Judi Dench in Iris

Judi Dench received her fourth Best Actress nomination for playing Iris Murdoch, a writer suffering from Alzheimer's disease in Richard Eyre's movie, Iris. I don't think that Judi Dench had much chance of winning that year, mostly because of the fact that she was a recent winner, plus her movie was nota great hit like, say, In the Bedroom. In the end, I feel she was fifth as I think that Renée Zellweger must have received more votes due to the apparent enthusiasm towards her among (some) Academy members. Judi won the Bafta, though.

Iris is such a boring movie. I mean it's less than 90 minutes and yet it feels like I was watching it for at least a day. Richard Eyre's directing here is even more manipulative than it was in Notes on a Scandal. OK, his work here is not manipulative but he uses some really lame tricks to gain the audience's sympathy. I didn't really see the point of the movie and sometimes I felt that the movie was orgasming over itself. All in all, I didn't like it at all. Jim Broadbent gives probably the best performance and he might have even deserved his Oscar win in that weak field. Kate Winslet is also fine but I wouldn't call her amazing.

I so love Judi Dench. Her divine voice, her unique, wonderful presence, her subtlety, everything. She's a real genious at her craft and I always love watching her performances. I would just kill to see one of her theatre performances. Sometimes I'm really biased about her and I can't think clearly but I'll try to do that here. She plays Iris Murdoch, a very smart, educated woman who lives in her own private world of words and thoughts. It's really sad (and even ironic in a brutal way) that this beautiful mind is killed by a serious disease.

The part seems to be very baity and if you haven't seen Iris, you'll instantly think of a performance like the one that Julie Christie gave in Away from Her. Christie's work there was poetic, beautiful and it was really full of emotion. I guess the best thing about that one was that it didn't focus on the side effects of her sickness exclusively but also a more emotional side. In Iris, however, we can see Judi Dench screaming, crying, looking really lost and confused and yet she's not touching. Some might say I'm an idiot but in my opinion, Jim Broadbent is the one who gets the more emotional storylines and a real development. For the most of the time, Iris is just standing and/or smiling/screaming. It's a mostly quiet character with outbursts. I know that it's really unfair to compare her to Christie but I just wanted to say how much the role of Iris lacks the real opportunities for Judi.

Judi is still good within the limits of the character. She's really heart-breaking in some of the scenes and she shows all the side effects of the illness really well. I liked that she showed that Iris was like the light of a candle. She was getting weaker and weaker until she was gone. I also loved the tender, quiet moments between her and Jim Broadbent. They were really great, in my opinion.

However, the scenes that truly impressed me were the ones where I got to know Iris' intellectual self and beautiful spirit. Judi Dench delivers those remarkable speeches brilliantly and I liked that she made Iris such a luminous, shining mind. That's why the last monologue of hers is so effective, that it positively influenced my opinion about this whole work. I loved Iris' brightness. When the brightness is gone, the work becomes a bit standard and she's not that interesting any more even though she could have been even more interesting.

Judi Dench gives an unspectacular but great performance as Iris Murdoch. Although this is definitely not her best work, there's nothing wrong about it. I liked it very much and I was quite moved occasionally, it's just that I feel that the part didn't require a talent like Dench's. As I said, there are no serious problems, I still feel slightly disappointed.

What do you think?

Renée Zellweger in Bridget Jones's Diary

Name: Renée Zellweger

Movie: Bridget Jones's Diary

Number of Oscar nomination: One

Other awards: None, some nominations

Chances of winning: Not much, might have been fourth.

I saw this film Bridget Jones's Diary about some lunatic spinster. Sad, funny, entertaining. I guess it was meant for other lunatic spinsters and such. I cannot think of anything else. Casting two British heart-throbs (Hugh Grant and Colin Firth) made a sure audience among women. And it's about some British spinster really. OK, it's fun but is it that much? Yeah, why not? That bloke called Jim Broadbent must have had a great year in 2001. He starred with three Best Actress nominated gals and won an Oscar. Damn it, lucky guy.

An American gal Renée Zellweger plays the British spinster. Gosh, I really dislike her. I mean, she really pisses me off sometimes. I mean what the hell was she doing in Chicago or Cold Mountain to be praised? She's really not my type but f*ck cares? She's really bloody great as Bridget Jones, "verbally incontinent spinster who smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish and dresses like her mother". Guess, she's a very ordinary gal who has just as many problems as anyone else.

How does a comedy performance get nominated at the Oscars? Hell, I don't have a clue but I'm sure that they were charmed by Renée as much as I was. She really rocks as Bridget and those old guys must have liked her, too. She's really adorable and so lovely. She always made me think about Pauline Collins in Shirley Valentine. They are so different and yet so similar. And anyone who can be as bloody great as Pauline was as Shirley deserves some credit, for sure.

Renée narrates the movie and tells us Bridget's thoughts on her life and prospects. And those are really hilarious and they are probably the best things about the whole movie. Basically she has two ways: becoming Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction or trying to become happy. And she chooses the latter. I guess she was the best at showing Bridget's optimism and hope. Bridget is not a quitter by any means despite some bad times.

And yeah, I love how ironic she really is. Zellweger is seemingly having fun with the character but she also seems to really love her and care about her. So do we. Who wouldn't feel sorry for her after we see the scenes where she's publicly humiliated. I mean, she's an almost pathetic person and yet we don't think of her as inferior in any way. She's so lovely but she can be very unlikeable. But even Bridget's lowest point is as funny as it gets. When she says "BUGGER OFF!", I almost died of laughing. She was just unbelievably hilarious.

Renée's chemistry with the two guy is just great and we really don't know which one she's going to end up with. Funny, isn't it? She doesn't give a performance that you would like to preserve for other civilisations after us but still... She's so cool.

All in all, this gal, Renée Zellweger is really great as Bridget Jones, this crazy, pathetic and loveable spinster. This is not Sex and the City style "acting", she's truly great as Bridget and she gives a heart-warming portrayal of this lovely character.

No wonder that she was nominated for an Oscar.

I love her! LOVE her!

What do you think?

Halle Berry in Monster's Ball

Halle Berry made history when she became the first African American actress to receive the Best Actress Oscar in 2001 for playing Leticia Musgorve, a bitter, grief-stricken woman in the independant movie, Monster's Ball. I guess if I had been an Oscar nerd back then, I wouldn't have predicted Berry to win the Oscar. Not until the SAG awards, at least. That was the only major award that she won (Sissy Spacek won the majority of the critics' awards and she was followed by Nicole). I guess the award that she won at the Berlin Film Festival didn't matter that much Oscar-wise. Still, she won in a surprise and made history. Nowadays many people make fun of her speech but I can understand her feelings.

