In Praise of Great Films - The Flawed Masterpiece

Eighth in a series.

Film history is replete with movies that get much-deserved acclaim despite what, in this author's opinion, are fairly obvious shortcomings. One can certainly enjoy a film, even elevate it to "classic" stature, while being able to point out its flaws. This is doubtlessly a highly arguable tenet, so let the debating begin.

Here are some movies which in my estimation are very enjoyable yet contain imperfections which I can't help but point out:

Love Actually (2003) - This movie is thoroughly enjoyable from beginning to end, with scenes that reverberate with humor, true emotion, wit and style. (Who could forget Emma Thompson's silent meltdown when faced with her husband's infidelity on Christmas Eve, or Colin Firth attempting to propose to his foreign lover in terribly broken Portuguese, or Bill Nighy's character expressing his love for his longtime agent/manager?)

But ... this film is guilty of a sin many movies commit: Too many unnecessary storylines. The two plot points which Love Actually should have jettisoned are obvious. The first involves a couple who are apparently placed in the uncomfortable "position" of being stand-ins for an adult movie. They meet cute and end up together, which is all well and good, but the scenes they are in push the movie into R-rated territory, which is unfortunate in that it limits the film's audience with a limited payoff. This entire plot point could have been eliminated with zero damage to the overall movie.

The other piece of the movie which could have been hacked out was the ongoing bit involving the young Brit who dreams of going to Milwaukee in America because of a gnawing desire to drink American beer and meet American babes. First of all, why a Brit would want to desire American beer is a complete mystery. And the whole storyline plays out like a sitcom, which is totally out of place for a British film that seems to pride itself on emotional honesty.

Take these two plot lines out of Love Actually, and you have a shorter, better picture. With apologies to writer/director Richard Curtis, it's just my humble opinion.

No Country For Old Men (2007) - I'm guessing most folks who saw this movie ended up with a final "Huh?" at the very end of the film. I don't have a problem with movies which end abruptly or without assumed resolution, but the way this one ended was indeed problematic.

In a film that follows the lives of three very different characters through a harrowing journey, you can't necessarily expect the storylines to be neatly wrapped up with a tidy ending. But this movie cuts to black at a point where you're just beginning to wonder how things are going to play out. It's a filmmaker's prerogative to steer his movie to whatever finale they choose, but it feels cheap and incomplete to the audience when a film just "stops" as opposed to reaching its conclusion.

Crash (2004) - Big fan of this movie, which won Best Picture at the Oscars. However ... there are a couple of flaws which we must point out:

There's a scene where Terrence Howard's character is involved in a pursuit by the LAPD, and ends up pulling over and waving a loaded gun around, only to be "talked down" by a police officer and sent on his way. Sorry, but nobody's buying that. An African-American is chased by LAPD, then gets cornered in a cul-de-sac, gets out of his vehicle with a handgun. And the cops chat him up and then let him go? Sorry, but in real life his ass would be riddled with bullets with the whole thing being captured by news channel helicopters.

Another troubling aspect of this picture is Matt Dillon's cop character. He did a great job playing the character and there's much to like about the portrayal. But this cop was a blatant racist, spewing vicious invective, who also committed sexual assault against an innocent black woman early in the movie. In uniform. Yet we're supposed to feel sympathy for him because his father is sick and later in the film he saves the life of the very woman he assaulted earlier. No sale. This guy or anyone like him should be kicked off the force and put in jail.

Australia (2008) - There's much to like about this movie. The scene involving the herding of cattle before they go off a giant cliff is worth the price of admission alone. But Australia is guilty of a serious blunder.

It's way too long, and it should have ended long before it did. There's a point about an hour-and-a-half in where the two leads (played by Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman) reach a town with their cattle, they finally reveal their love for each other, they embrace and kiss, blessed rain falls to end a long drought, the music swells and ... hey, this would have been a grand place to fade to black and roll the credits.

But here's the thing: The film then goes on for ANOTHER HOUR. Years go by, the couple breaks up, a world war takes place, a boat full of children is put in peril, villains are in nearly every scene (with everything but Snidely Whiplash mustaches to paint them with cartoonish evil). It's like a whole second movie is tacked on to the film.

Australia could have been a very nice little 90-minute film, but instead became a bloated, overblown, soapy misadventure.

However ... the aboriginal kid was pretty cool.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - Yeah, we know this is a worldwide phenomenon and critical fave, and in fact we loved it too. But there are some storyline flaws which can't be ignored.

First, there's the issue of the main character's brother. The rapidity by which he goes from innocent good kid to total criminal is unrealistic. It literally takes place overnight. Or same day actually. Try getting your dry-cleaning done that quickly.

Then, toward the end of the movie (spoiler ahead), the brother transcends back from bad to good even faster! Over the course of MINUTES he has an apparent epiphany, gives the keys to the crime boss's car to the girl his brother loves, immerses himself in a bathtub full of cash, and commits suicide by gangsta. All this in a screenplay that won an Oscar!

The other flaw in the story is the basic premise of the main character being arrested and tortured because of his success on a game show. Really ... we're supposed to believe that someone answers a few questions correctly on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire and they immediately get abducted by the authorities and submitted to horrendous beatings and torture throughout the night because of ... what? Because they have too much knowledge in their brains? Because they might have had advance advice on the questions on the show? This is a crime worthy of severe beatings and torture in India? If I was from India, I'd be offended by the very notion of this film.

So ... Slumdog Millionaire is a very enjoyable film, although if you removed the story flaws we've pointed out here, the movie would not work. Think about it: the beatings and torture create the necessary tension and dread, and the criminal brother aspect adds the rescue-the-girl-from-the-bad-guy part of the story. What would you have if you took those two elements out of the movie?

Answer: A guy winning a million bucks on a game show after growing up poor in Mumbai.