Best Picture 1987

I have seen none of these, though I have seen some of Fatal Attraction and know the story, just haven't seen the whole thing. Anyway, these all seem like pretty interesting choices and I'm especially interested in the winner because it's talked about so little, even in the online Oscar crowd. Let's see how they all stack up!

1987 Best Picture

The Last Emperor

This was a film that I'd been looking forward to watching for some time now. I would consider it one of the least well known recent Best Picture winners and probably one of the least watched. It's exactly what it's name is about: the last emperor of China. I think it's a really well done film that looks beautiful which shouldn't be hard given the Chinese locations and being the first Western production to actually film at the Forbidden City. But the story is what was most fascinating to me. That will vary person to person depending on what you know about Chinese history and if you care, but I didn't know anything about the subject of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. This tells his life story in an engaging way, showing him at a communist re-education prison and flashing back to moments in his life based off things going on at the prison. We see his coronation as Emperor at 3 years old and everything else that followed in his life. I was hooked simply because this was something I had very little knowledge about and was interested to know what all had happened in his tumultuous life. The beginning might not be the most exciting stuff but then Peter O' Toole comes into the picture as a tutor for the young Emperor and the story becomes more exciting as he grows older and isn't just a young kid annoying the court people. O' Toole is fine and sort of helps bridge the early years to the later ones and then we get to the adult life of the Emperor and get to see what I think is a great performance from John Lone. It would have been great if the Academy could have rewarded him with a Best Actor nomination instead of say Robin Williams but that's the Academy for you, no love for any Asian actors. This film also seems to hearken back to the films of a few decades earlier and has a timeless quality to it while still feeling modern. I thought it was a pretty fascinating film and it felt like an Oscar film. I liked how it used Asian actors to play everything which sounds dumb but you can never put it past Hollywood to add in white characters to draw an audience. At least O' Toole had a reason to be in the film and didn't overpower the story. Anyway, is the film a little too long? I'd say a tad bit, yes. It can be slightly boring at times but I feel it powers through those scenes and keeps you paying attention to what is a pretty compelling story overall. This feels like an Oscar throwback and I'm not sure anything else could have won this year except for maybe Broadcast News if the Academy went more modern. I like the choice and I'm glad it was nominated so I could have a chance to watch what is an overlooked film nowadays.

Broadcast News

There are a couple things that stood out while watching this film. First was that this film is so dense. By that I mean I watched it for a little over 30 minutes one night before going to bed and thought I had watched an hour because there was so much going on, so many different scenes. It wasn't a bad thing because I was totally engaged and interested in the story but there was a lot going on for what seems like a simple enough story. Second thing is that because it felt so dense, it was like a sitcom or TV show in that way, which really made sense to me. I could see this being a TV show easily. And because it has that feel, the characters all feel like they've been on screen for a lot longer than we have been watching. Like we were plopped down in the middle of their lives instead of having a self contained story within the film. If that makes any sense. The characters all feel natural to the story and comfortable with each other and themselves. That's why I found most of the film so entertaining. The performances are top notch and engrossing. The story is engaging and interesting about a newsroom and a new reporter/anchor comes on board and Holly Hunter likes him and William Hurt likes her back and Albert Brooks likes Hunter and they are all competitive with their work and each other. That's a terrible description but just watch it because it's a good film. The reason I said I liked most of the film is because the ending is just dumb to me. Hurt and Hunter are going away together for a vacation after the newsroom made layoffs and everyone is dispersing and then Hunter, the producer, finds a tape where Hurt added in some tears in reaction to a story he was doing. It's played up as this huge moment where she gets really angry and decides not to go with him spouting off about ethics and feeling betrayed and all that. All I could think of was who the fuck cares? I didn't see why it was such a big deal, especially because he didn't do it maliciously. He just thought that was something he could do. It was an absurd thing to ballistic over and I just didn't buy it's emotional power. The scene just left me scratching my head as to why it would matter and why the film chose to end on such a stupid idea. There's a tacked on ending of the gang a few years later but it doesn't matter. So that ending really made me bump the whole the film down because until that point I was loving it. I don't think I'm being irrational either. That whole part just felt too contrived. Other than that I really enjoyed the film. It's smart and adult and highly entertaining from a human standpoint. I was worried it might feel too 80s but it was still relevant for today which lends it a timeless quality. This would have been a pretty good Best Picture winner.

Fatal Attraction

This film is kind of messed up and I love it for that. It's definitely very 80s, which I have already said I like. This made the second most money in 1987 which is insane to think about in this time of superhero films and sequels. A sexual thriller was one of the biggest films of 1987, let that sink in. In all honesty, it's a good film! I enjoyed the hell out of it. Michael Douglas is great in his role, Glenn Close is terrifying and memorable as the crazy woman who makes Douglas' life miserable, and Anne Archer is a pretty decent supporting wife. The tension in the film ratchets up increasingly once the film gets to the end and though you may not like the ending, it's very satisfying for me. I get that it can be very unsatisfying for others, though. I read that the original ending was that Close killed herself and framed Douglas for it which seems even more diabolical and would have been the ultimate power move by Close's character although a lot less cathartic for the audience. As a guy, it has me wondering what I would do in that situation. Would I try and kill her? Would I tell my wife immediately? What would I do? It makes me think about scenarios I know I'll never be in but tells me about it's staying power. The leads do carry the film because you've got to feel somewhat sympathetic for Douglas and feel Close is super sexy (though I went off on how I find her unattractive in this) and the family is an innocent victim. It's also quite the companion piece to Wall Street, which Douglas was filming at the same time and is pretty insane to think about. But link the two and I feel like you get the late 80s in a nutshell. They do feel like the behind the scenes extension of each other even if Douglas is a lawyer in this one. The film is ultimately about survival and it comments on that in a unique way. It's fun to watch Douglas squirm his way through scenes where his wife might find out and see the relief and pain and apprehension when he finally tells his wife. For what seems like such a silly, simple film there's a lot to digest with this one. I really like it's inclusion in Best Picture for those reasons.

Hope and Glory

Here is a film that you've never heard of, have no idea what it's about, and one that satisfies the British film slot for the category. So with it ticking all of those boxes I was a bit worried this was going to be awful. I really shouldn't think that way since the British film slot always seems to be at the very least entertaining. This film is about the homefront during World War II. It shadows one family as they deal with the war, but it's done in a very light style even when things could be played in a very dark, dramatic way. It makes the war seem like a minor inconvenience for the family and the town which I'm not sure how to feel about. There's no doubt the war was a bigger deal than the film makes it appear to this family/town. They deal with a loved one volunteering to fight, they were going to send the kids to the country but the mother has a change of heart at the last second, they deal with air raid bombings, they deal with a burned down house. There's a lot of tough things going on and the film kinda glosses over everything. When a girl in the neighborhood's house is bombed and her mother is killed, the kids treat it like a curiosity, pestering the girl asking if her mother really died and then telling other kids who don't believe her. I think it's supposed to treat the situations as if viewing them through a kid's perspective but it doesn't totally work for me. The film also gets really bogged down towards the end when the family goes to the country to stay with relatives after their house burns down. It's just not as interesting away from the city because the family itself is mostly boring. There is a crazy old grandpa who keeps it from being a total bore but the end is where the film crashes and burns. The film is just way too light for the subject which I get is the point but it needed to make up for that in other areas and it doesn't. Cinematography and music are blah, there's no known actors, the story is too light. Maybe this really appealed to the older Academy crowd because it reminds them of their past but I'm not sure it really belongs in Best Picture.

Moonstruck

As I've said in the other reviews for this film, I was totally expecting a very broad, loud, ethnic family film filled with stereotypes and maybe lots of yelling. But this is kind of a subtle, or at least gentle, film about family and love. Cher is a widow who gets engaged to Danny Aiello who goes to Sicily to care for his dying mother. He wants Cher to reach out to his brother (Nicolas Cage) to come to their wedding. Well, Cher and Cage become involved in a very hot, spicy, animalistic way as Aiello comes home because his mother rebounded. This all sounds very serious and like a glum drama but the film itself is a comedy that is decently funny at times. I won't go so far as to say hilarious or one of the best comedies of all time/last 20-30 years like a lot of reviews of the time said. I think that's where the gentle/subtle nature comes into play where it could easily ratchet things up for cheap laughs but doesn't. I do think that Cage is brilliant. His character IS hilarious and has this overdramatic way of speaking that wouldn't work if it was anyone else. His character is really into the opera and I think that's where some of the theatrics of his demeanor come from and it's fitting and very funny. The film has a little bit to say about not settling with someone but being with the person you truly love. Instead of the safe, boring mate in Aiello, Cher is with the fiery, bombastic Cage who loves her passionately instead of mundanely. Like when we see Olympia Dukakis' character almost instantly click with a guy in a restaurant and they hit it off, but she demures when walked home because she's a dutiful, loyal wife. Her husband (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her and steps out late and is basically a slimeball, yet she stays loyal and though you can see the love they've fostered over the years, it's nothing compared to the brief scene in the restaurant. At least, that's my take on the film's message. It also focuses on the moon holding influence over lovers which is a neat little idea and plot device. The acting is mostly pretty good and if you like Dean Martin music, this film is for you. All in all, it's a nice little film that I enjoyed, just not sure it's a Best Picture winner for me.


