Best Picture 1986

Platoon was my favorite movie of all time growing up. I love that film a ton and have seen it a whole bunch of times. Nothing will beat it this year but I guess for continuity sake, I'll watch the other four that are nominated.

1986 Best Picture

Platoon

For the longest time this was my favorite film of all time. I thought it was the greatest film ever made and I grew up watching it over and over and romanticized about the war aspect of it even though the point was not to glamorize war. I'd say it had a very strong impact on me joining the Army in some noble, misguided way. Not that I'm an idiot that can't separate film from reality but I just loved the film so much that I know it seeped into my subconscious. I think this film is a complete package. You have some of the best acting ever from Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe as the two competing platoon sergeants. Then factor in all the other supporting players from a terrific Keith David (who is such a great guy to meet in person) to Kevin Dillon, John C. McGinley, Forest Whitaker, Johnny Depp, Corey Glover all giving something special to the film. It captures so many raw elements of war that I could never really grasp as a kid and only understood after I myself deployed. It was made by Oliver Stone as a response to the rah rah films of John Wayne in The Green Berets (which I still love) and shows the flip side of combat. It's not all heroic and is mostly terrible and chaotic and frustrating. When I think of Platoon, the first thing that pops into my head is Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings. It is haunting and beautiful and emotional and just absolutely perfect as the soundtrack to the film. The two are inseparable for me. It might as well have been written explicitly for the film because anytime I hear it in another film I get angry that it's ripping off Platoon. The emotional attachment with that song is very high for me. Stone isn't a very subtle guy with the movies he makes and in his writing and directing but I feel even Platoon eschews that and uses his not so subtle ways to great effect. This is unequivocally his masterpiece, having lived the events himself you know this is from his soul. It shows. This is my second favorite film of all time and I love it even more every time I watch it. Simply a perfect film that I'm glad the Academy was able to reward for others to see.

Children of a Lesser God

I was pretty excited to finally watch this film. Way back when I always got this mixed up with Children of the Corn, which would make for an interesting choice here for sure. But this film is juuust slightly better than the Stephen King film. It tells the story of a new teacher who comes to a small school to help teach deaf kids and notices a young female janitor who is super smart, yet angry and tries to woo her and teach her at the same time. Sounds like some Good Will Hunting type shit, huh? I kinda thought it might really echo that film a bit but it did of course forge its own way. It's all about the relationship between William Hurt and Marlee Matlin. My first real issue is that the relationship is sprung on us so quickly. I guess that the film didn't want to take an hour leading up to them hooking up and being a couple so we got sort of an abridged version of the events that led up to all that. We establish that she is smart and angry and that he is a quirky teacher who gets results and really likes Matlin almost from the start. That's probably the one major thing I'd change, just make it a bit longer and not make the romance seem so abrupt and forced. Once it gets going, it is great. Lots of sign language without subtitles so you're in the lurch at times if no subtitles, but I feel like that's a purposeful decision to make you feel like the deaf kids in this. Hurt and Matlin have good chemistry and even shacked up together right after filming before I guess they had a tumultuous real life relationship. But the chemistry is there which makes the film better. Eventually you do care about them staying together even if Matlin's conversion is convenient. She becomes less angry and more accepting to Hurt's belief. The big issue in the film is that Matlin doesn't want to have to speak and enter the world of the hearing, she wants guys to learn sign language and be content with silence. The film has its limitations, though. Why can't either of them compromise earlier and meet in the middle? The deafness feels like a new twist on a way to complicate a love story. The acting is phenomenal and I like the overall film but it isn't as strong as it could be. But also, what other films are dealing this directly with deafness and introducing us to that world? For that, the film is a must see and deserves to be on this list. It's probably the runner up since nothing will beat Platoon and we could all stand to watch this film and learn a little.

Hannah and Her Sisters

This is the first time I've been able to talk about a Woody Allen film at length without focusing on a specific performance since Midnight in Paris in 2011. That's like 25 years in between Best Picture nominations for Allen. One of the things I've been doing alongside this project is watching every single Woody Allen film (going backwards, of course) even if nothing was nominated because he has so many of his films in the Oscar discussion somewhere. Plus, I felt that I needed to educate myself on Allen's oeuvre because he's so prolific and such a part of film history and Oscar history. It's been a fun ride and there's a lot of good stuff from Allen and a lot of shit, too. This film is classic Woody. About three sisters who are upper class intellectuals with a large family and a nice apartment/house, they spout off about operas and art and fancy things. It's the same mold he was doing over and over but this one feels more full, more complete. It's also got a lot going on and is very wordy. We follow the three sisters and their loves over three Thanksgivings which means a lot changes. It's interesting and I like the use of title cards with quotes from the scenes or allusions to upcoming scenes. Allen always is imaginative in his stories. He is always trying something new or different or riffing off another director he loves. I've always thought that his films would be stronger if he didn't act in them and I do think his scenes are the most uninteresting and forced. When I see him I automatically think of him instead of a character and he can never really become much more than just an exaggerated version of himself anyway. I also didn't really like Michael Caine in this one. He was not a very good surrogate for Allen and I don't think he did anything especially well. He was his typical charming self but with the bumbling of Allen thrown in for good measure. A lot of people absolutely love this film and now after watching it, I think I would actually prefer Crimes and Misdemeanors and Husbands and Wives over this. I'd rather this film ended on a more realistic note where Caine's wife finds out he was cheating with her sister and all hell breaks loose but the studio didn't want that. I think I prefer the much more serious Allen, even if he's pretty great at writing about women. I just feel like the film could have been more important and more intense, which is what I think it needed. Especially if you're going to have Allen married to two of the sisters and Caine banging two of the sisters. There needed to be some serious looks at sisterhood and family and love and all that kinda stuff. It's a decent film and it's a very good Allen film but I'm wanting more since this scored a Best Picture nomination. I really do mean that this is top Allen stuff, I've seen enough of his hurried garbage to realize this is why people love his films. And I know I have a couple beloved films of his to watch going back in time but I was hoping for more from this one.

The Mission

This is a very interesting film. It would make a great companion piece to this year's Scorsese film, Silence. It's about Jesuit priests in South America who because of some treaty, lose the protection of the Catholic Church when the mission they have changes hands between Spanish and Portuguese forces. The Portuguese are pro-slavery and plan on taking the natives and this film shows the struggle the mission faces. A lot of the reviews I read online paint this as a boring film where not much happens and I don't get it. Yes, this is a slower film with long stretches of no dialogue but hardly boring. The cinematography won an Oscar and for good reason: the film is luscious and beautiful to look at. It's the strength of the film, for sure, and makes those stretches of silence not matter. The score is fantastic as well from Ennio Morricone and some research shows it consistently showing up near the top of Best Score ever lists. It really adds to the feeling of the film. The acting, though, is really great. Jeremy Irons is perfect as the head Jesuit priest of the mission and while I have my issues with Robert De Niro in this, he's still really good as the intense slaver turned priest. My issue with De Niro is that he sounds like De Niro. Now, the film doesn't really try at any authentic accents but I can't buy De Niro as a priest in 1750 South America with a New York Italian accent. I would have liked some attempt at authenticity, though. His character arc is pretty good, however, and makes for a decent performance. He was once a slaver operating near the mission and then gets arrested and Irons takes him on as he drags a big bag of his things behind him in penitence. He eventually becomes a priest and then defends the mission from the Portuguese who come to destroy everyone. It's a satisfying arc and De Niro is all in with his character, giving it an intensity that makes it worth a watch. And that's the thing about the film: it's a hopeless story. The Jesuit priests are trying to convert natives in South America way back when and then have to realize that because of far off decisions, their territory is now in Portuguese hands and the Catholic Church has abandoned them and they are left to wait for the eventual slaughter. It's a tough film in that respect because there is no Hollywood ending and that's a big reason why I really like it. It's bleak yet beautiful and contemplative. If it wasn't for Platoon, this would be my winner hands down. I'm very glad this was nominated because it's terrific.

A Room with a View

I will have to check but this might be the last of the Merchant-Ivory films I have to watch for the project. I've been a fan of most of them as they have been pretty interesting and decent literary adaptations with some good performances. This film has a very young Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, and a wonderfully proper and pretentious Daniel Day-Lewis in some of the roles so you think it would be a lot better than it is. I found this film to be mostly boring, though. And really it's the fault of the story and maybe a little bit with the direction. The story is about Carter going to Italy for vacation with her overseer/cousin/chaperone, Maggie Smith. They switch rooms with a father and son so they can have a room with a view. Carter falls for the son who is very progressive and free spirited which is a change from the restrictive and oppressive England so it's a nice little change of pace for her. Smith isn't too keen on Carter and this boy flirting and getting together and tries to keep them apart and tells Carter to not say anything. When they return to England, Carter becomes engaged to DDL, though she isn't all that interested in him. By coincidence, the boy she met in Italy (who is English played by Julian Sands) moves near her in England and they start spending time together and she calls off her engagement and they marry and life is happy. Simple enough stuff but the telling of it isn't very interesting to me. This film should be very passionate and romantic and have some great drama to it and intrigue and comedy and all that but it doesn't. Subsequent Merchant-Ivory films have more of that type of vibrant writing and direction so maybe it's just the source material for this film? I'm not sure, but I just could not really get into the film even though I wanted to, given the talent involved. It's just dry and boring, unfortunately. I did like that it used title cards to separate scenes into chapters almost and used some of the text from the book as descriptors. That was somewhat fresh feeling and didn't make this film a complete dud for me. It's interesting that this is the second Best Picture film after Hannah and Her Sisters that uses the same sort of technique. The acting is good just underwhelming. And Merchant-Ivory films never lack for great art direction and costumes and all that period piece stuff you come to expect. All in all, this seems like what people think of when they think of stuffy, British period dramas that seem to plague the Oscars and keep people from getting too excited about them. Can't blame them on this one.


