058. Best Friends

058. (11 Feb) Best Friends (1982, Norman Jewison) 20



A romantic comedy devoid of romance and comedy. Burt Reynolds and Goldie Hawn's natural charisma rises to the surface, but they're saddled with the most unlikable characters. It's downright depressing as Hawn refuses to commit to Reynolds, reluctantly marries him, and then they have zany, unhappy adventures together meeting their in-laws. As their relationship gets increasingly hostile and abusive, it's incredibly unpleasant to watch. No surprise, but the Oscar-nominated tune "How Do You Keep the Music Playing?" is every bit as bad as the film.

054. Forty Deuce

054. (07 Feb) Forty Deuce (1982, Paul Morrissey)



A far more effective film at showing the seedy underbelly of New York than most. From its foul-mouthed characters to their nonchalance about the everyday nature of their drug and sex trade, it feels quite genuine. Paul Morrissey's aesthetic works for this material, using intricate long takes and shooting in real locations.

The major issue here is how talky the script is. There's a poetry in the profanity and the articulate way in which sordid affairs are discussed, but much of it's lost under Morrissey's direction. While he's playing with split-screen in one scene, for instance, his actors' words sometimes get lost in the mix.

039. Quest for Fire

039. (28 Jan) Quest for Fire (1982, Jean-Jacques Annaud) 45



Having seen Clan of the Cave Bear, I'm aware just how awry this concept can go. Quest for Fire may be episodic and dull for long stretches, but it's essentially what you'd expect. A bunch of cavemen running around on their way to acquiring fire is about as compelling as it sounds. The Oscar-winning makeup is quite deserving, but it's Philippe Sarde's score that's the film's most sublime element.

Collectible of the Week: Doctor Who Tardis Playhouse (Dekker Toys; 1982)

If you saw my Christmas photograph from a few days back, you know that the TARDIS came to visit Joel’s holiday this year...filled with Doctor Who toys, including a bump-and-go-cybermat and a lego-like Cyber-conversion chamber.  

Specifically that holiday TARDIS is the Dekker Toys “Tardis” playhouse from 1982, an officially licensed product from the BBC. 

This TARDIS stands four feet high -- just a little taller than Joel at this point -- but is not alas, bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.  We’re still working on the issue of dimensional transcendentalism.

As you can detect from the images of the Tardis playhouse above, it was produced and marketed in the era of the fifth Doctor, played by Peter Davison.  Joel hasn’t seen any episodes of that age, yet.  We started our Whovian survey with Patrick Troughton (“The Tomb of the Cybermen,” “The Mind Robber” and “The Krotons”) but have also now watched “The Sontaran Experiment” and “Revenge of the Cybermen” from the Tom Baker Era.   I'm debating whether I think he'll be freaked out by the giant Wirrn in "The Ark in Space."

The Tardis playhouse is actually something of a tent, one held up by narrow PVC poles at the corners. And inside there is even a control room and view screen…a feature which Joel loves.

When I was a kid, I would have traveled to the ends of the Earth (or Zeti Reticuli, in Whovian terms…) to get my hands on a TARDIS playhouse like this one.  I understand that a full-sized, inflatable TARDIS is also being released soon for further Time Lord adventures.  I think it would look great in our garage when Joel outgrows the playhouse.

215. Friday the 13th Part III

215. (20 Sep) /Friday the 13th Part III/ (1982, Steve Miner) 64

Conan the Barbarian (1982) vs. Conan the Destroyer (1984)

Both fantasy films feature Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan, the Cimmerian warrior and future king. (SPOILERS)
 

Conan the Barbarian

The rap sheet.

Conan the Barbarian has a 77% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received 5 Saturn Award nominations, including one for Best Fantasy Film, and Sandahl Bergman won a Saturn for Best Actress and a Golden Globe for New Female Star. Conan the Destroyer has a 30% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received a Saturn Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress (Grace Jones), and Olivia d'Abo won a Razzie for Worst New Star.

Winner: Conan the Barbarian

The setup.

In Conan the Barbarian, a slave named Conan and his companions go on a quest to save a princess from a snake cult-leading sorcerer, and, perhaps, get revenge for the death of his parents. In Conan the Destroyer, warrior Conan - in exchange for his loved one back - escorts a virgin princess on a journey to acquire a horn, which will resurrect Dagoth, a god that will bring about the end of the world.

Winner: Conan the Barbarian

Conan the Destroyer

The execution.

Both films are cheesy fantasies with their share of action and laughable moments. Conan the Barbarian obviously covers his origins, but the quest doesn't come until halfway through the film. Conan the Destroyer begins with the quest and results in a shorter film with far less slow parts than its predecessor.

Winner: Conan the Destroyer

The ending.

In Conan the Barbarian, Conan defeats the sorcerer, returns the stolen princess, and leaves to roam the lands on many more adventures. The world is saved, but he has more battles to fight. In Conan the Destroyer, Conan kills the resurrected Dagoth and saves the girl from being sacrificed. Yet again, he must leave and fight more battles before he will one day claim his crown.

Winner: Conan the Barbarian

The wild card.

Conan the Barbarian has acting vets James Earl Jones and Max von Sydow. Conan the Destroyer has basketball star Wilt Chamberlain and the famous wrestler Andre the Giant. Is this really a competition?

Winner: Conan the Barbarian

Conan the Barbarian

Winner: Conan the Barbarian beats Conan the Destroyer 4-1

Ratings: Conan the Barbarian - ***, Conan the Destroyer - *** (They're flawed, but guilty pleasures.)

