Don't be hush-hush – WATCH THIS MOVIE

Rating: 10/10 (1 December 2012)

(This is Part III of my "I Love the 90s!" special review series. From review #490-499, this being 492, I revisit what I feel are classics from the 90s. Unfortunately, one (Hellraiser: Bloodline) didn't fit the "classics" genre I'm referring to, but the rest, including this MASTERPIECE, I loved.)
I want to get three things I didn't favor in what is a MASTERPIECE, a CLASSIC and one of the best movies of ALL TIME, out of the way. Thankfully, these three are NOT the movie's fault; blame it on marketing and the idiocy of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or the Oscar buffoons.
#1 Kim Basinger does NOT belong on the cover, let alone half the cover. Not only did she play a small part, not only did she only play in just one of dozens of story lines, but the other actors outshined her throughout.
#2 What's the deal (still on Basinger) with Kimmy winning the only acting award at the Oscars? Heck, she was the only one nominated! Sure, 1997 was tough competition for stars – eventual winner-Jack Nicholson was excellent in As Good As it Gets – but the three leads: Pearce, Crowe and Spacey, not to mention Cromwell and DeVito, were all on TOP of their game. Perhaps the Oscars said "Boy, we can't pick between all of these excellent performances, so why even nominate any of them." Of course, that didn't stop them from nominating both Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis in Thelma & Louise a few years back. Furthermore, she was, in fact, good, looked gorgeous and believable in her role, but she was the weakest link in a long line of excellent performances.
#3 I did like Titanic. Sure. But in the 1997's best picture line up (remember, back then, they only did the top 5) consisting of As Good As it Gets, Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty, Titanic and L.A. Confidential, L.A. Confidential took the cake far and above the rest. In fact, As Good As it Gets was better than Titanic. But, they do like their grand epicsI do want to thank them, fast forwarding 13 years to this year (2010) they dissed Avatar. At least they got that right.
Whewnow I can praise one of my all time favorite movies. Crowe gave his best performance in spades and layers. He'll even tell you he's not smart enough to solve his dilemmas, but still shows the depth what others say about him. Then there's the all-around master, Spacey, who added much needed humor and elegance to the film. Pearce, wowtwo words: Clark Kent. And it was refreshing from both his excellent portrayal, but also to see Clark Kent in an alternative role.
In addition to those fantastic performances, Cromwell and DeVito also were near perfect. Also, you have a great score, mood is fantastic, cinematography was suburb – watch it in Bluray if you can, it's gorgeous and it contains one of the most complex and wonderful scripts I have even seen on screen. I've been told they even toned it down from even more multistory-lines from its source material, its novel. Honestly, there's so much in this movie, I don't know if I could even take any more inter-webbed , overlapping subplots.
In fact, it would be hard to even give a synopsis as I normally do, but I'll try.
Picture it, 1950s L.A. – a place people want to come to: escape or be noticed, get rich or die trying or to sleep with real movie stars or fake ones. The story begins with the semi-narrator, gossip-columnist, Sid Hudgens (DeVito) who pays for his storieswait, I let's start over.
(This paragraph might contain some heavy spoilers, skip over if you haven't seen the movie.) There are at least 8 main leads, all intersecting one way or another, leading this way, that way, and let me make one thing clear: I challenge anyone who has never seen this, read any of the spoilers or the book to predict where any of the multilayered stories are headed. There are the cops: Suave Jack (Spacey,) Meathead Bud (Crowe,) Clark Kent Ed (Pearce,) Do-No-Right Dudley (Cromwell) and D.A., or dick-n-ass, Ellis (Rifkin.) Then there's Loose Lynn (Basinger,) Vicious(-tongued) Sid (DeVito) and Pimpin' Pierce (Strathairn.) There's actually more, but these are the eight leads. Eight!
As much as I loved the (remake) Ocean's Eleven, where they also had a magnitude of characters, all with their individual backgrounds and depth, this movie handled it better. Ocean's had more than 10 characters, duh, but in reality, they focused on the main three actors: Clooney, Pitt and Damon. Here, everyone gets their own screen time, each have incredible depth and range thanks to the actors involved and each have their back stories along with actual growth.
To really make the movie basic or dumbed down for one central synopsis, it boils down to go-getter Ed who's made responsible for solving a multi-slaying homicide, but he doesn't think that the outcome is true justice. Honestly, I think that's the one line that's constant as there are at least 5-6 more supposedly irrelevant plots hanging around.
When you begin to watch L.A. Confidential for the first time (or in my case, the fifth or so) it just seems a little complicated at times. Even I have a little hard time following each thread, even when I rewatch it again. And that's one of the beauties of this movie: each experience is brand new. And even if you "get" the movie as a whole, the next time you watch it, you can sit back and focus on the crisp scenery, the richness of 1950s Los Angeles or the delicious performances. If you don't really feel you're there, quite honestly, I don't know what other movie or any film noir that will. Obviously: SEE IT!