Finally at the end of this year. Lots to look forward to in the group and stuff I haven't seen before. Will be good to close out this year and move on!
1991 Best Picture
The Silence of the Lambs
I'll be honest, I've never actually seen this film all the way through before now. I've seen it piecemeal while at a friends house or bored on a Saturday afternoon while flipping channels or through the scenes that get shown over and over when talking about this film. So it was nice to finally sit down and watching from start to finish because I finally got the best representation of the film as a whole. Most people remember Hannibal Lecter and all of his quotable lines and even Buffalo Bill and his scenes, but I think a lot of people say those lines having not even seen it or only having seen those specific scenes kinda like me. Now I know why Buffalo Bill says 'It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again' and I've got the context for it besides just a throwaway line. It's also a bit weird when people call this a horror film to me because while it has some scary elements, I was never on edge or terrified or freaked out. It's more of a psychological thriller which most people refer to it as also but the horror label has always irked me. I think of it as just a really great film that stands up even today and even with all the quotable lines and parodies that have happened since. I don't think of it as purely a genre type film. The acting in the film is obviously amazing as the two leads were rewarded by the Academy and deservedly so. But what I also like about it is how well paced the film is. It never detours into extraneous crap, just focusing on the two leads and the investigation and moving from one scene to the next very efficiently. I like that there's no subplot about Foster's love life or something ridiculous like that. It tells it's story and does it economically. The music is great, the cinematography is great and the whole vibe of the film works so well. It's a really well made film and it makes everything else this year look silly by comparison. This is an all-timer and one of the better decisions by the Academy for BP. It's crazy, too, to think that this film came out in February and did so well at the Oscars. Nowadays, February is a dumping ground for bad films and the Oscar contenders come out at the end of the year. I guess that's what happens when a film can transcend labels by being a classic.
Beauty and the Beast
Okay, so this was such a great way to end my watching of the 1991 films. A Disney classic that I haven't seen in years that I was really looking forward to seeing because I remember it was great way back when. Plus, it's only 84 minutes so it was like a nice, quick palate cleanser after watching The Silence of the Lambs. And I absolutely love that it was included in this Best Picture group. It was the first ever animated feature to be nominated in BP and came in the middle of a time where Disney was pumping out classics almost year after year, so this is a good representation of the art form and studio at that time. The animation is beautiful and story is simple, yet engaging. The songs are great, the voice acting is wonderful, and the feeling it brings with it can't be quantified. It's almost an experience to watch the film again because the Disney films give such a sense of joy and happiness and nostalgia. Now I am viewing this with a ton of nostalgia and memories of being a kid but even if I was watching it back then, I'd want this to be a BP finalist and be glad that it's not just a token nomination. Because honestly, if The Silence of the Lambs wasn't here, this would be your winner over the other films in this group, without a doubt. It's just a great film to watch. Lumiere and Cogsworth are funny and Gaston is a good, smarmy villain. This film is mostly here because The Little Mermaid got so much love the year prior and the Academy is always a year or more late to any trends. But still, this film is great and a classic and deserves its nomination.
Bugsy
I feel like gangster films this late in the century really need to do something special or unique or at least have to be really visceral and realistic to stand out above all the myriad of gangster films that have come before it. I don't think Bugsy quite fits this profile. Bugsy isn't a bad film, by any means, it's just not one that people will come back to over and over and think of as a classic. It's got some pretty great acting from it's eponymous lead in Warren Beatty playing Bugsy Siegel, the gangster who moved out to LA and turned Las Vegas into a gambling haven. It's got some decent supporting acting and the chemistry between Bening and Beatty is incredibly tangible (makes sense that they got together while filming this). And strangely I enjoyed the music in this film, mostly while Bening and Beatty were getting it on, but it was something I noticed and thought was great. For me, Bugsy is almost too slick and polished feeling. It feels too Hollywood and while it can be entertaining and I understand it's nomination, it doesn't quite satisfy a craving for gangster picture. Beatty can be too much of a star to believe he's a ruthless, notorious gangster even if his switching between fake good guy and raging psychopath is intriguing to watch. It's almost about how much time Beatty can get onscreen and I wish the film had delved into Bugsy the man a lot more. He seemed like a very complex guy and I would have liked to know how he got to be the way he was instead of seeing him schmooze everyone to make more money. The romance part actually felt a little more realistic because Bening at least fought back just as hard as Beatty was giving it out and at least they didn't make her into a pushover, Barbie doll woman. She at least had some life in her performance and wasn't a stock, love interest character. So while Bugsy has a lot of parts that work well, it's still dwarfed by some of the other competition in this category, including the winner. It's entertaining but nowhere near Best Picture winner worthy.
