The Living Daylights (1987) vs. Licence to Kill (1989)

Both 007 films are directed by John Glen and star Timothy Dalton as the famous British spy James Bond. (SPOILERS)

The Living Daylights

The rap sheet. 

The Living Daylights has a 74% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received a Saturn Award nomination for Best Fantasy Film, and it won a BMI Film Music Award and a Motion Picture Sound Editors (USA) one. Licence to Kill has a 73% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received a Edgar Allan Poe Award nomination for Best Motion Picture. 

Winner: The Living Daylights 

The setup. 

In Licence to Kill, James Bond goes rogue to avenge the attack of his friend by a Latin American drug dealer (Robert Davi). In The Living Daylights, Bond must stop an arms dealer (Joe Don Baker) with the help of a cellist (Maryam d'Abo). 

Winner: Licence to Kill 

Licence to Kill

The execution. 

Both films have the standard Bond treatment - guns, gadgets, explosions, and chase sequences. The Living Daylights has a more exciting opening sequence, a key double-cross, and a better romance. Licence to Kill has revenge, tropical locations, and death by shark attack. 

Winner: The Living Daylights 

The ending. 

In Licence to Kill, Bond blows up the dealer's lab facility, and he kills the villain with his recovering friend's cigarette lighter. In The Living Daylights, Bond kills the arms dealer, and celebrates the cellist's world tour in a way accustomed to him. Of course, he gets the girl at the end of both films.
Winner: The Living Daylights 

The wild card. 

The Living Daylights has Jonathan Rhys-Davies as a foreign ally to Bond. Licence to Kill has Benicio del Toro as the villain's main henchman. 

Winner: Licence to Kill 

The Living Daylights

Winner: The Living Daylights beats Licence to Kill 3-2

Ratings: The Living Daylights - ***1/2, Licence to Kill - ***

185. Jaws: The Revenge

185. (02 Sep) Jaws: The Revenge (1987, Joseph Sargent) 33



Despite its reputation as one of the worst films of all time, Jaws: The Revenge is an infinitely more watchable film that Jaws 2 or Jaws 3-D. While those films are self-serious and downright boring, this moves briskly. It is bad, to be sure, full of plot holes, bad performances and outrageously embarrassing effects. Those things at least give this a little camp value.

184. Nutcracker: Money, Madness & Murder

184. (01 Sep) Nutcracker: Money, Madness & Murder (1987, Paul Bogart) 31



An ungainly four hours, Nutcracker opts to include as many baity filler scenes with Lee Remick as possible while key plot details are regularly condensed into dopey montages. Remick is rather terrible here, at one point playing the least convincing and oldest-looking college-aged kid ever. Her overacting is entertaining, which is more than can be said for Tate Donovan and the unnecessarily Emmy-nominated John Glover and Elizabeth Wilson. The film does deliver on its promise of money, madness and murder, also throwing in some incestuous overtones, but none of these things add up to much.

Withnail and I (1987) **

Strange British humor is the best way I can describe Withnail and I (1987).  At times it is irreverently funny, and then there are moments when it just seems inane.  I’m usually a big fan of black comedy, so I was a bit disappointed by this effort by writer/director Bruce Robinson.  The film was semi-autobiographical for Robinson, as it was based on his life during the late-1960s in London, so perhaps more distance from the subject matter would have served him well here.

The film takes place in 1969 Camden Town. Withnail (Richard E. Grant) and Marwood (Paul McGann) are out of work actors living in a squalid, dilapidated flat. Something seems amiss with this living situation as it soon becomes abundantly clear that these are two university educated young men.  Withnail’s vocabulary and overall bearing betray him as upper middle-class, and Marwood’s idiosyncratic tendencies make it clear that these two really don’t belong in a building that should be condemned.  Yet, once you know that Withnail is a drunk and Marwood is a paranoid freak you are more accepting of their living accommodations.

The story doesn’t really take off until the guys decide they need a change of scenery and ask Withnail’s Uncle Monty (Richard Griffiths) to let them stay at his country home.  Monty is a stereotypical eccentric gay man who quotes Baudelaire and fawningly reminisces about former paramours.  He’s the best thing about the entire film.  Everything he says and does is funny, especially since there always seems to be some sexual undertone to whatever he says.  For example, in discussing why he prefers carrots to geraniums he says: “I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is, you'll agree, a certain 'je ne sais quoi' oh so very special about a firm, young carrot.”  His pursuit of a very uninterested Marwood is hilarious—and even a tad sad, too.

