I'm always excited to watch this group and I've only seen Palance's performance before. Really interested to see some of these films/performances because I've heard good to decent things. We shall see!
1991 Best Supporting Actor
Jack Palance - City Slickers
So I've seen this film before a long, long time ago. The details were a bit fuzzy but I knew the basic gist of it. It's a Billy Crystal film so he's just going to crack jokes for the whole thing so the details aren't as important. But, I didn't realize how little Palance is actually in this film. He only has a couple scenes and he really doesn't do a whole lot but be intimidating and grunt and dish out some cowboy pearls of wisdom. And spoiler alert: he unexpectedly dies half way through the film and you are left going really?! because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I always thought that Palance had much more to do so I guess you could say he left a lasting impact on the film where his absence is sorely noted. His performance is that of just a gruff, old cowboy - a role he had been playing his entire life. His first Oscar nomination was for the classic Western Shane in 1953, which should tell you all you need to know about Palance. He's an old school actor and he was used to great effect here. This is very clearly a veteran, career achievement Oscar. No one really disputes that. It was the Academy's chance to reward him in an acting role instead of say bringing him out for a special award. It's a feel good award that most people don't mind and his acceptance speech was entertaining to boot, so it's hard to hate it. I don't know if I can really say this is a great performance. It's good and it's fun to watch Palance do his thing but it's so short and with little real substance that this is more like eating Count Chocula cereal for dinner.
Tommy Lee Jones - JFK
While watching JFK, I actually forgot about Jones for a bit because he doesn't appear until about one and a half hours into the film. When I saw him I was like 'Oh yeah! I'm supposed to be watching his performance.' That should tell you how massive the film is in time, scope, and characters. I'm not sure why Tommy Lee Jones was singled out as the sole representative of the film because there are some very strong, very memorable performances by other actors in this. And frankly, Jones isn't much of a factor as some of the other characters. I'd rather take Joe Pesci, Michael Rooker, Donald Sutherland, Gary Oldman, or hell - even John Candy! I don't feel as if Jones leaves an impact on the film. These other characters all leave a mark on the plot or just leave the viewer going hey that was awesome from them. Jones doesn't have any long scenes, they are all very short sentences. Meaning Jones never has a monologue or any big moment. He basically answers questions but never delivers any thing of actual substance. He plays Clay Shaw and is the key guy proving there is a cover up on the assassination attempt and has big white hair. I'm scratching my head while writing this because I really don't know why they nominated him other than maybe he was an up and coming star and they thought it was his turn? They could have gone the veteran route with some other choices or the comedian in a serious film route or a really strong performance by an unknown in Rooker route. I'm just not very satisfied with this nomination because the other choices were mostly better.
Harvey Keitel - Bugsy
I like his introduction where he comes in swearing up a storm at Beatty. He's all fiery and hot and you're thinking wow, someone to challenge Beatty in this film. Keitel keeps it up for a little bit but the performance unfortunately peters out by the end of the film. Keitel's Mickey Cohen, himself a brutal gangster from LA, basically becomes Beatty's lackey. He still keeps his acerbic tongue but doesn't really do a whole lot but drive Bugsy around and be a sort of confidante. When Cohen is introduced, it's funny stuff even if a bit derivative of Keitel's overall work and leaves you wanting a lot more from him. I wish the film would have allowed for more meaningful interaction between Keitel and Beatty instead of relegating Cohen to being a proverbial bagman. Keitel can make a great gangster if used properly but that wasn't so for this film. The film lets him down because it forgets about him being a useful character after his introduction is built up. So unfortunately Keitel hangs around without much to do for most of the film and still somehow gets a nomination out of it. I guess I'm not upset Keitel has a nomination but it would be nice if it were for something more substantial than this.