The Night of the Shooting Stars (La Notte Di San Lorenzo) 1982 **1/2

Lyrical, humorous and tragic are the words that best describe directors Paolo and Vittorio Taviani’s The Night of the Shooting Stars (La Notte Di San Lorenzo, 1982). Winner of the 1982 Jury Special Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival, this Italian film tells the poignant story of the flight of a San Marino village from their German-mined homes in the waning days of Nazi occupation in 1944. While it is a tad oversentimental at times, the movie benefits from an outstanding musical soundtrack and beautiful cinematography.

The story is narrated by a mother to her sleeping child on the Night of San Lorenzo, which according to Italian folklore is the night when all dreams come true.  She remembers her six-year-old self and her fellow villagers daring escape from retreating Nazis and Fascist collaborators on her own Night of San Lorenzo in 1944. Half of the village chooses to take refuge in the cathedral, where they have been promised by the Nazis and the Bishop that they will be safe.  The rest of the village doesn’t trust the Nazis and decides to set off to find the advancing American army.  Obviously the fleeing group had the right idea, as those who go to the cathedral are treated to a bomb as they receive holy communion.  Knowing that they will be shot if found on the road, the fleeing villagers band together for a tragi-comic exodus unlike any other.  Along the way they meet resistance fighters and encounter blood-thirsty Fascist collaborators—there is a particular father/son Fascist team that is so revoltingly evil that I actually clapped when they were killed.  Conflicting personalities and unresolved village grudges amongst the group adds a bit of comic relief to what would have otherwise been a somber march toward safety. Combined with the lighter moments, the violence and death that takes place is somewhat more palatable. 

When I reflect on what I liked about the movie two things stand out: the cinematography and the music. Shooting in the Tuscan countryside,  famed cinematographer Franco Di Giacomo captures such beautifully breathtaking images you almost forget people are being mercilessly killed.  It’s easy to see why Di Giacomo won the Donatello Award for Best Cinematography at Italy’s version of the Oscars.  The vast expansive shots of the countryside are poetically composed with pristine lighting and framing.  The spectacular shots in the wheat fields create both a pastoral feeling and an overbearing brutal sense of nature when things turn violent. 

The memorable music fits perfectly with every scene.  Nicola Piovani wrote the score and it is played throughout the movie. It is lyrically haunting and memorable.  His use of both Richard Wagner’s Tannhauser and Giuseppe Verdi’s Messa da Requiem is simply brilliant. Verdi is leaned heavily upon in both the pivotal church bombing scene and the iconic wheat field battle.  The film has a few surreal scenes, so when “Dies Irae-Tuba Mirum” starts playing during a scene where our child narrator envisions an old man as a classic Roman warrior hurling spears at his enemy, its pretty awesome to watch.  I love Verdi’s Requiem Mass and when it is properly placed in a film, as it is here, then it has extra emotional pull for me. 

Overall, The Night of the Shooting Stars is an emotionally engaging film that is both beautiful to look at and pleasing to the music lover’s ear.  While I can’t place it on the same level as Cinema Paradiso (1988) or The Children Are Watching Us (1944), it is still one of the better Italian movies I’ve seen.

The Evil Dead (1982) **

(Please be advised that some of the images contained in this post may be disturbing.)

The Gory Dead is more like it. Sam Raimi redefined the horror genre when he wrote and directed The Evil Dead (1982). Working with a paltry budget of $375,000, Raimi and his childhood friend Bruce Campbell (the film and its franchise star) took excessive violence and gore to a whole new level with this small independent film that has developed a cult following.  While it has not aged well, it’s juvenile humor and amateurish special effects scared the hell out of audiences in 1982.  Today, it just comes off as camp horror.

The story takes place in the backwoods of Tennessee, where 5 college students rent a cabin for Spring Break. As soon as they set eyes on that dilapidated shack they should have turned back for civilization.  Still, if they had done that they wouldn’t have found a Book of the Dead or recordings of chanting voices—oh, and don’t forget the trap door that opens on its own or the basement filled with all sorts of creepy things. No, there is no room for intelligence in a juvenile slasher film like this. The violence begins when Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss) is lured by demonic voices into the woods and then is raped by—wait for it—trees.  Yes, I said trees (and it was a legitimate rape, believe me).  Anyway, she’s infected somehow by the demonic trees and she starts to turn into a demon herself.  This sets off a chain reaction of death and zombiehood that places the movie’s hero, Ash (Bruce Campbell), in the role of zombie killer. I won’t give the ending away, but it’s ambivalent and opens the door for sequels—which were The Evil Dead II (1987) and Army of Darkness (1992), and, yes, a remake of the original which is due out in 2013.

Compared to the violence movie viewers are confronted with today, what takes place in The Evil Dead seems pretty tame.  Yet, it was banned in many countries and was at one time given a NC-17 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. I suspect its limited circulation and rating woes with the MPAA helped it develop the cult following it has today.  Yes, there is a lot of blood, but it’s amateur hour at the horror house.  Not once did any of the blood or guts I saw look real—everything was done on the cheap and it shows. The only thing that was in the least disturbing was the tree rape (I can’t believe I just wrote that again!), and that was because I just couldn’t believe my eyes. Some have called this scene misogynistic and Raimi says he regrets writing it—I just call it stupid and depraved. 

To me when you make a movie called The Evil Dead it should be scary, not campy.  I suppose it’s the word evil that I get hung up on—you should deliver on what you advertise. For example, when you go to see a film like The Exorcist (1973) you know there’s bound to be some unsettling horror about to take place because of its title. Still, there are benignly-titled films like Candyman (1992) that are crap your pants scary, so maybe I can’t quibble too much…

Overall, The Evil Dead is a slightly passable 1980s horror movie.  It has its enthusiasts, I’m just not one of them. 