As for the two leads, Grant and McGann, they do admirable jobs portraying rather unlikable characters. I think Grant deserves more credit for his performance because he is actually allergic to alcohol, so the idea that he played a complete drunk so convincingly should be acknowledged.  Still, I found nothing whatsoever redemptive about his character, so it made it difficult for me to care what happened to him.  As for McGann, his overly-neurotic character was annoyingly boring. 

I suppose you could call this a coming-of-age story, but it still seems like a film without a plot.  I suspect this is one of the reasons I’m not a big fan of this movie.  Had there been more story development and less focus on ingesting drugs and alcohol this might have captured my attention more.

097. Mannequin

097. (21 Mar) Mannequin (1987, Michael Gottlieb) 54



Between the outrageous supporting characters and a love story too weird to really be romantic, Mannequin should be too silly to work. But its sincerity works in its favor. The way Andrew McCarthy's friendship with a gay windowdresser named Hollywood is particularly charming. The villainous performances are too broad, with James Spader making a fool of himself, but they're peripheral enough not to derail things. It's mostly just fun watching the stupid and wacky affair between Kim Cattrall and McCarthy play out. It doesn't hurt that "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" is an awesome Best Original Song nomination.

051. Happy New Year

051. (11 Feb) Happy New Year (1987, John G. Avildsen) 33



I rarely have any interest in these heist films, but Happy New Year is especially inept. Peter Falk's romantic subplot lacks any charm and casing the jewelry store proves to be downright tedious. There's a slight surprise when the robbery goes completely awry in a rather hilarious way. (Falk simply gets stuck in the store when the door locks and ends up in prison.) The Best Makeup nomination is rather silly; Falk is put in various makeups so he can go undetected while casing the jewelry store. First he's an old man and later is an old woman who's the precursor to Mrs. Doubtfire.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1987

1987

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Holly Hunter in Broadcast News

I was impressed by Holly Hunter to a certain extent, I wasn't as amazed by her as I was when I first saw her a couple of years ago. She still has a wonderful presence and she's a joy to watch but I felt something missing from her work. Very entertaining and loveable work but not something to fall in love with. 

4. Sally Kirkland in Anna

I was completely impressed by Sally Kirkland's performance as Anna. She communicated Anna's despair brilliantly and she has an extremely powerful presence on the screen. Although her movie drags her down, she's still really great as the aging actress. Still, there's something in me that's preventing me from being completely taken by her.

3. Cher in Moonstruck

Cher succeeds in every possible way with the character of Loretta Castorini. Although this is not a towering performance for the ages, it's fantastic and incredibly entertaining anyhow and it displays Cher's talent brilliantly. Despite being relatively new to the craft, she was courageous enough to take a risk by being incredibly subtle. Each and every movement and delivery of hers is just perfect.

2. Meryl Streep in Ironweed

In an unbelievably amazing movie, Meryl Streep is unbelievably amazing as Helen Archer, a worn out, tired woman. She masterfully works with the emotions, brings the right amoung of commitment to the role and she identifies with the pain of Helen incredibly well. Not only is she wonderfully strange on the screen, but also really heartbreaking and disturbing. This unfairly rarely praised work of Meryl is just fantastic. 

1. Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction

Great Glenn is just astonising in her iconic performance as Alex Forrest. She makes Alex a terribly human character whose actions seem to come from her desperation and not her evil nature. She brilliantly develops her character from a sexy, confident woman to a devastated wreck. She's chilling, heartbreaking and just unforgettable. A truly incredible performance by an amazingly gifted and dedicated actress.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Glenn Close 

in 

Fatal Attraction

Why don't you love me, Academy?

Final thoughts: What a great year! OK, it's basically Great Glenn, Meryl and the others. The win was obvious though Meryl came close (but then Great Glenn said she was not gonna be ignored :D). I enjoyed all of these wonderful performances, some more, some less. But you know it was really great to do a year that you were seemingly interested in. I was glad about the lots of feedbacks and arguments. I've wanted to do this year from the very beginning and now that it's over it all seems so cool, but I'm also a bit sad to let it go. :) This 1987 series was a dream come true for me. :)

Omissions:

• Maggie Smith in The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne 
• Stéphane Audran in Babette's Feast

About the next year: Well, I haven't decided it yet. It depends on a lot of things. First, I don't know if I have time to do a year till January unfortunately and I have to consider lots of other things. I haven't really decided it yet. :)

What do you think? 

