Supporting Actor 1989

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

1989 Best Supporting Actor

Denzel Washington - Glory

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

Danny Aiello - Do the Right Thing

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

Dan Akroyd - Driving Miss Daisy

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

Marlon Brando - A Dry White Season

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

Martin Landau - Crimes and Misdemeanors

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


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

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

Supporting Actress 1989

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

1989 Best Supporting Actress

Brenda Fricker - My Left Foot

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

Anjelica Huston - Enemies, A Love Story

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

Lena Olin - Enemies, A Love Story

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

Julia Roberts - Steel Magnolias

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

Dianne Wiest - Parenthood

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


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

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

Anjelica Huston
Lena Olin
Julia Roberts

Best Picture 1990

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

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

1990 Best Picture

Dances with Wolves

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

Awakenings

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

Ghost

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

The Godfather Part III

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

Goodfellas

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


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

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

Leading Actor 1990

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

1990 Best Actor

Jeremy Irons - Reversal of Fortune

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

Kevin Costner - Dances with Wolves

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

Robert De Niro - Awakenings

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

Gerard Depardieu - Cyrano de Bergenac

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

Richard Harris - The Field

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


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

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

Leading Actress 1990

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

1990 Best Actress

Kathy Bates - Misery

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

Anjelica Huston - The Grifters

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

Julia Roberts - Pretty Woman

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

Meryl Streep - Postcards from the Edge

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

Joanne Woodward - Mr. and Mrs. Bridge

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


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

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

Supporting Actor 1990

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

1990 Best Supporting Actor

Joe Pesci - Goodfellas

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

Bruce Davison - Longtime Companion

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

Andy Garcia - The Godfather Part III

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

Grahame Greene - Dances with Wolves

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

Al Pacino - Dick Tracy

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


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

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

Supporting Actress 1990

It will be good to revisit some of these performances that I've seen already since it's been a long time. I'm eager to get this year over with and get into the 80s.


1990 Best Supporting Actress

Whoopi Goldberg - Ghost

Whoopi won and I'm happy about that. I'm also kinda happy it was because of this film, which I adore. Yep, this is probably a makeup win for her 1985 Best Actress loss but that's okay. The Academy has a rich history of that and Whoopi is one of the few black actresses to be rewarded so I'm frankly okay with the win. I actually like her character in the film, though, so it's not all terrible. She is a pretend psychic who scams people out of money but one day starts hearing Swayze make fun of her ridiculous efforts. She then buys in to her fate and earnestly go along with Swayze and the plan he has to warn his girl. Whoopi is essentially the comic relief and she is pretty funny in her role. She's incredibly likable and a person/character you wish would be on screen the entire time. She's not overbearing or obnoxious and her comedy is light which makes a big difference. I like her because though reluctant, she understands her importance into the lives of Swayze and Demi Moore. I think she portrays the character admirably and we get much needed energy from her. I know some people criticize the win and nomination but how can you do that with this category? Whoopi plays the part sincerely and for that I love the character. Hate on this one all you want, but I'll defend it forever. Whoopi is deserving and I'm glad she has an Oscar.

Annette Bening - The Grifters

I had heard this was a pretty good film but I wasn't really a fan of it. Bening is here as the IT actress, same as Julia Roberts being nominated in Lead Actress. She was hot at the time and the Academy loved her and so she gets nominated. Her role is the lover of John Cusack's character and a grifter just like him, though in the more feminine of ways. She uses her body and innocent, coy behavior to get out of paying rent or really just trying to get whatever she wants. The thing about her performance is that you know deep down Bening is actually pretty smart and is using her intellect to play people and get what she wants but uses the dumb, ditzy blonde routine to achieve that. I'm not really a Bening fan, honestly, and even her being naked a lot in this film doesn't do much for me. I get that the performance has a little bit of depth to it, but it really does just boil down to her being the hot actress. And I'm unsure if I prefer Bening or Anjelica Huston since both motivate me similarly which is to say not much. This is an okay performance that just doesn't do a whole lot for me but might do more for you if you're a big Bening fan. I wish there was more I could say but that's really all I got.

