Leading Actor 1989

I don't think I've seen any of these, not sure if I saw Branagh while in school or if it was one of his other 23 Shakespeare movies. Either way, I'm excited to finally watch a couple of these just to tick em of my list. Even more excited to see DDL, who everyone raves about and I know is probably the greatest living actor right now.

1989 Best Actor

Daniel Day-Lewis - My Left Foot

Surprisingly, this was one of the few DDL performances I hadn't seen so I was pumped to finally watch this especially from all the glowing reviews I've read about it. Those reviews are spot on, too. This is an amazing performance and really shows the dedication of DDL to create a character with such meticulous devotion. The best thing about this one is that DDL doesn't just nail the physical acting, which is incredible, but he creates a person beneath all the disability. Compare it to recent winner Eddie Redmayne and his boring portrayal of Stephen Hawking. That was purely physical because Redmayne didn't do much with the actual person underneath the disability, we just got a class in good physical acting. But DDL gives life to Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy and is unable to use anything except his left foot. His mind is fully functioning and aware and DDL shows this off wonderfully, as if his character is just a prisoner wanting to break free. We feel his emotional state even through the limits of his physicality and the emotional state covers a great range, too. It's not just an angry performance. It's not manipulative to make you feel sorrow, we take everything Christy experiences and understand that he's a person just like s with all the ups and downs that come with life. We can see when Christy is extremely happy or angry or depressed or scared because the emotion comes through the physical acting of DDL and he makes this all seem very natural instead of forced. DDL also does this incredible thing with Christy's voice that I enjoyed immensely. He develops the character's voice as the film goes along going from being mute to practicing Shakespeare in his room to try and help give his voice clarity even though the end product is still rough and hard to understand. And one of the best things about the performance is that Christy is not this perfect, happy-go-lucky, disabled guy. He tries to woo his therapist/teacher and gets really frustrated and mad. He is cantankerous in the current day scenes when talking to the nurse, making him kind of an asshole when he flirts with her. It's a real lived in performance of a fully realized character and it's these little dedications that make this an unbelievable performance from DDL. There's a reason this man has 3 Best Actor Oscars and you see exactly why with this performance.

Kenneth Branagh - Henry V

How much does Branagh wish he was Laurence Olivier? He basically followed in Olivier's footsteps from what I read on another blog. The first film they both directed was Henry V and then did a few more Shakespeare adaptations and Branagh even played Olivier in My Week with Marilyn, earning a Supporting Actor nomination. I thought that was interesting. I like Branagh as an actor, especially his Shakespearean stuff. He brings a modern quality to the performances and doesn't make it feel so stuffy and upperclass. You can tell he's loving every second of playing Henry and it translates to the performance. He nails the monologues of Henry and I really like the prayer to God one before the big battle, that's where Branagh turned it on and made the role his own I thought. It's like taking it from reciting Shakespeare to channeling the spirit of Shakespeare and his characters. And really when you think of Branagh, don't you think of Shakeaspeare? I know I do, especially having watched a bunch of his films in high school. But we think of him in relation because he fits the type so well. His big moment in the film is the St Crispin's Day speech and Branagh is really charismatic and entertaining during it. I would much rather watch Henry V over some of the other choices for Best Picture and that's due in large part to Branagh's acting (and his directing). This film is widely considered one of the best film adaptations of Shakespeare and Branagh plays a big hand in that. Shakespeare material is unique in that you can judge those that perform it against others that have come before and not really caveat it that it's different in some way, it's the same words being spoken and expressed typically. Branagh does a great job with the material even if I think his "once more unto the breech" speech falls a bit flat. That part felt more theatrical and like obvious acting and didn't hit the right emotional buttons to work.

Tom Cruise - Born on the Fourth of July

The one thing you can say about Cruise in almost all of his performances is that he's super dedicated to them. You just know the dude loves acting and keeps it at 100 always. That can be both a good and bad thing where it looks like he's trying too hard in a bad film or like here where it fits what is needed for the film. This nomination also feels like the Academy recognizing Cruise's ability to do some dramatic work and not just be a movie star. The performance is pretty good but he certainly doesn't come close to the level of Daniel Day-Lewis, which isn't much of a knock just that Cruise is good and not great. I feel Cruise is believable enough and really has to show a lot of range in the performance. In the beginning, he plays the young Ron Kovic who is idealistic and has very noble morals and believes in his country and fighting for freedom. He's very rah-rah and determined but not much needs to be done with the character. This establishes him as a good American boy so that his change later has more impact. Then Cruise goes off to war and experiences some real fucked up situations and gets paralyzed in a battle. This was where I started to like the performance more because up until then there was nothing to set Cruise apart from any other actor, it was just generic young man stuff. But you see the change when Kovic is injured and Cruise portrays Kovic as very upbeat despite being paralyzed and in a run down VA center. He stays active and believes fully that he will walk again through determination but he slowly is broken down by the system and all the negativity and lack of support on all fronts: emotional, physical, mental, even spiritual. There's a lot of inner turmoil and conflict in the performance as Cruise sees a country that hates him for being a war "hero" which brings him closer to his fellow veterans. Maybe it just hits home for me as a veteran but I liked what the character ended up doing no matter how heavy handed Stone's film was. I read that Cruise was actually the favorite going in and I can understand why. But ultimately I feel like even though Cruise is trying his hardest to give a meaningful, layered performance, he bit off a little more than he could chew at the time.

Morgan Freeman - Driving Miss Daisy

While it's great that a black man was again nominated in the Best Actor category, I really hate that it was for this kind of role. Freeman plays a black driver, who is more of a yessum type man, doing whatever the white folk want to have a job and survive. I hate to make it about race but when this is the type of role that's nominated, you have to look at it realistically. Freeman does a great job in creating his character, there is no doubt in that. It's just that his character is a second class citizen in the film no matter the relationship between him and Tandy. Freeman is doing what is necessary for the character because the character is the type that is super chipper and positive and cuts off any negative response by being talkative and apologetic. He's a likable character to the audience and to the white folk of the time. Tandy warms up to him as her driver and helps teach him to read even though that whole issue is glossed over when it would have made for a great extended plot line. The two have good chemistry but that seems more due to Freeman's character being so affable than Tandy's character being loving. The two bicker in the beginning and it's actual interesting to watch because Freeman is able to either stand his ground or deflect any negativity from Tandy due to his nature. The two eventually become very friendly and it's a believable, almost natural friendship. I like that Dan Akroyd's character treats Freeman as an equal and relies on him and confides in him like he's not just hired help. Freeman gives a well liked and wonderful performance that is decent, but not amazing. This just isn't something I can vote for due to what the character is and because there's a performance this year that blows this out of the water. Freeman is also nominated partly because he was good in another film, Glory, and I think the Academy took into consideration both performances.

Robin Williams - Dead Poets Society

This was Williams' second nomination and you can see the Academy was (and would continue to be) in love when he eschewed his wild comedy and toned it down and went serious. Of course, he still uses comedy in these roles and it's a nice mix of Williams' acting ability. He plays a teacher at a prestigious Northeast prep school and we soon learn that he approaches teaching in a markedly different way in order to connect with his students. He takes them outside, has the students rip out parts of their textbook, and goes against traditional lesson plans in favor of life lessons and teaching the kids to think outside of the box. Williams is fine as the teacher and fits the role of eccentric professor incredibly well. I think the performance mostly shows off that Williams can do serious acting and not rely on his jokes to save him. But in saying that, that's really all the performance has going for it. You like it and enjoy it but it's standard inspirational teacher stuff that you've seen over and over, just a different flavor. And if you really want to get technical, Williams isn't really the main focus - the kids are, so is he really Leading? You could argue no and probably wouldn't be wrong. This is a pretty good entry in Williams' filmography but not sure he needed to be nominated for this. Would have liked to actually get to know Williams' character more but he remains a little enigmatic. In this category, Williams was never a serious contender.


A mixed bag this year. Williams and Freeman don't really inspire anything in me, they are just kind of okay, decent performances in feel good Hollywood movies that are mostly forgettable. Do you think of those actors and think of these performances? Nah, you just remember they were nominated for them and move on. Cruise tries really hard to deliver a memorable performance but falls short (height joke not intended). I think it's a combination of the film and his ability that prevents him from being really amazing and challenging for a win. This was like a good job being dramatic type of reward from the Academy and finally recognizing Cruise the movie star. Branagh is a nice second. Maybe in another (weaker) year he could be a winner but not this year. I like his performance a lot and am satisfied with the nomination. DDL is the clear cut winner, which I think I've said a few times on this blog before. He's just so damn good and one of the greatest living actors and this was his introduction to the Oscars. He's incredible as Christy Brown and really deserved his first Oscar. This is a decent year.

Oscar Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - My Left Foot
My Winner:  Daniel Day-Lewis - My Left Foot
Kenneth Branagh
Tom Cruise
Morgan Freeman
Robin Williams

Best Picture 1989

Not much to say other than I'm so glad to be in the 80s finally. It's a huge deal to me because I feel like I'm actually starting to make a dent in this project and it feels good. I've only seen Field of Dreams and I'm glad to finally watch some of these that are always brought up in Oscar discussions so I can have an informed opinion.

