Best Picture 1996

1996 is almost over! It feels so good because I've always kinda looked at 1995 as the mark for when I'd really feel like I've started to make some progress in this project. And I feel like I have! I've completed 21 years and that's a whole lot of films I've watched. It's also a whole lot of films I've still got to watch. I love the 90's, though, and the nostalgia trip will be nice plus seeing all the films I've missed out on. Just got to get these one's out of the way first!

1996 Best Picture

The English Patient

This was one of those mythical Best Picture winners that I've heard talked about for years. I've read countless articles and comments about it being a shitty winner because it was boring, too long, didn't make sense, blah. Well I finally watched it for myself and I've got to say that I don't think it's one of the worst BP winners at all. It absolutely is too long which is my main gripe, but it's not awful or anything like that. It has some really great acting which is why three of it's actors got nominated for an Oscar and one of them won. This is an epic tale and I will swear it goes on too long for it's own good until someone listens. I feel you can excise the Willem Dafoe and Naveen Andrews plots and have a much better, more tightly focused film that goes on for about two hours. I honestly don't get the point of Dafoe in the film at all. Sure, he was in Fiennes' past but Dafoe is hunting him down then hears his story and then that's it. No retribution, no oh sorry mate, just a confession and then a glossing over of his purpose there. Dafoe is pointless to the overall story. Naveen is less so but still could be trimmed down. The English Patient is about Thomas and Fiennes and Binoche to a lesser extent. That's the fucking film! It's not extraneous crap, it's those three characters so they need to be built up and expanded upon because who cares about the rest? I want to see more Thomas, I want Binoche to confront Fiennes, I want Ralph to be on screen the whole film. That's what The English Patient is about! If not for Miramax, I'm not sure this film wins BP. I think Fargo was right on it's heels. I read that it was initially over 4 hours long and I'd like to see that version because it could allow the Dafoe and Naveen plots to pay off. And I definitely wanted more of Thomas, Fiennes, and Binoche. As it is, The English Patient could be tweaked to make it much better. But The English Patient is a really good film in it's own right! It's just not as good as it could be.

Fargo

I love the Coen Brothers' films. Absolutely love them and Fargo is no exception. In fact, it's one of their best films they've ever done as far as I'm concerned. Now, I'm not a total Coen Bros fanboy as they have a couple films that aren't that great but there's no doubting Fargo's greatness. It has all the typical charms of a Coen Bros film: quirky, interesting, ridiculous characters, death and violence, fantastic acting supported by fantastic dialogue, great cinematography from Roger Deakins and top notch directing from the brothers. It's only an hour and a half but it feels like such a complete story. We get a couple perfect performances out of this film which that alone should qualify it for classic status. Thing is, when people think about Fargo, they always think about how great of a film it is and usually call it a classic, especially compared to the rest of the year. No one has heard of Shine or Secrets and Lies and all anyone can do is quote some lines from Jerry Maguire but no one would call it a Best Picture worthy film. People know The English Patient as a long film with a historical romance and war plot and that's probably it. People remember Fargo. Hell, now we've got a TV series on FX that is a spin off of the film itself! If that doesn't tell you the lasting impact of Fargo, nothing will. It's a cultural touchstone, it's a film people use to tell time. They know it was from 1996 and can base things in their memory off of that fact. It's a simple story but it's done so well that it sticks in our minds as something bigger. There's a lot more that I want to say about Fargo but I'm just not finding the words. I don't mean that in any sanctimonious way, just that Fargo is a great film on a lot of accounts we've already covered. Fargo is simply a great film that deserved to be recognized as such with a Best Picture win.

Jerry Maguire

This was the lone studio picture in a sea of indies so I think partly for that reason, besides raking in a ton of money, is why Jerry Maguire made the Best Picture list. It's a feel good romantic dramedy that did really well at the box office and starred Tom Cruise, it's a film with broad appeal. Because let's be honest, this isn't really Best Picture material. This is a cliche filled film that ticks off the boxes for the type of film it is. Likable lead actor loses his successful job and must scramble to rebuild his life. Along the way he falls for the plain Jane, they marry but have issues later that get resolved in the big emotional finale. The story uses it's supporting characters only when necessary and everyone has a laugh and a cry and go home feeling good. It's stuff we've seen a million times before and I really don't think this is a perfect example of the genre to build up as an all-timer. It's enjoyable, sure, but it's got a lot of flaws, too. The romance is generic and cheesy even with some of the inspired writing that would later become cliche itself. All the quotable lines now just make the film seem overly hokey and cheesy. The romance also confused me at times because they get together easily but then quickly have marriage troubles that seems very forced and out of nowhere meant to only lead to the ending where they can spout off their one liners and reconcile in the big emotional exclamation point. I didn't fully get why they were having marriage issues, though. I get that he was away a lot and I guess Zellweger's friend was putting the idea into her head that he'd leave when successful again or something? It wasn't clear to me and it didn't seem to be as important as the film wanted it to be so I just never bought into their turmoil. The little kid was super annoying and might as well have been a dog because that's all the story treated him as anyway. The scene where Cuba is injured catching a touchdown was supposed to be super dramatic but was really only super hokey when he gets up and starts dancing around the field. That display would have been flagged in the NFL!  Even the impetus for Cruise getting fired was ridiculous. I'm a little overly harsh but this is a Best Picture nominee and should at least be a good film first and not just a crowdpleaser. I'd probably be more forgiving if this was included in a group of 8-10 nominees, but in 1996 it just takes up a spot for a more deserving film like say The Crucible, which I loved. I just think that films like these should be pretty great when held up to scrutiny instead of just falling back on the well it made a lot of money excuse.

Secrets and Lies

I've seen a couple Mike Leigh films now and his creative process has been mentioned by me before. He likes to get his actors together and allow them to create back stories for their characters and then they rehearse for awhile and come up with the story and film that way. In this one, the first meeting between Cynthia and Hortense is the first time those two actresses ever met and so the reaction we get is authentic because Cynthia didn't know her daughter would be black. On one hand it's kind of a cool concept seeing the honest reactions of characters when they don't know something is coming. But on the other hand, you can get some meandering storylines that don't feel fully fleshed out and do feel gimmicky and made up on the fly. What is the point of when Timothy Spall's previous shop owner comes into his photography studio drunk and talking smack? There's no need for that at all, cut it and it's a more focused story. Spall, however, was fantastic in this. He has become an actor that I really love seeing work. He should have been nominated for another Mike Leigh film: Mr. Turner but sadly was not. The acting from everyone else is a bit all over the place. Maybe that comes from letting your actors take the characters wherever they want but it stands out as wildly all over the place. Jean-Baptiste gets a deserved nomination for a realistic performance and is the standout along with Spall for me. The rest act in broad terms and can be a bit one note. I did like the direction and the hand held camerawork of some of the scenes that made it seem like we the audience were butting in these people's lives or peering around a corner, eavesdropping. Leigh at least knows how to make a film even if the process can let down the story itself. It could have easily been tighter and the characters more defined but overall it's an interesting look at identity and family. There are some great scenes like Cynthia and Hortense meeting and talking for 7-8 minutes straight in a really intense and well done scene. It has it's faults, but Secrets and Lies is a pretty good film.

Shine

I don't know what it was with this year but we have yet another indie film, which is fine as long as they are good! But I don't know about Shine here. I don't know why this captured the attention of critics and the Academy. I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. It's your standard musical genius biopic that has quirky acting from the lead and shows the horrible childhood he endures and his rise and fall and return to greatness. Except this is about a prodigy that no one's ever heard of, who plays piano well enough but not exactly mind blowingly well even if Shine tells me Rachmaninoff is supremely difficult to play, especially when younger. Standard stuff all around and I actually liked the second/middle actor of David Helfgott, who was pretty nerdy but not so obviously trying to be nerdy, he just was. I guess the main attraction is Geoffrey Rush's performance which is steeped in mannerisms you'll be left wondering where the character is underneath. The story is told in non-linear format, jumping between young, middle, and older Helfgott. So we see Helfgott's troubled childhood, his potential as a pianist, and his present day schizophrenic self. However, I don't think it was really articulated well just how David became schizophrenic. I guess we are supposed to be satisfied with his overbearing father emotionally abusing David before David collapses at a piano concert. That must have been a breakdown but it's so skimmed over that it doesn't even matter except that it's the whole point of the film! I feel like up until then in the timeline it's a decent film, but after that point it's like let's just show how weird and quirky and odd David is with his fast talking, squinty eyes, cooing laughs, and stooped shoulders. That seems to be the focus of the last third of the film and it sacrifices everything the film had built up to that point. It's a showcase for Rush, who yeah is technically great, but not all that emotionally compelling. This is the kind of film that would do real well at Sundance nowadays and get some rave reviews, get some Oscar talk then fade away until nomination day where it might pick up a nom or two - or zero. This film was a puffed up indie darling that made it all the way despite being mediocre. I just never connected with David and was never given a reason to connect with him. Bad childhood aside, I need more than just another piano prodigy with strange mannerisms to hook me in. I don't know what the Academy was thinking here.


This was an odd year on account of there being 4 indies and 1 big studio film. I'm all for indies making it in but this year could have excised at least one and have been okay. Shine just fails to really interest me as I don't really care about the piano genius, no matter how weird he is. I think if you added something else this would be a really great group. It's pretty good as it is. Jerry Maguire would be my 4th because even though it's the crowdpleaser and big studio film. It's kinda cliche even for what it is and the story doesn't like developing itself before moving on which hurts it. Secrets and Lies is smack in the middle because it is a pretty good film that stumbles at times but nothing major to detract from being an interesting film. It's kind of amazing that it was included in this group along with the Australian Shine since they both seem to fill an Academy niche for Best Picture. But it was the year of the indie so I guess that's why. Now, my top spot is easily Fargo because I feel like it's an all-time Oscar winner. It's one you can easily remember and is really entertaining all the way through, to boot. It would have been a perfect winner. The English Patient would be runner-up simply because of the issues of the extra storylines. Fix that and it may be an outright winner because the love story part was so engrossing for me. I really did enjoy most of it so I'm glad I didn't hate it as much as some people out there! All in all, a pretty good year even if I disagreed with the Academy.