Lorraine Bracco - Goodfellas

Bracco plays the long suffering wife role and does a pretty good job with the role overall. It's a tough position for her to be in as really the only major female performance in the film. Lesser actresses would have crumbled under the weight of that responsibility but Bracco holds her own against all the big, bad gangsters. While the film doesn't give her that many chances to really shine, Bracco makes the most of her screen time and delivers something that is a lot better than just a stale gangster wife character. She's ballsy at times, standing up to Ray Liotta's Henry Hill and not just playing a pushover. But Bracco also shows her vulnerable side, too, like in the scene where she holds a gun to Liotta's face. That scene shows both her ballsy attitude and vulnerability in a striking manner. The fact that Bracco could even display those two sides or get to show them at all is a testament to her acting ability. A lot of times, the supporting wife role would just be a one note performance. Bracco thankfully isn't. Though she doesn't completely stand out in the film among all those fiery male performances, she does a better job than to be expected. The best thing about the performance is that she makes you remember there are actual non-disposable female characters in this film. It's a solid, decent performance from Bracco though I wish she had more to do within the film.

Diane Ladd - Wild at Heart

I was pretty apprehensive about this going in. The Laura Dern-Diane Ladd picture in 91 turned out to be shit. This was the first iteration the year before so I was obviously worried. But this also starred Nicolas Cage and was directed by David Lynch, who I know makes highly interesting films. And holy shit is this film fucking nuts! To describe it, it doesn't sound so crazy. Cage and Dern are lovers and Dern's mother, Ladd, doesn't want them together so she hires guys to kill Cage. But the execution of it all is just completely over the top, excessive, wildness. Ladd herself doesn't do a whole lot. She doesn't like Cage because he rejected her advances and hires men to kill him and interacts with those men in various ways, seducing and arguing with them. Then by the end she's in like a psychotic episode or something. It's certifiably nuts but it's a ton of fun. I like Ladd's performance a hell of a lot more than the one in 1991 because she gets to overact and have it be fun and not out of place within the scope of the film. So while I wouldn't champion this for the win, I like her inclusion because it gave me a film I would have never watched that I enjoyed immensely. And this nomination is really more for the film itself, I think, than it is purely for Ladd. Sure, the Academy could have been looking to reward her solely, but I think it kills two birds with one stone here. I would urge everyone to go watch this film and just experience it. It might not be the winner, but you'll have a pretty good time with it.

Mary McDonnell - Dances with Wolves

This is a very tough role. So I've got to hand it to McDonnell a little bit for taking it on and not doing a horrible job. You may remember that I wasn't a huge fan of her other nomination a couple years after this one, so I was wary of what exactly I was going to watch since all I remembered is she was the love interest of Kevin Costner. The role is tough because McDonnell plays a white woman who was raised by the Lakota Sioux but has to speak most of her lines in the Lakota language and act in a way that's not as easy as just being white. She has to be a woman raised by Indians without being a caricature and without giving and overblown performance. I feel like McDonnell succeeds in giving the character and material the respect it deserves and plays it as well as she can. We first meet her when she is wailing about a death and I thought Oh no, I hope that's not all she does in this role but she settled down eventually and didn't end up a joke in the film. The main thing I can't stand is her hair which I have no idea why it's so wildly unkempt, as if to make her stand out as being more savage-like? I didn't understand it and felt it stuck out too much in a negative way. Now, McDonnell is mainly a love interest for Costner and that shows as she doesn't have much to do besides be with him and help teach him the Lakota language. Their love story isn't all that interesting to me as much as how she came to live with the Indians and her life while growing up and her place in that society. There could have been a lot of meat on this bone but the performance is a little thin. McDonnell does a good job of keeping this from becoming a really bad performance based on the subject matter. It could have been a disaster, instead it's a decent performance in a really tough role that could have been more fleshed out and developed.


This category ended up being a lot better than I really expected and I'm glad for that. If Bening is my weak link, it's not a bad year really. I just wasn't a fan of her and maybe if I watched it again later on it might work but for now it doesn't. McDonnell saves what could have been a really bad performance from being a disaster and making it something somewhat interesting. Bracco is the only female character in her film and I suspect a lot of people might vote for her simply to vote for the film itself but she's the only woman character in the film and I wish she would have been showcased a little more. Ladd is batshit crazy in an all out nuts film and I love the hell out of the performance even if it's not everyone's first or second choice. I just enjoyed purely for the entertainment aspect and sometimes that's all it's about. Whoopi ends up being my winner and I agree with the Academy even if it were a make up win. Crazy to think that this was only the second time a black woman won an acting Oscar up to that point. Whoopi deserved it, though, and it made for a good category.

Oscar Winner: Whoopi Goldberg - Ghost
My Winner:  Whoopi Goldberg - Ghost
Diane Ladd
Lorraine Bracco
Mary McDonnell
Annette Bening

Best Picture 1991

Finally at the end of this year. Lots to look forward to in the group and stuff I haven't seen before. Will be good to close out this year and move on!