Meryl Streep in Ironweed

Meryl Streep received her seventh Oscar nomination for playing Helen Archer, a very weary homeless lady alongside Jack in Ironweed. With hindsight and based on the Academy's love for Meryl Streep, her nomination for Ironweed could seem a very easy one but I wouldn't say that. Meryl didn't even get nominated for a Globe (which is stunning as they probably love her even more than the Oscars), she won no precursor awards and her movie wasn't that much of a hit, either. Moreover, with Sally Kirkland and Barbra Streisand campaigning tirelessly, Meryl's fair play behaviour could have seemed to take away attention from her. Nevertheless (thank God), she got her nomination for Ironweed. That being said, I think this might have been the only time when she was the fifth in the voting (OK, maybe also in 1998 and 1999). But who knows, when you get a nod without any precursor love that can mean a very strong support inside the Academy

Ironweed is an unbelievably great movie and definitely the best one that received a Best Actress nod in 1987. Hector Babenco's direction created such an intense atmosphere and the whole movie is so intense and wonderful. Each and every moment of it holds a punch for me. I was probably most impressed by it because I didn't expect to be. Jack gives a tremendous performance as Francis for which he easily should have won the Oscar. I strongly believe that it's one of his greatest works. He created a unique, unforgettable and haunting character and quite simply, I couldn't get enough of his acting. I was constantly amazed by his incredible presence and also the fact that he was able to put away his trademarks. 

And of course, there's the marvelous Meryl Streep. Although once it came naturally, nowadays I have a hard time calling Meryl Streep one of my favorite actresses. I always try to resist her and sometimes I really succeed, but eventually, I fall in love with her again and again. Yes, she might be a little too technical and calculating, however, once you get affected by her, you're lost. There are moments when I say "She's a magician, a genious." For instance when she starts singing as Helen Archer in Ironweeds. She's shy in the beginning and she gradually opens up to the audience until we get to find out that was just her fantasy. Besides the famous choice scene in Sophie's Choice, that's the best acted scene I've ever seen by Meryl. 

Meryl creates a suffering, weary woman who tries to escape somehow from the harsh, brutal reality of hers. The way Meryl displays Helen's emotions is just perfect: she doesn't overdo the tiredness and boredom of this woman, instead she makes her a very fascinating person. Helen dreams of being a star and actually, she becomes the star of this movie. Meryl is very often criticised for not disappearing enough into her character, however, I feel that this criticism of her is quite invalid in the case of Ironweed. Meryl Streep, the actress, is gone. There's Helen Archer and her life on the screen. 

Many people are arguing that Meryl's performance as Helen really belongs to the supporting actress category but that's something that I refuse to accept. True, she doesn't get lots of screentime, but the impact of Helen's character on the story is undeniable. In fact, for a while, Helen even takes the spotlight from Jack's character. For me the definition of supporting characters is that the movie and the story can work perfectly without them, they only make it more colorful. And frankly, Ironweed without Helen would be completely different. She probably embodies the dark life of Francis' life in which he gradually disappears. 

And Meryl plays Helen just like that: she often seems to be a ghost, a lost spirit who cannot find her way. Whenever she appears on the screen, her haunting presence captures our minds and souls. Once Meryl grabs you, there's no way to go. Meryl plays with the emotions so masterfully and it shows in this performance: she's incredibly disturbing, dazzling and puzzling (in a very good way). 

She adds so many layers to the character and she underlines them in short sentences or just one looks. Her scene in the church is just amazing and tells so many things about her character: she's basically a good person, she just has to make some "compromises". Again, the emotionality of the scene is just unbelievable.

I just cannot ignore her scenes with Jack, though. The good relationship between the two great actors truly shows: they make up an incredible couple. The way they are supporting and holding each other (sometimes literally) is just amazing. I really felt that they didn't try to outact each other, they were just really supportive. And this paid off: they really inspired each other to be better, to push a little further and try a little harder. 