Oscar Winner: The English Patient
My Winner:  Fargo
The English Patient
Secrets and Lies
Jerry Maguire
Shine

Leading Actor 1996

No fun introduction again. Have seen Tom Cruise but it's been awhile and I'd like to revisit him and haven't seen anyone else. This group is pretty intriguing and has an actor that I like a whole lot in Fiennes. Just super glad to be knocking these out!

1996 Best Actor

Geoffrey Rush - Shine

While writing the other reviews for this film I actually forgot Rush won Best Actor for this. Not even a joke, I scrolled to the bottom to find his name and realized, oh he won! Which I think is about a scathing of an indictment as I can write. Rush is not bad. At all. He's technically brilliant playing the schizophrenic piano genius David Helfgott. However, he has mastered the man's mannerisms but failed to bring the character to life. I can imagine all the hard work that went into mimicking the way David talks super fast, saying nonsense type stuff, laughing weirdly, squinting his eyes, shuffling around hunched over acting like Rain Man on crack. All of that is interesting to watch for about all of five minutes when you realize that is all you are going to get out of Rush's performance. There's no soul to his character. Even when he marries, which comes out of nowhere and is not set up at all, or when he meets his dad for the first time in forever - these are moments that are supposed to show the human essence of David. It's supposed to shine beneath the schizophrenic exterior into the man that is a musical genius. Except nothing is there. It's all a showcase for Rush, who does pass the test but offers up nothing besides mannerisms. It doesn't help that the film only spends about a third of it's time on him, making him seem like more of a supporting player than the heart and soul of the film. We basically just watch this weird guy prance around and bang away at a piano and then that's it as far as his present day adult years are concerned. I was more interested in the middle version of David as I thought he made for a way more compelling and fleshed out character. You would think that by 1996, the Academy would be over rewarding performances like this one. Instead they voted Rush's breakout role to an Oscar win. Go figure. I'm not a big fan of these types of roles, no matter how technically great they are. Give me a fully realized character over an imitation every time.

Tom Cruise - Jerry Maguire

It can be hard to really judge a Tom Cruise performance because just how much of it is performance and how much of it is just Tom Cruise? Here he plays sports agent Jerry Maguire who is forced out of the big sports agent company he works for after writing a mission statement about integrity and being more personal with clients and whatnot and is only able to keep one of his clients. Jerry is a very cocky guy who seems to be a great agent getting deals done before his epiphany. Then he is forced out and wants to do things the right way and you know the rest because it's standard bad guy becomes a good guy kinda stuff. This also brings about a romantic change as his beautiful fiancee leaves and then Jerry falls for the somewhat plain Zellweger who left the company with him and has a kid and all that cliche stuff. They fall in love, he bonds with the stupid little kid, the relationship has issues and then they have a big scene at the end where all is forgiven and love wins. Typical romantic comedy stuff and Cruise is typical Cruise playing a romantic comedy guy. There's nothing pushing the boundaries in this performance. I would say it's what Cruise had been doing for years and for some reason the Academy felt like nominating him perhaps because the film blew up, I don't know. But reality is that this is the same Cruise performance you've seen over and over, just this time he's a sports agent and not a race car driver or bartender or fighter pilot. There's no denying that Cruise is a great actor but this is a role he could do in his sleep and doesn't offer up anything new about his abilities. He's always been charismatic and emotional and blends a lot of that together in his performances which is why people like him and his films so much. I guess my thinking is did this performance stand apart from all his other ones? I don't really think so even if it's some good work by Cruise. I certainly don't think it was Oscar worthy but maybe the Academy felt it was time to reward him again. If you've seen one Cruise performance, then you've seen this one, too.

Ralph Fiennes - The English Patient

I'll say right away that I adore Ralph Fiennes. I think he is a gifted actor and supremely talented. There isn't anything that I've seen him in so far that I didn't like, The English Patient included. And when I say gifted actor, I honestly think he's one of the greatest living actors going today. In this film, as long as you can forgive the absurd burn victim makeup, I think he's as talented as anything else he has done. He has such a way, whether it's his English charm or not, with conveying humor in such a subtle yet stinging way. He can say something and it doesn't register as being hilarious until moments later because his delivery is so sarcastic and non-humorous. There's a great deal of humor in this role, also, which might not seem as evident on first watch or when you think back on it. He plays Count Almasy who is a pilot that gets shot down and badly burned and is taken care of by Juliette Binoche but was also in love with Kristin Scott Thomas when able bodied. The story slithers in and out in a labyrinthine way so we see all the different versions of Fiennes at once. I think it makes the impact of his performance more engaging as he is so sullen and grumpy looking when earliest in the timeline yet he's so lively and funny when badly burned and being taken care of in the bombed out monastery. He is equal to all versions presented, being good at Thomas' lover and to being the bed ridden victim. Fiennes delivers a pretty wonderful performance, one that many other actors wouldn't be able to pull off. I do think that if The English Patient's leading man wasn't so endearing and likable, the film would have failed miserably. Fiennes brought something real to the role and did a great job with it.

Woody Harrelson - The People Vs. Larry Flynt

When it comes to this performance, it's the tale of two halves. The first half is the beginning of Larry Flynt's career, naturally. Woody just plays that part of the character like Woody. Seriously, if you take any Woody Harrelson character from his filmography and put it in this first half, it'll look the exact same because this is Woody being Woody. This isn't Woody being Larry. If you said it was Woody portraying Hugh Hefner I'd have felt the same way. There's just no real reason to nominate the beginning part of this for an Oscar because it's so basic and nondescript. Then once Larry is shot and paralyzed is when we finally get some acting from Harrelson. He is in a wheel chair, obviously, but the voice is the big change. If you've seen Larry Flynt, you know he has the slurred words and distinctive voice. Woody does his best to emulate that but that's exactly what it seems like - emulation. Woody sounds kinda like Bane at times but never convinces me he is Larry Flynt. I think that might be the issue with Woody Harrelson is that he's so similar in all his roles that when he inhabits a famous person like Larry Flynt, he isn't able to be linked to the actual man. So this is a performance where Woody Harrelson is just Woody Harrelson at the end. Nothing wrong with that but I don't think it should be Oscar nominated. A good try but not my favorite.

Billy Bob Thornton - Sling Blade

This was the role that made Billy Bob's career and it's easy to see why. It's one of those passion projects where the actor writes, directs, produces, stars, caters, etc. and pulls off an amazing job because it's been a long time simmering. Like when a band's first album hits and is so good it's because they had their whole lives to write that first record. Same kind of idea here. It's obvious that Thornton had been developing this character for a long time and the performances proves that. It's a lived in performance and those are usually really good. Thornton plays Karl, a retarded man who was incarcerated in a mental hospital because he killed his mom and her boyfriend, I think, with a sling blade. He's been set free and he goes back to his hometown and befriends a kid and his mother and lives with them and we see his day to day interactions with them and the mom's abusive boyfriend and all the other people in their lives. Run on sentence aside, Thornton does a great job inhabiting Karl. Sure, he's got the funny voice and the mannerisms of constantly saying mmhmm and rubbing his hands together and swaying and all that, but after the initial introduction of it all you stop noticing it because you notice Karl, the man. He's a goodhearted, gentle soul giving out simple, yet fatherly advice to the boy who became his only real friend. It never comes off as being too hokey, it's very genuine and it's not as if Karl is making these big, long monologues on life and happiness or whatever like you might get in another movie. His character stays true to his simple self, no real big moments, just genuine ones that work better within the film. Now, I didn't like the ending as I felt it didn't quite gel with everything we just watched for almost 2 hours. We see Karl be this gentle guy and never get angry or allude to his past with his actions. And then we get the ending and it's like there's a disconnect. I understand where the point is trying to go but I think it would have been better if Karl protected the family or even moved on. Maybe it's also because I became a little more interested in how Karl would survive that I didn't want him to repeat his past mistakes. That speaks to the performance that Billy Bob gave and I must say it worked for me. It's a great performance.


Overall, not a bad group. It's got average to really good performances so that's a plus. The hard thing to do is put it into any kind of actual order. I guess the bottom two would be Harrelson and Cruise because they basically play versions of themselves and that's kinda boring even if they are really good actors. I want that range! Show me something out of the ordinary. Rush is my middle just because he's more of a supporting guy and skates by on the quirky mannerisms of his character. It's interesting for sure, but again I need more than that! That's why I like both Fiennes and Thornton. They create characters that I was invested in and cared about. Fiennes makes his severely burned patient compelling and funny and interesting to watch. As does Thornton with his simple minded man. Honestly, deciding between the two is hard because I think Fiennes is one of the best and Thornton is very strong with this performance. I guess I'll give the slightest edge to Thornton who was Rush's competition in 1996. It would be deserving but I could change it next time you ask me, it's that tough and close of a call. I'm happy with this group as is, mmhmm.

Oscar Winner: Geoffrey Rush - Shine
My Winner:  Billy Bob Thornton - Sling Blade
Ralph Fiennes
Geoffrey Rush
Tom Cruise
Woody Harrelson

Leading Actress 1996

Can't really think of much to say for this intro. I see I keep getting one view when I post these and I'm assuming it's the same person so feel free to comment mystery guest! I've only seen the winner previously so I'm looking forward to what a lot of people thought was such a great year for women in film. I guess we'll see!

1996 Best Actress

Frances McDormand - Fargo

Marge Gunderson is an iconic role. When you think of Fargo, you probably think of her pregnant cop before anything else. I do think the role has become slightly mythologized in that we remember her as being more outlandish and more North Dakotan than she actually is in the film. McDormand plays Marge very close to the vest. What I especially loved about her amazing performance is that we can see there's a whole lot more going on in her head than what she's outwardly showing. The gears in her head are turning and working overtime but the outward facade is steely and cool. She says things in a sort of deadpan way but it's not because she doesn't care about life, it seems to be that she's a big thinker and also very nice and goes through pleasantries and questions without seeming to be too accusatory or flippant. I don't know if I'm making any sense there but Marge is such a quietly strong woman which is what I like about McDormand's performance of her. She obviously made Chief of Police because she's smart and a go getter and a great policewoman. She dominates the scenes she's in because she is so Midwestern nice, which I know sounds ridiculous but she is so charming and has that gosh darn down home quality to her that's just so likable. McDormand also has amazing, expressive eyes. I'm telling you, watch her eyes in this film because they say so much that she doesn't vocalize. It's amazing. I know I'm not doing justice to her performance with this review but McDormand is indeed incredible. I implore you to watch it and see for yourself. She's probably the best female character the Coen Bros have ever written and maybe that's because McDormand is married to Joel. Either way, she creates such an iconic character that this was a no brainer for the Academy.