A lot of people consider this a boring year for Best Picture, but I'm not sure I really agree with that sentiment. I think people just don't really know/watch/care about The Last Emperor but I feel like it fits being an Oscar winner to a T. It's what they like, easily. I liked it, too. It just feels right being a winner. Broadcast News is really good minus the ending I had issues with, though I know others probably find the ending just fine. It's pretty great besides that and would have made a decent 80s winner. Fatal Attraction is an interesting choice for this category and I like it being included. It feels out of the box which is refreshing. Moonstruck seems like a very safe choice for the Academy but I do appreciate its inclusion. It is a sweet film and has heart and I like that, just not enough for a win. Hope and Glory is the one film I'd rather be left off this list. I just didn't really enjoy what it was about even if it is showing the homefront from a kid's perspective. Maybe I'm biased but I feel it's too slight to a tough time and it makes everyone look like they don't give a crap that a war is going on. I don't like that sentiment and the film was kinda boring anyway, so easy choice to replace it with anything else (Full Metal Jacket, Raising Arizona, The Princess Diaries, anything!). Not a bad group as some might lead you to believe, just not much drama when it came to Oscar night when The Last Emperor went 9 for 9 without any acting noms. I am super pumped for 1986, though, my birth year!

Oscar Winner: The Last Emperor
My Winner:  The Last Emperor
Broadcast News
Fatal Attraction
Moonstruck
Hope and Glory

Leading Actor 1987

A couple of these I've seen before, a couple I have been wanting to see, and then we've got Mastroianni who I just hope to see since the foreign noms are so tricky to find.

1987 Best Actor

Michael Douglas - Wall Street

Gordon Gekko. Greed....is good. You know the film. It's a very 80s film and I like that about it. It's supposed to show how those on Wall Street are unscrupulous people, screwing over the American public but of course it ends up making the lifestyle look appealing and cool and makes the villain look almost like a hero. That villain is Michael Douglas and he is so good in the role. He is super intense and demanding in the role. He commands your attention any time he's on screen. We first see him wheeling and dealing, making his empire grow in a slick, measured way. From the start, Douglas is believable in the role and has the air of arrogance and swagger about him (ugh, yeah I just wrote swagger). I like how he can easy manipulate Charlie Sheen into doing some spying work so that he can get a leg up on business deals which shows the subtle power he yields next to his obvious power that his wealth and possessions show off. The one minor thing about the character is that there isn't much subtlety to Gekko. He just wants more and more money and will get it any way he can, using those around him in nefarious ways. And that's how the character is throughout the film which I kinda like that he doesn't have any change of heart or moments of emotional realizations or anything like that because it wouldn't fit who Gekko is. So to that, Douglas plays the role perfectly and makes you root against Gekko while also liking him and kinda rooting for him as well. I attribute that to Douglas being so evilly charming and slick which is how he has risen to power. Now, the other thing about this performance is that it's not exactly the true lead of the film - that would be Charlie Sheen who we follow around as he ascends to power. But Douglas so thoroughly dominates the film with his presence that even when he's not on screen we feel him hovering over everything. So I'm fine with him being considered a lead and I like that a villainous character was rewarded with a Best Actor win. Throw in the fact that Douglas was working on Fatal Attraction at the same time and, well, you can see why the Academy would go for him with a twofer like that on his resume this year.

William Hurt - Broadcast News

Hurt plays the hunky sports reporter turned anchor/regular news reporter at a bigger network and finds himself liking Holly Hunter's producer character and competing with Albert Brooks' fellow reporter for air time and Hunter's attention. A good story made better by the great acting of the three mentioned. When we first meet Hurt, he's new and looked down upon for being a sportscaster who has been promoted because he looks good on TV and can read the news really well. He tries to fit in and gain knowledge from everyone and catches the eye of Hunter which makes Brooks jealous. But there's a lot more to Hurt's character than we first suspect. He's calculating, though not ruthless. He just knows how to do his job well and is looking to get ahead. He may not be scholarly or well verse in current events or history like Brooks but he can read the news as if it's the only thing that matters and that he's a smooth expert on whatever he's talking about. Hurt's Tom may have a pretty boy demeanor but he's determined to become more than just a pretty face. That's why he takes on some emotional reportings about date rape and knows it'll further his career and gain respect of the office. I like that Hurt kind of underplays everything. He's kind of a chill dude and when he and Hunter get together it seems more casual on his end and like he can easily move on if necessary. This is not stated anywhere but communicated through the subtlety of Hurt, but it's really good acting. It's certainly not flashy which suits the role just fine. It fits into everyone else, and the film as a whole, acting naturally and being comfortable in their roles. This was his third straight Best Actor nomination and this one is earned. He was definitely on top of his game and his newsman Tom is an interesting performance to watch.

Marcello Mastroianni - Dark Eyes

I had to use some hardcore Google Fu to find this and of course the subtitles were faster than the actual voices so that was fun. I know the Academy has a love affair with Mastroianni since he's been nominated like 2-3 other times before this one so I was hoping this wasn't just a token type of nomination and that he was actually great. I will say he's good and I can see the appeal of his brand of acting and I look forward to watching some of his other performances in more well known films. But I wasn't overly wowed by this one. To try and simply sum it up, Mastroianni is telling a story of his life to another man on a ship and we see he was married to a wealthy woman but didn't quite love her, they mostly tolerated each other. Then he met a Russian woman at a spa and fell in love with her instantly. He then goes to Russia to find her after she leaves to tell her he loves her. It's that kind of film, romantic with some tragic elements and some Italian comedy thrown in for good measure. So Mastroianni has to be charming and romantic in the flashback scenes and does well enough with that. He also at times is pretty funny. I laughed out loud at some of his antics and wasn't expecting to after the first bit of the film which is kinda slow and serious, but it delved into some funny physical comedy elements which I totally wasn't expecting. With that all said, this is a very Italian performance. It has the broad physical comedy like Roberto Benigni and the serious, tragic elements like Massimo Troisi. He also is pretty good at just being plain ol charming. The performance does make me want to watch more of his work because I'm certain he's got a great performance somewhere. Overall, though, this wasn't something I'd want to watch again or feel better for having seen it. This is mostly a forgettable Best Actor nomination.

Jack Nicholson - Ironweed

Nicholson is a drifter drifting through life. I wasn't sure what to expect from Ironweed really. I knew it starred Nicholson and Streep as hobos during the depression era which seems like a producers wet dream of an idea. It also seemed very much like it would be Oscar bait. The film might be and I feel like Streep definitely is but Nicholson teeters on the edge of really owning the role and letting it own him. It's not a flashy role at all. It's very quiet and understated for the most part. I think it's just the idea of Nicholson as a bum who became that way because he was an alcoholic who accidentally dropped and killed his baby boy is a bit ludicrous when you sum it up like that. Nicholson's Francis Phelan struggles with that guilt which leads him to being this depressed, cynical, hopeless man. He's been in this state for awhile, refusing to face up to his realities and burdening himself with the memory of the tragedy. He's an alcoholic but not dependent on the stuff to live. He uses it to deal with his emotions and grief and it's really not what the film or performance is about which is refreshing. He sees visions of those he has harmed or killed in his life and they haunt Francis which speaks to the amount of guilt he's truly saddled with. I do think Nicholson does a tremendous job of wrangling all that emotion in and not letting it become a cliche or overpower the performance with big, overstated moments. There's a lot of pain in the character and Nicholson reflects that in a restrained manner which is what I think I like most about it. He just kinda trudges along devoured by his own guilt. Contrast that to when he meets his wife after so many years apart and we find out she doesn't even blame him and still loves him and wishes he were home. And he looks at ease when with her even though he seems to enjoy wallowing in his misery and drifting out on his own. The relationship with Streep is minor to me. I didn't care about it one bit and wasn't really into her performance. The main focus is Francis. I like the performance and I think it will be more of a grower that I need to let sink in for a bit and mull around in my head. This is a reserved and restrained performance that is nice to see when compared to some of his later, more crazy Nicholson roles. Can't wait to see more of his earlier stuff.

Robin Williams - Good Morning, Vietnam

This was Williams' first Oscar nomination and is the last time I'll watch him for the project and I'm kinda glad to be done with him. All of his nominations are very similar. Not that I don't like his acting or anything, but all of them being so similar, it gets old real quick. We know that Williams is going to interject his performances with his brand of comedy. Sometimes it works really well like when he's a delusional knight riding around the city. Sometimes it falls flat like in Good Will Hunting or Dead Poets Society. Here, though, it works fine because Williams plays an Air Force radio DJ who is successful and liked because of his irreverent shtick. He comes in a replaces a boring program and plays stuff that he knows the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines would rather here, especially knowing it might be the last thing they here instead of some old, boring song or droll message. Williams' superiors don't like that he does his own thing and want him to stick to the approved program and he clashes with them. Williams is great for the role because it uses his talents perfectly. I read that Williams improvised his radio broadcasts which is why they are so fun and crazy and feel very real. The comedy can wear thin at times when you'd rather Williams play the character straight and not default to jokes and antics. Williams does get to show off some dramatic acting at points but it's not as polished as his future dramatic performances. If I hadn't seen anything else of Williams' besides his earlier work, this probably looks like a more mature step in his career and impresses the Academy by mixing the comedy and drama and giving a decent performance. But now it looks like more of the same (which isn't bad!) and feels like a lesser nomination. But that is all based on hindsight and knowing where his career would go. Williams' stuff works well for the character and the story even if I wanted a lot more out of it. Probably not a choice I'd make for Best Actor but can't change anything now.


A good enough group, I guess. I like that the Academy went with a villain type character for the winner. I'm totally fine with Douglas' win here as Nicholson has three total Oscars and didn't really need one for Ironweed, let's be real. Hurt was on his third Best Actor nomination in three years and had won on his first one two years prior. Williams feels like the Academy was rewarding him for giving a little more dramatic performance than maybe people were used to from him. I'm not that into his inclusion for his role here but whatever I guess. John Lone for The Last Emperor would have been a nice addition. Mastroianni seems like a safety choice for the Academy and he probably could have been replaced to make for a much strong category, but again, whatever. So that would be my order if you just switch Hurt and Nicholson for two and three, respectively. This group could have been way better but the top three are certainly good. I'm just pumped to get to 1986.

