Unforgiven: 1992

So here I go again with writing another blog post while the movie is finishing up. Unforgiven is a western, which is definitely not my type of movie. That's one been side effect of this blog: I watch a lot of movies I wouldn't normally pick up. Sometimes it works out, and I really enjoy the movie. Other times, not so much. On one hand, this movie is the latter. Unforgiven is a dark film; the premise is about a prostitute who is cut up by a man and her friends pool their money together to put out a bounty on the man's life. Add in a character who realizes he spent many years as a young man sinning (killing) and has never fully paid for those sins. It seems only reasonable that things won't turn out for any of the characters, especially since there's a cold-blooded sheriff who takes pleasure out of physically hurting others.

As much as I'm not enjoying this film, I can appreciate the acting done by Gene Hackman who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role. Performing Little Bill is difficult enough considering the evil nature of the character, but Hackman moves from being diabolical to happy-go-lucky in a heartbeat. It's disturbing to see the switch and impressive acting.

The other surprising part of this film...no one can shoot except Clint Eastwood. Maybe when you're the director you get to have things our way like that.

Silence of the Lambs: 1991

There's no way I'm watching this movie again. One was enough.

If you've seen the film, you'll understand. The final scene with the night vision goggles? Eeeekkkkk!

Just watch the trailer and tell me if you're not already a bit disturbed:

What scared me about Silence of the Lambs is what you don't see. Your imagination fills in the gaps in horrifying ways that are personalized just for you. I'm not a fan of scary movies. Some of them are just too gory, which isn't so much scary as just plain gross. But others don't show you what happened. Those are the ones that give me nightmares. I'm feeling grateful right now for the rule I set at the beginning that I don't have to watch anything I've already seen.

1992, here I come. It's Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. I have no idea what's about, but it's shorter than some of the films I watched recently so it's already looking good.

Dances With Wolves: 1990

Caution: Spoilers Ahead

Dances With Wolves is a long movie. Seriously, nearly 4 hours long. And while the first two hours held my attention, I'm at a point where I'm really getting bored, which is unfortunate because there's finally some action at the fort where John Dunbar (played by Kevin Costner who also directed and produced the film) was stationed. Of course, it's really Dunbar's fault that he's in the situation he's in because he insisted going back for his journal. He clearly thought the fort was still abandoned because he had been gone for so long, but of course, it wasn't. And now he's putting his friends in danger. Arrogant man.

I've been enjoying his interaction with the wolf, but I haven't seen much of that lately. The first couple hours were good because of this interaction and the overall scenery. But now I'm ready just to find out how everything turns out (but I have to admit that I'm not sure I'm even that interested in knowing). Part of me is disgusted with how the soldiers are treating Dunbar or Dances With Wolves (as he is later named), but another part of me is still wondering how historically accurate the film is with portraying the Sioux. Earlier scenes show both a loving community while other scenes show such brutally as scalping white people that they killed. I'm not sure what to make of all of it. Clearly, the West was a brutal place.

Really, my main question is "how much longer?"

Driving Miss Daisy: 1989

I finished up the 1980s with the classic Driving Miss Daisy, a film I swear I saw before but as I watching it last night had no memory of, which makes me think it's one of those movies I think I've seen because it's so famous but really I haven't. The film is really matter-of-fact about prejudice. Miss Daisy is an older Jewish woman who claims that she isn't racist, but some of her comments and the way she treats her employees suggest otherwise. It's a bit more complicated, though, in that it seems like she just doesn't want to need employees at all. She'd rather take care of herself, but her health doesn't allow her to do so. Miss Daisy (played by Jessica Tandy) doesn't want to think of herself as rich because that wasn't her life growing up, but her chauffeur Hoke (played by Morgan Freeman) reminds her that some people would say that she is rich. It's through his voice that the honesty in this film is most present. Hoke is a down-to-earth working man who tries his best to break through to Miss Daisy. The film is about their friendship.