JFK
Alright, so this film seems to come down on one or two sides for people: those that either believe or enjoy the conspiracy theory hokum or those like me, who think watching three and a half hours of it is a bit too much. Now don't get me wrong, JFK is certainly entertaining at times. I love big ensemble films like this where there are tons of stars interacting, some going against type, giving really interesting performances. That's the main draw for me here is watching all the different performances. I was intrigued that Tommy Lee Jones was chosen to represent the film out of all of them because I felt there were some other great performances in this film. One of the drawbacks is that you really have to pay attention closely if you want to be able to follow along with the myriad of conspiracy theory plots. Yes, you should pay attention to every film you watch but you'll be severely lost if you don't pay attention here. It's layered and thick but not so much that you need to have a degree in Kennedy Conspiracy Theories. The film is boiled down to a New Orleans Attorney General learning from some gay guys they arrest that the plot to kill Kennedy goes deep and Kevin Costner, the Attorney General, pursues the lead trying to unravel the complicated mystery. I'll admit when the characters start rattling off "facts" and "truths" the film is interesting because you either agree or try to pick it apart. The ending at the trial where the events of the assassination are spelled out and all the inconsistencies and peculiarities and bizarre coincidences are mentioned, yeah, you perk up a bit and think about everything. But like one of the characters, a great Michael Rooker, who adheres to what America is all about and can't fathom a conspiracy to kill the President asks how can the Mafia, the Communists, the Cubans, the CIA, the Army Intelligence, the whoever all coordinate without there ever being a leak about their plans since? I have a hard time swallowing all the mumbo jumbo just like Rooker that we are force fed here. Like yeah, there's some compelling evidence, but also some ridiculous stretches. So I choose to just not concern myself with the intricacies of the "plots." It just doesn't matter to me. A great leader was killed who could have continued to do great things and let's move on and watch movies. JFK is a bit long, obviously, but I like that it tackles a subject that most would be unwilling to even try to take on. Oliver Stone has done this for years and years and takes on Snowden this year. At least he tries even if they are to varying degrees of quality. JFK is entertaining whether you take it seriously or not and we need more films like this.
The Prince of Tides
I'm not entirely sure how this film made it into the Best Picture group. Actually, yes I am: Barbra Streisand. The Academy is infatuated with anything she does it seems and she gets love for awful films like this. For real, The Prince of Tides is not a very good film. It's about a guy whose sister tries to kill herself and the sister's shrink wants a family member to go to New York to talk to her. Nolte ends up going and talking to Streisand the shrink. Family issues are discussed and secrets are told and convoluted love plots occur. Seriously, it's like everything was filmed separately and just put together and called The Prince of Tides. The motivations of the characters often don't make sense. I didn't understand why Nolte and Streisand fall in love and have awkward love scenes other than this kind of film just demands it on principle. It was like Streisand was following a formula and just went with the romance part because that's what it said to do. Nolte basically just abandons his family and lives in New York City for awhile hanging out with Streisand's character and teaching her son how to play football. Then we find out his wife cheated on him and doesn't want him back for awhile and Nolte confesses about the traumatic events in his youth and he hooks up with Streisand. It's all very weird and never fits together well. From scene to scene, I was wondering why this or that was happening because it didn't make sense from what I had just watched. The motivations and reasons make no sense and I'm left wondering what the heck the Academy voters saw in this insipid little film. It feels very self indulgent for Streisand and like an exercise in new acting techniques for Nolte. It's a mess of a film that makes little sense in meaning and in being nominated.
This group has such a strong winner that even though the other films don't stand up as being that great save the Disney classic on here, it doesn't matter because all anyone remembers is The Silence of the Lambs. It's a great winner and my winner, too. Next up would be Beauty and the Beast which could have won if not for the actual winner. Imagine an animated film winning Best Picture, almost happened. As for 3rd and 4th, well it comes down to I'd rather watch Bugsy on an endless loop instead of JFK. JFK has some great acting and lots of stars but the conspiracy theory hokum is a bit too much for me. Bugsy needed to be a lot more gritty and less Hollywood for me to take it seriously. Bringing up the rear is The Prince of Tides which is just a bad film. I didn't like it, didn't get it, and don't want to see it again. Though the winner dwarfs all the others, I wish the category had been a bit stronger.
Oscar Winner: The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner: The Silence of the Lambs
Beauty and the Beast
Bugsy
JFK
The Prince of Tides
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Leading Actor 1991
Sorry for the delay. Sat on watching the BP winner and kinda needed to take a break and watch other things. Now I'm back and ready to get to the 80s. This group looks great by name alone and I'm very excited to watch some of these guys.
1991 Best Actor
Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
I mean, I could really just write Hannibal Lecter here and leave it at that since that is all that really needs to be said. Hopkins delivers a performance that is easily one of the best villains of all time and was ranked so by the American Film Institute. The portrayal is chilling and unnerving and just plain old fantastic. Hopkins nails so much about the character from the look and almost never blinking, to his improvisations with the script that were left in the film like speaking in a southern drawl to mimic Foster and his tongue flitting thing, to being charmingly creepy to the point of liking him yet being repulsed by him. This is legitimately one of the greatest performances ever and that's not any bit of hyperbole. Watching Hopkins interact with Foster is also pretty great because the two work so well together. Their little tete-a-tete's are supremely interesting and engrossing. Though Hannibal is billed as a villain, I don't exactly see him that way. Yes, he can be scary and creepy and all that but he likes making Clarice work for her information and likes the mental games because he's so bored. We see a bit of how terrifying and brutal he can be but he's almost a sympathetic figure and that's due in large part to Hopkins' acting ability. This is just one of those times where actor and character come together at the right time and form something unique and special. I can't imagine anyone else playing Hannibal anywhere near the quality that Hopkins displays here. Mads Mikkelson did a great job in the TV show version and brought a different dimension to the character, but it still wasn't as good as Hopkins. I also wanted to mention the screen time issue. A lot of people feel like this is more of a supporting performance but if you've actually seen the film, you know that Hopkins dominates his scenes and his presence lingers even when he's not on screen. He's absolutely the main actor and to say otherwise misses the point of what that entails. Hopkins is brilliant and very much deserved this Oscar.