Oscar Winner: Michael Douglas - Wall Street
My Winner:  Michael Douglas - Wall Street
William Hurt
Jack Nicholson
Robin Williams
Marcello Mastroianni

Leading Actress 1987

A bunch of performances that I've been looking forward to seeing finally. I'm expecting some really good stuff, too. Also, I see I've been getting like a consistent 4-5 views, so hello friends! Feel free to tell me I'm wrong!

1987 Best Actress

Cher - Moonstruck

Every time I looked at winners while creating the project I was always like really? Cher? She won Best Actress? Was this because she was actually good or was it because they liked Cher the entertainer and cultural icon? I was always intrigued by Moonstruck for this reason (and also because I knew Nicolas Cage was a spicy meatball in this) so I was definitely looking forward to watching her performance. It was not really what I expecting at all. Same as with Dukakis, I thought it would be a very loud, ethnic performance given it's about a family of Italians. But the performance was far from being a caricature or stereotype which I am very glad to see. I actually really enjoyed Cher in her role as Loretta, a widow who gets engaged again and wants to do everything right this time because she thinks she had bad luck before. She then meets her fiancee's brother and sparks up a steamy, hot romance with him and we learn about ideas of family along the way. What I like about Cher is how natural she feels in the role and in the family itself. It's a gentle performance that gives into the whims of love and doesn't feel too corny for it. She and Cage are a lot of fun to watch in their scenes together and I can believe this almost mild mannered accountant getting swept off her feet by the brutish Cage. It's such a calm, comfortable, assured performance. I like that Cher never devolves into histrionics or plays up the ethnicity thing, she just plays a normal person for the most part. There's no crazy yelling scenes or hysterical crying or anything like that. It's just enjoyable to watch. Maybe it's because I expected a lot out of the performance that I was happy with what Cher did in the film but it works for me. Granted, the romance with Cage is a bit ridiculous but even with it's suddenness I can see those two together, mostly because they have good chemistry. I don't know if I'm articulating myself well enough as to why Cher is good and why I liked it, but she is and I did. It's almost like a safe choice. Cher does a pretty good job as Loretta and I'll have to see if anyone else can challenge her for the win.

Glenn Close - Fatal Attraction

I hate to rag on someone because of their looks but man is Close really unattractive in this film. I know it's the 80s and the big frizzy hair was in, but I'm supposed to buy that Close is irresistibly hot and tempting for Michael Douglas and I don't. I can respect Close for choosing the role because she wanted to play against her type, and besides the looks thing, she is quite disturbing which is a compliment here. I like the transition from sexpot to raging crazy bitch because I appreciate that our initial introduction of her is as this seductress who is a somebody in the corporate world. Then we see her descent into becoming a psychopath when she can't handle being rejected and doesn't like being used by Douglas. After a certain point, though, Close isn't given all that much to do really. Once she becomes absolutely crazy, what else is there to do to show she's psychotic? It's like reaching the ground floor and there's no basement. Close can't do anything else to show how crazy her character is. She ends up stalling or maybe idling is a better description. Sure, it's more like how can we make her more evil with killing the pet rabbit and then trying to kill Anne Archer but Close becomes voiceless and just a way to keep the action and tension going. So the performance loses steam but it's not particularly Close's fault since that's all she can do. She is convincingly terrifying, however, which is why the role is so memorable and so scary. As a guy, I couldn't imagine having a woman like that in my life. I'd be scared shitless that she would ruin my life which is what makes her so fascinating. I'm not sure how women feel about the character which I would be very interested to hear. The performance is strong before it tapers off at the end which is a shame because it could have contended for the win if it could have kept up the intrigue. It makes for a great thriller and an interesting Close nomination.

Holly Hunter - Broadcast News

Crazy to think that Holly Hunter was a relative unknown before this film. This role was initially meant for Debra Winger but she got pregnant and then a long search led to Hunter. She is really great in this role which is obviously her breakout role. She acts the shit out of it. She has that nice, girl next door quality but can be ferocious when necessary. She plays a female (duh) producer at a network newsroom which is dominated by men. Hunter's character is a no-nonsense, strong, independent woman in love with her work but who also wants a little more in her life. The thing I like about the performance is that Hunter doesn't make this into an I am woman, hear me roar type thing. Her character, Jane, is strong from the start because that's how she got where she is and because that's how she approaches life. But there are no punctuated moments where the script or director feels it's necessary to remind us that she's a strong, independent woman. Everything seems to grow organically because of the choices Hunter makes. When she's yelling in the newsroom or when she's leading the team and taking the reins it's because that is her job and she does her job well. It feels natural and is fun to watch without being hit over the head with what her character is. She also gets these emotional moments that work well within the story and within Jane the person. She wants love and opens herself up and becomes vulnerable which makes her obviously uncomfortable. That's because Hunter gives such a measured performance where everything she does matters. Her little love triangle feels very authentic from her chasing Hurt and her reaction to Brooks telling her he loves her to her honest moments of emotion. My bone to pick is with the ending that makes her look so anal and by the book. I felt the moment was too contrived to give Jane her a big scene that highlighted her independence and ability to be her own woman while staying true to herself. It just makes Hunter look ridiculous to me, honestly. I don't get the big deal because I don't think it is a big deal. It might stay true to the character but I think that Jane would have handled it a different way than what the script made her do. I think Hunter is pretty great here and I think I like this more than her Oscar winning performance. The whole film is pretty good despite my feelings on the ending. A well deserved nomination for sure.

Sally Kirkland - Anna

So on first look you go what the hell is this film? Then you ask who the hell is Sally Kirkland. Valid questions! And then you investigate and learn that Kirkland campaigned super hard to be nominated and was. And that the film is about a washed up older actress giving it another go and she takes in a younger actress. Said younger actress eventually is discovered and goes on to be a star while Kirkland remains a nobody and doesn't look like she has any future. The little wrinkle is that Kirkland plays a Czech woman who takes in another Czech woman (Paulina Porizkova, a model in real life) and she surpasses Kirkland quickly. This easily checks off a lot of Oscar absolutes. Kirkland is an older actress who was a star in her native Czechoslovakia and came to America to escape communism. She struggles to find work and goes to auditions and her younger countrywoman does the same and Kirkland takes her in. Eventually the younger version of Kirkland is rewarded and given a shot at a major role while Kirkland has to continue to be an understudy on plays. This is obviously very relatable for Oscar voters. The struggle she faces is something all Academy members have probably faced. That's why I feel she got nominated plus the campaigning. On its own, the performance is decent. It is a very specific type of role that appeals to a specific type of person. I guess you could broaden it to mean the takeover of jobs by younger people for those pushing towards retirement but that is a huge stretch. This is just an entertainment breakdown. The very end of the film is also super cliche and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kirkland does something to Porizkova but I won't get too detailed, though I know no one will ever watch this. And that's the lasting legacy of the film is that it is more interesting for the NYC actor than for the general public. This is purely distilled Oscar bait at its finest. It obviously worked for her to score a nomination. I could see this being done today as maybe a Sundance type indie film, and with the right actress, being nominated again. I didn't hate it and I'm actually glad I got to watch this because it is so interesting from an Oscar standpoint. I'll have to let it settle and see how I feel about it later.

Meryl Streep - Ironweed

This might be the first Meryl Streep performance that I genuinely dislike. It only took like 12 nominations. The main reason this performance doesn't do anything for me and makes me kinda hate it, is that it looks like obvious acting. Which I'm not used to seeing from Streep so I was pretty surprised but it felt so labored to me. She plays a hobo in the depression era in Albany who is friendly with Jack Nicholson and is an alcoholic who used to sing in nightclubs. Usually Streep is so refined and subtle and convincing as a character but here I felt she was too much of a stretch as a bum. She just didn't work and it felt way too much like Oscar bait. She's got an old-timey accent that is out of place and she's really not all that likable. I don't care at all about any relationship between her and Nicholson because she gives me no reason to become invested in it. It might be sacrilege to say I dislike a Streep performance and think it's bad but I do think she's the worst part of the film. Plus, she doesn't feel like a true leading actress. Most likely because of her star power and name is why she is here but the film belongs to Nicholson. I really wanted to like this performance because I think Streep is a phenomenal actress but I just can't. It felt too gimmicky and I wish Streep would have approached it differently. I guess sometimes there are performances even by great actors that just don't click with me and this is an example of that. I will say she plays a decent drunk which a lot of people can't pull off, so she has that going for her, which is nice. Anyway, worst Streep performance I've seen so far - this had to happen at some point. Just not something I can ever see myself coming back to or even recommending.


I quite enjoyed this category for a change. When Meryl Streep is your worst performance, it can't really be all that bad, right? She's my 5th, just not for me. Kirkland is my 4th which is a surprise because I thought she'd be the worst. But her performance grew on me when thinking about it, possibly because the role and film seem so contemporary. Like it would be a cool indie nowadays that people love. That's my take on it. Now for the next three, I honestly have no idea the order. I'm cool with Cher after watching the film, I thought Close was pretty interesting before she lost steam, Hunter was very good before that last scene I didn't like. Soooo Close third and toss up between Cher and Hunter. I hate these choices. I think I might stick with the Academy but 5 minutes from now it might be Hunter. They are both really good. So great category and worth checking out.

Oscar Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
My Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
Holly Hunter
Glenn Close
Sally Kirkland
Meryl Streep

Supporting Actor 1987

I feel like part of the reason - okay, most of the reason - I've been doing a lot better with getting these categories published is because I started writing articles in my free time at work. So it's a lot easier to watch a film at night and then not worry about having to finish writing before I sleep so I don't keep putting it off over and over. It's easy to pick at it at work where I'm at for 12 hours and focus my thoughts where I'm not too distracted since at home I can do a million things. It allows me to start films I may not have before because of time constraints with having to sleep. I know, tough problems, right? Anyway, it's been nice to get these done quicker. Haven't seen any of these performances yet so I'm looking forward to them all.