Brenda Blethyn - Secrets and Lies

There's just something about Brenda Blethyn performances and characters that I just intensely dislike. I hated her character in Little Voice and I hate her character in this film. I could not stand her whiny, little girl voice and constant wailing and crying and her skittishness and overall demeanor. I recognize that Blethyn is doing what's somewhat necessary for the character so her performance can't be classified as awful, I guess, but it doesn't mean I like watching her work. I just could not stand the way Cynthia reacted to basically everything in the film. She was like a chihuahua shaking at every little sound. It just annoyed the hell out of me, just like in her other nomination. However, I do recognize that Blethyn does a great job as the mother especially in the scene after she meets Hortense for the first time and they have 7-8 minutes of uninterrupted discussion going back and forth. It's intense but also familial and loving and is a really great scene driven by two women working the hell out of their characters. So yes, I do recognize that Blethyn knows what she's doing but I still don't like her character. I wouldn't want to suffer through that again, honestly. It's too weepy and tumultuous for my liking. I'd like to see a Blethyn performance where she's not using some grating voice or milking some annoying quality from her character because I think she would be fantastic otherwise. She's just an actress that doesn't do it for me and I imagine there will be a few of those to come. She's okay within the scope of this film but it doesn't work for me. Luckily, I have no more Blethyn to look forward to.

Diane Keaton - Marvin's Room

I don't care about this performance. It's like the Academy decided well, Meryl Streep has had a bunch of nominations so let's vote for Diane Keaton who hasn't been nominated in awhile. Thing is, Meryl is actually good in this film. By that I mean she's her typical good self, but her way of acting is so much better and more natural than Keaton's by a long shot. Meryl makes it look easy while Diane looks like she's acting, it's too obvious. Maybe it's unfair to compare the two but the difference is too glaring. Keaton plays a woman who has been taking care of her bed ridden father for years while Streep's character has been out of touch with her family. Keaton finds out she has cancer and needs a bone marrow transplant and contacts Streep who brings her son Leo DiCaprio along. Lots of family drama going on and Keaton eventually bonds with Leo and Streep starts helping to take care of her father. But when it comes to Keaton's performance, my main issue is that I didn't find it convincing at all. And that's the heart of the matter for me. If I don't find it convincing, why care? I was very bored by this performance and I cannot understand all the glowing reviews I've seen about this one. Especially given that 1996 has been heralded as such a great year for women in acting and then we get the likes of this kind of boring performance and a Lauren Bacall veteran nom that's full of nothing. I guess there's one in every category but there absolutely shouldn't be. I never want to watch this performance or film again because I have no interest in revisiting it. I'm not going to learn any deeper truth about her performance. I've contended for awhile now that I think some people just see the name and automatically ascribe more importance to their performance and forgive the flaws more easily than they would lesser names and unknowns. But that's the Academy for you: sometimes offering up truly inspired nominees and sometimes lazily going back to the well over and over like here.

Kristin Scott Thomas - The English Patient

Okay so she was the Leading Actress while Juliette Binoche was Supporting, yet if the roles were swapped I wouldn't really complain. Yes, Thomas was the love interest of Ralph Fiennes' character who dominates the story but she does seem more supporting at times than Binoche. Maybe because the story likes to go to the present day of Fiennes in the monastery more? I won't question the nomination anymore but Thomas is pretty good in her role. She is super charming. You honestly can't help but like her. Thing is, it's not like you can't help but fall in love with her, it's more of a can't help but like her and want to see more of her. The love story is left to her and Fiennes and they are certainly passionate. We are the bystander watching them flirt and eventually get it on. One thing about Thomas is that her smile conveys more than just joy, it has so many different meanings when you pay attention to it. It was the first thing I noticed about her and she uses that expression to great effect. She's quite beautiful in this film and her smile is just simply amazing, but I noticed she uses it at all times to mean all kinds of things and I think that's great acting. Thomas is very natural and I learned she campaigned hard for the role and it shows. She's so at ease as Katharine that it feels like it was certainly destiny. I like her performance a lot and she has great chemistry with Fiennes that I find it hard to imagine anyone else in her role. It might not be the strongest performance of the year but it absolutely fits the character and Thomas delivers on what that's all about. Thomas should feel good about her performance in a Best Picture film because it is certainly memorable.

Emily Watson - Breaking the Waves

This being a Lars von Trier film, there's a lot to parse out from Watson's performance which is heavily layered in subtext and all that stuff. Watson plays a woman who lives in a very religious group in Scotland but falls in love with an outsider and gets married. She then experiences sex and loves it but her husband becomes paralyzed in an accident shortly after they are married. He then asks her to have sex with other men and describe it to him and thus the point of the film. Like I said, there's a lot going on with Watson's character. She's easily manipulated by her husband, she confuses love and sex, she wants to be free to express herself when it comes to her church and family and it all comes from a good place. Watson doesn't treat her character as if she's stupid, she's just young and devoted to her husband. Watson has such an expressive face and can act with her eyes extremely well. That's what is most notable about the beginning of the film for me. There's not a lot of dialogue but there is a ton of acting going on. Watson's face and eyes when she is getting deflowered on her wedding day is quite remarkable as you watch her go through the emotions and realize that she really loves sex. It's great acting without doing too much. There are times where Watson gets on your nerves with her screeching and crying and fainting spells, as they are a little over the top, but she doesn't swing too wildly to one side or the other, thankfully. At least you can describe that overacting as part of Watson's character's traits instead of on Watson herself. I think that she's really great as this young, naive character and at times she's emotionally devastating with her situation of randomly fucking men. It's easy to see why Watson was again nominated 2 years later because she definitely established herself here as a woman to watch. This is a film that most people will not have seen or heard of and I think in the context of this year and Watson's career, it's a must watch because it's pretty strong work. There's a lot going on with her performance and she nails every aspect of it. I'm glad the Academy was able to vote for some really indie and interesting performances this year because it paid off.


As far as being touted as a banner year for women in film, well 1996 does have some good performances. I'd say I like the top 4 with the 5th being the one I don't like at all. That 5th would be Keaton who, I'm sorry, but completely bored me with her performance. I need more than what she gave. S o no. My 4th is Blethyn, her character can be annoying but it's overall a good performance with some pretty strong scenes that help elevate it. My 3rd is Watson because it's obvious that she is a strong actress and is doing a lot with little and I like that. Didn't think I'd like her so much after her previous performance I reviewed but I did. I just happened to like Thomas a little bit more. Her romance with Fiennes is enjoyable and I loved how natural Thomas felt in her role. She was born to play that and it shows. My winner is Oscar's winner because McDormand blows everyone else away with such a subtle and low key performance that hits so hard. She gives an iconic performance that even regular people know, so how could it not win? This was a good year but could have been better. I look forward to the year where I love every performance, though!

Oscar Winner: Frances McDormand - Fargo
My Winner:  Frances McDormand - Fargo
Kristin Scott Thomas
Emily Watson
Brenda Blethyn
Diane Keaton

Supporting Actor 1996

Been looking forward to a few of these for awhile. No rants or diatribes for this category. Let's get to the films.

1996 Best Supporting Actor

Cuba Gooding Jr - Jerry Maguire

Everyone remembers his wild acceptance speech at the Oscars but I didn't realize that it was almost a continuation of his actual performance from the film. The Gooding we saw at the Oscars is partly like his character Tidwell in the film. Tidwell has these explosive moments just like the acceptance speech but it works for the character. Tidwell is a Wide Receiver for the Arizona Cardinals and he has the ego that an NFL WR should have. By that I mean he's a little larger than life and quite focused on cultivating his brand image and getting paid. Others will say that Gooding's performance comes off as obnoxious, but that's kind of the point of the character right? I actually thought it was going to be that way the entire film but Gooding turns the loudness down when the story calls for it and he's good in those moments as well. He and his wife, Regina King, have some pretty good chemistry together and make for a good couple. Those two on screen together were fun to watch. Now is Gooding's overall performance revelatory? No and that's fine. He's the millionaire athlete that wants more money and lives it up in his profession but is also equally passionate about his family. I think it's a good enough supporting performance in a film that's a little to a lot hokey at times so a loud performance like Gooding's doesn't look too out of place. I'm just completely unsure if it should be a winner. I never got the vibe that I was watching something important, just something fun. Cuba brings a ton of energy to the performance and that translates well, but I don't know if I'm as energized to vote for it.

William H. Macy - Fargo

William H. Macy is so good as Jerry Lundegaard and easily should have won this category. However, if you switch Macy and Geoffrey Rush, the whole Actor categories would make much more sense! Macy's character is quite obviously the lead actor of the film even if he's not onscreen the whole time but the film is about him and he's onscreen for way more time than Rush. That would make Rush's win look better and Macy would deservingly have a Best Actor Oscar, because let's face it, he deserves it for Fargo. Macy is the ultimate pathetic loser fuck up. He hires inept thugs to kidnap his wife so he can get the ransom money from his father-in-law, but things go awry and lots of death and violence follow, like in any good Coen Bros film. He's very much the Midwestern guy who is in over his head trying to finagle a windfall for himself because he doesn't want to ask his wife or father-in-law for the cash. It's apropos that Macy is a car salesman because he has no shame in trying to rip off a customer just as he has no shame in having his wife kidnapped and his father-in-law extorted. It's just that Macy's character is completely unequipped for dealing with things once they go wrong, which is part of what makes him so pathetic. Macy is able to make Jerry into a sympathetic and even likable character despite everything he does. It's a pitch perfect Coen Bros performance and Macy absolutely deserved an Oscar for this role.