Warren Beatty - Bugsy
This is my first experience with Beatty for my blog and I have seen him in other things previously but honestly don't know too much about Beatty besides what roles and films he is famous for being in (I mean, I do know about his playboy status and being with Annette Bening and all that). I know he will appear a few more times and after watching this film, I'm excited for that. Warren Beatty is a movie star and that is very evident here. He plays the eponymous Bugsy Siegel, a Jewish gangster who forms the idea of creating Las Vegas as a gambling destination, which is essentially what the film is about. We see him go from NYC to LA and become enamored with the Hollywood, laid back lifestyle. Beatty is very strong in this performance. He's a showman and plays up the crazy without playing up the crazy. By that I mean, he's normally a chipper, seeming happy-go-lucky guy defusing situations with his charm and wit and his know-it-all demeanor. He woos Bening's character while married, hob knobs with stars, and is just an all around affable guy. That's where Beatty's star quality shines through. You could tell me that was legitimately Beatty and I'd nod my head in understanding. Then if someone calls him Bugsy or insults his wife/family/mistress he snaps. I think that this is where Beatty truly shines. He doesn't go off in some over the top, crazy manner. He just snaps in a frightening way that shows just how dangerous and volcanic Bugsy is and that he didn't become a successful gangster by accident. I really like the interplay of the nice guy, family man Bugsy and the bonafide killer gangster Bugsy. Just the way Beatty switches between the two is marvelous to watch. The film teeters on being too polished but these moments make it somewhat realistic which is something I prefer. Beatty's last nomination (as of 2016) is a good introduction to an actor I know I'll enjoy in his future (past) roles.
Robert De Niro - Cape Fear
Oh man, I liked this film from the opening moments. You get that big horn music blaring ominously and then De Niro walks right into the camera and you just know this is going to be a great performance and film. And it really is a hell of a performance. De Niro plays Max Cady, a sadistic, evil man who is smarter than he looks. While in prison, he learned law and seemed to have read everything ever. Now that he's out, he is determined to make the life of his public defender, Nick Nolte, a living hell because Nolte suppressed evidence favorable to Cady. De Niro plays Cady full bore and I love it. He's an awful, violent, despicable person but De Niro makes him into a fully realized and compelling character. I want to see what kind of screwed up thing he does next to torment Nolte. I love the Southern accent which feels authentic and I like the literary vibe he has when talking to everyone even though he's basically a good ol boy. De Niro plays Cady as this calm character that you know is just seething and bubbling on the inside to exact his revenge. When De Niro is confronted, he always stays calm and collected and knows that because he's not doing anything wrong, no one can tough him. It's this arrogance and confidence that really make the performance. He knows he's going to get Nolte eventually, De Niro just has to put his plan into action no matter if it takes awhile. Some people might say that De Niro hams it up, but the role calls for a very loud performance. I think De Niro succeeds in keeping it from being ridiculous. The ending could be viewed as over the top but I feel it fits the character and adheres to the old school style Scorsese is going for as an homage to the original version. De Niro is a downright creepy, yet memorable villain and one that you will never forget. I've said before on this blog that playing a villain is both the easiest and hardest thing to do because it's such a fine line between fucking it up and really giving an iconic performance. You'll remember this De Niro performance long after you've finished it and that's the sign of a worthy nomination.
Nick Nolte - The Prince of Tides
This film is kind of all over the place and is really not that interesting in all honesty. Nolte, too, is a bit all over the place in this role. There are times when he is really excellent and other times where the performance teeters on being a joke. The confessions Nolte has with Streisand almost explains the nomination because Nolte's acting is so earnest, so raw, so real that you understand why he was nominated. It's legitimately great stuff and greatly affecting. Those parts feel like Nolte rehearsed it and tried out all the different ways to play it until finding the right notes while the rest of the performance feels like it was just done on the fly. It's like Nolte wasn't sure exactly how to play his character and just wings it. It's strange but the film itself is so uneven and feels tacked together that you see why a harmonious performance is missing. I'm also not a fan of the voiceover while Nolte makes pained facial expresses as we are told what he's thinking/feeling. It's jarring in the context of the film and feels like a film school concept. I'd rather Nolte just act out his emotions and let us figure them out instead of looking ridiculous while making faces in a car. I just think that Nolte makes some odd choices for his character and isn't helped at all by Streisand's bad directing. I think if he were to play the whole performance with the earnestness of the confession scenes, he would have created a really great performance. The simple reason why he's nominated is because he had this film and Cape Fear and De Niro already had that film's Best Actor nomination on lockdown. Not to mention the Academy loves itself some Streisand films and she gets her actors nominations as a result. Nolte is more miss than hit in this performance and is not something worth revisiting.
Robin Williams - The Fisher King
I miss this guy so much. I wish he was still around and would have found the help he needed because you forget just how flipping good he is as an actor and a comedian. You watch his old performances such as this and just marvel at how great he was. I know that that's a very selfish thing to think, but the man left us too early. He really is brilliant and one of the best to mix the outrageously comedic with the dramatic. He was just on another level with his comedy and his timing, especially. In this film, Williams plays Parry, a homeless guy who had some rough instances that put him in that place physically and mentally. He thinks he's a knight and wants to find the Holy Grail and also is in love with a woman he sees around town. It's a very Terry Gilliam type of film and Williams is a good choice to play the fantastical character. He imbues the role with the necessary humor and heart. You need an actor who won't make the knight idea feel so ridiculous and Williams is the perfect guy to make it both funny and heartwarming without being too over the top. Williams tones down his brand of comedy in this role which is why the performance works so well. He allows the character to shine through instead of using the character as an excuse to make jokes and be a funnyman. Williams is actually much better when he's playing the more serious notes of the performance like when talking with Jeff Bridges and trying to woo the girl he's chasing. The performance needs these serious moments to break up the craziness of the homeless knight angle. I think too much of that and this wouldn't have been nominated. I think it's balanced well enough that we don't get sick of either side. It's not perfect and it won't blow you away, but you'll remember why Williams was nominated 4 times total.
