Leading Actor 1994

No rants, just films. Haven't seen two of these, so I'm excited to watch those. Let's do it.

1994 Best Actor

Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump

The big question surrounding this win is whether or not Tom Hanks deserved to win his second Best Actor Oscar in a row. Now, I'll have to watch Philadelphia again since it's been awhile but I know that one had an important message behind it. This was just a crowd pleaser of a film with some minor messages behind it but nothing like the AIDS/Homosexual thing behind his first win. There's no doubt that Tom Hanks is a great actor. He shows wide range in his performances and smart choices in them, as well. I read that Hanks mirrored his distinct way of talking in this film after the little boy who played his younger version. Instead of coming up with his own accent, he matched the kid so there would be continuity from young to old Gump. That just shows his dedication and how good of an actor he really is. I also think this is the performance everyone remembers he won an Oscar for and most people would probably struggle remembering the first one which says a lot about the lasting appeal of his Gump character. Hanks gets to do everything in this performance, too, which is probably great for any actor. He plays football, he plays a soldier, he meets all kinds of famous people, he gets to play this sweet, loving, caring man who finds the good in everyone. Lots of variety and a testament to Hanks that he can be so many things and still deliver a good performance. If I sound a bit non enthused about this one, it's kind of accurate. I mean, it's Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump and we all know it's a good performance in a well liked film for his second Oscar. Hard to hate on him and I don't feel enough love to sit here and write a super glowing review. It is what it is and I just want to leave it at that. I don't know if this will be my winner yet, so let's wait and see.

Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption

I wanted to be like this is the performance that really launched Freeman's career, but that would be ignoring his roles in Oscar Best Picture Winners Driving Miss Daisy and Unforgiven. So Freeman didn't need much help to get recognized and nominated. It was simply a matter of time. This may have launched his narration career, though, which is totally legit. He might not be voicing those VISA commercials if not for this film. The big thing to think about when it comes to Freeman's nomination and performance is that it's really a coin flip between him and Tim Robbins. They are both great and they both carry the film. I slightly prefer Robbins because his character is a bit mysterious and little more interesting because of that. However, Freeman is buoyed by his narration which becomes like it's own character. For a lot of his screen time, Freeman is reactionary to Robbins which makes his performance seem more Supporting. He's sort of a leader in the prison and takes a liking to Robbins and we see them interact, with the focus on Robbins. Freeman is just off to the side, never quite fading to the background because his presence keeps him firmly out front. Both Freeman and Robbins have a warm relationship, one that is mostly full of unspoken respect for each other and is seen as a very manly relationship. The two have excellent chemistry and lend a certain effective quality to their performances. Towards the end, the film turns itself over to Freeman with Robbins out of the picture. The film reaches it's emotional zenith at this time, so Freeman benefits from the viewer swelling up with emotions. He does an admirable job of keeping us emotional, too. Hard to argue against Freeman being in this group and no real point in wanting Robbins to be nominated instead because both do a great job with their performances. It's a good performance in a well liked film.

Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George

I had always wondered what kind of performance this would be when looking at the category. Hawthorne is not someone I knew and would not have been able to put a face to the name so I was curious if this was just a veteran nomination or some token thing for him. After watching this wonderful little film, I have to say that Hawthorne very much belongs in this group and there is nothing token about his nomination at all. He plays King George III and he is a booming presence in this film. King George starts going a little nutty (which scholars now think was because of porphyria, though some still think it was some unknown mental illness) and his son and some other political players want to take control of power. King George eventually comes out of it and goes back to ruling. The character is probably every actor's wet dream. George is larger than life before the illness and with the issue becomes even more larger than life. Hawthorne portrays all this beautifully because it's an easy role to let get out of control and become a farce but Hawthorne keeps it natural never letting the character get the better of him. When we first meet George, Hawthorne has this commanding, regal presence while also being quite hilarious as well. It's a great introduction to both George and Hawthorne. The character allows Hawthorne to do all kinds of acting from the stern leader to roaring anger to reading Shakespeare to acting wild and crazy to being kind and tender with his wife to being fully aware of the political machinations going on in his absence to just generally having good, comedic fun. The performance goes all over the place and Hawthorne makes it all fit together nicely and feel natural which I think is the key to why it's such a good performance. The crazy antics never feel too much and I certainly didn't think it was making fun of the King or of the illness, it was measured and fully believable. Hawthorne still remains dignified as he goes through the antics of the illness. Even throughout the film, Hawthorne is very funny in that sly sort of British way and I loved it. It's a performance I wasn't expecting but am very much pleased at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it. Hawthorne more than holds his own against the stars in this category and could possibly be my winner.

Paul Newman - Nobody's Fool

Pretty sure no one remembers this Paul Newman nomination. I love the hell out of Paul Newman, including his salsas and dips. But I had never heard of this until the project and when I finally watched it, realized this wasn't quintessential Newman. I wouldn't say this is a must watch unless you are a huge Paul Newman fan or a crazy guy like me watching all the acting nominations. It's not a bad performance by any means, it's just that it's obviously a step down from what we know Newman can deliver. It's also an older performance and has the stink of a veteran nomination surrounding it. It doesn't feel like a can't miss performance, either, that was going to get nominated anyway. I know I'm making this sound like the worst performance ever but it's actually quite entertaining to some degree. Newman was able to make me laugh out loud with his character which goes a long way with me. He plays an older guy who ran out on his family years ago and is living in the next town over and then his son comes back into his life and Newman discovers he's got a grandson. He pays more attention to the grandson and also his son by extension. He also works for Bruce Willis and flirts with his wife while also trying to sue Willis for workers compensation for his bum knee. He also keeps stealing Willis' snow blower and torments the local cop (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and is generally kind of an asshole. But he's Paul Newman so he makes his asshole nature likable and entertaining. It's a convoluted plot as you can tell from my description which doesn't touch on a couple other topics. Still, it's pretty entertaining and it's a film and performance that grows on you even if it isn't classic Newman work.

John Travolta - Pulp Fiction

This performance put John Travolta back on the map and gave him a second wind and it's quite easy to see why it did so. Travolta plays Vincent Vega and is just plain cool. He has the slicked back hair, the black suit, casually talks about nonsense while holding a big gun and is funny to boot. I think one of the main reasons his performance works so well is that both he and Samuel L. Jackson have this amazing, natural chemistry. They just seem like two guys who have been working with each other for years and have a deep understanding of what the other is all about. They are like an odd couple that are so at ease with each other that when they argue it's comical instead of dramatic. They each make the others performance that much better. Travolta is also very calm and cool during the whole film, minus the overdose scene of course. But he just kinda takes things in and goes with the flow in his laid back style. When he accidentally shoots a guy in the face it's as if he accidentally spilled coffee on someone because of how Travolta plays it and it's hilarious and demented all at the same time. Travolta comes across as incredibly likable and a lot of that has to do with how well he interacts with everyone else in the film. He and Uma have great chemistry just like with Jackson and even in the few meetings with the other characters, his genuineness shines through. It's definitely a strong performance that sort of sneaks up on you as you watch it because it might not register as easily as Jackson's performance or some of the other more notable characters but by the end you are left wishing you could see more of Travolta and his character. It's a fun performance and one I'm glad Tarantino plucked Travolta out of his funk to play Vega because I can't see anyone else portraying that character as good as he did.


Another really tough Best Actor group to choose from. Again I dislike none of these performances which tells you just how good they all are. I guess my 5th would be Newman because it's lesser Newman even though it kinda grew on me and it's a very likable performance. I wouldn't mind watching it again just because. My 4th would Freeman because it just wasn't his time to win and because he's good but not exceptional, which is an important factor in this group. Travolta would be my 3rd because he's just so cool in this film and a natural for Tarantino's dialogue. Great rapport with Samuel L. Jackson for a really good performance. Now the tough part for me. I loved the hell out of Hawthorne's performance. It kinda blew me away and I wasn't expecting to like it so much. Then there's Hanks' second win in a row. Maybe it Hanks fatigue but I'm leaning towards Hawthorne. Gump is an iconic character and one that any actor would be proud to have on their resume. It's entered the public consciousness and is always remembered fondly when you say Tom Hanks. It's a fine win but my heart is saying Hawthorne is my winner because I just frankly loved the hell out of it. Maybe I'll look back on this and change my mind but for now, it's Hawthorne. A surprise for everyone, I'm sure.

Oscar Winner: Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump
My Winner:  Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George
Tom Hanks
John Travolta
Morgan Freeman
Paul Newman

Leading Actress 1994

This starts a string of Best Actress categories where I haven't seen any of the nominees, although a mayyyy have seen Little Women? Don't really remember. In any event, I'm excited to find a hidden gem or two. Hopefully, anyway.

1994 Best Actress

Jessica Lange - Blue Sky

This film has an interesting history to it. It was filmed during the summer of 1990, completed in 1991, and then was shelved for three years because the studio that made it went bankrupt. It then was released in 1994 and got Lange her second Oscar. The other interesting thing is that it co-stars Tommy Lee Jones, who hadn't even been nominated for his first Oscar when this was made. He would go on to win for his second nomination all before this film was released. It creates a crazy what might have been for the 1991 Best Actress race where Jodie Foster won her second for Silence of the Lambs. Would Lange have won that year? Doubtful given how loved Foster's film and performance were that year. Would Lange have even been nominated? Hard to say until I get to 1991, but some fascinating things to think about all before even watching this film. I haven't seen much of Lange's work besides her turn on American Horror Story, but I know she's one fierce woman. She has presence and I was excited to see her Oscar winning performance. She plays an Army wife to Jones, who is a bit of a wild woman, an ingenue, a free spirit. That causes problems for Jones because the Army doesn't like her ways and it strains the relationship the two have. It's evident from the beginning that she is equal parts Marilyn Monroe and damaged woman, a hothead, a woman who would fit right in in a Tennessee Williams film. Her performance hearkens back to the time the film is set, the 1950s. I could easily see her as a volatile actress in one of those steamy, sexy films that starred Elizabeth Taylor or Vivien Leigh. The role gives Lange the freedom to act loudly and purposefully because it fits within the narrative. Lange's character is supposed to be impulsive, shocking, tempestuous, and flighty. She's like a young girl that never fully grew up, instead acting like the women she sees in the movies and magazines. There's times where her behavior was annoying and I sympathized with Jones having to deal with her causing professional and personal problems for them. In that respect, Lange did a great job in making her character so convincing as a misguided woman. I enjoyed the performance for what it was but I feel like I'm still figuring out if I love it and think it's a good winner. Probably a good thing that this got pushed back a few years so that Lange was able to win another Oscar in what appears to be a mediocre year for the category. I might not love the character but I know that Lange is a quality actress and it showed in this performance.