Ben Kingsley - Bugsy
When Kingsley first showed up I was not digging the accent. It was like a mishmash of New York gangster, Jewish, and some kind of foreign accent all thrown in a blender. I don't know if that's what Meyer Lansky sounds like (he was a Russian Jew based out of NYC, so probably) but it was slightly annoying because he was hard to understand. I thought I wasn't going to like the performance much from that issue but Kingsley settled into his role and you get used to the accent. Kingsley isn't flashy at all which is probably a good thing for the character because you have both Harvey Keitel and Warren Beatty giving loud and in your face performances. Kingsley is what tempers the film and Bugsy himself. He's a realist and he brings a quiet, stern presence to the film. Now I don't want to overstate how important or influential Kingsley is to the film since he's only in a few scenes. But he does seem to pop up when Bugsy needs to be toned down a notch and brought back to Earth. Lanksy is kind of the mob guys' accountant figure and that's exactly how Kingsley plays him. He's calm and collected and level headed and smart. But in saying all that, Kingsley is a minor presence in the film, though a welcome one. He's overshadowed by Beatty and depending on how much you like Keitel, him too. It's a decent little performance but I think I'd rather take one or the other of the two Bugsy nominees since having both seems like overkill.
Michael Lerner - Barton Fink
Any time you ever hear anyone talk about this nomination it's followed by a well, John Goodman should have been nominated instead. And yeah, John Goodman should have been nominated instead, easily. Michael Lerner is in only three scenes. That's it. He is a studio executive and makes all the big decisions when it come to John Turturro's writing. I was looking for anything and everything in those three scenes, yet I didn't find all that much. Lerner is perfect as the studio head because he looks the part and sounds the part. In fact, he is the part. I say that because while there's not a whole lot to the performance, Lerner is near perfect at playing the studio executive. He berates his assistant and acts like the writer is the most important person in the world which is obviously a send up of how it goes down in real life. Lerner is loud and talks fast and is very much the embodiment of what a studio head might be. Lerner plays his part perfectly, it's just that in the three scenes, though he is good, it's the same riff over and over. So while it's enjoyable to watch, I prefer Goodman with all of his character's subtext. I think maybe the Academy enjoyed seeing a studio head portrayed in this manner and gave him a vote for just that reason. They love anything to do with themselves and we see that time and again throughout the years. It's not a terrible nomination by any means and I'm glad he is nominated. I would just rather have had the other guy from this film nominated instead. As it is now, I can't complain too much because I at least got to watch a Coen Bros film again which is never a bad thing.
I was expecting a whooooole lot more than what I got out of this group. Normally this is my favorite category, but all of these performances were a bit of a let down after hearing so much about them. Honestly, nothing stands out as everything is pretty meh. Seriously, this is a weak year overall and I'm very disappointed. For one, you've got Jones getting a nomination while other people in his film were better by leaps and bounds. Jones was boring and did nothing for me. Then you've got Keitel and Kingsley not providing much in their film, though Kingsley is much better than Keitel, at least for me. Finally, we come to Lerner who is decent enough in his three scenes but John Goodman is just better. So I guess I'll stick with Palance as the winner but if I could abstain and give no one the Oscar I would. This is just a very blah year and I need to wash this taste out of my mouth with some 1990 mouthwash (that sounds gross).
Oscar Winner: Jack Palance - City Slickers
My Winner: Jack Palance - City Slickers
Michael Lerner
Ben Kingsley
Harvey Keitel
Tommy Lee Jones
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Supporting Actress 1991
I hate to sound like a broken record but I'm not that excited to go through this group. I already know based off reputation and reading things online that this isn't a particularly strong group. My only hope is that the winner is worthy and that there may be something that hits my sweet spots.