Thus concludes 1986. Kind of a mixed bag as far as all the categories go. Best Picture field was pretty good, though. One of my favorite films and one of the strongest BP winners ever helps this year be pretty awesome. And then I find a film in The Mission that is surprisingly great. Like I really liked that film even if a lot of people think it's boring. It's right up my alley and just looks beautiful. Children of a Lesser God is pretty good, also, though it could have been better. Either of these may have won in different years because they seem to tick off a lot of Academy sweet spots and are good films to boot. Hannah and Her Sisters has it's moments but I'm not sure why this Woody Allen film got so much love over some of his other films. A Room with a View is pretty boring, sadly. It has some good performances but they can't save the film for me. I'll take three really good films for a year every time, though. And really the bottom two aren't super terrible or anything. This is a decent year all things considered.

Oscar Winner: Platoon
My Winner:  Platoon
The Mission
Children of a Lesser God
Hannah and Her Sisters
A Room with a View

Leading Actor 1986

I'm a big Paul Newman fan and really like him in this film. I haven't seen any of the others and they are all interesting on the surface. I'll have to see if anyone can dethrone him.

1986 Best Actor

Paul Newman - The Color of Money

I haven't seen The Hustler but I know all about it. I don't think it's a prerequisite to watching this film, though I'm sure it helps add depth to the character of "Fast Eddie" Felson. This film stands on its own and is a very good film, though a lot of people seem to put it down because it's Scorsese continuing someone else's story. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard and this is some great Scorsese stuff. Great shots, helms in the characters, keeps the story tight and mysterious - all around great. But Paul Newman. Newman's Own. A lot of folks think he was robbed in 1961 and though I can't say for sure since I've not seen any of those films, I'd probably agree looking at the names. A lot of folks call this a makeup Oscar for Newman given his body of work and history of snubs. I don't really care about all of that. Newman is quite awesome in this film in 1986. It's the classic story of older guy teaches younger guy the ropes of whatever. In this case, Newman schools Cruise in the art of being a pool shark. His teacher role is fantastic to watch. He latches on to Cruise by way of his girlfriend Mary Elizabeth Mastroantonio and it's a brilliant strategy. She sees the bigger picture and Newman recognizes this, that she has some control over his hot headedness. Newman is Newman. That shouldn't have to be explained really. He's perfect in the role because this is his second go around with the character and gives him exactly the touch he needs. Felson is also a flawed individual. He's not this perfect creation by the story to make everyone happy. He takes on Forrest Whitaker and loses and is very human in those moments. He gets prideful and pissed when Cruise beats him or when, spoiler, Cruise dumps on him to maximize his earning potential in the green room and future tournaments. That means Cruise went easy when Newman thought they were both going toe to toe equally. When Felson realizes this, it's a thing of great acting. I also like that it goes from Newman being out of the game and using his hustling skills to hawk liquor to him getting back in the billiards business teaching Cruise to eventually getting back into playing for real for himself. Who else is going to win this year, seriously? This is your only choice and it's still a great one. Newman is so natural which is part of that lived in effect of having played Felson already. He's at his best when actually playing pool and being back in the game. The tournament at the end is the highlight because it shows how determined he is and how in control Cruise is at different moments. And Newman is great in all of this. I absolutely love this win even if Newman should have been a multi year winner for his other work. But his Felson here is easily worth a win itself and worth watching Scorsese's denigrated masterpiece.

Dexter Gordon - Round Midnight

I was really interested in watching this performance because I'd never heard of Gordon or the film and then once I researched both, I found out he was a well respected and loved jazz saxophone player and didn't have any acting experience. Upon reading about all of that, I was expecting to be blown away by the performance as something really great that could even impress the Academy. I was very wrong about that. This was more in the vein of Jennifer Hudson's unfortunate nomination and terrible win. I guess he's a jazz legend (I'm not a jazz guy) and seems to be nominated simply because of that reason instead of his acting. The performance isn't that good at all. There's no soul or passion behind his character. He plays an old jazz guy playing in a club in Paris and struggling with alcoholism though he doesn't seem to care as much as those around him. Some French guy who loves him becomes like a manager and their lives intertwine. This is actually a French film and it kinda shows and there are lots of scenes where Gordon is playing on stage (live apparently, which is pretty cool) or there is music happening. It's obvious that the producers wanted someone who could actually play music and be great at it at the sacrifice of actual acting ability. Gordon is a bit stiff and can feel like he's just reading lines at times. I think some other people would point to that as realism for the character but it makes me not like watching his character, which is a big problem for the film. Luckily there are so many scenes of him playing sax that he doesn't have to carry the film by acting. The script gives him these inane, flowery things to say as almost one liners that don't do any favors with his gruff, detached, emotionally void voice. Unfortunately, this isn't a Best Actor worthy performance though it is a very interesting inclusion. I can't outright hate it, but I don't think it's all that good, either. A curious Academy choice.

Bob Hoskins - Mona Lisa

I didn't know Bob Hoskins was British. I remember him from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Super Mario Bros and yes, Hook, but I thought that was a fake accent. Now I know Hoskins is very much a British individual. He plays a guy fresh out of prison who then is made to drive around a prostitute, one which reminded me of the girl from The Crying Game which was, surprise, directed by the same guy, Neil Jordan. Just thought that was interesting. Hoskins puts in a performance that is too good for the film. He is so dedicated and earnest but the film is so crap. He gets out of prison and drives a prostitute around and then goes into super savior mode and tries to save this girl his client knows. Then the film devolves into like a crusade against child prostitution and it feels really weird. He has a lot of range that he has to show off, being a tough guy but also caring and human. He's got to be funny while also being like a detective and kind of a hero type. It really stretches the acting of Hoskins and he's certainly up to the task. He can be scared and timid and assured and confident and in charge and all these different sides to the same character. And that's the thing is that he has built a character. He's the only real reason to watch the film, although it does also star Michael Caine and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid from Harry Potter) and Clarke Peters (Lester Freamon for you The Wire fans). I just wish the film was better around him. It's so tonally up and down. One minute it's a comedy, the next it's a detective type savior story, then it's a thriller, then it's almost a horror film, and then an intimate portrayal of a man reestablishing himself in society and...well you get the idea. Oh yeah, there's also a shootout. It's a really interesting choice by the Academy because Hoskins is really strong but the film isn't at all. It really made me want to look into any other serious roles Hoskins has done because he commands your attention. I don't expect many have seen this but it is worth checking out to see more of Hoskins than what you know from his children's films. I guess I should thank the Academy for making me watch a film I never would have even known about and seeing a really good Bob Hoskins performance. I don't know where I'll rate this but it gives me something to think about for sure.

William Hurt - Children of a Lesser God

I am really growing to like William Hurt as an actor. I already enjoyed him and thought he was brilliant in A History of Violence, among other things. In this film, Hurt plays a new teacher to a small town who is there to teach deaf kids to speak and takes on a former student who is brilliant and sexy and headstrong. They inevitably fall in love and we watch the relationship go through it's ups and downs. Hurt, just like in everything else I've seen him in, is such an understated actor. He's so calm and collected and natural that it's easy to like him. He's all of that here, of course, as he traverses his relationship with Marlee Matlin. I was actually kinda worried that he was just going to be a quirky teacher character because that is how we are first introduced to him. He does a handstand and other atypical things and I'm thinking of Robin Williams! Luckily, those oddities were mostly it, as Hurt is more of a free spirited type of teacher. I also like that Hurt can easily switch between different emotions without it seeming like he is going from one extreme to another. Hurt and Matlin have great chemistry which obviously helps the film as a whole and the performances individually. Hurt is more hopeful and optimistic about life and the relationship and Hurt's natural charisma helps hammer those feelings home. He also is enthusiastic about helping the deaf kids reach their full potential and those scenes are quite effective for the character, getting us to really like Hurt and see he has a good heart. This was the second of his three Best Actor nominations in a row and you can definitely see that Hurt was on top of his game here. It's a strong performance and the interplay between Hurt and Matlin are the star of the film. If not for Paul Newman winning his much overdue Oscar, Hurt could have contended for a second win in a row. This one is definitely worth seeking out.

James Woods - Salvador

This is the lesser of the two 1986 Oliver Stone features. It's also the one people don't even remember he made. You say 1986 and Stone and everyone automatically thinks of Best Picture Winner Platoon and rightfully so. This film is about the US meddling in the El Salvador civil conflict because communism or some lame scare tactic. Woods is a photojournalist who is kind of a screw up in life who goes down to this conflict to make some money and then of course sees what is really going on and tries to fight against it with his lens and help the people down there. I think you either love or hate James Woods and his frenetic energy. That is certainly on display here as he's going a mile a minute and seems perpetually on cocaine or something. He starts out as a sad sack character getting kicked out of his apartment, having to borrow money to try and get another job, using his "friends" to get what he needs - not a very sympathetic character. But Woods is good at portraying his guy as a scummy lowlife who knows how to wheel and deal and get what he wants. He then goes down to El Salvador and meets up with a lot of contacts he has here and gets into a lot of tough spots that he can get out of because he's so good at bribing and talking his way out of things. That's where Woods' energetic style serves him well. Eventually the style wears thin because there are times where you just want him to shut up and you get tired of his antics. He also doesn't think anything through which is why he ended up in El Salvador because he just wanted to make money quick and didn't stop to think about being in a country with a civil war bubbling up. He dives head long into anything he does and we see why the man is broke with many lovers and homeless. Woods fits this character pretty well and makes him into a believable person who has been all over the world in the middle of conflicts probably drinking, screwing, and narrowly missing death. Inevitably, Woods' character begins to react personally to what is going on, mostly because he has an El Salvadorian girlfriend and a kid (I think) and wants to get them out. He also gets angry at the US diplomats and military guys he knows because they are what is helping to make situations worse in the country. He becomes more caring and involved and not out to just make a quick buck and have a drink. It was a change you could see coming a mile away but Woods still does a good job selling it. This film isn't nearly as good as Platoon is and some of that helps bring down Woods a tad but I also think Woods isn't that good enough to elevate the material much. He's fine and it's that he has a nomination but this certainly wasn't going to be much of a front runner.