Jodie Foster - Nell

After watching this and reading some reviews, the consensus seems to be that this was an awful film with a brilliant performance by Foster. I'd say the truth is a little more in the middle. The film itself isn't the best. It's predictable and doesn't have anything convincing to say about Foster's character. By that I mean it treats her character like she is this pure, untouched, almost perfect representation of a person because she's been isolated. Jodie Foster plays the wild child, Nell, whose mother dies and is discovered all alone in a cabin deep in the forest. Liam Neeson wants to help protect her from scientists who want to study her. Nell has her own made up language that Neeson eventually cracks but most of the film is spent trying to figure it out and reach out to Nell on a personal level. Foster is intense, giving 110% of herself to the performance. I understand why everyone calls it brilliant and accomplished because it is. It's a masterclass of acting when it comes to Oscar bait. I kinda hate to call it Oscar bait because it feels too good for that but it really is Oscar bait. It's like a pitcher who dominates and throws a complete game but still gets the loss, that's what it feels like. Thing is that I don't feel as if Foster elevates the material at all. She doesn't make it a better film, just keeps it from being truly awful. She speaks in a made up language for the entire film which is dedication and portrays the feral woman with wide eyed wonder and violent, scared outbursts. It could almost be a horror film if it were edited differently which is how the performance comes off at times, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just that Foster brings an intensity to the character that's not matched by anything else in the film. It's almost trying too hard. Foster deserved a better film around her for the type of performance she gave. And honestly, do you think the Academy would have given Foster a 3rd Oscar in 3 tries in just 7 years? Not for this kind of film.

Miranda Richardson - Tom and Viv

This is not that great of a film, at least for me it's not all that interesting. It's about the relationship between T.S. Eliot and Vivienne Haigh-Wood, which actually after I read up on it sounded a little more interesting than what this film showed us. That's partly why I don't care much for the film but it's also such a minor subject. So if you are going to do it, it has to be strong. Richardson does her best to make it a strong film because she does put in the effort needed for her character. She is the Viv in the title and Viv is a very temperamental woman. She has these wild mood swings and she gets frequent heavy menstrual cycles. It's explained as simply being a possible hormonal imbalance at the end of the film years after the relationship. But she does get into these moods of despair and she's embarrassed by her periods and wonders if Tom is disgusted by her. She takes some medications but they make her loopy and exacerbate the mood problems. It's an interesting role for sure and Richardson is up to the task of balancing out all the different things needed of her character. From being loving and friendly to being talkative with no filter to hysterics to despair to other mental issues. It's a tough role that Richardson excels at and makes Viv into a believable character. But it's still kinda not enough. Yes, she's moody and temperamental but we never really get to dive into the character herself. Viv comes off and wickedly smart and a good writer, or at least editor, for Tom and we don't get a fully formed Viv. Richardson tries her damnedest to give us something to go off of but ultimately it circles back to she's kooky and needy. I feel also that the film rushes things too much. In the beginning we get a brief scene of their quick romance together before they are married and having issues. At the end when she's put into the institution we don't get enough explanation of what's going on with Viv. It rushes to being years later and not telling us much of importance about the two leads and how everything has affected Viv. Basically I believe the performance could have been much stronger if the story and the details of the film were fully fleshed out. Richardson was as good as she could be with the material she had to work with and that's pretty commendable. I wish we could have gotten a better film to showcase her.

Winona Ryder - Little Women

Little Women is a nice little film. I wanna say I saw part of it, if not all of it, while in elementary school or maybe middle school. It's the type of film that does get shown in school because it's based on a book that gets taught and is for the most part a gentle ride. The story does get a little depressing towards the end when it becomes almost a lamentation on growing up and growing apart from friends and family. Of course, it rounds itself off and goes back to being the nice little film with a happy ending. Ryder plays the main little woman, Jo, who is the second oldest and an aspiring writer and we go through life with her as our guide. That's essentially what Ryder is: a guide for the viewer. She escorts us through scene after scene and is the one sister we become the most familiar with. But this film is most definitely an ensemble picture and the other sisters are all equally good and entertaining. We may not get to know them as deeply as Jo but they are nonetheless ever present. I would say they help Ryder look better because they are all accomplished actresses. You've got a young Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, and Susan Sarandon as the mother which is good company to have in a film. Plus a young Christian Bale gets to interact with the sisters so there are lots of chances for some very strong acting. I say all this because I don't really think Ryder stood head and shoulders above the rest of the group, just that her character was the main one we follow around for the entire film. I think that helps her get a nomination here as does her being nominated the year before and the Academy loving the chance to crown another young actress. Ryder was in her prime so it makes sense they wanted to reward her because it makes themselves look good, too. The performance is fine, she definitely gives it her all and it makes for a pleasant experience. It just doesn't quite have the requisite power to pull off the win. She's a spunky child who grows up in a loving family and powers through the difficulties she faces in life and it's all a nice sentiment. It's just not strong enough to win.

Susan Sarandon - The Client

This was towards the end of the Academy's love affair with Sarandon that culminated in a Best Actress Oscar the next year. Just as Lange was rewarded this year, it was Sarandon's turn in 1995. Once you start closely following the categories these things jump out as being so obvious. There's a lot of times where you'll see an actor or actress nominated a couple times before finally winning. Just another one of the Academy's idiosyncrasies. Sarandon plays a lawyer who takes on the case of a boy who sees a guy kill himself after telling him the location of a body. This sets in motion the story of the mobsters wanting to shut the boy up and the DA in Louisiana (Tommy Lee Jones) to come after him for the information he was told. Sarandon takes the boy on to protect him from the unscrupulous DA who doesn't care what it means if the boy talks, just that he'll look good with another conviction. It's a strong, successful, independent woman role for Sarandon and while I do enjoy seeing those kinds of roles, it's almost a cookie cutter character. It doesn't really matter that Sarandon played her since the lawyer could have been portrayed by any woman to the same effect. That's not to denigrate Sarandon as she is more than capable of giving a good performance helped along with her Southern charm and charisma. It's also probably a familiar role because it's based off a John Grisham book, so it's not as if the character breaks new ground. Like I said, Sarandon is perfectly fine as the lawyer and I enjoyed watching her thrash the other hotshot men with her legal acumen. It's a good role model type of performance and one that I can't really put down because it makes the story a lot more interesting than say if it was a man as the lawyer. Part of that is because Sarandon is such a good actress and is able to give the performance a little more energy. She's also kind of a badass which is nice to see from a leading actress performance. Definitely don't get enough of those. It's a good performance and a very 90s performance.


This isn't a group that really inspires me. I wasn't really super into any of these, though none of them were bad. Just kind of a meh year overall. I guess the 5th for me would be Richardson because the film is meh and even though she tries to do a good job in a difficult role, it just didn't do much for me. Again, not bad just not anything that made me excited. Ryder would be the 4th because it's more of an ensemble picture and she doesn't exactly shine above the others. Sarandon would be in the middle but I think I like her performance the most even though it's a slight one compared to the other two. It's not worth a win, just a watch. Foster is Oscar bait so that's why she's my number two. Lange stays the winner because there is no other performance that could really top it, so might as well keep her there. Not a glowing indictment, I know. I dunno, just not a year where I was super into any of the performances or films, really. Hopefully 1993 gives me something to get excited about.

Oscar Winner: Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
My Winner:  Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
Jodie Foster
Susan Sarandon
Winona Ryder
Miranda Richardson

Supporting Actor 1994

Something trippy about this project is that I tend to forget I'm watching films that are 20 years old. I forget that some of the people I'm watching have been dead for years or when they do a summary of characters at the end of a film that it's not contemporary. Saying some character is now living peacefully in such and such place but that was in 1995 so it's not relevant anymore is definitely a weird feeling. I didn't ever think of that when starting this project that I'd forget that I'm watching the past, the history of Oscar. It's like my brain wants to think of everything as new since a lot of the time these films are new to me. Just a little trippy thought I had to share. This will be a good group because I've seen 3 of these already. Just hoping the other 2 are just as good.

1994 Best Supporting Actor

Martin Landau - Ed Wood

Damn, another really good supporting actor performance to choose from (yes, I watch these out of order so this is the third of the five I've seen) making this an extremely tough choice. Landau plays the famous horror movie actor Bela Lugosi, or maybe I should say Landau brings Lugosi back from the dead. I don't even say that jokingly because Landau really inhabits the spirit of Lugosi in all aspects of the men. Landau is the spitting image of Lugosi and nails the mannerisms and way he walks from what I've seen of the original man. He seriously brings Lugosi to life and it's incredible to watch. Landau does get ample opportunity to show off his acting chops because Lugosi gets a ton of screen time and really the film is more about Bela Lugosi than it is about Ed Wood. It's a supporting turn but the case could be made for a shared leading role if Depp didn't carry the film. When it comes to the performance, though, make no mistake - it's not just an impersonation. There's a ton of depth to Landau's performance as the character is more than just comic relief. Lugosi is a sad figure, a man addicted to drugs, out of money and holding on to his fading legacy. As good as Landau is when it comes to acting like Lugosi, he may be even better at portraying the tragic, profound moments in the film. Lugosi long for yesteryear when he was acting and making good horror movies and was a wanted commodity. Now he's addicted to morphine and a sad, angry man. So it's sweet when Ed Wood runs into him and just wants him to be in his film no matter his current issues. This reinvigorates Lugosi who gives his all to the craft once again despite the film being beyond awful. Again, lot's more to this performance than just actor portrays famous old horror movie guy. Landau is also pretty gung ho with the comedy and acting like it's actually the 20's or 30s and it's a lot o fun to watch. It's definitely a really good performance that can stand on its own but I do think it being a role about old Hollywood sure helps since that's something the Academy loves. Not to mention the veteran actor angle. A lot going right for Landau in this Oscar win.

Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction

Do I even have to talk about this one, motherfucker?! But seriously, when you think of Samuel L. Jackson, do you think of any other role? I certainly don't. Maybe you think of him as Nick Fury or maybe one of his other 400 films come to mind, but this is probably his most famous - and best - performance of his career. I really don't think I can say anything bad about it this one at all. Jackson is perfect as the hitman, Jules and brings such a presence and gravitas and general sense of bad ass-ness that it's hard to argue against him possibly being the winner. In fact, I think Jackson is the best part of Pulp Fiction hands down. When he's onscreen, you're watching for whatever he's gonna say and/or do next. Jackson makes it seem effortless, too. Some of his other performances, even in Tarantino films, are too long winded or build off his reputation too much. Here, he creates that reputation and Tarantino doesn't saddle Jackson down with too much dialogue. It's just enough and it's obviously done perfectly. We all remember the Bible passage and the Does he look like a bitch?! line because Jackson makes them so memorable. I mean, it really is a great piece of acting and I can't find any faults in it. If you haven't seen Pulp Fiction yet, what exactly are you waiting for? This performance alone should convince you to go watch it. Truly a great performance that is going to make choosing a winner for this category extremely hard, which is something I very much like!

Chazz Palminteri - Bullets Over Broadway

Full disclosure, I met Chazz my first year working for my local film festival. I thought it was telling that he brought his elderly mother to the event and that spoke to what a great person he was. He was very nice to me. That has nothing to do with this performance but I just like saying I met him and he was an awesome person. But when it comes to his performance, I think he nails it here. Seriously, without any prejudice I think he delivers one hell of a performance. He plays a gangster henchman that escorts Tilly's character around. His first real scene he dominates by almost beating up John Cusack but doing so in such a restricted, subdued manner. I loved how Chazz came across when being tough. It really did feel very natural and I never once doubted Palminteri as a brute. So Chazz sits on all the readings for the play as he babysits Tilly and then eventually pipes up with his two cents on the goings on and how the play can be improved. His suggestions are spot on and make the play into a better product and Cusack is amazed that the bodyguard is able to come up with this. Chazz never plays it as if he's too eager to jump in and get to work. He just wants to toe the party line so to speak and escort Tilly around and knock some heads in when told to. But in a natural progression, Cusack asks for more help and Chazz gives him his ideas and then it becomes their play and not just Cusack's. The performance during all of this is beautiful. It's never too villainous or too hokey. It feels like a guy giving honest feedback on what he sees and hears everyday. Even the end when he shoots Tilly feels legit. Chazz doesn't want to see his product harmed and you can't really blame him. I really do think this is the best male character Woody Allen has written that I've seen so far. That's huge! That's like 23 films. You can't not like Palminteri in this film. This is a well deserved nomination that will be tough to beat.

Paul Scofield - Quiz Show

I'm going to admit right off the bat that after an hour and forty minutes into this film, I had no idea who Paul Scofield was playing. I know he already won a Best Actor Oscar but I had no idea what he looked like and didn't look him up before I started watching. When I found out it was Ralph Fiennes' father in the film, it made sense. He did have the look and airs of an old British actor. He is Mark Van Doren who I guess was a famous literary and intellectual family back then. Mark was a writer and professor at Columbia and just a very sharp guy in general. He was also supportive of his son even if it was in a roundabout way. He kidded with his son about being on TV and it was all some good natured ribbing but the love was evident. There's not a lot to the role other than Scofield and Fiennes talking about the game show and discussing literary things. He also has a scene where he's rooting on his son while watching his brand new TV and turns it off because he's too nervous. A very natural thing to do. The big scene is at the end when Fiennes tells Scofield that he was given the answers for the game show and Scofield seems incredulous at first that his son would even need the answers to begin with because he's so smart. He is superbly convincing in this moment of being let down, in disbelief, and fully supportive still of his son. He accepts that his son cheated but stands with him like any good father. It's decent supporting work that I wonder if his previous Oscar winning status helped get him another nomination. He's good but doesn't exactly standout and blow you away. In fact, I'd rather have John Turturro in this spot if you can call him a supporting actor. I was so enthralled by Turturro and wanted to see more of him after the beginning. I don't exactly feel that way for Scofield but I do recognize that he's a great actor and is definitely believable in this role. I guess I was expecting more based on who he was in real life and was slightly disappointed that he was just playing the proud, supportive father. I'm glad the film is represented, though, because I really enjoyed it.

Gary Sinise - Forrest Gump

Lieutenant Dan, ice cream! That's the first and only thing I remember when it comes to Sinise in this film. Okay, so I remember more, but that's what I like to remember because it's a hilarious line to me. Anyway, I always forget how good Sinise is as an actor. He obviously succeeds in these military/authoritarian roles like this and in the next year's Apollo 13 as an astronaut. His performance is a feel good one, too, since he starts out wanting to die in combat like all his ancestors to being dejected that he was saved and lost his legs to finding a new lease on life with Gump and the shrimp business. It's a satisfying arc and one made better by Sinise's acting ability. You really do root for him and it's a perfectly supporting role. He creates a memorable character that doesn't overshadow Tom Hanks, but instead complements him and gives us something entertaining to watch. I'm not even sure what else I can say about him. He's good, not the best. I enjoyed watching him a lot more than I remember from previous viewings. His character sticks in the mind more than any other besides Gump for me and that's got to count for something. I've also got to say how much I love what Sinise does for veterans. That might trickle into my adoration for this performance a little bit but I love he genuinely cares about us veterans. It doesn't seem to be something he does for publicity, either, which is nice. I'm definitely glad he was nominated here because he deserved some recognition for Lieutenant Dan.


Welp, another year, another great - and tough! - Supporting Actor category. It continues to be my favorite category simply because it has some of the best acting out of this project and typically has the best films overall. This year is no different as you could make a case for everyone in this group if you really wanted. I will say that I was disappointed with Scofield because I was really hoping for something big and important given his pedigree but it's still a good performance, just the weakest of the bunch. Now I get into the really tough part because there's not much separating the next 4 guys. I guess I could put Sinise 4th because while I enjoy his performance, the others are all a bit stronger overall. Palminteri would be my middle guy. I really enjoyed his performance a lot and maybe in a weaker year he could have won, but the top 2 are really strong actors. I'd give Jackson the win because I think his performance was flawless and iconic and one of the best of all time. Landau wowed me because I forgot how great his performance actually was. It's got a ton of depth that might not be apparent when think of the film. All in all this was a fantastic year and I hope I get a ton more like this!

Oscar Winner: Martin Landau - Ed Wood
My Winner:  Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction
Martin Landau
Chazz Palminteri
Gary Sinise
Paul Scofield

Supporting Actress 1994

Only seen one of these films prior to now so it'll be interesting to see what I find. Always interesting, too, when you get double nominees from the same film. Who will overshadow who? Let's find out!

1994 Best Supporting Actress

Dianne Wiest - Bullets Over Broadway

My second straight Woody Allen Supporting Actress winner who was of course the first chronologically. I'm starting to get a little more into these Woody Allen films because the quality is starting to ramp up as I go back in time. I know that he had a lot of duds in his later years (because I watched them all, ugh) but I've enjoyed these last two films of his. This was Wiest's second Supporting Actress win for a Woody Allen film which is quite remarkable honestly. I know Wiest from Law and Order, since that's what I grew up on, and it's nice to see she's a decorated film actress, too. I was eager to see just what kind of actress she was since she was the noble District Attorney on the show. Wiest plays Helen Sinclair, an older veteran stage actress who becomes romantically involved with the writer/director of the play, John Cusack. Wiest's protrayal of her character is a boozy, seductive one and it works. She's a very overstated actress, very melodramatic and it's easy to see why she was nominated and won. It's an easily likable performance, one that allows for Wiest to overact without any repercussions. The role begs her to be this loud actress who enjoys being with Cusack's character and to be very funny at times. It's also a very supporting role because Tilly is the more prominent supporting actress. It does kinda surprise me that she won for this because Tilly does dominate the film, even though both are pretty entertaining. Maybe it's the Academy going back to what is familiar, I dunno. But though Wiest is entertaining as the overacting, alcoholic veteran actress, she does get overshadowed a bit. I'll have to watch the rest to figure out if she stands a chance at a win.

Rosemary Harris - Tom and Viv

Well, there's usually one performance that I wonder why it was nominated at all and this one is it. The film itself isn't all that great so it's not like she got swept up in the hype of a film everyone loved. That leads me to believe this is a veteran nomination and a career reward because that is the only thing that can explain why she's in this group. Now, I don't want to sound too harsh but there's not much to this role really. And while I say a similar thing about Helen Mirren, she at least leaves a mark on the film/audience. Harris is just there in this one, unfortunately. She plays the mother to Viv, who is a temperamental woman who marries the poet T.S. Eliot. Viv is a difficult person to live with because she suffers from some mood swings and other maladies which get explained at the end as basically a hormonal imbalance. She gets thrown in the loony bin anyway and that's the story. Harris is her concerned mother that is an upper crust woman with the typical British stuffiness. That's how she comes off when we first meet her but the character does warm up a bit by the end. She consults with Tom (T.S. Eliot played by Willem Dafoe) about her daughter and how she's doing and about putting her in an institution. She doesn't get much opportunity to act until a final scene towards the end but it's kinda too little, too late for me. She just doesn't do a whole lot within the story and Harris doesn't get a chance to shine. There's not much here so it leaves me wondering what else was out there that was prevented from getting it's due. Harris isn't bad but she's also not that particularly amazing. She's a woman doing what's asked of her and that's about it. Not a great nomination.

Helen Mirren - The Madness of King George

This film is a hoot! I read another blog that said this was a boring period piece so I was a little apprehensive going into this one but that description couldn't be further from the truth. This film is incredibly funny and certainly entertaining, not sure what the other blog watched. It follows King George III and his descent into madness and possible take over by some of the other political players in that time. The film itself is very theatrical and it's based off a play, which makes sense. Mirren, in her first nomination, plays King George's wife, Queen Charlotte. She, like everyone else, benefits from the theatricality of the dialogue and delivers an equally funny and entertaining performance. She also is great at the tender and tough moments which allows her character to be pretty well rounded. She thoroughly loves the King and cares for his well being but can't really be there for him because of the times. Mirren doesn't have all that much to do honestly, but I did think she gave a good performance with what she had to work with. She was caring and entertaining and looked good doing it. I'm not sure this was something that was going to win this year, but I like that Mirren was represented because it most certainly helped her out with Oscar in the long run. It's a good performance in a really entertaining film most people will not have seen.