While I had a basic understanding of the film prior to watching it, I didn't realize that Miss Daisy was Jewish, which becomes an important part of the story when her temple is bombed and when she experiences prejudice when on a trip in Alabama. It's these experiences that connect Miss Daisy to Hoke. Both of them have witnessed terrible events and been mistreated because of who they are. What's interesting, though, is Miss Daisy refuses to see how they can be compared. It's like she doesn't want to be part of that group that is mistreated, even though she clearly is. Because of her wealth, Miss Daisy can stay in her bubble and avoid most of the ugliness in the world. Or at least she can distance herself from it and tsk-tsk it all without actually experiencing it. In this clip, Hoke tells Miss Daisy about the temple bombing and shares the story of a lynching he witnessed when he was younger:

Miss Daisy's refusal to see how she and Hoke are similar because of these stories disappointed me. I wanted her to see the connection and realize how the world was and still is. Her acknowledging the similarity would have broken down her prejudice. Instead, she's just in denial.

While the film certainly brings up issues with race and religion, overall it doesn't seem to go far enough with either topic. I have to wonder if it's willingness to cover these issues was reason for the Best Picture. Looking at the other nominees (Dead Poets Society, Field of Dreams, My Left Foot, and Born on the Fourth of July), I guess Driving Miss Daisy is the best, but I've only seen two of those films. It just seems like a surprising choice, but maybe it shouldn't since the year before Rain Man won and stories about relationships won in the early 1980s.

Well, that's it for the 1980s. I'll take a bit of time off before I begin the 90s. I have to say I'm excited about starting the 90s--the decade when I began watching the Oscars. I've already seen several Best Picture winners of the 90s, so some I'll be rewatching and some I'll be skipping. And I'll be sure to let you know why.

Rain Man: 1988

I'm getting so close to the end of the 1980's Best Picture winners. I set the goal of finishing the 80s before the school year started, and I think I might just meet that goal. I already have my library's copy of 1989's Driving Miss Daisy. I'm ready.

But before I get ahead of myself, this post is supposed to be about Rain Man, a thoughtful story about family and what it means to each person. It's also a film that portrays autism in a positive light as Charlie's brother Raymond (played by the amazing Dustin Hoffman) has severe autism. I had seen Rain Man years ago, but I only remembered some of the scenes in the later part of the film (notably the casino scenes). I had forgotten that Charlie (played by Tom Cruise) didn't know he had a brother and how the father left most of the inheritance to that brother. (Okay, so I didn't remember  much of anything about the movie other than Hoffman's outstanding performance.)

As I watched this time, I thought about how difficult it must have been at times for Cruise to play the brother without autism. His reactions when Hoffman's character Raymond has an emotional meltdown or repeats himself over and over seem so real. Cruise's character goes from being an egotistical jerk to a loving brother (that's not a spoiler...you should know going into this movie based on the premise that there will be change in the character who can change), and the transformation is not obvious. He simply begins to like his brother, and the liking becomes more. It seems real, and Cruise really convinced me that he was Charlie and that he was going through this change.

Charlie attempting to figure out Raymond

I liked how this film left me feeling good while also making me think. I've had plenty of Best Picture winners that have made me think. I've had some that made me feel good. But I haven't had may do both. I'm glad that the Academy recognized a movie like this because sometimes you need a movie that does both well. And Rain Man certainly does.

The Last Emperor: 1987

I'm currently slogging my way through The Last Emperor. The film is just so long. I know it has to cover the entire life of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China, but it seems to drag at times. The time period and events are interesting, but the way the director Bernardo Bertolucci presents them seems too slow for the content.

The film is set in 1950 in a Chinese prison where the Emperor and other warm criminals are being detained. Just like when he was a child, the Emperor is incapable of doing anything himself. His entire life someone has dressed him, bathed him, even tied his shoes for him. The film then flashes back to different points in Pu Yi's life, starting in 1908 when the previous Empress named him as the new Emperor when he was only 2 years old. The structure works well for this type of story, but I found myself more interested in the time in the prison than the development of Pu Yi. As a child and young man, he's a self-absorbed brat, and while the acting is excellent, I didn't enjoy watching that type of character. I'm thinking it was a true picture of the boy and man, but that didn't mean I wanted to watch his character continue to become more selfish instead of realizing his flaws and maturing.

At this exact moment, the film is in 1967, and it seems as though Pu Yi may have finally learned to think about others. All it took was the ruination of his life and the destruction of everything he knew. See, the story is interesting. Maybe another director's take on the film would work better for me.