1991 Best Picture

The Silence of the Lambs

I'll be honest, I've never actually seen this film all the way through before now. I've seen it piecemeal while at a friends house or bored on a Saturday afternoon while flipping channels or through the scenes that get shown over and over when talking about this film. So it was nice to finally sit down and watching from start to finish because I finally got the best representation of the film as a whole. Most people remember Hannibal Lecter and all of his quotable lines and even Buffalo Bill and his scenes, but I think a lot of people say those lines having not even seen it or only having seen those specific scenes kinda like me. Now I know why Buffalo Bill says 'It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again' and I've got the context for it besides just a throwaway line. It's also a bit weird when people call this a horror film to me because while it has some scary elements, I was never on edge or terrified or freaked out. It's more of a psychological thriller which most people refer to it as also but the horror label has always irked me. I think of it as just a really great film that stands up even today and even with all the quotable lines and parodies that have happened since. I don't think of it as purely a genre type film. The acting in the film is obviously amazing as the two leads were rewarded by the Academy and deservedly so. But what I also like about it is how well paced the film is. It never detours into extraneous crap, just focusing on the two leads and the investigation and moving from one scene to the next very efficiently. I like that there's no subplot about Foster's love life or something ridiculous like that. It tells its story and does it economically. The music is great, the cinematography is great and the whole vibe of the film works so well. It's a really well made film and it makes everything else this year look silly by comparison. This is an all-timer and one of the better decisions by the Academy for BP. It's crazy, too, to think that this film came out in February and did so well at the Oscars. Nowadays, February is a dumping ground for bad films and the Oscar contenders come out at the end of the year. I guess that's what happens when a film can transcend labels by being a classic.

Beauty and the Beast

Okay, so this was such a great way to end my watching of the 1991 films. A Disney classic that I haven't seen in years that I was really looking forward to seeing because I remember it was great way back when. Plus, it's only 84 minutes so it was like a nice, quick palate cleanser after watching The Silence of the Lambs. And I absolutely love that it was included in this Best Picture group. It was the first ever animated feature to be nominated in BP and came in the middle of a time where Disney was pumping out classics almost year after year, so this is a good representation of the art form and studio at that time. The animation is beautiful and story is simple, yet engaging. The songs are great, the voice acting is wonderful, and the feeling it brings with it can't be quantified. It's almost an experience to watch the film again because the Disney films give such a sense of joy and happiness and nostalgia. Now I am viewing this with a ton of nostalgia and memories of being a kid but even if I was watching it back then, I'd want this to be a BP finalist and be glad that it's not just a token nomination. Because honestly, if The Silence of the Lambs wasn't here, this would be your winner over the other films in this group, without a doubt. It's just a great film to watch. Lumiere and Cogsworth are funny and Gaston is a good, smarmy villain. This film is mostly here because The Little Mermaid got so much love the year prior and the Academy is always a year or more late to any trends. But still, this film is great and a classic and deserves its nomination.

Bugsy

I feel like gangster films this late in the century really need to do something special or unique or at least have to be really visceral and realistic to stand out above all the myriad of gangster films that have come before it. I don't think Bugsy quite fits this profile. Bugsy isn't a bad film, by any means, it's just not one that people will come back to over and over and think of as a classic. It's got some pretty great acting from its eponymous lead in Warren Beatty playing Bugsy Siegel, the gangster who moved out to LA and turned Las Vegas into a gambling haven. It's got some decent supporting acting and the chemistry between Bening and Beatty is incredibly tangible (makes sense that they got together while filming this). And strangely I enjoyed the music in this film, mostly while Bening and Beatty were getting it on, but it was something I noticed and thought was great. For me, Bugsy is almost too slick and polished feeling. It feels too Hollywood and while it can be entertaining and I understand it's nomination, it doesn't quite satisfy a craving for gangster picture. Beatty can be too much of a star to believe he's a ruthless, notorious gangster even if his switching between fake good guy and raging psychopath is intriguing to watch. It's almost about how much time Beatty can get onscreen and I wish the film had delved into Bugsy the man a lot more. He seemed like a very complex guy and I would have liked to know how he got to be the way he was instead of seeing him schmooze everyone to make more money. The romance part actually felt a little more realistic because Bening at least fought back just as hard as Beatty was giving it out and at least they didn't make her into a pushover, Barbie doll woman. She at least had some life in her performance and wasn't a stock, love interest character. So while Bugsy has a lot of parts that work well, it's still dwarfed by some of the other competition in this category, including the winner. It's entertaining but nowhere near Best Picture winner worthy.