1987 Best Supporting Actor

Sean Connery - The Untouchables

Okay, so I had heard how awesome this performance was and blah, blah, blah. I always dismissed that as people just loving Sean Connery and his thick accent and that's it. I always wondered if this was just a veteran win for the past Mr. Bond and because he was well liked in the industry. This was the first time they could even reward him and they went all out. Well, yes to that but yes to this being a really awesome performance. Watch this and not fall in love with the character after a minute or two. He's a no-nonsense Irish beat cop (though the accent is dodgy at best) who becomes one of Eliot Ness' handpicked men to bust up the illegal booze operations and bring down Al Capone. It's like every line he speaks is instantly quotable. He's funny and engaging and really just a treat to watch, no exaggeration. His presence is so dominant in the film that when he's not there, you feel the absence. Needless to say even if this was a veteran win, it still holds up on its own as a good performance. Whether or not it's good enough for the win, I'll have to wait and see. Shout out to Ennio Morricone's score which is terrific and obviously reminds me of his The Hateful Eight work. The role is pretty fun and light and I'm okay with the Academy rewarding him here.

Albert Brooks - Broadcast News

A couple things that jump out at me right away are that I know Brooks mostly from his Simpsons work and various minor roles in movies, so seeing how good he is with this dramatic work is nice. The second thing is that this performance is a lead performance, shared along with William Hurt. I guess they didn't want to have both compete in Best Actor and take votes away from each other. But yes, Brooks is terrific in this role. He plays a newsman who is highly intelligent and ethical but isn't too handsome or flashy when hosting the news. He also sweats a lot on camera and seems more fit for behind the camera even though he wants to be the man in front. He is contrasted with Hurt's pretty boy, smooth talking, natural TV presence. The two kind of fight over Holly Hunter's attention and affection and therein lies the story. Brooks seems perfect for his role, as he brings a nerdy touch that's not too nerdy and is more of a know it all with condescension dripping from every line. He would be a flat out douchebag if not for his charm that keeps his attitude as mostly harmless. Not to mention Brooks is great with the comedic touches which makes the performance better and makes his character more sympathetic and likable. It's like his character is territorial of his work and of Hunter and constantly gets in these verbal jabs at anyone that he doesn't deem worthy of being around. His job is the most important thing to him and he will challenge and snap at anyone who gets in the way. Now I don't want to make it seem as if Brooks is this big asshole character because he has these emotional moments like when he confesses his love for Hunter but she doesn't feel the same way then almost immediately turns that into fiery anger. It's a very natural and visceral reaction that is remarkable to watch. And then Brooks' dealings with Hurt are interesting because the two are so wary of each other but admire and respect one another even if it's all only professional. I don't think they outright hate each other, just are two accomplished men trying to get ahead with each other in the way. It's a very real, authentic performance. Brooks seems so casual but you know he's putting in work to make the character what it is. This is a really good performance even if it is a co-lead in the film. Good to see Brooks rewarded here as I felt he should have been nominated for his supporting role in Drive a few years ago.

Morgan Freeman - Street Smart

I don't really know anything about Freeman's pre Driving Miss Daisy work. I didn't even know he had an Oscar nomination before that when I started this project and had never heard of this film. I feel like I need to check out more of his work to see how he has grown as an actor, especially if this performance is any indication of things. Freeman plays a pimp who people start to think is the pimp in a feature magazine story written by Christopher Reeve that he made up to make a deadline. As an aside, it's always weird seeing Reeve acting knowing what would happen to him in the future. I would have loved to see him continue his work and see what he could have done because he's pretty interesting, if a little generic. You might think Freeman is going to be a jovial, jive talking, funny, charismatic pimp but his pimp is a real, gritty, violent person. I like that his character isn't just a neighborhood friendly, whitewashed pimp. Freeman's Fast Black is unpredictable like when he is taking Reeve around a neighborhood and starts playing basketball and a guy blocks his shot. Freeman goes apeshit on the guy and then calms down and gives him money to go buy him some food. That scene really sums up Freeman's character to me. He can quickly become very violent and commands respect and fear from those around him and is able to throw money at the issues he's created. There's times where Fast Black seems harmless and more like a big talker than an actual doer, but then he surprises you with how he reacts to something. This could have easily been a cliche role but Freeman brings a lot more realness to the role than you would expect. The film isn't the best but Freeman makes it worth a watch. He's brutal and charismatic and brings a side of Freeman that we really haven't seen before. It makes you want to dive deeper into his earlier stuff to see what else he is capable of besides just being a great narrator and calm actor.

Vincent Gardenia - Moonstruck

To me, this nomination is carried by the love the film received overall. Not that Gardenia is terrible or anything but his performance is the lesser of the others in the film. He plays Cher's father and is a bit of a schmoozer. He's a successful plumber who gets people to pay for expensive copper piping by manipulating them with a caring act. He cheats on his wife, doesn't like his daughter's new fiancee, and is always complaining he's tired and can't sleep. So you can see the type of guy we are dealing with here. Gardenia at least plays this in a not so serious way which helps make him not so unlikable. I think it's also part of why I'm not that into the performance. Gardenia is fine in the role but it doesn't do anything for me, I don't feel compelled to champion it as being something amazing because I never connected with the character. He's kind of a sleazeball and doesn't have the best relationship with his daughter or his wife and isn't exactly laugh out loud funny or anything like that. I don't get why Dukakis stays with him or puts up with him. I'm sure other people find the character to be funny and relatable and might remind them of a family member but it didn't click with me. And that's really the crux of the performance. In a film about family, you're supposed to relate to everyone and usually like them. But Gardenia is the weak link in a film with some pretty great characters and it just totally misses for me.

Denzel Washington - Cry Freedom

Kind of interesting that Google just had a Doodle about Steve Biko and here I am a couple days later watching a film about his life. Weird how that seems to work out sometimes. I know there's a name for that like when you learn a new word and then see it everywhere but it escapes me at the moment. Anyway, Washington plays said Steve Biko, a South African anti-Apartheid activist who the government and police hate. His character ends up murdered but that doesn't come as a shock or anything as he's in the film for only maybe an hour or less. The issue with Denzel is that in his later years, he always seems to play a version of himself. The characters, no matter who they are, all feel like Denzel in some fashion. The great thing about this performance is that this is before Denzel became Denzel so we get a performance where he becomes someone else, in this case Biko. As far as I can tell, Denzel nails the accent and really embodies the character and brings a confidence to the performance. It's reminiscent of his work in Malcolm X where he fully gives in to the activist part of the character. The performance is effective in getting us to know who exactly Biko is and what he stands for and wishes to happen for his race and country. Denzel doesn't have to do much heavy lifting because he is only asked to give speeches and play the activist. We don't really dive deep into who Biko is or how he came to be an activist which is unfortunate. I would have liked a film that took a look at Biko instead of one that focuses on a white newspaper editor. It's a good first nomination and speaks to what Denzel would achieve later on with his performances.

This was a pretty good category! I'm always pleased when this category delivers. My odd man out is Gardenia who I felt came along for the ride with his film. It's an okay performance but not something I was super enthused about. Denzel is 4th in his first nomination really because it's like a primer for his Malcolm X performance. He is kind of righteous and we don't really get to the heart of why and Denzel doesn't have much else to do. Still worth a watch, though. I was surprised with Freeman because I liked how badass his character was, which we don't see often from him as an actor. It's worth a watch to see Freeman before his Driving Miss Daisy days for sure. Then Brooks is second because I really liked what he did with his character, how real it was, but it was definitely a co-lead in the film. I'm cool with the Connery win because his character was so entertaining. Sometimes that's all it takes if there's no absolute standout. It's a fun watch and who is mad at him having an Oscar? All in all an enjoyable category this year.

Oscar Winner: Sean Connery - The Untouchables
My Winner:  Sean Connery - The Untouchables
Albert Brooks
Morgan Freeman
Denzel Washington
Vincent Gardenia

Supporting Actress 1987

So many Ann(e)s! Let's see which might reign supreme!

1987 Best Supporting Actress

Olympia Dukakis - Moonstruck

Having watched everyone else in the category, I guess it makes sense that Dukakis came out the winner as her only real competition (for me anyway) was Anne Ramsey. Dukakis is in a well loved film and is less one note and more nuanced than Ramsey. Now before I get into the performance, I also wonder if the fact that her cousin Michael running for President had anything to do with her nomination/win. We know the Academy is pretty liberal and maybe they were voting for that connection as well? Something to think about at least. I was curious as to how I'd respond to Dukakis in this film. I'll admit I was expecting a very showy, loud, ethnic performance given what the film is about. She plays Cher's mother and is Italian but what I liked about Dukakis is that she is very subdued and graceful in the role. She plays it like a true matriarch who is satisfied with her kingdom. The underlying tension for her in the film is that her husband is cheating on her and she knows it. There's a great scene where she goes to a restaurant to eat dinner by herself and ends up talking with a man who is always bringing younger women to the place and getting into loud arguments with them. They talk and make a connection that seems more real than anything we see between her and her husband in a short amount of time. Dukakis stays dignified in the moment even when getting walked home by him and he asks to go inside with her. She values family more than instant gratification and it's a nice touching view into her character. Dukakis herself is charming and stately and very relatable like she's your own kin. She has one explosive moment where she yells at Cher but for the most part her performance is a quiet one which I respect. I do see why she was nominated and can understand her win for this type of performance. The Academy loved the film and loved her work in it. I'm still on the fence on if I'd take this or Ramsey and I'll have to really think about it to decide.