This is a kind of interesting group. It was Newman's win from the start, though I did read that Hoskins had a lot of traction with some precursor awards which is really interesting because I had never even heard of the film or performance. Gordon is the easy 5th because it's not Best Actor worthy. Give him a Best Song or something and be done with rewarding him but not a nomination here. Makes no sense. Woods is decent and really has to carry his film with his non stop energy. Not good enough for a win, but I get the nomination. Now for second place, I feel Hoskins does enough to push him over the edge versus Hurt. He has a lot to do in a film that is all over the place and is what keeps it from being a total mess. For that reason, he's the second choice. Hurt gets pushed to third but is still very good and could have won if not for Newman. Newman is great and deserved the win. No doubt I'll probably give him a couple more over the course of the project.

Oscar Winner: Paul Newman - The Color of Money
My Winner:  Paul Newman - The Color of Money
Bob Hoskins
William Hurt
James Woods
Dexter Gordon

Leading Actress 1986

I just want to say thank you to those wonderful people who put extended or director's cut versions of films online. Yes, I watch most of these films online in some way or another. But it's pretty awesome when you watch one and then look up info on it and see that the version you watch was the extended version with an extra 20 minutes and includes deleted scenes. There has been a couple times where that's been the case and I've remarked on it in my reviews. I'd rather watch those versions anyway if that's the director's true vision. Just saying. Haven't seen any of these ladies but very excited for them all!

1986 Best Actress

Marlee Matlin - Children of a Lesser God

Obviously the first thing you have to consider about this performance and win is the deafness factor. There's a lot of Oscar trivia attached to this one win and nomination. Matlin is the youngest winner ever at 21. She won an Oscar in her film debut, which is super rare. She is the only deaf actress to win an acting award. This was the first major film that even starred a deaf actor in a leading role since 1926. Lots of interesting notes, for sure. But was this a case of the Academy rewarding her more for her condition instead of her actual performance? That was the one thing I really wanted to find out about for this year. I really liked Matlin's turn in The West Wing and knew she was a good actress from that show. I will say that the deafness factor helps her out in the performance because since it is a non-speaking role, she has to emote and convey a whole lot just from looks and body language. When we first meet her, she's kind of like this wild woman, very angry and brooding. I was worried that this would be a very broad performance and prone to big acting but eventually Matlin settles into the character as we learn more about her. She's angry, yes, but we understand where that anger comes from as she doesn't want to be made to speak because she wants others to learn to sign. She's also headstrong and stubborn which Matlin shows us to great effect. The film and story rushes into the relationship with her and Hurt, which is my one big gripe about the film. It doesn't get the chance to develop totally naturally and the story seems impatient with this part. But the chemistry between Hurt and Matlin is palpable and when you learn they were an item for a couple years after, it makes complete sense. And really the film hinges on believing them as a couple, so credit to Matlin for helping in that. I also think that the film changes Matlin from the bullish, tough girl in the beginning to a more accepting and open girl at the end a little too easily and quickly. These are things I think the film does wrong as maybe it needed a bit more development of the characters for me to really believe Matlin had changed from being so stubborn but Matlin does all she can with the material. The performance is good, no doubt, though I'm not sure I consider this a slam dunk in maybe some other years. It shows from time to time that this is her first film role and she's a little rough around the edges at points. But overall, this is a very good performance from Matlin and I was glad to see the nomination and win wasn't just about her being deaf. I'll have to see all the other performances to make sure she really should have been the winner.

Jane Fonda - The Morning After

Is it weird that I kinda really like this film on a purely 80s aesthetic and because it kinda sums up 80s films to me? Yeah, it's not that great of a film but it's entertaining on a basic level. Jane Fonda has big hair. Jeff Bridges is a hunky guy who helps her out. It's a thriller about Fonda waking up after a night of drinking with a dead guy in her bed. Then she has to figure out if she did it or if she's in danger....cue chintzy 80s thriller music! One of the things that impresses me the most about the film is that Fonda takes the time to super clean the apartment where she woke up and even cleans all the fingerprints she might have left behind. I like that a lot because it's attention to detail. Also, Fonda reminds me a whole lot of Jessica Lange and yes, I know they are different actresses and Fonda is her own woman but I think it's the aesthetic of the blonde hair, sunglasses, and the hair wrap. Just an observation. I also really like Fonda in Grace and Frankie on Netflix, she and Lily Tomlin are great together. I know this is me making a lot of non-sequitur type statements but this is an 80s thriller performance - you know what you're getting from it from the start. Fonda does elevate the material and performance by virtue of her being Jane Fonda and doing a little more than say a Michelle Pfeiffer might. Well, actually, Sidney Lumet (ya know, the guy who directed 12 Angry Men for his first film) kinda directs it as a throwback at times, especially with the music. The thriller part is also that Fonda isn't a crazy white bitch, but a woman being chased and pursued by nefarious peoples, the other side of the thriller coin. Fonda plays a pretty decent drunk, too, in everything I've seen her in so far, especially here where it matters to the story. It's nothing amazing and is pure 80s so if you enjoy those types of films, you'll enjoy this. But certainly not Fonda's best nominated work.

Sissy Spacek - Crimes of the Heart

Normally I try to make these reviews a bit longer than the Supporting ones because they are bigger performances. Not sure I'll have a whole hell of a lot to say for Spacek here. Spacek plays a woman who has shot her husband, so her other two sisters come home to deal with the crisis. It's one of those southern woman family films that throws a lot of well known actresses together and everyone loves seeing them all interact, which is totally the appeal here. It's Spacek and Jessica Lange and Dianne Keaton all having fun together, crying, laughing, getting emotional - the usual stuff. Spacek plays the younger sister, who as mentioned above, has shot her husband and is out of jail. She also was sleeping with a 15 year old black kid (why that gets completely glossed over, I don't know) which precipitated the shooting. It's scandalous but the film doesn't really care about that. It's more concerned about the family dynamics and the interactions between all the Oscar winning sisters than anything else. Spacek is a little bit crazy and plays it up for effect, though she doesn't go overboard. It teeters between comedy and the melodramatic so at least she keeps a handle on the character. It's regular Southern Gothic eccentric behavior. Spacek is good and her performance is somewhat fun, if not very bizarre in that she shoots her husband and bangs a 15 year old boy and no one seems to really care. She won a Golden Globe for this performance but I don't know what sets it apart exactly. Why her over Keaton or Lange? I think because she gets to play crazy and that's more interesting than Lange's ingenue or Keaton's mousy introvert. While it is kinda fun, it's not something that really grabs me and we've seen better versions of the crazy Southern woman before.

Kathleen Turner - Peggy Sue Got Married

This is a really fun and sweet film at it's heart. It also has a bunch of famous people at the very beginning of their careers. It features a fantastic Nic Cage doing a ridiculous voice in the 1960 scenes that just fits Cage's style perfectly. It also has Jim Carrey doing his thing, a young Joan Allen and Helen Hunt and is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (his daughter is just as bad here as she was in The Godfather Part III). Turner does a great job playing a woman in 1985 whose life is crumbling and headed for a mid life crisis. She's getting divorced from Cage who is a local big shot and goes to her high school reunion and faints. She wakes up back in 1960 knowing everything as if she were still in 1985 so that she can not make the same mistakes again. Of course the film is about whether or not she wants to make those same mistakes again or try and start a new life. Turner puts in work here and does a great job essentially carrying the film. I do feel she has it easy because the story makes her an adult in a teen's body/mind so those scenes are ones where she is super confident and not worried with life and very strong for a young girl back in that time. So while I do think Turner is pretty good, the story and script do a lot of work for her. But she brings a youthfulness to the 1960 scenes which makes the performance feel like not just a grown woman trying to do kid things, but instead a grown woman letting her old self take over. So I think that's what I like the most about the performance, is that she can make it seem like she's the grown up at times and make it look like she is the young woman at other times. This feels more like a nod to sentimentalism and the way things were than anything else. Turner won't blow you away but she is really effective in her role and very entertaining. I'm glad that the Academy nominated her so I could watch the film because it's this little small gem that is hidden in plain sight with all who are involved in it. Never going to win, but a decent Oscar watch.