1989 Best Picture

Driving Miss Daisy

I was eager to finally watch this film as I had never seen it before. I certainly knew a ton about it and especially knew that it was a controversial choice in hindsight. And I totally agree with it being a controversial choice. This is a bad Best Picture choice. It's pathetic really. I like my Best Picture winners to be either great films, which this one is not, or to have a really strong message/story that makes you understand why it was chosen. Driving Miss Daisy is forgettable pap. If it had never won Best Picture, would we ever talk about it again? I don't think we would except to talk about it in regards to glossing over the racial issue. Though it pretends to be a film that treats the racial issue with enough respect, it's a bad look all around. Tandy gets a black man hired to be her driver and the two have issues at first until she warms up to him and becomes a little more racially aware, though he's still her driver. It's too pithy about race and Freeman as the aw shuck, yessum black man is a bad look. Sure, it's probably a survival tool for him in that era but that's not something the Academy should be rewarding time and again. White old lady eventually comes around to the idea that blacks are people too after talking with one extensively and then ending up in a retirement home. If this was just a nominee I might not be talking about it so harshly but I don't like it's message and the fact that it actually won BP! I'm sorry but I'm someone that feels race should not be dealt with so cavalierly, it's something we are still dealing with in 2016 and to act like this little episode fixed anything because a white old lady made a black friend is absurd. Though this is a feel good, pleasant enough film I need something more from this. It's a short hour and a half and that's not enough to have a say on its subject matter. It's too brief and knowing the other choices in the category are far better hurts to see this as the winner. I dunno, it's just a bad choice all around by the Academy. I've been really negative but it at least has a memorable score by none other than Hans Zimmer of all people and looks pretty good, all things considered. Just don't understand all the love it received. Does anyone ever get bored and decide to rewatch this film? I didn't think so.

Born on the Fourth of July

If you didn't know, this is a war film by Oliver Stone. The second in his Vietnam trilogy, actually. If you can name or have heard of the third one, well kudos to you film buff because not even I knew what it was (Heaven and Earth). I think with war films I have a greater understanding of how effective they are having served in two wars myself. I feel like I'm able to gauge the realism of the subject even if it's about the Vietnam War simply because I've been around it. I can and have called out the realism for some Iraq/Afghanistan war films because I lived it. When it comes to Vietnam, it's how realistic is the actual combat or military interactions and whatnot. This film gets a lot of things right, which is to be expected with Oliver Stone helming it. I really think this is a strong film, though nowhere near as close to Platoon. This film seems too Hollywood and on the nose about things but still hits hard especially when it comes to the soldiers themselves. Tom Cruise is pretty fantastic as the main character, having to show a lot of emotional range even if it's not super nuanced. We follow this idealistic kid who had a romantic notion about war from his upbringing and America's whitewashing of anything bad to do with WWII. This noble ideal of war is far from the truth and Cruise's character learns that the hard way. He's an all-American kid who excels at wrestling and has a good home life. He volunteers to fight the good fight and goes over there and realizes that killing women and children isn't very ideal. He kills a member of his unit on accident and has to live with the guilt before also getting paralyzed from a bullet. Cruise remains upbeat and positive even when in the dilapidated VA Health system that probably is exaggerated for effect because I can't imagine those guys being in such squalor. He has setbacks that prevent him from walking and then returns home a crippled 'hero.' He's still idealistic about winning the war and being pro-America but then realizes that people look at him differently and don't support him and even outright hate him. This is proved over and over again that America doesn't care about him and that the government sucks because he was this expendable tool for a bullshit purpose. I think the film is strong in its message that we need to take care of our veterans and not just discard them as lesser beings. There is great synergy between when Cruise was a squad leader and there was mass confusion that lead to a village getting shot up and he couldn't command his guys to when, at the end, he has the attention of the protesters and is barking out orders on how to get exposure at the Convention. It shows just how much Cruise has to grow his character and how much the attitudes of the audience have to change. The progression of an individual from wide-eyed idealist to jaded protester is quite something to watch. I wasn't sure if this film was just going to be a rehash of Platoon for Stone or if it would be a lame ass Hollywood vehicle for Cruise or what exactly, but it turned out to be a compelling look at how a man can become disillusioned with his country while still loving it. This might hit a little more for me given my military ties but I don't see it's nominations as a fluke and think it's mostly well deserved. It is for sure a bit heavy handed but I guess it depends on what side of the film you fall down on if you can tolerate it.

Dead Poets Society

You have probably seen this film before and if you haven't, you actually have. By that I mean, you've probably seen parodies or allusions to it in other films or, more to my point, have seen other inspirational teacher films, which is what this is. Robin Williams is an eccentric teacher with non traditional ways of teaching in order to connect with the kids and mold them into being individuals and thinking outside the box. It's really pretty standard stuff. You know all the beats of the film already before you even see it. The administration and older teachers get upset that Williams isn't teaching the curriculum and is doing his own thing. The kids are wary at first but then warm up to it and inevitably defend him in the end. The kids have their own issues that get solved because of the inspiration from Williams. Only real wrinkle is there is a death among the kids which sort of hastens the administration getting rid of Williams. The film is entertaining and full of iconic moments like the kids standing on their desk at the end and the whole 'yawp' thing. The kids are the real stars of the film and honestly the main draw. You'll recognize a bunch of them like a young Ethan Hawke and a really good Robert Sean Leonard (who you know from House). I found myself more interested in their day to day dealings rather than the whole inspirational teacher thing. The idea of the Dead Poets Society club is pretty interesting and wish the film would have focused on that and expanded on it. I would say that this is taking the feel good movie spot for the category but then you've got Driving Miss Daisy, Field of Dreams, and hell, even My Left Foot (though not really). So I don't really think this film belongs on this list, no matter how entertaining you find it to be. This spot could have gone to the terrific Do the Right Thing. Carpe diem, though.

Field of Dreams

I bet you get the quote wrong. It's "If you build it, HE will come," not They. I swear there was some commercial that said they will come which is always what I remembered it as. One minor issue is that Shoeless Joe Jackson throws right and bats left, yet Ray Liotta did the opposite of that. Historical accuracy be damned, right? I guess that doesn't really matter in the long run. This film really does feel like an odd choice for Best Picture, though. I get that it's pretty entertaining and tugs at the heartstrings and makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about baseball and remembering the past but really? The film is way too convenient in moving the plot along. It's one coincidence after another and I understand suspension of disbelief for a film like this but it never even tries to explain itself. Like when Costner's character figures out he needs to go visit the writer, Terence Mann, he says I don't know why, it just feels like that's who I should go see. It's very random. Costner's wife is pretty annoying in the film but most of the other characters are pretty good. James Earl Jones, Timothy Busfield, Ray Liotta, and especially Burt Lancaster (which I'm surprised they didn't nominate him in Supporting since that would have been such an Academy thing to do) are good in their roles and at least keep the film worth watching. I also feel like if you don't really enjoy baseball this film is going to fall really flat, so it seems like it's very niche instead of having broad appeal. I like Field of Dreams, don't get me wrong, but it's a weird little film that always surprises me when I remember it was nominated for Best Picture. I think this film just hits a lot of the old Academy members' sweet spots with the older actors, baseball, family togetherness, and it's even got a very liberal slant. This is just one of those feel good films that always seems to sneak in over more deserving and critically acclaimed films like Do the Right Thing, which I'll say for like the tenth time already.

My Left Foot

This should be the measuring stick of disabled person films. I say that because the film doesn't treat DDL's Christy Brown as this untouchable, miracle, perfect guy. It doesn't manipulate the audience into feeling a certain way for the character or his predicament. It presents it all as is and let's us see that Christy is not a perfect person. He's just like any of us with all the flaws and issues that go along with being human. I hate to compare it to The Theory of Everything since they are very different films in subject but I use it as an example of one film manipulating the audience in how to feel with a treacly performance of the leading character that doesn't quite get to the heart of the man. It's like opposite sides of the same coin and I much prefer the My Left Foot side. I was a bit worried when this film was about 50 minutes in and we hadn't really seen much of Christy's adult life, knowing that he was an accomplished painter and writer. The beginning breezed along and was still interesting seeing how Christy was brought up and discovered to be pretty smart, just physically disabled. Also, the kid that plays the younger Christy is almost as good as DDL is and really helps bridge the transition from younger to older perfectly. Without a great performance from him, DDL's part may not have been as good in a small way. Speaking of DDL, his performance is brilliant and along with Brenda Fricker, make this film an absolute must watch. The film itself is a bit short, only about an hour and 43 minutes and at the end I was wanting a bit more about Christy. This could have easily been 2 hours long and not lost anything. I wanted to know a lot more about Christy's adult life but I understood what the director was aiming for. This film is a pleasant little watch that peers into the life of an interesting individual without telling us how to feel about him and let's us make our own decisions about the man. Not sure where it will land in this group quite yet, but it is a strong film nonetheless.


I'm honestly a little underwhelmed with this year. Actually, I'm a lotta underwhelmed. I don't like the winner really at all. I was very open to it going in especially since I've heard a lot of people enjoy it or love it but think it a weak winner. I don't know what the hell there is to love about it. It seems like such a backward movie for 1989, given Do the Right Thing came out this year, also. And yes, that film should be on this list and wouldn't be a bad winner. It's a bad look for the Academy. Then you have two sorta feel good films, or at least crowd pleasers, that don't really seem like they belong in Dead Poets Society and Field of Dreams. Maybe one of them, but not both, since you've also got Driving Miss Daisy filling that quota. Neither are amazing and wouldn't make good winners, they just have the fact that a lot of people love them going for it. Born on the Fourth of July is a more heavy handed film, but I enjoyed it for what it is. Not sure it really needed to win Best Picture, though. That leaves My Left Foot as my winner. It has an incredible performance (really two) and the film itself left me wanting more of Christy. A little more and it would have been a slamdunk winner, but it's still really good.