Out of Africa: 1985

Out of Africa was another epic, at least what I'm calling an epic, with a run time of 2 hours 41 minutes. It's so odd to me that this film won the year before Platoon because they are incredibly different. That's happened before with this blog, where I've gone from one year to the next and though, "How are these two movies on the same list?" But I guess that's the beauty of watching the Best Picture winners. Or that could explain why I'm often confused with what wins.

Regardless, Out of Africa was a good film but nothing that I would tell people they have to see. The film is based on the true story of Karen Blixen (played by Meryl Streep), a Danish woman who marries her friend, mainly to gain the title of baroness, and moves to Africa to run a farm. Originally, the farm was to be a dairy farm but her idiot husband had other ideas: he made it a coffee farm that was destined to fail. And it did. While her attempts to make the farm successful and to work with the local tribe that live on her land are interesting, the plot is actually a romance. Karen's marriage fails when her husband cheats on her, repeatedly, and when she meets Denys (played by Robert Redford).

Although I think the film was marketed as a romance about Karen and Denys, the film is more about Karen and her determination. The other white settlers, mainly British, view her as odd. She's too independent for a woman in the WWI-era, and they see her kindness and interest in the tribal people as inappropriate. I was interested in how the characters talked about the land. The British said the land belonged to the Crown (England), but Karen was brave enough to remind them that the land didn't belong to white people at all: it belonged to the natives who were there first. At one point, she has to fight to find land for the natives on her farm. She has enough faults that this noble act doesn't make the story saccharine, but it certainly makes me admire her even more than I did as I watched her life on the farm develop.

So I guess when I think about this film, I can honestly say I liked it. The cinematography included some beautiful shots of the savanna and animals. The characters were interesting, and the story had some depth. But even with this, I wouldn't say that the film excited me.

Platoon: 1986

I had to skip over Out of Africa (1985) due to it being checked out of my library. But never fear...I have placed a hold and hope to have it soon. Right now, the 1980s are kicking my butt with long Best Picture winners. Fortunately, Platoon is 120 minutes and excellent but dark, which shouldn't be surprising since it's about the Vietnam War. The story follows Chris Taylor (a very young Charlie Sheen), a college student who volunteered to join the army in 1967 to fight in the war and who soon learns how hopeless this war was.

The film starts with him arriving in Vietnam, and the opening music is a melancholy classical piece that seems to hang over each moment in the scene. As Chris leaves his plane, he and the other new soldiers encounter body bags that are waiting to be sent to the U.S.

What struck me in this opening is the sound. The music works to set this sorrowful tone, and the noises of the jungle follow the music as the setting changes. The jungle sounds provide such a strong contrast, and I found myself nervous as the soldiers moved through the growth, expecting at any moment something to grow wrong because of how the music made me feel. It was a powerful use of a sound, and just one of many moments in the film where I experienced something that makes this film truly worthy of the Best Picture award.

Platoon is one of those films that leaves me thinking. At the end of the film, in his internal dialogue, Chris says, "We did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves." I think he's right about this war and about more. When we fight, is it really against someone or something? Or is it more about us not understanding? 

Amadeus: 1984

On one hand, I wish I had read this article from the BBC about Amadeus before I watched the film to know just how fictional the film is. Yet I kind of enjoyed not knowing how much was true and how much was false when I watched the film. The scandals and drama of Mozart and Salieri's Vienna drew me into their lives and their stories. I actually wish it was a miniseries instead; there still seems more to tell. What ended up happening to Mozart's wife after his death? What did Salieri accomplish before ending up an old man in an insane asylum?

Unlike some of the other films I've watched for this blog, Amadeus was not one where I questioned why the film earned Best Picture. From the acting to the plot to the cinematography, the film was engaging and entertaining while also being visually stunning. The only moments I felt pulled out of the film was when I recognized the Emperor as being Ferris Bueller's principal (played by Jeffrey Jones) and the maid being Miranda from Sex and the City (played by a young Cynthia Nixon). I figured those are forgivable considering how both of their roles in other works have become iconic. Both Jones and Nixon were convincing in their roles; it's not their fault that their faces are so recognizable now.

The one problem I'm having with Amadeus is what to say about it, and I wonder if that's just me or a common issue with the film. It's good, honestly, but what's notable? The film has long scenes of opera, and the staging and casting in those operas is quite impressive. In a way, I felt like I was experiencing multiple forms of media in one place. But I could see that as a being a downfall of the film as it takes away from the main storyline of Salieri's intense hatred for Mozart and Mozart as creative genius. I don't know for sure how much was in the film version released in theaters as the version I picked up at my local library was a director's cut and thus had an additional 20 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if most of that 20 minutes consisted of operas as those scenes seemed a bit long for a wide release.