After a blah group, I get a group that is extremely strong by name alone. Turns out they are all pretty good in reality, too. The weak link is Nolte, who gives an uneven performance in a blah film but if you add up his other work this year fits fine at the 5th spot. Williams is very earnest in his performance blending his comedy with some dramatic work. It's an interesting performance and one I'm glad got recognized. He's 4th because Nolte is not as strong and because the others are simply better. My first Beatty interaction sees him at 3rd. He's charming and funny and an obviously talented actor and movie star. The performance just didn't hit as hard as the others above it, but I'm excited to watch his other stuff. De Niro probably would have been the winner if not for Hopkins giving an iconic, brilliant performance. De Niro was really great and I loved the film itself a lot, too. Wasn't sure what the performance would bring before I watched because everyone always talks about his other more notable roles but he was real strong here. Hopkins, though, is the undisputed winner. One of the greatest performances of all time. I'm excited to see what 1990 brings!
Oscar Winner: Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner: Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
Robert De Niro
Warren Beatty
Robin Williams
Nick Nolte
1991 Best Actor
Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
I mean, I could really just write Hannibal Lecter here and leave it at that since that is all that really needs to be said. Hopkins delivers a performance that is easily one of the best villains of all time and was ranked so by the American Film Institute. The portrayal is chilling and unnerving and just plain old fantastic. Hopkins nails so much about the character from the look and almost never blinking, to his improvisations with the script that were left in the film like speaking in a southern drawl to mimic Foster and his tongue flitting thing, to being charmingly creepy to the point of liking him yet being repulsed by him. This is legitimately one of the greatest performances ever and that's not any bit of hyperbole. Watching Hopkins interact with Foster is also pretty great because the two work so well together. Their little tete-a-tete's are supremely interesting and engrossing. Though Hannibal is billed as a villain, I don't exactly see him that way. Yes, he can be scary and creepy and all that but he likes making Clarice work for her information and likes the mental games because he's so bored. We see a bit of how terrifying and brutal he can be but he's almost a sympathetic figure and that's due in large part to Hopkins' acting ability. This is just one of those times where actor and character come together at the right time and form something unique and special. I can't imagine anyone else playing Hannibal anywhere near the quality that Hopkins displays here. Mads Mikkelson did a great job in the TV show version and brought a different dimension to the character, but it still wasn't as good as Hopkins. I also wanted to mention the screen time issue. A lot of people feel like this is more of a supporting performance but if you've actually seen the film, you know that Hopkins dominates his scenes and his presence lingers even when he's not on screen. He's absolutely the main actor and to say otherwise misses the point of what that entails. Hopkins is brilliant and very much deserved this Oscar.
Warren Beatty - Bugsy
This is my first experience with Beatty for my blog and I have seen him in other things previously but honestly don't know too much about Beatty besides what roles and films he is famous for being in (I mean, I do know about his playboy status and being with Annette Bening and all that). I know he will appear a few more times and after watching this film, I'm excited for that. Warren Beatty is a movie star and that is very evident here. He plays the eponymous Bugsy Siegel, a Jewish gangster who forms the idea of creating Las Vegas as a gambling destination, which is essentially what the film is about. We see him go from NYC to LA and become enamored with the Hollywood, laid back lifestyle. Beatty is very strong in this performance. He's a showman and plays up the crazy without playing up the crazy. By that I mean, he's normally a chipper, seeming happy-go-lucky guy defusing situations with his charm and wit and his know-it-all demeanor. He woos Bening's character while married, hob knobs with stars, and is just an all around affable guy. That's where Beatty's star quality shines through. You could tell me that was legitimately Beatty and I'd nod my head in understanding. Then if someone calls him Bugsy or insults his wife/family/mistress he snaps. I think that this is where Beatty truly shines. He doesn't go off in some over the top, crazy manner. He just snaps in a frightening way that shows just how dangerous and volcanic Bugsy is and that he didn't become a successful gangster by accident. I really like the interplay of the nice guy, family man Bugsy and the bonafide killer gangster Bugsy. Just the way Beatty switches between the two is marvelous to watch. The film teeters on being too polished but these moments make it somewhat realistic which is something I prefer. Beatty's last nomination (as of 2016) is a good introduction to an actor I know I'll enjoy in his future (past) roles.