Oscar Winner: Driving Miss Daisy
My Winner:  My Left Foot
Born on the Fourth of July
Field of Dreams
Dead Poets Society
Driving Miss Daisy

Leading Actress 1989

It sucks when life gets in the way of things. With my work, I often times only have one choice of what I can do when I get home. Unfortunately, that sometimes means watching a boring 2 hour film or a movie I've seen like 5 times before. Prioritizing and balancing this blog out can be tough sometimes. Move forward with the project or get further behind on watching the latest Netflix show everyone is talking about or even not going out after work. Thankfully I really enjoy watching these films, even some of the bad ones, so it's not too much of a drain. Plus, I've had some long layoffs before and I don't really want this blog and project to take 20 years. Anyway, I'm wary of the Best Actress category. I'm waiting for a year to blow me away and to consistently find some really great and wonderful performances. Hopefully this is the year but I won't hold my breath.

1989 Best Actress

Jessica Tandy - Driving Miss Daisy

This is very clearly a veteran nomination that charmed the voters enough to get a win. You hold this up to other Best Actress winners and it is not one of the strongest choices by any means. I think you have to look at this field as a whole to really understand why Tandy was able to win. You've got a French film/actress nominated that wasn't going to do much, an unknown British actress, an up and comer with Pfeiffer, and the only real threat in Jessica Lange for a film I know nothing about. That's without having seen any of the other nominees but I imagine holds true for the average voter even back in 1989. They enjoyed this little film about an old lady who is, let's be frank, a fucking racist who gets a negro, oops, I mean black driver in Morgan Freeman and she warms up to him over time all the while still bossing him around. She helps him to read even though that really interesting side piece is glossed over and not much is done with it. If the film were to focus on her being a former teacher and teaching him to read instead of just barely mentioning it, this might have been a better choice. Instead, she's a stubborn, old lady who is wary of her black driver and accuses him of stealing and wants him to slow down while driving and not joke around with the other black help. But of course, Tandy has a change of heart after her negr...er, driver is questioned by some cops in Alabama. She even asks Freeman to a dinner where MLK is speaking because she has become this good Southern woman that the audience can now feel good about supporting. I don't buy the performance. It's boring to me and very predictable. I don't care that she starts to see race as a social thing to support instead of as just being part of the help. It's pandering to the audience and honestly doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Tandy is an awful person who suddenly changes and it doesn't feel authentic or warranted. Sure the two have decent chemistry but I credit that to Freeman's performance more than Tandy's. I don't look at this as a good win or an oh, that's cute type of win. This is a bad look for the Academy who were for whatever reason eager to reward Tandy for such a bad role and a mediocre performance. No thanks.

Isabelle Adjani - Camille Claudel

Isabelle Adjani is really beautiful. That information doesn't have any bearing on the performance but thought I'd throw that out there. I really liked Adjani for the first half of the film. I was surprised that she was giving such a good performance as the title character who was a sculptress and mentored by Auguste Rodin (a good performance from Gerard Depardieu who I had issues with in 1990) before later becoming lovers. I liked the first half because Adjani's character is so determined and such a no-nonsense hard worker. It was refreshing to see her not get bogged down with stale romantic plots and instead be a focused woman engrossed in her work. Adjani gives the appropriate seriousness to the character where you can believe sculpting is her life and passion and that she was a bit of a rebel and ahead of her time for doing so. It was really strong stuff and highly interesting watching her not take shit from the men she worked with. Then the film can't help itself and we get the romantic part of the film which actually isn't too bad. The two respect each other's work and even though Rodin is involved with someone, the two spark up a romance that isn't too treacly or unbelievable. The romance seems rooted in reality up to a point when the fame and pressures of life and other women creep into the relationship. That's when Claudel starts to become critical of her own work and emotional more than she had been in the past. It's this part of the performance that I don't like because Adjani resorts to screaming and overacting the craziness of her character. Whereas in the beginning she was so assured in her character and so earnest I hated when the film devolved into what you kinda think of as a typical French film with all the histrionics. I was really rooting for this performance, too, because the rest of these nominees are so underwhelming. Even still, I was surprised at how good Adjani was at first and think the fault lies more with the film itself. I'll have to see where she ends up for me.

Pauline Collins - Shirley Valentine

I'd be real surprised if anyone has actually heard of Pauline Collins or this movie. I was a bit wary going in because this reeked of the Academy reaching for a nomination for another British film/performance. They fall in love with them and some of them are pretty underwhelming. Collins, however, is actually really good in her role. Now, let me preface this by saying Collins played this very same role on stage in London and on Broadway of a middle aged British woman who feels her life and marriage is in a rut and then goes off to Greece to find herself. It was a one person play and the film reflects that by making her the undisputed star and by not really making us care about the other characters much. So Collins had so much time to develop this character by playing her over and over and over night after night on stage. This is a lived in performance that shows Collins is super comfortable with being Shirley Valentine. There's been a couple of these types of instances so far in the project and it always shows that the performer benefits from the repetition. Would Collins be so likable and well received if she had only done a few takes of the character for the film and that's it? Doubtful and that's okay. She's really funny here in this performance with that dry British humor, spitting out her aphorisms and life affirming messages. Collins also gets to break the fourth wall quite often and it helps her character engage with the viewer and helps the performance be a lot more accessible. I completely understand why the Academy went for her in this instance. It's definitely a one woman show on film even with the other characters and is really easy to like. I would say this is the perfect melding of circumstance and performance because there's no other way Collins gets nominated. This might not be an essential watch but I think people would enjoy it if they had nothing better to do and be surprised at how much they like it because of Collins' performance.

Jessica Lange - Music Box

The second Jessica this year, how neat. And neat would describe this film pretty well. This is a film that is about familial love and coming to grips with the past but is such a boring, flatline of a film that it makes Lange's performance look even worse. Lange plays a lawyer whose father was a gendarme over in Hungary in WWII and gets accused by the Communist Hungarian government of being a war criminal. Lange takes on her father's case and defends him. She does a great job of shooting holes in the prosecutor's case and it slowly is revealed that her father might not actually be innocent. This sounds like a pretty interesting story with some great emotional ups and downs but man, this film and performance by proxy falls miserably flat. The role just seems designed to get an Oscar nomination and though Lange acquits herself well enough, there's a real lack of passion in the character. The courtroom stuff is too polished and slick, I never really bought the familial bond and love for her father which in turn made the reveal that he was a monster lack any emotional power. She was just an actress going through the motions of reacting to the realization that her father wasn't who she thought and fought for. There's no real tension or suspense. You know at the end that the father is going to turn out to be a Nazi. The film just goes through the motions without ever giving us a reason to want to like it. Same for Lange's performance, unless you are a super Lange fan, there's not much to really enjoy.

Michelle Pfeiffer - The Fabulous Baker Boys

I hate to sound like a broken record but I kinda feel like the reason Pfeiffer was nominated because she was an IT actress, one of those hot, young, talented women who the Academy loves. So they end up nominating these women like Pfeiffer a couple times in hopes to make them stars and draw viewers and because they are old, white men. Pfeiffer was nominated 3 times in 5 years and so far it's been for ingenue type work. In Love Field she played almost a Marilyn Monroe type figure and here she's a sexy lounge singer. I wasn't a huge fan of her third nomination in 1992 and this performance feels lightweight, which I hate to say. She is great as a singer, even doing all her own singing. That part feels really authentic and helps cement her as being an actual lounge singer like her character. I wouldn't mind listening to an album of her songs, that's how natural her singing is. It's the fact that she doesn't show up for like the first 20-30 minutes and isn't in the last 20 minutes except the very last scene that makes it lightweight. She comes in as an escort who wants to sing, though that part of her life is really not dealt with at all, and has a sort of attitude and is late and Pretty Woman-ish. Then she sings - well - and sleeps with Jeff Bridges in the inevitable romantic plot. It's telegraphed a million miles away, it happens, and then she moves on to something better, or at least more lucrative. Yes, Pfeiffer plays up her sexy qualities and can sing, but besides acting as the sexy ingenue in the nightclub act, she doesn't have much else to do. That's mostly the fault of the film itself. Pfeiffer literally only has to be attractive, sing pretty good, and be a source of conflict for the Bridges brothers and that's essentially it. That's why I call it slight and lightweight. It's a nomination you get when the Academy wants to make you a star. Pfeiffer is good but I don't feel she elevates herself into Oscar territory. I think it's more you fall in love with Pfeiffer and want to see her rewarded more than anything else. Okay performance but little else to it.


I don't know if I'm going to be able to even pick a winner. None of these performances are that good or at least feel like they should be a winner. Collins might be the best of the bunch but that performance and film are not Oscar winning caliber. Pfeiffer is okay but her performance doesn't feel strong enough for a win. Adjani, I don't even know where to put her. I like the first part of her performance before it becomes more stereotypical and her film and role are way more challenging than the other two I've mentioned. Lange is just so passionless and boring, like we are supposed to nominate her strictly because of what the character and film are about. I dislike Tandy a lot in that role even though I really quite enjoyed her Fried Green Tomatoes work. This has to be the worst Best Actress category I've seen so far and most likely one of the worst of all time. I'm not even going to pick a winner as I don't feel Collins would be a good winner at all.