Norma Aleandro - Gaby: A True Story

This is a true story about Gaby. I had to watch this on Youtube and it was shit quality but I at least watched it. Should say all you need to know about the film that I could only find it on Youtube and not any of the streaming sites. It's another cerebral palsy film like My Left Foot that shows how someone overcomes their disability when someone nurtures and encourages them. This one is about Gabriela Brimmer who was a woman of European parents living in Mexico who was afflicted with cerebral palsy. Parents aren't sure what to do until Norma Aleandro's character becomes like a live-in nurse and recognizes the person behind the disability. She encourages Gaby and helps teach her and goes with her everywhere, even class. Gaby eventually goes on to college and becomes a respected author and advocate due in large part to Aleandro's nurturing. It's kind of your standard disability film stuff. Aleandro is good in the role as the nurse/helper. She's very caring and treats Gaby like her own daughter at times and Aleandro shows these emotions well enough in her performance. I'm certainly not going to say I was wowed or amazed by Aleandro, it simply gets the job done and sometimes that's good enough. I'm glad the Academy nominated something that's out of the box which I always complain about. The role is perfectly supporting and while it never had a chance to win, I'm okay with it being included here. It's not the best film or performance but you can respect it at least. Supporting is meant for nominations like this, especially if there's no major performance or consensus. Most people won't ever watch this anyway.

Anne Archer - Fatal Attraction

I wasn't too sure who Anne Archer was until I looked her up but she plays Michael Douglas' wife in this film. Now, here's the thing about Archer: she is super attractive when compared to Glenn Close in this film. I mean it's no question. So while the film is tense and crazy, I just couldn't buy that Douglas would spend a weekend with Close and cheat on his wife. I'm probably looking a little too deep into the attractiveness part but it just bugged me the whole film long. I get that Douglas has a moment of weakness when the "sexy" Close intrigues him and that is part of the point of the film, but still. For the first hour of the film, Archer plays the oblivious, dutiful wife. That's all she gets to do, play mother and wife. Not much to do besides look pretty. For the second hour, she starts to come alive finally. We start to get some resolution with the events that have been happening and Archer is told of Douglas' dalliance and expectedly loses it. It's a good scene that feels real and doesn't cross a line into the absurd territory. Then once she's told, Archer seems committed to keeping her family safe and does more in the final half hour than in the previous hour and a half. Then we have the big ending which obviously Archer has a big part of which is somewhat satisfying as long as you're rooting for the family and not against Douglas. It's a decent performance for a thriller and for what could have been a throw away role. Archer at least brings some honesty and realness to the role and that's admirable for this kind of film. Archer is good, if a little lacking, but not a totally awful nomination.

Anne Ramsey - Throw Momma from the Train

Oweeeeennnnnnn!!! This movie is so funny, but in a dark way almost like A Fish Called Wanda. It stars Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito (who also directed) as a teacher and student, respectively, who are to kill each others' problems. DeVito kills Crystal's ex-wife unbeknownst to him and then DeVito wants him to kill his momma. It's a quick film but is so entertaining. Ramsey is the eponymous Momma and she is like a monster. All she does is yell at DeVito in some way or another, usually shouting insults at him. I can't help but think Ramsey sounds like Cartman from South Park with her garbled speech and it makes her character so much more funny to me because of that. She scowls her way through the film and is just a menace to everyone and Ramsey is a hoot in the role. She plays up the terrible woman to perfection and makes her character unsympathetic yet hilarious at the same time. She's also got this hunchback that's barely seen but it just adds to the overall terribleness of the character. I challenge anyone to watch her performance and not get a kick out if it. This is the first one I watched for the category but this will be hard to beat because I love how funny she is. It might not be the pinnacle of acting but it is certainly very entertaining.

Ann Sothern - The Whales of August

The draw for this film is that you get to see Lillian Gish and Bette Davis in their last roles and get to see them again, period. This isn't a thing of beauty, though. It's very stiff with the acting and feels like it belongs on the Lifetime channel instead of at the Oscars. It's got a soft focus and minor story and this will only appeal to a certain viewer who may not even be around anymore. I say the acting is stiff but Davis and Gish are really good together and you can tell they are from another era with their acting styles. Sothern plays Tisha, a neighbor of the two leads who comes by to dish and gab with the ladies and is very jovial. She has better, quicker acting sense than the two leads, as to be expected, and therefore ends up looking pretty good when compared to basically everyone else in the film. She's in that one scene for a little bit but doesn't do anything profound. She's a loud neighbor who gossips and has nothing else with which to spend her time on. She then shows up at the end of the film bringing a house buyer by and is admonished by Gish. That's the extent of her performance. It's okay but nothing to write home about. I feel she was the nomination because the older folk of the Academy wanted to nominate it but couldn't get it into Best Actress. Sothern does nothing to stand out and probably shouldn't be in this group. It's just basic work that should go overlooked.


So the Battle of the Ann(e)'s wasn't much of a battle. Sothern probably doesn't deserve to be in this group and feels more like a veteran type nomination. Easy 5th. Aleandro is decent in a not that great film but I'm okay with her nomination. She is what this category is about, even if it's not that amazing. Archer is the middle because while she's enjoyable and elevates a nothing role, it's still not much of a performance just because of what the character is. I liked Dukakis and her almost stately performance. I see why the Academy went for her and I might too if not for Ramsey. I just really enjoyed Ramsey's performance. It might be one note but at least it's really entertaining. It's something I could come back to and not get sick of, I think. I just find it more enjoyable overall and that's what it comes down to for me. This is about what I expected from the category.

Oscar Winner: Olympia Dukakis - Moonstruck
My Winner:  Anne Ramsey - Throw Momma from the Train
Olympia Dukakis
Anne Archer
Norma Aleandro
Ann Sothern

Best Picture 1988

Finally getting to see this winner after years of wanting to and never doing so. Also get to check out a film I've never heard of before this project in The Accidental Tourist. The others are interesting because they seem to receive both positive and negative reviews for various reasons so it'll be good to watch them and form my own opinion. I expect this to be entertaining at the very least.

1988 Best Picture

Rain Man

There is an expectation that goes along with watching a Best Picture winner that you are going to see the very best film of the year and a film that should be a classic, amazing piece of cinema. Sometimes the Academy gets it right and sometimes the Academy gets it really wrong (like Driving Miss Daisy). Rain Man falls somewhere in the middle for me. I knew what it was about, had seen all the quotable and played out scenes, but had an expectation that this would be really good. I was really disappointed with the film. I honestly don't think it's all that great or Best Picture winner worthy. I was expecting a lot more and I realize that having inflated expectations for films isn't quite fair, but this is Best Picture. I was quite bored watching this at times. Once the novelty of Raymond's autistic behavior wears off, what exactly are we left with? Tom Cruise goes from being a massive asshole to still kind of a douchebag by the end of the film. That part actually feels authentic. He warms up to his brother but not in any grand fashion or big histrionic scenes. He still wants the money and Raymond is still going to go back to his disabled home for care. So we get a film where Cruise is annoyed and angry at his autistic brother for most of their road trip and then Cruise takes advantage of Hoffman by going to Vegas and having him count cards and win him money to get him out of his financial jam. Hoffman's performance stays the same throughout the film, so after awhile you're not really affected by his autism. He doesn't change which is why at the end we see him not comprehending the difference in staying at the disabled home and staying with his brother, because he is always going to be that way and a week with his brother isn't going to cure him. I was never fully invested in the characters and never all that interested in their journey. That's why I found it to be boring at times because after awhile it's the same interactions over and over. I dunno, it's just really underwhelming when you hold it up to other Best Picture winners. I wanted to like it and was excited to finally watch the thing from start to finish but I was really let down. Maybe too much expectations but it should at least still be entertaining and this film was not. I'll have to see what else could dethrone it for this year.

The Accidental Tourist

This is quite an odd film. I had never heard of this film before the project and was interested to finally watch it and see how a film I'd never heard of was nominated for Best Picture in 1988. Did I mention it was an odd film? Because it really is, to the point where I was a bit confused at times about what all was happening. William Hurt plays a man in a deep depression because his son was killed and he writes travel books for people that only want to get through their travels without seeing much of where they are going or interacting with people. He's married but the marriage is crumbling due to the recent tragedy and he meets Geena Davis' kooky, quirky character who basically stalks him. Hurt's family is also pretty eccentric and his editor likes his sister who is an odd duck herself and the tone of the film is all over the place. When I was watching this, I felt that with a few minor changes the whole film could have been done as a horror story. As it is, the beginning is kinda dark at times with punctuations of absurd comedy here and there, mostly from Davis and her character. Davis' performance could have been a real terrifying psychopath with some minor changes and the whole film just feels off and weird. I get that Hurt is deeply scarred from his son's death and Davis' warm, eccentric behavior is supposed to be endearing and the fact that she tries to get him out of his funk is a nice touch, but it's still odd. And I'll keep saying it's odd over and over because it is. Hurt's wife comes back into the picture later and he flip flops about being with her or Davis and I'm left wondering why after awhile. If this were a group of 10 like in later years, this might have been a really interesting, inspired, quirky choice that would have been like an 8-10th place nominee. Here in a group of 5 it stands out like a sore thumb after watching it. I wish I had a lot of great things to say about it besides the score is pretty good. I mean, the acting is decent enough and Hurt is great in the role, it's just such an uneven film for me that I couldn't become more invested in the characters and don't find Hurt's redemption all that compelling. This might very easily be my 5th choice this year.