Uma Thurman - Pulp Fiction

You know I think this film has grown so large in our collective minds that this role now seems larger than it really is. Now that could be because Uma does do a pretty good job with her character and leaves a lasting impression on the film, which is all true. But reality is that it's not that big of a role time wise. Not that that really matters, it's just that it seems bigger when I think about the film. I forgot that she's not in the whole thing because she has a couple iconic and famous moments. That's a pretty big thing for a supporting actress to have in a film. Of course the film has a ton of those iconic moments so it's only natural that Uma would have a couple as well. I'm obviously talking about her dance scene with Travolta which is one of the first things that comes to mind when I think of this film. The other being the overdose adrenaline shot scene which is pretty gnarly. Uma plays Marsellus's wife and her scenes don't really have much of a point to the story, just kind of something that happens in the meantime, though not any less entertaining. She goes out, she dances, talks a lot, overdoses and is brought back to life. Uma, though, is pretty fantastic in the role. She's kind of sassy but not overly so and she oozes sex appeal without being overt about it. She and Travolta have great chemistry and read Tarantino's lines to perfection. One might look at this and say it's Pulp Fiction, Uma has got to be the winner! But even though she has some iconic scenes and she is plenty entertaining, it's not the best performance, for me anyway.

Jennifer Tilly - Bullets Over Broadway

Whereas Wiest was the boozy veteran stage actress, Tilly plays the brand new to acting and also awful at acting actress. Tilly is the girlfriend of a mob boss and her dream is to be an actress. Except she can't act for shit and her voice is extremely obnoxious and has that nails on chalkboard quality. I mean when she speaks, you understand why she wouldn't be a very good actress (which is funny considering Tilly made a living off of it). Anyway, the mob boss bankrolls John Cusack's new play so his girl can finally get a breakthrough in acting yet she is awful. Tilly has a lot of fun with the part and I read on IMDB that she was the only one allowed to ad-lib dialogue for her character which is something I guess Allen hates his actors to do. I love the energy that Tilly has for her character and she is hilarious at times with her exasperated digs at Cusack and the script. Tilly is very believable as the dopey mob girlfriend and her lack of fear and lack of charm really play into being a good character. Tilly has the flashier role out of the two nominated performances and it's easy to see why she was also nominated along with Wiest. I also think it's easy to side with Tilly because she's much more personable and outgoing and memorable, all because of Tilly. Woody Allen definitely writes some very interesting parts for women as evidenced by the myriad of actress nominations nd this is no different. Tilly is a lot of fun to watch work in Allen's world and she seems to fit right in with relative ease. Out of the two, I think I much prefer Tilly even though Wiest is still pretty good in her role.


After an underwhelming group, we get a really good supporting actress category. I'm always happy when that's the case. Really Harris is the only one I didn't like and that's just because she is clearly a veteran nomination (and apparently was Aunt May in the Spider-Man movies, which I didn't realize) and is easily the 5th. Then Mirren is 4th because she's a slight nominee this time around even though I liked her. Just not a whole lot to it really. Wiest is my 3rd because I preferred Tilly over her in the same film. Can't win if I like the other woman more than you. I just think Wiest gets overshadowed in her own film so Tilly is my winner because she's such a fun performance and I just liked it more. Simple as that. Uma is my second because she's memorable and really good, just think Tilly is a little more entertaining. Definitely not a bad group at all, though it could have been better. Maybe 1993 will be that for me!

Oscar Winner: Dianne Wiest - Bullets Over Broadway
My Winner:  Jennifer Tilly - Bullets Over Broadway
Uma Thurman
Dianne Wiest
Helen Mirren
Rosemary Harris

Best Picture 1995

Have I mentioned lately how glad I am that this category is only 5 films? Because I am. Though it would be awesome to see what other films would have made a 5-10 film list, this is plenty enough for me. By the time I get here, I'm usually a bit burnt out on the year and am glad I only have one or two left to watch since these get filtered out through the other categories. I'm always eager to move on to the next year and also watch films I've seen listed forever that seem larger than life to me. It's a cool feeling when I finally do both.

1995 Best Picture

Braveheart

There is certainly a lot to discuss when it comes to Braveheart. I'd be remiss if I didn't start off by mentioning the tons of historical inaccuracies this film propagates about William Wallace and history in general. Unforgivable is the fact that the Scots didn't even where kilts until hundreds of years after the events of the film. Then you can go down the list and mention that names, events, dates, characters meeting and existing are all inaccurate or just plain made up. It's almost too much to ignore. Yes, the film is compelling and full of action and adventure and beautiful scenery and amazing battles but if a historical epic isn't very accurate at all, should that detract from the film even if it's a fun watch? I say yes. It's all about William Wallace yet doesn't get all that much right about his life or the time period so this becomes just a fun, manly movie to watch instead of look to as some sort of high water mark for cinema. Then you can also talk about Mel Gibson's behavior toward gays and all of his controversies that were already very prevalent back in 1995. The treatment of gays in this film is obviously very laughable but not in the good comedic way. They are treated as a cheap joke and props instead of real characters. But that's more to Gibson's personality rather than the film though the film does no favors in that regard. With all of these issues, the film is still wildly entertaining. It may not be historically accurate but it is a fun ride to go on. It's beautifully shot and deserved it's Oscar for Cinematography. There's no doubt that Gibson has a good eye as a director even if he sacrifices reality for entertainment. I think as with all Director's who direct themselves in a film, most of the juicy, actorly moments go to Gibson himself. He gets all these big, flashy moments that work for the most part but can feel like scenes designed to showcase Gibson instead of William Wallace. All of the big speeches and soundbites sort of drive that theory home. But these are memorable scenes, too, so what does that say about Gibson as both actor and director? That he's very good at both! I think everyone has seen Braveheart at least once and it's one of those films that has entered the public's collective mind so everyone remembers at least something about it which is pretty remarkable. I don't mind Braveheart getting a nomination but I'm with a lot of others that say it's not a good winner just based on all of the above. A lot of blogs and people rank it as one of the worst Oscar winners in history because of all of that and I agree it's not a good winner. Not sure if it's one of the worst as I have a whole lot more to watch but I can see their point. I definitely wish something else had won this year.

Apollo 13

It had been so long since I had watched this film, so I was pretty pumped to finally watch it again. As I figured, it didn't disappoint at all. Apollo 13 has a lot of great things going for it. The main thing I like about it is that it takes the first 30 minutes and gets all the boring family stuff out of the way. We also see some of the training and have Gary Sinise get replaced by Kevin Bacon. Then it spends the remainder of the time focused on the mission itself and the three astronauts as they have to deal with their crisis. We do get some reactionary shots of the families every once in awhile and some fun scenes of mission control scrambling around and trying to figure out solutions to the problems the guys are facing. That's all fine but I'm glad that Ron Howard kept the focus on the astronauts without too much superfluous crap. The story sells itself. It doesn't need any extra familial tensions or whatever else you could throw in to make it I guess more accessible or something. Stay with the story and you'll have everyone on the edge of their seat as to what's going to happen next even when we already know they make it home safely. So I think that was a good choice by Howard because those scenes are so tense and captivating. The film also gets some great acting out of its leads and supporting players. Though I think my one main issue is that any female in this film gets short shrift because they don't have anything else to do other than look worried. Kathleen Quinlan got a nomination out of it but that's simply because the film itself did well. I think the women could have been better handled instead of relegated to nothing status. But I kinda get it because it's a manly movie about astronauts. I also have to say that the film looks wonderful, even after all these years. The space shots were remarkable and still impressive even though we've been spoiled in recent years with some great space films. I just wonder if this film were made today if it could be improved upon, because I'm not sure. Maybe some of the shots would look better and we'd spend more time looking at the spacecraft from the outside or something but Apollo 13 did a great job with it's effects. One other thing I wanted to mention is that it doesn't feel too rah rah American. The subject allows for that to happen but Howard doesn't overplay that side of the story instead sticking with a group of men trying to solve a problem and get home alive. I like that about Apollo 13. This is a film that easily could have won Best Picture and may get my vote after it's all said and done.

Babe

You might look down the list of Best Picture nominees and see this one and say what the heck, Babe?? That's a kids movie! And you'd be stating the obvious, but Babe is one hell of a film, no doubt about it and it totally deserves it's Best Picture nomination. Watching it just makes you feel good because it's that kind of film. It's about a pig that goes to a farm and thinks he's a sheep pig, rounding up the sheep like a sheepdog. It's told in these vignettes, which break the film up in about 10 minute or so increments though the story throughout is consistent. The film is only an hour and a half but it packs a great deal of story in those 90 minutes. There's so much going on that is really entertaining that I wish some other films would take note about the economy of force going on here. You don't need 3 hours if you can tell it in 90 minutes. The film also has great animatronic animal work by the Jim Henson Company to the point that I have no idea where the actual special effects are besides the mouths of the animals. Like did they use fake animals at any point? I don't know because the effects are so good and it never takes you out of the film in trying to guess where it is. It all feels natural and organic to the film which is great. The direction is actually fantastic, getting lots of great shots of the farm and the animals up close and capturing the action of the animals out in the fields. It's unobtrusive but also very dynamic which makes the film hum along at a great pace. The film is sad and dark at times but also heart warming, funny, and extremely likable. The sad parts are the selling of the sheep dogs and the killing of Maa and almost killing of Babe. I love that this kids film is willing to go to the dark places to tell it's story and get the point across about belonging and accepting and not rushing to judgment. I also love that a lot of scenes look like they are out of a kids book because it adds to the overall tone of the film as this small kids film but elevates it to this grandiose, important film. Babe is a credible film and a great addition to the list of Best Picture nominees and I'm so glad the Academy decided to reward it. I love this film.