193. Deadly Eyes

193. (08 Sep) Deadly Eyes (1982, Robert Clouse) 55



As this stars dachshunds dressed as bloodthirsty rats, it's hard not to enjoy Deadly Eyes for its sheer ridiculousness. Robert Clouse clearly knows he's making a B-movie and directs accordingly. This is never scary, per se, but it's also never boring. There's intentional humor in how the rats jump at people and an edge to how they first go after young children before they start picking off the adult ensemble. Clouse gets a sublime performance out of Lisa Langlois as a trampy student pursuing her teacher.

181. The Dark Crystal

181. (31 Aug) The Dark Crystal (1982, Jim Henson & Frank Oz) 36



Despite having an intricate mythology and carefully constructed set pieces and characters, The Dark Crystal never feels like compelling fantasy. When stacked against the sillier, but infinitely more enjoyable Labyrinth, this seems like a too serious dress rehearsal for the later film. Despite Henson and Oz's efforts, there's never a moment where this feels like movie magic. It's always rather ugly puppets cavorting in an adventure film that's simply not that exciting.

Escape from New York (1981) vs. The Thing (1982)

I finally saw these classic John Carpenter films, both starring Kurt Russell. See who wins after the cut. (SPOILERS)

Escape from New York

The rap sheet.

Escape from New York has a 83% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received 4 Saturn Award nominations, including Best Science Fiction Film and Best Director. The Thing has a 79% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received 2 Saturn Award nominations, including Best Science Fiction Film.

Winner: Escape from New York

The setup.

In The Thing, a group of scientists is exposed to a creature that replicates the makeup of its victims, leaving them to determine who has been attacked and who is untouched, so that they can destroy it. In Escape from New York, an imprisoned war hero named Snake Plissken is charged with rescuing the U.S. President, along with the valuable contents of his briefcase, from the Manhattan Island prison, in exchange for a full pardon.

Winner: The Thing

The Thing

The execution.

Both films are dark, grim thrill rides. Escape from New York has prisoners battling each other with guns, knives, bats, and fists in a massive prison city. The Thing has scientists using flame throwers and explosives against the various forms of the creature.

Winner: The Thing

The ending.

In The Thing, the last two survivors sit in the cold as their camp burns down around them, waiting for something, anything, to happen. Were they rescued, or did they meet a much worse fate? In Escape from New York, Plissken walks off into the night after he destroys a tape with nuclear weapons information. The tape is gone, but has the day been won?

Winner: The Thing

The wild card.

Escape from New York has Ernest Borgnine and Harry Dean Stanton, and it also has a brilliant electronic score written by Carpenter himself. The Thing features a haunting (Razzie-nominated?!) score by Ennio Morricone, and it even has Keith David and Wilford Brimley in the cast.

Winner: Escape from New York

The Thing

Winner: The Thing beats Escape from New York 3-2

Ratings: Escape from New York - ***1/2, The Thing - ****

174. The Seduction

174. (27 Aug) The Seduction (1982, David Schmoeller) 37



The Seduction is unapologetic trash with the least healthy views of love I've ever seen on film. When Andrew Stevens straddles Morgan Fairchild and photographs her incessantly while she barely tries to fend him off, it's a moment of high camp too good to be true. If the film isn't being ludicrous, it's delightfully oblivious. For instance, Fairchild's stalker tries to call her while he, of all people, should know she's appearing on-air on the 6 o'clock news. There's also a hot tub sex scene that rivals the pool sex from Showgirls as cinema's most outrageous.

152. Creepshow

152. (13 Aug) Creepshow (1982, George A. Romero) 53



Though it's something of a classic among anthology films, most of these Creepshow segments are unremarkable. "Father's Day" is likely the best here, too absurd and tongue-in-cheek to fault much. "Something to Tide You Over" is the best in terms of suspense while "They're Creeping Up on You!" is the grossest and creepiest. "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" is fun, albeit minor stuff. "The Crate" is miserably awful.

058. After the Axe

058. (19 Feb) After the Axe (1982, Sturla Gunnarsson) 49



After the Axe is rather peculiar Documentary Feature nominee since this is a docudrama, at best. Following a fired executive on his search for a new job, there are some totally bizarre interludes. While it makes sense to see him preparing for job interviews and lowering his standards for new positions, there are scenes here like an extended locker room sequence where he and his gym buddies shower and hang out in towels. Oh, the 1980s.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1982

1982

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Julie Andrews in Victor Victoria

I'm not saying that Julie Andrews gives a bad performance in Victor Victoria. Although I was very amused by her occasionally, she didn't make her character as a fake drag queen very believable or interesting. It's not even really her fault, the part is just not right for her. She solves the comedy parts quite well, but she was not able to give a really layered performance. 

4. Sissy Spacek in Missing

Sissy Spacek was able to get something out of her one-dimensional character. While her performance is far from dreary, she's not able to reveal as many layers of this character as she can with other roles. Although I appreciate the massive amount of talent and effort that she put into this part, I'm simply not impressed by her work in this movie. Something is really missing. 

3. Debra Winger in An Officer and a Gentleman

Debra Winger is incredibly great in An Officer and a Gentleman, giving a deeply layered, very emotional and haunting performance that didn' cease to amaze me. She gets so much out of this seemingly one-dimensional character with the help of her wonderful, beautiful presence. She's just wonderful all around.

2. Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice

To say that Meryl Streep is great in Sophie's Choice would be a major understatement. She goes beyond the boundaries of acting and completely becomes Sophie Zawistowska. While the technical part of this performance is brutally perfect, it also strikes you emotionally. Nothing can compare to the horror and pain that Meryl displays on the screen. 