JFK

Alright, so this film seems to come down on one or two sides for people: those that either believe or enjoy the conspiracy theory hokum or those like me, who think watching three and a half hours of it is a bit too much. Now don't get me wrong, JFK is certainly entertaining at times. I love big ensemble films like this where there are tons of stars interacting, some going against type, giving really interesting performances. That's the main draw for me here is watching all the different performances. I was intrigued that Tommy Lee Jones was chosen to represent the film out of all of them because I felt there were some other great performances in this film. One of the drawbacks is that you really have to pay attention closely if you want to be able to follow along with the myriad of conspiracy theory plots. Yes, you should pay attention to every film you watch but you'll be severely lost if you don't pay attention here. It's layered and thick but not so much that you need to have a degree in Kennedy Conspiracy Theories. The film is boiled down to a New Orleans Attorney General learning from some gay guys they arrest that the plot to kill Kennedy goes deep and Kevin Costner, the Attorney General, pursues the lead trying to unravel the complicated mystery. I'll admit when the characters start rattling off "facts" and "truths" the film is interesting because you either agree or try to pick it apart. The ending at the trial where the events of the assassination are spelled out and all the inconsistencies and peculiarities and bizarre coincidences are mentioned, yeah, you perk up a bit and think about everything. But like one of the characters, a great Michael Rooker, who adheres to what America is all about and can't fathom a conspiracy to kill the President asks how can the Mafia, the Communists, the Cubans, the CIA, the Army Intelligence, the whoever all coordinate without there ever being a leak about their plans since? I have a hard time swallowing all the mumbo jumbo just like Rooker that we are force fed here. Like yeah, there's some compelling evidence, but also some ridiculous stretches. So I choose to just not concern myself with the intricacies of the "plots." It just doesn't matter to me. A great leader was killed who could have continued to do great things and let's move on and watch movies. JFK is a bit long, obviously, but I like that it tackles a subject that most would be unwilling to even try to take on. Oliver Stone has done this for years and years and takes on Snowden this year. At least he tries even if they are to varying degrees of quality. JFK is entertaining whether you take it seriously or not and we need more films like this.

The Prince of Tides

I'm not entirely sure how this film made it into the Best Picture group. Actually, yes I am: Barbra Streisand. The Academy is infatuated with anything she does it seems and she gets love for awful films like this. For real, The Prince of Tides is not a very good film. It's about a guy whose sister tries to kill herself and the sister's shrink wants a family member to go to New York to talk to her. Nolte ends up going and talking to Streisand the shrink. Family issues are discussed and secrets are told and convoluted love plots occur. Seriously, it's like everything was filmed separately and just put together and called The Prince of Tides. The motivations of the characters often don't make sense. I didn't understand why Nolte and Streisand fall in love and have awkward love scenes other than this kind of film just demands it on principle. It was like Streisand was following a formula and just went with the romance part because that's what it said to do. Nolte basically just abandons his family and lives in New York City for awhile hanging out with Streisand's character and teaching her son how to play football. Then we find out his wife cheated on him and doesn't want him back for awhile and Nolte confesses about the traumatic events in his youth and he hooks up with Streisand. It's all very weird and never fits together well. From scene to scene, I was wondering why this or that was happening because it didn't make sense from what I had just watched. The motivations and reasons make no sense and I'm left wondering what the heck the Academy voters saw in this insipid little film. It feels very self indulgent for Streisand and like an exercise in new acting techniques for Nolte. It's a mess of a film that makes little sense in meaning and in being nominated.


This group has such a strong winner that even though the other films don't stand up as being that great save the Disney classic on here, it doesn't matter because all anyone remembers is The Silence of the Lambs. It's a great winner and my winner, too. Next up would be Beauty and the Beast which could have won if not for the actual winner. Imagine an animated film winning Best Picture, almost happened. As for 3rd and 4th, well it comes down to I'd rather watch Bugsy on an endless loop instead of JFK. JFK has some great acting and lots of stars but the conspiracy theory hokum is a bit too much for me. Bugsy needed to be a lot more gritty and less Hollywood for me to take it seriously. Bringing up the rear is The Prince of Tides which is just a bad film. I didn't like it, didn't get it, and don't want to see it again. Though the winner dwarfs all the others, I wish the category had been a bit stronger.

