THE VERDICT – Best Motion Picture: 1990

So, here it is! After viewing, and reviewing the five nominees for best picture that year, here is the verdict, served by yours truly!

You can just click on the titles for their profiles.






5. Awakenings

Though it was emotionally affecting and doesn’t set itself into a wrong foot, it played safe by just doing the basics and it never really tried to something new or special, therefore giving a well-done yet undeniably forgettable product.


Best Scene: Leonard, newly awakened, spreads his arms to mother
Best Performance: Robert DeNiro as Leonard Lowe





4. Goodfellas

The film lack in subtlety, but it is overwhelmingly fierce and wild. It’s master Scorsese in his top form. It’s one of those films that tried to dig the roots of a gangster. And it succeeds on all it aimed to be. Maybe hard to fully love, but it’s ferocious filmmaking.

Best Scene: Henry taking Karen inside the Copacabana through the kitchen
Best Performances: Joe Pesci and Lorraine Bracco




3. Ghost

It’s Hollywood pop movie done very well. It has the qualities of a very good movie – technically accomplished, heartbraking, entertaining. It never was an Oscar movie, but it’s lovely, and most importantly, watchable.

Best Scene: Sam explaining to Molly through Oda Mae his presence

Best Performance: Whoopi Goldberg as Oda Mae Brown.




 2. Dances With Wolves

Filmed on a grand scale but told in such a personal way, Dances With Wolves is a surprisingly majestic journey with high production values. The characters are fully rounded, and the direction is masterful.

Best Scene: The breathtaking buffalo stampede
Best Performance: Mary McDonell




1. The Godfather Part III

It hits all those notes right. Nostalgia doesn’t get better than this. Although this works better as a real continuation to the series, it’s an epic microcosm of the slow downfall of the family due to violence. And even though it’s lengthy, it doesn’t set its foot on dragging, albeit profoundly entertaining and beautifully made. Flawless.

Best Scene: The opera/massive murder sequence
Best Performance: Al Pacino




Frankly, I have been quite generous with the top 3. But considering their respective achievements, I didn’t hesitate.

So, here’s my personal picks in my ballot for Best Picture:

Dances With Wolves
The Godfather Part III
Reversal of Fortune

I guess Dances With Wolves winning was a not total landslide. I see it as first, followed very closely by Goodfellas, then The Godfather Part II, then Ghost, due to the popularity, then last is Awakenings. But the real fight’s just between Dances With Wolves and Goodfellas.


What’s you pick? Do you agree with the Academy, or with me, or you have a different choice?


Note: The next year is still undergoing studying.

Best Picture Profile: Dances With Wolves

Directed by: Kevin Costner

Company: Tig Productions / Majestic Films International / Orion Pictures Corporation

Runtime: 181 minutes


This is the movie that proclaimed to the whole world that Kevin Costner can direct. This is one of the few movies that had their actor-director win the Best Director award. Over Martin Scorsese. And this is one of the most hated Best Picture winners. Because it beat Goodfellas.

The movie is about Lt. John Dunbar, a daring but suicidal man who is injured from the war. Afterwards, he gets a recognition and was given the chance of choosing his post. He chose to be transferred at the western frontier, namely at Fort Sedgewick. As he starts to be an occupant of the place, eh begins to write in his journal on what happens with his life there.

He is bored, he admits. But one day, he sees the Indian natives. And, by fate, he sees a bleeding white woman who looks like one of the tribe members. Brought by his will to bring her home, he is surprised to see the massive Sioux community that she lives in. At first, the natives are hesitant to make communications with him, seeing him as a bad man. But when it was proven that they were wrong, he is warmly welcomed by the tribe to their community.

All I can say is that the movie is majestic. The whole film is captured on epic proportions. And the result is undeniably remarkable and powerful.