Armin Mueller-Stahl - Shine

I've already stated that I didn't quite understand the love for this film and the same would go for Mueller-Stahl's performance. I guess it got swept up along with the film itself which would make sense. Mueller-Stahl plays musical genius David Helfgott's overbearing father. Now don't get me wrong, I think Mueller-Stahl does a good job with what he has to work with but it's just so prominently one note that it's hard to get excited about it. He's the tough father pushing his son to be better and doesn't except losing in any fashion, even turning down a special prize at a competition. He's a hard ass that dominates his family and his son's life one moment and then has moments where he's being the nice father, telling his son he's doing a good job. But then he goes through these sort of bipolar moments where he will let David got to America for music school but then realizes he will lose his control over David and then forbids it and makes David ashamed for wanting to abandon his family. This happens a couple times and you can see why it's a somewhat one note performance. It goes back and forth between overbearing father who controls David and the family and the father who tries to be loving in the only few ways he knows how. After awhile the performance starts getting boring because you've already seen all it has to offer. There's also some allusions to the Holocaust and Mueller-Stahl being a survivor which is why he's such an overbearing ass but it's never explored and only briefly mentioned. That would have been something I would have liked to hear more about to better understand this character, but the film didn't care about that and wanted to make him the quasi-villain for David to partially explain his breakdown and schizophrenia. It's a role that when nominated you're like okay, so what. But when it's not nominated, it becomes one of your handful of other choices to be included because such and such didn't deserve it. To me, this performance is just kind of there.

Edward Norton - Primal Fear

Okay, so this is a pretty damn good film! Side tangent for a second, but I must say that 80s and early 90s films are some of my favorites because of their overall look, music, and feeling. I love the old cars and cheesy synth music and the dirty, grungy cities. It's probably because I'm a child of the 80s so this is all part of the nostalgia of my childhood, but I can't get enough of this type of film. Primal Fear just also happens to be a very good film with great acting and a spellbinding story on top of the guilty pleasures. This is Edward Norton's screen debut, a year that saw him in this and a Woody Allen flick and The People vs. Larry Flynt. Not bad. Norton carves out a deliciously memorable role in this film as the accused murderer of a Catholic Archbishop. Richard Gere defends him and we see that there is more than meets the eye to Norton. He first comes off as the overwhelmed, stuttering, country bumpkin with Southern accent to match. Norton is fine as this character giving a believably Southern take on his altar boy. However, we see that Norton is also suffering from split personalities and we have a tougher, almost drill sergeant like other character that Norton can transition into when cornered and pissed off. What makes this performance is the transition part of it because it's so seamless and not ridiculous. It has the potential to look completely goofy and like a bad B movie if done the wrong way or done by the wrong actor. Wait, did I say that his transitions are what make the performance? Because you ain't seen nothing yet until the very end. Without giving anything away, it's chilling stuff and also brilliant stuff in a span of like 4 minutes. I could watch this film over and over for that payoff alone. Norton is up to the challenge because out of this whole film, the thing you remember most is Norton's performance and that's quite the accomplishment for a screen debut.

James Woods - Ghosts of Mississippi

This is kind of a chintzy movie, honestly. The way a lot of it is shot and how the acting and dialogue are, just doesn't seem fitting for such a heavy subject like racial strife and the assassination of a civil rights leader and subsequent bungling of his murder trials. Woods contributes to that less than serious tone with his performance which is really a lot of reaction shots and him mucking it up as the typical southern racist dipshit. Seriously, a lot of his screen time is simply him walking out of or into a court room and saying some racist remark. Or it's him in the court room rolling his eyes, yawning, squirming around, sighing heavily - real over the top stuff. Woods' character is obviously the villain of the film but Woods plays it like he needs a mustache to twirl, it's such a caricature. His character is cocky and smug and just a general bad person living it up because he knows he won't be convicted in Mississippi for killing a black man. Woods only has one scene where he actually gets to interact with another person and it's a short one in a bathroom where he taunts Alec Baldwin's character that he won't be found guilty. It's the only real chance Woods has to do anything with his character and it's not enough. I feel bad that Woods didn't get to do a whole lot besides ham it up as a racist killer but then he did get an Oscar nomination out of it so what do I know. It's weird that the Academy has such an infatuation with performances/roles like these. I can point to Geoffrey Rush's win this same year as something similar. The Academy seems to love it's obvious acting even if it's hammy. Unfortunately, this is a minor, forgettable performance.


This is a hell of a group based on my top 2 favorites from this year. First of all James Woods is my 5th spot because that's not much of a performance. Putting old man make up on and hamming it up shouldn't lead to an Oscar nomination. Armin Mueller-Stahl is my 4th because it's so one note and that's all it has going for it. My 3rd would be the winner of this category, Cuba Gooding Jr, who is really not all that impressive though he does bring a lot of energy. Duking it out for the win is Norton and Macy and I've got to give the win to Macy though ever so slightly over Norton because hot damn! is Norton really flipping fantastic and makes his film so much better. Macy is just the better all around performance that probably could have gone lead but even still deserves a damn Oscar. It's that good. I'd say an above average year because we get two amazing performances that didn't even win. As always, I hope next year is better.

Oscar Winner: Cuba Gooding Jr - Jerry Maguire
My Winner:  William H. Macy - Fargo
Edward Norton
Cuba Gooding Jr
Armin Mueller-Stahl
James Woods

Supporting Actress 1996

I wrote a big rant about how hard it can be to stay consistent with this blog when life gets in the way. That remains true and my biggest hurdle for the blog and why after 5-6 years I'm only 20 years in. But no excuses. I might not want to come home after working a 12-13 hour day and watch a Streisand rom-com but that's the nature of this beast. I just hope I can stay steady enough to get to the 80s by the end of the year! I haven't seen any of these performances/films so I'm hopeful I'll get something worth my while. Let's see!

1996 Best Supporting Actress

Juliette Binoche - The English Patient

Alright so this feels more like a Leading Actress role to me. Yes I know that Kristin Scott Thomas was nominated for that too, but Binoche takes up a lot of screen time. The other four in this category all are legit supporting nominations and this is the winner? You see where my thinking is going. Anyway, even if you call this supporting, Binoche is very supporting in her actual role in the film. She is a nurse who takes care of Ralph Fiennes character in a blown out monastery and she fulfills her nursely duties to a T. She is at the bedside of Fiennes for most of the film save for a rendezvous with Naveen Andrews and the beginning of her arc where she is in a hospital tent and a convoy where her friend gets blown up. Binoche has the warm spirit of a nurse down pat and is so caring and loving and kind that you kinda wish you would have her for your next hospital visit. She shows great spunk at the beginning of the film when her friend is killed yet she walks briskly into a mind field because her friends necklace is there. Eventually, her and Fiennes are situated at the monastery and though Binoche is very personable and moves around a lot, she doesn't do all that much but provide support for Fiennes and love for Naveen Andrews. She is the impetus for a few of the flashbacks that Fiennes undergoes but Binoche is sort of a static character once she gets planted at Fiennes' bedside. I don't think there's anything negative you can say about her performance, it just doesn't stand out among the other acting in the film. Her winning isn't a terrible thing at all and the film obviously caught the Academy's attention. I'm personally okay with the win but she probably wouldn't be my choice.

Joan Allen - The Crucible

This is some strong acting! Joan Allen is absolutely fantastic in this film and her performance is simply wonderful. The film itself is incredible with some great acting all around, a classic story that remains harrowing and exasperating and important which was reworked by Arthur Miller himself, and a direction that focuses on the characters and the desperation that mounts as the twisted tale goes on. This should have been a Best Picture nominee. Joan Allen helps contribute to the overall effort with such a morally steadfast and understanding woman/wife role that is quietly devastating. I think she benefits from the above mentioned great acting and story and direction but she is not merely a product of those. She carries her own weight and lifts up the film with her fine performance. She and Daniel Day-Lewis are so riveting in their roles that you can tell they are feeding off each others energy and giving great performances because of it. Allen plays a woman whose husband has cheated on her in the past with Winona Ryder's character who starts off the whole witch hunt thing because she wanted Allen's husband for herself. Allen plays her character so calmly and cool that her performances rings even more substantial. Allen never overacts her character keeping her performance subtle and nuanced even though there are ample opportunities for her to go into hysterics. Even at the end in her pivotal scene with her husband, Allen's measured response is what perfectly describes her character. It's a strong performance without having to knock you over the head to get it's impact across and that is something I very much enjoy. Allen is most likely my pick for a winner because that was a supporting performance that really captured my attention instead of just being a supporting performance that is just there, existing. It contributes heartily to the overall experience of the film and left me blown away.

Lauren Bacall - The Mirror Has Two Faces

I didn't think this would be my first foray into a Barbra Streisand film yet here I am (I mean for the blog, as I've seen some things she's done). I thought it was going to be a lame Snow White type thing so I was glad it wasn't. Then I saw it had Jeff Bridges and was thrilled because I love that guy as an actor and was pumped for what might come. But it's a lame Streisand rom-com, that you could easily make fun of if you really wanted. It's entirely forgettable which obviously doesn't bode well for Bacall's performance. There's not much to it, again since I repeat myself for these veteran noms, but I like Bacall. I mean, she's Streisand's overbearing, criticizing mother but she has the look of Bacall's no bullshit demeanor throughout the film. She's still the legend she always was just playing a boring part in a Streisand movie. I kinda like her asshole mother even though it's brief but that's just because it's Bacall. Which explains why the Academy chose this as her only Oscar nomination. It's a nothing role that she infuses with her sassy nature. But this is a veteran nomination all the way in a mostly boring flick. Not much else to talk up so let's just leave it at that.

