41:47
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
I can't believe only one Fourumer has come forward to defend the honor of Prizzi's Honor. (Bless you, BaftaBabe, for your insightful defense of this film.)
I'm not sure what you think needed defending? I didn't slate the film at all, I just wanted an explanation of what made is so much acclaimed. quote:
As for the allegation that the movie's many Oscar nominations was due to John Huston's advanced age, I simply cannot agree.
I'm pretty sure that was a joke - or at least, I took it that way! Mind you, when Paul Newman gets an Oscar for The Color of Money, maybe it's not such a joke quote:
No, I think Huston's nomination -- he lost, by the way, to Sydney Pollack -- was earned on the strength of the film, which as BaftaBabe points out told a mafia story in a way that was new to audiences in 1985.
This is the kind of information I was looking for. Being only 17 and living in the UK I knew next to nothing about...well anything quote:
As for Nicholson, sure, he may not be a convincing Italian -- but he remains probably the most compelling leading man of the last 50 years (and a crackerjack supporting actor as well). He doesn't get enough credit for his versatility because people focus on the movies where he essentially plays an exaggeration of himself (or at least of his public persona). Of course, I love to see Jack do his trademark "swaggering wiseass" schtick in films as diverse as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Batman, but for proof that he can do other things, I'd suggest one of his smaller films like The Crossing Guard or About Schmidt. His turn in Prizzi's is notable because it's one of the rare times his character is not smarter than everyone around him and isn't two steps ahead of the plot.
Actually, it's the 'schtick' as you call it that I hate about Nicholson. I think his performance in Wolf was one of his best, for example. Also, on a very fundamental and instinctive level I find him so unattractive both physically and in mannerisms that he is an unconvincing love interest in roles such as this one and The Witches of Eastwick. His unattractiveness is distracting to me. Shallow, I know I do realise in Prizzi's it is not physical attraction that drives the two leads in this film. I am not remotely attracted to 'pretty boy' actors, before that assumption is made. It's just one of those things.
quote:
Elsewhere, Prizzi's reminds us of the time when Kathleen Turner brought a sultry, refreshingly grown-up sexuality to the screen
No comment quote:
and it treats us to a delightful (and Oscar-nominated) turn by beloved -- and ridiculously decrepit -- character actor William Hickey, who had been stealing scenes since the 1960s but reached his greatest level of acclaim through this film.
Agreed quote:
The real revelation in this cast, of course, turned out to be Anjelica Huston -- already well known at this point as John's daughter and Jack's lover but not yet a star. I think Anjelica's subsequent performances have proven that the Oscar she received for Prizzi's was no fluke. She didn't look or talk like a typical movie actress, and she still doesn't (though she attained an odd sort of goth glamour in The Addams Family).
Agreed
quote:
Prizzi is a lot of the things I like a movie to be: smart, dark, sexy, funny, grown-up, and unsentimental. To appreciate it, you have to remember how much it stood out in the relatively bland cinematic landscape of 1985, when most critically-acclaimed pictures were "serious" message movies and sweeping historical dramas.
As everyone knows, the Academy Awards can produce both pleasant and unpleasant surprises. When films last the test of time 'mistakes' in awards are more obvious to see. However, when a film gets 8 nominations it is an indication of acclaim. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 07:26:54
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I haven't seen Prizzi's Honor either, but I will agree that '85 was a lousy year for the Oscars. When the most memorable best picture nominee of the year is Witness, something is wrong.
Hell, the '80s themselves were terrible for Oscars. I'm not a big fan of The Hours, Chocolat, Capote or The Queen, but they've certainly got more flavor than, oh, let's look down the list of '80s Best Picture nominees:
Really... Let's see...quote:
The Dresser
excellentquote:
Out of Africa
blahquote:
Chariots of Fire
marvelousquote:
Children of a Lesser God
greatquote:
Places in the Heart
um...quote:
Tender Mercies
um...quote:
Hannah and Her Sisters
yawnquote:
On Golden Pond
Awwwwquote:
A Room with a View
lovelyquote:
The Big Chill
fantasticquote:
Dead Poets Society
amazingquote:
My Left Foot
superbquote:
The Accidental Tourist
read the bookquote:
and so on.