SPOILER! According to a story, when they were shooting the death of Helen, Jack watched Meryl and he didn't feel her pulse. SPOILER OFF That's something I can easily believe: Meryl gave herself to this character so wonderfully, she was so committed to her that I couldn't have been more amazed if I tried. 

In an unbelievably amazing movie, Meryl Streep is unbelievably amazing as Helen Archer, a worn out, tired woman. She masterfully works with the emotions, brings the right amoung of commitment to the role and she identifies with the pain of Helen incredibly well. Not only is she wonderfully strange on the screen, but also really heartbreaking and disturbing. This unfairly rarely praised work of Meryl is just fantastic. 

What do you think? 

The conclusion comes either today or tomorrow. :) I don't know. Stay tuned.

Holly Hunter in Broadcast News

Holly Hunter received her first Best Actress nomination for playing Jane Craig, a neurotic television executive in the Best Picture nominated Broadcast News. In the very crowded 1987 Best Actress race, Holly was clearly the favorite of the critics' and yet I have a hard time believing that she was a very serious contender for the Oscar. I suppose she was fourth in the end or maybe third if she managed to get ahead of Sally Kirkland. I guess the fact that Broadcast News received a lot of other nomination might have given Holly the edge, eventually. The drawback of strong fields is that only one person can win the award. Something like that is about to happen in this year's race, too. It's full of great performances and there will be some left off or losing. 

Broadcast News is a very entertaining and interesting movie though I wouldn't call it the masterpiece that everybody makes it out to be. Its screenplay is very witty and smartly written but sometimes it just gets too much and more annoying than it should be. I guess the ones who loved Network will be disappointed by it and those who disliked it will take lots of pleasure in it. William Hurt gives a shallow performance as a shallow person: that might have been the point but I still wasn't impressed by him. However, it's Albert Brooks who gives the best performance of the movie. Although his character is incredibly unlikeable and annoying, he just excels in the part. I'd say he deserved to win the Oscar for it. 

Although Holly Hunter is a very talented actress in my book, there's something about her that's a bit annoying: her accent. It's a little bit too heavy for me and she has to overcome this obstacle to completely impress me. Not that she's not able to. In Broadcast News, however, she has to use all the qualities that I dislike about her the most. Therefore, it's very shocking that I liked her performance so much. 

Jane is a very weird character, who's incredibly difficult to get used to, but eventually, you develop a certain amount of sympathy towards her. While Faye Dunaway's Diana Christensen was almost a caricature of a stereotype, Holly adds some soul to this typical 80s careerist woman. In one of her first scenes, we can see her being hysterical and breaking down in a hotel bedroom, which could have been a very depressing start, but Holly was somehow able to turn it into something really lovely. Holly nails the humorous parts of this character: her scene when her lecture becomes a complete failure is just priceless. She displays some irony besides the humiliation of Jane. 

Holly's chemistry with both Albert Brooks and William Hurt is just wonderful (especially with Brooks). Holly showed wonderfully how differently Jane behaves in the company of both of these men. With Brooks' Aaron, Jane is more confident, humorous and their scenes give some of the best parts of the film. My favorite line of the whole movie is said in their argument (but that belongs to Brooks): "I think we have the kind of friendship where if I were the devil, you would be the only one to know." Hunter and Brooks play with each other so wonderfully that I just couldn't get enough og their scenes. With Hurt, things are a bit different. Whenever Holly is with him, her performance gets a little bit weaker and shallower. Her wittiness becomes a little bit annoying and I kind of felt she overdid those scenes. 

The bitchy and unbearable part of Jane is, nonetheless, perfectly handled by Holly. The scene where she gets the chance to pick the person who's sent to Alaska is simply hilarious: her delivery of "Jennifer!" is just wonderful. 

As I said, the comedy part of this character is just excellent and the same goes for her more dramatic scenes (her confrontation scene with William Hurt at the airport is just unforgettable), but there's just something that says to me that it's not enough. There's everything for me to completely embrace her: she's hilarious, she nails the dramatic moments, she develops a complete, multi-dimensional character, she has a luminous presence and yet it never becomes coherently amazing. By this I mean, she's amazing in bits and pieces but the whole thing doesn't reach the level of fantastic. However, I really cannot deny how wonderfully entertaining she is in certain scenes.