Basically, it’s all about the direction. Kevin Costner, known to be one of those ‘charmers’ of the late 80’s to the early 90’s, is great here, as a director. He is aware of the fact that the scope of the film is colossal, but what the main character has a story that is personal. And successfully defines the margin between the two. The shifting of scope is wonderfully blending. And what’s really best about his direction is, aside from the big scenes, is that he can make the characters layered and they compliment with the atmosphere of the movie.And his stroke of brilliance is the buffalo stampede. I mean, it’s one big scene. I am amazed myself. On how it was captured, on how coordinated – everything came together as perfect.

Aside from the scenes where it defines the movie as an epic, one of the scenes where the direction is very skillful is the translation scenes and the scenes of talking without the translators. We get that if one of them makes a wrong step, they may do unexpected things because of the lack of understanding due to the language barrier. But Costner also invests on humanity of the characters. So, even if there is the tension going on, Costner is also able to make it fun to watch because it’s so real. It comes of as natural.

Nothing is misplaced, everything is right, and the thing is that he doesn’t make a false move in this movie, as a director. This is one of those movies that could have been so big yet it’s so messy. Instead, he makes the whole movie as tight as possible, and he uses the gigantic setting of the movie as a facade to accommodate the characters. The characters are very in-there, and we are really in-there. And that’s what’s really best about this movie.

The movie, although big, doesn’t try to alienate the viewers. And the director makes a lot of ways to make the viewers not watch, but experience the whole epic feeling of it. And, notwithstanding the competitors, I think the director win is deserved and it’s just so masterfully directed.

The screenplay is poignant and very soulful. It managed to flesh out all of Dunbar’s character. Those narration scenes could have been utterly cheesy and unnecessary but because the screenwriter knows the character so well and he makes a fully-rounded character out of him, his limitations and capabilities, physically and emotionally, are established and thus, Costner never goes out of character.Also, every character, except for the Pawnee and the villainous Union soldiers, were given such human depth. Now that’s an accomplishment.

The acting goes from okay to well-accomplished. I guess the movie works really as a massive ensemble work. Kevin Costner is consistent to me. The way he narrates is so real. He is not writing emotional things, he writes a report in his journal, and so his voice is plain in the narrations. His performance is no dramatic tour-de-force, but he does it on a very manly way that he is believable and accessible.

Graham Greene was strong as the Sioux holy man Kicking Bird. I’m glad he didn’t do it as a stereotype. I know it’s also the screenplay’s achievement, but it’s Greene’s work that didn’t make the acting like a caricature. The character has the tendency to do so, but you can feel that Kicking Bird has a heart and tribe to protect. And we connect with him.

Mary McDonell gets a lot of hate as Stands With A Fist, the white woman adopted by the Sioux, but actually, I think it’s the best performance in this film. She is a victim of violence since his childhood. And she is a woman of suicidal tendencies. But, also, she is a woman longing for tender love. And Mary renders those in such an emotionally affecting manner, therefore giving such a wonderfully-crafted character. And when she serves as the translator, there is the right amount of innocence and subtlety in her way of speaking and moving that doesn’t make even one false ring of character. Also, I think her biggest asset as an actress here is her eyes. It’s so expressive. It evokes such strong but unexplainable heaviness of the emotions and tragedies inside of her.

As I have said a while ago, it’s really a masterpiece as an ensemble.

The technical part is all to be praised.

The cinematography was flawless. It gives us the epic feeling, but it  also evokes motion. We know that Dunbar is in a journey, so he should never be in a stationary world. And it’s beautifully captured. And the editing is an accomplishment, too. To compress such larger-than-life journey into shots and transitions and dissolves is just amazing.

The music is epic. The sound is so well, that you can feel that you’re absolutely one of them. The production values are achievements of filmmaking.

I can’t find really anything to fault it: the movie is flawlessly made, beautifully captured, emotionally honest, and undeniably sweeping. I can understand if someone might see it as boring and dragging, but honestly, I didn’t. I saw it as a thrilling piece of moviemaking.

For this, the movie gets:

What are your thoughts, dear reader?


The results will be posted shortly after this post.

Best Picture Profile: Goodfellas

Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Company: Warner Bros. Pictures

Runtime: 146 minutes


As far as I am aware of, I think this is the most hailed movie of Martin Scorsese, along with Raging Bull and Taxi Driver.