Oscar Winner: Jessica Tandy - Driving Miss Daisy
My Winner: 
Pauline Collins
Isabelle Adjani
Michelle Pfeiffer
Jessica Lange
Jessica Tandy

Supporting Actor 1989

I need to start thinking up some real philosophical shit to write in here again or go off on some movie ramblings or something. These are getting to be pretty bare! Only seen the winner here and I'm intrigued by some of the names/films, so let's get to it.

1989 Best Supporting Actor

Denzel Washington - Glory

For the record, I skimmed through this film for Denzel's performance and even then didn't watch it all super thoroughly simply because I've seen this film so many times that I didn't want to watch it again. That way I could move on to Best Actress that much quicker. Denzel plays Private Trip, a soldier in the all black Northern Army regiment. We first notice him because he lays into some other black soldiers and is a very angry person. We come to find out he was a slave and jumped at the chance to kill some southerners. We also find out that underneath that tough, bitter, angry exterior there's a decent man who tries to get shoes for his fellow soldiers. Denzel at first lays it on a bit thick as if to hammer home just how angry and tough his character is, but then settles in to what his character is which is an asshole that wants the best for his fellow soldiers. He makes this big stink about the white soldiers receiving more pay and organizes a protest of not accepting the pay. This in turn allows Colonel Shaw a chance to show he's with his men by not accepting his pay. It's a meaty role for Denzel and he makes the most of it like when he gets whipped for going AWOL to find the shoes and he remains stoic and then quietly has tears fall down his face. An obvious Oscar moment that could have gone off the rails with a lesser actor. Denzel continues to be a strong and stubborn soldier and eventually warms up to Colonel Shaw and wants to fight for him. We see this epitomized in the end when Denzel dies for his commander and his unit and his fellow soldiers and his country, holding the flag til the end. It's a very baity role that Denzel does well to keep from becoming such a generic and stale soldier done good performance. I'd say Denzel elevates the role into something more noticeable and powerful, which is a big reason he won the Oscar. It's a really good and important performance that I'm glad the Academy paid attention to.

Danny Aiello - Do the Right Thing

I had never seen this film before (I regret having to say this over and over the deeper I go into this project) and was uncertain about how I was going to feel about a white guy being the only nomination in a predominantly black film. Aiello is pretty great though and I understand his nomination because the Academy was never going to nominate anyone else for this film and this was their way to reward the film along with Best Screenplay. But truthfully, Spike Lee doesn't allow any of his black actors to shine as much as Aiello does. The one black actor to get a lot of screen time is Spike Lee himself and he's a stiff actor. Aiello gets plenty of screen time as the proprietor of Sal's Pizzeria and gets a quiet moment to shine when discussing with his son why he stays in the black neighborhood. Sal never seems like a racist, just a guy who has had a shop in an area for a long time who now has to deal with the changing of the times. He wants to sling pizza and doesn't care who his customers are, just as long as they pay. Sure he gets into tiffs when Radio Raheem blasts his radio in his establishment or tells Buggin' Out he has to pay extra for cheese and to fuck off as to why there are no blacks on his wall of pictures. The love for Mookie's sister is really strange and out of place and seems more like a misstep by Lee than anything else since there is no need for that little diversion. The ending is also sad because Aiello didn't deserve to have his shop ransacked and torched just because the people were misinformed. You can easily side with Aiello as a sympathetic figure and it's easy to see why the Academy would side with him for a nomination.

Dan Akroyd - Driving Miss Daisy

Dan Akroyd came along for the ride with the love the film garnered. I also think that maybe he had some goodwill as a respected comedian going somewhat legit in a drama and that earned him some respect and a nomination from the Academy. Akroyd plays the son of Jessica Tandy's character and is the one who hires Morgan Freeman to drive his mother around. He shows up now and then during the film checking in on his mother and seeing how he can help Freeman. He's a decent character and seems to respect the black folk even back in the 50s-60s and is a genuinely good person. That's really all there is to Akroyd's character though. I can't really argue that he's this transcendent character and bridges relations between whites and black and gives a must see performance. He's just Dan Akroyd in a film about race relations and he does a good job. Simple as that. He's nowhere near being considered for a win and the nomination here is the reward. I suspect if the film wasn't so liked for whatever reason, he wouldn't have made it into this category which should tell you everything about this nomination.

Marlon Brando - A Dry White Season

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, yes, this is a veteran nomination and solely because Brando is a well respected Academy favorite. Brando had been in a self imposed acting retirement and came back to act in this film, which interestingly enough is the first Hollywood film directed by a black woman. I may have to check my info on that but according to IMDB, that's accurate. This was really just a chance to nominate Brando again and nothing else. He plays a lawyer who helps Donald Sutherland's character by defending a black South African. He's only really in two scenes. The first one is brief where he meets Sutherland and takes on the case. Then the next one is in the courtroom and Brando gets to sink his teeth into a very easy and noble role. He grills the police who are corrupt and takes it to them and comes off looking righteous and just. It's a glorified cameo and though Brando is good, it's nothing outstanding or worth a nomination and I'm a huge Brando fan. You can skip this and not miss out on anything.

Martin Landau - Crimes and Misdemeanors

This film is a little strange. I keep wavering back and forth on whether I liked it and think it's a good film. I'm leaning towards yes for both. I say strange because I guess it's supposed to be a dark comedy of sorts but Landau's story and character is played straight and doesn't elicit any laughs. The comedy comes from Woody Allen's character and the other stories and it's not exactly laugh out loud stuff. It feels weird tonally and it's like Landau is in a different film. Landau plays an eye doctor who has been having an affair with Anjelica Huston and she is now threatening to talk to his wife because he's not spending enough time with her (Huston) and isn't leaving his wife. Landau becomes desperate and has someone take care of the problem by having Huston killed. Now Landau has to live with the guilt of having someone he loved killed because it would expose his lies and infidelity. That's basically what the film is about, that Crime and Punishment idea of dealing with an egregious sin and living with yourself. Landau is very good in the role of having to play a man who is burdened in mind, body, and soul. He just looks like a guy who has a ton of stuff going on in his head. It's a very serious performance that asks a lot of existential questions. Landau must confront his own morals and even questions his religious ideas. His guilt, anxiety, anger, conflicted state of mind is written all over Landau's face and is a real honest portrayal of all of those emotions. This is a strong performance but it also is essentially a lead performance, so the focus is on Landau who shines with the extra attention, which is almost not fair. It's a surprisingly good male performance in a Woody Allen film.


Well you can throw out Brando and Akroyd right from the beginning. Neither are awful. In fact, they are both entertaining and somewhat decent. It's just that Brando is a cameo and the Academy is throwing him a career nom and sympathy vote. Akroyd just comes along for the ride with his film and doesn't do all that much besides be pleasant. Now when you start to look at the remaining three is when it gets really interesting. I like each of the remaining three. Denzel's win is pretty important to the history of Oscar so that's in his favor but it's also a strong performance that can stand alone. I really enjoyed Aiello even though the film doesn't give him all that much to do. He mans the pizzeria and interacts with the black neighborhood but maybe not to an amazing degree. I would take him simply because I liked him and the film. Then you have Landau who gives a very serious performance and sticks out positively in a Woody Allen film. As of right now that's the order I keep it. Landau may be just a bit technically better than Aiello but for some reason I like him more, plus Landau wins eventually so I don't feel so guilty. I like the win for Denzel and wouldn't really change it. Having a white actor win for a majority black film is kind of a bad look. So Denzel can stay the winner. This is a pretty good group even with the bottom two.

Oscar Winner: Denzel Washington - Glory
My Winner:  Denzel Washington - Glory
Danny Aiello
Martin Landau
Dan Akroyd
Marlon Brando

Supporting Actress 1989

The 80s! Wooooo! Also, I decided against doing any favorites list or most surprising or whatever. Maybe at the end of the project but right now I'd rather stay on target.

1989 Best Supporting Actress

Brenda Fricker - My Left Foot

Brenda Fricker is so frickin good! Okay, now that that's off my chest, Fricker is really the only choice for the win. She is so strong as a character in this film that you can argue that she might be better suited for the Leading Actress category. I understand why she wasn't submitted there because who is Brenda Fricker? and because her character really supports Christy Brown almost exclusively. The whole time while watching her performance I was thinking of it as the Yin to Daniel Day-Lewis' Yang. Or maybe it's vice-versa, but the point stands: Fricker balances out DDL's performance and makes it work even more. She's the one who encourages him and supports him and really helps him become who he is. She feels more like a legit supporting character than an actress making a play at an Oscar. Fricker is so caring and attentive and so motherly in her scenes that you can forget that you're watching a movie. The two characters are so connected that neither work without the other and so it makes sense that they both won Oscars for their work. Fricker's performance is strong and really shows off what a supporting actress should be. She's just so steady and sets the bar for all the similar performances from disabled person films. You have to be human and you have to treat the subject like they are loved or at least they are understood and Fricker displays those emotions perfectly. She just really compliments DDL and the film itself and is a great choice for the win. Watch it and not say yeah, now I get why she won because you can't do it.

Anjelica Huston - Enemies, A Love Story

We are still in Huston's grace period after winning her Oscar 3 years before in this same category. Not to say that's the only reason she was nominated, just that the Academy has a well documented track record of continually nominating winners after they've won for maybe what's seen as lesser work. For the record, I do like Huston's performance here. She plays the wife of Ron Silver, a sleazy Jew who has many women in his life. Huston comes back after Silver thinks she died in a concentration camp and now further complicates his muddied love life. It's a weird film but Huston plays a very clever character. She knows her husband is a player even from the old days and isn't shocked or surprised when he has a wife and a mistress already. Her character is very matter of fact about things and almost used as the voice of reason or at least the normal one of the three women. Her character gets a lot of the funny moments in the film like when Silver's current wife thinks she's a ghost who has returned from the dead and reacts to her presence. Her Tamara is very dry and patient which speaks to her almost nonchalance towards her former husband stepping out on her and the other women. Huston isn't a big part of the film but she adds a ton a charisma whenever she's onscreen. But just like the other women, she doesn't quite stand out as a whole and doesn't make the film any more palliative.