Oscar Winner: The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner:  The Silence of the Lambs
Beauty and the Beast
Bugsy
JFK
The Prince of Tides

Leading Actor 1991

Sorry for the delay. Sat on watching the BP winner and kinda needed to take a break and watch other things. Now I'm back and ready to get to the 80s. This group looks great by name alone and I'm very excited to watch some of these guys.

1991 Best Actor

Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs

I mean, I could really just write Hannibal Lecter here and leave it at that since that is all that really needs to be said. Hopkins delivers a performance that is easily one of the best villains of all time and was ranked so by the American Film Institute. The portrayal is chilling and unnerving and just plain old fantastic. Hopkins nails so much about the character from the look and almost never blinking, to his improvisations with the script that were left in the film like speaking in a southern drawl to mimic Foster and his tongue flitting thing, to being charmingly creepy to the point of liking him yet being repulsed by him. This is legitimately one of the greatest performances ever and that's not any bit of hyperbole. Watching Hopkins interact with Foster is also pretty great because the two work so well together. Their little tete-a-tete's are supremely interesting and engrossing. Though Hannibal is billed as a villain, I don't exactly see him that way. Yes, he can be scary and creepy and all that but he likes making Clarice work for her information and likes the mental games because he's so bored. We see a bit of how terrifying and brutal he can be but he's almost a sympathetic figure and that's due in large part to Hopkins' acting ability. This is just one of those times where actor and character come together at the right time and form something unique and special. I can't imagine anyone else playing Hannibal anywhere near the quality that Hopkins displays here. Mads Mikkelson did a great job in the TV show version and brought a different dimension to the character, but it still wasn't as good as Hopkins. I also wanted to mention the screen time issue. A lot of people feel like this is more of a supporting performance but if you've actually seen the film, you know that Hopkins dominates his scenes and his presence lingers even when he's not on screen. He's absolutely the main actor and to say otherwise misses the point of what that entails. Hopkins is brilliant and very much deserved this Oscar.

Warren Beatty - Bugsy

This is my first experience with Beatty for my blog and I have seen him in other things previously but honestly don't know too much about Beatty besides what roles and films he is famous for being in (I mean, I do know about his playboy status and being with Annette Bening and all that). I know he will appear a few more times and after watching this film, I'm excited for that. Warren Beatty is a movie star and that is very evident here. He plays the eponymous Bugsy Siegel, a Jewish gangster who forms the idea of creating Las Vegas as a gambling destination, which is essentially what the film is about. We see him go from NYC to LA and become enamored with the Hollywood, laid back lifestyle. Beatty is very strong in this performance. He's a showman and plays up the crazy without playing up the crazy. By that I mean, he's normally a chipper, seeming happy-go-lucky guy defusing situations with his charm and wit and his know-it-all demeanor. He woos Bening's character while married, hob knobs with stars, and is just an all around affable guy. That's where Beatty's star quality shines through. You could tell me that was legitimately Beatty and I'd nod my head in understanding. Then if someone calls him Bugsy or insults his wife/family/mistress he snaps. I think that this is where Beatty truly shines. He doesn't go off in some over the top, crazy manner. He just snaps in a frightening way that shows just how dangerous and volcanic Bugsy is and that he didn't become a successful gangster by accident. I really like the interplay of the nice guy, family man Bugsy and the bonafide killer gangster Bugsy. Just the way Beatty switches between the two is marvelous to watch. The film teeters on being too polished but these moments make it somewhat realistic which is something I prefer. Beatty's last nomination (as of 2016) is a good introduction to an actor I know I'll enjoy in his future (past) roles.

Robert De Niro - Cape Fear

Oh man, I liked this film from the opening moments. You get that big horn music blaring ominously and then De Niro walks right into the camera and you just know this is going to be a great performance and film. And it really is a hell of a performance. De Niro plays Max Cady, a sadistic, evil man who is smarter than he looks. While in prison, he learned law and seemed to have read everything ever. Now that he's out, he is determined to make the life of his public defender, Nick Nolte, a living hell because Nolte suppressed evidence favorable to Cady. De Niro plays Cady full bore and I love it. He's an awful, violent, despicable person but De Niro makes him into a fully realized and compelling character. I want to see what kind of screwed up thing he does next to torment Nolte. I love the Southern accent which feels authentic and I like the literary vibe he has when talking to everyone even though he's basically a good ol boy. De Niro plays Cady as this calm character that you know is just seething and bubbling on the inside to exact his revenge. When De Niro is confronted, he always stays calm and collected and knows that because he's not doing anything wrong, no one can touch him. It's this arrogance and confidence that really make the performance. He knows he's going to get Nolte eventually, De Niro just has to put his plan into action no matter if it takes a while. Some people might say that De Niro hams it up, but the role calls for a very loud performance. I think De Niro succeeds in keeping it from being ridiculous. The ending could be viewed as over the top but I feel it fits the character and adheres to the old school style Scorsese is going for as an homage to the original version. De Niro is a downright creepy, yet memorable villain and one that you will never forget. I've said before on this blog that playing a villain is both the easiest and hardest thing to do because it's such a fine line between fucking it up and really giving an iconic performance. You'll remember this De Niro performance long after you've finished it and that's the sign of a worthy nomination.