Monster's Ball is a fantastic, thought-provoking and really devastating movie. It's such a complex and fascinating experience, one that you never forget once you see it. You can love it or loathe it but you can't deny that it's a special movie. I think it definitely deserved a Best Picture nomination, more than most (or all) of the nominees that year. Same for Billy Bob Thornton. He gave (probably) the performance of his lifetime and he's so great as the repressed guy. I also would have voted for this movie in the Best Original Screenplay category.

Halle Berry is another example of an underrated actress. She's an actress who would deserve much better roles and yet she has to do things like Catwoman. I guess her brilliant looks are serious drawbacks in terms of her career. I guess she was really lucky with Monster's Ball. After actresses like Angela Bassett and Vanessa Williams turned the part down, I guess the role of Leticia was played by the right actress, eventually.

I'll explain this later but I'm saying this right now, in short: Halle Berry is incredible as Leticia Musgrove. I mean, I know that it's not very popular to say such things about her, she's really Amazing. Yes, Amazing with capital A. I guess the biggest haters of this performance cannot really identify with this character or (thank God) they haven't felt what Leticia felt in Monster's Ball. I'm just telling the story once again: Leticia is a broken-down woman whose son dies quickly after her husband and the kid's father is executed. Leticia find comfort on the side of a racist cop and a special relationship is born between them.

Many say that Berry's performance in Monster's Ball consists of two performances: one of them is loud, over-the-top acted and the other one is a silent, more subtle one. I'm saying right here that it's the biggest piece of garbage that I've ever heard. What one can see in Halle's work is the mood-swings of a devastated woman who's overwhelmed by the emotions and she cannot control herself. Even before the deaths, Leticia is exhausted. Halle's amazing in the scene where Leticia sees her husband for the last time. I was just thinking "poor woman". There's so much pain and suffering inside and (at least for me), it's always really disturbing to see the mental breakdown of a person. Again, it's the mood swings when she beats up her obese child crazily.

And after a while, it's just fascinating to see her infamous "Make me feel good!" scene. Before having sex, Leticia breaks down to an almost total stranger. Halle shows all the pain of this character mindblowingly. All those overwhelming emotions make it a very disturbing and heart-breaking scenes. Halle doesn't exaggerate the drunken state of Leticia. Halle's acting in that scene is just perfect. Once, I had a 0,00001% similar experience with booze and it's just unbelievable how well Halle portrayed that awkward and overemotional state. It was fantastic.

Still, it would be really hard to pick my favorite scene of this performance because choosing between the previously mentioned sequence and the one where she's humiliated by her boyfriend's racist father is just impossible. That's and example of Halle's calm and subtle acting and it's such a harrowing, unforgettable and brutally realistic scene. Halle showed so many sides of Leticia's humiliation. She's cornered and it's really painful to see her.

Halle's chemistry with Billy Bob Thornton (if we can talk about such a thing) is just brilliant. I saw them like lonely birds in winter who are holding onto each other so that they are not cold. It was just fascinating to see them relying on each other. They were mutually supportive and we can feel the special bondage between them. I really cannot decide if it was really love. Maybe. But I guess that's not important. And that becomes obvious in another brilliant scene where Leticia realises the horrible and devastating truth about Hank, his boyfriend. Halle is so damn effective and brilliant there. Her acting there is the definition of mindblowing.

Really, there's no more appropriate word to describe Halle Berry's performance in Monster's Ball than mindblowing. She's saw raw and so incredible as Leticia Musgorve and she shows Leticia's inner demons so amazingly. She's unbelievably effective and although I might understand why some don't like her, I think that she's just fantastic and shows the mood swings and breakdowns of Leticia incredibly. Brutally raw, amazing work.

What do you think?

The Next Year

2001

So the nominees were:

• Halle Berry in Monster's Ball
• Judi Dench in Iris
• Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge!
• Sissy Spacek in In the Bedroom
• Renée Zellweger in Bridget Jones's Diary

A requested year and a great one, I think. Any normal, usual year would be a relief after 1975.

What do you think? What's your ranking? What do you predict for my ranking?

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1975

1975

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Ann-Margret in Tommy

Shame on the Academy. I'm sure this performance has its share of fans but I'm a staunch naysayer to this one. Not only is it ridiculous at some points, but it's also unbearably boring. The best thing that I can say about this performance that it's certainly unforgettable though in this case being forgettable would be way better.

4. Glenda Jackson in Hedda

I'm just as stunned about this as you are. While I expected her to become my pick, I was really disappointed by Glenda Jackson in Hedda. The movie itself had a lot to do with that but still. Althuogh this performance also has its share of fans, I'm not one of them, either. Personally, I would expect more from Glenda.

3. Carol Kane in Hester Street

You might be surprised that she's only third as I seemed reallly fond of her in my review. To tell the truth, I would have praised any great performance to graces after Ann-Margret. Still, Kane is really good as Gitl, her presence is just lovely and I really cared about her and was interested in what comes to her next.

2. Louise Fletcher in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest

I used to be stunned by the fact that she won but right now I'm not that shocked considering her competition. Although she's supporting, she still pulls off a great performance as the evil Nurse Ratched and she indeed created an iconic character. It's just that I wasn't that blown away by her work in this movie.

1. Isabelle Adjani in The Story of Adèle H.

The saving grace. The shining light. My only hope. If it wasn't for Adjani's performance, I would stop reviewing after this horrid year. Thankfully, Adjani is just astonishing as Adèle Hugo, giving one of the most interesting and unique performances that I've ever seen. She's so full of passion, drama and romance that it's a real emotional joy to see her. Her beauty and talent shines through the movie and makes it even better than it already is.

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Isabelle Adjani

in

The Story of Adele H.

Easy win.

Final thoughts: Horrible year, arguably the worst one ever. Only Isabelle Adjani was really, truly worthy of the Oscar, the others... Wow. Fletcher, Kane and Jackson were all good, I just wasn't amazed by them. The ranking could have been any way. I don't even want to talk about Ann-Margret. I guess my thoughts on this year weren't exactly loved, to put it delicately, sorry about that.

About the next: this year was requested by the winner of the last predicting contest and it's full of romance and grief.