Barbara Hershey - The Portrait of a Lady

So I always thought that Barbara Hershey was an older actress like Lauren Bacall. So whenever I looked at this year, I'd groan to myself and think oh great, I have to watch a couple veteran nominations this year. Turns out Barbara Hershey was like 47 or 48 or around there when filming this. Maybe I was thinking of Barbara Stanwyck? I dunno, but I did groan out load when I first started this film with the lame mid 90s MTV introduction of I guess modern women. I didn't get that and it didn't bode well for Hershey going forward. The movie is based off the Henry James novel and is the second year in a row for me with a Henry James adaptation. I liked The Wings of the Dove a lot but didn't like this version of James' work. It's too dark and pretentious and self serious. Hershey has the unenviable task of portraying Madame Merle, a woman who spends most of her screen time scheming with John Malkovich to get the inherited fortune of Nicole Kidman. Now, as is true of any James work, the story is deeply layered with subtext, but I don't see any of that in Hershey's performance. She's a schemer and a very serious woman. I also disliked how she is made to speak in the clunky, sophisticated language of the text because it always comes off as unnecessary and a poor choice for the adaptation because Malkovich seems to speak in mostly modern tones. Point is that it detracts from the performance because it's as if it's supposed to make it seem much more important than it really is. Then towards the end of the movie, Hershey has sort of a change in heart and quietly blows up at Malkovich and slams a door a few times. It's a good scene taken on it's own and Hershey is great in not overplaying her anger but it came out of nowhere and felt hollow in the bigger picture of the performance. Maybe I need to watch this movie again about two more times to better understand all that's going on but I didn't get the change in her character and her presence seemed discarded at the end, her story left unfinished. Maybe I'm asking too much from a supporting performance but I think this movie could have been done better which would have served Hershey and the other actors well.

Marianne Jean-Baptiste - Secrets and Lies

I really enjoyed Jean-Baptiste in this role. She is a black woman who is looking for her birth mother who turns out to be white. I'll be honest and say that it really doesn't seem believable given Jean-Baptiste does not look mixed at all. So that might kill some of the believability of the characters being related but as a singular character, Hortense is more than believable. The main thing I like about her performance is how real and natural it is. Most of the other characters are acting in very broad terms but Jean-Baptiste delivers something that stands out, as if watching someone in a documentary. The film itself has that sort of peeping tom feel where we the audience are spying on the scenes and characters. Jean-Baptiste is honest in everything she does. It doesn't look like acting at all especially when watching her closely and observing her facial expressions and body language, it works as if she's a real life person. She shines brightest in the beginning to middle of the film when the focus is on her trying to find her birth mother and in the interaction she has with her once they finally meet. Now this has already been mentioned but it was the first time Brenda Blethyn saw and realized her daughter was black and it's captured on film. That's cool and all, if a little gimmicky, but their following sit down chat that goes uninterrupted for like 7-8 minutes is a thing of beauty. They just rattle off real life banter that seems so genuine and hammers home that documentary, fly on the wall feeling. Jean-Baptiste is exceptional in that scene, too. Unfortunately, towards the end of the film, Hortense becomes more like a prop, the black woman invading the birthday party and she doesn't get to shine as bright as before. In fact she feels a bit wasted in the most pivotal scenes of the film. I kinda feel like that's partly, if not mostly, due to Mike Leigh's creative process meandering it's way to the ultimate conclusion without any set parameters. Jean-Baptiste should have been more involved in the ending in more meaningful way. Her performance is good and I wasn't sure I'd like it based off what I'd read previously about it, but I'm glad it turned out to be an enjoyable performance.


Whew! That was a pretty intense group of performances and films in particular! I watched Bacall first and then followed that up with four straight serious and intense films that were unrelenting in their drama. I need a Netflix break where I can watch some stand up or some Patrick Swayze movies. As serious as most of these films and performances were, I'll take a year like this over some of the other years in this category. You can't call this one weak, save for Bacall's inclusion. Obviously she's my 5th nominee for a nothing performance and I really wish the Academy would knock these off in the future. My 4th would be Hershey who doesn't get much opportunity to register on the film itself instead sort of floundering in a role that deserves to be better. She's totally let down by the film even though the talent is there. My third is the Oscar winner because she gets stuck as the helpful nurse but never really breaks through that mold. She's great and competent but not amazing. I liked Jean-Baptiste's natural acting and the fact that she felt like the realest of all the characters in her film. She was a treat to watch even though it let her down at the end. Obviously Binoche won but both would be good candidates to win in this category in weak years. Joan Allen would also be an easy winner in a weak year. She was flipping amazing and I wish she would have won. She was brilliant and is my easy winner. This is a pretty strong Supporting Actress category considering we've had some pretty awful ones in the past (future)!

Oscar Winner: Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
My Winner:  Joan Allen - The Crucible
Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Juliette Binoche
Barbara Hershey
Lauren Bacall

Best Picture 1997

I do this in reverse order so when I reach Best Picture, I'm all ranted or controversied out. I think of topics to spend my forewords to talk about but forget them when it comes time to write them down. I've got nothing here other than let's get the fuck to 1996 because I'm sick of 1997!

1997 Best Picture

Titanic

Wow, it's been a long time since I've actually watched Titanic start to finish. This came out when I was in middle school and I hated it without even seeing it because it was such a huge phenomenon that you couldn't escape hearing about the film if you tried. Plus, I just thought it was a stupid love story and I was not about that when I was in middle school. I never got the hype back then and I'm still not sure I understand it today but whatever. Titanic has a lot going for it as a film. The opening is amazing and really sets the tone of just how epic the film is going to be with the whole underwater submersible vehicle thing inspecting the wreck on the ocean floor. You kinda get the sense that this was a real thing that happened and is more than just a film. The thing Titanic has going for it is how epic and impressive the sets and scope of the film are, or at least how they look. The engine room is remarkable to behold even if they used tricks to make it seem bigger than it was. The ship itself is so grand and awe inspiring that it sucks you in completely and you want to watch just so you can see everything the ship has to offer and what it all looks like. The visual effects are the best thing about the film, just watch the sinking of the ship to see what I mean. It's intense, sure, but also marvelous in how they were able to pull that off because it is quite the sight. The romance part between Jack and Rose is also good because they have such great chemistry between them that it makes it very believable. My issue is that the story isn't the best thing going for it and has too many boring parts that needed to be trimmed down or cut out. The film is over three hours long and there are times when it feels like it, mostly due to the story. Titanic is all about the spectacle and the story takes a backseat to it which is why I don't think the film is as good as it's box office draw and Oscar count. There's a lot to like but I wouldn't call it a complete film. Still, the visual effects and sheer enormity of the undertaking is extremely impressive and definitely makes this a must watch and a really good film, period.

As Good as It Gets

I had heard so many good things about this film since it was one of those mature dramedies, leaning more heavily on comedy that I was stoked to finally watch it. I knew it was a big hit back in 1997 as it was talked about everywhere. Then I finally watched it and am sitting here wondering what all the fuss was about. For one thing, I thought this film was going to be a lot funnier than it was but it's humor is not as abundant as I was lead to believe. Sure, there were parts where I laughed, but most of the time I thought the humor fell totally flat. The film has decent acting but I also think just how good they are is overstated and I say this knowing it won both Best Actor and Actress which makes me look silly but I wasn't into either winner all that much. The story, however, is where this film just doesn't really work for me. In the beginning we see Nicholson's character as this really negative OCD guy who no one likes, the joke being that he writes well received books about love. That little tidbit is never really explored even though it could have been put to exceptional use. Anyway, the story has Nicholson, who hates his gay neighbor and dog, warm up to them after Kinnear is attacked viciously in his home (which is so glossed over that it makes my head spin). Nicholson also offers to care for Hunt's son because he wants his favorite waitress at his breakfast spot because no one else there can stand to wait on him. Eventually the three go on a road trip for Kinnear to ask his parents for money and they all connect and eventually Nicholson admits he loves Hunt and they fall in love and that he likes Kinnear even though he seemed to hate gays so vehemently at the beginning. The story sucks because that change in persona is not earned at all. I never believed the love story between Hunt and Nicholson and never felt it was earned even after the road trip. So my problem is that there are so many things about this film that I can't believe based on what I saw in the beginning. Everything feels forced in that tidy Hollywood way that I'd tolerate it if it was at least laugh out loud funny, but it's not! To me, this is just one of those middling type of mature comedy films that adults are supposed to like because of the more sophisticated themes and all that nonsense. But the film should at least be believable and good all the way through. As Good as It Gets is not. I found it somewhat boring save for some okay performances. A little harsh but this is Best Picture, damn it!

The Full Monty

If you were to point to a film that looks like it doesn't belong on a list of Best Picture nominees, this would be an easy choice. This was also the last of the feel good, crowd pleasing British comedies that somehow got nominated year after year in the 90s. Though I did read a comment on a blog that said this was the only real competition for Best Picture to Titanic because it actually won the SAG for Outstanding Performance by a Cast and cleaned up at the BAFTAs, while also being the highest grossing film in the UK until, well, Titanic happened later. So that all kind of boggled my mind that this film was so popular and so almost a Best Picture winner, at least in theory. It tells the tale of some blokes from Sheffield who are struggling because the steel jobs are all gone and they have to provide for their families and so they come up with the idea of dancing like the Chippendales except they are all regular looking dudes. Simple story told in the humorous British way that apparently people couldn't get enough of that year. I remember the hype being all over the place, though I never saw it back then. So why was it such a cultural phenomenon? Well for one, it's pretty funny. It's that British humor but I think it translates well enough to be universal. Second, it's working class, so it's pretty relatable for a large portion of the population. And of course America loves it's working class heroes, even if they are ugly British strippers. Third, it's pretty flipping entertaining. It might not be high art or a very serious film, but it is simply entertaining. You can watch it and enjoy it and have a laugh and feel good, all while feeling cultural because it's British. Win/win. I can see why this did so well out of the blue because it reaches out to everyone and offers something to them. It's a very entertaining film and though I had my reservations about it being included in the Best Picture group, I think it probably should be here, especially since it did so well and was so universally liked. I think the one thing I could change about it is if it actually delivered on it's full monty promise. We only get the behind look and not the actual full nudity with dicks hanging. I think that would have made this so memorable if at the end it ends with the unexpected. Instead it's almost as if we are cheated from the whole point of the film. Either way The Full Monty is very entertaining and fits in fine among the Best Picture nominees.