Nick Nolte - The Prince of Tides

This film is kind of all over the place and is really not that interesting in all honesty.  Nolte, too, is a bit all over the place in this role. There are times when he is really excellent and other times where the performance teeters on being a joke. The confessions Nolte has with Streisand almost explains the nomination because Nolte's acting is so earnest, so raw, so real that you understand why he was nominated. It's legitimately great stuff and greatly affecting. Those parts feel like Nolte rehearsed it and tried out all the different ways to play it until finding the right notes while the rest of the performance feels like it was just done on the fly. It's like Nolte wasn't sure exactly how to play his character and just wings it. It's strange but the film itself is so uneven and feels tacked together that you see why a harmonious performance is missing. I'm also not a fan of the voiceover while Nolte makes pained facial expresses as we are told what he's thinking/feeling. It's jarring in the context of the film and feels like a film school concept. I'd rather Nolte just act out his emotions and let us figure them out instead of looking ridiculous while making faces in a car. I just think that Nolte makes some odd choices for his character and isn't helped at all by Streisand's bad directing. I think if he were to play the whole performance with the earnestness of the confession scenes, he would have created a really great performance. The simple reason why he's nominated is because he had this film and Cape Fear and De Niro already had that film's Best Actor nomination on lockdown. Not to mention the Academy loves itself some Streisand films and she gets her actors nominations as a result. Nolte is more miss than hit in this performance and is not something worth revisiting.

Robin Williams - The Fisher King

I miss this guy so much. I wish he was still around and would have found the help he needed because you forget just how flipping good he is as an actor and a comedian. You watch his old performances such as this and just marvel at how great he was. I know that that's a very selfish thing to think, but the man left us too early. He really is brilliant and one of the best to mix the outrageously comedic with the dramatic. He was just on another level with his comedy and his timing, especially. In this film, Williams plays Parry, a homeless guy who had some rough instances that put him in that place physically and mentally. He thinks he's a knight and wants to find the Holy Grail and also is in love with a woman he sees around town. It's a very Terry Gilliam type of film and Williams is a good choice to play the fantastical character. He imbues the role with the necessary humor and heart. You need an actor who won't make the knight idea feel so ridiculous and Williams is the perfect guy to make it both funny and heartwarming without being too over the top. Williams tones down his brand of comedy in this role which is why the performance works so well. He allows the character to shine through instead of using the character as an excuse to make jokes and be a funnyman. Williams is actually much better when he's playing the more serious notes of the performance like when talking with Jeff Bridges and trying to woo the girl he's chasing. The performance needs these serious moments to break up the craziness of the homeless knight angle. I think too much of that and this wouldn't have been nominated. I think it's balanced well enough that we don't get sick of either side. It's not perfect and it won't blow you away, but you'll remember why Williams was nominated 4 times total.


After a blah group, I get a group that is extremely strong by name alone. Turns out they are all pretty good in reality, too. The weak link is Nolte, who gives an uneven performance in a blah film but if you add up his other work this year fits fine at the 5th spot. Williams is very earnest in his performance blending his comedy with some dramatic work. It's an interesting performance and one I'm glad got recognized. He's 4th because Nolte is not as strong and because the others are simply better. My first Beatty interaction sees him at 3rd. He's charming and funny and an obviously talented actor and movie star. The performance just didn't hit as hard as the others above it, but I'm excited to watch his other stuff. De Niro probably would have been the winner if not for Hopkins giving an iconic, brilliant performance. De Niro was really great and I loved the film itself a lot, too. Wasn't sure what the performance would bring before I watched because everyone always talks about his other more notable roles but he was real strong here. Hopkins, though, is the undisputed winner. One of the greatest performances of all time. I'm excited to see what 1990 brings!