Looking back on my last post, I should note that I did finish Terms of Endearment, and while the ending is sad, it still didn't change my outlook on the film.

Terms of Endearment: 1983

I had expected, even prepared, myself to cry at some point during this movie. I'm over halfway through this movie, and I don't really like any of the characters. Shirley MacLaine's performance as the overbearing mother is solid, Debra Winger as a spoiled daughter is good, and Jeff Daniels as the oblivious husband is right on the mark. But it seems that the characters themselves, no matter how well they're portrayed, are just not connecting with me.

Jack Nicholson (who plays the astronaut playboy neighbor) won Best Supporting Actor for his role, and MacLaine won Best Actress. I can see why MacLaine won, but this was yet another film for me where Nicholson seems to be the same character as always. There doesn't seem to be much depth to him. Granted, I'm just over halfway through, so perhaps there's more coming with his character that will demonstrate more of a range that would merit winning an Oscar.

The sad part of the movie is seeing how Emma and  Flap's tumultuous relationship affects their children. They come across as selfish parents who aren't really thinking about what's best for their kids. And their oldest Tommy is the most affected. He seems to see his parents for who they truly are, even as a young boy. He sees their faults, and he isn't willing to forgive them. Honestly, I can understand considering how Emma and Flap are.

I'll finish watching Terms of Endearment because of this blog. But if I was just watching this for my own entertainment, I would have turned it off at least half an hour ago.

Gandhi: 1982

The first time I saw Gandhi I was a freshman in high school. Our world history teacher decided to show it to help us understand Gandhi's importance better. I don't remember much about this first viewing other than the film was long and Gandhi did a couple of fasts to prove his point. Unfortunately, I don't think the film had the impression on me that my teacher had hoped. Of course, it was the third movie he'd shown that year, the previous two being A Man for All Seasons (which I rewatched earlier for this blog) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (oh, if only that had won Best Picture!). Seeing Gandhi again as an adult, I have a much greater appreciation for what Gandhi accomplished and how the film presents this man who tried to live simply and honestly and inspire others to love this way.

Gandhi is really a biopic at heart, with the main focus of the film being on the life of Gandhi beginning with his time in South Africa. I teach Cry, the Beloved Country, a book set in pre-apartheid South Africa, so Gandhi's time in South Africa was particularly interesting to me as he fought for rights for Indians living there. Before working on a free India, Gandhi seemed mainly focused on being treated fairly as a citizen of the British Empire. I think it's that determination of I am a citizen and I deserve proper treatment as such speaks so much to what is happening in the present day all over the world. Perhaps that's what this part of the film resonated with  me so much. Gandhi's struggles in South Africa and later India are similar to any group who is facing unfair treatment for who they are.

Gandhi prepares to burn official citizenship papers in South Africa, despite facing arrest

The film opens with a disclaimer about how the filmmakers set out to tell the story of Gandhi by portraying the spirit of who he was, which clearly indicates that parts of the story include fictional elements. Seeing this statement (really, disclaimer) was something I appreciated because I think that biopics can easily face criticism for not being authentic or factual. Then again, I think back to when I first saw the film and wonder if any biopics are appropriate for a classroom. Is it better to have the factual account or one that has some exaggerations but possibly inspires? After seeing the film, I'm curious about Gandhi. I'd like to see a documentary and read some of his speeches. So maybe my history teacher did the right thing...it just took 20 years for the lesson to set in. 

Chariots of Fire: 1981

Sometimes when I watch these best pictures, I learn where iconic images, sayings, and scenes are from. This was the case with Chariots of Fire's opening scene of the British Olympians running on the beach:

Besides seeing the origination of that particular scene and music (the music is all original in Chariots of Fire), I didn't find the rest of the film all that interesting. It's the true story of two men who were runners for Great Britain for the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris. One of them, Eric Liddell, is a Scotsman who grew up in China as a missionary, where he plans to return after his running career. Liddell runs because he believes God gave him this gift and he should use it. Prior to the Olympics, Liddell would preach after his races. As his father points out, he proves that Christians can be physically strong. The other man is Harold Abrahams who is running to known more for his accomplishments than his religion. Abrahams is Jewish and has had to deal with anti-Semitism. Running is his way to prove that he matters.