Robert De Niro - Cape Fear
Oh man, I liked this film from the opening moments. You get that big horn music blaring ominously and then De Niro walks right into the camera and you just know this is going to be a great performance and film. And it really is a hell of a performance. De Niro plays Max Cady, a sadistic, evil man who is smarter than he looks. While in prison, he learned law and seemed to have read everything ever. Now that he's out, he is determined to make the life of his public defender, Nick Nolte, a living hell because Nolte suppressed evidence favorable to Cady. De Niro plays Cady full bore and I love it. He's an awful, violent, despicable person but De Niro makes him into a fully realized and compelling character. I want to see what kind of screwed up thing he does next to torment Nolte. I love the Southern accent which feels authentic and I like the literary vibe he has when talking to everyone even though he's basically a good ol boy. De Niro plays Cady as this calm character that you know is just seething and bubbling on the inside to exact his revenge. When De Niro is confronted, he always stays calm and collected and knows that because he's not doing anything wrong, no one can tough him. It's this arrogance and confidence that really make the performance. He knows he's going to get Nolte eventually, De Niro just has to put his plan into action no matter if it takes awhile. Some people might say that De Niro hams it up, but the role calls for a very loud performance. I think De Niro succeeds in keeping it from being ridiculous. The ending could be viewed as over the top but I feel it fits the character and adheres to the old school style Scorsese is going for as an homage to the original version. De Niro is a downright creepy, yet memorable villain and one that you will never forget. I've said before on this blog that playing a villain is both the easiest and hardest thing to do because it's such a fine line between fucking it up and really giving an iconic performance. You'll remember this De Niro performance long after you've finished it and that's the sign of a worthy nomination.
Nick Nolte - The Prince of Tides
This film is kind of all over the place and is really not that interesting in all honesty. Nolte, too, is a bit all over the place in this role. There are times when he is really excellent and other times where the performance teeters on being a joke. The confessions Nolte has with Streisand almost explains the nomination because Nolte's acting is so earnest, so raw, so real that you understand why he was nominated. It's legitimately great stuff and greatly affecting. Those parts feel like Nolte rehearsed it and tried out all the different ways to play it until finding the right notes while the rest of the performance feels like it was just done on the fly. It's like Nolte wasn't sure exactly how to play his character and just wings it. It's strange but the film itself is so uneven and feels tacked together that you see why a harmonious performance is missing. I'm also not a fan of the voiceover while Nolte makes pained facial expresses as we are told what he's thinking/feeling. It's jarring in the context of the film and feels like a film school concept. I'd rather Nolte just act out his emotions and let us figure them out instead of looking ridiculous while making faces in a car. I just think that Nolte makes some odd choices for his character and isn't helped at all by Streisand's bad directing. I think if he were to play the whole performance with the earnestness of the confession scenes, he would have created a really great performance. The simple reason why he's nominated is because he had this film and Cape Fear and De Niro already had that film's Best Actor nomination on lockdown. Not to mention the Academy loves itself some Streisand films and she gets her actors nominations as a result. Nolte is more miss than hit in this performance and is not something worth revisiting.
Robin Williams - The Fisher King
I miss this guy so much. I wish he was still around and would have found the help he needed because you forget just how flipping good he is as an actor and a comedian. You watch his old performances such as this and just marvel at how great he was. I know that that's a very selfish thing to think, but the man left us too early. He really is brilliant and one of the best to mix the outrageously comedic with the dramatic. He was just on another level with his comedy and his timing, especially. In this film, Williams plays Parry, a homeless guy who had some rough instances that put him in that place physically and mentally. He thinks he's a knight and wants to find the Holy Grail and also is in love with a woman he sees around town. It's a very Terry Gilliam type of film and Williams is a good choice to play the fantastical character. He imbues the role with the necessary humor and heart. You need an actor who won't make the knight idea feel so ridiculous and Williams is the perfect guy to make it both funny and heartwarming without being too over the top. Williams tones down his brand of comedy in this role which is why the performance works so well. He allows the character to shine through instead of using the character as an excuse to make jokes and be a funnyman. Williams is actually much better when he's playing the more serious notes of the performance like when talking with Jeff Bridges and trying to woo the girl he's chasing. The performance needs these serious moments to break up the craziness of the homeless knight angle. I think too much of that and this wouldn't have been nominated. I think it's balanced well enough that we don't get sick of either side. It's not perfect and it won't blow you away, but you'll remember why Williams was nominated 4 times total.
After a blah group, I get a group that is extremely strong by name alone. Turns out they are all pretty good in reality, too. The weak link is Nolte, who gives an uneven performance in a blah film but if you add up his other work this year fits fine at the 5th spot. Williams is very earnest in his performance blending his comedy with some dramatic work. It's an interesting performance and one I'm glad got recognized. He's 4th because Nolte is not as strong and because the others are simply better. My first Beatty interaction sees him at 3rd. He's charming and funny and an obviously talented actor and movie star. The performance just didn't hit as hard as the others above it, but I'm excited to watch his other stuff. De Niro probably would have been the winner if not for Hopkins giving an iconic, brilliant performance. De Niro was really great and I loved the film itself a lot, too. Wasn't sure what the performance would bring before I watched because everyone always talks about his other more notable roles but he was real strong here. Hopkins, though, is the undisputed winner. One of the greatest performances of all time. I'm excited to see what 1990 brings!
Oscar Winner: Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner: Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
Robert De Niro
Warren Beatty
Robin Williams
Nick Nolte
Leading Actress 1991
Sometimes I get so sick of doing this project. Days where I watch some shitty Best Actress movie after working 12-13 hours and commuting home and watching a 2 - 2 and half hour movie that I struggle to finish then having to write a decent review instead of just 5 minutes of hurried writing. I want to put some effort into these reviews, ya know? Or I waste my Friday/Saturday night watching a 2-3 hour movie and having to write reviews and hating life because I just wasted part of a weekend on a terrible movie. It happens often in this project and I hate it. It's part of the source of some of my delays. I think it'll get better when I get beyond the years I was born and can get into the classic film factor. I know there will be awful films in the 70s but I feel like they will matter more than the shitty films of 1996. I think it's all about perspective. That's why I can't wait to get into the 80s. On paper this year doesn't look too bad, so let's find out!