Sigourney Weaver - Aliens

Yes, I did in fact watch Alien before watching this film. I had never actually watched Alien all the way through. I'd bet that I've seen that film a few times in various clips and knew exactly what happened in it. So it was nice to watch it start to finish finally. In that film, Weaver starts out as part of an ensemble cast and isn't really focused on until more towards the end when she's one of the last crew members alive. Before that she isn't anything amazing. By the end, she is showing off her leading lady potential and is able to carry the film easily and be a bad ass in the process. Aliens continues her story after being in hypersleep at the end of the first film and waking up way later than expected in this film. Now she is told that the planet they investigated in the first film is being terraformed by a colony and they have had issues contacting them and to go explore it looking for the xenomorph. Whereas the first film was a very intimate, contained horror film, this film is pure action film all the way. Sure, you can say it's got horror elements because of the xenomorphs but nah, it's an action film. But! That means this is the first female fronted action film to score a Best Actress nomination which is pretty cool. Weaver is great in this, honestly. I was a bit concerned that she would turn into the ultimate bad ass and just be a super heroine but she maintains a lot of her original characterization. She is concerned about those still on the planet and then worried about her own crew members when actually there. She's smart enough to deduce a lot of things going on like Burke the company man (Paul Reiser!) trying to get her impregnated by the alien to take home and sell. She's a very smart woman and she is very wary of everything going on and very much a bad ass when necessary. It's the ultimate female role, really, and Weaver does it a great service. She's really great in the film, that's really all you can say. I think it's interesting that you can compare this film to Avatar and find a ton of similarities, not the least of which is Weaver being involved. I was worried because at the beginning it follows that film's broad action adventure style before finally becoming more closed off when the gang goes to the planet and gets sealed in. The end is where Weaver truly shines because she does go all beast mode and it's not a schlocky mess, well not entirely. Weaver is pretty great and her only competition is Marlee Matlin so I'll have a big decision on who to vote for.


This is a tough one! I'll start at the bottom where Spacek is clearly the weakest of all of them here. I'm left wondering why her for that role. It's a weird one, for sure. Fonda is crazy in a purely distilled 80s film and I love it, even if it's a weak Fonda performance overall. She's fun but would this ever win? Of course not. Turner is fun also and does well with her almost dual role. The film itself kinda bumps up her performance to third. Kind of interchangeable with Fonda, really. The real battle is between Matlin, who is your typical kinda Oscar role and a decent winner, going against Weaver who would make for an awesome win. And don't let anyone tell you oh, it's just an action role so she would never win and shouldn't win because Oscar doesn't go for that. Well, Oscar could have chosen her easily here because she is very good in the role and is a very strong female performance. Ripley is an iconic character and having Weaver win an Oscar for that role wouldn't be that awful or far fetched. It's ludicrous and really stupid to dismiss it purely because it's an action film. Matlin looks good, too, because here's a deaf woman winning an Oscar which shows a lot of women and even men that they can overcome their disability and maybe even win an Oscar some day. It's a nice sentiment and both have their pros for winning. I prefer Weaver because I like the character overall but Matlin is good and a deserving winner, too. Tough choice. I choose Weaver because I like the precedent it sets for the Academy and maybe we see more roles like this if she wins. Matlin gets kudos but I'm not sad if she isn't a winner. A very interesting year for Best Actress!

Oscar Winner: Marlee Matlin - Children of a Lesser God
My Winner: Sigourney Weaver - Aliens
Marlee Matlin
Kathleen Turner
Jane Fonda
Sissy Spacek

Supporting Actor 1986

Two nominees from one of my favorite films of all time and then three others I've never seen (yeah never saw Hoosiers, not really a basketball guy). Let's see if any of those three can even come close and if Caine is deserving or not.

1986 Best Supporting Actor

Michael Caine - Hannah and Her Sisters

Alright, so I've had beef with this performance before I ever saw it because it beat out the two guys from my favorite film for a long time. So I've irrationally hated this performance without ever seeing it, so I was pretty eager to finally watch it and see why the fuck it won. Well, I'm still waiting after finally seeing it. What exactly made this a winner? I can't for the life of me figure out why it won other than Berenger and Dafoe split the vote and a bunch of other dopes were duped into voting for this. I hate Michael Caine's other win for The Cider House Rules because it was a bullshit win, but this was an even more egregious win. Caine does nothing... nothing! to stand out. He is a poor surrogate for Woody Allen and portrays a man in love with his wife's sister. He's supposed to be this bumbling, charming guy but we are never given a reason to like him. I certainly didn't find him very interesting when his whole time is spent pathetically pining over Barbara Hershey, forcing her to like him, and then trying to amend things once he finally banged her. I just don't see what was worth a vote at all. I don't buy the charm, the bumbling persona. I really did think it was the worst part of the film, even worse than Woody Allen himself. I wanted to like it. I like Caine in almost all his other endeavors but his two Oscar wins are just brutal for me. I think they are wholly undeserved and I wish I could rectify them now. Mainly because I don't think Caine is very memorable in this film. Watch this film and tell me what you think stands out because I don't think it will be Caine. Maybe this was a make-up win from his previous nominations or because of the split, I don't know. I just know I didn't think Caine was anything special, yet he won. That's going to bug me forever. It's Caine playing Caine with a slight Woody Allen twist. If he doesn't win, I say it's a decent enough minor Caine nomination but he won. I will never let this go and will say this is the worst win in this category that I've encountered so far...and this is my favorite category!

Tom Berenger/Willem Dafoe - Platoon

These two are really that inseparable that I decided to combine their reviews in an Oscar Ballyhoo first. I wish I could give these guys both the win and I probably will in all honesty. They are the driving force of the film. You've got Good (Dafoe) and Evil (Berenger) battling it out in Vietnam for Charlie Sheen's soul. They are both really, really fucking good. I fell in love with this film at a young age and really enjoyed how Dafoe and Berenger were so different, yet so alike in many ways. I always slightly preferred Berenger simply because his role was the more complex of the two. Dafoe was more of the good version of a soldier and his part of the platoon liked to chill out and smoke dope and have a good time, waiting out their time before they could go home. Dafoe's SGT Elias is a guy who takes on one of the two different leadership styles. His is a more friendly, kinder, gentler role within the platoon, helping to guide the men without yelling and getting angry. He's kind and likeable and very sharp about the war and staying alive. Dafoe makes this realization that he's the good presence seem more subtle than it could have been. Berenger is obviously the evil/bad version of the soldier in Vietnam. SSG Barnes' leadership style is the tough love variety. At first he's the grizzled, scarred vet who has been there before and has seen a lot of shit and a lot of young privates come and go but then he devolves into a more personal hatred of Elias and the way everything is going. Barnes is the one who kills innocent civilians and clashes with Elias about this. Elias was obviously once very idealistic and hopeful about the war but we see that this idealism is growing weary and tired as he doesn't believe in what they are doing as much anymore but he still wants to protect his men and do the right thing on the battlefield - like not kill civilians. Berenger's performance shows what happens when the war and bureaucratic bullshit and multiple deployments and suicidal missions gets to a man. It becomes about his power over the war and the other men that really guides him at the end. He loses it in an almost Heart of Darkness type of way and becomes the villain even over the Vietcong. Meanwhile, Dafoe keeps his humanistic quality about him and even after he is killed goes out in a Christ-like fashion (he was phenomenal in The Last Temptation of Christ, by the way). That's where the slight edge goes to Berenger because he has to portray so many more emotions and that keep him as a human being but also as a murderous villain. Both of these actors' roles are complex and the film really is elevated because of their performances. Without these two guys, the film would suffer terribly. They are the film completely. There is just so much going on in both of their performances that I have no idea how a shitty Michael Caine performance could win besides vote splitting. I could watch both of these guys over and over in the film without ever getting tired and still find some new little nuance about their character that I hadn't seen before. They are both tremendous and deserved the Oscar.

Denholm Elliot - A Room with a View

Here's an interesting tidbit: Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't interested in campaigning for an Oscar nomination for this film and nixed ads being placed on his behalf. Elliot was more than willing to play the game and campaign and have ads for him. Sometimes it's that easy to figure out why someone was nominated. I'd honestly rather see DDL nominated because he's very good at the pretentious, stuffy upperclass guy he portrays. Elliot plays a middle to lower class older guy who doesn't exactly adhere to the common standards of the time. He is simply not the typical proper British person you'd expect in this story and era. He says what he wants and is more of a free spirited individual so he sticks out in the story for that. Elliot isn't really in the film all that much. We are introduced to him in the beginning when he speaks over a tour guide at an Italian vacation spot and just has a personality of someone that kinda does what he wants regardless of what society thinks. He is the father of the boy that Helena Bonham Carter falls in love with and is a supportive father and yeah, that's about all you can say. There is one scene towards the end of the film where he confronts Carter about denying her feelings for his son and trying to run from those feelings which clicks something inside her to make her realize her true feelings. Decent stuff, but minor stuff indeed. He just isn't given a whole lot to do within the story and that's why DDL would have been a much better nominee from the film. Now, Elliot was coming off three straight BAFTA wins and finally broke through with an Oscar nom, so this could be seen as a nod to his career at the moment and the work he had been doing recently. This isn't really any more than 4th or 5th for the category.

Dennis Hopper - Hoosiers

The first thing you have to talk about with this performance is that Hopper isn't really nominated for Hoosiers, no. He is nominated for Blue Velvet yet the Academy went with the more palatable film instead of the better performance. It's legit the only reason Hopper is nominated here. Hoosiers is a great sports film, probably the best basketball film I've ever seen and filmed by the guy who directed Rudy. Hopper is fine in this performance, though. He plays the town drunk who has an encyclopedic knowledge of basketball and it's history and catches the eye of Gene Hackman. He asks him to be an assistant coach and to help scout the other teams. There is friction because Hopper is an alcoholic and Hackman wants him to be sober around the team and Hopper has a hard time quitting. It's decent stuff. It's very sports movie trope stuff, absolutely. It's just made better by it being Hackman and Hopper. Once Hopper coaches, he doesn't do much else. He goes and gets drunk then bursts into a game and starts slurring and berating a ref and then goes to a recovery place. That's about it which is why you factor in the Blue Velvet aspect also. That performance is so memorable and messed up that you really get a sense of Hopper's range going from that to playing a drunk assistant coach in the beloved Hoosiers. It's crazy to think it is the same actor. You can't really vote for this because it's the wrong film but I'm fine with Hopper being nominated since it's his only acting nomination (he was nominated for Screenplay for Easy Rider).