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Carol Kane in Hester Street

Carol Kane received her only Oscar nomination for playing Gitl, a young Jewish woman who comes to America after her hsuband in hester Street. It's pretty much a miracle that Kane was nominated for the Oscar. She was extremely young, she played in an incredibly small movie, most of her performance was in Yiddish and she wasn't nominated for anything else. I think she was either fourth or fifth in the voting, despite the fact that she's way better than the horrible Ann-Margret. I think in Carol Kane's case it was true that "It's an honor just to be nominated."

Hester Street is quite a good movie and I enjoyed it quite a bit. One can consider it as a kind of sequel to Fiddler on the Roof. They have nothing to do with each other but Hester Stret shows a great portrait of how Tevye and his family must have felt after they left for America. Although Hester Street is a seemingly low-budget movie, it's really a well-made, well-written movie and the direction is also quite great. The characters were realistic and the performances were quite good, especially the one by Doris Roberts who's really excellent.

I really don't know much about Carol Kane. I've only seen four of her movies (counting Hester Street) and while I think she was good in all of them, I don't think that she's the best actress ever. I guess I shouldn't make judgements so soon but I don't feel that she truly rocks. Still, I can still enjoy her in her roles and that was most certainly the case with Hester Street, in which she played Gitl, a woman who doesn't know what to do to both please her husband and keep to the traditions. Although Gitl is a very simple person, I think she's a very interesting character, mostly because of the changes that she goes through.

Kane plays Gitl in a very subtle way and she shows that Gitl is a very shy and repressed woman who's willing to obey. She's a bit of like O-Lan from The Good Earth though there's a big difference between them. There's a point for Gitl when she says that she's had enough. And it's most certainly a very significant moment in Kane's performance.

But I wouldn't go that far yet. When we first see Gitl, she's the previously mentioned shy, obedient woman. She's so real as Gitl in those moments. It's almost impossible not to be touched by Gitl's storyline in this movie. His husband, Jake is a really hysterical guy and Gitl's quietness is such a great opposition. You can really feel the tension between them. Gitl represents the old country, Jake's new lover represents the USA, the freedom.

Gitl, however, tries to get used to America and she tries to become an American woman despite her initial opposition to it. It's really sad moment when we see her with her new hair and her husband wants to get it off and she says that it's not a wig, it's her real hair. That's probably the only loud moment in the performance and that's the siginificant moment when Gitl's revolt begins. Kane shows Gitl's development really well and all the actions were understandable and logic.

It's probably Kane's charisma that makes Gitl such an interesting character. Her work here is not amazing or ground-breaking at all but it's really lovely. And thtat has a lot to do with Kane's on-screen presence. Whenever Gitl is there, I felt fine because I knew that it was going to be a nice scene. I know that sound a little bit awkward but it totally true, I think.

All in all, this was a really great performance by Carol Kane that may not reach the stars but it's a really enjoyable piece of work. Kane plays Gitl with very much charisma and she makes Gitl a very interesting and loveable charater. Although she's not amazing, she's still a great relief in a year where one has to watch horrid performances like Ann-Margret in Tommy.

At last, a normal rating.

What do you think? The Final Conclusion comes soon.

Glenda Jackson in Hedda

Glenda Jackson received her fourth Best Actress nomination for playing Hedda Gabler, Ibsen's heroine in the 1975 film version, Hedda. When you get a really weird year like 1975, you don't know what to think about how the voting could have been. I guess the two traditional performances (Fletcher and Adjani) were the most popular among Academy members and the two of them got the 75% of the votes. The order of the other ladies could have been anyway. They might have thought that Ann-Margret was due (God forbid!) or they were charmed by Carol Kane or they loved their favorite, Glenda Jackson in Hedda. I guess the Academy wasn't keen to give her a third award (since she didn't care if she had one, let alone three) so she didn't get that many votes.

Hedda is a really weird movie (OK, in 1975, weird is another way for me to say BAD). I tell you how the filminf of Hedda must have looked like. The played as if it was a play and there were a couple of cameras there to record it. This movie is nothing but a filmed stage play. There isn't anything special about it, even the sets are like on the stage. I guess this movie works for television but not for the big screen. And we can see that in the performances of the actors. First they are great but the immense amount of energy that's inside them becomes really tedious after a while. These are stage performances.

I'd like to say that Glenda Jackson's work here is different but it isn't, unfortunately. I really love Glenda Jackson and I consider her one of the greatest actresses. I think she was the Cate Blanchett of the 70s. An Oscar-favorite actress who has an incredible, radiant presence and a very uniquel beauty. Whenever I see Glenda Jackson, I immediately think "great actress, great actress, great actress". In each of her moves you see the brilliance that she has. And that's also apparent in Hedda. Still, I had very serious problems with her performance.

As I said, Hedda is like a stage play and the performances are all really theatrical (1975 wasvery unusual in that way, too, they also nominated James Whitmore in Give 'em Hell Harry!) and so is Glenda's work. At the beginning Hedda's character is really deliciously full of malice and she's a very enjoyable presence. In some times, all those mannerisms that she uses become tedious because they all seem to much. What I'm trying to say, that this would be an amazing performance on the stage but in a movie, it isn't. Plain and simple.

I really liked that Glenda made Hedda more and more nervous and desperate. Hedda is a very controlling, cold woman who becomes a victim after all. I feel that Glenda developed Hedda quite well and she really made Hedda a believable person. I just didn't feel that Hedda was such an extraordinary character. I guess this must be blasphemy but I think it's Ibsen's fault. I really didn't feel interested in Hedda as she didn't have much depth written to her. Still, I think that Glenda put enough emotion into her work and it all worked this way.

However, what I mostly love about Glenda Jackson's performances, a strange, indescribable feeling that I always feel, wasn't present in Hedda and that was probably the biggest disappointment of all. In the beginning, it was there in bits and pieces but as the movie went on, it just disappeared. That strange, mysterious thing made her work in the lightweight A Touch of Class brilliant and it wasn't here to make her performance as Hedda Gabler great. Overall, that was the biggest problem here.

Still, towards the end, her performance becomes much more dynamic and the ending is really great. It's theatrical and yet there's something really haunting about it. To tell the truth, while it wasn't amazing, it was really great and memorable.

All in all, this performance was still a huge disappointment for me. I guess the play wasn't for my taste or the movie affected me. I can't really believe that it was Glenda's fault as I always love her. While I don't think that she was really great here, I don't feel either that she was bad at all. This was a really decent job but I would expect more from Glenda Jackson than a decent job.