Dangerous Liaisons

Oh man, is the plot to this film a little complex. Glenn Close and John Malkovich are French nobles who challenge each other with sexual conquests and Malkovich wants to bang Michelle Pfeiffer who is a very frigid, religious woman and Close wants him to take Uma Thurman's virginity, with the reward being a night with her. Malkovich succeeds eventually and kinda falls for Pfeiffer but keeps toying with her emotions because he still enjoys and respects Close. Close is also banging a stiff Keanu Reeves which makes Malkovich jealous and oh, Keanu is in love with Uma. So yes, this film is all about dirty, sexual intrigue and it's quite delicious. This is certainly not a film everyone will like but Close and Malkovich are so catty and sleazy and slimy and incredible in their interactions that it's a lot of fun to watch them challenge each other. Every word is dripping with innuendo and the back and forth interplay at the beginning between Close and Malkovich is so fun. Their performances are what make the film. Without them both being equally strong, the film would be an awful, melodramatic mess. I found the film to be pretty hilarious at times with all the quips and looks from the characters, though I'm sure some of the humor will be lost on a lot people. The plot bogs down a bit near the end once Malkovich falls for Pfeiffer and it's really just a brief stretch where it turns into a typical period piece drama. But then it gets back on track at the end when Close and Malkovich go head to head and get all angry and yell at each other. This is a highly entertaining film that is probably best when you don't take it too seriously and enjoy the crazy, sex infused ride. I don't know if this would be as well received in 2016 but I feel it perfectly fits in 1988 with all the sexual thrillers and other similar films. This is probably something I would have avoided if not for the project so I'm glad I watched and really enjoyed this film.

Mississippi Burning

I went into this film with apprehension. I knew that it was controversial from its release and that a lot of people label this a Civil Rights film that relegates black people to the background. I've also read a lot of people that really find this to be an important, if flawed, film and that it is better than its reputation. I can understand this being controversial back in 1988. The South was still sensitive to the reality that it was a backwards, racist shithole. It still mostly is in 2016. This film is about three men - two white, one black - that get killed because they are in Mississippi trying to register blacks to vote. The FBI are called in and begin investigating a small, racist town for covering up their disappearance and murder. We watch as the two FBI agents - Willem Dafoe and Gene Hackman - try to penetrate the veil of silence in the town and figure out what happened. It is a film indeed that focuses on white people dealing with civil rights issues without much prominent black people in it. I concede that fact to the detractors. But it is really engaging and at least speaks to the violence and atrocities committed at the time with a critical eye. It doesn't really sugarcoat anything, nor does it allow the KKK and the white racists to come off looking sympathetic. The black folk are clearly the victims and this film should stir people to feel shame and embarrassment that they were ever treated this way. I really enjoy the interplay between Dafoe and Hackman who are almost polar opposites. Dafoe is very proper and very idealistic and by the book. Hackman is more of a realist and unorthodox kind of guy. Hackman is from Mississippi and better understands how to go about nailing the racist perpetrators by thumping some heads. The two give really strong performances and balance the film out. They keep it from being too noble and moral and too gritty and unrealistic. I think it's an important film that could have absolutely done more with the black people who were most affected in the film. I think it's still relevant even in today's world and would be a good film for 2016, though I'm sure it would be derided as too white centric. I'm glad that the Academy highlighted this film because subjects like this are important to remember and put on film. The South - and America - still has a long way to go. This film is a good addition to the Best Picture category.

Working Girl

This is like a super 80s film. It just really captures that vibe so perfectly from the seriously big, crazy hair to the musical choices to the inclusion of Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, a young, skinny Alec Baldwin, and wonderful Melanie Griffith. It's got the look of a perfectly New York City 80s film and the subject about working on Wall Street and a woman trying to become a better, stronger, more independent version of herself while also making money is suited only for that time period. For all those reasons, it's an intriguing Best Picture nominee. The main thing the film has going for it is the strong female characters. It's female driven in 1988 and is funny and serious and sexy and entertaining and I assume that was a rarity while also being a powerful and irresistible combination. I'm surprised I liked it as much as I did. Maybe I'm feeling very nostalgic for the late 80s, I dunno, but it was a lot of fun to watch this film explore that period and to explore the themes of the independent woman. The film has some pretty good female performances and a charming Harrison Ford to boot. Hell, it's even got a young Kevin Spacey in a brief scene! I think it's just a really likable film and that's why it resonated so much with the Academy. Is it truly Best Picture worthy, though? I think for 1988 it is, as it just seems to fit the era as I say this from 2016. Others might really hate this film being here but it charmed me. Sure, it's basically a romantic dramedy but it's pretty entertaining and makes you long for simple films like this again. I'd say it's worth watching for the feminine angle itself, as strong female films can be hard to come by so might as well watch one that holds your attention and was nominated for Best Picture. Not a winner, but a good enough film to watch when you're bored.


Another year, another blah Best Picture winner for me. I really was lukewarm on Rain Man, putting it just ahead of the uneven, unexciting The Accidental Tourist. Yes, I'd rather watch both Working Girl and Dangerous Liaisons again over Rain Man. At least those films are interesting and offer more than a one note handicapped performance to buoy it. I really don't understand why that film won BP. It's a weaker year, certainly. Mississippi Burning would be my only winner from the group. I'd have to go look and see what else came out this year that wasn't nominated to find a replacement. I do think my choice is the best of the bunch based on importance, performances, and story. Not a banner year for Oscar, that's for sure.

Oscar Winner: Rain Man
My Winner:  Mississippi Burning
Dangerous Liaisons
Working Girl
Rain Man
The Accidental Tourist

Leading Actor 1988

Quite a diverse group when you really look at it. I've wanted to see Hoffman's performance for so long. Then you get a foreign nomination in von Sydow, a hispanic Best Actor nominee which are few and far between, Tom Hanks in what is kind of a kids movie, and Hackman who is always great. Lots to look forward to in this group so I can't wait!

1988 Best Actor

Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man

Sometimes it's really hard to come up with things to say about a performance. Usually that's because I just wasn't moved by it or didn't find it all that interesting. That applies here which is probably shocking because this is such a famous character and winner that everyone knows about even if they only tangentially like movies. I feel this is a performance/character that people can easily identify with having won Best Actor even if they've never seen it. I will concede that this is good acting, that's plainly obvious. My issue with the performance is that once we see the tics and mannerisms of Raymond, what else is left? It's not like he has a character arc. Raymond stays the same consistent autistic way throughout the film. There's no big scene where he becomes normal for a short period of time or something, he just does the same thing over and over. I'd like to say Hoffman imbues Raymond with a real sense of humanity and a warmth and blah blah blah but he doesn't, which I actually think is a pretty good choice by Hoffman. Raymond is an autistic savant and he can't really change into being more personable or less awkward socially. I think you can understand what I'm trying to say. It's the same performance for the whole film. Hoffman is technically great with the looks, mannerisms, and tics. It's believable in that sense. But I don't feel there is much beneath the exterior. It's why I don't really like the disabled/retarded/whatever type of roles. I need something more than just a quirk. The Academy seems to love these types of roles as they continually get nominated through the years, but I just don't get it. The novelty wears off too quickly and what you get left with is an annoying character. I'm just talking in circles now but this performance didn't do a whole lot for me and I'll have to look for an alternative.

Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning

Man, I really dig Gene Hackman. Most everything I've seen him in he's been great in. No exception here as he plays an FBI agent who is investigating the deaths of three young men in rural Mississippi. What I love most about the performance is how natural it is. Compare it to Willem Dafoe who is another FBI agent and you can see him acting. He dresses up for his part as a nerdy, Northern, by the book agent while Hackman is a grizzled, Mississippi native, older agent. The two are opposites but Hackman feels more real and authentic. It feels like Hackman is just improvising in every scene and that he has actually lived the life of his character. It's effortless acting and I love when an actor can pull that off. Hackman is tough and callous almost, definitely cynical and realistic. I feel he shines when he goes off on his stories of his youth in order to establish himself as being a Mississippi native. It shows that he has a good grasp on the climate in the South and understands what all is at stake. Also, the way he plays Frances McDormand's character is superb. I can't tell if he realizes she is a weak link and attacks that weakness or recognizes that she's actually quite smart and doesn't belong and exploits her compassion. I understand it's done for the convenience of the story but it's still pretty fascinating how they build a rapport and relationship. Hackman's character is pretty fearless, as well, going into the "social club" and antagonizing the KKK members in order to tell them a story and let them know he's on to them. It's strong acting and really speaks to his character's mindset of doing anything to get his guys. It is also such an assured piece of acting that it makes me like Hackman even more. I'm excited that I get 4 more chances to watch his performances for this blog.

Tom Hanks - Big

I remember the first time I watched this film and was blown away by how good Hanks was in what is seemingly a kids fantasy film. It was a comedic performance, sure, but brought a lot of nuance that I didn't expect. He also brought his Tom Hanks charm and made it into such a warm, feel good performance. The film is hilarious at times, where I legit laughed out loud because Hanks is so funny. He nails the comedy and does it in a way that makes it seem like he is channeling his inner 12 year old and not just reciting the jokes from the script. He also did his patented Tom Hanks acting thing where he models his performance after the kid he portrays instead of coming up with something on his own. He did the same thing in Forrest Gump with imitating the kid's accent among other things and that tactic made that performance, and this performance, stand out even more as very authentic and real. The film is much better for that choice. It helps that Hanks is so relatable and has such an every man quality to him. You can watch him in this role and imagine yourself in the same situations. It's this gentle naivete that makes you feel good which is obviously the point of the film but Hanks has to make it believable and he certainly does. Even when he starts to become more adult-like, focusing on his job and enjoying his relationship with the woman and forgetting about his best friend, it drives home the point of the film even more. We should never lose our sense of self and remember where we came from and not forget about what it means to enjoy life. Hanks is so terrific in what could have easily been a simple performance, something like his work in Splash or Dragnet or Turner and Hooch. He elevates it with a performance that goes beyond comedy and beyond a kids film, imbuing it with such heart and soul that I genuinely love watching this film because of Hanks.