Two of my favorite supporting actor nominees in one of my favorite films, it's a no-brainer who I want to win this year. I'd give a slight edge to Berenger if forced to pick a winner but I'd love for both of these guys to tie for the win. Caine is such a bad winner. Both of his wins are really bad wins. It makes me hate Caine even though he's a great actor. These wins are just really undeserved and it makes me angry. He basically is his usual self with a Woody Allen bent to it and it's nothing special. I'd rather take Hopper over Caine, even if he's nominated for the wrong film. He's good in Hoosiers but memorable and crazy in Blue Velvet. Elliot is an afterthought. The correct choice even if he didn't want to campaign is Daniel Day-Lewis. He leaves an impression unlike Elliot. Really wish this category turned out differently. Could have been one of the best winners, but instead we get Caine.

Oscar Winner: Michael Caine - Hannah and Her Sisters
My Winner:  Tom Berenger/Willem Dafoe - Platoon
Dennis Hopper
Michael Caine
Denholm Elliot

Supporting Actress 1986

One of the things I like about going back and seeing these older movies is that you get to see the old movie studio intros. Tri-Star, Orion, old Fox and Warner Bros and it's very nostalgic. I like it. I've seen none of these but am very hopeful for a good birth year retrospective.

1986 Best Supporting Actress

Dianne Wiest - Hannah and Her Sisters

Here we are again with Wiest winning for a role in a Woody Allen film. And what is kind of synergistic is that she is an actress in this one as well. Though this time she plays a sister of Hannah and is an aspiring actress working with Carrie Fisher (talk about synergy, RIP) at a catering company. She is feisty and she is the oddball of the three sisters. And I can't understand why she won unless the rest of this category is just god awful. She doesn't get all that much to do, really. She is the third sister of the three, meaning she is the least paid attention to by the overall story. She does her struggling artist thing and we see her working hard at the catering thing once and going to a couple auditions but it's never anything amazing to make you really stand up and go wow. It's also very Allen-esque for the female roles. You've seen this a million times in his films because she's similar to a lot of the parts he's written for women and going backwards, this doesn't feel new, it just feels used and outdated. But if I put myself in 1986, I can maybe see the Academy identifying with the struggling artist aspect. The ending with her character is pretty hokey to say the least. It's done because the studio wanted a happier ending so we get her telling Allen she's pregnant. I don't get why they reconnect after a failed date years and years ago but it is forced by the script. I'm trying to rack my brain as to what else Wiest did to possibly deserve the win and I can't come up with anything. That sounds harsh but I'd rather my winners stand out and not just be popular or whatever is left standing. She is fast talking and slick but I struggle to see what singles her out from say Barbara Hershey, the second sister. I like this better than her second win, I think, but did she even deserve this one? 2017 ain't starting off strong!

Tess Harper - Crimes of the Heart

Here is another one where I'm racking my brain to figure out why exactly she was nominated. Harper plays a nosey neighbor who is kind of annoying and just a busy body really but that's the extent of the performance. She has a couple brief scenes in the beginning where she is all up in the business of the main characters, kind of being a pain and is shooed away. She pops up briefly a couple times at the end and does the same thing, annoys the sisters and gets chased away once and brushed aside once. It's not memorable in any way. The film is about three sisters (Diane Keaton, Jessica Lange) coming back home because one (Sissy Spacek) shot her husband. It's one of those southern fried family sort of comedy/drama type films where the draw is seeing those three sisters all act together. That's what you remember about the film is three previous Oscar winning women all having fun together. You don't really pay attention or remember Harper. The only things I can think of as to why she was nominated is that voters remembered this film and wanted to nominate someone for supporting but the sisters are all co-leads so Tess Harper benefited. And the other that I read about was that a lot of people felt she was snubbed for her role in Tender Mercies a couple years prior and that this was a make up/apology nomination as a result. That all makes sense to me because you can't really point to anything about the performance that should be nominated. Not much else to say. This year is off to a poor start so far.

Piper Laurie - Children of a Lesser God

There have been many times when I've railed against nominated performances that are short or aren't really much of a factor in their small amount of screen time. A lot of times it's because of who the actor is or even the film they are attached to. Laurie isn't in this film much. In fact she's only in two scenes essentially, both at the very end of the film. Maybe the placement of where the scenes are has an impact on them getting nominated and the film itself, probably. But small scene performances like these need to be effective and need to be good for me to be okay with them included in a category. Laurie is good and I feel her performance is effective for what it is. It's certainly not Viola Davis in Doubt good, but she conveys a lot in her short time that is needed to understand Marlee Matlin's character a lot more. Laurie plays Matlin's mother who takes her in when her relationship with William Hurt sours and she needs a place to escape to. You can kinda see why Matlin is so bitter and angry about life in her return to mama. I don't want to pretend that Laurie eschews convention and stands above the rest of the cast and delivers some towering performance. She has two scenes that she does a fine job with and helps us to understand Matlin more in the process. She's not a good signer which might not be on purpose but I took it as Laurie was reluctant to learn it for her daughter and then never got the chance to really practice it. The two scenes are her taking in her daughter and then telling her that Hurt came by and to say hey, he does love you. I am fine with the nomination because Laurie manages to do a lot in those two extended scenes without actually doing a lot. It's in the fiber of the performance (pretentious alert) that we see and experience things with the character that aren't plainly spoken or seen. Laurie conveys a lot more than just being the caring mom. I dunno, I like the small performance and feel this is a decent inclusion.

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio - The Color of Money

You know, a lot of what I read about this nomination was people dismissing it as another typically weak Scorsese female character. When I first watched this years ago, Mastrantonio was one of the things that really stood out to me in the film. Watching it again only confirmed that same sentiment to me. She is really strong in the role and even if she is a marginalized character without much help from the script or Scorsese, she makes her character stand out and works it. She plays Tom Cruise's older girlfriend who has latched onto him because she sees that he is a brilliant pool player and she can make some money from him. She's not totally a sycophant but actual makes their relationship seem natural and normal enough that you don't question her intentions. You don't feel as if she would leave him over some little issue but that she is helping to mold him and loves him at the same time. She is basically his manager and when we first meet her is when Paul Newman realizes she is the key to getting to Cruise and we see exactly how influential she is in all of this. Mastrantonio also is so natural in the character. She doesn't look like obvious acting and really is the yin to Cruise's yang, they compliment each other well. That's why I think she is so strong in the film because she tempers Cruise and forges her own way without being the stereotypical girlfriend. I wanted to see more of her. I wanted to know more about her past and how she came to be so strong and independent and in charge of Cruise. I wanted to see where she went from there after they both played Newman at the end. She is the only one in this category that made me pay attention and for that she is my clear cut winner and way more deserving than Wiest.

Maggie Smith - A Room with a View

I have been struggling to start writing this review for a little bit. Not because Maggie is bad or because I'm blase about her performance, just that she's pretty good in the role and there's not much to really get dramatic about. She plays Helena Bonham Carter's cousin and chaperone on a trip to Italy where Carter meets a boy and Smith goes into over protection mode and tries to steer her away from him. The film has to do with Edwardian England and it's oppressive, restrictive morals in society so Smith doesn't want Carter to fall for the carefree, free spirited boy. It also speaks to her past where she made mistakes, I guess, and doesn't want Carter to do the same thing. Smith is very good at playing the protective worrywart and she is a quintessential British actress so she can pull off that proper manor and it works perfectly. And that's what she brings to this role - a workman-like quality without any big, grand displays. It's solid acting and her getting a nomination for it is more than okay. She already has two Oscar wins under her belt and this didn't blow me away, so it's hard to champion this as a winner when I liked Mastrantonio more. But Smith is an easy second place in the category. A lot of people might actually put her first since she's really good at playing fretful, like when she and Judi Dench are walking a little alley and pass by some Italian guys and Smith makes these slight faces and kinda hop skips by them - it's good. These are the kinds of supporting performances I wish we saw more of in the category instead of like Tess Harper's.


Not the most amazing category I've watched but it's alright, I guess. I get tired of nominations like Harper because there is nothing to them. You can't tell me you watched that film and singled in on that performance. Not a fan of Wiest as a winner (for both of her wins, honestly) because I don't think she even really stands out among the other women in the film. Why not Barbara Hershey? Not a good winner. Piper Laurie has two extended scenes but I think she's effective in them. She's nothing more than a third for me. Smith is good and really could compete for a win. But I like Mastrantonio the most. Just a strong female role that I wanted to see more of in the film. Don't get why so many people dismissed it in reviews. Anyway, ho hum start to the year, so hopefully it gets better.

Oscar Winner: Dianne Wiest - Hannah and Her Sisters
My Winner:  Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio - The Color of Money
Maggie Smith
Piper Laurie
Dianne Wiest
Tess Harper

Best Picture 1987

I have seen none of these, though I have seen some of Fatal Attraction and know the story, just haven't seen the whole thing. Anyway, these all seem like pretty interesting choices and I'm especially interested in the winner because it's talked about so little, even in the online Oscar crowd. Let's see how they all stack up!