The movie is about Henry Hill a man who, from his adolescence to his adult years, was always a gangster. He loved being a gangster, since he gets a lot of benefits from it. In his gangster life, he has been accompanied by two men – Jimmy Conway, a very calm man, and on the other hand, Tommy DeVito, a very hotheaded man. He was also a devoted man of an influential man in the gang – Paul Cicero.

Eventually, in his life, he meets a beautiful but undeniably loud woman, Karen. They get married, but he was never been honest with her, since he introduced himself a a man in the line of construction. But she had a feeling he was not a gangster. And, as usual for a gangster, he had other girlfriends. He started having problems with her family, she finds out that he keeps another girl, and she proclaims that she is a whore.

Problems really build up though when he started selling cocaine. Cocaine gives him and his family bundles of money, but he was never safe. He is always in danger. And the slow fall of the gangster is really coming.

So, I can understand the love for it. And I say it, the film was….. breathtaking.

And it’s everything about the direction of Scorsese.

Scorsese knows how to handle the material. I can say that the film itself is complicated, and to make it seam really flawless is just genius. He knows the boundaries, he knows the limitations, his direction doesn’t overdo the thing nor oversimplifies it. He makes the movie complicated yet understandable. and what’s the best thing about it? He doesn’t make a false move in this. T

hese kinds of films are the ones that can turn the directors on and they want to make it big and, in the process, it comes as messy, unfocused, or even pointless. Scorsese knows the focus – it’s about Henry. And he doesn’t try to get away with it. He understands the character so well that he doesn’t make any false impressions for the character and so, for the other characters.

He also builds up things so well. Right from the adolescent years, Scorsese knows that Henry is demented for doom – the character made very wrong things and he is right there, going to be damned. But he makes him very human that we connect to him. He worships the gang, but aside from that, he wants to make himself one of them. And Scorsese knows that.

Maybe I’m using the word know too frequently. But that’s the best thing to say – Scorsese knows how to make this movie great. So it’s a very well-directed movie.

And his moment to shine? The legendary Steadicam shot. This sweeping, one-shot view of the gangster world is the best scene in the movie, invoking the feeling of overwhelming ecstasy one might feel as a gangster’s girl. It’s a stroke of brilliance from the director. He gets the chance to convey what really gangster life is and what are the benefits of being a gangster is that you don’t need to wait in a queue to get a seat in a bar. In this part, we get Karen’s point of view – this woman fascinated of this fact. It’s captivating and it will leave you breathless.

The screenplay knows it all. The guys who wrote movie knows the world of gangsters, knows the characters, knows how to make them really humane, knows that they’re not perfect, knows to make them real and three-dimensional, knows the atmosphere, knows how to move the plot forward. Maybe that’s also the best adjective to describe the screenplay: all-knowing.

The acting was all the way class. Robert DeNiro, having also a great performance in the also-nominated movie Awakenings, is great as Jimmy Conway. The character keeps his emotions inside him as much as possible, but he also has the tendency to become real violent. And he plays it so well. A supporting actor nomination is needed!

Joe Pesci as the hotheaded gangster Tommy DeVito is superb as the character. His character is a ticking time bomb, he just likes to shout the f-word. He’s funny, but we know that when he’s agitated, he’ll just get his gun and shoot. And he makes most of it. But he knows how to make him humane, he may be a psychopathic killer, but he can still hold himself up as a human being. The character is a danger to actors – it could have been the hammy and overdone acting, but Pesci settles for the beautifully-handled acting.

I don’t like Ray Liotta the guy. But I can’t deny that he was great here. He is different from the other guys. And he should be. He is the only gangster that weh know where he came from. He was just once a simple lad who dreamed big. And until his adult years, he still have the attitude even if he already was transformed into a real gangster. He is confident, he is somewhat overconfident at times, but he remains the humbleness with his friends from the gang. And he understand the character. So, even tough I dislike the actor, I like his performance.