Good Will Hunting

When I got to Good Will Hunting I was like, "ah man, I've already seen this thing so many times!" but I decided to put it on for about 10-20 minutes before I fell asleep and it completely sucked me in. Next thing I know it's over an hour later and it's after 130am and I'm like I gotta go to sleep! So I did finish it the next day but the film had me from the beginning because it's vastly entertaining. The thing is, this film has been parodied so much over the years that it actually looks silly and cliche in a lot of it's scenes. I'm sure I'll say something similar when I hit Jerry Maguire, but these films are parodied because they are endlessly entertaining. And that's what I think Good Will Hunting has going for it. The writing can be pretty hokey at times even if it did give Matt and Ben an Oscar. Especially since it reads like a South Boston kid's ultimate fantasy: guy is a genius but works as a janitor and solves equations on chalkboards with ease all while getting the pretty Harvard girl while staying true to the Southie roots. Again, it all goes back to entertainment and Matt and Ben know how to make an entertaining film. It helps that we get some pretty good acting out of the cast and some really interesting directing from Gus Van Sant making the film look better than it probably should. It's also pretty damn sincere. I'd believe that Matt and Ben wrote this from the heart because deep down it's a genuinely goodhearted story. It's easy to see why the Academy would fall so hard for this little indie film, which is what it was, because I'm sure a lot of them had wish they had made something just like this for their debut. Is it the best film of the year? Of course not, but it is a lot of fun to watch and I'm okay with the Academy including it here.

L.A. Confidential

I don't know why I had such a time writing this one because I think L.A. Confidential is a masterpiece. It should be held in high regard like so many of the other classics you read about all the time, yet this film never gets the praise it deserves. It seems like more of an afterthought when people talk about the Oscars or Best Picture snubs because it ran into the Titanic monstrosity. It's a neo-noir film about corruption amongst the police ranks in the LAPD and riffs on old Hollywood as well. I feel like noir is a very hard film genre to pull off while not looking too hokey and B movie-esque, especially in modern times like 1997. The genre was done to death back in the 40s and 50s with some truly remarkable films that set the standard with which everyone else copied from. Much like when an actually good Western film comes out nowadays, it's not only a revelation and an event, it highlights just how tough it is to pull off a genre that was so saturated at one point. L.A. Confidential broke the mold and gave us a gripping, intense, powerful, and masterfully done bit of noir for a modern audience. There's so much going on in the story yet everything is easy to follow. There's layers to peel back and search through and it's a satisfying feeling to do so, it doesn't come off as too much or as being too dense. The acting is phenomenal, buoyed by the three main cops all giving excellent performances. Hard to believe that this film launched the careers of both Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe who were basically unknowns in America. They deserved some Oscar love because they are what make the film so intriguing and so enjoyable. The look of the film is great, too, and I'm glad they decided to shoot it in a modern style instead of trying to ape the old movies and do it in black and white. It gives the film a lot more weight as a serious picture and throughout the film there is this intensity buzzing from scene to scene. It's hard to describe for me but it just kept me glued what was going on, like I was on some ride of impending doom or a runaway car or something. That's where I can say the pacing keeps this film tight and fast paced and helps keep the story on track. L.A. Confidential is a film that I can immerse myself in time and time again and never get sick of it. I wish we could get more noir-ish films like this made these days because the genre is so compelling and I feel like today's Hollywood could find something interesting to say about the genre. This is right up there with best non winners in Oscar history.



This is a pretty good Best Picture group. At first glance you're going to automatically dismiss The Full Monty and you absolutely should not because it is so entertaining. That was something Oscar was all about in the 90s was including the crowd pleasing box office smash. One reason the Academy went to a 5-10 possible result was because of films like that, which may have taken a spot from a serious contender but fully deserved to be in the race as well. So the expansion allows everything to be included which is great because we don't have the arguments of I can't believe that comedy or that film got in over such and such. I say all that and The Full Monty is my 3rd favorite! Titanic gets the second spot because it's influential and because the effects are so damn good. I get it's win but I think L.A. Confidential is a perfect film. It deserves to be recognized as one of the best films of all time and I'll continue to champion it as much as I can because it's fucking good. I'll watch it over and over and never get sick of it. If it had won, it would be regarded in the top 15 of Best Picture winners, easily. My 4th would be Good Will Hunting because I'd rather watch it and it's corniness than As Good as it Gets again. That latter film is just boring when all is said and done. At least Matt and Ben's film has heart and soul. How bout dem apples, eh? A great group to watch, no doubt.

Oscar Winner: Titanic
My Winner:  L.A. Confidential
Titanic
The Full Monty
Good Will Hunting 
As Good as It Gets

Leading Actor 1997

Besides Damon, I've seen none of these so that's exciting for me, especially given the names attached.  I just hope those names live up to their previous billings! No rant for this category, so let's get to it.

1997 Best Actor

Jack Nicholson - As Good as It Gets

Here's Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson. I kid somewhat but it's mostly true. While his About Schmidt performance has way more humor in it, the two are similar in a lot of ways. It's like Nicholson is pushing a bunch of the same notes in his performance but just in a slightly different order. In this film, he's an angry, self-absorbed writer with extreme OCD who has absolutely no tact, calling people derogatory names and saying whatever he's thinking however unpleasant that may be. It's as if the OCD thing should somehow excuse the abhorrent behavior. This character comes off very strong in the beginning which is probably why I have a hard time believing in his sudden change of heart into being a decent human being because he loves Hunt's character and also got to know his gay neighbor. Nicholson gives a strong performance and honestly, he's Jack Nicholson, he's going to give great performances. He's very domineering in this film at first, partly because of the persona, but also because that's just how good Nicholson is as actor. He takes over scenes probably without even meaning to do it. A lot of the Nicholson traits are present and work well for the character, my thing is that I just don't buy the 180 he does as a character. Nicholson is able to get by on his charisma and legacy but does rely on it a little too much in this performance, as he would in his later films. Nicholson has his moments where he is the best thing about the film and others where he ends up getting let down by the script and can't overcome it. It's a likable Nicholson performance but it definitely has it's flaws.

Matt Damon - Good Will Hunting

This was Damon's breakout role in the movie he wrote with his buddy Ben Affleck. So naturally he shines in the big part of Will Hunting. The movie is basically a fantasy as Damon gets to play the genius from Southie who upsets the intellectual elite in Boston by working as a janitor and in construction and getting the pretty, smart, British girl all while being kind of an asshole. Damon still displays his every man charm, the one he's been riffing off of for 20 years now and has made a career out of. His The Martian nomination is all about what he started with this character. The ability to charm the audience and get us rooting for him even if we aren't quite sure why we are other than he's a main character. Damon is good in this role because he's able to play two different sides of himself very well. He's the charming genius who is loyally devoted to his friends and he also is the douchebag genius who revels in letting the intellectual elite know just how easy he can do the proofs they spend years and months on all while squandering his potential because of bullshit ideals of staying true to his roots. The character is pretty layered and Damon is able to convey all of those layers easily and transition between the different sides of his character with little effort. It's impressive because the movie is resting squarely on his shoulders and if he were to falter the whole thing would come crashing down. Luckily, his performance works and we get an entertaining movie that might be a little goofy at times but is full of heart - much like Damon's performance, even if it's a little raw.

Robert Duvall - The Apostle

The Academy really loves to nominate passion projects, which is something about the Oscars that I've learned since doing this passion project. Duvall wrote, directed, produced, and starred in this film which is always impressive to me. But if it's your passion project and you're working on it for years and years, when you finally get to make it you better knock it the fuck out of the park! You can't go through all that and have it suck. Maybe that's why the Academy has honored Duvall and Ed Harris and Glenn Close among others with nominations because they know the dedication in spending years of your life trying to create something. Duvall surely does create something here. This is a terrific performance and Duvall really inhabits the role of a troubled preacher who starts up a new church in a small town. Duvall is great at becoming possessed by God like many televangelists and back water revivalists are. I was thinking that acting in that specific way has to be pretty easy and an actor's wet dream to be able to be as loud and ridiculous as possible. But Duvall showed you have to be great to make it believable. I'm sure anyone could go off shouting about the Lord but few could make you believe he was truly one with the Holy Spirit. There's more than just the shouting preacher to Duvall's performance, however, as we see him as a man quick to anger and dole out his own spiritual justice. The turns he makes from preacher to combatant mesh so well it can be hard to tell them apart. Duvall's character explains it as something divine but we know it's just an excuse to try and get away with kicking someone's ass or putting them into a coma. I thought in the beginning we were going to get this arrogant preacher who has anger issues and deals with his members and wife and church with the same slick hatred and conniving tactics to keep himself in power. The film defies my expectations when he goes on the run and settles in a small town and the film becomes this intimate man making amends but also satisfying his urge to be the Word of God because if his need for control and power of something. Duvall is fantastic especially during this part of the film when he's enthusiastic about building his new church and congregation that we start rooting him on. He dances on that fine line between sincerity and snake oil salesman and he's a treat to watch. I said that if you're going to devote years of your life to a passion project, you'd better knock it out of the park. Well, Duvall hits a grand slam because this is a role and performance and film he should be better known for. He is the Apostle, through and through. This is a must watch for Duvall's performance and I'm glad the Academy nominated him so I could watch this.

Peter Fonda - Ulee's Gold

This movie doesn't have a very good start to it. Let me back up a second and say that I'd heard good things about this performance all over the place. This was one of the first Best Actor performances I'd never heard of at all. I'd never heard of Ulee's Gold and I was very much alive in 1997. So I was intrigued at what the Academy might have unearthed so to speak that people seemed to like a lot. Most of the praise was that Fonda evoked his father in this performance because it's a quietly strong man trying to deal with life on his own terms. He doesn't say a whole lot and has that morally good quality to him. Yeah sure, he reminds you of his father Henry but let's not get carried away now. The movie does start off poorly like I said. The writing is just bad and comes off sounding like someone's first attempt at writing a script. The acting all around is wooden and awkward and subpar, including Fonda. This is a small indie movie about Fonda who is a beekeeper in North Florida who takes care of his son's daughters while he's in jail and then gets their junkie mother from Orlando. It starts out really rough, but once it settles in and the script gets a little bit better, Fonda's performance benefits and looks a lot better. It honestly reminds me of a mix of Clint Eastwood and some Henry Fonda, with the weariness of keeping a family together and the whole stern, breathy voice. At least you can say Fonda gives this performance his heart and soul, as I think that's pretty evident here. It's quiet as already stated but also strong, clunky writing be damned. Fonda is better the further he gets away from that writing so towards the end where he doesn't speak as much, the performance is best. I can see what all the critics loved about it but I do still think they are conveniently overlooking the flaws and exaggerating the strengths of the performance. If this was me in the role of Ulee, this isn't getting nominated. It's nomination is in large part because of the name as it is the performance. I really do like the beekeeping stuff, also, as it is pretty fascinating. It helps that Fonda's dad also kept bees so Peter at least had that experience to draw on for those scenes, which helps. So it does have that going for it but let's not make it seem like this is a can't miss performance. Fonda is good but I liked other performances in this group more.