What the hell is going on with this year?

What do you think? It's time for the last predictions. If you want to see Hedda, click here.

To see Tommy (good luck), click HERE.

Ann-Margret in Tommy

Ann-Margret received her second Oscar nomination for playing Nora Walker, the mother of the title character in Tommy. She had already won a Golden Globe and she was a big star but I don't think that the Academy really warmed up to her performance in Tommy. The younger generation, maybe, but I just can't imagine Irene Dunne or Joan Crawford voting for Ann-Margret in Tommy. I think she was either fourth or fifth, depending on how much they loved Carol Kane in Hester Street. I guess Ann-Margret was more popular and that gave her the edge over Kane.

Tommy is such a starng, unusual movie. I mean its trailer promises that your senses will never be the same. That's not true, however, it's a really dazzling experience. It seems as if the filmmakers were high on drugs while they were making it. Everything is irreal, illogical, chaotic, weird and it's very unbearable in the beginning. Although in time I got used to it, I never really liked it as it's really about nothing and it doesn't even have a meaning even though it's desperate to be very "in" and meaningful. It isn't, it doesn't say anything, there's absolutely no point in it. There's so much "vibration" that The China Syndrome plaes in comparision with it. Gee...

I have never seen a weirder Best Actress performance than the one that Ann-Margret gives as Nora Walker. I am not that much of a fan of Ann-Margret in general. While I have no problems with her, I don't think that she's that great as an actress. Of course, she sings very well and she has lots of charisma but I never felt that she bursts with acting talent. That being said, I was still hoping that this performance of hers will make me change my mind about her. It didn't, unfortunately.

Again, the best best word to describe her work here is weird. In a movie like Tommy, you don't expect any development in the characters but Nora is actually chaning during the movie. However, Ann-Margret has almost nothing to do with that. Everything is so illogical about her. I guess that was the point but I think the characters should make some sense in any movie. I mean, there are at least 10 Noras in the movie and Ann-Margret plays them all. We begin with a silent, kind and beautiful Nora. Ann-Margret doesn't speak at all there and I guess those scenes were handled quite well.

Her singing is excellent but for performer with her routine it's really not a big deal at all. She doesn't put any real emotion into the songs. There were places when I was touched by Nora but those moments were so minimal. In bits and pieces, she was great but somehow I had a very odd and almost disturbing experience and not in a good way. In some of the scenes, Ann-Margret is horrible, plain and simple. I mean that dancing in front of the mirror is just ridiculous and way more exaggerated than it should have been. I guess the director, Ken Russell should have held her back. I was laughing so hard that I almost drowned and couldn't breathe. It was really a failed moment.

And this is not even my biggest problem with her. For most of the time, she's in the background, just standing or sitting next to her son. Although sometimes she hugs her son and such, I never really felt any connection, or special love between the two of them. Sometimes they seemed like lovers not a mother and her son. I guess they wanted to make this a very odd relationship. It is odd and yet it was so obvious for me. Not even Ann-Margret's charisma could save those moments. Everything just failed.

If you ask me, this performance is a total failure and I'm astonished that it was actually in contention for an Oscar nominateion, let alone a win. Ann-Margret has a great presence but she's unable to make anything out of this mess of a movie. There are attempts but all of them failed. A true disappointment. A bad performance, plain and simple. Not mediocre, not weak, BAD.

I'm astonished that I have to give such a low rating.

What do you think?

Louise Fletcher in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest

Louise Fletcher received her only Oscar nomination and Oscar win for playing Nurse Mildred Ratched, an evil nurse in a mental instituition in Milos Forman's One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. It's easy to see why Fletcher won the Oscar: she was in the Best Picture winner and she she was the only one who had a traditional Oscar role. Most of the other movies were really small and/or unusual and Fletcher's only real rival, Isabelle Adjani had a mostly French-speaking role. I guess she still threatened Fletcher but I guess she had an easy win after all. 1975 wasn't the greatest year when it came to Lead Actress performances so a supporting performance could actually even win.

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest is a movie that varies with my all the time. Sometimes I can go crazy about it and sometimes I can't stand it. Right now, I really loved it and I was blown away. I admire Milos Forman as a director very much even though I feel that his Czeckoslovakian movies were probably his best ones. Still, he's a great director anywhere, I'm just saying. The only thing that I always appreciate about this movie is Jack's leading performance as McMurphy. He's just brilliant though I would have probably voted for Al Pacino (but not as easily as I would have earlier). Brad Dourif is quite good and deserved his nod though I wouldn't give him the win.

Louise Fletcher was a so-called "one hit wonder". It's always very dangerous to win an Oscar when you're not that famous as they begin to typecast you (Fletcher) or they just forget you when it's proven that you're not what they wanted (Luise Rainer). Nurse Ratched was a role that was turned downed by some great actresses like Jane Fonda (I'm just wondering how she would have been here), Faye Dunaway, Anne Bancroft (she would have killed in this part, I think) and Angela Lansbury (wow, I wish that had happened, she would have been so interesting). So the relatively unknown Lousie Fletcher played the part. I guess, with hindsight, it was a great decision as many love this performance.

But I'm not one of them, unfortunately. Honestly, I really tried to like her and I actually did, I just never felt that this performance was as amazing as some say. Although she has her moments, her whole work is nothing really remarkable. First of all, I couldn't really decide if Nurse Ratched was really that evil. I suspected that she just wanted to keep a distance while she was doing her job. Some say that she's the devil itself but I wouldn't say so. She's a cold, and probably even manipulative woman who just wants to keep order. She's always deathly calm and she doesn't seem to be terrified by the patients.

What I do like about this performance is that Fletcher plays nurse Ratched with such calmness and subtlty. There are no over-the-top screams by her, mostly she's just sitting and looking in a very icy way. I could say that she did nothing in this part and I would probably be close to reality, however, I felt Fletcher got very much out of this part that's isn't exactly deep. She's not amazing because she cannot be amazing as Nurse Ratched. She's a very simple, uninteresting woman and there isn't much drama about her. She's just there and we can see some of her actions. Yet Fletcher did her best to make Nurse Ratched interesting. I guess she succeeded in a way, as her performance was never that boring, I just could't see the real brilliance.

However, I did like the nuances that Louise added to the character. I don't know why I felt that but this character seemed a bit delicious, especially when she was being quite mean and cold. For example, in the end, she tortures a boy into suicide and that's a brilliantly acted moment by Fletcher. That scene impressed me very much and I thought it was handled extremely well by her.