Lena Olin - Enemies, A Love Story

Olin plays a fiery, Russian Jew who is the mistress for Ron Silver. This is a pretty strange movie when you really boil it down. Silver is seeing three different women and marries all of them at various times and they all know about each other. She is hot tempered and the sensual, sexy one of the triumvirate. She also seems the more accepting and understanding one of the bunch, though Huston is very nonchalant about his dalliances, too. She brings to mind Lauren Bacall with her husky, masculine voice and sultry looks and though that might bring forth a compelling interest for her character, her Masha is a little all over the place. While the histrionics are somewhat contained, she seems suited to be the sexy woman and not much else. She has her quiet moments that are interesting and her sex scenes are notable because of her looks of boredom and obligation. It's interesting in that there is a lot going on with the character but none of it seems cohesive. It's entertaining but also you know it's mainly because she's good looking and gets some explosive moments in the film. I'm okay with her being nominated but realistically, she was never going to win for that performance.

Julia Roberts - Steel Magnolias

So it's kinda hard to discuss this performance without giving a spoiler alert, so spoiler alert. I always thought this film was just about a bunch of Southern fried ladies gossiping and talking and carrying on, which is accurate, but I was not expecting the ending or really Roberts' arc at all. So that threw me for a loop. Roberts plays a young woman who has diabetes and is getting married. She has a diabetic episode while getting her hair done which shows us the seriousness of her situation. Then come to find out she wants to get pregnant which could kill her and does end up pregnant. She has the baby but it screws up her kidneys and leads to a coma and her family pulling the plug. Pretty heavy stuff for a film that's also lighthearted and fun with some other notable women giving decent performances, too. I feel the role helped get her the nomination because she plays such a doomed character and she was/is an up and coming actress at this time. The performance itself is nothing too special. She has the right amount of charm and hits the right serious notes when necessary. I think this is just rewarding a film that people really loved and anointing a new star in the process. Not a bad first nomination but more of a primer for Roberts than anything else.

Dianne Wiest - Parenthood

This is a performance in a light comedy that isn't really that much of a comedic performance. I like Dianne Wiest here and she is able to get off some zingers that don't first seem like zingers. Her delivery of the jokes is either very subtle or non-traditional and it makes for a very funny character once you parse it all down and actually get it. I think if you're not paying attention, you'll miss the humor in the performance because Wiest isn't in the same vein as Steve Martin. Wiest plays a single mother trying to connect and deal with her two unruly kids who want nothing to do with her. This is a Ron Howard directed Steve Martin vehicle and it's almost astonishing how tame the humor is. Obviously nowadays we are used to a lot more risque and vulgar stuff, but the big moment in this film is joking about a vibrator and it's so banal almost. Just weird seeing some jokes that were probably edgy and funny back then fall flat when I'm watching it today. Not all comedy transcends. Anyway, Wiest is actually sort of touching in her performance because she loves her kids and just wants to get through to them and look out for their well being but they resist and rebel. There's not much of an arc because she stays the same way all through the film but it is a nice little caring performance that brings some humanity to a generic comedy. She's good but nowhere near worthy of the win, especially since she won once before this and once after.


This category has a clear cut winner in Brenda Fricker but then the next four are a jumbled mess of I don't know. Wiest is decent but nothing amazing. Roberts is okay but her nomination is a star making turn designed to get some eyeballs on the Oscar ceremony. Huston is good but that film is weird and does her no favors. Olin is alright but again the film hurts her. I think this just really comes down to preference (duh). So Fricker followed by Wiest who gives an interesting performance in that film though it's not even close to a win. Then Huston, Olin, and Roberts in that order. Simply because I do enjoy Huston more, Olin is good enough and gives more of a performance than Roberts who is cutesy but still raw. It's a shame that the rest don't really matter but Fricker is a great winner.

Oscar Winner: Brenda Fricker - My Left Foot
My Winner:  Brenda Fricker - My Left Foot
Dianne Wiest

Anjelica Huston
Lena Olin
Julia Roberts

Best Picture 1990

Somewhat of a controversial year in hindsight because a lot of people feel Goodfellas is the better pick overall for Best Picture. It'll be interesting to go through the choices and figure out if that holds true.

A quick aside here, I have contemplated doing a best of or most surprising finds list or something to mark off each decade and better organize my thoughts on the whole entire project. Not sure what I'll do, if anything, but I wonder if breaking the flow of the project would be worth it? Dunno. Just not sure ranking 26 years is a task I want to undertake.

1990 Best Picture

Dances with Wolves

I ended up watching the four hour extended version of this film and I can't figure out if that was a good or bad thing. On the one hand, it's an extra hour of a film that can be quite dull at times. On the other hand, there could be more characterization and plot that enriches the story in that extra hour and makes for a more satisfying, and whole, viewing experience. I think I fall somewhere in between and honestly, I wouldn't know or remember what is extra and what isn't anyway. There are a lot of issues when discussing this film. The main issue is how dull it is. No wait, I'm kidding - kinda. The main issue is the whole white man savior thing going on. It's as if Costner's Army Lieutenant can do no wrong. He escapes death in the beginning, goes out West and befriends the Indians there after some slight issues and then gets in tight with the Chief and Medicine Man and falls for the Medicine Man's white adopted daughter who had been kidnapped when young. Costner is arrested by the Army and rescued and just plays the hero without much tension or conflict. But Costner helps the Native Americans in a few different ways and we get a love story between the only two white people. There's also the whole environmental issue, punctuated by the white man killing buffalo wantonly and leaving the bodies behind. It's just very in your face which gets annoying. The length of course is an issue, also. There's no reason why this should be a three hour epic other than self indulgence on the part of Costner. I saw the four hour version which was plenty long enough. The story isn't compelling enough to sustain itself. There are some fantastic views of the prairies and rolling hills and the buffalo hunt scene is a truly amazing and dizzying experience. I liked Mary McDonnell's performance in a very tough role. I enjoyed the score and the fact that the film shines a positive light (mostly) on the Sioux is something film could use a lot more of today. So there are a few positives to go along with the dullness and tedium. With a better leading actor, I think this could have been a really great film, especially if it were trimmed down to form a more cohesive, intriguing story. As it is now, I agree with most people who think this is a bad Best Picture winner, especially when given the alternative.

Awakenings

This was always one of those films that I kept an eye throughout my project because I didn't know what it was about from title alone. A lot of the films you know what they are about because they've entered the zeitgeist and get talked about endlessly by Oscar lovers and film nerds. Haven't heard a peep about this film which seemed curious given the actors involved and the seemingly interesting subject matter. After watching it, though, I get why it's overlooked and somewhat forgotten. It's not exactly De Niro's best nominated work and the film has a feel good tilt to it until the end when you realize these patients return to their catatonic states. The film is about said patients who are awakened after being in a vegetative state for so long through the miracle of drugs and Robin Williams' determination. It's an interesting concept based off a true story but the film itself feels so slight for the most part. We don't even get to De Niro until almost an hour in so in that mean time we are mostly with Williams adjusting to a new hospital setting and see these catatonic patients - not exactly riveting stuff. It gets a lot better once the patients are awaken and you see the different personalities of the people and realize that they are actually human beings and not just vegetables. Things don't feel fully formed or fleshed out or pursued. De Niro's little romance almost seems like an afterthought, his outbursts could have used a little more intensity and respect from the other scientists and doctors, and the relationship with his mother doesn't even feel heartbreaking when he returns to his catatonia. Maybe the material needed to be treated differently with another director to make it stand out more because the direction, score, cinematography, etc. don't stand out one bit. It all seems formulaic and generic and that hurts what is a really interesting story. This film could have been a lot better which is why I'm being pretty negative about it. It has it's moments but not sure it's good enough to be a Best Picture contender.

Ghost

I will admit that this film scared the ever living shit out of me when I was younger. It had to do with the shadow things with the fucked up sounds that came to take away the bad people. It touched off an existential crisis in me after I saw it when younger because it made me think about death at like 6-7 years old. I really thought shadows would come grab you when you died. Now I recognize this as a pretty great film starring Patrick Swayze who is one of my favorite actors. All of his films are so heartfelt and good and entertaining that you can't really hate on him. I only wish that more of his film were nominated for Best Picture and that he was nominated for Best Actor. Anyway, this film is about a guy who gets murdered while out with his girlfriend and doesn't go anywhere and remains a ghost. He communicates with Whoopi Goldberg's character and gets things done that way. He protects his beau and rights a wrong and then ascends to heaven. Quality entertainment. I love this film. It's of its time and was the highest grossing film of 1990. That's why it made the BP group, which is fine by me. It also has one of the most famous scenes in movie history with the pottery scene soundtracked by The Righteous Brothers. It's just so entertaining. That's my main draw to the film. I could watch it over and over and never get sick of it. Whoopi and Swayze are great and the rest are fine but it's a good idea for a story with bankable stars, can't go wrong. I just really like the idea that Patrick Swayze starred in a Best Picture film. You'll be hard pressed to find me saying anything bad about this one.