1987 Best Picture

The Last Emperor

This was a film that I'd been looking forward to watching for some time now. I would consider it one of the least well known recent Best Picture winners and probably one of the least watched. It's exactly what its name is about: the last emperor of China. I think it's a really well done film that looks beautiful which shouldn't be hard given the Chinese locations and being the first Western production to actually film at the Forbidden City. But the story is what was most fascinating to me. That will vary person to person depending on what you know about Chinese history and if you care, but I didn't know anything about the subject of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. This tells his life story in an engaging way, showing him at a communist re-education prison and flashing back to moments in his life based off things going on at the prison. We see his coronation as Emperor at 3 years old and everything else that followed in his life. I was hooked simply because this was something I had very little knowledge about and was interested to know what all had happened in his tumultuous life. The beginning might not be the most exciting stuff but then Peter O' Toole comes into the picture as a tutor for the young Emperor and the story becomes more exciting as he grows older and isn't just a young kid annoying the court people. O' Toole is fine and sort of helps bridge the early years to the later ones and then we get to the adult life of the Emperor and get to see what I think is a great performance from John Lone. It would have been great if the Academy could have rewarded him with a Best Actor nomination instead of say Robin Williams but that's the Academy for you, no love for any Asian actors. This film also seems to hearken back to the films of a few decades earlier and has a timeless quality to it while still feeling modern. I thought it was a pretty fascinating film and it felt like an Oscar film. I liked how it used Asian actors to play everything which sounds dumb but you can never put it past Hollywood to add in white characters to draw an audience. At least O' Toole had a reason to be in the film and didn't overpower the story. Anyway, is the film a little too long? I'd say a tad bit, yes. It can be slightly boring at times but I feel it powers through those scenes and keeps you paying attention to what is a pretty compelling story overall. This feels like an Oscar throwback and I'm not sure anything else could have won this year except for maybe Broadcast News if the Academy went more modern. I like the choice and I'm glad it was nominated so I could have a chance to watch what is an overlooked film nowadays.

Broadcast News

There are a couple things that stood out while watching this film. First was that this film is so dense. By that I mean I watched it for a little over 30 minutes one night before going to bed and thought I had watched an hour because there was so much going on, so many different scenes. It wasn't a bad thing because I was totally engaged and interested in the story but there was a lot going on for what seems like a simple enough story. Second thing is that because it felt so dense, it was like a sitcom or TV show in that way, which really made sense to me. I could see this being a TV show easily. And because it has that feel, the characters all feel like they've been on screen for a lot longer than we have been watching. Like we were plopped down in the middle of their lives instead of having a self contained story within the film. If that makes any sense. The characters all feel natural to the story and comfortable with each other and themselves. That's why I found most of the film so entertaining. The performances are top notch and engrossing. The story is engaging and interesting about a newsroom and a new reporter/anchor comes on board and Holly Hunter likes him and William Hurt likes her back and Albert Brooks likes Hunter and they are all competitive with their work and each other. That's a terrible description but just watch it because it's a good film. The reason I said I liked most of the film is because the ending is just dumb to me. Hurt and Hunter are going away together for a vacation after the newsroom made layoffs and everyone is dispersing and then Hunter, the producer, finds a tape where Hurt added in some tears in reaction to a story he was doing. It's played up as this huge moment where she gets really angry and decides not to go with him spouting off about ethics and feeling betrayed and all that. All I could think of was who the fuck cares? I didn't see why it was such a big deal, especially because he didn't do it maliciously. He just thought that was something he could do. It was an absurd thing to ballistic over and I just didn't buy its emotional power. The scene just left me scratching my head as to why it would matter and why the film chose to end on such a stupid idea. There's a tacked on ending of the gang a few years later but it doesn't matter. So that ending really made me bump the whole the film down because until that point I was loving it. I don't think I'm being irrational either. That whole part just felt too contrived. Other than that I really enjoyed the film. It's smart and adult and highly entertaining from a human standpoint. I was worried it might feel too 80s but it was still relevant for today which lends it a timeless quality. This would have been a pretty good Best Picture winner.

Fatal Attraction

This film is kind of messed up and I love it for that. It's definitely very 80s, which I have already said I like. This made the second most money in 1987 which is insane to think about in this time of superhero films and sequels. A sexual thriller was one of the biggest films of 1987, let that sink in. In all honesty, it's a good film! I enjoyed the hell out of it. Michael Douglas is great in his role, Glenn Close is terrifying and memorable as the crazy woman who makes Douglas' life miserable, and Anne Archer is a pretty decent supporting wife. The tension in the film ratchets up increasingly once the film gets to the end and though you may not like the ending, it's very satisfying for me. I get that it can be very unsatisfying for others, though. I read that the original ending was that Close killed herself and framed Douglas for it which seems even more diabolical and would have been the ultimate power move by Close's character although a lot less cathartic for the audience. As a guy, it has me wondering what I would do in that situation. Would I try and kill her? Would I tell my wife immediately? What would I do? It makes me think about scenarios I know I'll never be in but tells me about its staying power. The leads do carry the film because you've got to feel somewhat sympathetic for Douglas and feel Close is super sexy (though I went off on how I find her unattractive in this) and the family is an innocent victim. It's also quite the companion piece to Wall Street, which Douglas was filming at the same time and is pretty insane to think about. But link the two and I feel like you get the late 80s in a nutshell. They do feel like the behind the scenes extension of each other even if Douglas is a lawyer in this one. The film is ultimately about survival and it comments on that in a unique way. It's fun to watch Douglas squirm his way through scenes where his wife might find out and see the relief and pain and apprehension when he finally tells his wife. For what seems like such a silly, simple film there's a lot to digest with this one. I really like its inclusion in Best Picture for those reasons.

Hope and Glory

Here is a film that you've never heard of, have no idea what it's about, and one that satisfies the British film slot for the category. So with it ticking all of those boxes I was a bit worried this was going to be awful. I really shouldn't think that way since the British film slot always seems to be at the very least entertaining. This film is about the homefront during World War II. It shadows one family as they deal with the war, but it's done in a very light style even when things could be played in a very dark, dramatic way. It makes the war seem like a minor inconvenience for the family and the town which I'm not sure how to feel about. There's no doubt the war was a bigger deal than the film makes it appear to this family/town. They deal with a loved one volunteering to fight, they were going to send the kids to the country but the mother has a change of heart at the last second, they deal with air raid bombings, they deal with a burned down house. There's a lot of tough things going on and the film kinda glosses over everything. When a girl in the neighborhood's house is bombed and her mother is killed, the kids treat it like a curiosity, pestering the girl asking if her mother really died and then telling other kids who don't believe her. I think it's supposed to treat the situations as if viewing them through a kid's perspective but it doesn't totally work for me. The film also gets really bogged down towards the end when the family goes to the country to stay with relatives after their house burns down. It's just not as interesting away from the city because the family itself is mostly boring. There is a crazy old grandpa who keeps it from being a total bore but the end is where the film crashes and burns. The film is just way too light for the subject which I get is the point but it needed to make up for that in other areas and it doesn't. Cinematography and music are blah, there's no known actors, the story is too light. Maybe this really appealed to the older Academy crowd because it reminds them of their past but I'm not sure it really belongs in Best Picture.

Moonstruck

As I've said in the other reviews for this film, I was totally expecting a very broad, loud, ethnic family film filled with stereotypes and maybe lots of yelling. But this is kind of a subtle, or at least gentle, film about family and love. Cher is a widow who gets engaged to Danny Aiello who goes to Sicily to care for his dying mother. He wants Cher to reach out to his brother (Nicolas Cage) to come to their wedding. Well, Cher and Cage become involved in a very hot, spicy, animalistic way as Aiello comes home because his mother rebounded. This all sounds very serious and like a glum drama but the film itself is a comedy that is decently funny at times. I won't go so far as to say hilarious or one of the best comedies of all time/last 20-30 years like a lot of reviews of the time said. I think that's where the gentle/subtle nature comes into play where it could easily ratchet things up for cheap laughs but doesn't. I do think that Cage is brilliant. His character IS hilarious and has this overdramatic way of speaking that wouldn't work if it was anyone else. His character is really into the opera and I think that's where some of the theatrics of his demeanor come from and it's fitting and very funny. The film has a little bit to say about not settling with someone but being with the person you truly love. Instead of the safe, boring mate in Aiello, Cher is with the fiery, bombastic Cage who loves her passionately instead of mundanely. Like when we see Olympia Dukakis' character almost instantly click with a guy in a restaurant and they hit it off, but she demures when walked home because she's a dutiful, loyal wife. Her husband (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her and steps out late and is basically a slimeball, yet she stays loyal and though you can see the love they've fostered over the years, it's nothing compared to the brief scene in the restaurant. At least, that's my take on the film's message. It also focuses on the moon holding influence over lovers which is a neat little idea and plot device. The acting is mostly pretty good and if you like Dean Martin music, this film is for you. All in all, it's a nice little film that I enjoyed, just not sure it's a Best Picture winner for me.