Still, I don't know what to say about Louise Fletcher in this movie. She's indeed very good but nothing amazing. Although some go crazy about her subtle evilness, she left me a little bit cold. There are excellent moments and the overall effect on me was really positive, I just feel that she wasn't that great.

Very hard rating. She's between a 3,5 and a 4. It might be surprising that I went with the latter. I just compared her to other performances and she was better than some who got 4s.

What do you think?

Isabelle Adjani in The Story of Adèle H.

Isabelle Adjani received her first Oscar nomination at the age of 20 for playing Adèle Hugo, the troubled daughter of the famed French author, Victor Hugo, in Francois Truffaut's movie, The Story of Adèle H. Adjani caused a real sensation with this performance of hers and I think that she would have won the Oscar if Louise Fletcher had been nominated in the supporting category (where she really did belong). Adjani was the critics' favorite, she was young, she was beautiful and had a great chance of winning that year. I guess the fact that she was relatively unknown and she was in a French movie prevented her from winning the Oscar. I still believe that she was much closer to winning than some would assume.

The Story of Adèle H. is a really great movie and I'm quite surprised that it wasn't nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. Dersu Uzala (the one that won) was better, I think but a nod would have been deserved for this one, in my opinion. Truffaut was a brilliant-brilliant director and he shows his talents in this movie, too. There's so much tension in this movie and I really felt as if I was reading a romantic French novel. It's full of passion and excitement and it most certainly impressed me. French movies are so great and this piece is just another proof of my theory.

The story is about Adèle Hugo, the daughter of Victor Hugo who falls for a handsome soldier who rejects her all the time and treats her like an animal. This is a really tragic, sad story and once you read it, you immediately think about Isabelle Adjani. In my humble opinion, Adjani was born to do this part. Adèle is a mentally unstable, fragile woman and Adjani's just brilliant at playing this kind of characters. I'm just thinking about her work as Camille Claudel. That's a really weird character (in a weird movie) and yet Adjani injected so much passion into her and the result was something immense. Adjani represents what I love about French cinema in general. She's so unique and she doesn't fall into any categories. She has an own category.

Very much like her performance as Adèle as Adjani is just fantastic as Adèle Hugo. This work is very hard to write about and mostly because of its really unique nature. It's neither subtle nor over-the-top and it's so full of hidden layers. I guess my only complaint could be that it started out a little bit slow but that could have been due to the fact that Adjani wanted to show all the layers of Adèle very carefully and in detail.

Adjani's performance is just like music. The emotions are flowing and you cannot really interpret those feelings because there are so many of them. She's so thrilling and she's never out of tune. There's perfect harmony in her performance even when we see Adèle falling apart. Watching that process is not very easy or pleasant but it is indeed a thrill. The development of Adèle is so fantastic. Adjani went from point A to at least point Z (she covered the whole alphabet and went beyond that). It was a really mindblowing journey for me to see her.

Adjani goes beyond that and she's so haunting in some of the scenes. Adèle's dead sister, Leopoldine haunts her in nightmares. We can see a girl drowning and those are really scary images and Adjani makes them even more terrifying. I guess these must have worsened Adèle's mental state and Adjani shows all this beautifully.

There are scenes where Adèle is begging her love not to leave her and marry her. Interesting enough, what I felt for her was not exactly pity, I was actually quite fascinated by her passion and love. She may have only been in love with the love for the guy but it doesn't really matter as Adèle's emotions seem to be so pure and true. It was really beautiful and it never became a cheap romance. It was as romantic as the renowned French novels themselves. I certainly had the same feeling while watching her that I felt while I was reading the French classics. It was just brilliant.

All in all, Isabelle Adjani is just amazing as Adèle Hugo, giving one of the most interesting and unique performances that I've ever seen. She's so full of passion, drama and romance that it's a real emotional joy to see her. Her beauty and talent shines through the movie and makes it even better than it already is. It's really wonderful, haunting and unforgettable work by a great actress.

What do you think? Watch the movie HERE.

The Next Year

1975

So the nominees were:

• Isabelle Adjani in The Story of Adèle H.
• Ann-Margret in Tommy
• Louise Fletcher in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
• Glenda Jackson in Hedda
• Carol Kane in Hester Street

Since I still don't have In America, I'll do this year that's said to be really weak but I haven't seen four of them yeat so it will be very interesting for me, at least.

What do you think? What's your ranking? What do you predict for my ranking?

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1986

1986

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Kathleen Turner in Peggy Sue Got Married

I thought I'd like her more and yet I feel quite disappointed. When I started writing, I thought I was impressed but after taking a closer look at this performance, I found Kathleen Turner less than satisfying in Peggy Sue Got Married. This works looks really good on the outside but there are big problems that cannot be overlooked. Still, an enjoyable performance.

4. Sissy Spacek in Crimes of the Heart

Although I feel that Spacek is really great as Babe Magrath, I think that this is not a fantastic or mindblowing performance and it's not one of Sissy's best. I really liked it and enjoyed all of the scenes but I feel that Sissy could do way better. She got everything out of this character that she could, it's just that I felt that she had way better works. Still, she's great.

3. Marlee Matlin in Children of a Lesser God

This is great work by Marlee Matlin who didn't make Sarah the "ordinary disabled character" but she played her as a real human being instead. She beautifully portrayed all of Sarah's emotions and this was really a beautiful performance. Excellent, thought-provoking work. A bit incoherent, but otherwise great.

2. Jane Fonda in The Morning After

This is a fantastic performance by the amazing Jane Fonda. I know I'm not supposed to like this work that much and I might be biased but I was really blown away by Jane's work as Alex Sternbergen. This character is over-the-top and she's almost like an animal and yet Jane made me care about her and think about her.

1. Sigourney Weaver in Aliens

Sigourney Weaver is astonishing in Aliens giving not only the best action performances but also one of the most memorable performances evers. She's a real treat not only for Oscar maniacs but also for film buffs and everyone else on this planet. Sigourney created a beautiful, wonderful, strong character that is for the ages. It's really fantastic work by an amazing actress.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Sigourney Weaver

in

Aliens

Get away from my Oscar, you BITCH! :)

Congrats to Fritz on his great predictions! :)

The prize: Fritz can pick the next year that I'll do after the next one. :)

Final thoughts: Not a great, but a VERY interesting year. I truly-truly loved doing it. Siggy Weaver had an easy win and I expected it. I LOVED Jane as always, I think if The Morning After had been better, she could have rivalled Siggy. I liked the others very much, too, especially Marlee even though I feel I overrated her initially. Sissy was very good but somehow I didn't like her as much as I usually do. Still, I liked her. As expected, Kathleen Turner was the weakest link. It's not that I didn't give her a chance, she was just the weakest one, that's all. But what I loved the most is that you seemed to be really interested in this year and I was incredibly happy that we could discuss so much. Thanks, again.