Edward James Olmos - Stand and Deliver

Yes, this is one of those inspirational teacher films. Yes, he teaches in an unorthodox style that gets results for his students. Yes, he reaches minority students who everyone else has given up on and realizes if someone would just try to connect with them that they'd be great students. Yes, you've seen all of this before, probably even parodied, and know exactly how it's going to play out before you even watch it. Yes, you're going to enjoy Olmos' performance. Really, you have to sort of separate the performance from the story and decide whether it's good and whether you like it. Olmos in this instance plays a math teacher who teaches Spanish kids in East Los Angeles and guides them from basic math to passing the AP Calculus exam. It's standard, feel good inspirational stuff but Olmos makes it worth watching. He's really funny in a sly way, saying all kinds of weird things, insulting the students in a nice way. He's also a bit of a hard ass, making the students want to please him and not let him down, in a teacherly sort of way. It's entertaining and you grow to like Olmos as the teacher. My main issue is that we never really know anything about Olmos. Why does he quit a good job to teach? Why does he work the students so hard to pass the exam and learn? Why does he care about these students at all? We barely even know about his home life other than his wife seems to support him but is also fed up that he works with the kids so much. I would have loved to understand why Olmos was drawn to teaching. He's good at it and can certainly connect with the kids but what motivates him? That's what holds this back from being seriously considered for a win. It's a good performance, but there is something deeper that we are missing out on.

Max von Sydow - Pelle the Conqueror

Bonus points if you know what this film is about without looking it up. No, it's not a Conan the Barbarian type film much to my chagrin. I wish it was! Instead, it's about a Swedish man who goes to Denmark with his young son in hopes of a better life. I had no idea that Swedes were treated so poorly by the Danes way back when but I guess it proves that every country has people they don't like because of nationality, race, or language. It's kind of interesting because of that. The film won the Best Foreign Language Film for 1988 and I can see why. It tells the story of Lasse (von Sydow) and his son, Pelle, who come to Denmark and find work on a farm. It's not glamorous and not the most friendly. They are treated lower than the animals by the Danish people and have to put up with the elements, the abuse, and the bleakness of life. The story is really about Pelle as he drives the narrative. Von Sydow is the father and he is pretty good in the role. He must be a father to the boy, stand up reluctantly to the bosses, and try to find love. When he addresses authority, von Sydow crumbles into stutters and platitudes, this after usually talking up a big game of confronting the farmer or whoever in some grand way. Von Sydow cares for his son and makes that obvious and only, truly wants for him to have food, clothing, and care. It's a good fatherly performance, nothing is lost in the translation. He might be the elder but he is really not the focus of the film. I can agree this is Lead but only to a certain degree. I feel that this was a way to reward a respected actor who was in a lot of foreign films, as well Hollywood films, with an Oscar nomination. It's a solid performance, one that will stay with you because of the gruff nature of the Swedish/Danish language which fits Lasse's tough life. I'm actually really glad I got to watch this film because I need this kind of foreign film education. It was interesting and I watched 2 hours straight of it before I got bored. Von Sydow does a lot to make you pay attention to his performance and it definitely should be watched.


This is a pretty good group and I'm always thankful that Best Actor has some good films to watch. I like that we are thrown a couple curveballs here with Hanks nominated for a fantasy/comedy film and von Sydow getting his first nomination for a little scene foreign film. I seriously debated putting Hoffman in 5th because his performance is so one note. He nails that one note but I just don't find the repetition all that interesting. Once you see 20 minutes of it, that's all you need to see because nothing changes. I pushed him just above von Sydow, who I like in this performance, because he's not a true lead and because of the foreign factor. I could easily make von Sydow 4th, though. Olmos really surprised me with his cool nerdy teacher shtick and I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Hanks is absolutely wonderful in Big. I could watch that film and performance over and over and not get sick of it. But Hackman tops my list because he's so natural and creates such an interesting character. He and Dafoe make a great team and make a great film, too. This is a strong group with a winner that was unnecessary. Wish they would have made a better choice.

Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
My Winner:  Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning
Tom Hanks
Edwards James Olmos
Dustin Hoffman
Max von Sydow

Leading Actress 1988

It's always interesting when Oscar comes full circle for me. Isabelle Huppert is up for a possible Best Actress nomination this year and I was reading my Inside Oscar book recently about 1989 and she was a possible nominee back then as well along with the other French Isabelle - Adjani, who ended up getting the nomination out of nowhere. Just interesting to read with all her current buzz about her being in the race almost 30 years ago. I've seen none of these films but they are all big names so I'm hoping for a good category.

1988 Best Actress

Jodie Foster - The Accused

I was curious as to what kind of win this was going to be. Was it well deserved, the unequivocal best of the year? Or did the Academy want to rush and reward a young talented actress because that's something they like to do? After watching, I don't know just yet if it's the best of the year but it's certainly a strong contender. It's easy to call this a brave performance because it is. Foster plays a rape victim who has to portray this heinous crime in a realistic way. My guess is that this was a lot of people's first time ever really seeing the violence and terror of a rape in such a frank way and finally experiencing the anger and pain and frustration of victims. I think that plays in Foster's favor as it kind of makes the viewer perk up and pay attention because her performance is so honest and real. I would say it doesn't take much to just play a victim, but Foster brings an appropriate attitude to the character that gives the role a human quality. It's not just sad victim, she plays the character with an anger that you really feel. You aren't just sad while watching, you get angry just like her that this kind of stuff can happen. It's also a pretty fearless performance since she has to go through the rape and be naked while it's happening and endure the violence. Obviously it's not real but Foster has to get into that frame of mind and that emotional state which makes it really intense. It's definitely a strong performance and I can see exactly why it won, even if it doesn't completely wow me. It might be a performance that needs to grow on me a little more.

Glenn Close - Dangerous Liaisons

I was slightly worried given that this was a period piece costume drama about French nobles and that it would be a boring, stuffy, difficult watch. Boy was I wrong! A very sexual film that pits Close against John Malkovich as these sexually adventurous nobles. Close challenges him to take Uma Thurman's virginity and he wants to bang Michelle Pfeiffer because she's a prude, religious woman. Close is fantastic in the role with her wordplay and knowing looks and the way she holds her own when compared to Malkovich. She's sexy and confident and manipulative and scheming and slimy and sleazy and so many other adjectives that you realize this is a powerful performance. It's also kinda fun. She relishes the drama and sport of teasing Malkovich and getting what she wants. That power goes to the heart of the character and the performance. It's only briefly mentioned that she was previously married and that no one else would order her around. That to me seems like she is rebeling against a difficult marriage and has this freedom of being able to sleep with any man she wants and the power to manipulate others for her own pleasure. Close displays all of this with just looks and is the main reason, along with Malkovich, to watch this film. She's fierce and she delights in her own cruelty and is a ferocious presence in the film without being loud about it. It's just a really enjoyable performance to watch as she schemes to mess with Malkovich's attempts to complete his dares/conquests and then be surly and acidic and play innocent and then turn around and scream at him with conviction that they are at war with each other. There is so much to like about Close here. We might not exactly get to the real reason she or Malkovich are behaving in this manner but the ride is fun anyway. I'd say Close could bring more humanity to her Marquise but I also buy that she's a very selfish individual. It's a good performance that I'm glad was better than what I was anticipating.

Melanie Griffith - Working Girl

I wasn't too sure what I was going to get from Griffith with this performance because I'd read some other blog reviews of the film and performances and none of them were glowing. But I was relieved that I found myself liking her performance. Is it amazing Meryl Streep type stuff? Of course not, but Griffith was very entertaining. She plays a secretary who is a lot smarter than the job she has. She's incredibly ambitious and hard working and you can tell she is meant for greater things. She starts working for Sigourney Weaver's character and gets an opportunity to put into action a business plan she has. It's a pretty damn great role for a woman, one that we should see more of even today. She's a strong, independent woman who has these romantic sideplots but the main thing about the characters motivations is to prove she can be as good as any man and do the same things and be even better. That she can become a hardworking, respected businesswoman which she is absolutely capable of being. It's not just all sex and good looks and weddings and all that crap. It's about showing a woman can do the same things as a man and work her way up to becoming someone to admire and want to be. Griffith does a great job in keeping her character grounded. She is determined and smart and aggressive and clever and Griffith makes all of those qualities believable. She may have some crazy hair in the beginning and spend a little too much time in lingerie but she gives a real performance of a woman willing to try anything to get ahead in the business world because she knows she belongs there. I was surprised by this performance because I don't really know Griffith as a great or even really good actress, just a sexy actress married to Antonio Banderas and Don Johnson. It's like she really rose to the occasion in this role and delivered a worthy performance. I really enjoyed this performance when I didn't think I would. Not sure it will be my winner but I at least recommend watching for Griffith (and Harrison Ford who is pretty good).

Meryl Streep - A Cry in the Dark

I was so looking forward to this performance and film. Yes, this is Streep's 12th(!) nomination that I've seen and 8th(!) if you are going chronologically. The big reason that I wanted to see this was because this is the 'Did a dingo eat your baby?' film, and that's been in the pop lexicon forever and I've heard it for so long that I had to see the film that spawned it. I only know barely what supposedly happened. Streep plays an Australian mother whose baby is taken by a dingo but authorities don't believe her and she's put on trial. So yes, this is another Streep accent film and her Australian accent is 100% believable and really great. I think that this is a mid to upper Streep performance. She is really effective at showing the exasperation and frustration of having to go through the disappearance of her child over and over and prove her innocence. It shows that everyone grieves differently since while she was emotional at times, she also seemed indifferent and not sad enough at other times. Streep has to run the gamut of emotions from utter heartbreak and sadness to anger over Australia continually trying to say she is guilty to the press hounding her and her family to her naivete in the beginning with the press to being motherly and to adhering to her religious teachings. It's a lot and Streep balances it all perfectly and makes it seem effortless. That's one of those things, too, that people can knock Streep for is that she makes everything look easy and her acting might not be as obvious or notable because she's always so good. And while this might not be quite up to her winning standards, it's still a strong performance overall. I also feel that she elevates the story and material for what could have been a made for TV movie. Instead, she breathes some life into a story that seems pretty ridiculous on the surface. Just another typically good Streep performance that is worth watching.