As you can see from my assessment of your list, I don't see how the 80s were all that horrid for the Oscars. Perhaps you have better examples that would prove your point?
|
| Sean |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 05:50:09
Ain't seen it either. 6.8, which is OK but not great.
Might add it to the list when it gets a little shorter.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 05:38:42
I haven't seen Prizzi's Honor either, but I will agree that '85 was a lousy year for the Oscars. When the most memorable best picture nominee of the year is Witness, something is wrong.
Hell, the '80s themselves were terrible for Oscars. I'm not a big fan of The Hours, Chocolat, Capote or The Queen, but they've certainly got more flavor than, oh, let's look down the list of '80s Best Picture nominees:
The Dresser
Out of Africa
Chariots of Fire
Children of a Lesser God
Places in the Heart
Tender Mercies
Hannah and Her Sisters
On Golden Pond
A Room with a View
The Big Chill
Dead Poets Society
My Left Foot
The Accidental Tourist
and so on.
|
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 04:57:51
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
I can't believe only one Fourumer has come forward to defend the honor of Prizzi's Honor.
I've never seen it.  |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 04:09:10
I can't believe only one Fourumer has come forward to defend the honor of Prizzi's Honor. (Bless you, BaftaBabe, for your insightful defense of this film.) As for the allegation that the movie's many Oscar nominations was due to John Huston's advanced age, I simply cannot agree. If that were true, the Academy surely would have nominated Huston for 1983's Annie, the kind of sentimental, big-budget musical the Academy has always loved. No, I think Huston's nomination -- he lost, by the way, to Sydney Pollack -- was earned on the strength of the film, which as BaftaBabe points out told a mafia story in a way that was new to audiences in 1985. (Its approach remains relatively rare today; it's difficult to think of too many contemporary dark comedies which hit the same kinds of notes as Prizzi's Honor. Maybe we simply don't know how anymore.)
As for Nicholson, sure, he may not be a convincing Italian -- but he remains probably the most compelling leading man of the last 50 years (and a crackerjack supporting actor as well). He doesn't get enough credit for his versatility because people focus on the movies where he essentially plays an exaggeration of himself (or at least of his public persona). Of course, I love to see Jack do his trademark "swaggering wiseass" schtick in films as diverse as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Batman, but for proof that he can do other things, I'd suggest one of his smaller films like The Crossing Guard or About Schmidt. His turn in Prizzi's is notable because it's one of the rare times his character is not smarter than everyone around him and isn't two steps ahead of the plot.
Elsewhere, Prizzi's reminds us of the time when Kathleen Turner brought a sultry, refreshingly grown-up sexuality to the screen, and it treats us to a delightful (and Oscar-nominated) turn by beloved -- and ridiculously decrepit -- character actor William Hickey, who had been stealing scenes since the 1960s but reached his greatest level of acclaim through this film. The real revelation in this cast, of course, turned out to be Anjelica Huston -- already well known at this point as John's daughter and Jack's lover but not yet a star. I think Anjelica's subsequent performances have proven that the Oscar she received for Prizzi's was no fluke. She didn't look or talk like a typical movie actress, and she still doesn't (though she attained an odd sort of goth glamour in The Addams Family).
Prizzi is a lot of the things I like a movie to be: smart, dark, sexy, funny, grown-up, and unsentimental. To appreciate it, you have to remember how much it stood out in the relatively bland cinematic landscape of 1985, when most critically-acclaimed pictures were "serious" message movies and sweeping historical dramas. (Note that it lost the Best Picture to the more Academy-friendly Out of Africa, a decision that seemed disappointing then and seems more disappointing now.) |
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 21:10:35
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
So, I think you need to put it in context to what pre-dated it to appreciate why it was appreciated!
And I suppose what has post-dated it has aged it somewhat. The 'social commentary' did not jump out at me - being an American film. UK films from the 80s are a more familiar 'history' for me of course.
In addition I am not a big Nicholson (shock horror) or Turner fan. I too was not convinced by Nicholson as a Sicilian American - but of course the films that followed have influenced my perception on that. I don't have any personal experiences on that front either! |
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 21:01:04
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
It got an Oscar nomination because John Huston was getting old.
 Yeah, I could buy into that.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:08:16
It got an Oscar nomination because John Huston was getting old. |
|
|