In the end, although I was impressed by Holly Hunter to a certain extent, I wasn't as amazed by her as I was when I first saw her a couple of years ago. She still has a wonderful presence and she's a joy to watch but I felt something missing from her work. Nevertheless, her line deliveries are pitch-perfect and her scenes with Albert Brooks truly make up for the weaker parts of her performance. Very entertaining and loveable work but not something to fall in love with. 

What do you think? Meryl's review comes tomorrow. 

Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction

Great Glenn Close received her fourth Oscar nomination for playing Alex Forrest, a lonely, psychotic woman who's after a man with whom she had a brief affair in the movie Fatal Attraction. Considering the hit status of Fatal Attraction and the fact that Great Glenn had already received three Oscar nominations must have made her a serious contender for the Academy Award. However, unlike Cher she wasn't the sentimental favorite and unlike Sally Kirkland she didn't campaign as hell to win the award so she once again lost (and she's still Oscarless, what a shame on the Academy, it's disgusting). It's ironic that out of the five performances nominated it's only hers that became truly iconic and most frequently talked about. You know, time always tells which performances are really good.

Fatal Attraction is an excellent movie. It's not an art flick, it very much knows what the audience wants and serves it, but it's still just chilling and fantastic. Adrian Lyne is very talented at creating tension (in every way) and he's just great here. I think all the Oscar nominations were richly deserved for this movie and I guess Michael Douglas would have been deservedly nominated, too had it not been for his Oscar winning turn in Wall Street. Anne Archer, however, absolutely deserved to win the Academy Award for her excellent work as Dan's wife. In my opinion, Ellen Hamilton Latzen was also worthy of the nomination (I know, I know...)

But oh boy, this movie is about Great Glenn. And I love this woman, I truly do. I literally watch everything she's in (movie, television show and if I can see bits and pieces of her work theatre). She has an acting style unlike anyone that I know. There's something about her that draws me constantly, a kind of a special aura or radiation that keeps telling me all the time: "She's great. She's great. She's great. She's great. She's great.". And yes, she's Great Glenn and no I can't call her anything else. I might even say she's my favorite actress besides Jane Fonda. And according to most people, her finest hour was her work as Alex Forrest in Fatal Attraction.

Fatal Attraction basically created a whole new genre with the crazy ex-girlfriend who's ruining happy families. And most of that is due to the marvelous and devastating performance of Great Glenn who's simply marvelous at communicating Alex's feelings and demons. The movie and the screenplay are quite standard and not very original (to say the least) and it was up to the actors (and especially Great Glenn) to elevate it to something really special. They all succeeded, especially Great Glenn who created one of the most iconic characters of all time.

If you have noticed, I just keep saying that Glenn is great and iconic but I don't give reasons why. The explanation is quite simple: no words can perfectly describe Great Glenn's gigantic power and force as Alex. From the first moment, her performance is just perfect. We get to see her for the first time at a party, being an ordinary 80s sexy woman. She presents Alex as a confident, smart and sexy woman with a sense of humor but also as someone who's very realistic about life. She's an incredibly seductive presence (I can only compare her to Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct) and you can easily see why Michael Douglas' character falls head over heels for her.

For me, the most wonderful aspect of this performance is the way Great Glenn develops Alex: she goes step by step, very carefully without being too obvious or forced in her acting. You can notice some small hints here and there so that you can say in the end "of course, that was the obvious thing for her to do." At first, she seems to be more and more proud, but she turns out to be a devastated, depressed person. SPOILER The scene where we see her attempting suicide is just perfectly played by Great Glenn. The amount of sadness and devastation that she displays in that scene alone is worthy of an Oscar, in my opinion. Thanks to her timing, it becomes just as shocking as it's dramatic. SPOILER OFF!

It's well-known how much Great Glenn prepared for this role and that she actually consulted with two psychiatrists about the part and played her according to the diagnosis. And she just chillingly shows the symptoms, actually, she does much better than the movie would have asked for. However, it's Great Glenn's careful approach to this woman that really paid off. Great Glenn realized that Alex is not just a woman who wants to take revenge on her lover, but a mentally ill person who's just desperate to have somebody in her life.

