tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post6408943398564207083..comments2023-10-12T00:54:38.633-07:00Comments on oscarfan: Best Actress 1988: Melanie Griffith in Working Girljoe burnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-48211964912785445842010-04-25T18:42:09.253-07:002010-04-25T18:42:09.253-07:00Well, I can't really say. But if I'm going...Well, I can't really say. But if I'm going to choose between the two, I'll go with Weaver. It's a strong year, but she's my winner.Malcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08115141758436339101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-1258982175993894622010-04-24T22:26:16.659-07:002010-04-24T22:26:16.659-07:00Twister: I disagree. I think that she suffered bec...Twister: I disagree. I think that she suffered because the film itself does not work. But I did also like the 80's feel of it. <br /><br />Malcom: I'm glad to see someone who likes her! Would you have given Weaver or Cusack the win in Best Supporting Actress?joe burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-7021985272554367612010-04-24T20:21:29.241-07:002010-04-24T20:21:29.241-07:00Oh. I love her performance here. But I agree. This...Oh. I love her performance here. But I agree. This isn't a performance for the ages.<br /><br />Would have been 3.5 to 4.5 for me.<br /><br />Oh, and I love this film. I may sound crazy but this is my Best Picture of 1988.Malcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08115141758436339101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-400530830649154992010-04-24T18:47:32.865-07:002010-04-24T18:47:32.865-07:00Something about Griffth's performance just did...Something about Griffth's performance just didn't click with me. The whole movie suffers because she just cannot for her life carry it.<br /><br />I'll save my opinions about Weaver and Cusack for my profiles.<br /><br />I liked Nichols' direction and most of the '80sish aspects of the film still seem fresh today.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15328588663743547744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-46097065396335338232010-04-24T17:21:07.376-07:002010-04-24T17:21:07.376-07:00I want to try to leave my actor thoughts for my wr...I want to try to leave my actor thoughts for my write ups but I'll say I thought it was a fine southern reprise of his French Connection performance.Louis Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07933180959140340196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-89102047481820804022010-04-24T17:15:53.425-07:002010-04-24T17:15:53.425-07:00Sage: I'd pick either Dangerous Liasons or Mis...Sage: I'd pick either Dangerous Liasons or Mississipi Burning, which I both really liked, even though Liasons was a little dull. I haven't seen Rain Man yet, but I turned off The Accidental Tourist. It was too slow for me. But I'll try to watch it again. <br /><br />Louis: What did you think of Gene Hackman in M.B?joe burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-49904724333504599162010-04-24T17:05:10.023-07:002010-04-24T17:05:10.023-07:00Weaver and Cusack are fun, but nothing I would nom...Weaver and Cusack are fun, but nothing I would nominate.<br /><br />All of them are pretty meh to me, but I'd pick The Accidental Tourist which I liked alot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-28453012106789373652010-04-24T17:03:45.983-07:002010-04-24T17:03:45.983-07:00Four seems about right, she might be my pick but I...Four seems about right, she might be my pick but I would have to watch An Accidental Tourist again to be sure.Louis Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07933180959140340196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-84545650656136848932010-04-24T16:59:09.745-07:002010-04-24T16:59:09.745-07:00I agree, Louis. It isn't on the level of fanta...I agree, Louis. It isn't on the level of fantastic, but I thought she was very subtle and was the key to the film, in both her performance and character. I would give it a four, but what would you give her and she is your pick?joe burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-27356095159944699192010-04-24T16:50:33.465-07:002010-04-24T16:50:33.465-07:00McDormand was pretty good but not amazing.McDormand was pretty good but not amazing.Louis Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07933180959140340196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-37277280660909085212010-04-24T16:45:53.213-07:002010-04-24T16:45:53.213-07:00I honestly have no idea. I don't have a proble...I honestly have no idea. I don't have a problem with Weaver's nomination, or Cusack's, or even Griffith's, (Even though In probably wouldn't give them nominations) but Best Picture? Best Director? There was nothing unique or exceptional about it. How would you have ranked the Best Picture nominees this year?joe burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-64351620466079399902010-04-24T16:39:12.717-07:002010-04-24T16:39:12.717-07:002 stars seems about right :)
What was the deal wi...2 stars seems about right :)<br /><br />What was the deal with the Academy and this movie?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-82886968904223485712010-04-24T16:38:53.098-07:002010-04-24T16:38:53.098-07:00Weaver was fun, but I think a nomination was too m...Weaver was fun, but I think a nomination was too much, same with Cusack. 1988 was a terrible year for Best Supporting Actress, well from what I've seen (I haven't seen Davis yet). The only one I liked was McDormand. What did you think of her?joe burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-84672324978813033922010-04-24T16:26:32.172-07:002010-04-24T16:26:32.172-07:00Yeah that low, it is not that deep of a part and s...Yeah that low, it is not that deep of a part and she does not pull it off. Weaver was good, and Cusack was okay.Louis Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07933180959140340196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-48843004032944492532010-04-24T15:56:43.637-07:002010-04-24T15:56:43.637-07:00That low? What did you think of Weaver and Cusack ...That low? What did you think of Weaver and Cusack in it?joe burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-27338639897819781312010-04-24T15:53:32.503-07:002010-04-24T15:53:32.503-07:00One star I suppose.One star I suppose.Louis Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07933180959140340196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-46258487226388199042010-04-24T15:46:22.814-07:002010-04-24T15:46:22.814-07:00Yes, ha ha. She will most likely be fifth place. W...Yes, ha ha. She will most likely be fifth place. What you would you rate her?joe burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987519630654592530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2640233872626289402.post-42634395602617021522010-04-24T15:32:15.953-07:002010-04-24T15:32:15.953-07:00Looks like fifth place probably. It looks very bad...Looks like fifth place probably. It looks very bad for a performance when being nice equals 2 stars. I basically agree, except I probably would not be as nice.Louis Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07933180959140340196noreply@blogger.com