Il Postino

Alright, so I wasn't really wanting to say more than like two sentences for this film. One, it doesn't deserve to be a Best Picture nominated film, at all. Two, it's Oscar nominated actor is not very good or interesting. I wanted to leave it at that but I must keep up appearances. The film is about Massimo Troisi's character who starts delivering mail, hence Il Postino (or The Postman), to Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda. It's kind of a slow film and it's only an hour and forty minutes. Troisi pesters Neruda to explain poetry and metaphors to him and then try and help him to win over Beatrice, a bar maid he likes. Troisi keeps to the background while the Neruda character dominates the story and the audience's attention. The story is also most entertaining when Neruda is around because he disappears in the last 30 minutes and the film just absolutely flounders. The time jumps considerably and often in the last 30 minutes that you forget that the characters have gone through years and years of change and I hate it. The end is sort of this wash of the story where everything is rushed through to get to the character dying. It runs out of steam when Neruda leaves the story because Troisi isn't interesting enough to sustain the film. It's also a very light film which isn't necessarily a bad thing but here it works against the film. Troisi is so sedated in his performance that it drags the film down for me. Like, okay he's learning what metaphors are - how cute. But then it goes on and on and then all the sudden the guy is married and having a kid and then dead. I don't care if that ruins it for you because you're not even going to watch it. It's really not all that interesting except for Neruda and besides that the film fails to entertain. If not for the sad circumstances surrounding this one since Troisi died the day after it wrapped filming, well, it wouldn't even have sniffed the Oscars. It's boring and very casual stuff. Not a good look for the Academy giving in to yet another Miramax bullying.

Sense and Sensibility

When it comes to thinking about 90s films, these are the type of films I first think about. Those old fashioned period pieces and Merchant-Ivory films that everyone lampoons but I'm highly looking forward to because they are always put down for being boring and for old women. Sense and Sensibility is a Jane Austen book and this adaptation (which won Emma Thompson an Adapted Screenplay Oscar) was filmed by Ang Lee. That's a lot of things going for it that keep it from being the stuffy old period pieces made strictly for women. From what I've read, Thompson changed the characters a bit to make them more likable and appealing for modern audiences and made the family more poor to highlight the depths of their fall. These changes work so well because the film and the story does feel more modern even though it is a period piece. The story is more relatable and the dialogue is not the stilted, wooden 18th Century word salad that other films are. It's nice to understand the characters and their motivations without having to digest dialogue meant to sound intelligent and proper. The acting is great throughout as the sisters are the standouts but also the suitors as well to some extent. We do get Hugh Grant's bumbling persona though it is tapered down quite a bit and Alan Rickman gives his Colonel Brandon some warmth and compassion you forget he's capable of after seeing him as a villain so much. The set pieces look great and Ang Lee does bring a bit of liveliness to the direction contributing to the modern feel. Most of all I found the story to be rather engaging. I wasn't sure if this would be a film I'd sit down and watch and get bored and have to finish over 2-3 days, but once I started it I was very much engrossed on what was going to happen to the sisters. The ending is a bit of a rushed let down but if the story is faithful to Austen's vision then that's more an indictment on her than on Lee or Thompson. This is one of the period piece films that makes sense as a Best Picture nominee and doesn't feel out of place in the slightest. I liked Sense and Sensibility a lot and am glad I've undertaken this project as I probably wouldn't have given it a chance otherwise.


A pretty interesting year when you really look at it, especially when you compare it to 1996. Big studio films winning out here over the indies, though Miramax does shoehorn one in on us. I definitely disliked Il Postino the most and really believe that without it's tragic backstory, it would never have made it on this list - and shouldn't have made it on here. It's not that good and it's not Oscar quality stuff. Would have loved to see Leaving Las Vegas or something else in this spot. Surprisingly, Braveheart is my 4th spot. It's inaccuracies are hard to forgive even if the film is entertaining. Not a good Best Picture winner. My middle film is Sense and Sensibility which I liked way more than I thought I would. It has a very modern feel even today so that was a nice bonus. Babe is such a likable film and very entertaining and a surprising Best Picture nominee. I can't quite pick it for my winner because it's so slight but I still love it anyway. My winner would be Apollo 13 which still holds up well years later for it's technical achievements. It's a very good film and an easy winner in this group. I think it would have held up as a good Oscar winner if it was chosen. All in all, not a bad year with some good surprises. Very much looking forward to 1994!

Oscar Winner: Braveheart
My Winner:  Apollo 13
Babe
Sense and Sensibility
Braveheart
Il Postino

Leading Actor 1995

This year has felt like it's lasted really long because of my film festival and birthday and work all getting in the way. Finally almost done with 1995 and the Best Actor category offers up some very interesting dudes. I've wanted to see Nicolas Cage's winning performance forever and now I get to do so. I'm interested in seeing if Massimo Troisi is as bad and unwarranted as everyone says so. And then you get Dreyfuss, Hopkins, and Penn in performances they didn't win but some people love and hate. So a good group and hopefully I can get through this quickly.

1995 Best Actor

Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas

Not a good film to watch while having a beer and relaxing, that's for sure. I've always looked at this year and wondered just how good Cage was to get a win, especially with his current money grabbing roles in forgettable films lately. It's easy to forget he was a great, great actor which he still is when he wants to be. But I always looked at this and wondered if I'd like it. I heard great things about it over the years so I was glad to finally see for myself. Cage definitely knocks it out of the park. He's so good and so convincing that if someone told me he was constantly drunk for this film that I would believe them. Acting drunk in a film is tough. A lot of great actors really suck at it and make it so comically unbelievable you wonder if they've ever been drunk. But Cage is so utterly believable that it's scary. He plays a screenwriter who gets fired and decides to go to Vegas to drink himself to death. He meets Shue's hooker and they have a little romance. It's a really depressing and sad look at alcoholism and the honesty with which Cage portrays his character is admirable. He's not this super charming, likable, relatable guy. He's a pathetic, creepy, loser that has accepted he hates life and is going to kill himself. Even when he and Shue get together, there's no happy ending with him stopping drinking. He just looks at it as a nice distraction on his way to death. I like that Cage continues to drink until he dies because it feels more honest and real. He looks the part of a guy drinking himself to death with the pale skin and the sunken eyes that are half open shuffling around and having tremors when he wakes up. Thing is, this being Cage there is an opportunity for him to overact or at least act like some of his recent films but he never does this. He plays his character exactly how he should be played. There's never the portrayal that him being drunk is funny or noble or easy to be around. We are shown all the different stages of his alcoholism and Cage is great in each one from the eager to drink one, to the soused and talking in accents and cracking jokes, to the rage of losing control, to the blacking out and passing out stages. I don't think you can call this a romantic performance. It's a thing of beauty to watch and reminds me that Cage was/is a gifted actor. I wish we'd get more performances like this and not his roles for cash. This is definitely a great performance, though, and even though it's a tough watch I'm glad I saw it.

Richard Dreyfuss - Mr. Holland's Opus

This is a pretty cliched movie, one you've probably seen countless times. In this iteration, we have Dreyfuss as the reluctant music teacher who eventually settles into his job and ends up touching the lives of his students and fighting with the establishment to keep the curriculum and then the students give him a big ol thank you at the end when he's made to retire. It's basically the male version of Music of the Heart minus the inner city stuff going on. The Academy loves these type of movies and really, for whoever the lead role is, it's a showcase for them to shine. Dreyfuss is in almost all of this two plus hour movie and has to do a lot of leg work to keep this movie from going off the rails into sappy, cliche, boring territory. He also has to cover a bunch of different decades and change his appearance to match it. To say this is a dedicated performance would be an understatement. Dreyfuss definitely carries the movie and elevates it to something a little more dignified than cliche music teacher story. It's solid, veteran work but it's not something that's going to truly inspire and amaze you. You watch it and recognize he's a great actor but I don't think anyone is going to form an emotional attachment to the movie unless they are a music teacher or something. Not to denigrate Dreyfuss's work, though, since he is clearly the only reason to watch the movie. The story goes through different interactions with his students through the years focusing on one person who gets extra attention for various reasons. It's almost episodic so we see Dreyfuss teach a girl how to play an instrument and control her breathing, help a black kid find his rhythm and be able to keep wrestling because it helps him academically, showing another kid that he's not too good to do the little things and appreciate music, and mentors a talented singer who has a crush on him. Dreyfuss is very good in these one on one interactions and is very believable as a music teacher giving advice that applies not only to music, but to life. There's also the family life that causes big issues for Dreyfuss's character. His son is deaf and he doesn't think he can appreciate what dad does for a living and doesn't quite connect with his son until the end of the movie. Dreyfuss handles that inner growth and relationship well and it shows how natural he can be as an actor. The best I can say is that Dreyfuss is technically competent in this role, a solid veteran in a cliched movie that helps make it just slightly better.

Anthony Hopkins - Nixon

Hopkins had the difficult task of taking on such a mythologized man who everyone has an idea of in their head. Most people have also seen a ton of Nixon impersonations in the media so there is a lot riding against portraying such a unique looking and sounding man. That's without throwing the whole political angle into it, as well. I think the main thing to judge, fairly or not, is how well does Hopkins pull off looking and sounding like Nixon. For the most part, Hopkins looks like Hopkins and doesn't sound quite right. I do feel like that's partially a huge knock against Hopkins. I liken it to Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon who looks nothing like Nixon and just always sticks out in a negative way. Hopkins is at least more believable than Langella but there are lots of time where I'm paying more attention to the look and sound of the character than the film itself and it shouldn't be that way. I get that unless through CGI or amazing make-up that that will never happen but it's always going to be a point of contention. I do think that there are plenty of times in the film where Hopkins' acting really takes over and causes you to overlook the appearance thing and focus on the man underneath. I like a lot of his acting in the film honestly and feel he captures the vibe Oliver Stone is going for in making Nixon into a power drunk man who thinks he can't fail and shouldn't fail. I like how Hopkins keeps Nixon from being too crazy and paranoid at the end. Though I do want to note that there are times where the performance is more like imitating than true acting, more focused on getting the look down than in fully inhabiting the character. But there are times when Hopkins is able to give us something interesting. It's probably hard, too, to do in this Oliver Stone film that is highly stylized and doesn't leave a lot of opportunity for your normal biopic tendencies. That can be a good and bad thing but I think a film about Nixon needs to allow the main character some room to have a performance. I just think that President Nixon is an extremely tough character to pull off because it already comes with preconceived notions of the man. He is larger than life nowadays and that takes a strong performance along with a strong visual likeness to successfully pull off. I think Hopkins gives it his best shot which isn't quite good enough, but in a lesser actor's hands would have been a catastrophe. Faint praise, yes, but Hopkins does what he can to make the performance work. It just doesn't work all that much for me.