The movie, however, is constantly trying to drag Great Glenn down. With the famous rabbit and roller-coaster scenes, it's just trying to say that Alex is just a crazy witch but miraculously Glenn was able to play the character the way she deserved to be played. Alex seems like Ophelia who sinks deeper and deeper into mental illness. Her face is just devastating where Alex is turning the lamp on and off. I couldn't help feeling sorry for that woman and hate Dan for what she did to her. In a way, Alex's behavior is justified and Great Glenn emphasises that every story has two sides and unlike what we should believe, Alex is not a just a crazy bitch. She turned her very sexist movie into a really complex and fascinatig character study that doesn't cease to amaze the viewer. I guess that was the main ambition of Great Glenn and she more than succeeded. She makes the viewer compassionate about Alex's fate.

Alex's feeling are best shown by Great Glenn in the scene where we can hear her narration and watch her teary face in the car. Glenn (I always want to type Alex, that must mean something) is just chillingly brilliant there. I was naturally frightened by her but the whole thing was also deeply heartbreaking. She makes Alex so terribly human despite constant effort of the movie to make her the devil itself.

I guess that's why Glenn was disappointed that the original ending (where Alex commited suicide) was replaced by a showier, scarier ending, which would say that the movie won and Alex is a monster. However, Glenn was able to benefit even from this. She just kept up doing what she originally did and that's it. She did it as if it was what Alex would have done. She didn't overdo the craziness of Alex. and was a really haunting presence. However, I don't see the comparisions with Madame Butterfly this way which would have been so beautiful with the original ending.

In the end, I can say that Great Glenn is just astonising in her iconic performance as Alex Forrest. She makes Alex a terribly human character whose actions seem to come from her desperation and not her evil nature. She brilliantly develops her character from a sexy, confident woman to a devastated wreck. She's chilling, heartbreaking and just unforgettable. A truly incredible performance by an amazingly gifted and dedicated actress.

Don't tell me you were suprised! :) 

Sally Kirkland in Anna

Sally Kirkland received her only Oscar nomination for playing Anna, a forgotten Czechoslovakian actress having great difficulties in New York. Sally must have been really close to winning that Oscar. Before the 1987 Oscar race, she was an actress playing bit parts and being Shelley Winters' Goddaughter. Sally Kirkland started campaigning alone with the help of Winters to get her performance and movie recognised. However, things are not easy when you're practically unknown in a tiny film with no stars and when you're nominated with legendary actresses giving iconic performances. Sally pulled of a win from the Globes   but she didn't manage to get the coveted Academy Award. I guess the Academy was too eager to give the award to Cher plus I think the second was Glenn with Sally being the fourth at best (I just don't see them voting for her, sorry). 

Anna is an awful movie, simple as that. It's incredibly slow, boring, meaningless, unoriginal though it has some great moments. There was nothing in it that really caught my attention (OK, one thing) and the whole thing was just dragging along. Now compare this to the movie of the other nominees and you'll instantly see why Sally lost the Oscar. I mean there's Moonstruck, a wonderful movie full of heart, Fatal Attraction, the huge blockbuster or the wonderfully witty Broadcast News (haven't seen Ironweed yet but I'm sure it's better than Anna). I guess Academy voters were just as bored by it as I was and didn't want to watch it, not even for Sally. Honestly, this movie was one of the worst ones that gave a Best Actress nominee. 

So Sally Kirkland. Honestly, I can't say a word about her. The performances of hers that I've seen from her were very bit parts in The Sting and The Way We Were so I really cannot judge her talent. She's almost completely forgotten by now and we could only see her arriving four hours early to the Oscars. She's become a symbol of agressive self-paid campaiging and is made fun of regularly because of that (at least they talk about her). I wonder why people didn't mention her when talking about Melissa Leo's idiotic self-promotion. The two ladies clearly have a lot of things in common. 

Sally plays Anna, a forgotten, aging Czechoslovakian actress who takes care of a young girl, Krystyna from her country. Anna thinks Krystyna has the potential to become a big star and she indeed succeeds while Anna has to make do with being an understudy. Anna is typically a character that you feel really sorry for. She's really down on her luck, worn out and tired. In a way, she's like Margo Channing, with the exception that Margo was an acclaimed, celebrated actress and Anna has difficulties making it in America. She was a huge star in her home and it's actually quite painful to see her reminiscing about her days of glory. Sally is great at making the viewer sympathize with Anna. However, we also see that she leads a very miserable life and she's a rather pathetic person. Personally, I just wanted to go to her and do something about her career and shout at people: don't you see how much talent she has? Her audition scene is really heartbreaking. We can see that she's way above the things that she has to do.