1. Jessica Lange in Frances

Jessica Lange is downright brilliant as Frances Farmer. Everything about her is just sheer perfection: her turbulent presence, her very emotional and passionate acting and her ability to keep control of her character. I'm not willing to say yet that this is her best work (I need to see more), but it's definitely a front-runner for that prize. Chilling, marvelous, terrifying, brutally amazing job from a great, great actress.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Jessica Lange

in 

Frances

A really tough one.

Final thoughts: Overall, a good year, with two brilliant performances. First I thought the choice would be a real Sophie's choice but in the end and it was and eventually, it's Jessica, which was surprising considering how long I had been championing Meryl's performance (I still do). I think I'm going to give Meryl a special award just like I gave it to Jane Fonda for Coming Home. I think the way they gave out the award in 1982 was a wise decision. I really loved Debra though she didn't even come close. The other two were pretty much forgettable. 

And now the clues: 

• Cowardice. Cowardice. 
• But what if you don't like what I got to say? :)

What do you think? 

Jessica Lange in Frances

Jessica Lange received her first Best Actress nomination for playing the tragic actress, Frances Farmer in the movie Frances. There are years when there are two such fantastic performances that it feels like a shame not to reward them both. 1982 is the definition of that year. Meryl Streep and Jessica Lange were basically going head to head but when award season began, Meryl started to win all the awards. However, the critics came up with a great idea: why not to reward Jessica in the supporting category for her turn in Tootsie? The Academy followed that and they gave her the supporting award. Teri Garr, her fellow nominee, said that Jessica deserved ly won for Frances (I think she deservedly won for Tootsie as well). For that reason, some might have even felt not voting for Jessica at all in the lead category thogh that idea is kind of silly considering what an acclaimed and hailed performance it was. 

Frances is a pretty terrific and harrowing take on Frances Farmer's life. It's highly fictionalized, of course, but that doesn't take anything away from its great effect. Graeme Clifford's direction is passionate and he really found the right way to tell Frances' story. The acting and writing part of the movie is also very strong: I would particularly like to underline Sam Shephard's performance, which was somehow quite memorable for me. Kim Stanley, though many disagree, was not that great. Sure, she has her moments but she's far from being fantastic. 

Over the last couple of months, Jessica Lange has become one of my absolute favorite actresses and I have become a huge, huge fan of hers, mostly thanks to her recent television appearances on American Horror Story. The main reason I was doing this year was to rediscover the performance that's said to be her absolute best, the one that I loved the most as well. I was also full of doubts if I would like her as much for a second time and if she would impress me just as much. It's a hailed performance for sure. At the time, one of the critics' called it the biggest triumph by an actress since Sophia Loren's Cesira in Two Women. True, the careers of these actresses are similar in many ways: both of them started out as sex symbols without any appreciation for their wonderful acting talents and thanks to huge, showy dramatic turns as tortured women they got the recognition both of them deserved. 

When somebody gets naked on the screen, they have to get rid of every sense of shame and pride and show themselves the way they are: vulnerable, natural, scared or sensual and sexy. Jessica Lange gets more and more naked in each and every frame of Frances, figuratively and literally, too. She gets rid of her vanity, her shame and her glamorous, beautiful looks. 

The thing that impresses me most about this performance is Jessica's transformation and the changes that she shows in the character of Frances. She starts off as a naive, a bit shy young girl with a weak voice and very teenage looks, then becomes the most beautiful person you can imagine and eventually ends up being broken down, disgusting, shocking and terrifying. She's on the verge of crazy, wild overacting but somehow she always manages to get back. By all means, her presence is turbulent. She dives deeper and deeper into the madness of Frances that you actually feel that even her, Jessica Lange, the actress suffers a nervous breakdown. 

The scenes where she's shown at the asylum are the most brutal ones that you can imagine. If you thought Olivia de Havilland was shocking in The Snake Pit, just try watching Jessica in Frances. Watching her provides you with the most perverted joy: you can see a woman suffering a brutal breakdown. In the end, she becomes this unrecognisable, wild animal screaming and raging. The most amazing thing about these scenes is the fact that while they are showing total chaos, Jessica somehow was able to control her character. Jack Lemmon said that it's important not to let the character completely take over the actor and that's why it was difficult for him to play his character in Save the Tiger. However, in Jessica's case, I felt that Jessica conquered Frances Farmer and that lead to the greatest results. 

However, I must admit that it's not the final scenes of the movie that I'm the most enthralled by. I was even more impressed by the period when we see Frances starting out in Hollywood and then when she's in decline. Although the scenes of Frances' complete breakdown are surely terrifying, it's the process that leads up to that point that was the more interesting part for me. She cleary feels like a fish out of water at the studio and Jessica showed the character's embarassment brilliantly. Frances just dares to ask why and say the truth without any pretence. 

Jessica uses all her gifts in this part and her beautiful looks and original sexiness do wonders in the scenes where we can see Frances with the men in her life, who constantly let her down. Jessica's chemistry with Sam Shephard is just brilliant, it's no wonder they fell in love with each other on set (how sad that they split). The sexual tension between them almost sets the screen on fire. But Jessica works equally well with the actor playing Clifford Odets. Her tears and breakdown after their break-up is one of the most heartbreaking moments of the film. 

Once Frances loses her idealism and is let down by everyone around her, Jessica's acting becomes incredibly dynamic. Her scene at the courtroom shows brilliantly how Jessica was able to keep the balance with this character. She doesn't overdo the raging and screaming and yet she shows how desperate and broken down this woman is. 