Lorraine Bracco was fabulous as Karen Hill. Her early scenes perfectly describe what it really is to be somewhat new in this life. And I didn’t mind her loud voice. Her character is loud, and it fits so well. But her best parts doesn’t kick in until the last half of the movie. When she’s great, well, she amazing. She carries such emotions that she’s like a lost kitten in this world of dogs. And when she’s desperate in flushing the bag of cocaine down the toilet? Or when she debates with her husband about her flushing it away? Or when she doubts Jimmy about going into the dark hallway? All beautifully acted by her.

The other members of the cast are headstrong perfect. The technical part is also awesome. The cinematography was excellent, the editing was flawless, the sound helped a lot, the music set the mood for the film, the costume was appropriate, the art direction brings it to the next level. The music, especially. The way the rock songs mix with this rather harsh world is just so weird yet so great.

The movie is near perfect. But I was looking for one thing: subtlety. I guess that’s really why I can’t love it to the fullest. I wholeheartedly say that the movie is classic and it’s an alltime best, but sumehow, there was either no or very little subtlety.

For this, the movie gets:

What are your thoughts, dear reader?

Best Picture Profile: Awakenings

Directed by: Penny Marshall

Company: Columbia Pictures Corporation

Runtime: 121 minutes


It’s one of those forgotten movies nominated for best picture. And I can see why.

The movie is about Dr. Malcolm Sayer, a new doctor in a hospital with living statues in it as patients, who sdecides to experiment on a chemical drug as a try to ‘awaken’ the patients. And he did succeed on slowly ‘awakening’ the patients. But he makes a rather special bond of friendship with one of the patients, Leonard Lowe.

I just want to say first that this is one of the most subtle/quiet films I have ever seen, hence it’s, for now, the most subtle best picture nominee I have ever seen. Not only literally, but on how the film develops.

There’s a lot to praise in this film.

The acting is top-notch. Robin Williams, the real lead of this film, is superb as the conflicted but daring doctor. There’s a lot of going around his mind, mainly medical conflicts. And I’m glad he didn’t do any of his comedic acts. because it won’t fit to the soul of his character whatsoever. There is subtle humor in this movie, and it’s very subtle that I didn’t imagine Williams can do that. There is this one funny scene when he’s excited to see his patient doing such progess, and he asks where is his glasses, only to find out that it’s in his eyes the whole time. He brings it so naturally that some people may not notice it. He was like so in his character in this movie.

Robert DeNiro is in his top form as the catatonic patient Leonard Lowe. Again, I was surprised on how subtle he was here. His early catatonic scenes could have been so fake, adding extreme mannerisms, but he does it in a simple yet very vibrant way. And when he awakens, it is uplifting! The character have been on that state for decades, and when he awakens, htere is this childhood feeling that totally suits his character.

There is already the mark of mastery in his performance here. But he never makes us feel that it was too easy for him. Sure, DeNiro could have done that in his sleep, but on the way he makes a fully rounded character is just so complicated that even he has less screentime than Williams, it’s him that will leave a mark on the viewers.

His best scene, for me, comes in a pair. The first one is when his mother first sees him for the first time as an awakened man. His joy is so juvenile but justified. It could have been one of those misfortunes of the over-used childish act, but he does it in a way that both outburst and subtlety are mixing in a very gentle way that you just can’t hold back your tears. And it’s no cheese.

The second one is when he readies for a walk outside and he was not allowed to. The way he breaks down is not fake. He doesn’t go overboard, he knows his character, he knows that when he breaks down, it should be no ordinary breakdown since he is with a very different character. And he does it so well. The role might be Oscary, but I don’t think his performance here is flashy.

That’s what really makes the whole film work so well: subtle acting.

Outside of that, there’s nothing really noteworthy. They all live up to the subtle atmosphere, but they’re not really to remember, after all. The film itself is not flashy, but I just have the hard time on naming it as remarkbale or something like outstanding.

Maybe the screenplay is to credit for those extremely heart-tugging scenes. Maybe the music is to credit for the creation of this quiet period of time.

But is there really OUTSTANDING here?

