By Paul Lane/lanep@gnnewspaper.com
Greater Niagara Newspapers
January 16, 2008 04:17 pm
—
During a discussion about movies in the newsroom last week, Tonawanda News reporter Phil Dzikiy went on an informative and entertaining diatribe about 1990s blockbusters.
From “Independence Day” to “Men in Black” and anything else from that era — most of which included Will Smith, even if that wasn’t a requirement for inclusion in this conversation — these films were corny, over-the-top and without a shred of believability, he said.
This got me thinking. I got first-day seats to “Independence Day,” “The Rock” and many of that era’s biggest films. I remember awaiting them with unrivaled teenage enthusiasm and enjoying them like each one was “Citizen Kane.”
You have to watch these movies again, Phil said, if for no other reason the unintentional comedic value they hold. After happening upon “Con Air” on cable this past weekend, that’s exactly what I did.
And the results could not have been better.
For those who do not remember, “Con Air” was the Nicolas Cage blow-em-up epic about a just-released prisoner who becomes a captive in a convict transport plane when the prisoners take it over. This film features a lot of stars — John Cusack, John Malkovich, Ving Rhames, Steve Buscemi and Dave Chappelle among them — and plenty of explosions, but not quite as much plot as I remember.
Like many of its peers, “Con Air” requires the viewer to pack away its common sense. If you find yourself asking, “Why would they transport all of the nation’s worst criminals on one plane with so few guards on board” or, “Why would they not shoot down a plane full of convicts in about 10 seconds,” you’re not ready.
When you are ready, though, what you’ll get is a solid two hours of, well, nothing that hasn’t already been said here. Things explode, none of the good guys get hurt and all ends well.
Film studios seemed more content in the 1990s to show off all the special effects they were newly able to create than to make a story worth savoring. They made money while advancing the graphic effects field, so all was not bad, but plots sometimes got caught in the blast radius.
When you think of great 1990s films, what comes to mind? Maybe “The Shawshank Redemption” or “Schindler’s List,” or perhaps “Silence of the Lambs.” But for every “American History X,” there seems to be 10 versions of “Batman and Robin,” films that were fun to look at but contained nothing redeeming.
Basically, the 1990s were all about creating a bunch of Jessica Simpsons.
As one would expect, “Con Air” soared at the box office ($101 million domestic gross). But upon further inspection, it was found that “Con Air” received two (TWO!) Academy Award nominations. Even if they were for sound and music, one is left wondering how this happened.
Was that a weak year for the competition?
Has my eye gained a jaded view since my adolescence?
Were our standards that low a decade ago?
The answer probably lies somewhere in between. In a year that included “Titanic,” “Air Force One” and “Tomorrow Never Dies,” “Con Air” didn’t even have enough firepower to crack the year’s top five earners and might have actually been one of the deeper creations.
Not surprisingly, meanwhile, is that I’d consider “Titanic” as the worst of the lot (even it won the best picture Oscar that year). While it featured plenty of destruction, “Titanic” failed to appeal to the college-age senses of myself and my peers that year, which cared more about fire than romance.
And that’s where I fall into the “good old days” mentality that, at 29 years old, I may be encountering for the first time. This is the same trap into which elders fall all the time (think of the people who still consider “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” a scary film or wax poetic about The Monkees). But if that’s what works for a person, then let them have it.
So in that respect, as long as you keep an open mind about something you once loved, it’s a wise investment of your time to re-examine the films of last decade. Jut don’t revisit the past without planting your tongue firmly in your cheek and putting your expectations of finding your cinematic Rosebud aside.
Contact reporter Paul Laneat 693-1000, ext. 116,or lanep@gnnewspaper.com.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.