The highlights of her whole performance are (and I have to narrow it down to two scenes) her dialogues with her psychiatrist. She portrays so many emotions and so perfectly and in such a thirlling way that I was completely speechless. Her fear, her defiance, her desire to live again is so uplifting and heartwrenching at the same time. And yet, the most disturbing aspect of this performance is that Jessica doesn't give away if Frances was indeed mentally ill: did the series of disasters in her life cause these multiple meltdowns or was or were they caused by her mental state. This (sort of) vicious circle leaves me dazzled and confused ultimately, but also in awe of Jessica's talent and skill to create such a complex character that makes you wonder about it way after the end credits roll.

Although Clint Eastwood might have dissed Jessica as too actressy and theatrical in this part with these huge meltdowns and tears, that just proved how much he (and others thinking about this) didn't understand the whole concept of the film. I suppose some may not like to be so confused by such a moody performance. And I'm especially applauding Lange here since being so over-the-top is clearly out of her comfort zone. She's by nature a very subtle actress who likes to internalize the emotions of the characters and she's someone who often tends to avoid the possibility. She very much has to be pushed over the edge, which sometimes pays off (like here) and sometimes leads to mixed results (like the frequently criticised Blue Sky, which I personally loved the last time I saw it). But mostly she has to get comfortable with such characters (just see how brilliantly she developed in the course of the second season of American Horror Story from too much to brilliant over-the-top acting). Whenever Jessica pulls off great over-the-top acting, she's simply astonishing and gives a performance for the ages like she did in Frances.

All in all, Jessica Lange is simply brilliant as Frances Farmer. Everything about her is just sheer perfection: her turbulent presence, her very emotional and passionate acting and her ability to keep control of her character. I'm not willing to say yet that this is her best work (I need to see more), but it's definitely a front-runner for that prize. Chilling, marvelous, terrifying, brutally amazing job from a great, great actress.

What do you think? . 

Julie Andrews in Victor Victoria

Julie Andrews received her third Oscar nomination for playing Victoria Grant, a struggling soprano who pretends to be a drag queen to get a job. Julie also won a Golden Globe for her performance, which was kind of a comeback for her. That being said, I don't think that she was a serious contender for the Best Actress award next to Meryl and Jessica. Because of the comeback story and the lots of other nominations for the films, she probably got ahead of Debra Winger in the final voting but I'm not even sure about that. 

I'm going to be perfectly honest and admit how much I dislike Victor Victoria. I don't want to offend the fans, but I found this movie to be incredibly predictable and even tiring to watch. The movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be a smart comedy on sexuality (failed) or an old-fashioned musical-comedy (failed). Sure, the music part is perfection (thanks to the great Henry Mancini who deservedly won an Oscar for his work here). But seriously the jokes are so lame despite the fact that they were intended to be raunchy. Seriously, I was just waiting for someone falling with a cake and guess what... The cast should be great, instead they are just OK: James Garner is somewhat bored, Robert Preston plays all the stereotypes possible and Lesley Ann Warren... I'm gonna shut my mouth about her. 

Victor Victoria was obviously intended by Blake Edwards to showcase the talents of his wife, Julie Andrews. Andrews was the box office darling of the 60s, she couldn't make a mistake and suddenly came the 70s and the new generation of actresses like Jane Fonda took over and there was no place for Julie's benevolent, darling presence. Only four films of hers were released and the only thing that brought some attention to her was her breasts. She certainly reached the point where she desperately needed a great comeback role. Her prayers must have been heard... at least by her husband. But not even this movie could restore her old status as the biggest star of Hollywood. 

I am actually quite fond of Julie Andrews as actress, after all, I made her my 1964 Best Actress pick (which, as I'd like to think, caused a kind of a stir among my dear readers). Her talent goes way beyond her perfect singing voice (just like Henry Mancini, I have a hard time believing that she ever made a false note), she's able to show innocence and goodness on the screen like nobody else, without becoming overly sentimental (OK, some really argue with that). She evokes some of my mostkindest feelings in me that while I'm watching her I feel like going back in time, which is kind of unusual for me with musicals as usually, I feel like commiting genocide and desroying my TV set after watching them (there are some exceptions, though). I can't help it. 

With Victor Victoria something really went wrong. In the beginning, when Julie plays the real Victoria, she's a real treat to watch: she's obviously having fun with the character, she knows how to portray her struggles with a sense of humor and she instantly won me over. Her deliveries were just excellent, her chemistry with Robert Preston worked wonderfully and I was thinking I would see a very entertaining performance with a touch of irony.

Things really start to get worse when she becomes Victor Victoria. I'll just go out and say that she's as believable as a drag queen as Cher would be as a reverend mother. Although it's great that, unlike Robert Preston, she avoided only relying on mannerisms and stereotypes but that resulted in one awful thing: she remained a woman playing a woman, not a woman playing a man playing a woman or whatever. She performed those songs excellently, but really, it was Julie Andrews singing, not Victor Victoria. The thing is that this is no big problem when you watch this movie for the first time, but on repeated viewings, it's just not enough: I could get DVDs of her concerts and watch them instead of this movie. 

The main problem is that this movie would have needed a more loud and over-the-top performer like Bette Midler in the lead. I'm not that huge fan of hers but I'd say she would have been the best option for this movie. Julie, as hard as she's trying, is not wild, loud and flambuoyant enough for such a character. I see that she was trying really hard, but honestly, the scenes where she tries to be seductive are the worst of all. There's nothing about her that would justify the attraction of James Garner's character. 

Victor Victoria is also desperate to give a kind of message about the place of women in the society but Julie, in with her saint-like presence, is simply not a believable when she's predicting the feminist messages. Although there's sort of a depth (or a point) in her dialogues with James Garner, she still comes off as weak and really boring. 

