Simply A Masterpiece

Redundant and unnecessary.

Fresh and Exciting

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Nobody's Fool (1994)A stunning mix of moving, touching performances and dialog with some awkward directing and editing. The movie feels a bit cheap or sloppy, even, and yet there are moments when it shines and when you feel its depth and it's potential.And then there is Paul Newman. He's the lead throughout, the title character no doubt, and he gives an utterly convincing, nuanced, unflinching portrayal of a tough old guy in a small town. He isn't quite the lovable one that everyone loves despite his flaws--that would be too much of a cliché, and the movie avoids at least that one big cliché perfectly. With Newman's help. He's a bit too gruff and makes too many truly hurtful decisions to automatically make him a diamond in the rough, a sweetie with a leather exterior. But the viewer can see soon enough how genuine he is, thoroughly thoroughly genuine. He doesn't coddle, he doesn't waffle. He knows what he's about. And he really is admirable for steadily getting small things done for the good of others, though you can hardly tell sometimes. The fact that he ignores common decency (like driving his pickup truck on the sidewalk) is not quite charming, but it adds to his honesty, ironically.The rest of the cast sounds impressive but doesn't have nearly as much to do, not with any depth, though with sincerity in the performances. Bruce Willis has a role that constrains him more than you'd think, as a younger building contractor who is a bit of a rake. Jessica Tandy is a sharp, lovable older woman who rents to her upstairs to Newman. Melanie Griffith has a small role and is charming in her distinctive way, and we even see, briefly, Philip Seymour Hoffman in an unlikely role as the local cop.The director (and screenwriter) is Robert Benton, who is best known (to me) as the director (and writer) for "Kramer vs. Kramer." I'm guessing it was because of that, and the kind of interpersonal story at stake, the allowed him to gather such an impressive cast. It would be a wild guess to understand why it doesn't quite work--my first inkling is merely that he was screen writing about someone else's original story and it was something he didn't know about first hand. Some of the lines are off, some of the humor gets silly, and in one or two cases you just want to say, no way.Even with the elevating humor to the tale you expect it to maintain its realism which it mostly does. It's set in the mid-Hudson Valley, where I've lived for 30 years, and there were lots of familiar places. They got the feel of the little towns slightly down on their luck really nicely, and the damp cold of winter adds to the overall ambiance. (There are directing quirks here, too, like never plowing the streets, and anyone who lives in an area with snow knows that the main streets, and even the smaller ones, get plowed often and well. But hey, it looks good, all that white.)What's to take away from this? A beautiful sense of integrity. The father-son dynamics are too forced to work, the seeming true friendships that exists or not between some characters isn't always fleshed out, and the weird relationship between Newman and Willis is crude and off-kilter. It's not a great film on many terms. But the development of Newman as a persona, as a type of person, is amazing. And he's amazing. Enough to see the movie just for his contribution.

"How many of those hormones did you take?" That's what Jessica Tandy asks Kathy Bates in "Fried Green Tomatoes", and she should ask Paul Newman the same question here. Newman is a neer-do-well that can't seem to do anything right, yet he's got a lot of people on his side. Tandy is his old elementary school teacher, landlady and confidante whose powerful son runs the local bank and despises Newman. Melanie Griffith is the estranged wife of Newman's obnoxious boss who can't pay him. Josef Sommer is Newman's one-legged attorney who is there for each dumb thing that Newman does. When Newman's estranged son and family come for a visit at Thanksgiving, Newman has a chance to make amends and get to know one of his grandsons, especially after his son's wife leaves him.This is more of a character study with multiple stories about how what people see in you is not always true. Newman's character may be flawed, yet he is filled with a wisdom that he, himself, is unaware of. It takes these circumstances to make him aware and remain who he is while becoming a better man in the process. There are some nice character bits (particularly Margo Martindale as a local bartender and Philip Seymour Hoffman as an idiot cop with resentment towards Newman). The gratuitous cursing, nudity and vulgarity is unnecessary yet fortunately brief. Focus on the hidden wisdom in the script and ignore the rest.

Well, maybe two. Or maybe three.Everything was perfect, except for the cinematography. Maybe that was the cinematographer's fault or maybe it was the director's fault. Or maybe it was the editor's.There is a quote from John Ford about why he didn't like to use close-ups. His response: I use them when I think they're necessary, but generally they're all that necessary. Or something to that effect.And he was right. I dare you to name a John Ford film with a lot of unnecessary close-ups.There are are very, very few long shots in this movie. Consequently, you don't get get to see the characters interacting with each other simultaneously. My impression of this film is that is mostly an interminable series of jarring close-ups of 1-2 seconds: close-up of one character saying something, followed by the recipient's reaction, and back and forth ad nauseum. Almost enough to make you sea-sick.Consider the feeling that long shots would have imparted when you watch this otherwise great film, when you could see two or more characters interacting simultaneously. You never get to see that in this film. You get the impression that each actor was hauled before the camera alone to recite their lines and react appropriately, all for a second or two or three, then the camera switches back faster than stink to the character they're supposed to be talking to. Not a long shot to be seen.John Ford aside, consider the way Frank Capra shot films. A Capra-esque feeing about this film has been noted before. Same philosophy as John Ford. When you see James Stewart saying something, you see Donna Reed's reaction at the same time. Long shot.That's what's missing from missing from this movie. Bad framing throughout. It's hard to place the blame: Was it Robert Benton (director), James Bailey (cinematographer), or John Bloom (editor)? Hard to pinpoint.Otherwise a wonderful, if flawed film (reasons noted above).

Nobody's Fool comes from that breed of easy, quaint small-town character dramas that are warm and enjoyable while you watch them but you know you're going to forget about entirely by the next day. It's a very nice, comfortable viewing but there's not really anything in it that will make it last. The story focuses on Sully, played by Paul Newman with excellent world-worn weariness, and his interactions with the many different people living in his small town around Christmas time.Within the first half an hour you can guess where everything is going to end up, and you wouldn't be far off on any of it. It's definitely not the kind of film that you're going to be thinking about after it's over, but it's nice and easy while you're watching it. It also suffers from "way too many" endings syndrome, where the last half hour is basically one scene after another of big emotional payoffs with Sully wrapping up his story with each individual character and it's kind of brutal to get through, but the whole thing is made slightly better than it would have been with a group of quality performances.Jessica Tandy delivers her last screen performance and it's one of genuine charm and presence that I enjoyed thoroughly, and it's great to see Bruce Willis take on the role of a total sleezebag whose teeth you want to knock down his throat the moment you meet him, but the film undoubtedly belongs to Newman. Sully is the kind of old rascal that you love to root for even when he's making mistakes, and it's the type of character that Newman has made a career out of excelling at. He's a "born loser", as it were, but he plays it with such a warm heart that you can't help but smile watching him.Sully is a cantankerous old man and Newman plays him with the appropriate amount of anger, resentment and arrogance, but there are small moments, like the one where he lets his grandson drive his truck on his lap and a big smile comes across his face, where he lights up the room and you can see the potential of this man.In a lot of ways, Sully feels like the appropriate evolution of those cocksure heroes that Newman found himself playing often in the '60s, and he mixes this one with that same blend of charisma and human flaws that made him the icon he is. He would still act for another decade after this, delivering a few more quality performances, but this one felt like the ultimate swan song for one of the great American actors and it was one wholly appropriate for his skill and inspiration.