Sean Penn - Dead Man Walking

Sean Penn's first Oscar nomination. It's vintage Sean Penn stuff and it's easy to see why he was nominated here. He plays a death row inmate in Louisiana and his performance is a slick one. It's a fine, solid enough performance but I think the Sean Penn charm comes into play and might contribute to his being on this list. He'd been a bad boy in Hollywood and in some comedies and other minor things but this seemed to be his dramatic breakout along with Carlito's Way not that long before this one. So the Academy wants to hitch itself to a rising star and nominate him for an Oscar, something we've seen time and again from them. That's all conjecture on my part but it makes sense. His performance is good like I said and Penn does do a pretty good Louisiana accent in this. I'd say that's the standout thing about his performance. Penn puts up a facade of a tough guy in the beginning but does let down his guard when talking to Sarandon's character gradually and exposes the human being underneath the murderous criminal. I do like that Penn humanizes his character and is consistent with his performance. He does come off like a cool guy but it's genuine and apart from the other aspects of the performance. The relationship with Sarandon works well and they have an interesting chemistry between them. And Penn really sells to us that he's a dead man walking especially leading up to his execution. It doesn't ring as convoluted or false. There's no big pronouncements or overacting, just a nervous man who accepts his fate but doesn't want to die. I'd say this is one of the more subtle Penn performances I've watched and I can say I liked it. Like I said, easy to see why he was nominated for Best Actor.

Massimo Troisi - Il Postino

This was slightly difficult to find a decent English subtitled copy of, though nowhere near the worst so far to track down. I have heard a lot of bad things about this film and this performance which obviously makes me question whether it belongs even before I see it. But I know I need to watch it first to make up my own mind as the hive mind has been wrong before. My big issue with foreign nominations is something I've touched on before which is am I missing anything in the performance because I don't get the subtleties of a different culture or language? I think Troisi's performance translates well. I think my issue with his performance is that at times, the Pablo Neruda character (Philippe Noiret) takes over and Troisi fades to the background. Neruda is the star of the film and is the impetus for the whole story. And Noiret is able to carry the importance of Neruda well. Troisi gets relegated to a fanboy and I don't think it's worth a Best Actor nomination. Now, unfortunate circumstance is that Troisi died the day after the film wrapped of a heart attack after putting off heart surgery to finish the film. This is plainly and obviously a nod to an actor basically dying for his craft. If he doesn't die, I bet he doesn't get nominated and neither does the film. I failed to mention that Troisi is a postman (duh) who delivers mail to Neruda and then pesters him about how to write poems and how to get the girl he loves to fall in love with him. I just don't think Troisi carries the film all that well which is why I gravitate to Neruda. Troisi's character is kind of a meek guy, afraid to confront the woman he loves and unable to excite the viewer to keep interested. It's a very subdued performance but one that doesn't become stronger because of it's subtlety. Didn't really care for this performance and sorry, but if not for his death, this doesn't get nominated.


This is a pretty decent Best Actor group. Not the best, mind you, but decent. Troisi doesn't belong at all but he's the only one. Dreyfuss buoys a cliche film with a decent job at the music teacher changes lives role. We've seen it before and since but Dreyfuss is good. Hopkins is all over the place as Richard Nixon and it shows in the performance. It's good at times and kinda bad at others. Definite middle. Penn actually surprises and gives a really good performance as a death row inmate. I shouldn't say surprises because I've liked a lot of his stuff but I didn't think he'd be as good. Easy to see why he'd win 2 Oscars later. Cage is the pleasant surprise. I'd heard of his performance being great but wanted to find out for myself. Yeah, it's great. Really deserving win for him despite his recent crappy films. So glad I got to watch that one because I probably wouldn't have otherwise. A decent year, not great. Hoping 94 blows me away.

Oscar Winner: Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
My Winner:  Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
Sean Penn
Anthony Hopkins
Richard Dreyfuss
Massimo Troisi

Leading Actress 1995

Hey look every woman in this group has a last name that starts with an S with one that starts with a T. Probably the latest in the alphabet for all 5 women in Oscar history. Yes, I notice these stupid things and then think about them too much. I'm very interested in this group of ladies because these are some big names and I've only seen Stone which I can't even remember it's been so long. I'm fully prepared for a great Best Actress category.

1995 Best Actress

Susan Sarandon - Dead Man Walking

I always forget that Sarandon is an Oscar winning actress. Probably because I never really heard about this film and because I had no idea what it was about. It's like this win slipped under my radar and just stayed invisible until now. This would be one of, if not the first, Best Actress winners I couldn't name or remember if prompted to list them. Sarandon plays a nun who meets Sean Penn's death row inmate character and she is against the death penalty and he wants her help to appeal. It's definitely the type of film where a bunch of liberal Hollywood stars get together to make a message picture about the death penalty being bad. I don't mean that to sound like a terrible thing, either. The film, and Sarandon, never grab me or keep me interested. That's about all there is to it honestly. I recognize that she gave a solid enough performance, one that obviously lots of people and the Academy liked, but I was kinda bored while watching it. I don't even have anything against Sarandon, either, it just that I didn't feel anything for her performance. Sometimes it can be really difficult to describe why something didn't grab you and this is one of those times. It's good enough and Sarandon is warm and believable and I can understand why people loved it. She's caring and sensitive and loving and puts all her effort into the performance which is admirable. I can also see why this performance doesn't get ballyhooed as much as other Best Actress winners and the group she's in probably leads to the win. They are all good, not great type of performances and no one really stands out. Maybe the voters were sending a message about the death penalty or maybe it was just that Sarandon was due, I don't know. What I do know is that I don't really care about this performance and I'm going to leave it at that.

Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas

I didn't realize that this was such a depressing and sad film! I always thought it was a lighthearted film about a drunk who meets a hooker and then live happily ever after. Oh no, that definitely doesn't happen here! Shue plays the hooker with a heart of gold which could/should/would be a cliche if not for her amazing performance. Seriously, the prostitute character is actually one of the most awarded professions when it comes to the female acting awards. That obviously says a lot about the roles women get and the films that are made but it's true nonetheless. Shue eschews of the familiar trappings of the hooker with a heart of gold and gives us something with feeling and humanity. You begin to realize how fucked up her world is that she turns to a man killing himself by drinking and falling in love with him and finding a kindred spirit. Shue's performance is touching in that she plays it so honestly. I believe her when she says she loves Cage's character. I believe that she's the needy, broken woman who just wants someone to connect with and find deeper meaning in. Shue makes her character entirely believable and it is some absolutely great work by her. I was totally engrossed whenever Shue was onscreen because she's so innocent and cute and loving and a real woman that you wonder just how did she become a hooker in Vegas and become so broken as a person to love an alcoholic unconditionally. I wanted to know more about her character because of Shue's performance. Hell, I wanted to watch more Shue performances and films because of this one! She's so endearing and makes an oddly interesting couple with Nic Cage that despite the subject matter, you kinda root for them to work out. This may not be a performance that wows everyone, but I definitely thought that it should have been the winner, especially when you compare it to all the others this year. This will go down to preference, but Shue is definitely my pick as the winner.

Sharon Stone - Casino

This is my mom's favorite movie. Which always makes me laugh because knowing her and knowing what Casino is, it is just funny because it's the last movie you'd guess was her favorite. Not that she's a stick in the mud just that it's Casino which is a Scorsese gangster flick and my mom is not anything like that lol. Anyway, my mom has great taste since Casino is a damn good Scorsese flick, one that gets overlooked when it comes to Scorsese films, De Niro films, and Pesci films. You could probably throw Sharon Stone films on to that pile because who realizes that Stone was/is an Oscar nominated actress? We all know her as the lady who flashed her pussy in Basic Instinct. In this film, she's pretty solid. The role doesn't give her all that much to do honestly but she is convincing and able in the role as is. Stone plays a hustler who ends up marrying De Niro's character who runs the casino. She was a hustler as mentioned who still kept in touch with her previous pimp, greased all the staff so she could get protection and favors and drugs when she needed them. She ends up divorcing De Niro and spiraling further into drug and alcohol addiction and then getting arrested for her part in the corruption of Vegas. That's her entire arc and as I said Stone does a good job with the material, it doesn't offer too much for her to actually do, acting wise anyway. Stone is beautiful and wears many elegant dresses and outfits and looks the part of a woman of ill repute who would fall in favor with a casino boss and become a wealthy woman. Stone plays all that just fine. She does devolve into drugs and alcohol and makes that believable and continues her relationship with her ex-pimp and then De Niro's best bud, Pesci so she has to be the crazy ex-wife persona. Her character is a lot of cliches but Stone at least makes the performance not so basic and cliche. Is it worthy of a win? Nah. I'd say this is the film's representation since maybe Il Postino pushed it out of Best Picture? Decent performance, okay Oscar nomination. This would make a great companion watch with The Wolf of Wall Street and even Goodfellas. Lot's of similarities to those films and would make a great Scorsese Day watch.

Meryl Streep - The Bridges of Madison County

This is the 10th Meryl Streep nomination I've seen for this project and I'm not sick of her at all. I could watch Meryl every year since she always gives interesting performances. Sure, I've disliked some of her nominations as just another Streep nom but she's so consistent and so interesting as an actress that I don't mind. I've even found her to be the better actress while watching other women in their nominations, so Meryl is obviously one of the greatest actors ever. In Bridges, Meryl plays a housewife in Iowa who is Italian having married a GI and come over. This is another one of Streep's accent films where she speaks with an Italian accent. The accent thing is one of Streep's specialties because she is able to give convincing, pitch perfect accents for her different characters from Dutch to English to Australian/New Zealand to Italian to Polish. She's one of the best ever at accents and it helps her performance here. The romance between her and Clint Eastwood is palpable and convincing and very real. This is the kind of film I would have hated and made fun without watching  years ago and I kinda did that. I remember hating this film as a kid even though I never watched it because I knew it was a romantic film and why would anyone watch that stuff? Luckily, I've overcome those prejudices and learned to love film and I enjoy this film for what it is. Of note is that this apparently helped establish Streep as a middle aged woman star and love interest. From what I read online, this established her as a bankable star even though she was getting older which is ludicrous to think of because she's Meryl fucking Streep! Of course she's bankable! But what about her performance? I've gone on and on about other crap but how is she in this film? She's sweet and endearing and the budding romance between her and Clint is so engaging and engrossing that you easily root for them to hook up because they are so good together. It brings up a bunch of questions about love. It's kinda like Lost in Translation where people fall in love with each other knowing it can't last and still go through with it. This is the same. Streep and Eastwood have their romance though they know it will only last 4 days. I think most people have these types of relationships in their past, God knows I do, and it's a very universal thing. Streep is great here and I'm glad this isn't one of those boring Streep noms.

