You'll have to excuse me if I am hesitant to jump on the bandwagon of films like these, even though the elite film critics suggest that I should. It seems there have always been extreme classes of movie watchers since the era of films began. There is the class that finds "Armageddon" and the theatrical "How the Green Dog (I mean Grinch) Stole Christmas" as the definition of a good film. Then there are those who think that a film is only good when it is harsh, uncompromising, filled with tragedy, portraying "realism". In these movies, the merit comes from the acting and dialog. Anything else remotely entertaining classifies it as an artless Hollywood film.
I myself like to wander in between categories. I enjoy good Summer movies, but acknowledge them like great tasting junk-food. I also enjoy the deeper, more intelligent, artistic films that draws flocks of critical praise. Yet, when films such as "Leaving Las Vegas" are considered the best films of good movie years such as 1995, it makes me wonder much about the people who harbor such opinions. Is your life so good that you need hopelessness portrayed on the screen as a change of pace? Is your life as bleak as Nicholas Cage's and Elizabeth Shue's character that you need to see it visually to feel validated in your own decisions? Do you hate "unrealisitic" hope-filled movies because you have no incentive to change your own life? Does seeing this movie actually make a positive difference in your life? Movies have always had two purposes for me: entertainment and education. Really good movies (best of a certain year) do both. "Leaving Las Vegas" did neither for me. I cannot deny that there are powerful scenes nor that the two lead actors are first-rate. The dialog is also engaging. Yet, here lies a movie that shows the ugliness of throwing your life away without any hope of change. It is this colored with harsh profanity and unpleasantness and labeled "true to life".
To whom is this movie for? People I know personally do not act like this or speak like this. Real life for me is filled with hope and dreams. It is about going through trials and overcoming them. Watching a movie that makes me feel unpleasant from beginning to end without one ounce of inspiration is not a way to spend two hours of my time. How can this film be considered greater than "Braveheart?" That is a movie that is also considered a tragedy, yet on the way is filled with love, adventure, dedication, and hope. It does what a movie should do. Filmmakers, let's make high-quality films without thinking we need the bleakest point-of-view to classify it as a great work.
I myself like to wander in between categories. I enjoy good Summer movies, but acknowledge them like great tasting junk-food. I also enjoy the deeper, more intelligent, artistic films that draws flocks of critical praise. Yet, when films such as "Leaving Las Vegas" are considered the best films of good movie years such as 1995, it makes me wonder much about the people who harbor such opinions. Is your life so good that you need hopelessness portrayed on the screen as a change of pace? Is your life as bleak as Nicholas Cage's and Elizabeth Shue's character that you need to see it visually to feel validated in your own decisions? Do you hate "unrealisitic" hope-filled movies because you have no incentive to change your own life? Does seeing this movie actually make a positive difference in your life? Movies have always had two purposes for me: entertainment and education. Really good movies (best of a certain year) do both. "Leaving Las Vegas" did neither for me. I cannot deny that there are powerful scenes nor that the two lead actors are first-rate. The dialog is also engaging. Yet, here lies a movie that shows the ugliness of throwing your life away without any hope of change. It is this colored with harsh profanity and unpleasantness and labeled "true to life".
To whom is this movie for? People I know personally do not act like this or speak like this. Real life for me is filled with hope and dreams. It is about going through trials and overcoming them. Watching a movie that makes me feel unpleasant from beginning to end without one ounce of inspiration is not a way to spend two hours of my time. How can this film be considered greater than "Braveheart?" That is a movie that is also considered a tragedy, yet on the way is filled with love, adventure, dedication, and hope. It does what a movie should do. Filmmakers, let's make high-quality films without thinking we need the bleakest point-of-view to classify it as a great work.