1991 Best Actress
Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
I think in the legend of this film, what gets lost is how strong Foster's performance really is. I say that knowing she won her second Best Actress award for this and this is what people instantly think about when they think of Foster (besides maybe Reagan's assassination attempt). But Foster is active in this film just as much as Anthony Hopkins is. I like that she portrays a strong female character that could easily be subbed with a man which tells me that it's just a strong performance, period. I know that sounds a little off but yes, she's a strong female but I feel like this would have been a man's role if it wasn't the 90s. Anyway, she knocks it out of the park as FBI agent in training Clarice Starling. She's a determined woman who wants to show she can be an asset like any male agent could be. I especially like that the film doesn't focus so much on the fact that she is a woman and instead focuses on the interplay between her and Hopkins. Foster holds her own against an iconic character and doesn't look any less for the wear. The West Virginia accent is fine and I appreciate that she's not portrayed as a super hero or super cop. She's smart which leads her to Buffalo Bill but the ending isn't her playing the hero so much as Foster playing scared and letting her training kick in. She's such a normal character in those regards and Foster plays it effectively. Foster also needs to be able to carry the film when Hopkins isn't on screen and keep it from suffering any major drop off. I think she does well in keeping the viewer engaged and interested as we are with Hannibal Lector. It's a great performance and I'm not sure what else can be said or needs to be said about it. It's a no brainer for a winner.
Geena Davis - Thelma and Louise
Having just watched this film for the first after knowing about it's cultural impact from other places, this is a fantastic film! The film has been lampooned to death so I was expecting this rote, cheesy woman buddy film and it's much more than that. Briefly about the film, I love the way it's shot. It still looks fresh and the hand held camera movements lends itself well to the story. It makes the relationship between Davis' Thelma and Sarandon's Louise feel even more real and authentic. That's one of the things I enjoy about both of their performances but especially Davis. She looks like she improv'd all of her performance or that she's not totally aware that their is a camera on her the whole time. Some actors know how to play it up for the cameras and to get the best side, take, whatever but Davis is fine with looking goofy and being herself. Hard to fully explain, I just like how natural she is in front of the camera. She plays the titular Thelma as I said and is the more emotional and carefree of the two. I think that's what I like about her performance the most. Davis and Sarandon are going away for a long weekend to escape their husbands and let loose. Davis gets almost raped and Sarandon kills the guy and the two go on the lam. That's the film in a nutshell. Now, you can say that this film glorifies violence and drunk driving and belittles men and all that, which is frankly does, but turnabout is fair play to me. We see this same perspective from the men's side all the time so I'm not really all that up in arms about this version. I think Davis and her character appropriately react to the situation which is pretty screwed up all around but when you're involved in a traumatic event, I would expect that. I also think that Davis best represents the new found freedom and desperation of the two characters. She's the one who has a fling, robs a store, puts a gun to a cop's head. She's the one that really embodies what the film is about. It's why I prefer her over Sarandon out of the two, just seems like the more honest (and better) performance.
Laura Dern - Rambling Rose
I dislike this movie greatly. One of the few films I outright hate so far. The performances are all what they are, which isn't awful but the film is just creepy and weird and a very bad, uninteresting story. And I'll be perfectly honest, I'm not a Laura Dern fan. I did go into this with an open mind but this performance has a lot of the traits that I don't like about her other work. It has that flighty, free spirited, innocent, child like behavior that you can kinda see even in her recent nomination for Wild. Dern plays a young woman who comes to a house in the South apparently getting away from her troubles. She becomes a live in helper for a very strange, weird family and stirs up trouble with everyone she meets because of her behavior. She's a very lithe, pretty young thing and she knows it and pretends to be coy and innocent while sashaying around town in a tight dress with her cleavage showing, sneaking men into her bedroom and even having the teenage boy of the house get her off sexually. The tone of the film is way off and Dern's performance doesn't really help matters. She mostly plays the same one note for much of the film with some bouts of over-dramatic acting thrown in. I don't think it's anything to write home about and certainly not Oscar caliber stuff. I never feel sympathetic for her and I think I am supposed to but since I can't even figure out if I'm supposed to or not, this film and performance fails. Why am I watching her and why am I not into her performance at all? I have no reason to like her nasty, creepy performance and that's what it all boils down to. I feel as if the Academy was super proud of nominating a mother - daughter duo for the same film and trying to make a star out of Dern. Not a good look going the nepotism route for the Academy.