Emma Thompson - Sense and Sensibility

Interesting to note that Thompson won for Best Adapted Screenplay for having written this film, one of the few people ever to have a writing and acting award. She definitely did a great job adapting the source material (though I've never read the book) because it never lapses into the stuffy British period piece so many other films do. Thompson plays the elder sister Elinor, whose father has recently died and left them without an inheritance or place to live because of British law. Before moving out she meets the charming Edward Ferrars and the two hit it off. But since this is a period piece, class distinctions get in the way and the two aren't able to say how they feel and life moves on to the chagrin of both. Thompson looks a little too old to be playing the older sister since she looks more like a mother than an unmarried young lady. But if you overlook that, she does a good job with the role. She is essentially the voice of reason and sanity in this story, as she properly behaves by not acting impulsively on her feelings and being demure when it comes to not being able to say how she feels and having to accept it because that's her lot in life. Thompson is sort of even keeled throughout the film, acting rational when it comes to everything that life throws at her. There's no big crying scenes or loud wailing or huffily storming out of a dance or dinner or rushing into the arms of some other man she doesn't love - it's all sensible. That's what I like about the character and about Thompson's measured performance . I'm assuming that's what the title means but it fits Thompson perfectly. She may be this reasoned woman but she's still vulnerable and hurt by not being able to act on her feelings and Thompson emotes this wonderfully. She tries to be there for her sister when things don't go well for Marianne and she puts on a brave face when interacting with Edward knowing he's engaged to another woman. Thompson's sense of duty and understanding is impeccable. She's like the glue holding her family's life together. It's a good performance from Thompson that is steady and strong but not outstanding.


Honestly, this is probably the most evenly matched group I've seen yet. There is no clear number 5 because they all have some pretty good performances. They are all solid, I just may not be as entertained by them. My 5th would have to be Stone just because she is more of a cliche in her film than the others are and it's a bit disappointing because she could be used better. My 4th is Sarandon who I just never connected with and just didn't care about while watching her. I know she is technically good but just not on a personal level. My 3rd has to be Thompson who is solid in her role but doesn't elevate into the wow status. Streep becomes my runner up because I loved her relationship in the film and was totally into her performance. No doubt she's the best ever. My winner is Shue who just really excited me when watcher her. It could have easily been a boring performance but she made it human and revelatory. I think she would have been a good winner. It was just Sarandon's time. Go look at the other years before this and notice Sarandon had been nominated 3 times out of the last 4 years, with another nom in the 80s for a total of 4 before her win. She was due and the Academy recognized that. I think we might get a similar instance like that in 1994 with Jessica Lange but let's see.

Oscar Winner: Susan Sarandon - Dead Man Walking
My Winner:  Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas
Meryl Streep
Emma Thompson
Susan Sarandon
Sharon Stone

Supporting Actor 1995

Ugh, leave it to fucking Firefox to restart and Blogger to somehow not save any of the work I'd done on this group. I had finished two reviews and was very happy with them but now I have to go back and try and capture what I felt when writing. I'm super pissed because they are gonna suck and I was very excited for this group. The names in this group alone make it a star studded affair and all the films here are enjoyable ones. I haven't seen Rob Roy, but I'm hoping and assuming it will be just like the others. Let me restart this damn thing now.

1995 Best Supporting Actor

Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects

I'll try not to be too spoiler-y in my review of Spacey, but come on, if you haven't seen this film yet go watch it and then come back and read this, it's worth the watch. In my first draft of this, I noted that both of Spacey's Oscar winning performances featured him acting as the narrator of the film and he really is a great narrator. His voice is able to fit the tone of the film he's narrating like the detached indifference of American Beauty and the hand waving exposition of this film. Plus, his voice is so expressive that it's like another actor on screen, he's definitely one of the best at it. As for the performance, Spacey's Verbal Kint is a very meek and subdued guy, staying to the back of the group get togethers and letting the other criminals be the dominant personas. Kint has a gimp leg and arm so Spacey shuffles around the film and though it's kinda gimmicky, it works or at least doesn't detract from the performance. Spacey is really more of a leading actor to me, as he dominates the screen time, narrates the film, and the story is all about Kint. It is an ensemble film, though, and the other characters have their moments to shine so I'm not going to scream category fraud too loudly. The one thing I love about watching Spacey perform is that he's so effortless and smooth. Even when he's playing a detective, a gimpy criminal, a bored husband, or an asshole - Spacey makes each performance look easy. And he's just a lot of fun to watch, especially in this role. Everyone remembers him in the film because of the twist and it's just a good performance, period. I do also love Benicio del Toro as the mumbling criminal who is hilarious and really adds to the film, much like Spacey does. I can see why the Academy chose Spacey as the winner because he is so charming and engaging and it will be tough for me to decide if he's my winner, too, with this strong group of guys.

James Cromwell - Babe

James Cromwell is absolutely fantastic in the role as Farmer Hoggett. I think that he perfectly captures what his role is supposed to be. He's sort of the mythical figure to the farm animals and he has this intense presence that only Cromwell could pull off. He's the father figure and takes the pig under his wings so to speak, recognizing Babe's unique ability. Cromwell's character is a man of few words and the performance is one of mostly silence with a lot of stern looks. This could have been either a nothing role with an anonymous man or a boring character but Cromwell elevates the role into one that's incredibly memorable. I saw this in theaters and whenever I thought of Babe I thought of the pig but I mostly thought of Cromwell's character saying "That'll do pig. That'll do" and him having more of a presence in my mind. I was still really young back then but I took note of Cromwell who I really respected and knew was a great actor. I'm very glad he was rewarded with a nomination here because he's been a great character actor in a lot of my favorite films. I think what makes his performance is his relationship with the pig. There's a lot of growth in the relationship from the first meeting to the end when they win the sheepdog competition. There's curiosity to respect to love with some farmer duties thrown in there when he almost has to kill the pig out of obligation. But all the little smiles and looks from Cromwell really sells the relationship of the two, punctuated by the ending when he says "That'll do pig." He has such a warm demeanor when it comes to the pig that you can't help but love Farmer Hoggett, too. And I'm leaving out the moment where Cromwell breaks out into a dance routine and it doesn't fell hokey or weird. It feels natural and charming when he's dancing for his pig and is a very sweet moment. Cromwell definitely deserved his nomination and may very well be my winner when all is said and done because he is that good and memorable.

Ed Harris - Apollo 13

Most pissed about having to redo this one because I had written this a couple days before and now I have to write it again, so I feel like I lost a little bit of the immediacy of my thoughts on Harris' performance and that's not fair for the reader. Harris plays the mission control guru, the guy who is overseeing all the different departments and telling everyone what to do. It's a perfect supporting role since there's not a whole lot asked of Harris other than to carry the scenes he's in so that we get from major scene to major scene. He's essentially shepherding the action during the cutaways where we see the team scrambling and trying to fix the problems going on in the spacecraft. He's good at this role and brings a bit of gravitas to the role and also a little bit of humor. I think it's a perfect Harris role, as well. He is a quintessential supporting actor and when you think of supporting actors, he's a name you recall almost immediately. I think in my first draft of this, I overstated how much Harris did in the film. He doesn't do all that much but he's enjoyable as is the film as a whole, so it's not a bad reward for him. He is the serious, hard working face of the scientists on the ground and represents them well. I thought that maybe Gary Sinise would have been a better choice for a supporting nomination but he was coming off one the year prior for Forrest Gump so maybe the Academy wanted to spread the love around. Either way, Harris is fine as a nominee representing the film.

Brad Pitt - 12 Monkeys

12 Monkeys is a mindfuck of a film, but I'd expect no less from Terry Gilliam. Purposefully left ambiguous by the director, you can come to any conclusion you want about the meaning of the film. The conclusion I came to is that Brad Pitt's character is a lot of fun to watch. Pitt plays Jeffrey Goines, a mental patient that Bruce Willis meets who turns out to be the leader of the Army of the Twelve Monkeys, a fanatical eco-terrorist organization who are suspected of letting lose a virus that kills the majority of the population. When we first meet Pitt in the mental institute, he is this fast talking, wild eyed, frenetic, manic guy who shows Willis around. Pitt plays crazy well and though the acting is obvious and mannered I feel like that's the point of the character and I like Pitt's portrayal. After the beginning where Pitt is featured heavily, he's only in a few scenes after that. His impact is mostly felt in those initial scenes as the ones that follow aren't all that important. He is still the crazy, wild eyed guy from before but the story doesn't focus on him as much but he still nails the manic presence of his character. I read online that Pitt modeled his acting after Dennis Hopper's photojournalist in the film Apocalypse Now which is a cool little tidbit of information. Pitt was in the midst of becoming a star at the time this film was released and I think that may have helped the Academy decide to reward him with a nomination. One of those let's crown and up and coming star so we seem hip and with it decisions but a good decision nonetheless. It's not a winning performance by any means, but it does show the range that Brad Pitt has and is a quite enjoyable performance on top of everything else. He definitely deserved a nomination for something at the time and this is a fine choice for it.