1991 Best Supporting Actress
Mercedes Ruehl - The Fisher King
I was super interested in watching this film and performance because of two things: first being that I didn't know this actress at all and here she is winning an Oscar, and second being that it's a Terry Gilliam film. That man has made some of the most visually astounding films like Brazil, Time Bandits, Monty Python, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and The Zero Theorem. He's got great style and I'm glad it's put to good use here as well. But this review is about Mercedes Ruehl who plays the girlfriend of Jeff Bridges. She's a very New York woman with a thick accent and tough, take no shit demeanor. She runs a video store and helps Bridges get Williams and his crush together. She's sincere and genuine and very supportive of her boyfriend and of Williams. If she wasn't the winner, I would have said that she got nominated by riding the coattails of Williams. Honestly, while watching her performance I didn't see exactly what made it a winner. I'm still a bit confused about it other than it's a very capable performance. She's very likable and sweet while also being a bit of a force whenever she's onscreen. I'd say that's the plus of Ruehl is that she makes you pay attention to her even though she is a textbook Supporting character. She definitely helps the scenes she's in and actually stands out a bit more than other supporting characters do but I'll have to watch the rest of this group to see if she was the only real choice.
Diane Ladd - Rambling Rose
Ehhh. That pretty much sums up this performance. Ladd is okay, but the film is beyond awful. This might truly be one of the few films I unequivocally hate as a film. The performances are what they are. I don't think it deserved two acting nominations at all because neither inspire much of anything in me, though. It's a very weird film about a poor girl who is essentially a big slut who loves attention from men and plays innocent and coy like she's a child but she knows full well what she's doing. She moves in with a very odd, eccentric family as their helper and issues surround the woman ensue. Ladd plays the mother of the house who is a space cadet (not literally) and just a strange, strange woman. She's trying to get her PhD from school and is partially deaf and talks very matter of factly with her kids about everything. She's just a very odd duck and not in a way that is memorable or cute or funny or Oscar worthy. It's just in a way that's somewhat unsettling. And that's the thing for the performance is that sure, Ladd is good at being kinda creepy but I don't think that's what the character or Ladd was meant to be like at all. I think the main reason both Dern and Ladd are nominated is because they are mother and daughter in real life. I think the Academy really liked that synergy and wanted to nominate them both for the same movie and did. I also think that Dern got it because of that reason and because they wanted to build up her star power. The film, though, is so bad that I never want to watch it again. It makes no sense and it's got such a creepy vibe that I can't see very many people liking this one.
Juliette Lewis - Cape Fear
Sometimes I read about a film or performance before watching it to get a good idea of what I'm in for. Now, I've gone on and on about that in my previous blogs about whether I should or should not read reviews and criticisms. I'm fine with gauging whether or not I'm going to like something or not. I didn't expect much from Lewis in this performance but I'll say I was pleasantly surprised. I read how others thought her character was annoying, which I can understand. But I think that she captures what a teenager is in her performance. She's carefree and gullible. She is enamored with what she perceives as positive attention from the villain Max Cady and essentially forms a crush on him. Lewis sells all of that as being realistic for her character. It is utterly believable. Even if you find it annoying or frustrating because she falls for the bad guy in a juvenile way, it's still authentic and natural. She is a fully formed character which has been hard to find lately in this category. And that's all thanks to Lewis who portrays her character with a lot of maturity in her acting ability while still being the ditzy, goofy, malleable teenager. By that I mean, she was about 17-18 when this was filmed but seems much older as an actress with the choices she makes and the way she interacts with everyone else. Lewis surprised me with how interesting she made her character out to be. Lewis is a very good supporting character and will be hard to beat as of right now.
Kate Nelligan - The Prince of Tides
Ugh, this movie. This is just not a good movie and not something I would ever seek out on my own. The conceit isn't very interesting and I'm not a Streisand fan so watching this was brutal. Watching this performance was no fun, either. Nelligan plays a sort of dual role. She plays the mother of Nick Nolte, both when he was a young boy and when he was an adult (and therefore actually Nick Nolte and not a child actor). Thing is, Nelligan is 9 years younger than Nolte and is playing his mother in this movie. Even though Nelligan has been gussied up to look older, she still doesn't really look older. A minor quibble, no doubt, but there's not a whole lot to the performance so when she doesn't quite look old enough it becomes a bigger issue. I guess the main thing the performance has going for it is that Nelligan's character gives her abusive husband some crap (or dog food) right back. She doesn't really have much presence when she is portraying the older version of Nolte's mother. She bickers with Nolte and the relationship is obviously strained by events years earlier but that's about it. There's no impact from this character and only a minor impact from the younger version of the mother. She's at least a bit more memorable in those scenes but I don't think anywhere near enough to warrant an Oscar nomination. This is a very forgettable performance.