The movie has a special place in my heart because on how it came of as a naturally emotionally affecting movie. It uses simplicity and honesty to make the film work. Because I don’t think the movie would have worked if it turned noisier.

Also, the director, Penny Marshall, was a totally smart choice for the direction. She knows how to handle her film. The film is soft but never fluffy. Easy to watch but not substandard. She did so much to the film because she gave the movie the needed movie magic touch for the film to work on such emotional levels.

I don’t think the film was really made to be a tearjerker. I think it was made as an emotional character study. And, beside for DeNiro’s performance, I don’t think it was made with Oscar aroun the whole film.

The best words to describe the film? SOLID, SUBTLE and EMOTIONALLY AFFECTING.

But it just have the tendencies to be forgotten. I don’t know who’s really to blame. It’s timeless, and natural, but it never really tried to make something new.

For this, the movie gets :


What are you thoughts, dear reader?

Best Picture Profile: Ghost

Directed by: Jerry Zucker

Company: Paramount Pictures

Runtime: 127 minutes


I guess this is one of the biggest shocks EVER in this category. Ever.

The movie starts with a young couple, Sam and Molly, and their friend,  Carl, renovating the apartment unit that they have recently occupied. They’re happy, as every young American couple should be. Their only problem: the guy can’t directly say I love you to the girl. Unfortunately, after one night, he was killed in a supposedly one random hold-up. He still walks around, but now, as a ghost. He visits one psychic/con artist, Oda Mae, who never believed that she have the gift even though she makes her living in it. He wants her to help him save his girl.

First of all, I myself am a bit skeptical at the first place whether it was really Oscar best picture quality or not. But now, I’ve already decided. After several viewings.

The movie is quite hard to make a profile on because it’s a genre movie – lots of genres. It’s to be blamed to the director and the writers. But they had it so well that it looked very seamless, even of repeated viewings.

But one fact is totally undeniable: this is one timeless romance classic. It’s the perfect movie for the thing called “undying love.” The romance really works. It’s because of the chemistry between the two leads.

The comedy works so well, but even if it’s the most enjoyable part of the movie, it somewhat threw the movie off-balance due to the fact that the director set a very dark mood at the start of the film. So, I understand if someone would say, “okay, it’s getting quite weird here.” It’s effective but it’s undeniably inconsistent with the mood.

But even if it happened that way, it’s just so well-executed. I could say is that the director is to be praised. To deliver this lotsa’ genre movie so well is just fascinating. Jerry Zucker, with his experience as a comedy director, uses slapstick to move the plot. Surely, the romance is the one that dominates the whole film, but the screenplay uses the comedy to develop the scenario.

It’s really a movie that constantly shifts moods in order to make the plot progress and for the whole thing to build up in its thrilling climax. The climax is the director’s masterpiece. This is where the direction either succeeds or fails, because this is such a sequence filled with enormous tension, but at the same time, it should still be noted that there is the romance and the supernatural things going with it.

But it’s far from perfect: the rules are not made clear, something that, even entertaining to watch, is considerably a necessary question of quality. The “walking ghosts” genre have been there for quite some time, having The Sixth Sense as the best example. All I can say is that it’s the screenplay’s fault. I mean, what can he really hold and what’s not. He can’t push the rubber shoe, but he can hold to the arm rest of the chair. The Subway Ghost pushed him to the train, he kept passing through the poles and doors, but he stops on a door. It’s somewhat forgivable, but if you’re going to make rules, please make it consistent.

But it’s also the screenplay who gave it such an entertaining ride. The genius of the screenplay really comes of in the dialogue scenes with the dead guy and the psychic. Who would ever think of those hilarious lines? And those romantic lines to cherish – “The love inside – you take it with you.” (insert cringe here) I know it’s somewhat cheesy, but you don’t get more romantic than that!

Also, take note of that small piece of dialogue the screenplay used to subtly emphasize the motives of the characters – here is an excerpt:

MOLLY It's gorgeous.

CARL You guys lucked out. Hell, I bet you 
could sell it tomorrow and double 
your investment.