Tim Roth - Rob Roy

Oh man, this is a deliciously villainous role for Tim Roth, one that he clearly relishes with his performance. Roth plays Archibald Cunningham, an asshole nobleman who is sent to Scotland by his mother to make a man out of him and who does whatever he wants: raping, stealing, murdering, being effeminate while winning a sword fight. Roth prances around with evil glee and goes up against Scottish clan chief, Liam Neeson. It's a lot of fun to watch Roth bounce around from scene to scene like a nancy and then win sword fights while doing so and then plundering a village to piss off Neeson. Archibald is cruel and revels in his cruelty and his unpredictability is staggering. For such an effeminate character, he can quickly turn violent at any second and the film let's Roth do this seemingly on his own accord. That's where Roth's performance succeeds because it's as if Roth decides on his own to punch Neeson in the face or attack another person without hesitation. Roth sells his character and it's wholly entertaining to watch. Roth is as committed to the prancing parts of his character as he is the extreme violent parts, it's really quite wonderful that an actor is clearly enjoying all parts of his character. Roth's performance makes the ending very satisfying for obvious reasons and that's a testament to his skill to make such a villain an enjoyable watch. I'd say Roth more than held his own for my expectations of him compared to the others in this category and only makes this task even more difficult. Shout out to John Hurt for also being a quality choice for the Academy to consider. Lots of great supporting actors this year.


This has got to be the manliest Supporting Actor category I've done so far, even with Babe in the picture! If I were say 20-25 years old, this probably would have been my exact list for the category. Even 20 plus years later it's a great group of guys that have gone on do great things acting wise and make a ton of great films. I've got to say that this is probably the first time the Academy has gotten it 100% right. You can argue maybe someone else like a John Hurt or Gary Sinise could be in there instead, but I think the Academy got it right. This is a group that was so fun to watch because I hadn't watched a few of these in a long, long time even though I really enjoyed them back then. I'm gushing but it's a great group without a doubt. My 5th would have to be Harris just because he is more of a chauffeur between scenes even though he is pretty good at it. Pitt would be 4th because he's not that important to the film and doesn't factor in much besides being crazy. Roth plays a great villain and is quite enjoyable in his role so he's my 3rd. It's a tough choice between Cromwell and Spacey. Spacey is a pretty good winner but Cromwell is so good as Farmer Hoggett that it's hard to pick between the two. I think for now I'm giving the slightest of edges to Spacey over Cromwell but it could change tomorrow. I love Cromwell but Spacey is so damn good. This is easily the best Supporting Actor category I've seen yet and probably the best category I've watched yet. I hope for more groups like this one in the future (past).

Oscar Winner: Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
My Winner:  Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
James Cromwell
Tim Roth
Brad Pitt
Ed Harris

Supporting Actress 1995

I took a little break so I could work my local film festival like I do every year and it's always a blast for me. I end up working so much that I haven't watched an actual film there in 3 years but the new friends I make and the cool people I meet balance that all out. It also reinvigorates my love of film and I wish I had a steady job working in the industry because that would be the dream. I'm excited to get back into this after a little time off, though.

1995 Best Supporting Actress

Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite

When it comes to Woody Allen movies, I'm always a little apprehensive. The last few weeks, I spent time watching all of his movies up until this one in reverse chronological order (which seems to be my thing). There are a lot of stinkers and some that others love and I either hate (Vicky Crisitina Barcelona) or don't care as effusively for the performance (Blue Jasmine). I know that Allen is known for writing great female parts in his movies and that as I go further back in his oeuvre that I'll come across more good/great movies instead of the stinkers from his later years. So I wasn't sure what kind of movie I'd get or if I would think the performance was overrated or what. Thankfully, I really liked Sorvino's performance and the movie as a whole. Sorvino is very funny with great comedic timing that's actually kinda subtle even though she's playing a prostitute who is super dumb. It would be easy to overdo that kind of character but Sorvino avoids that pitfall and displays great talent at making the jokes land without waiting for the laugh track if that makes sense. Basically I just love that Sorvino is such a hoot and makes it look effortless. She also has this high pitched voice that is at first jarring but then you get used to it and it adds to the comedic effect. There is no underlying subtext for the performance but it's not necessary. It's a straightforward Woody Allen female character who is exceptionally funny and that's all there is to it. One could argue that maybe Sorvino is really the female lead of this movie but that would be a wasted argument as I think Sorvino is fine as the supporting nod. It just goes to show that a winning performance doesn't have to be some super serious, mind blowing thing (though that does help) - just be an enjoyable, likable, really funny performance like Sorvino's.

Joan Allen - Nixon

While I was blown away by Joan Allen's turn the following year in The Crucible, I was not blown away by her portrayal of Pat Nixon. That's not Allen's fault however since she isn't given a whole lot to do with her character. She has a handful of scenes that all serve to either try and humanize Nixon or act as a catalyst for some other event or Nixon doing something. So she is that supporting role that doesn't get to have a life of it's own, merely acting as a way to have the main character do something by interacting with the supporting player. I'm not sure a nomination was needed her as there really isn't anything I can point to that really stands out to me. Sure, Allen is capable and is a good Pat Nixon for what the character is but she gets no chance to rise above the supporting role. Obviously Nixon is all about the 37th President and Hopkins' character dominates the film, but maybe a little more human interaction with his wife would have been a good thing. The film shows Nixon as a man that needed to be more loved as a kid which is why he was so paranoid later in life because he wanted everyone to like him and couldn't deal with not having power and control and not being liked. As it is, I would have liked to see more of Joan Allen because I know she's a really gifted actress and could have really done something special with the role if given an opportunity. Instead, we get a collection of random scenes where she supports Hopkins and is pissed off in most of them. Nothing that really screams Oscar to me which is a shame because Allen is a very good actress.

Kathleen Quinlan - Apollo 13

Go ahead and tell me who Kathleen Quinlan is in Apollo 13. I'll wait. You have no idea and neither did I. I had to wikipedia it to know who I needed to pay attention to. I knew she was an astronaut wife, but didn't know which one. Turns out she was Tom Hanks' wife and I'll say right now, got swept up in the love for the film. You couldn't pick her out of a lineup and probably couldn't figure out who she is in the film so did she deserve this nomination? No. Quinlan does absolutely nothing of note. There is no big scene for her. There's no big moment where she can show off her acting chops. I actually don't know if she has any acting chops because her performance is reduced to nothing but reactionary shots while the guys are having trouble in space. So best reactionary shot woman, sure. But Best Supporting Actress? For what?! She could be any number of Tom Hanks wife, which seems like a whole other story on it's own because he seems to have such nondescript wives in lots of his films. The fact that I bring that up when watching this one should tell you all you need to know. It's unfortunately a nothing nomination, one done because of the popularity of the film. Watch the film without looking anything up and then tell me who Quinlan was. You may say Hanks' wife but I bet you'll not be that sure. Maybe it's because she's the only female actor in the whole film that does anything? Which is a sad reason to nominate. It's a meh nomination.

Mare Winningham - Georgia

Okay so I decided to start out with this film because it was a singular nomination and because it was available on Netflix. I watched like 20 minutes and stopped, not because I hated it but because it never grabbed me. I stopped watching it and eventually moved on to Joan Allen because I knew I'd languish for a month debating whether to pick up where I left off and delaying this blog more. I hate to say it wasn't inspiring but it really wasn't. The thing is I kind of enjoyed Mare Winningham's performance even though she was super serious in the role. She plays the eponymous Georgia, who is the successful singer-songwriter sister of main character Sadie, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh. It was actually interesting to see JJL in this and compare it to her Oscar nominated performance from this year in The Hateful Eight. She's definitely grown as an actress even though some of the same traits are still present. This is about Winningham, though, who essentially plays the sisterly/motherly figure to JJL. She has a family, a successful career, owns the family house/farm, and generally has her life together. Her sister Sadie envies everything she has and wants to be a successful singer, too, even though she lacks the talent and is mixed up with booze and drugs and is unreliable and flighty. Winningham's performance is fine, it's good - but it won't knock you over the head. It's a simple supporting role that she takes seriously without much movement from her disconcerting, exhausted, exasperated, disapproving expressions. The main draw for the performance is when Winningham is singing onstage. All the singing is real and Winningham has a great voice and easily fits in as a folk artist. I would have guessed that was her real life talent instead of acting, though the acting isn't awful or anything. This nomination is clearly a nod to the film itself which I think the Academy wanted to reward and this was the easiest way they could do that.

Kate Winslet - Sense and Sensibility

This is a pretty good performance by Winslet, a woman I've had issues with in the past for skating by on her legacy alone instead of her talent. But in this film, she is green as can be though her talent is very obvious. It is fun seeing the young Winslet in action knowing what she would become later in her career. In this film she plays Marianne, the middle sister of three that is courted by Colonel Brandon yet has her heart set on the charismatic John Willoughby. Winslet has it easy as Marianne is such a fiery, rambunctious, and atypical character for the late 18th Century Britain. She's allowed a little more freedom in expressing her character and her presence is more fun than perfunctory. It helps that Winslet has considerable talent because it's a role that could quickly turn bad if in the hand's of someone less skilled because there is that fine line between fun and over the top. Winslet still has the air of an 18th Century woman, she just also has the added bonus of not having to be so stuffy. But as I said earlier, she is still green and it's not a perfect performance. Her melancholy scenes are not as good or alluring as her scenes where she's interacting with Willoughby or Brandon. That's merely a minor quibble as Winslet is very good in the hopelessly romantic and idealistic role of Marianne. It's easy to see that her star was beginning to shine and that she would be a huge name in the coming years and an Oscar darling. Her Marianne set all that into motion and Winslet deserved a nomination here.



What an underwhelming group! Especially compared to 1996 which had a bunch of intense performances. This year's category has some easily forgettable ones unfortunately. The bottom is basically a grab bag of which one you want less. Quinlan does nothing in her film but be a wife. Joan Allen also plays a wife and doesn't get to do a whole lot with her character. Winningham at least has the luxury of singing well to make her stand out a little. So I think that would be my bottom three in order. At least the top two stand out for good performances and not just being there. Winslet is runner up as I really did like her in her film, though she is young and still finding her way. I agree with the Academy this year seeing as I think Sorvino is quite wonderful in her little role. You could give it to Winslet if you really wanted to and I don't think many people would be upset but I found Sorvino to be a lot more enjoyable to watch even with the different types of films. It's not the strongest win and isn't an all-timer but at least it was a good performance. Hopefully the category gets back on track for 1994.

Oscar Winner: Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
My Winner:  Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
Kate Winslet
Mare Winningham
Joan Allen
Kathleen Quinlan