Sigourney Weaver - Gorillas in the Mist

This is the other part of her two(!) nominations this year. I unfortunately feel like you could put them together and still not get something worth voting for as a winner. Nothing against Weaver, as she plays two incredibly different characters and plays both of them well. In this film, she plays Diane Fossey, a woman who ends up counting and studying gorillas in the Congo. It's actually a really great performance. I realized this after watching it when remembering how Weaver was in the beginning of the film. She's very eager and naive and is portrayed as such. But as the film goes on and the time goes on, Weaver settles in as Fossey and plays it as someone who has grown with her experiences. By the end, she is almost native. She loves the gorillas and the land more than her own life and she goes crazy in defending all of that. The character arc is what I enjoy the most about the performance. It works for the character and the film and it's enjoyable. It does feel too on the nose at times. It's like yeah, of course Weaver is getting nom'd for this. She goes into the jungle and uglifies herself and champions a cause (saving the gorillas) that is really noble and gives an interesting performance to boot. All of that helps her get nominated, no doubt. But I like when Weaver goes crazy at the end. When she threatens the German zoo collector guy, it's intense and heartfelt. When she goes all Heart of Darkness by fake hanging a poacher and then burning a village, you see the passion in Fossey and in Weaver. And her connection to the gorillas, whether the gorillas are real or fake, is undeniable. She expresses undying love that even I can see and respect. The film does suffer at times from being close to a TV movie, but saves itself with the scenery and the performances. The dialogue is so cliche that I'm sure you could guess most of it without watching it. But Weaver is truly really good as Fossey. It does feel like a role tailor made just for her. I can't see any current actress doing this and that should say something. What might look like an anthropology class movie requirement actually is something worth watching. It's not great but Weaver is very good and worth the watch.


This is actually a strong category all the way through. I wish this was the case every year. This is a really hard group to rate simply because they are all so close together and there is no clear runaway winner for me. Streep is strong with another accent role that goes deeper than just how she talks. Griffith gives a nice, strong, independent woman performance in a romantic dramedy that works. Close sizzles and is a lot of fun to watch even if it's all a bit melodramatic. Weaver goes all in as Fossey and tries her best to give the character and film some real emotion. Foster takes a difficult role and makes it look easy, even though I wasn't too into it. So what the hell do I do here? I think Weaver, Griffith, and Streep are on the outside looking in. They needed to do more or be better than they were. So it's between Close and Foster and I'm tempted to give it to Close since Foster already has a win but that's so tough to do. I think I'll give Close the edge because I enjoy her sensual, sexy craziness more than the reality and rape of Foster. Simple as that. A pretty good year overall.

Oscar Winner: Jodie Foster - The Accused
My Winner: Glenn Close - Dangerous Liaisons
Jodie Foster
Meryl Streep
Melanie Griffith
Sigourney Weaver

Supporting Actor 1988

There's a whopper in this category with Guinness having a 6 hour film to watch. Ugh. The rest should be interesting to watch, some names I definitely want to check out. Let's see how this all plays out.

1988 Best Supporting Actor

Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda

Though this isn't really a great comparison, this reminds me of Robert Downey Jr getting nominated for Tropic Thunder. By that I mean, two comedies that don't seem like they would ever really get some Academy love get a Supporting nomination (and win here) on the strength of their actors' charisma and charm and humor. Kevin Kline is great. He is seriously very funny and reminds me a great deal of Errol Flynn. He has that swashbuckler charm and look and seems like an All-American guy. And he's extremely likable even when he plays a jewel thief with a temper as he does in this film. There's very little to no subtlety in Kline's performance and that is part of what makes it so entertaining and great. He's very sarcastic and responds to things in a very broad, exaggerated way. He pushes people's buttons and for whatever reason Kline makes it work without it ever becoming grating or offensive - it's just hilarious stuff. His comedic timing is impeccable and it helps that he has some of the Monty Python guys to act opposite from. I'm happy to see a comedic performance rewarded, especially when it's a worthy one. He's got a lot of great scenes but I like when he gets real serious anytime someone calls him stupid and during the fish eating scene when he interrogates Michael Palin's character. It's a performance you can watch and be entertained by and just enjoy that it's not trying too hard or is gunning for an Oscar. The more I see of Kline, the more I really enjoy him as an actor. I'm very glad he won an Oscar for this role.

Alec Guinness - Little Dorrit

Holy shit this "film!" This is actually a 6 hour plus miniseries that was on the BBC that got released in the States as two separate films. It was extremely hard for me to find to watch that I had to actually rent it from Amazon. Not really something I wanted to spend money on. And let's be real, this is the Academy getting one last chance to nominate Guinness and doing so for a monster of a "film." He plays Little Dorrit's father and is in a debtor's prison and has been their for 20 plus years. A man takes a liking to his youngest daughter Amy, the Little in the title, and looks into his situation. Eventually it is discovered that he has inherited a large estate worth a bunch and is let out of prison. He dies soon after, or at least in the film soon after, I don't know how much time actually passed. This is not a performance that is amazing by any means. Guinness plays an old man and does fine with it but that's all the role really is. The conceit of the film is that the first part is from the guy, Arthur Clennem's point of view and then the second part is from Little Dorrit herself's point of view. We see some of the same scenes from different views, so we get the same stuff from Guinness twice. If you ever watch this Dickens adaptation, you'll wonder what was so worthy about the performance to nominate it just like I did. I wish these veteran/career noms at least were for great performances and not ones where the actor did his job as well as he should. I like Guinness but this was non entity as far as his career goes. Don't suffer through this like I did.

Martin Landau - Tucker: The Man and His Dream

This was Landau's first Oscar nomination but doesn't it feel like he's had a few before this? With this being the first, it also feels like this was the primer for Landau's future nominations. And it really does feel like he was gunning for an Oscar in retrospect. Nothing wrong with that. Landau is pretty fantastic here. He's the businessman that helps bankroll Jeff Bridges' dream of making a futuristic car outside of the big three manufacturers. It's a pretty fascinating look at how the government and America can discredit innovation. It's happening now with Tesla. The usual suspects are fighting hard to fuck over Tesla in every way possible because they aren't Ford or Chevy or GMC. And they HATE that you can buy direct from the company and not get totally fucked buying from a dealer with their thousands of dollars in fees. Anyway, Landau is like a sidekick and sticks by Bridges through thick and thin. He kinda steers him away from excess and keeps him focused and it's a really good supporting performance. It's nothing worth getting super excited about, it just gets the job done. Thing is the performance isn't much. He's just supporting and doesn't add much overall. Landau is good but not amazing and will eventually become worthy of an Oscar - just not yet.

River Phoenix - Running on Empty

The thing about this nomination is that it is straight up category fraud. Phoenix is the lead of this film and is in almost every scene. Hardly supporting. I assume it's because he's a young actor and the Academy would rather relegate the youth to Supporting rather than bump someone from Leading. But thing is again, not sure this is good enough to compete in Leading. You look at it in this category and it sorta fits because it isn't as strong but it's still Phoenix's film. He plays a teen who is constantly on the move because his parents blew up a lab in the 70s to fight the Vietnam War like a bunch of assholes. He is also a gifted musician, playing the piano. He just wants to be normal. Phoenix is charismatic. He's like a bonafide movie star. People have compared him to James Dean and I don't quite see it here, but I get the comparison. He's very moody and doesn't say much but that shouldn't translate into a great performance, you need to do a little more. He might be the lead but he never really drives the action. The ending is touching but doesn't exactly feel too sappy which is nice. It's a decent performance just in the wrong category and it's a shame that we didn't get to see him have a long career. Worth a watch if you're interested in seeing Joaquin's older brother and see what could have been.

Dean Stockwell - Married to the Mob

Not gonna lie, I love Dean Stockwell. Quantum Leap is one of my favorite shows and I loved his character on that show. Didn't realize until this project that he was also a once nominated Oscar actor and was eager to see how he was in this one. The same can be said for a lot of TV people that I never knew had big film careers before and were nominated at times for an Oscar. It's fun going back through the years and seeing all the young actors in films that you've seen on TV shows recently. Anyway, Stockwell plays Tony 'The Tiger' Russo, a mob boss in this comedy. It's actually a similar character to his Quantum Leap one, since he keeps a cigar handy and uses it in the same way. The film is pretty funny and Matthew Modine is hilarious at times as the FBI agent that is tracking Stockwell. Stockwell doesn't exactly do anything too amazing, he plays the mob boss hits on Michelle Pfeiffer after he kills her husband, Alec Baldwin. He essentially plays the character straight while everyone else around him adds comedic effect. I like the film and the performance, though I know it's not a winner or anything special. It's just a lot of fun to watch him do his thing, ya know? Stockwell is also in Tucker: The Man and His Dream so I feel like that certainly comes into play with this nomination. Martin Landau got nominated for that one so it makes sense Stockwell is nominated for this. You are going to watch this and say I don't see the big deal and that's fine but sometimes it's just about catching lightning in a bottle and being a likable bad guy. I'm glad Stockwell was nominated here.


An alright group. Kline was a surprise on Oscar night which is always fun. I agree with the Academy on him being the winner. His performance is just a lot of fun and very funny. It's good to see comedy rewarded every now and then. Landau is my second  because he's perfectly supporting and does more than Stockwell. It's nothing flashy and he does a good job which is about all you can say. Stockwell is third because I like him as an actor and he's decent enough with two others that come in behind him. Phoenix is fourth simply because he's a lead performance in supporting. He's very good but I can't vote for him in this category. Sucks he had to die so young because I would have loved to see how he evolved over the years. Guinness is last because his is a veteran nomination and not that great and it made me watch a 6 hour film. I'll hate it just because of that. Like I said, an alright group, nothing amazing and could have been better but at least an interesting performance won. Now let's move on.

Oscar Winner: Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
My Winner:  Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
Martin Landau
Dean Stockwell
River Phoenix
Alec Guinness