Oscar Winner: Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner:  Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs
Robert De Niro
Warren Beatty
Robin Williams
Nick Nolte

Leading Actress 1991

Sometimes I get so sick of doing this project. Days where I watch some shitty Best Actress movie after working 12-13 hours and commuting home and watching a 2 - 2 and half hour movie that I struggle to finish then having to write a decent review instead of just 5 minutes of hurried writing. I want to put some effort into these reviews, ya know? Or I waste my Friday/Saturday night watching a 2-3 hour movie and having to write reviews and hating life because I just wasted part of a weekend on a terrible movie. It happens often in this project and I hate it. It's part of the source of some of my delays. I think it'll get better when I get beyond the years I was born and can get into the classic film factor. I know there will be awful films in the 70s but I feel like they will matter more than the shitty films of 1996. I think it's all about perspective. That's why I can't wait to get into the 80s. On paper this year doesn't look too bad, so let's find out!

1991 Best Actress

Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs

I think in the legend of this film, what gets lost is how strong Foster's performance really is. I say that knowing she won her second Best Actress award for this and this is what people instantly think about when they think of Foster (besides maybe Reagan's assassination attempt). But Foster is active in this film just as much as Anthony Hopkins is. I like that she portrays a strong female character that could easily be subbed with a man which tells me that it's just a strong performance, period. I know that sounds a little off but yes, she's a strong female but I feel like this would have been a man's role if it wasn't the 90s. Anyway, she knocks it out of the park as FBI agent in training Clarice Starling. She's a determined woman who wants to show she can be an asset like any male agent could be. I especially like that the film doesn't focus so much on the fact that she is a woman and instead focuses on the interplay between her and Hopkins. Foster holds her own against an iconic character and doesn't look any less for the wear. The West Virginia accent is fine and I appreciate that she's not portrayed as a super hero or super cop. She's smart which leads her to Buffalo Bill but the ending isn't her playing the hero so much as Foster playing scared and letting her training kick in. She's such a normal character in those regards and Foster plays it effectively. Foster also needs to be able to carry the film when Hopkins isn't on screen and keep it from suffering any major drop off. I think she does well in keeping the viewer engaged and interested as we are with Hannibal Lector. It's a great performance and I'm not sure what else can be said or needs to be said about it. It's a no brainer for a winner.

Geena Davis - Thelma and Louise

Having just watched this film for the first after knowing about it's cultural impact from other places, this is a fantastic film! The film has been lampooned to death so I was expecting this rote, cheesy woman buddy film and it's much more than that. Briefly about the film, I love the way it's shot. It still looks fresh and the hand held camera movements lends itself well to the story. It makes the relationship between Davis' Thelma and Sarandon's Louise feel even more real and authentic. That's one of the things I enjoy about both of their performances but especially Davis. She looks like she improv'd all of her performance or that she's not totally aware that their is a camera on her the whole time. Some actors know how to play it up for the cameras and to get the best side, take, whatever but Davis is fine with looking goofy and being herself. Hard to fully explain, I just like how natural she is in front of the camera. She plays the titular Thelma as I said and is the more emotional and carefree of the two. I think that's what I like about her performance the most. Davis and Sarandon are going away for a long weekend to escape their husbands and let loose. Davis gets almost raped and Sarandon kills the guy and the two go on the lam. That's the film in a nutshell. Now, you can say that this film glorifies violence and drunk driving and belittles men and all that, which is frankly does, but turnabout is fair play to me. We see this same perspective from the men's side all the time so I'm not really all that up in arms about this version. I think Davis and her character appropriately react to the situation which is pretty screwed up all around but when you're involved in a traumatic event, I would expect that. I also think that Davis best represents the new found freedom and desperation of the two characters. She's the one who has a fling, robs a store, puts a gun to a cop's head. She's the one that really embodies what the film is about. It's why I prefer her over Sarandon out of the two, just seems like the more honest (and better) performance.