The silly comedy parts of the movie are the ones where Julie's at her best. Her comic timing works excellently and her presence is (as usual) really charming. Still, it's just not enough for her to have an effect on me. 

I'm not saying that Julie Andrews gives a bad performance in Victor Victoria. Although I was very amused by her occasionally, she didn't make her character as a fake drag queen very believable or interesting. It's not even really her fault, the part is just not right for her. She solves the comedy parts quite well, but she was not able to give a really layered performance. 

What do you think? 

Debra Winger in An Officer and a Gentleman

Debra Winger received her first Oscar nomination for playing Paula Pokrifki, a girl falling for a man who's training in her town to become an aviator in the box office hit, An Officer and a Gentleman. When Debra received her nomination, her father went on record and said that they were very happy about her nomination and all of them (including Debra) believed that Meryl should win the Oscar. Since I can't officially agree or disagree with him (since I have two other ladies left), let me just say how cool it was to say that. Anyhow, I keep wondering how the Academy voted, especially in her case. Jessica was probably second (more on that later), but Debra could have been fifth, fourth or even third, considering the huge success of the movie. I suppose it was a tough one between Julie and her, but honestly, 95% of the votes went to Meryl and Jessica and they were battling out the rest.

To fully show what kind of a movie An Officer and a Gentleman is, let me just reveal the very last scene (SPOILER): Richard Gere takes out Debra Winger on his arms, while the factory workers are clapping around them and you can hear the famous, very 80s theme of the movie. (SPOILER OFF!) Are you f-ing kidding with me? Seriously, it's one of the lamest "romantic" endings I have ever seen (wonder where Titanic's ending came from). Overall, it's no wonder that this film was a smash hit in the early 80s. I suppose the same thing would happen nowadays. Louis Gossett Jr. gives a memorable performance, but that's no something I would give him an Academy Award (Supporting Actor was really weak that year; or isn't it every year?).

Where are you Debra Winger? OK, In Treatment and occasionally fighting with Anne Hathaway, but I am really curious what she would be able to get out of her parts nowadays, at this point of her life. Rachel Getting Married wonderfully showed all the potential she had inside, revealing tons of emotions in very limited screentime. However, thirty years ago she wasn't a real household name yet, despite receiving great acclaim and a Golden Globe nomination for Urban Cowboy. I suppose her Best Actress nomination came just like Rooney Mara's this year. Both of them had a praised supporting performance and along came a role in a box office hit that brought them an Oscar nod.

After providing E.T. with her voice, Debra played Paula, which I consider her finest performance that I've seen. Although An Officer and a Gentleman has basically no clue about how people and life work, Debra was able to turn in a beautiful, wonderful and deeply layered performance in one of the most one-dimensional role an actress can get. Obviously, it was Richard Gere who got the big, flashy scene (screwed up most of them royally) and Debra got the little screentime and the (sort of) unshowy part, which is considered a supporting role by many. Then how the hell is Debra so fantastic here?

I suppose Debra's greatness in this movie has a lot to do with the fact that she didn't have a very polished style of acting at the time. In Terms of Endearment, I sensed that she was playing for the tears and the effect,  but in An Officer and a Gentleman, I felt purity, naturality and beauty coming from her presence. She had lots of confidence here and she almost bursts with the energy inside her. Her deep, throaty voice just adds up to the fantastic outcome of this performance. She's wonderfully sexy and completely irresistable.

When we first see her, she's not an otherworldy, beautiful creature one would expect in a romantic movie, she seems actually quite ordinary. She's a working girl (it kills me just to think about Melanie Griffith), waiting for the end of her shift. However, after a fast change in a car, she becomes a wonderful, beautiful, attractive woman, who's a radiant, irresistable presence. She doesn't overdue the tough worker act, she doesn't make Paula a loud, over-the-top woman (something that an actress of Melissa Leo's calibre would have done with Paula). She just makes Paula the most natural person in the work and as a result, it's just impossible not to fall in love with her.

What I most admire about Debra here, is her ability to communicate Paula's emotions with her wonderfully expressive. She gets dialogues and says her lines, but everything that's important is written on her face. She has an effect on you with some very delicate and subtle impressions. For instance, in the ball scene where she's doing nothing, really, except for flirting with Richard Gere. She makes her character so myseterious and wonderfully deep, it's as if she wanted to seduce the audience as well (she succeeded, brilliantly).

Debra's chemistry with Richard Gere is pretty miraculous and that leads to the most fantastic scenes of Debra, like the ones in the motel room. Debra basically shines in these scenes: there's something about them that still keeps resonating with me. I don't know if I felt sympathy or even pity for Paula but I sure had some intense feelings about her.

The highlight of her whole performance is her monologue about her real father and her (kind of) break-up with Richard Gere's character. She's just haunting in this scene, revealing the soul of this girl. Again, what's important is really on her face and not in what she says.

Many people ask the question: is she leading or supporting? Frankly, my answer is obviously leading. Despite the screenplay's intentions, she's the emotional centrepoint of this movie and she provides us with the most memorable moments of her so-so movie. I guess the only thing I could have against her is the fact that despite the wonderful, even haunting effect she had on me, she didn't hit me really hard. But frankly, with this role, she did way more than it could be expected in this movie.

All things considered, Debra Winger is incredibly great in An Officer and a Gentleman, giving a deeply layered, very emotional and haunting performance that didn' cease to amaze me. She gets so much out of this seemingly one-dimensional character with the help of her wonderful, beautiful presence. She's just wonderful all around.

What do you think?