Bette Midler - For the Boys
If you are a Bette Midler fan, you'll love this nomination and be screaming for it to win. I get that. It's a really interesting performance. Midler plays a singer who forms a duo that goes on USO tours and is genuinely funny. It's a really interesting film because it sort of shadows Midler as she sings on tour in WWII, then gets begged to go to Korea to sing there. Except while there, she actually experiences war first hand and sees a soldier die in front of her. Her life and this film is very much an indictment on the US's involvement in international conflicts. Life was just peachy in WWII, the men were heroes sacrificing themselves for the greater good. In Korea, it was a war we didn't understand that was far more brutal than we could ever have imagined or realized. The casualties were too raw and unexpected because we are a super power. Then Midler's Uncle gets canned for being a suspected commie sympathizer mirroring the Red scare in politics. Midler and a great James Caan turn to television before offering to go to Vietnam to sing. Midler's son is there and she gets to be near him in their sparse base only to see him die in an attack. This shows just how brutal the Vietnam War really was and how it wasn't so romantic like WWII or idealistic like Korea. If they were to continue it into Iraq or Afghanistan, I can just picture how those moments would go. When I was there we flew in Toby Keith and Aaron Tipin and UFC fighters to our small FOBs and it was brief and a great distraction and ridiculous all at the same time. I admire this film for sort of showing all that hypocrisy about the USO thing. I don't actually think that Midler would have been allowed to fly to a far off base where her son was if the threat was that high but it makes for a very dramatic effect. I thought Bette was perfect for this role. It seems tailor made and Midler seems like she was better suited for living in the 40s and 50s as an actress and singer. I know she's had a big following but I think she would have been a huge star way back when. I was ready to dismiss this performance but I think Midler did a really great job portraying not only a singer and entertainer but especially a mother. I can respect the pin up aspirations but Better was born too late. She's great in her role even if it's a little too anemic.
Susan Sarandon - Thelma and Louise
Sarandon plays the other part of the duo, Louise. She is more of the straight, serious character than Davis' innocent, naive Thelma. The two set off on an adventure for a weekend before things take a turn for the worse at a bar. Sarandon ends up killing a man and begins making a lot of poor choices as a result. Sarandon is the one that compounds things and is the decision maker as Davis blithely tags along so she doesn't abandon her friend and get in trouble. Sarandon's performance is good and the two have some really great chemistry together. They seem like long time friends. I'm just not as enthused about Sarandon here when compared with Davis. Sarandon is sort of the caretaker and because of that we (or at least me) look maybe a bit more harshly on her even though she's just playing a character. It's probably because she plays the straight woman that makes her performance a little less enjoyable overall and makes the interplay between her and Davis work so well. You wouldn't want the same two characters going through this story because that would be incredibly boring. So in that regard, Sarandon succeeds at doing what's necessary for the film and the relationship.
All in all, not a bad group at all! One stinker but the rest are pretty good and I'm glad for that. If I could, I would excise Dern from this group and find another, more deserving performance somewhere else. Hated the film and disliked the performance. No thanks. Midler was surprisingly good as I thought it might be a very derivative, one note performance. She brought a little more to it that I expected and I like that. I think Sarandon would be very close to Midler in terms of voting. She's been better and her partner outshines her, honestly. She's still pretty good, however and 3rd ain't too bad a place. Davis is my easy runner up because I was completely charmed by her performance. I think it has a great deal of depth and really stood out to me over Sarandon. Foster is your obvious winner. Just can't go wrong with her performance. A decent group and thankfully not all tied to awful films.
Oscar Winner: Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner: Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
Geena Davis
Susan Sarandon
Bette Midler
Laura Dern
1991 Best Actress
Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
I think in the legend of this film, what gets lost is how strong Foster's performance really is. I say that knowing she won her second Best Actress award for this and this is what people instantly think about when they think of Foster (besides maybe Reagan's assassination attempt). But Foster is active in this film just as much as Anthony Hopkins is. I like that she portrays a strong female character that could easily be subbed with a man which tells me that it's just a strong performance, period. I know that sounds a little off but yes, she's a strong female but I feel like this would have been a man's role if it wasn't the 90s. Anyway, she knocks it out of the park as FBI agent in training Clarice Starling. She's a determined woman who wants to show she can be an asset like any male agent could be. I especially like that the film doesn't focus so much on the fact that she is a woman and instead focuses on the interplay between her and Hopkins. Foster holds her own against an iconic character and doesn't look any less for the wear. The West Virginia accent is fine and I appreciate that she's not portrayed as a super hero or super cop. She's smart which leads her to Buffalo Bill but the ending isn't her playing the hero so much as Foster playing scared and letting her training kick in. She's such a normal character in those regards and Foster plays it effectively. Foster also needs to be able to carry the film when Hopkins isn't on screen and keep it from suffering any major drop off. I think she does well in keeping the viewer engaged and interested as we are with Hannibal Lector. It's a great performance and I'm not sure what else can be said or needs to be said about it. It's a no brainer for a winner.
Geena Davis - Thelma and Louise
Having just watched this film for the first after knowing about it's cultural impact from other places, this is a fantastic film! The film has been lampooned to death so I was expecting this rote, cheesy woman buddy film and it's much more than that. Briefly about the film, I love the way it's shot. It still looks fresh and the hand held camera movements lends itself well to the story. It makes the relationship between Davis' Thelma and Sarandon's Louise feel even more real and authentic. That's one of the things I enjoy about both of their performances but especially Davis. She looks like she improv'd all of her performance or that she's not totally aware that their is a camera on her the whole time. Some actors know how to play it up for the cameras and to get the best side, take, whatever but Davis is fine with looking goofy and being herself. Hard to fully explain, I just like how natural she is in front of the camera. She plays the titular Thelma as I said and is the more emotional and carefree of the two. I think that's what I like about her performance the most. Davis and Sarandon are going away for a long weekend to escape their husbands and let loose. Davis gets almost raped and Sarandon kills the guy and the two go on the lam. That's the film in a nutshell. Now, you can say that this film glorifies violence and drunk driving and belittles men and all that, which is frankly does, but turnabout is fair play to me. We see this same perspective from the men's side all the time so I'm not really all that up in arms about this version. I think Davis and her character appropriately react to the situation which is pretty screwed up all around but when you're involved in a traumatic event, I would expect that. I also think that Davis best represents the new found freedom and desperation of the two characters. She's the one who has a fling, robs a store, puts a gun to a cop's head. She's the one that really embodies what the film is about. It's why I prefer her over Sarandon out of the two, just seems like the more honest (and better) performance.