About the next year: You seemingly like less discussed years, so the next two ones will be two of them. I know I solemnly promised to do 2003 but I'll still have to wait for In America. I won't make any more promises about when I'll do that year. I'll do my best. However, there are clues about our next year:

• This is one nutty hospital.

What do you think?

Jane Fonda in The Morning After

Jane Fonda received her seventh Oscar nomination for playing Alex Sternbergen aka Viveca Van Loren, an alcoholic, has-been actress becoming the suspect of a murder in the movie, The Morning After. Jane Fonda's seventh Oscar nomination must have been a real shock. Or I just think so. She hadn't been nominated for any other awards, she hadn't won anything for this performance and the movie itself wasn't a masterpiece. Considering the fact that she was already a two-time Oscar winner and a huge star, I guess the Academy didn't give her many votes. I think this must have been the only time when she wasn't third at the very least. Still, Jane's the greatest that's ever been so I don't think she needed another Oscar. :)

The Morning After is one of the most horrible movies that I've ever seen during my Best Actress reviews. It's right up there with Afterglow and Gloria even though The Morning After might be a tiny bit better and more enjoyable (for one reason, and that's called Jane Fonda but more on that later). Still, the direction is AWFUL (Sidney Lumet???!!!), the soundtrack doesn't fit the movie at all and the whole story is just uneven, illogical and damn stupd. I really like Jeff Bridges and he's one of my all-time favorite actors and yet here he was kind of nothing. There wasn't anything interesting about the character even though Jeff sailed through with his charisma and presence.

How much I love Jane Fonda! Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda. Two magic words that mean something so complex and so wonderful for me. I guess I am quite biased about her and I just cannot say anything bad about her. She has the most wonderful screen presence and her acting talent is just enourmous. What I really admire about her is her versatility. She played all these various roles and yet she left her mark everywhere. She's neither overacting nor subtle, she somehow has her own, very emotional acting style and a very buzzy and exciting personality that shines through her parts.

If you watch her performance as Alex Sternbergen out of the context of her horrible movie, it's mindblowingly amazing. Alex is a broken-down, has-been actress who wants nothing but booze. She doesn't have any goals, she's bitter and she's not even angry anymore. She just doesn't give a damn about the whole world as long as she gets her drink. She's careless and reckless but not in a very traditional way. She's an extremely weird person and her intentions and actions cannot be very well interpreted. However, I felt that Jane did a fantastic job, showing the darkest sides of this person. Alex was once a good TV actress (never really famous) and you would expect her to cry over the loss of her career and everything. She's not like that. She looks at her own career and life in a very cynical way. She doesn't think that anything good happened to her or will ever happen. She's just like an animal in the jungle of LA.

Alex's initial shock and surprise over the dead body that lying next to her is really shocking and quite scary. Jane showed this desperate mental state so brilliantly and she created so much tension that it almost blew up the screen. It was astonishing to look at her as if she was a scared animal. The little nervous ticks that Jane added to the character are so breathtaking. As I said, it's a very intense experience. A very similar scene comes when Alex tries to get away and goes to the airport and she's begging for a ticket. She makes up a story about a dying daughter and she puts on a fake performance so brilliantly. I actually believed it at the time.

Jane's chemistry with Jeff Bridges is just excellent, in my opinion. Although before the movie I never thought they would make a great on-screen couple, now I'm convinced about the contrary. They are just great together. There's a very over-the-top drunken scene of Jane when she's shouting with Jeff. That scene is not supposed to work and yet I was so blown away.

I guess my only problem is that this performance is in an awful movie that's really not worthy of it. Even B-Actresses would have been too good for The Morning After, not Jane, the greatest. The horridness of the movie doesn't overshadow her but it ruins her greatness a little bit. It's too bad.

Still, this is a fantastic performance by the amazing Jane Fonda. I know I'm not supposed to like this work that much and I might be biased but I was really blown away by Jane's work as Alex Sternbergen. This character is over-the-top and she's almost like an animal and yet Jane made me care about her and think about her. This is really great workthat's way too good for the movie that it's in. Excellent.

What do you think?

Kathleen Turner in Peggy Sue Got Married

Kathleen Turner received her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Peggy Sue, a woman going back in time during her high school reuninion in Francis Ford Coppola's movie, Peggy Sue Got Married. Many thought that Turner was going to win the Oscar as she was a great star, previously snubbed many times. However, she had only won the NBR for Best Actress. I guess the thing why she didn't win is that the role was too lightweight. I think she was either second or third. The Academy seeming didn't like Kathleen Turner as much as the audiences at the time.

Peggy Sue Got Married is too much like Back to the Future, except it's much less original and it lacks the brilliant humor of the latter. It's really one of the lesser efforts of Francis Ford Coppola. I mean how could you compare this to The Godfather trilogy, for example. I don't like that he always gives roles to the members of the family as they are not that great actors, I think. Nicolas Cage is really weird as Peggy Sue's (future) husband, Charlie. He's way too mannered for me. This movie is quite interesting, though, and it's mostly because we can see future stars and/or Oscar nominees in minor part (Jim Carrey, Joan Allen). Still, there are some great things about this movie and it's quite entertaining.

I haven't seen many of Kathleen Turner's movies but I think she's a really great actres and she really has a great voice. I felt she was really great in Body Heat and Prizzi's Honor and that she was brilliant as Chandler's father on Friends. So I have only had good memories about her so I was really looking forward to watching the only movie for which she received an Oscar nomination. She was one of the biggest stars of the eighties and she got the best roles back then. I wonder why she isn't that popular now.

Turner's performance in Peggy Sue Got Married really divides people. Some call it weak and insignificant, some say that Kathleen was robbed of the Oscar. Therefore, I was wondering what I would think about her. To tell the truth, I'm somewhere between those groups. While I think that she was really good as Peggy Sue, I don't think that this really was Oscar-worthy material. It's very entertaining and it serves its purpose well but I didn't feel that she was really amazing.