Laura Dern - Rambling Rose

I dislike this movie greatly. One of the few films I outright hate so far. The performances are all what they are, which isn't awful but the film is just creepy and weird and a very bad, uninteresting story. And I'll be perfectly honest, I'm not a Laura Dern fan. I did go into this with an open mind but this performance has a lot of the traits that I don't like about her other work. It has that flighty, free spirited, innocent, child like behavior that you can kinda see even in her recent nomination for Wild. Dern plays a young woman who comes to a house in the South apparently getting away from her troubles. She becomes a live in helper for a very strange, weird family and stirs up trouble with everyone she meets because of her behavior. She's a very lithe, pretty young thing and she knows it and pretends to be coy and innocent while sashaying around town in a tight dress with her cleavage showing, sneaking men into her bedroom and even having the teenage boy of the house get her off sexually. The tone of the film is way off and Dern's performance doesn't really help matters. She mostly plays the same one note for much of the film with some bouts of over-dramatic acting thrown in. I don't think it's anything to write home about and certainly not Oscar caliber stuff. I never feel sympathetic for her and I think I am supposed to but since I can't even figure out if I'm supposed to or not, this film and performance fails. Why am I watching her and why am I not into her performance at all? I have no reason to like her nasty, creepy performance and that's what it all boils down to. I feel as if the Academy was super proud of nominating a mother - daughter duo for the same film and trying to make a star out of Dern. Not a good look going the nepotism route for the Academy.

Bette Midler - For the Boys

If you are a Bette Midler fan, you'll love this nomination and be screaming for it to win. I get that. It's a really interesting performance. Midler plays a singer who forms a duo that goes on USO tours and is genuinely funny. It's a really interesting film because it sort of shadows Midler as she sings on tour in WWII, then gets begged to go to Korea to sing there. Except while there, she actually experiences war first hand and sees a soldier die in front of her. Her life and this film is very much an indictment on the US's involvement in international conflicts. Life was just peachy in WWII, the men were heroes sacrificing themselves for the greater good. In Korea, it was a war we didn't understand that was far more brutal than we could ever have imagined or realized. The casualties were too raw and unexpected because we are a super power. Then Midler's Uncle gets canned for being a suspected commie sympathizer mirroring the Red scare in politics. Midler and a great James Caan turn to television before offering to go to Vietnam to sing. Midler's son is there and she gets to be near him in their sparse base only to see him die in an attack. This shows just how brutal the Vietnam War really was and how it wasn't so romantic like WWII or idealistic like Korea. If they were to continue it into Iraq or Afghanistan, I can just picture how those moments would go. When I was there we flew in Toby Keith and Aaron Tipin and UFC fighters to our small FOBs and it was brief and a great distraction and ridiculous all at the same time. I admire this film for sort of showing all that hypocrisy about the USO thing. I don't actually think that Midler would have been allowed to fly to a far off base where her son was if the threat was that high but it makes for a very dramatic effect. I thought Bette was perfect for this role. It seems tailor made and Midler seems like she was better suited for living in the 40s and 50s as an actress and singer. I know she's had a big following but I think she would have been a huge star way back when. I was ready to dismiss this performance but I think Midler did a really great job portraying not only a singer and entertainer but especially a mother. I can respect the pin up aspirations but Better was born too late. She's great in her role even if it's a little too anemic.

Susan Sarandon - Thelma and Louise

Sarandon plays the other part of the duo, Louise. She is more of the straight, serious character than Davis' innocent, naive Thelma. The two set off on an adventure for a weekend before things take a turn for the worse at a bar. Sarandon ends up killing a man and begins making a lot of poor choices as a result. Sarandon is the one that compounds things and is the decision maker as Davis blithely tags along so she doesn't abandon her friend and get in trouble. Sarandon's performance is good and the two have some really great chemistry together. They seem like long time friends. I'm just not as enthused about Sarandon here when compared with Davis. Sarandon is sort of the caretaker and because of that we (or at least me) look maybe a bit more harshly on her even though she's just playing a character. It's probably because she plays the straight woman that makes her performance a little less enjoyable overall and makes the interplay between her and Davis work so well. You wouldn't want the same two characters going through this story because that would be incredibly boring. So in that regard, Sarandon succeeds at doing what's necessary for the film and the relationship.


All in all, not a bad group at all! One stinker but the rest are pretty good and I'm glad for that. If I could, I would excise Dern from this group and find another, more deserving performance somewhere else. Hated the film and disliked the performance. No thanks. Midler was surprisingly good as I thought it might be a very derivative, one note performance. She brought a little more to it that I expected and I like that. I think Sarandon would be very close to Midler in terms of voting. She's been better and her partner outshines her, honestly. She's still pretty good, however and 3rd ain't too bad a place. Davis is my easy runner up because I was completely charmed by her performance. I think it has a great deal of depth and really stood out to me over Sarandon. Foster is your obvious winner. Just can't go wrong with her performance. A decent group  and thankfully not all tied to awful films.

Oscar Winner: Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner:  Jodie Foster - The Silence of the Lambs
Geena Davis
Susan Sarandon
Bette Midler
Laura Dern