Unfortunately, Abrahams' quest in this film comes across as less important when compared to Liddell's quest. As the film progressed, that became more and more apparent, and it troubled me. II'm not sure how true that is to history, but in telling this story, it seems like more could have been done to make the men both have noble reasons. Abrahams went on to hold a roll in British athletics, and Liddell did become a missionary (who died during WWII when China was occupied).

My other problem with this film is not much was done with the film elements, other than score, to enhance the story. While the story could have been exciting, it seemed flat. I wasn't interested in seeing how things turned out. I knew they must have done well because why else would there be a movie about these men, but typically sports movies play up the drama enough through editing that it becomes more a question of can they do it. That isn't present in Chariots of Fire. To be fair, though, it came after two movies I really enjoyed, ones that made me think and had excellent acting. The acting here was fine, but nothing like what I have just watched.

Ordinary People: 1980

For the first time in awhile, I was able to watch all of a movie (in this case, Ordinary People) from start to finish in one sitting, and there's something to be said for that experience. Initially, the film didn't grab my attention; it's subtle in the opening half hour or so. I kept looking at the clock, wondering when the film would pick up. But then as I followed Conrad (Timothy Hutton) on his journey towards healing and witnessed his transformation, I found myself invested in the film. It's really Conrad who made me want to watch the movie. The other characters, his parents and friends, are complex and interesting, but the film seems to be telling Conrad's story more than his family's story.

Ordinary People is based on a novel with the same title by Judith Guest, and I read the book years ago. I remember little of the book (just that it was about a family who loses one son in a boating accident and they are still grieving this loss but in different ways). The film includes this family history, but it starts with Conrad being home after being hospitalized for four months for a suicide attempt. Although there are some stigmas around mental illnesses today, at the time the movie is set (late 1970s), mental illnesses were viewed in a more severe way. People didn't talk about them, and they didn't want to admit that they or their family was seeking help for them. This belief is most apparent with the mother Beth (played by Mary Tyler Moore in a shockingly different role than her TV character, which is how I knew her) confronts her husband for telling a woman at a party that Conrad is seeing a psychiatrist. Beth is upset with her husband Cal (played by Donald Sutherland) because she believes that this information is private. It's not surprising considering how Beth seems to act as if nothing is wrong with Conrad. If anything, she's angry with Conrad for not being okay. The breakfast scene early in the movie establishes her anger and frustration. Beth shoving the french toast down the garbage disposal is so harsh. Because of Cal's presence and proper etiquette, she can't take out her anger on Conrad so she unleashes it on this french toast. This scene set the tone for the rest of film, and it's no wonder that Conrad thinks his mom hates him.

Watching Conrad as he copes with his depression and deals with his grief and anger is the best part of this film. The director Robert Redford uses close ups on Conrad's face throughout the film to illustrate early on how much pain Conrad is in and later how much more relaxed Conrad has become because of meeting with his psychiatrist and learning to feel emotion. Hutton is subtle in his portrayal of Conrad. The entire film he feels so real as a person, and it hurts to see him suffer. When he confronts his mom, you want to see her show love for him. When he goes on a date with Jeannine, you feel that awkwardness that he's aware of and doesn't know how to stop.

It's so interesting to me that Ordinary People won best picture the year after Kramer vs Kramer because the films seem different but are quite similar. Not only do they both deal with family, but they also present father-son relationships that develop and change over time. The mothers are absent in ways in both films. It makes me wonder what was happening socially in the late 1970s that resulted in films like these.

Kramer vs Kramer: 1979

Before watching Kramer vs Kramer, I watched the trailer, and just from that minute and a half of the film, I was already hooked. Not only does this film have Dustin Hoffman AND Meryl Streep, it tells a realistic story of divorce and custody battles. At times, I was disgusted with the husband Ted (Hoffman) and at other times with Joanna (Streep). Both characters had flaws, and the story was completely honest with those flaws. Ted spends more time with their son Billy, as Joanna is the one who leaves the apartment and for 18 months does not see their son. What I loved about Ted is how he was a real parent, the whole time. He made mistakes, plenty of them, and struggles with raising Billy on his own. But even in the moments where Ted is incredibly frustrated there are scenes that demonstrate how much love he has for Billy, reaffirming that parenthood is a hard labor of love. And that can be cheesy, but Kramer vs Kramer doesn't go there. Instead, it presents the story of this family honestly.