Laura Dern - Rambling Rose
I dislike this movie greatly. One of the few films I outright hate so far. The performances are all what they are, which isn't awful but the film is just creepy and weird and a very bad, uninteresting story. And I'll be perfectly honest, I'm not a Laura Dern fan. I did go into this with an open mind but this performance has a lot of the traits that I don't like about her other work. It has that flighty, free spirited, innocent, child like behavior that you can kinda see even in her recent nomination for Wild. Dern plays a young woman who comes to a house in the South apparently getting away from her troubles. She becomes a live in helper for a very strange, weird family and stirs up trouble with everyone she meets because of her behavior. She's a very lithe, pretty young thing and she knows it and pretends to be coy and innocent while sashaying around town in a tight dress with her cleavage showing, sneaking men into her bedroom and even having the teenage boy of the house get her off sexually. The tone of the film is way off and Dern's performance doesn't really help matters. She mostly plays the same one note for much of the film with some bouts of over-dramatic acting thrown in. I don't think it's anything to write home about and certainly not Oscar caliber stuff. I never feel sympathetic for her and I think I am supposed to but since I can't even figure out if I'm supposed to or not, this film and performance fails. Why am I watching her and why am I not into her performance at all? I have no reason to like her nasty, creepy performance and that's what it all boils down to. I feel as if the Academy was super proud of nominating a mother - daughter duo for the same film and trying to make a star out of Dern. Not a good look going the nepotism route for the Academy.
Bette Midler - For the Boys
If you are a Bette Midler fan, you'll love this nomination and be screaming for it to win. I get that. It's a really interesting performance. Midler plays a singer who forms a duo that goes on USO tours and is genuinely funny. It's a really interesting film because it sort of shadows Midler as she sings on tour in WWII, then gets begged to go to Korea to sing there. Except while there, she actually experiences war first hand and sees a soldier die in front of her. Her life and this film is very much an indictment on the US's involvement in international conflicts. Life was just peachy in WWII, the men were heroes sacrificing themselves for the greater good. In Korea, it was a war we didn't understand that was far more brutal than we could ever have imagined or realized. The casualties were too raw and unexpected because we are a super power. Then Midler's Uncle gets canned for being a suspected commie sympathizer mirroring the Red scare in politics. Midler and a great James Caan turn to television before offering to go to Vietnam to sing. Midler's son is there and she gets to be near him in their sparse base only to see him die in an attack. This shows just how brutal the Vietnam War really was and how it wasn't so romantic like WWII or idealistic like Korea. If they were to continue it into Iraq or Afghanistan, I can just picture how those moments would go. When I was there we flew in Toby Keith and Aaron Tipin and UFC fighters to our small FOBs and it was brief and a great distraction and ridiculous all at the same time. I admire this film for sort of showing all that hypocrisy about the USO thing. I don't actually think that Midler would have been allowed to fly to a far off base where her son was if the threat was that high but it makes for a very dramatic effect. I thought Bette was perfect for this role. It seems tailor made and Midler seems like she was better suited for living in the 40s and 50s as an actress and singer. I know she's had a big following but I think she would have been a huge star way back when. I was ready to dismiss this performance but I think Midler did a really great job portraying not only a singer and entertainer but especially a mother. I can respect the pin up aspirations but Better was born too late. She's great in her role even if it's a little too anemic.
Susan Sarandon - Thelma and Louise
Sarandon plays the other part of the duo, Louise. She is more of the straight, serious character than Davis' innocent, naive Thelma. The two set off on an adventure for a weekend before things take a turn for the worse at a bar. Sarandon ends up killing a man and begins making a lot of poor choices as a result. Sarandon is the one that compounds things and is the decision maker as Davis blithely tags along so she doesn't abandon her friend and get in trouble. Sarandon's performance is good and the two have some really great chemistry together. They seem like long time friends. I'm just not as enthused about Sarandon here when compared with Davis. Sarandon is sort of the caretaker and because of that we (or at least me) look maybe a bit more harshly on her even though she's just playing a character. It's probably because she plays the straight woman that makes her performance a little less enjoyable overall and makes the interplay between her and Davis work so well. You wouldn't want the same two characters going through this story because that would be incredibly boring. So in that regard, Sarandon succeeds at doing what's necessary for the film and the relationship.
All in all, not a bad group at all! One stinker but the rest are pretty good and I'm glad for that. If I could, I would excise Dern from this group and find another, more deserving performance somewhere else. Hated the film and disliked the performance. No thanks. Midler was surprisingly good as I thought it might be a very derivative, one note performance. She brought a little more to it that I expected and I like that. I think Sarandon would be very close to Midler in terms of voting. She's been better and her partner outshines her, honestly. She's still pretty good, however and 3rd ain't too bad a place. Davis is my easy runner up because I was completely charmed by her performance. I think it has a great deal of depth and really stood out to me over Sarandon. Foster is your obvious winner. Just can't go wrong with her performance. A decent group and thankfully not all tied to awful films.
Oscar Winner: Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner: Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
Geena Davis
Susan Sarandon
Bette Midler
Laura Dern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)