The Godfather Part III

When it came to this film, I was faced with a dilemma: watch all three films in order to write these reviews or just watch this film without the context of the others. I felt that watching the trilogy is important to understanding this film as a whole and within the context of the trilogy itself. But then a new dilemma occurred: do I write my thoughts about the other two films and save them to post later or rewatch them again because it will take me years to get to the 70s in this project? That was a tough one to decide. I went ahead and wrote those reviews down anyway, just to get them out of the way. As for Part III, there is no doubt that this is a lesser film than the first two. It's hard to live up to two films that are rightly considered some of the best of all time and do so after so many years away from being in that world. You almost have to preface a review by saying that some of the originals like Robert Duvall weren't part of the film because of money issues, which means the end product wasn't exactly what it could have been. And of course, you have to mention that Winona Ryder was set to play Mary, Michael's daughter but dropped out due to exhaustion and the director's daughter, Sofia Coppola filled in basically on an emergency basis. Her performance was widely derided and rightfully so because it looks like she isn't very confident and she looks very green. They even had to redo dialogue because of her Valley Girl accent. Last thing to mention is that this wasn't really meant to be the third part of the trilogy but rather an epilogue and Francis Ford Coppola wanted to name it The Death of Michael Corleone. Even with all that said, Part III is still a pretty good film, just not up to the standards of the Godfather name. It does offer some interesting storylines such as the whole Vatican Bank stuff which held my attention even if I was a tiny bit confused as to how it all worked. Also, the whole ending scene at the opera is pretty riveting stuff, too. I was thinking about going to bed and watching the rest the next day but then I couldn't look away because the whole set up hooked me. I do feel like there were parts to tighten and clean up, other parts that could have been expanded on or removed altogether. If it were shorter, I wouldn't complain because it didn't have the steam to keep going in the middle parts. It's a decent enough close to a trilogy where the first two films are out of this world amazing and it seems fitting to have this one nominated to complete the whole thing. It's a nice sense of finality.

Goodfellas

Some people call this the greatest gangster flick ever and those people wouldn't be too far from the truth. There's a lot of good arguments to be made for it's case. It's a different style than say The Godfather, obviously, but it's got such a vibrancy and modern, realistic feel to it that it sets itself apart from those more dramatic type of films. And that's not to say this film isn't dramatic, of course, because it's story is richly compelling as we follow Henry Hill's rise into the Mafia world and the demise of that world. We get some really phenomenal acting from pretty much everyone in this film, even the most basic supporting players. Liotta, De Niro, Bracco, Paul Sorvino, and especially Pesci are all perfect for their roles and make Goodfellas into a bonafide classic. Scorsese directs the hell out of the film as per usual with some inspired scenes and inventive techniques. Everyone remembers the continuous shot following Liotta through the club but there's also a lot of interesting and stylistic editing choices and the use of freeze frame adds another great element to the film and story. Not to mention it's been lifted and used ad nauseam since then (yes, I know Scorsese isn't the first to do freeze frame but he definitely made it popular). Plus you've got Scorsese really mixing in the musical elements with this film. Songs are used at key moments to explain feelings or things in the scene or used as further dialogue for the characters. You can tell there was a lot of painstaking work put in to craft scenes around the musical cues and to figure out which songs to use and when. Goodfellas is a perfect example of music and film coalescing. I stop short of calling the film perfect because I think there could have been more time for Bracco and some other ladies even in this male dominated film. It is certainly wildly entertaining, though, and is one of the classics for a reason. I think when you look back on this year, it will be tough not to choose this as the winner, as it has stood the test of time and only grown in importance and legend.


80's here I come! Goodfellas is my winner because it's so beloved and iconic and great even today. Ghost is a wildly entertaining second and I can't get enough of Swayze. The Godfather Part III is square in the middle because it fails to live up to it's predecessors but is still worth a watch. Dances with Wolves is too long (especially if you see the extended edition like me) and just isn't as important as it wants you to believe it is. I'd be fine with it here if it didn't win because I like big Western epics but not for the win and not in the Costner way. Awakenings is just a really bad choice for a Best Picture film. I don't think it belongs and would rather see something else in its place. I know others will say the same about Ghost, but preferences! Just didn't connect with it on any level. Not a bad year for the G films, could have been even better with a different choice.

Oscar Winner: Dances with Wolves
My Winner:  Goodfellas
Ghost
The Godfather Part III
Dances with Wolves
Awakenings

Leading Actor 1990

Only seen Costner before so this will be an interesting group to watch, I'm sure.

1990 Best Actor

Jeremy Irons - Reversal of Fortune

This was a performance I was super interested in checking out because mainly I didn't know anything about it. I just knew that Irons had an Oscar and seemed like the type of actor that should have an Oscar, which is definitely a compliment. And I'll say that this performance made me really appreciate Irons a lot more than I did previously. The character is such an interesting guy. Irons plays Claus von Bulow, a wealthy socialite convicted of attempted murder of his wife, Glenn Close, and he hires a lawyer to overturn it. Really engaging story but Irons makes it so much more interesting. His character is purposefully ambiguous, which is really difficult to pull off. While watching, Irons' character is very matter of fact about recounting all the evidence and situations that led up to him being convicted. Yet we never really know if he's guilty or not because the character doesn't try and sway us either way, or at least doesn't convincingly sway us since he reiterates that he's innocent. It's like he just casually strolls around the scenes while the other characters frantically race around trying to prove his innocence. It's fascinating to watch because it doesn't feel hokey or out of place. Irons makes the character and his choices work for the performance and the film. The character has a lot of affectations put on that add to the interesting element of the character like his stilted speech, his proper demeanor, and his idiosyncrasies. He is darkly funny, very macabre with his jokes where you can't tell if he's serious or not. I think that's part of why I like it so much is that Irons is so dry in this performance and it is extremely entertaining to me. It's all done without a wink and a nod, too, making for a very subtle performance. It's not too on the nose or anything like that, just an affectingly odd character. And then is Irons just a cold, calculated, unloving person? Is it all just a front so he can be exonerated and move on or what? The fact that Irons gives the character so many layers is what makes it a great performance to watch and try and figure out.

Kevin Costner - Dances with Wolves

I feel like this is a nomination in conjunction with his Director and Picture nominations. This is the Academy just doubling down on their love of a first time director and Hollywood leading man and rewarding his efforts in bringing the film to life. I'm not a huge Costner fan because his acting is so blank and his voice is so emotionless and monotone. And when you narrate a three plus hour film, you need to put some effort into your narration so as not to bore the audience or make us tune you out. Like I understand he has a near death experience in the very beginning of the film, but for much of the story he's a blah, boring, and just plain dull. I'd actually rather he not speak at all and this be a minimalist piece of acting. That might be better than whatever Costner is trying to pull off here. And another thing I was thinking about while watching this performance was how much better any number of actors would be. You just know certain actors would have punched this up and given us something truly great. This kind of performance feels like a movie star who is in over his head with the material and struggles to find a connection with the audience. The character is too perfect almost. He escapes death in the beginning then goes out West and befriends the Sioux, falls in love, marries, escapes arrest, and becomes the white hero for the Sioux people. There's no conflict for Costner's character, he just lucks his way into being the hero always. The main thing lacking in the performance is any sense of charisma or gravitas. There's nothing to hold our attention over three (or four hours if you watch the extended edition like I did) and that's sorely needed when he's the main star of the film. It's a listless performance that gets in solely because of his involvement in the film. Ray Liotta would have been a much better inclusion instead of Costner.

Robert De Niro - Awakenings

De Niro is nominated here not just because of this film, but also because of his work in Goodfellas. The Academy couldn't quite nominate him for that one because Ray Liotta was the star and lead of that one, so De Niro gets in with another Best Picture nominated film performance here. That may be simplifying what actually happened but it's not too far from the truth. You have to take both performances into account when looking into why De Niro was nominated to begin with. In this film, De Niro plays a catatonic patient who has been that way since a teenager and is now old. Robin Williams finds a temporary cure to allow De Niro to regain awareness and experience life after being imprisoned for so long. It's a really interesting premise based on a true story and De Niro is fine in the role. He doesn't do anything for about the first 50 minutes of this 2 hour film that Robin Williams is clearly the lead in, which is why you take into account the Goodfellas performance, also. De Niro is technically really great in this. He nails all the tics and body movements and poses associated with his character and you can't really dispute it as bad or anything. That part is great, but it's another disabled guy performance and I need more than just the physical aspect to impress me. Sure, De Niro does a good enough job with displaying the hurt and pain and longing in his character but it's all glossed over a bit too easily. The performance seems to be more about mannerisms than depth and I think the film relies on that to convey it's message. I'm not a huge fan of obvious acting. I prefer when a performance and character feels lived in and I have to remind myself that so and so is only acting and not hey, this is totally obvious acting instead. This is not one of De Niro's stronger nominations.