My first problem is that I didn't see any development in Peggy Sue or if there was any, it didn't make any sense. She always goes one step forward and goes two steps back and I never felt that Peggy Sue wasn't going anywhere. First, she feels like going out with that weirdo kid and then she goes mad about Charlie and it's all so strange and not really believable. I thought that the relationships were not very carefully developed and that's also the fault of the director. I mean everything becomes so shallow and the real emotions are never present. Sometimes I felt the necessary emotions in Kathleen's performance but somehow the whole thing never worked.

Moreover, some humorous parts weren't that well acted by Turner, either. There are so many missed opportunities and as a result, I started to feel quite uncomfortable. I felt that I cared about Peggy Sue but I wasn't that excited about her. I mean the sympathy was there but not that much of it. I guess that's another problem even though it didn't bother me while I was watching the movie.

The best scenes were the ones where Peggy Sue was visiting her grandparents. I felt that she handled those scenes the best. All the emotions were present and Kathleen handled them all very nicely. Moreover, the ending was quite touching and that was also quite good.

Wow, I thought I'd like her more and yet I feel quite disappointed. When I started writing, I thought I was impressed but after taking a closer look at this performance, I found Kathleen Turner less than satisfying in Peggy Sue Got Married. This works looks really good on the outside but there are big problems that cannot be overlooked. Still, an enjoyable performance.

What do you think? It's time for the last predictions! :)

Marlee Matlin in Children of a Lesser God

Marlee Matlin received her first (and to date only) Best Actress nomination and Oscar for her screen debut as Sarah Norman, an angry, stubborn girl in Children of a Lesser God. Nowadays, I would instantly predict her for the Oscar but that wasn't the case back then. Although she had already won the Golden Globe, most people predicted Kathleen Turner or Sissy Spacek. I'll never understand why, I guess they didn't know the Academy. You see, Kathleen Turner was a huge star at the time but I just can't see her winning for a comedy performance. Matlin's work was, however, really baity and Oscary.

Children of a Lesser God is a very nice, touching movie about deaf people and accepting them. The best word to describe it is indeed nice. It's nicely written, nicely directed and the actors give very nice performances. William Hurt received his second consecutive Oscar nomination for playing a teacher in a school for deaf children. He goes there and encourages his pupils to use their voices. Hurt shows the character's enthusiasm quite well but I think an Oscar win would have been a bit much. Piper Laurie is also very good as Sarah's mother, however, her role is a bit limited. The nom was deserved for her, though.

I don't know if Marlee Matlin is a very talented performer or a charming person full of star power. I guess the fact that she's deaf was a major drawback in her acting career, unfortunately, and that's probably why we can mostly see her on television and she rarely does movies. Nowadays, she's mostly a celebrity but she's really someone that you can look up to. I think what she does in real life is extraordinary. Still, I don't know if she's a really great actress.

The fact is that Marlee Matlin is really great as Sarah Norman but this is one of the cases when you can say "she just played herself". Indeed, the same criticism could be said about Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler or Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (though that criticism be REALLY argued) and yet both performances are considered nowadays iconic and fantastic. However, in Marlee's case that seems to be rude. Playing a deaf person must be easier for a deaf person but Children of a Lesser God is about accepting and realising that deaf people are really not that different. However, the movie (and Marlee) shows how hard it can be for them and they always have to struggle in life.

Marlee's performance here shows that struggle and fight so well. I think The Silent Scream could have been a great title for this movie. Marlee's work is extremely intense. This was her first movie so she was quite inexperienced and it fits these fierce roles so well. Just like Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone (BTW, that girl is amazing in X-Men: First Class), Marlee plays her role with this previously mentioned fierce intensity that could only be done by newcomers. She really had no vanity and always cared about what the best was for Sarah's character.

Newcomers tend to be very emotional an loud and starngely, that's the case with Marlee. She has only one line so she only has to work with her hand. Personally, I don't know the sign language but I didn't need William Hurt's interpretation to understand Marlee. Everything was in her eyes, gestures and it was a thrill just to look at her. Marlee was not afraid of making Sarah even unlikeable. I think the biggest problem with such roles is that the actors make the characters either saints or unbearable, demanding little bastards. Marlee, however, made a mor complex picture of Sarah. Sometimes she's unlikeable, sometimes she's romantic, sometimes she's angry. This whole thing is about making people realise that people with disadvantages are not different at all. Marlee wants to make us not look at Sarah as if she was something weird. And it's indeed beautiful. Moreover, the scene when she finally talks is unforgettable and it's so beautiful.

I guess my only complaint could be that sometimes the performance felt a bit incoherent and it was a little bit uneven. Still, this is great work by Marlee Matlin who didn't make Sarah the "ordinary disabled character" but she played her as a real human being instead. She beautifully portrayed all of Sarah's emotions and this was really a beautiful performance. Excellent, thought-provoking work.

I went for a very strong 4 in the end.

What do you think?

Sissy Spacek in Crimes of the Heart

Sissy Spacek received her fifth Best Actress nomination for playing Babe Magrath, a mentally unstable woman shoting her husband in the movie Crimes of the Heart. Somewhere, I read that Sissy Spacek and Kathleen Turner were considered the front-runners of 1986. However, I don't think that Sissy got that many votes. She was a previous Oscar winner plus this wasn't the type of performance that the Academy usually goes for. I think she was either fourth or fifth though I must say it's incredibly hard to speculate about her chances of winning. She was the critics' favorite, she got the Globe and yet I don't think the Academy wanted her to win that much.

Crimes of the Heart is not a bad movie, on the contrary, it's actually quite entertaining and I really had fun watching it. It was quite good though I wouldn't say it's very deep. Very much like Bruce Beresford's later work, Driving Miss Daisy it touches emotions only on the surface and it's rather soappy, not truly emotional. Tess Harper's Oscar nomination is a real mystery. She plays the most annoying character of the movie in quite an over-the-top way and she's really not that great. However, the leading actresses are really fine, especially Diane Keaton who gives a really great performance and she was by far the most sympathetic person here. Jessica Lange is a bit too much occasionally but she's OK, too.

Sissy Spacek is such a great actress and I admire her so much. She's quite unusual and that's what I love about her the most. There's so much intelligence, beauty in her roles and I'm always impressed by her unique presence. There's something about her that cannot be described with words. All in all, she's just fantastic and I always love watching her on the screen.

Becky 'Babe' Magrath is a really complicated person and I think that Sissy Spacek really was the best choice to play her. Babe shot her husband and she doesn't even try to deny it. She did it and that's it. She doesn't say anything else about this. However, more and more secrets come to surface and Babe just cannot do anything about it.