MOLLY Sell it? Carl, we just bought it.

Maybe it’s to small to be noticed, but it’s a brilliant hint of the character’s inside feelings and priorities.

Well that brings us to the acting. All i could say is that the actors were all FIT for their roles. Patrick Swayze is perfect as the guy, Demi Moore is lovely as the girl, and Whoopi Goldberg was fantastic, Tony Goldwyn was effective as the friend.

But they also had problems: Swayze made some faces that are somewhat unexplained or just unintentionally funny, Moore was stuck in a paper-thin role, Goldberg, who was utterly the movie’s best acting triumph, was also stuck in a stereotype, and Goldwyn made me somewhat sick.

The technical side ranges from good to great to pretty dated. The cinematography, editing, and sound were pretty good. The music was great, captivating the “longing for love” feeling of the movie. And the song was a great choice! But the visual effects and some parts of the music were pretty dated, but it’s fun to watch, though.

But in the end, it still is a shining glory of being an effective Hollywood entertainment. But is this really an Oscar-quality movie? Think about it, the film was really Hollywood-ish. These kind of populist movies only sneak in the Best Picture race if the year was undeniably weak. But if you have Reversal of Fortune and The Grifters, more of those Oscar-ish movies, it’s really ind of weird. This is really more of a crowd-pleasing tearjerker than, we should say, an Oscar bait. So, was it because of the campaign of the production company, or is it that they loved it so much? It’s a mystery.

But I can’t deny that it’s so much fun to watch this. The best picture nomination is somewhat dubious from one’s point of view. I myself am having problems defining the real thing about this movie: was it really that good or was it just one of my guilty pleasure movies? I guess both. The shortcomings are really there, but they turn invisible when you are already watching it. It’s endlessly watchable, especially Whoopi’ parts.

Removing my own pleasures in this film, I do think it’s one interesting choice from the Academy,

For this, the movie gets :

What are your thoughts, dear reader?

Best Picture Profile: The Godfather Part III

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola

Company: Paraount Pictures / Zoetrope Studios

Runtime: 162 minutes


Perhaps, it’s one of the most underrated movies ever made.

The movies starts with the series of shots in an old house and the lake that’s near it. And after that, we are introduced to a very different Michael Corleone, much different from the last installment. He is being given the knighthood by the church. Because he wants to change for the good, he sold all of his business that are illegal. He also tried to cut his relationships with the mob, or I should say the businessmen with illegal businesses. Circumstances refuse him to leave the circle of the gang.

First of all, dare I say it, this is the most entertaining and most watchable of the trilogy. It always is a thrilling experience to watch. And I think it got horrendously lambasted is, aside from Sofia Coppola who was not bad nor great, it shifted tone considerably. This more of the family. It’s less gangster here. It’s because Michael himself wants to change. And he goes to a different world, away from the mafia.

Basically, it is Coppola’s massive achievement. The whole film was made in such a way that it calms the audience when there is no violence, but when it’s intense, it’s so in it. It was all his work. Several scenes are so big that it could have been a misfit from the film, but Coppola is a born storyteller. He knows what to do. And his towering glory here is the final thirty minutes of unbearable tension. I mean, who could have done better than that? To interweave several plotlines in those last minutes of the film is a stroke of brilliance from him. The whole sequence could have been just a montage of  murders, but Coppola knows how to build things up, he knows when to place this scene, he knows what’s the right scene to follow the other one. And he knows how to intensify the atmosphere. So, emotionally, it feels like the whole sequence is an explosion. He knows that his movie is an epic. And he knows that he needs to end his movie in an epic way. And he does it so great.

The screenplay, also written by him and Mario Puzo, is also excellent. It doesn’t make a single movie. Sure, it has the most far-fetched ideas for a Godfather movie – Vatican, incest? Those are so far from it but it was so well-made that it actually fit in the movie. Yes, even the incest. And most of the lines are completely justifiable by the characters. “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” That is one epic line. It is the declaration of what happens to Michael. He was a long-time suppressed character. In the first two installments, he was never outspoken. He always keeps things to a low. Here, he’s calm, but he’s already able to release his emotions. That was spoken in an angry manner. But he was not just angry. He was desperate.