Gerard Depardieu - Cyrano de Bergenac

As I've stated before for some of the foreign performances that make it on these lists, it becomes difficult to tell if I'm seeing good acting or not because I don't know the intricacies of the language. Sure, I can watch the actual performance and the body language and facial movements and gleam my opinion from that but it's tough going. The copy of this film that I watched didn't seem to have the complete English subtitles, as if some dialogue was excluded for whatever reason. While watching I can understand what's going on and get the gist of what people are saying with no problem but it was still lacking. So in saying all that, Gerard Depardieu really needed to wow me with his basic performance and he did not at all. Lots of things going against him besides it being a foreign nomination. Cyrano has already been done by Oscar before back in 1950 when Jose Ferrer won for playing Cyrano de Bergenac. Now I haven't seen that performance yet but Depardieu would need to be on top of his game and stand out highly to notch a win because why would you reward someone for a character you already rewarded decades ago? Vito Corleone makes sense, two different versions of Cyrano de Bergenac for the American Oscars does not. Also, Depardieu was hot at this time for whatever reason. He won a Golden Globe the same year for a different comedy so it seems like it was his time to be rewarded here in America. The performance is alright, I guess. He plays the part admirably but it does nothing for me. I always felt like Cyrano was a lot more entertaining as a character and this version felt a bit dulled down. I feel like Depardieu needed a lot more charisma to really keep the film from being a bore but maybe something was lost in the translation. Just really something I didn't find all that much entertaining.

Richard Harris - The Field

Another one of these films/performances I was eager to watch once I learned what the heck it was about. This is a Jim Sheridan film about a man named Bull McCabe who rents a plot of land that he made into a livable/arable farm and it's getting put up for public auction. This all takes place in Ireland and of course an American comes and puts a bid in setting off events. The scenery is gorgeous as to be expected. But the film belongs to Bull (or who you might know him as The Original Dumbledore) hands down. Harris is every bit intense as his gruff Irish farmer is supposed to be. He owns the film as the other characters are dwarfed by his gravitas, his presence. Doesn't hurt that the other characters are kind of stock characters while Bull is the most fully fleshed out character. Harris contributes to that with his powerhouse acting and we watch in awe as he does his thing. My only beef with the performance is that at the end where his character becomes unhinged, Harris doesn't seem as convincing and looks out of place. But Harris is solid in the rest of the film even with his more tender moments which are still gruff, he makes them fit into the role instead of stepping outside of it to find the right bit of sadness. And when Harris talks about the field like it's his own son, you really feel as if it's Bull talking about the field. Harris is best in the individual moments of the performance. When it's just him on screen delivering a monologue, he absolutely sizzles and is what makes the performance so intriguing to watch. No doubt he belongs in this group and I'll have to see just where he ends up.


Well, some unexpected stuff in this group, not all positive. Depardieu just simply wasn't entertaining to me when I know the story of Cyrano de Bergenac is supposed to be wildly entertaining. That one really felt like a waste of my time. Then we get one of De Niro's least worthy nominated performances. I didn't like the mannerisms because I felt like they didn't have any heart behind them. Costner directs himself to third simply by virtue of two others being worse. Costner is mostly blah, almost a blank slate of an actor especially in this performance. He gets in because of the love for his film. Then we have the surprising Richard Harris who gives an intense, powerful performance that loses itself at the very end but is still pretty good. A surprising second, for sure. My winner is again the same as the Academy's because Irons is so damn intriguing. And his performance here really made me respect him as an actor because I certainly am not his biggest fan. I wasn't sure what to expect but I'm pretty glad that I thoroughly enjoyed his performance. All in all, a real letdown of a category especially given the names. Here's to hoping my first dip into the 80s is better!

Oscar Winner: Jeremy Irons - Reversal of Fortune
My Winner:  Jeremy Irons - Reversal of Fortune
Richard Harris
Kevin Costner
Robert De Niro
Gerard Depardieu

Leading Actress 1990

Isn't it interesting when some older films feel super dated while other films from the same year feel timeless and like they could be from today? I think that's how you know a film is really good. No examples from this category per se, just an observation. Glad to get this category underway!

1990 Best Actress

Kathy Bates - Misery

This is another one of those films where I've seen a whole bunch of it, but never seen the whole thing all the way through. So I was eager to watch this based off that and some other things like the fact that Steven King has interesting stories and Kathy Bates is an intriguing actress who you might forget has a Best Actress win. Here she plays a woman who takes in a writer who has crashed his car in the middle of winter and come to find out she is a super fan and doesn't want him ending his series that she loves so much. We also learn the woman is batshit crazy. She's a nurse that has been accused of killing patients, old and young, and now lives alone out in the boonies. This is a memorable role mainly because of Bates' performance. She's so committed to making her Annie Wilkes be as crazy and intimidating and despicable as possible. We first meet her and see her as this innocent fangirl who loves the writer and his book series and are lulled into a sense of security by the dour, frumpy, meek woman. And then she explodes into rage over some trivial thing and understand who the real Annie Wilkes is. Kathy Bates switching so easily between the two extremes is pretty fun to watch and makes it clear why she was nominated and won. Like I said before, I think a lot of people forget she's an Oscar winner but this role is hard to forget. What I like most about the performance is that Bates is so comfortable playing all sides of the character. Seeing her other work you know she can play the sweet lady (Fried Green Tomatoes) or a rambunctious asshole (Primary Colors) or any multitude of disparate characters. The good thing about her performance here is that none of the extremes feels insincere or lacking. She plays Annie as if she's all the way crazy or all the way innocent and sheltered and the two never meet. It's entertaining and a strong, memorable performance that earns it's win.

Anjelica Huston - The Grifters

Man, I wish there was a lot more I could write about this performance or say that I really loved it or that I hated it profusely but it's just one of those performances that falls directly in the middle. I am pretty ambivalent to it overall. I was kinda excited to watch this film because I had heard that it was pretty good and the performances were worth seeing and being nominated. I was also interested to really watch Huston for the first time in this blog because I know she's a great actress. But the film and her performance failed to connect with me. Huston plays Lilly, mother to John Cusack's character and a grifter in her own right. She places large bets on horses to drive down the odds. She also seems to be skimming some money off the top. She comes back into her son's life and wants him to stop grifting and go straight. I never really felt that the love or respect or familial bond was ever legit between the mother and son and didn't understand her motivations for seeing him get out of the con. There was a distrust and dislike between Huston and Cusack's girlfriend, Bening, but I didn't really see why that mattered other than they were competing for Cusack in different ways. Even when Huston was being tortured by her employer for missing placing a bet that paid out big time, I didn't feel the gravity of her situation or that it really mattered for Huston in the long run. So all of these scenes added up to me not really getting much out of Huston's performance because there was no immediacy to it at all for me. I wasn't invested and that seemed to be in part to Huston's laissez faire approach. Huston should have been sexier and cooler and more earnest and more like an old pro at this than what I felt I was watching. Huston's performance just didn't resonate with me and while I know she was fine and other people liked it, I simply wasn't into it.

Julia Roberts - Pretty Woman

This is the follow up nomination after the year before where the Academy decided to make her into a star. It was obvious that this beautiful, charming, gifted woman would seduce Hollywood and become a force to reckon with. Roberts is flat out endearing in this role. You fall in love with her over and over again because she's the girl next door, the every woman. Even though she's a prostitute or escort or whatever, she is adorable and accidentally sexy. This film came out while Julia was doing all her Oscar stuff for Steel Magnolias, right around actual Oscar time so she was fresh on everyone's mind. She was the IT actress and the Academy didn't forget it. I mean, this is honestly kind of a no brainer right? Beloved actress portrays a prostitute and changes into a better person while getting with a handsome rich man and has a happy ending. It's unfortunate, though, that she gets nominated for the hooker with a heart of gold role because Roberts is obviously much better than that but at least she makes the role her own. Now, this role isn't a huge stretch of the acting chops but Roberts is perfect in the role which is why she is nominated here. The film took on a life of it's own and you get why it was nominated but she was never going to win. I'm okay with Roberts getting nominated because she deserved it but she did play a hooker and didn't have a huge character arc. Without her charm and universal appeal, the performance wouldn't have been nominated. Anyway, Roberts makes it easy to champion her because she's so adorable and vote worthy. I'm glad she has an Oscar and this is early evidence as to the Academy wanting it to be so. It's the best film about owning a woman ever.

Meryl Streep - Postcards from the Edge

It's been so long since I had to review a Streep nomination that I was getting worried! But here we are again with the 11th (!) Streep nomination. I'll say this one is a little more interesting because Meryl isn't doing one of her accents and isn't playing a crusading woman role. Meryl is just like a normal actress for once, playing a drug addicted, and then recovering, actress who has a lot of personal issues to deal with. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that this film is based off the semi-autobiographical book Carrie Fisher wrote about her life and her mother, Debbie Reynolds. So Meryl plays the Carrie Fisher role even though it's not 100% accurate. Meryl is her typically great self here, it's just that the film kind of bores me overall. For what's supposed to be an indictment on the Hollywood life and drug addiction and mother-daughter relationships, well, it just never reaches a really interesting point. Maybe it's because of the time period it's from but we've seen harder, more intense and interesting films about all three of those aspects - sometimes altogether. So the film never grabs me and while I realize Meryl is a great actress, I'm not fully engaged by her performance in this one. She is able to display some comedic talent but it all seems too low key. Nothing ever hits very hard in this film so it seems to just skate on by without leaving an impact. Everything is ho hum when I feel it should all have a lot more bite to it. I enjoy the scenes with her and Shirley MacLaine, even though they feel more like friends or equals rather than family. And of course when we discuss Meryl, we do have to take into account all her other performances. I'd like to say I take them all on their own merit, which I do, but compare this one with any of her other work and you see just how it's stands up in her own pantheon. To me, even though this is a fine enough Meryl performance, it's on the mid to lower end of her work as a whole. It doesn't grab me enough and seems much more forgettable than most of her other performances, sadly to say.