Anna is typically a character who has a very tragic background story with the revolution, the dead baby and the alienated husband. Kirkland got very juicy monologues from Agnieszka Holland, the wonderful director who penned Anna's screenplay (surprising) and Sally used every opportunity to shine in this part. She puts an incredible amount of emotion into them and it's impossible not to be impressed by her determination to get her part right. It could come off as pushing for attention and in a way it's right but we must not forget how wonderful she is as Anna.

She works quite well with her co-stars and her scenes with Paulina Porizkova are just great. They are like a mother and a daughter, an older actress and a younger actress. In a way they are like Margo and Eve but there's a big difference. Anna and Krystyna are never bitchy with each other and they are much more genuine and supportive. That aspect of the movie is very poorly worked out unfortunately but the actresses were able to save it from being totally weak and forced.

My favorite part of the whole film is Anna's breakdown on the stage. It's a very loud, over-the-top moment that's solved by Sally wonderfully. She never completely overdoes it, only as much as the character required.  All in all, I felt that Sally wonderfully identified with Anna's pain and sorrow.

I probably would have been much more amazed by Sally if she had been in a better movie. Unfortunately, Anna is such a bad movie that it's constantly trying to drag down Sally. In a great movie, she would have been brilliant, this way she's just really great, which is kind of annoying, considering how much more Sally could have given us.

But all in all, I was completely impressed by Sally Kirkland's performance as Anna. She communicated Anna's despair brilliantly and she has an extremely powerful presence on the screen. Although her movie drags her down, she's still really great as the aging actress. Still, there's something in me that's preventing me from being completely taken by her. However, it was a personal triumph for me to get the very hard-to-find movie that I had been looking for over two years. So I'm really content. :)

What do you think?

Cher in Moonstruck

Cher got her second Oscar nomination and won the Academy Award for playing Loretta Castorini, a widowed Italian-American book keeper in Moonstruck. I can imagine that Cher's triumph was very much like Sandra Bullock's win two years ago: a beloved superstar got her due for an unshowy, lightweight role. Lilian Gish was actually quoted after failing to receive a nomination "At least I don't have to lose to Cher.". However, I see a big difference between Cher and Sandra. Cher actually gave a great performance, which was really lovely and that's probably (besides her superstar status) what gave her the edge over Sally Kirkland who campaigned as hell with the assistence of her Godmother, Shelley Winters.

I love romantic movies with traditionally huge families and boring, aging women turning out to be beautiful. That's the reason I go crazy for films like My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Moonstruck. Although they don't have much artistic value, they are masterfully entertaining without being overly sentimental, soappy or vulgar. They are nothing but good fun with great writing, directing and actors. John Patrick Shanley richly deserved the Academy Award he took home for Best Original Screenplay. I'd say the same about the nominations of Gardenia and Dukakis though I'm not 100% sure if I completely agree with the win of Dukakis (I guess I need to see the others, too).

What can you say about Cher? I mean, she's such a great performer and a legend in every possible way: she sings, she acts, what doesn't she do? Exactly. I can talk about her only in superlatives and it would be boring to talk about how great she is. I guess it was obvious that she would win the Oscar after losing to Linda Hunt back in 1983. She had a blockbuster on her side, she was loved by everyone, it was no wonder she received a huge standing ovation. Although fellow nominee Glenn Close's role as Alex in Fatal Attraction is the most iconic one of the group, Cher also managed to deliver a famous line "Snap out of it." while slapping Nicolas Cage (something that many of us wants to do nowadays). 

Loretta Castorini is aging, she has an awful boyfriend who asks her to marry him and she's a totally unshowy character at first sight. It takes a very talented performer with a strong and interesting personality to make such a character really intriguing and that's why I feel that Cher was such a great choice to play her (it's hard to imagine the original choice, Sally Field as Loretta though it would have been really interesting). She brought the right amount of charisma to the movie and the result was something completely irresistable. I felt as if I was watching a flower blooming not an actress playing a part. 