Dustin Hoffman - Wag the Dog

A lot has been said about Wag the Dog already, but it's still amazing that this political satire that basically mirrored the Clinton scandal came out months before any of that actually happened. It's a pretty funny film, made funnier by the real life events that came later and is funny in large part due to Hoffman's performance. This is not much of a challenging role for Hoffman, but it's one he nails regardless of how difficult it is. He's clearly having a lot of fun in the role and that translates to a very good performance. He plays a Hollywood producer who is enlisted to help start a fake war to get the pressure off the president having an affair, or I think it was sexual harassment in the film, and is determined to make his war a worthy production. I love that Hoffman's character treats the whole thing like a big budget movie, always pushing for his vision to be realized and getting agitated when things don't work out his way just like a movie producer would. He's totally invested in his product and detached from even caring about it's real world implications. He doesn't care about the political and real life part, he just wants his war to be well done and to his specifications. He treats the President like an actor and the whole thing is just really hilarious to me. Hoffman portrays the producer perfectly, infusing his work with a sense of pride at getting the job done and singular determinism at making sure it work even with all the hitches and hiccups. He plays it like a producer should without any big emotional points or loud acting, just getting the war and it's components done like it was any other movie. It may not be Hoffman's best work but he's really good in the role and brings a lot of humor to it as well. I'm glad this performance is included because it's really entertaining and Hoffman deserves to be here.


Overall, this is a pretty damn good group. There's not a performance I dislike at all and that's a rare thing. It's interesting because when I looked down the years at what I had to watch, this jumped out with two films I'd never heard of being nominated in Duvall and Fonda. I liked Duvall so much I made him my winner. That's a performance that would make a top 10 or so of the decade, probably. Fonda started out awful but redeemed himself and made for an interesting performance to be my  3rd guy. Hoffman would actually slot in between those as number two because his performance was just so fun and humorous. Amazing that he shot that with Barry Levinson while on a break from them making The Sphere. That was done as like a distraction! That's crazy. Anyway, I liked him a lot in that film. Now, Nicholson is my 4th because it's not that great compared to his other stuff, before and after, and honestly I'd rather Fonda win this year than Jack. It just didn't do much for me. Damon comes in last because he's still pretty green and his performance is not fully fleshed out. But hey, I'll take a category like this at any time. Give me categories where I like every performance and I'll be happy.

Oscar Winner: Jack Nicholson - As Good as It Gets
My Winner:  Robert Duvall - The Apostle
Dustin Hoffman
Peter Fonda
Jack Nicholson
Matt Damon

Leading Actress 1997

I never know the best way to facilitate doing these categories. I mean I always start in the same order but when say Supporting Actress has a film that has 3-4-5 nominees that I have to write about, should I start there first and knock out a couple reviews with one film? Or should I start with the single nominee films because it's quicker to write and I don't get bogged down in writing about the same film for hour and hours and days and days when I'm worn out writing about American Hustle or similarly nominated films? Should I mix them together to give myself a break? Or should I (like I did for this year) do the most nominee'd ones first? I knocked out 11 reviews for just 3 films this year but was mentally fatigued after! I worry that towards the end my writing begins to suffer and I can't make any good points or observations or tap into what I'm really feeling and trying to say about something. I'll probably keep mixing it up as I go with whatever suits me at the time. Figured I'd give a look into my thought process for this project. I haven't seen any of them besides Winslet so hopefully that works out well!

1997 Best Actress

Helen Hunt - As Good as It Gets

There's an Oscar factoid that whenever I read about Hunt for this film, it was accompanied by the mention that when Jack Nicholson won his three Oscars, the Best Actress winner also came from the same film. I just also wanted to mention that fact so I wouldn't be the odd man out. As for Helen Hunt, she is up to the task of matching Nicholson. We first meet her as the only waitress that can stand Nicholson's persona and we see she's tough and takes none of Jack's bullshit. Her character, however, has a sadness to her and she seems constantly on edge, which makes sense with her home life and caring for a sick child. Her comedic chops aren't too bad here, either, delivering them with some dripping sarcasm and wit helped most likely from her TV sitcom days. She has a great scene where she's arguing/talking with her mom and when she's done she gives this exasperated, honest "Okay" that comes off so amazing. The way she says that one word makes her performance that much better. It felt like an improv or add on or something like that. I say this because I think that's where Hunt succeeds is in the intimate moments with her mom, with Jack, with Kinnear. However, I still don't exactly buy the love story. It seems very forced to me, and I honestly can't picture Hunt and Nicholson together at all. I guess it's that she brings out the good in Nicholson's character but I just don't get it and I certainly wasn't rooting for them to fall in love or anything. I do like that Hunt's character calls Jack on his behavior and even threatens to stop seeing him when he continues to be his asshole self. That feels more real than their relationship. I guess I don't fully know how to judge Hunt's performance. She does a great job with her character and balances out Nicholson's domineering persona but I just don't feel all that attached to her. I'm watching her act and nodding that it's good but it's not compelling me to feel anything for her character. I think that's mostly on the film but still some falls on Hunt. She's good but not the one for me.

Helena Bonham Carter - The Wings of the Dove

This is a hard performance to review. Every so often I get hit with a performance that isn't bad at all but also doesn't leave me writing effusive praise. This is one of those that sort of falls in between the two extremes, though I wouldn't go so far as calling it meh. I actually quite liked Bonham Carter in this role, she really fit the Henry James woman well. Maybe because it is a Henry James adaptation that I can't rightfully dissect Bonham Carter's performance because it's so nuanced and layered. Maybe it's also because I don't have anything insightful to say other than I really enjoyed Bonham Carter's performance. Roger Ebert called it emotionally violent and I loved that phrase so much that I had to write it here. The film really is emotionally violent because even though Bonham Carter's character is in love with Merton and friends with Millie, she still schemes to use the two to get what she wants but in a more tender way. It's as if there is tact in all the lying and half truths and deceit. And Millie tolerates it even though she is wildly rich because she gets partly what she wants before she dies and Merton gets to travel with two beautiful women who both want him but use him all the same. It's a deeply layered film and Bonham Carter is the same way. She doesn't have any loud moments, she just remains diligently observing and steadfast in her lies and friendships. You watch it and know it's good but struggle to say why. I like the performance and I think Bonham Carter is very memorable in her role and that's good enough for me. I'm glad the Academy nominated her for this one.

Julie Christie - Afterglow

I'm sorry but I'm going to be harsh because this does not belong among those known as Oscar nominated. I don't care what Julie Christie has been nominated for in the past, this is a garbage movie. It might think it's clever in tying up it's threads at the end of it but it just reeks of cheesy. She's a housewife whose husband is a handy man (Nick Nolte) who bangs all of his customers and is generally having a lot of fun in his role. She isn't too loving and also had a child that wasn't Nolte's though told him it was until like 15 years later and he was mad and they've had marital strife ever since because that child ran away because she heard Nolte say she wasn't his and didn't love her or some crap. This movie sucks, first of all. Second, there's too much going on to really give a hoot about. Nolte is a philanderer but Christie decides to cheat too and cheats with the husband of the gal Nolte is currently banging, conveniently enough. Christie's performance is basically just jilted lover and bored housewife without being anything interesting. It's insanely boring and she does nothing worthy of being nominated! This has to be an example where the Academy saw the name and decided to vote for it because it sucks. She's meant to look all sexy in her 50s but just ends up looking dumb. It's barely a leading performance on top of being a boring performance. I'd say this is one of the least deserving nominations and one of the worst Oscar nominations ever. It's legit garbage.

Judi Dench - Mrs. Brown

I'll admit I was wary of this film and performance knowing it was Judi Dench playing another Queen role and backed by Miramax. I'll also admit my apprehension was unnecessary because this is a fantastic little film. This may have been Dench's first nomination but it honestly doesn't feel like it. By that I mean it takes all the strong parts of her other performances and throw them together and you'd get her portrayal of Queen Victoria. I've groaned about her playing the same role time and time again but this one felt fresh and new even though it was our first real introduction of her by way of the Oscars. Her performance as Victoria is very stately but I don't mean that in a stuffy, noble way. It's a very smart, measured performance that flows with her character wonderfully. In the beginning she is in mourning for the death of her husband Prince Albert and she is fittingly sort of dour and morose, going through the motions. Once John Brown arrives, he shakes her from her depressing stupor and gets her to liven up, as much as the Queen is able to in strict society. This doesn't happen in one big grand occasion but rather in a gradual way as we see Dench bring the character to life slowly. Towards the end we know she's more happy and sure of herself but we also see the confidence come back to her and we see the Queen become the Queen again. It's stellar work by Dench because this all comes along slowly but deliberately and doesn't feel forced or rushed or too slow, it feels just right. There's no doubt that Billy Connolly helps Dench out by giving his own masterful performance and Dench is able to play off his charisma and let him take the lead and bring her own character along accordingly. There's no pressure for Dench to do anything unnecessary with her character so we get a really thought out performance. I was surprised by how much I liked Dench and this film but it really is a great little film, in large part because of Connolly who is truly awesome in this. A well earned first nomination for Dench.