And that’s what made the acting worth it. Al Pacino knows his character had changed dramatically. He now wants to be a better man. But circumstances would not allow him to. And he knows he is aging. And he knows Michael is in a crisis. And he knows everything is going wrong when he wants to be right. And he plays it so well.

Andy Garcia was also on the top of his game as Vincent Mancini-Corleone. He’s so in the character. His character was like a modern-day Michael. He was semi-rebellious, but he is no-nonsense, he’s smart, and he knows who’s who and what’s where, and things like that. He is dependable, but he knows Vincent isn’t perfect. He knows his character gets stubborn at times. And he knows he is a man of a gentle heart.

Diane Keaton and Talia Shire, though both great here, are unfortunately forgettable. They both get the fair share of scenes, they know the conflicts of their characters, and they know that they need to do because in the world they are moving, they should not be stupid. Talia’s Connie is already a sign of strength and authority, but she’s a woman hiding from a very soft nature. He cares for Michael, but she needs to be strong. She needs to be  outspoken. Keaton’s Kay Adams, on the other hand, is a woman of such keeping that she just shows her real self when Michael does. She was quite unsure of Michael, because he’s changed. But she still doubts him.

The other woman, Sofia Coppola, as Mary, was not bad nor great. She serves her character. She knows her character. And that’s what to root from her character. I know she could have been better, and I know another actress could have given a better performance for Mary, but there’s no denying that Sofia played her character quite well. Not outstanding, but not Razzie-winning. The other members of the cast did well to this massive ensemble of actors.

I can’t say anything more for the technical part. Cinematography was excellent, editing was flawless, sound was clear, music was beautiful, costumes and production design was appropriate.

But I don’t want to overrate it to the fullest. I admit it has its faults: Sofia Coppola, though not necessarily bad, was the weakest link to the head strong cast, the movie being a dependent movie to the first two. The film was beautiful. I have seen it after the first two installments, so I didn’t have problems with it. But to the young viewers, it’s much better if you visit the first two before this because some details are like references from the first two that you might not get the feel of the movie if you haven’t watched the two. It could have been much better if it was made like a movie that can be watched by anyone first before the other two.

Don’t get me wrong: I love this movie, but I tried to get the view from a first-time Godftaher movie goer who wants to see this film first that the other two. It’s certainly entertaining, it is a beautifully made film, but it’s really much better if you watch the first two before this.

This is a wonderfully crafted, totally satisfying ride for  moviegoers, especially for a Godfather trilogy fan, but it’s not with the minor flaws. But those faults are very minimal and they’re all forgivable, and I don’t want to hide the fact that I like it very much and it is a sumptuous movie experience.

For this, the movie gets :

What are your thoughts, dear reader?

INTRODUCTION – Best Motion Picture: 1990

So, this is my first year for the Best Picture Project!


This is not my first choice in this category for my blog-a-thon. But since I accidentally met my long-lost Dances With Wolves, I can now do it.  I haven’t seen it, but let’s see. So, the nominees are:


Dances With Wolves


The Godfather Part III



Who would be my pick?


Would it be the hospital drama? Or the western epic? Or the mystery-thriller-drama-romance-comedy-horror? Or the final installment of the epic gangster trilogy? Or the violent gangster drama?


I’ll start with a random nominee, then the last would be the Best Picture Winner, Dances With Wolves.


So, dear viewer, would I go with the Academy? Or would I go with an another nominee?


Because of this project, I decided to go away with the norm of having stars. And because Meryl Streep is my all time favorite actress (I mean it, all time), I decided to use her as my rating system, the MERYLS!

5 MERYLS would be the highest.

1 MERYL would be the lowest.


I’m quite sure I won’t give zero ratings because that’s impossible. Even if the film itself is not fully deserving of the nomination, I’m sure there’s something that gave the Academy the will to give a movie a nomination (The Blind Side of last year as an example, though I haven’t seen it yet).