A lot of people consider this a boring year for Best Picture, but I'm not sure I really agree with that sentiment. I think people just don't really know/watch/care about The Last Emperor but I feel like it fits being an Oscar winner to a T. It's what they like, easily. I liked it, too. It just feels right being a winner. Broadcast News is really good minus the ending I had issues with, though I know others probably find the ending just fine. It's pretty great besides that and would have made a decent 80s winner. Fatal Attraction is an interesting choice for this category and I like it being included. It feels out of the box which is refreshing. Moonstruck seems like a very safe choice for the Academy but I do appreciate its inclusion. It is a sweet film and has heart and I like that, just not enough for a win. Hope and Glory is the one film I'd rather be left off this list. I just didn't really enjoy what it was about even if it is showing the homefront from a kid's perspective. Maybe I'm biased but I feel it's too slight to a tough time and it makes everyone look like they don't give a crap that a war is going on. I don't like that sentiment and the film was kinda boring anyway, so easy choice to replace it with anything else (Full Metal Jacket, Raising Arizona, The Princess Diaries, anything!). Not a bad group as some might lead you to believe, just not much drama when it came to Oscar night when The Last Emperor went 9 for 9 without any acting noms. I am super pumped for 1986, though, my birth year!

Oscar Winner: The Last Emperor
My Winner:  The Last Emperor
Broadcast News
Fatal Attraction
Moonstruck
Hope and Glory

Leading Actor 1987

A couple of these I've seen before, a couple I have been wanting to see, and then we've got Mastroianni who I just hope to see since the foreign noms are so tricky to find.

1987 Best Actor

Michael Douglas - Wall Street

Gordon Gekko. Greed....is good. You know the film. It's a very 80s film and I like that about it. It's supposed to show how those on Wall Street are unscrupulous people, screwing over the American public but of course it ends up making the lifestyle look appealing and cool and makes the villain look almost like a hero. That villain is Michael Douglas and he is so good in the role. He is super intense and demanding in the role. He commands your attention any time he's on screen. We first see him wheeling and dealing, making his empire grow in a slick, measured way. From the start, Douglas is believable in the role and has the air of arrogance and swagger about him (ugh, yeah I just wrote swagger). I like how he can easy manipulate Charlie Sheen into doing some spying work so that he can get a leg up on business deals which shows the subtle power he yields next to his obvious power that his wealth and possessions show off. The one minor thing about the character is that there isn't much subtlety to Gekko. He just wants more and more money and will get it any way he can, using those around him in nefarious ways. And that's how the character is throughout the film which I kinda like that he doesn't have any change of heart or moments of emotional realizations or anything like that because it wouldn't fit who Gekko is. So to that, Douglas plays the role perfectly and makes you root against Gekko while also liking him and kinda rooting for him as well. I attribute that to Douglas being so evilly charming and slick which is how he has risen to power. Now, the other thing about this performance is that it's not exactly the true lead of the film - that would be Charlie Sheen who we follow around as he ascends to power. But Douglas so thoroughly dominates the film with his presence that even when he's not on screen we feel him hovering over everything. So I'm fine with him being considered a lead and I like that a villainous character was rewarded with a Best Actor win. Throw in the fact that Douglas was working on Fatal Attraction at the same time and, well, you can see why the Academy would go for him with a twofer like that on his resume this year.

William Hurt - Broadcast News

Hurt plays the hunky sports reporter turned anchor/regular news reporter at a bigger network and finds himself liking Holly Hunter's producer character and competing with Albert Brooks' fellow reporter for air time and Hunter's attention. A good story made better by the great acting of the three mentioned. When we first meet Hurt, he's new and looked down upon for being a sportscaster who has been promoted because he looks good on TV and can read the news really well. He tries to fit in and gain knowledge from everyone and catches the eye of Hunter which makes Brooks jealous. But there's a lot more to Hurt's character than we first suspect. He's calculating, though not ruthless. He just knows how to do his job well and is looking to get ahead. He may not be scholarly or well versed in current events or history like Brooks but he can read the news as if it's the only thing that matters and that he's a smooth expert on whatever he's talking about. Hurt's Tom may have a pretty boy demeanor but he's determined to become more than just a pretty face. That's why he takes on some emotional reportings about date rape and knows it'll further his career and gain respect of the office. I like that Hurt kind of underplays everything. He's kind of a chill dude and when he and Hunter get together it seems more casual on his end and like he can easily move on if necessary. This is not stated anywhere but communicated through the subtlety of Hurt, but it's really good acting. It's certainly not flashy which suits the role just fine. It fits into everyone else, and the film as a whole, acting naturally and being comfortable in their roles. This was his third straight Best Actor nomination and this one is earned. He was definitely on top of his game and his newsman Tom is an interesting performance to watch.

Marcello Mastroianni - Dark Eyes

I had to use some hardcore Google Fu to find this and of course the subtitles were faster than the actual voices so that was fun. I know the Academy has a love affair with Mastroianni since he's been nominated like 2-3 other times before this one so I was hoping this wasn't just a token type of nomination and that he was actually great. I will say he's good and I can see the appeal of his brand of acting and I look forward to watching some of his other performances in more well known films. But I wasn't overly wowed by this one. To try and simply sum it up, Mastroianni is telling a story of his life to another man on a ship and we see he was married to a wealthy woman but didn't quite love her, they mostly tolerated each other. Then he met a Russian woman at a spa and fell in love with her instantly. He then goes to Russia to find her after she leaves to tell her he loves her. It's that kind of film, romantic with some tragic elements and some Italian comedy thrown in for good measure. So Mastroianni has to be charming and romantic in the flashback scenes and does well enough with that. He also at times is pretty funny. I laughed out loud at some of his antics and wasn't expecting to after the first bit of the film which is kinda slow and serious, but it delved into some funny physical comedy elements which I totally wasn't expecting. With that all said, this is a very Italian performance. It has the broad physical comedy like Roberto Benigni and the serious, tragic elements like Massimo Troisi. He also is pretty good at just being plain ol charming. The performance does make me want to watch more of his work because I'm certain he's got a great performance somewhere. Overall, though, this wasn't something I'd want to watch again or feel better for having seen it. This is mostly a forgettable Best Actor nomination.

Jack Nicholson - Ironweed

Nicholson is a drifter drifting through life. I wasn't sure what to expect from Ironweed really. I knew it starred Nicholson and Streep as hobos during the depression era which seems like a producers wet dream of an idea. It also seemed very much like it would be Oscar bait. The film might be and I feel like Streep definitely is but Nicholson teeters on the edge of really owning the role and letting it own him. It's not a flashy role at all. It's very quiet and understated for the most part. I think it's just the idea of Nicholson as a bum who became that way because he was an alcoholic who accidentally dropped and killed his baby boy is a bit ludicrous when you sum it up like that. Nicholson's Francis Phelan struggles with that guilt which leads him to being this depressed, cynical, hopeless man. He's been in this state for awhile, refusing to face up to his realities and burdening himself with the memory of the tragedy. He's an alcoholic but not dependent on the stuff to live. He uses it to deal with his emotions and grief and it's really not what the film or performance is about which is refreshing. He sees visions of those he has harmed or killed in his life and they haunt Francis which speaks to the amount of guilt he's truly saddled with. I do think Nicholson does a tremendous job of wrangling all that emotion in and not letting it become a cliche or overpower the performance with big, overstated moments. There's a lot of pain in the character and Nicholson reflects that in a restrained manner which is what I think I like most about it. He just kinda trudges along devoured by his own guilt. Contrast that to when he meets his wife after so many years apart and we find out she doesn't even blame him and still loves him and wishes he were home. And he looks at ease when with her even though he seems to enjoy wallowing in his misery and drifting out on his own. The relationship with Streep is minor to me. I didn't care about it one bit and wasn't really into her performance. The main focus is Francis. I like the performance and I think it will be more of a grower that I need to let sink in for a bit and mull around in my head. This is a reserved and restrained performance that is nice to see when compared to some of his later, more crazy Nicholson roles. Can't wait to see more of his earlier stuff.

Robin Williams - Good Morning, Vietnam

This was Williams' first Oscar nomination and is the last time I'll watch him for the project and I'm kinda glad to be done with him. All of his nominations are very similar. Not that I don't like his acting or anything, but all of them being so similar, it gets old real quick. We know that Williams is going to interject his performances with his brand of comedy. Sometimes it works really well like when he's a delusional knight riding around the city. Sometimes it falls flat like in Good Will Hunting or Dead Poets Society. Here, though, it works fine because Williams plays an Air Force radio DJ who is successful and liked because of his irreverent shtick. He comes in and replaces a boring program and plays stuff that he knows the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines would rather here, especially knowing it might be the last thing they here instead of some old, boring song or droll message. Williams' superiors don't like that he does his own thing and want him to stick to the approved program and he clashes with them. Williams is great for the role because it uses his talents perfectly. I read that Williams improvised his radio broadcasts which is why they are so fun and crazy and feel very real. The comedy can wear thin at times when you'd rather Williams play the character straight and not default to jokes and antics. Williams does get to show off some dramatic acting at points but it's not as polished as his future dramatic performances. If I hadn't seen anything else of Williams' besides his earlier work, this probably looks like a more mature step in his career and impresses the Academy by mixing the comedy and drama and giving a decent performance. But now it looks like more of the same (which isn't bad!) and feels like a lesser nomination. But that is all based on hindsight and knowing where his career would go. Williams' stuff works well for the character and the story even if I wanted a lot more out of it. Probably not a choice I'd make for Best Actor but can't change anything now.


A good enough group, I guess. I like that the Academy went with a villain type character for the winner. I'm totally fine with Douglas' win here as Nicholson has three total Oscars and didn't really need one for Ironweed, let's be real. Hurt was on his third Best Actor nomination in three years and had won on his first one two years prior. Williams feels like the Academy was rewarding him for giving a little more dramatic performance than maybe people were used to from him. I'm not that into his inclusion for his role here but whatever I guess. John Lone for The Last Emperor would have been a nice addition. Mastroianni seems like a safety choice for the Academy and he probably could have been replaced to make for a much strong category, but again, whatever. So that would be my order if you just switch Hurt and Nicholson for two and three, respectively. This group could have been way better but the top three are certainly good. I'm just pumped to get to 1986.

