Best Picture 1988

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

1988 Best Picture

Rain Man

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

The Accidental Tourist

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

Dangerous Liaisons

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

Mississippi Burning

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

Working Girl

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


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

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