As I said, Sissy was probably the best choice to play such a weird role. She doesn't overplay or underplay the weirdness of Babe and she always finds the right balance. I think an inexperienced actress would have been too much in this role and couldn't have found the right way to play this character. I felt that Sissy knew this character really well and understood her emotions.

We can see Crimes of the Heart as a lighter version of Three Sisters by Chekhov and I guess it would make us understand it much more easily. In Chekhov's classic, the youngest sister, Irina is full of uncertainty and she doesn't know what do do exactly. I felt that Sissy Spacek injected some of Irina into Babe. Babe is also clueless about what to do and she just cannot make any decisions. Irina always wants to go to work and Babe always wants to kill herself and yet neither of them really succeeds. There are tries that could be considered 'almost' but that's it. Sissy showed this hopelessness of Babe excellently.

It's always risky if you get three really fantastic actresses in a movie. They either try to outdo each other or they support each other really well. Fortunately, with Crimes of the Heart, the latter is true. The three ladies are excellent together and I felt that they are really supportive of each other. Whenever they are all on the screen, it's a really great moment. I couldn't decide if I picked Keaton or Spacek as my favorite (Lange was a bit weaker than them), though. Their performances can only be understood if we look at them together.

Sissy is also quite great on her own, especially her suicide scenes. They are quite weird and yet Sissy somehow hold them back and they became really great as a result. We see more and more layers of Babe and it's really interesting to get to know things about her affair with a black boy of the town.

Although I feel that Spacek is really great as Babe Magrath, I think that this is not a fantastic or mindblowing performance and it's not one of Sissy's best. I really liked it and enjoyed all of the scenes but I feel that Sissy could do way better. She got everything out of this character that she could, it's just that I felt that she had way better works. Still, she's great.

What do you think?

Sigourney Weaver in Aliens

First, I'd like to say how honored I am to celebrate the first anniversary of my Best Actress reviews with an analysis of a performance that is as iconic as...

Sigourney Weaver in Aliens for which she received her very first Oscar nomination in the Best Actress category. First, I am so shocked. Really, I wouldn't expect such a performance to be nominated in the Best Actress category. I mean, iconic action performances have never been among the favorites of the Academy. However, the Academy made one of the best decision when they nominated Sigourney for Aliens, a smash hit sci-fi. I guess the fact that the movie was such a great success (it received six other noms and won two of them). I think Sigourney may have got close to the actual win despite the fact that all the other performances were more Oscar-friendly. I feel she was at least third in the voting.

Aliens used to be my favorite movie ever, when I was about 11-12 years old. I was so crazy about it and I was crazy in love with Sigourney herself. I could go on telling funny and a bit cheesy stories about this movie (and the first Alien) but I guess I don't need to. For me, Aliens meant cinema. Everything that's great about it, emotion, action, scariness and above all, iconic characters. James Cameron's stories are the most unoriginal ones one could ever imagine and yet they work so fabulously on the screen. He just knows how to entertain people. I guess he once opened Pandora's box and found the secret of entertainment.

Sigourney Weaver, as I said, is someone I was once really in love with. However, I haven't seen enough of her works, I think. There are so many of her movies that I'd very much love to see and yet I don't get round to watching them. Too bad, as I think that she's one of the greatest actresses that we have today and I'm really hoping for a great comeback for her on the big screen. She just deserves way more than You Again. And she should really get an Oscar once. I thought that she would get it for Prayers for Bobby (that seemed so baity) and when I realised it was made for TV, I was in shock. So, she's in need of a great role, plus I'm really looking forward to the time when she'll play Miss Marple (as she wishes to)

If you search for lists about the most iconic characters of all time, you'll most definitely see Ellen Ripley among them (very often in the Top 10). By creating her, Sigourney Weaver also created a brand new character for the screen, the tough but sensitive heroine who's willing to fight and never gives up. I couldn't imagine any of the movies like Kill Bill had it not been for Sigourney Weaver's performance in the Alien movies even if the moviemakers don't think about Ripley that much. In short, Sigourney Weaver made history.

The very essence of Ellen Ripley (in my opinion) is best displayed in Aliens. In Alien, she's a scream queen and she may not even be the lead there. Ripley becomes a more layered and important character in Aliens. The development that she goes through is quite extraordinary for a sci-fi and Sigourney plays all the changes just brilliantly. At the beginning of the movie, Ripley is a hardened, bitter woman suffering from her own demons. All her fears are exceptionally portrayed. We really believe that this woman is suffering from all the events of her past and she's quite disturbing in some of the scenes. However, as I said, Ripley is a person who's willing to fight and she decides to fight her own fears by going back to the place where all the torture began.

Once she gets back to LV-426, Ripley becomes even more determined to act and destroy the aliens. However, a radical change comes in Ripley's life when she gets to know a little girl, Newt who wakes up Ripley's motherly instincts. And Sigourney is surprisingly touching in her scenes with Newt. She shows Ripley's love for Newt in a really moving way. In the director's cut this aspect of the movie becomes even more significant and understandable but I try not to think about that as she was nominated for the theatrical cut. All in all, Ellen's almost mother-daughter relationship with Newt is the most beautiful thing about this otherwise ugly and gruesome movie.

Moreover, I loved how feminine Sigourney made Ripley. On the outside, she has short-haired and talled. She's seems to be a really tough person. Inside, however, she's a really emotional, gentle human being full of love and the dedication. She's a real woman and Sigourney lets us see Ripley's real beauty which is inside the sexy looks. Ripley's beauty comes from her love and care and Sigourney shows Ripley's inner beauty just like a flower blossoms. It's just wonderful to see her in all of the scenes and you really cannot take your eyes off the screen. Sigourney's presence is really magnetic and I always wanted to see her and her. Very much like Michelle Pfeiffer (the other Oscarless huge star of the 80s) in The Fabulous Baker Boys, when Sigourney is not on the screen, we don't mind as her presence is so luminous that it lasts until she comes back. And unlike Kate Winslet in Titanic, Sigourney is never overshadowed by the stunning visual effects and the great directing of James Cameron.

To sum up things, Sigourney Weaver is astonishing in Aliens giving not only the best action performances but also one of the most memorable performances evers. She's a real treat not only for Oscar maniacs but also for film buffs and everyone else on this planet. Sigourney created a beautiful, wonderful, strong character that is for the ages. It's really fantastic work by a brilliant actress, in a brilliant movie.

What do you think, dear readers?