Sissy Spacek in Missing

Fresh off her Oscar win two years earlier, Sissy Spacek got another nomination in the Best Actress category for her performance as Beth Horman, the wife of a missing young man in the controversial Costa-Gavras film, Missing. I suppose in the gigantic fight between Jessica Lange and Meryl Streep for the Oscar gold made all of their fellow nominees spectators in their own race. On Inside the Actor's Studio, Sissy admitted voting for Meryl so I suppose she didn't have high expectations. I suppose she was fourth, based on the fact that her  movie nominated for Best Picture (only one in the bunch) and she might have had some leftover love (though that could have been the reason for why she was last).

While I recognise how ambitious piece of work Missing is, I'm just not willing to consider it a great movie. It has some really harrowing and heart-breaking moments but the overall effect of it wasn't that strong on me at all. It just didn't attract my attention, especially in the scenes without Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon. Jack Lemmon gives a devastating, extremely heart-breaking performance, which tells us so much about the inner self of that desperate man. His famous speech in the stadium is actually much shorter than I remember but it's just spot-on: it really hits you hard with its emotional honesty and rawness. I also can't go by the fantastic score of Vangelis who had a great deal to do with making this movie as intense as it is sometimes.

I always considered Sissy Spacek to be an actress blessed with huge talent and great beauty. She's not beautiful in a very traditional sense (but, boy am I furious when people say she's ugly!), she has a very radiant presence and her face wonderfully expresses her emotions. I can only compare her to Michelle Williams from nowadays' actresses: both of them are like some magical pixies and have a wonderful, shining personality (it's just interesting how similar their careers are). 

In Missing, Sissy gets to play the co-lead part of Beth Horman, a real-life person. She has a missing husband  in Chile during Pinochet's coup and has to deal with her arch conservative father-in-law. This could have been a very meaty and showy role but Sissy's not given a truly interesting character so it's up to her knowledge and talent bring something memorable out of this sort of one-dimensional character. Also, Jack Lemmon gets a really deep multi-layered character and he uses every opportunity to shine in his part, leaving Sissy far behind. Honestly, the movie could be titled Missing: A Good Character for Sissy Spacek. 

However, Sissy's talent and wonderful never lets her down as their's something about her performance that keeps resonating with me. She's fantastic at showing the idealism of this woman and her willingness to find out what happened to her husband. As I said she doesn't get any showy breakdowns or monologues unlike Jack Lemmon and it was a very brave decision from her to avoid the clichés of the suffering wife, yet it fell a little bit flat for me, for several reasons. 

First of all, I never saw that Beth had a very complete development from the almost naive young woman to a more experienced but still idealistic person. Although the movie is constantly standing in her way, she could have shown more. It might be fact that I just can't stand performances with obvious highlights (that's true in a way), but I don't think, either that Sissy was creating something special here. There are impressive moments, like the one where we can see her fear after hiding at night or her small breakdown when she recognises the corpse of a good friend. These are memorable scenes, though I wouldn't exactly say that they are unforgettable.

Sissy and Jack Lemmon make up a very odd couple, to say the least but interesting enough, it all works. The only way in which this performance is almost spot-on, is the relationship of these two people: Sissy's Beth starts as the loyal opposition and eventually they turn out to be the most faithfully allies you can ever see. I felt the connection of two opposite generations with very different views of the world they live in (more precisely, they live in different worlds). Beth is the more progressive, idealistic and naive of the two, while Jack's Ed is the more down-to-earth, conventional man who likes facts but there's a special bond between them: their goal of finding a missing person. I was especially appreciative of the fact that the filmmakers were serious enough not write some one-liners in their fight scenes. 

I refuse to believe that Sissy didn't give 100% to the role. It's not like watching a stage diva performing to students on a Thursday night. I actually saw her caring about her character, it's really just the nature and the obvious limitations of the part that prevent her from completely impressing me. However, as much as I'm trying to be impressed by her, I just can't be, which is especially weird, considering the fact that I was watching Sissy Spacek, one of my absolute favorite actresses. 

Still, Sissy Spacek was able to get something out of her one-dimensional character. While her performance is far from dreary, she's not able to reveal as many layers of this character as she can with other roles. Although I appreciate the massive amount of talent and effort that she put into this part, I'm simply not impressed by her work in this movie. Something is really missing. 

What do you think?

Who should be next: Debra or Julie? 

Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice

It's an honor and a privilege to write my first review of the year about...

Meryl Streep who received her fourth Oscar nomination and second Academy Award for playing Sophie Zawistowska, a very mysterious and beautiful Polish woman haunted by a horrible secret. Meryl's win, in my opinion, was very obvious. The Academy came up with the perfect solution to reward the two actresses whose performances were hailed by almost everyone: Jessica Lange won in the supporting category (though everybody feels it's also an award for Frances) and Meryl won in leading. One of those unfortunate cases were happening where two actresses gave their greatest performances. I don't think there was a way Meryl was losing that Oscar. 

Sophie's Choice, in my opinion, is much better than most people think. It's certainly a bit symplified and some of the characters are not properly worked out, but for me it all worked. Although I don't think I want to see it again (for many reasons), it was a very emotional and unforgettable experience for me. Alan J. Pakula was a director who helped his actor deliver some of the very best performances of their careers (above all, Jane Fonda in Klute) and he works fabulously with his actors here as well. Kevin Kline gives a performance that was worthy of an Oscar nomination, but Peter McNicol has his moments, too. 