Joanne Woodward - Mr. and Mrs. Bridge

There are a lot of reasons why Woodward was nominated here. For one, it's quite obviously a veteran nomination and looking back through the 80s, there seems to be a lot of these older actresses getting nominated as a career reward. Woodward had already won an Oscar previously, so this was more of a congratulations on a good career nomination. Plus, she was acting with her longtime husband, Paul Newman which I'm sure got the older Academy voters in a tizzy. For another thing, this is a Miramax film and we all know how good the Weinstein's were at bullying through their films/performances for nominations. You can figure all that stuff out without even watching the performance! But as for the actual acting, first this is a Merchant-Ivory film so you know right there what you're getting yourself into. This one is centered in Kansas City instead of England (though they do go to Europe for a brief time). The Bridges are an older couple in the 1930s-40s and Woodward obviously plays Mrs. Bridge, a woman who is battling her increasing isolation from her family. Her husband is emotionally distant and her kids don't want to settle down and get married like her and rebel against the status quo. We follow the family as the kids go off and do their own thing. Woodward is fine but the film itself is a little boring. This one doesn't feel as grand as the other Merchant-Ivory pictures so while Woodward is clearly talented and accomplished, I don't feel all that much for her performance. It's as if the married couple wanted to do another film together and Woodward put more effort into it than her hubby. It's sincere and committed but just lacking any kind of pizzazz, like an exercise in acting. I understand what the Academy was going for and Woodward is a great actress but I feel like there was probably something better out there than this. This is one you watch to tick off that box and move on.


What a pretty blah year. Once you get past Bates' win, which you can understand why she won after watching all the others, there's not much there. I mean Roberts comes in second by default because the other three are just so boring to me. Two are stature nominations and the other is a career/veteran nomination. Meryl is good so she is the middle one for me but you can toss up Huston and Woodward into 4th and 5th and I'd be okay with whatever way you put them. I was really expecting and hoping for a lot better from this group. Big names with not much to show for it.

Oscar Winner: Kathy Bates - Misery
My Winner:  Kathy Bates - Misery
Julia Roberts
Meryl Streep
Anjelica Huston
Joanne Woodward

Supporting Actor 1990

Some interesting names and films on this list that I'm very eager to dive into. Even more excited to be that much closer to the 80s.

1990 Best Supporting Actor

Joe Pesci - Goodfellas

I mean, is this not the most perfect pairing of actor with role for an Oscar win? When you think of Goodfellas, Pesci is the first thing that should come to mind, I know it is for me. Pesci absolutely dominates every scene he's in and you start to wish the film focused more on his character instead. That's the mark of a great performance where you wish the film would be about them and long for whenever their next scene is. Pesci plays the violent and volatile Tommy DeVito who just doesn't give a fuck about anyone or anything. He'll stab or shoot someone with even thinking about it, doing so in an almost convivial fashion. The way that he doesn't really react to killing someone is chilling and brutal and shows you just what kind of guy DeVito is. He's unpredictable which is partly why the character is so fascinating, wondering what exactly is he going to do next. And of course the way Pesci portrays the character is great, as well. He's basically an asshole who will take on anyone but also has a twisted sense of humor and has a respect for being a gangster. There's no doubt that Pesci adds a ton to the film. Without him, the film wouldn't be nearly as good and that's all because of Pesci's performance. His last scene was truly great, displaying a lot of depth in saying just two words, it was masterful stuff. This was an easy slam dunk choice for the win by the Academy.

Bruce Davison - Longtime Companion

This was the first mainstream film that dealt with the AIDS/HIV issue and it kinda shows. By that I mean, it sort of explains all of the information surrounding how the disease progressed and it's reception in the gay community at the time. Nowadays we know, or at least should know, the story of it being called the gay cancer at first and being unsure of what it was exactly and then it ravaging the gay community and the world trying to rally for a cure. This is one of the few, and I mean few, Oscar films I've seen so far that shows the gay community in such a frank and honest way. It treats them as regular people, as it should, and we get to see how the lives of these people are affected. Davison plays an older, affluent gay man whose longtime companion gets the disease and we see how he deals with that and the rest of his friends coming down with the disease. Davison is so caring and concerned and it all comes off as natural, as if we are peeking into their lives and not just watching a movie. His character is so tender and loving that you feel a real emotional connection to him and the other characters. This is evidenced in the big scene that a lot of people are probably familiar with and don't realize is from this film. That scene (minor spoilers, I guess) is when David (Davison) is sitting with his partner, Sean, who is frail and sick and gaunt and basically gone already and tells him to just let it go, that it's okay to not hold on. It's great acting, if underplayed a little bit but that seems to be how the character operates. It hits heavy and makes you feel for the characters. It's easy to see why this performance was nominated as it brings to the light the AIDS epidemic and makes it a bit more relatable and Davison is the one with the big scene. This is a decent way for the Academy to acknowledge a community besides just wearing red ribbons.

Andy Garcia - The Godfather Part III

Garcia is surprisingly a good fit for the character he plays. His character is the bastard son of Sonny Corleone and Garcia nails his father's idiosyncrasies. His temper is just like Sonny's and Garcia mimics Caan's knuckle bite and hand clap thing he does. It was actually nice to see that included because it throws back to the original in such a subtle way, a nice little nod. Garcia is pretty good as the bastard son who wants to work for the family and do more to help out. He gains the trust of Michael and becomes a protege, gaining power and making moves. It's a different sort of rise to power than the other two godfather's we've seen and this one was an eager, hungry one. Whereas Vito was born of necessity and the betterment of his family and Michael was reluctance and ultimately legitimacy, Vincent wants the responsibility to help keep the family great and powerful in an ever increasingly complex world. Garcia acquits himself well as the future Don and surprised me with how good his performance was, if just a little too slick at times. Not to heap too much praise, as Garcia isn't as strong as his former Godfather nominees since we never get to the heart of Vincent. And I won't mention the awkward, puzzling love plot with an awful Sofia Coppola who is also his cousin. Garcia is good, but not up to the standards of The Godfather series.

Grahame Greene - Dances with Wolves

I hate to say it, but the main (possibly only) reason Greene is nominated here is to be the Native American representation for the film. He's also the only mainstream actor of all of the Native American actors and I don't see the Academy at that time nominating some no name guy or gal, no matter how well liked the film was. Greene plays Kicking Bird, the Holy Man/Medicine Man of the Lakota Sioux we follow. He's the most open to talking with Costner and trying to learn from him instead of just simply killing him. The two become friends and equals and Costner falls for Greene's adopted white daughter. The performance is decent enough but it feels important simply because Greene is the only Indian that gets to act and has a lot of dialogue and screen time. That's not to knock Greene at all, it's just an unfortunate fact. Greene is solid and believable for what he's given to do and is a very likable character. His gentle demeanor contrasts with some of the other rash and emotional tribe members, which makes Greene stick out even more in a positive way. Even though this feels like a token nomination, I'm at least happy that a Native American was nominated. It's only the second acting nomination for a Native American and I'm all for more minorities getting their due recognition by the Academy. Unfortunately this nomination and performance is not much more than just a footnote in Oscar history. Greene is fine but not at all close to a vote for the win.

Al Pacino - Dick Tracy

I have been waiting to see this film for such a long time when I saw it was on the list. I remember the trading cards of all the characters from back when this film came out in 1990 and being interested in all these comic book characters that I'd never heard of and all the bright colors and crazy faces/people on the cards. I remember the commercials for the film and it kind of throws me back to being like 5 or so again. I wish I could say Pacino is great and fantastic in this, but he's not. He's average and unfortunately reminds me way too much of his Scarface performance. Whenever he gets loud and angry, it feels like the same Pacino we've seen a thousand times since that film. Pacino portrays Big Boy Caprice, a mob leader in the Dick Tracy lore who is the main villain. Pacino is purposefully loud and over the top, which is exactly what the character calls for. I saw a blogger criticize Pacino for this and laughed because of how absurd that is. The Caprice character is meant to be broad and over the top. But the thing about the character is that you don't find it funny or compelling or all that interesting. That's unfortunate because a character like this should bring in the humorous element or have some trait that sets it apart from every comic book villain ever instead of being extremely basic. I know that speaks to the actual source material but Pacino's character needed a little chutzpah. And let's be honest, can you see the Academy giving Pacino his first Oscar for this kind of film and performance? Nah, of course you can't! The Academy was definitely in a give Pacino an Oscar at any cost mood but thankfully this wasn't the winner of that awful raffle. The film is fun and the performance is okay, but it's not the best work from Pacino.


Not bad. I mean, even Greene isn't awful by any means, he just is a token nominee. That's somewhat okay because how many times are Indians going to get nominated seriously at the Oscars? Not very many. Then maybe unsurprisingly after watching them all is Pacino coming in 4th. It's a purposefully over the top performance that fits the film, but isn't really all that good and wears in actually entertaining. Interesting that Michael Corleone would go up against his protege, Vincent in this race. Garcia edges out Pacino for 3rd and actually does a pretty good job with his character and slight arc. It's just nowhere near as good as his predecessors. Davison sneaks into 2nd with a calming, caring, almost soothing performance in a film that is better than you'd think it would be. He's good and has a big message behind him that helps. Pesci, though, is the unquestionable winner of this category. When you think of Best Supporting Actor wins, this is one of the first - if not the first - names that pops up. Can't beat it. A decent group all around.

Oscar Winner: Joe Pesci - Goodfellas
My Winner:  Joe Pesci - Goodfellas
Andy Garcia
Bruce Davison
Al Pacino
Grahame Greene