Oscar Winner: Michael Douglas - Wall Street
My Winner:  Michael Douglas - Wall Street
William Hurt
Jack Nicholson
Robin Williams
Marcello Mastroianni

Leading Actress 1987

A bunch of performances that I've been looking forward to seeing finally. I'm expecting some really good stuff, too. Also, I see I've been getting like a consistent 4-5 views, so hello friends! Feel free to tell me I'm wrong!

1987 Best Actress

Cher - Moonstruck

Every time I looked at winners while creating the project I was always like really? Cher? She won Best Actress? Was this because she was actually good or was it because they liked Cher the entertainer and cultural icon? I was always intrigued by Moonstruck for this reason (and also because I knew Nicolas Cage was a spicy meatball in this) so I was definitely looking forward to watching her performance. It was not really what I expecting at all. Same as with Dukakis, I thought it would be a very loud, ethnic performance given it's about a family of Italians. But the performance was far from being a caricature or stereotype which I am very glad to see. I actually really enjoyed Cher in her role as Loretta, a widow who gets engaged again and wants to do everything right this time because she thinks she had bad luck before. She then meets her fiancee's brother and sparks up a steamy, hot romance with him and we learn about ideas of family along the way. What I like about Cher is how natural she feels in the role and in the family itself. It's a gentle performance that gives into the whims of love and doesn't feel too corny for it. She and Cage are a lot of fun to watch in their scenes together and I can believe this almost mild mannered accountant getting swept off her feet by the brutish Cage. It's such a calm, comfortable, assured performance. I like that Cher never devolves into histrionics or plays up the ethnicity thing, she just plays a normal person for the most part. There's no crazy yelling scenes or hysterical crying or anything like that. It's just enjoyable to watch. Maybe it's because I expected a lot out of the performance that I was happy with what Cher did in the film but it works for me. Granted, the romance with Cage is a bit ridiculous but even with it's suddenness I can see those two together, mostly because they have good chemistry. I don't know if I'm articulating myself well enough as to why Cher is good and why I liked it, but she is and I did. It's almost like a safe choice. Cher does a pretty good job as Loretta and I'll have to see if anyone else can challenge her for the win.

Glenn Close - Fatal Attraction

I hate to rag on someone because of their looks but man is Close really unattractive in this film. I know it's the 80s and the big frizzy hair was in, but I'm supposed to buy that Close is irresistibly hot and tempting for Michael Douglas and I don't. I can respect Close for choosing the role because she wanted to play against her type, and besides the looks thing, she is quite disturbing which is a compliment here. I like the transition from sexpot to raging crazy bitch because I appreciate that our initial introduction of her is as this seductress who is a somebody in the corporate world. Then we see her descent into becoming a psychopath when she can't handle being rejected and doesn't like being used by Douglas. After a certain point, though, Close isn't given all that much to do really. Once she becomes absolutely crazy, what else is there to do to show she's psychotic? It's like reaching the ground floor and there's no basement. Close can't do anything else to show how crazy her character is. She ends up stalling or maybe idling is a better description. Sure, it's more like how can we make her more evil with killing the pet rabbit and then trying to kill Anne Archer but Close becomes voiceless and just a way to keep the action and tension going. So the performance loses steam but it's not particularly Close's fault since that's all she can do. She is convincingly terrifying, however, which is why the role is so memorable and so scary. As a guy, I couldn't imagine having a woman like that in my life. I'd be scared shitless that she would ruin my life which is what makes her so fascinating. I'm not sure how women feel about the character which I would be very interested to hear. The performance is strong before it tapers off at the end which is a shame because it could have contended for the win if it could have kept up the intrigue. It makes for a great thriller and an interesting Close nomination.

Holly Hunter - Broadcast News

Crazy to think that Holly Hunter was a relative unknown before this film. This role was initially meant for Debra Winger but she got pregnant and then a long search led to Hunter. She is really great in this role which is obviously her breakout role. She acts the shit out of it. She has that nice, girl next door quality but can be ferocious when necessary. She plays a female (duh) producer at a network newsroom which is dominated by men. Hunter's character is a no-nonsense, strong, independent woman in love with her work but who also wants a little more in her life. The thing I like about the performance is that Hunter doesn't make this into an I am woman, hear me roar type thing. Her character, Jane, is strong from the start because that's how she got where she is and because that's how she approaches life. But there are no punctuated moments where the script or director feels it's necessary to remind us that she's a strong, independent woman. Everything seems to grow organically because of the choices Hunter makes. When she's yelling in the newsroom or when she's leading the team and taking the reins it's because that is her job and she does her job well. It feels natural and is fun to watch without being hit over the head with what her character is. She also gets these emotional moments that work well within the story and within Jane the person. She wants love and opens herself up and becomes vulnerable which makes her obviously uncomfortable. That's because Hunter gives such a measured performance where everything she does matters. Her little love triangle feels very authentic from her chasing Hurt and her reaction to Brooks telling her he loves her to her honest moments of emotion. My bone to pick is with the ending that makes her look so anal and by the book. I felt the moment was too contrived to give Jane her a big scene that highlighted her independence and ability to be her own woman while staying true to herself. It just makes Hunter look ridiculous to me, honestly. I don't get the big deal because I don't think it is a big deal. It might stay true to the character but I think that Jane would have handled it a different way than what the script made her do. I think Hunter is pretty great here and I think I like this more than her Oscar winning performance. The whole film is pretty good despite my feelings on the ending. A well deserved nomination for sure.

Sally Kirkland - Anna

So on first look you go what the hell is this film? Then you ask who the hell is Sally Kirkland. Valid questions! And then you investigate and learn that Kirkland campaigned super hard to be nominated and was. And that the film is about a washed up older actress giving it another go and she takes in a younger actress. Said younger actress eventually is discovered and goes on to be a star while Kirkland remains a nobody and doesn't look like she has any future. The little wrinkle is that Kirkland plays a Czech woman who takes in another Czech woman (Paulina Porizkova, a model in real life) and she surpasses Kirkland quickly. This easily checks off a lot of Oscar absolutes. Kirkland is an older actress who was a star in her native Czechoslovakia and came to America to escape communism. She struggles to find work and goes to auditions and her younger countrywoman does the same and Kirkland takes her in. Eventually the younger version of Kirkland is rewarded and given a shot at a major role while Kirkland has to continue to be an understudy on plays. This is obviously very relatable for Oscar voters. The struggle she faces is something all Academy members have probably faced. That's why I feel she got nominated plus the campaigning. On its own, the performance is decent. It is a very specific type of role that appeals to a specific type of person. I guess you could broaden it to mean the takeover of jobs by younger people for those pushing towards retirement but that is a huge stretch. This is just an entertainment breakdown. The very end of the film is also super cliche and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kirkland does something to Porizkova but I won't get too detailed, though I know no one will ever watch this. And that's the lasting legacy of the film is that it is more interesting for the NYC actor than for the general public. This is purely distilled Oscar bait at its finest. It obviously worked for her to score a nomination. I could see this being done today as maybe a Sundance type indie film, and with the right actress, being nominated again. I didn't hate it and I'm actually glad I got to watch this because it is so interesting from an Oscar standpoint. I'll have to let it settle and see how I feel about it later.

Meryl Streep - Ironweed

This might be the first Meryl Streep performance that I genuinely dislike. It only took like 12 nominations. The main reason this performance doesn't do anything for me and makes me kinda hate it, is that it looks like obvious acting. Which I'm not used to seeing from Streep so I was pretty surprised but it felt so labored to me. She plays a hobo in the depression era in Albany who is friendly with Jack Nicholson and is an alcoholic who used to sing in nightclubs. Usually Streep is so refined and subtle and convincing as a character but here I felt she was too much of a stretch as a bum. She just didn't work and it felt way too much like Oscar bait. She's got an old-timey accent that is out of place and she's really not all that likable. I don't care at all about any relationship between her and Nicholson because she gives me no reason to become invested in it. It might be sacrilege to say I dislike a Streep performance and think it's bad but I do think she's the worst part of the film. Plus, she doesn't feel like a true leading actress. Most likely because of her star power and name is why she is here but the film belongs to Nicholson. I really wanted to like this performance because I think Streep is a phenomenal actress but I just can't. It felt too gimmicky and I wish Streep would have approached it differently. I guess sometimes there are performances even by great actors that just don't click with me and this is an example of that. I will say she plays a decent drunk which a lot of people can't pull off, so she has that going for her, which is nice. Anyway, worst Streep performance I've seen so far - this had to happen at some point. Just not something I can ever see myself coming back to or even recommending.


I quite enjoyed this category for a change. When Meryl Streep is your worst performance, it can't really be all that bad, right? She's my 5th, just not for me. Kirkland is my 4th which is a surprise because I thought she'd be the worst. But her performance grew on me when thinking about it, possibly because the role and film seem so contemporary. Like it would be a cool indie nowadays that people love. That's my take on it. Now for the next three, I honestly have no idea the order. I'm cool with Cher after watching the film, I thought Close was pretty interesting before she lost steam, Hunter was very good before that last scene I didn't like. Soooo Close third and toss up between Cher and Hunter. I hate these choices. I think I might stick with the Academy but 5 minutes from now it might be Hunter. They are both really good. So great category and worth checking out.

Oscar Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
My Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
Holly Hunter
Glenn Close
Sally Kirkland
Meryl Streep