I won't reveal the ending here, but you should know that Joanna returns after being gone for 18 months and now wants full custody of her son. That's when the film became heart-wrenching for me, as Ted struggles with the idea of losing Billy to a woman who deserted Billy. I started the movie thinking I would be on Joanna's side, but I quickly switched to Ted's because her desertion is so unforgivable. And as Ted changes, I didn't find myself varying from his side.

My favorite scene in the movie is the breakfast scene after Ted and Billy have settled into a routine. Breakfast the day after Joanna left was fraught with problems--disastrous french toast, swearing--but later the father and son settle into a routine that works for them. The scene begins with Billy getting up and using the bathroom. The frame is centered on the hallway and we see Billy enter the bathroom, leave, stop by his dad's room, and move down the hall to the kitchen. The camera pulls back and pans over to the breakfast table where Billy sets the table and puts out doughnuts. Meanwhile, Ted uses the bathroom, grabs milk and orange juice, and pours their drinks at the table. The two sit down and have breakfast together, each reading something. The scene is so domestic; we see that after the initial french toast disaster and the difficulties that Ted had adjusted to single-parenthood, the two are a family unit. They're making it work together.

I'm really glad this movie was on the Best Picture list because I don't know if I would have picked it up otherwise. It's such a great story, and the acting is outstanding. If you haven't seen it, you should.

Titanic: 1997

Normally, I wouldn't make this kind of time jump in my blog, but I had the privilege of being a guest on Ryan and Nate's podcast Can We Still Be Friends? to talk about Titanic, and I couldn't pass the opportunity up. In talking with them, I came to some conclusions about a movie that I hated when I first watched it in 1997; I hated it so much that it was the primary reason I made the rule for this project that I could skip any movie I had seen before if I wanted to (Crash being the other movie but for reasons I'll go into whenever I reach 2005). My conclusions don't include a newfound love for the movie...my opinion didn't change all that much upon rewatching and discussing the over three hour epic. But there are a few noteworthy points:

1) This movie is totally meant for teenage girls. Rose is trapped, just like many teenage girls feel even though most of them are not actually trapped. Rose, however, really is trapped by her society, her fiance, her mother, etc. And Rose manages to escape, at first into the arms of the adorable (what others say, not me) Jack and later on her own as she decides to hide out as a lower class passenger on the rescue ship. Her ability to fight her way out and be her own woman is the ultimate rebellion. Of course, everything works out for Rose in the long run, and that's where I see her story being perfect for teenage girls. Sure, there are real life stories where down-on-their-luck people manage to rise above their situations and succeed, but frankly, those are few. It's much easier for a teenage girl looking for a role model to buy into Rose's success than it is for me and I'd venture to say most adults.

2) The computer graphics didn't hold up. The water looks so fake, especially in the scene where Rose tries to commit suicide. I mean, just watch it:

Yeah, that water in the background, clearly a green screen. It's so distracting now that I just can't follow the story. And I love Kate Winslet. She just can't make me believe this is real, though.

3) About Kate Winslet: she is the bright shining light in this movie even if the plot is ridiculous, the graphics are so-so, and the characters are cliches. Just watching her as she convincingly shivers in the icy Atlantic water while she searches for something to free Jack or when she transforms from the miserable socialite into a free woman is impressive. But as impressive as that is, I'd suggest watching a different Winslet film to enjoy her talent.

4) While the CG may be weak, there's some stunning set work in this movie. I didn't really appreciate that the first time I saw it. The fact that they built as much of the ship as they did really paid off in making most of the scenes realistic and made up for the weak plot, kind of.

5) I liked talking about this movie, especially with Ryan and Nate. If you want to know more about Titanic, check out the podcast.

I'm hoping to get back on here on a more regular basis soon. I'm currently catching up on science fiction films to teach one of my classes, but I really want to get to 1979's Kramer vs Kramer. While Jimmy Kimmel may have said that Meryl Streep has phoned it in for all of her films, I'd say that if this one is anything like her performance in Deer Hunter, it's going to be fantastic and so very sad. The trailer for Kramer vs Kramer choked me up.