Nowadays it's kind of natural that famous singers star in feature films but I can hardly imagine Beyoncé or Christina Aguilera showing such talent and versatility as an actress that Cher did. She developed Loretta's character with such confidence and ease. It's just really amazing to see Cher seem so great and professional in this part while also preserving her "rough diamond" aura. She's very subtle throughout the movie and she avoids overdoing certain aspects of Loretta. She's a very "Italian-American" character, if you know what I mean but Cher plays her with very subtle mannerisms and she emphasises the lovely attributes instead of the stereotypes in her.

Cher gorgeously shows more and more layers of Loretta and becomes a totally irresistable presence. Loretta is a quiet and a bit reserved person but certainly not shy and she's not afraid of speaking her mind. Cher's nothing short of incredible in the very famous slapping scene: Cher immortalized the line "Snap out of it!". I loved that Loretta shows that she's a very down-to-earth person who doesn't believe in curses and yet she does everything bad in this movie just to avoid bad luck. Again, this could have been overdone by Cher and yet she found the perfect balance.

The "ugly duckling becomes a beautiful swan" storyline is one of the oldest and most boring ones every and yet Cher and her wonderful movie makes it all work fabulously. In her bit ironic and very humorous interpretation even the most cheesy things work. She did the best by not taking her character too seriously. I guess that's why she was such a great choice to play Loretta: she had much to learn as an actress and she turned out to be fantastic eventually. Moonstruck is a development story not only for Loretta but also for the amazing Cher (who went on to give one of my favorite performances ever in Tea with Mussolini; Why wasn't she nominated for that one?). She wasn't afraid of taking risks (nobody could ever accuse her of that) with Loretta. By underplaying her, she risked being lifeless and boring but her instincts were right: this was the best possible way to play Loretta.

Cher succeeds in every possible way with the character of Loretta Castorini. Although this is not a towering performance for the ages, it's fantastic and incredibly entertaining anyhow and it displays Cher's talent brilliantly. Despite being relatively new to the craft, she was courageous enough to take a risk by being incredibly subtle. Each and every movement and delivery of hers is perfect and we get to see wonderful acting that carries Moonstruck fabulously.

What do you think? 

The Next Year

1987

So the nominees were:

• Cher in Moonstruck
• Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction
• Holly Hunter in Broadcast News
• Sally Kirkland in Anna
• Meryl Streep in Ironweed

A truly WOW year, that I've wanted to do ever since I started these reviews. I'm eager to watch and rewatch these performances and movies that cover a wide range. Careerist women, aging women, tired women and one of them doesn't like being ignored. Oh, I'm über excited!

What do you think? Who's your pick? What's your prediction for my ranking? :) 

A Word on Watching Older Movies

Everyone has their own reasons for watching older films.  Some do it because they like the memories old black and white films bring up, others do so to capture a director's or an actor's filmography, and some purely for entertainment.  I do it for all these reasons, but given the opportunity, I do it for another.  Yearly Perspective.

To understand exactly what I mean, you have to understand my philosophy on the Oscars.  I talked about it in an earlier blog, but I'll do some quick summarization for you.  I don't prescribe to the notion that the Oscars award the best films of the year, but rather they highlight some of the best in their nominations, just not necessarily their winners.  What I like most is trying to get into the mindset of someone deciding those races, as a voter.  And to do this well, you have to see all the nominees in all the races in all (or most of the important) categories.  For example, seeing all the Best Picture nominees of 1999 (and other major categories) before claiming that American Beauty is my favorite of the year.  This isn't simply for personal annual awards, but rather, to see how everything stacks up.  There are a ton of winners out there that get panned because they don't hold up over other winners...but in many of those cases, the year itself was weak in that category.

Recently, I've been diving back into 1987, 1991, and 2002.  Here and there, seeing as many films from those years as possible that I hadn't seen before and figuring out what I like best.  In the grand scheme of things, this process is more for my amusement.  I like it because it allows me some concentration on a year, much like I get to do when I'm living out and following the current Oscar race.  When you're in the middle of an Oscar season, you're granted time to mull over your favorites, seeing how certain performances relate to each other and how they are dwindled to five nominees.  In concentrating retrospectively, you get to do the same thing.  Most people revisit a movie, and then watch another one that was made 30 years earlier, and then go see Hop the next day.  I just find this activity interesting, it's a fun investigation of one particular year of at the Oscars.  Only then can you say with confidence just which film is your favorite of any given year.