Nobody's Fool (1994)

The Worst Film Ever

So much average

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I don't know what to make of this movie. It's trying so hard to be heartwarming and quirky and full of irascible charm, and it misses on every count.It comes off as simply contrived, poorly written and cloying. The acting is mediocre. The story wanders around aimlessly with numerous plot points that go nowhere and then it just sort of peters out all together and the credits roll up. "Uneven" doesn't begin to say it.It's not overly long, but, being as the story never really seems to develop, it seems like it. It's not the worst movie ever made, but I think maybe it was trying to be.

'Nobody's Fool' showcases & salutes the impeccable talent of the Late/Great Paul Newman. The legendary actor delivers a career-best performance as an aging nobody, who realizes family values & comes clean at last. Newman's performance demonstrates this human-drama, with charisma & aura. Its a class act!'Nobody's Fool' Synopsis: Sully is a rascally ne'er-do-well approaching retirement age. While he is pressing a worker's compensation suit for a bad knee, he secretly works for his nemesis, Carl & flirts with Carl's young wife Toby. Sully's long-forgotten son & family have moved back to town, so Sully faces unfamiliar family responsibilities.'Nobody's Fool' is beautifully Written & Directed by Robert Benton. His Screenplay, which is based on the 1993 novel of the same name by Richard Russo, delivers a story of pure emotions & redemption. Its heartbreaking & heart-felt. His Direction, as usual, is subtle. He, however, should be credited the most for churning out Newman's greatest performance to date. Performance-Wise: Its pretty evident that Newman is the life of the film. He's never been this good. Bruce Willis is efficient. Dylan Walsh gets some wonderful scenes with Newman & he enacts his part with sincerity. The Late/Great Jessica Tandy is restrained in a pivotal role, while The Late/Great Phillip Seymour Hoffman shines in a cameo. On the whole, 'Nobody's Fool' proves, that Nobody's like Newman.

Robert Benton's Nobody's Fool is more than a pretty good film it is a good film, the movie tells the story about a character named Donald Sully a man who is at a rascally ne'er do well retirement age.. While he is pressing a worker's compensation for a bad knee, and secretly works for his nemesis Carl Roebuck, and flirts with his young wife Toby. Sully's long forgotten son and his family have moved back to town for not only for thanksgiving dinner but for Sully's son to spend time with him and so that his father can meet his children. The movie stars Paul Newman as Donald Sully who gets to see his long forgotten family but when he first sees them when he hasn't seen them in a long time. Gets anxiety about unfamiliar family responsibilities. This movie compares to The Descendants by Alexander Payne but in which both of those 2 films have two things in common, more drama than comedy, and one funny part in both. Director Robert Benton copies the directorial style of Alexander Payne with his direction for the movie. The movie also stars Jessica Tandy (who gives an overrated performance.), Bruce Willis ( as Sully's nemesis.), Melanie Griffith (as Roebuck's wife), and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a police officer in the film. Based on a novel by Richard Russo this was a complete enjoyment for me.

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).