Kate Winslet - Titanic

I think people forget that Winslet was nominated once before this in a supporting role so it makes sense to me that she would be singled out again for a box office smash like Titanic was. I've read all sorts of arguments online about whether she really deserved a nomination for this role but it almost seems like how could the Academy not? She's the main actress in a billion dollar film and part of the reason why so many people loved it - it's really as simple as that. As for Winslet's performance, I always thought she was very stiff in the beginning of the film, like she was trying to figure out her character onscreen and how to act like an upper class lady. When she admonishes Jack for asking if she loves her fiance, that whole exchange is rather cringe worthy because it comes off as an actress unsure of how to really act. A bit harsh, yes, but when you compare that scene to her later ones you can really see the difference in her acting ability. Maybe it's part of the woes of establishing a character from the beginning but later Rose is a lot better than this. After her romance with Jack has had some time to blossom and she's fighting for her survival on the sinking ship, does Winslet really come into her own. Obviously her character grows more confident about who she is as the story unfolds and Winslet benefits in not having to play someone that's somewhat boring. It may not have been enough for a win but Winslet cemented herself as a leading lady and showed just how good she could be as evidenced by her later nominations and win. There's no doubt, however, that Winslet is Rose.

This was a decent enough group as far as Best Actress goes. I'm starting to resign myself that strong years from top to bottom will be very rare and I'm going to have to suffer through some bad films and performances to get to them. I at least know I'll have deserved it when I finally do! This year is not too bad, though Christie is the one true stinker. I just didn't like her performance at all and the movie was more movie of the week type stuff than an Oscar player. No thanks. Winslet is my 4th simply because she is so green and it shows in the beginning. She's good enough, but not for a win. This is where it gets muddled for me. I like Bonham Carter but I don't know if I articulated it well enough other than it being her presence, this would be my 2nd because it's at least memorable to me. Hunt just didn't do enough for me as a winner even though she held her own against Jack Nicholson. Dench surprised me in how much I liked her performance and the film. She looks better because of her co-star but she's plenty good on her own. I've admitted to being underwhelmed by some of her nominations in the past but not here. She is excellent in Mrs. Brown and deserves my win. A good group that could have been better without Christie.

Oscar Winner: Helen Hunt - As Good as It Gets
My Winner:  Judi Dench - Mrs. Brown
Helena Bonham Carter
Helen Hunt
Kate Winslet
Julie Christie

Supporting Actor 1997

There's two films/performances in this group that I've been waiting to see for awhile so I'm pumped for that. I've seen the other three though I can't complain about having to watch them again. I have a feeling this is going to be another strong Supporting Actor group. On to my favorite category!

1997 Best Supporting Actor

Robin Williams - Good Will Hunting

I always get this role mixed up with his Dead Poets Society one or at least I fuse them together. This one is the more grounded performance and I feel like it is one of Robin Williams' best of his career. He is the psychologist who is able to get through to Matt Damon's character in part because he's been in Damon's shoes before. That life experience is communicated well and contrasted at various points with how Will doesn't have much life experience and needs to get out and experience the world. It's believable to me that Williams was a genius who followed a girl instead of his intellectual pursuits and settled down into a comfortable life. I've talked a lot of about sincerity when discussing Good Will Hunting and Williams has it in spades here in this performance. His anger, resentment, hopefulness, embarrassment, pride, and love are real and palpable because Williams loses himself in the character. I don't care about accents as I've read a bit about how he doesn't have a convincing Boston accent and people putting down the performance for that. Who cares? It comes out every now and then but I'm focused on the character as a man and how he interacts with Will and it's very heartfelt and natural. Williams tones down his humor and antics but they are still there, just more subtle and more fitting for the role. I just really like how serious and helping Williams is in this role. He's able to blend together all the things we like about him and create a very relatable character. I think I might be in the minority on this one but I feel Williams more than holds his own in this film and delivers a very good performance.

Robert Forster - Jackie Brown

This was the last Tarantino film I hadn't watched and I can't really explain why I hadn't seen it until now, other than waiting to watch it for this performance. But hey, two new Tarantino films in one year for me! Though this film doesn't feel like typical Tarantino probably because it's his only film that is adapted from another source. Anyway, Forster plays a bail bondsman who becomes infatuated with Pam Grier's character and they hatch a plan to sort of double cross her weapons peddling boss and the cops who arrested her. He is the same Robert Forster as you've always known. The sour face, hard ass demeanor, tough looking dude playing an authority figure. The twist is that he falls for Pam Grier and we get to see the sensitive side. Forster plays a good guy and his helping out Grier feels genuine. His performance is good and adds to an overall decent film. By the end, you are rooting for him to go with Grier to Spain but I understand the choice to not have him go. He's the kind of guy that's married to his job and won't take any risks in forgoing all of that. And while Forster played his typical character, I really liked Robert De Niro in this film. His character was a bit quiet and a loner of sorts and I thought he really shined. But of course, this resurrected Forster's, and Grier's, careers so it makes sense that he would get the nomination from the film. It's good but it won't blow you away, much like his career overall.

Anthony Hopkins - Amistad

People forget that Amistad is a Steven Spielberg film but it undoubtedly is one. Anthony Hopkins is very much a Steven Spielberg character even though he's playing former President John Quincy Adams. By that I mean he's so morally good it's hard not to like him. It helps that he's arguing for the black people who were aboard the slave ship Amistad to be declared free men and returned to Africa. I mean, what is more righteous than that? Therein lies the typical Spielberg character and Hopkins does a fine job of portraying that ideal. It's actually a really likable character without being too righteous and perfect. Hopkins plays the elderly Adams with some vim and vigor, constantly having him on the move and looking like a doddering old fool when he's far from it. He's still sharp as a tack as evidenced by his introduction where he's sleeping in the House of Representatives while a colleague talks to him thinking he's asleep but Adams rebuts with a stinging barb all while eyes closed and feet up. That's the kind of man and character and performance we are dealing with. Hopkins has great fun with it and in turn we get to laugh and smile along with him at his whimsical but serious role. He's great, too, at giving one of those Spielberg speeches about some good thing this one being a speech to the Supreme Court. Hopkins shines in this moment and flexes those acting muscles that already won him an Oscar. If he hadn't won an Oscar before, I could see there being a considerable amount of people pushing for this to be the winner. As it stands, he was still in the grace period after his win that he could get nominated for anything. In fact this would be his last nomination, but it definitely could have won because it's so fun and just good in general.

Greg Kinnear - As Good as It Gets

Kinnear plays a gay painter who lives in the same apartment building as Nicholson and seems to constantly catch Jack's ire. He gets attacked by burglars and is the catalyst so to speak for the film's events. If Kinnear's character wasn't gay in this film, would he have been nominated? I don't say that to bash gays or start trouble, just that if Kinnear was just a normal dude would the Academy have paid attention? The film was a big hit in 1997 so I think it could have been included because of the success of the film and the other actors. I only ask because without the personality quirks and foibles is this a strong character still? Kinnear does a good enough job in the role that I think it would have been a possibility. Anyway, I'm typing myself into a corner when my point was that the homosexual part of the role is what makes it memorable as opposed to if Kinnear played it straight. I know that can be a dumb question because changing that character changes the entire rest of the story so it's essentially a moot point. Kinnear does a fine job as Nicholson's whipping boy and brings some small laughs and has some emotional moments with which to toy around with but I'd rather have had an actual gay man play this role. Though, that's not to say Kinnear overacts the part at all, he's actually very subdued and only brings out the mannerisms when it suits the film. I think that might be partially an acting choice but also some lazy writing, too. It doesn't help that Nicholson dominates the film so any spotlight on a supporting character is quickly snuffed out. For me, this is just a performance that's there and gets swept up alongside the other nominations for the film. It's not bad and I'm glad Kinnear plays his character in a toned down version, but ultimately it doesn't do all that much for me.

Burt Reynolds - Boogie Nights

There was a lot going on with this nomination for Burt Reynolds. He actually fired most of his team of managers and agent and whatnot because he hated Boogie Nights and thought it was going to be awful. He also had on set issues with director Paul Thomas Anderson so go figure that he ended up winning the Golden Globe for this performance and was nominated here. It was thought that if Reynolds played ball and didn't have all this baggage surrounding him, he probably would have won the Oscar. I see his nomination as one like a slew of other actors in a similar predicament including Eddie Murphy, Mickey Rourke, Bill Murray, and probably others I'm forgetting. These are the veteran actors making a comeback after years of not being around who were at some point expected to win Oscars before something got derailed and another actor won. Reynolds was really good in his performance as the tawdry porn director who stays mostly even keeled through the whole film save for a dramatic, explosive fight near the end. But he is mostly a calming influence on the film and on his actors. He's a director who isn't perturbed by things he sees since he films sex all day and his stable of actors routinely do drugs at his parties. I mention this because while everyone else in the film has these emotional or somewhat psychotic breakdowns, Reynolds is quietly there doing his thing. He's also the father figure to his porn actors and he plays that part perfectly. He controls those around him not because he's the prototypical evil porn guy taking advantage of people but because he sincerely thinks of himself as a filmmaker and wants to make the best films he can. So there's this quiet determinism in Reynold's performance where things are more about the art than the sex, which is obviously the bonus. It was a really good performance and it's a shame that Reynolds himself didn't think so because he definitely could have won an Oscar for it.


Thank God for Best Supporting Actor, especially since it always comes after Supporting Actress. It's always a nice palate cleanser and usually the best part of each year. This year was very good as usual, with no one giving a bad performance at all. Kinnear brings up the rear just because he could have been so much better and used in a way better way. Then it becomes really hard. I'll go with Burt Reynolds as my 4th even when the guy probably could have won the whole thing if he hadn't been such a baby about the film. I like his performance but he's more of a quiet, father figure that doesn't wow too much. Forster is my 3rd because he's grown on me so much since I saw his performance only like 3 days ago. It's a pretty chill performance but I like it more and more after thinking about it. My 2nd would be Hopkins because his John Quincy Adams is so fun. You can't not like him. And my winner would be the same as the Academy with Williams. I think it's a very strong performance from him and I'm totally okay with the win. This year was really good and I hope next year can top it.

Oscar Winner: Robin Williams - Good Will Hunting
My Winner:  Robin Williams - Good Will Hunting
Anthony Hopkins
Robert Forster
Burt Reynolds
Greg Kinnear