You know there's a term I really like to use with performances that completely steal their movies and that's why I'm saying that Sophie's Choice is The Meryl Streep Show. Like Klute is The Jane Fonda Show or Tootsie is The Dustin Hoffman Show, Sophie's Choice belongs entirely to Meryl Streep, this fantastic performer. In one of her interviews, Jane Fonda told Rosie O'Donell that she believes Meryl is a gift from Heaven. Although sometimes I try to dislike Meryl, it proves impossible whenever I see her in an actual movie. Then I really believe what Jane says about Meryl. She's a gift. When I reviewed Meryl's wonderful turn in Ironweed, I mentioned that story of Jack Nicholson when while shooting her character's death, he touched Meryl and felt that she had no pulse. Meryl is a natural born chameleon. 

She proves that in Sophie's Choice more than ever during her long, distinguished career. Meryl's hard work and long preparations are legendary, but she really outdid herself here. Because first, she speaks German and Polish so well that you actually refuse to believe that she's American (on a side note, I wonder how she would deal with the Hungarian language :-) ). Second, her accent (as always) is immaculate. Third, she has that very special type of radiant beauty that Polish women possess (this sounds a bit awkward but it's actually true). She perfected each and every movement of this character, timed her tears fabulously. As usual, Meryl solved the technical part of the performance perfectly. Some critics dismissed her performance at the time as way too technical and calculated (which is actually true but in my opinion, it only made her character even more authentic and believable) and Kate Hepburn also expressed how much she despised Meryl in general because of this. But for me, her very considered and careful acting is just a testament to how much she cherished her character. I always try to imagine Goldie Hawn or Natalie Wood in this part (as both of them wanted to play Sophie) or Ursula Andress, whom William Styron, the author of the book, had in mind while writing the story (though from what I've heard, the book's Sophie fits Ursula more than Meryl). 

For me, however, it's the emotionality of this part that gets me each and every time. Last time, with Ironweed I described how much I was taken by Meryl's singing "He's Me Pal" where I felt completely taken by her genious (no wonder that the great Diane Keaton described Meryl as her generation's genious). I felt that very rare feeling throughout Sophie's Choice. I don't think it's coincidence that she reminded me of Jane Fonda in Klute (after all, they had the same director): both of them took me on a ride on a rollercoaster, which may not be pleasant at all, but fulfills you in every possible way. For me, it was unbeliavable to see Meryl showing so many facets of this woman from so many angles. She captivated my mind and soul throughout the movie. It's very hard to keep the attention of a person alive, but it was no problem for Meryl: even if I only look at her, I see she's a genious and that's enough to keep me interested. However, she goes way beyond that in this film.

At the beginning of the story, we get to know Sophie as a wonderful beauty that you instantly fall in love with. However, even there we can sense something distant, sinister and unpleasant about her character. Mystery is all around her. We can see that in small, sudden movements on her body and small gestures by Meryl. She's like a deep sea that you dive deeper and deeper into as the movie goes on. Meryl takes you along and leads you to the most beautiful places. I believe she's never been more beautiful than she was as Sophie. Her shining blonde her, her big and very attractive teeth (I know, it's weird), her soft skin on her thigs that we almost feel ourselves. Not only does she have great chemistry with Kevin Kline and Peter McNicol, but also with the camera and us, the audience. It's as if we were a part of a passionate romance. It's not voyeuristic love, it's the type of love that medieval knights felt for their ideal ladies. But it's also a very sensual and sexualised characterisation by Meryl.

As we get to see more of Sophie, we get to realise her horrible past. The scenes where she tells her story could have easily been ruined by overacting or being too subtle. However, with her tics and small gestures, Meryl is able to make you speechless. Her small movements, her looks, her tears are much more heartbreaking than what she says. It's not about what, it's about how. In the scenes of her past, we don't see her acting in English anymore. She used the Polish and German language so well that she was even able to play with the emotions. We often command actors for being able to speak two or three sentences in another language but the real achievement is when you can use all the benefits of another language. In the scenes at the concentration camp and the Rudolf Hess' house, you can see her most Oscary moments. It's interesting that you would expect some very loud and over-the-top acting and in the end, she ends up being way more subtle than you would expect. She's wonderful while taking a shower: the quiet desperation, humiliation and fear she displays there is just terrifying. What's even more interesting that she keeps her radiant beauty even when she's skinny, pale and undernourished: her beauty shines through the horrible situation of her character, which makes it even more thrilling. 

It's her loud scenes are, however, that most of us remember: her desperation to save her son is played brilliantly by her when Sophie's on her knees, begging to Hess. She perfectly found the balance in that scene, which made incredibly heartwrenching and moving. 

And the choice... The choice scene is hands down one of the three best acted moments I've ever seen. You cannot communicate your feelings in words. She did it in one take and I bet that if she had done another one, it wouldn't have been quite as effective. You know, that's one of those VERY rare moments when I feel divine powers working in a performance. We cannot possibly imagine the horror of that event and the small part of it that we feel is just unbearable. When I first saw it at the age of 13, I was just terrified and shocked by that scene. It's one of the most horribly painful moments in movie history. Nothing can compare to the tension that Meryl created. It's incredibly draining and unbearable to watch, to say the least.

In the end, Sophie becomes more of a ghost that occasionally comes and haunts you. Her last scene is incredible: we can see that she's become tired of living and yet it's more of cathartic than devastating. People might call this performance too calculated and affected, which has some merit considering the fact that it's pretty obvious what Meryl tried to achieve, you cannot forget that she reached her goal to make the audience cringe. I must admit, though, that maybe she shouldn't have wanted it so hard, because she succeeded anyway.

To say that Meryl Streep is great in Sophie's Choice would be a major understatement. She goes beyond the boundaries of acting and completely becomes Sophie Zawistowska. While the technical part of this performance is brutally perfect, it's the emotional nature of Meryl's work that keeps you captivated. Nothing can compare to the horror and pain that Meryl displays on the screen. Unforgettable work. 

Who should be next?