Jessica Tandy - Fried Green Tomatoes
Not much to this nomination. It's a veteran one, but shockingly one I don't really mind being here. I've railed in the past about veteran nominations not being worthy and taking spots from more deserving actors and being a general waste of everyone's time but I'm fine with Tandy getting another one here. She was still in the grace period after her Best Actress win a couple years prior that she could get nominated for pretty much anything. Now in this film she plays an old woman at a retirement center that meets Kathy Bates and regales her with stories of her youth. It's never explicitly said if she is Idgie but you gather that she either is or is related to her in some way. She tells tales of Idgie and Ruth who are lifelong friends and go through all kinds of trials and tribulations - literally. Tandy narrates these stories and comes off as a kooky, fun old lady who shows up at one point with purple hair and is excited to have someone to talk to. I think Tandy is perfectly Supporting, bringing enough to the role that you enjoy watching and listening to her. That's certainly better than some other performances in this category where I either can't stand them or don't see the point. The point here is that Tandy can be entertaining even in her older years. She even has a small arc which a lot of supporting players don't ever get: we met her, see she's kind of miserable in the retirement home, and then leaves while gaining a friend in the process. Tandy delivers a fine performance, one that doesn't wow you or win awards, but makes you glad to have seen it.
Another mixed batch of nominees. Some really bad ones and some that I enjoyed, though not profusely. The bottom two are both meh to bad, I guess depending on how I'm feeling and how recently I watched their films. I wanted to put Ladd last but she is at least in the film and doing things that's relevant to the plot unlike Nelligan who is around briefly and if she weren't in the film, wouldn't be missed. I would rather watch The Prince of Tides over Rambling Rose 100 out of 100 times, however. I can't believe a film like Ladd's was loved. Squarely in the middle is Tandy. She's entertaining and gives a good performance. She had already won an Oscar so this was just more icing on the cake for her. Then we get to Ruehl and Lewis. I can understand why Ruehl was given the Oscar based off this group. It was clearly between her and Lewis and Ruehl has the more mature performance. She probably had more voters backing her due to rep in the industry, I really don't know, but that's my guess. She's good and I'm fine with her win but I did like Lewis a lot more. So for me, the easy choice was Lewis because I thought she brought a lot more to her film than Ruehl. Definitely looking for more like the top 3 and less like the bottom 2, which seems to be the pattern lately.
Oscar Winner: Mercedes Ruehl - The Fisher King
My Winner: Juliette Lewis - Cape Fear
Mercedes Ruehl
Jessica Tandy
Diane Ladd
Kate Nelligan
1991 Best Supporting Actress
Mercedes Ruehl - The Fisher King
I was super interested in watching this film and performance because of two things: first being that I didn't know this actress at all and here she is winning an Oscar, and second being that it's a Terry Gilliam film. That man has made some of the most visually astounding films like Brazil, Time Bandits, Monty Python, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and The Zero Theorem. He's got great style and I'm glad it's put to good use here as well. But this review is about Mercedes Ruehl who plays the girlfriend of Jeff Bridges. She's a very New York woman with a thick accent and tough, take no shit demeanor. She runs a video store and helps Bridges get Williams and his crush together. She's sincere and genuine and very supportive of her boyfriend and of Williams. If she wasn't the winner, I would have said that she got nominated by riding the coattails of Williams. Honestly, while watching her performance I didn't see exactly what made it a winner. I'm still a bit confused about it other than it's a very capable performance. She's very likable and sweet while also being a bit of a force whenever she's onscreen. I'd say that's the plus of Ruehl is that she makes you pay attention to her even though she is a textbook Supporting character. She definitely helps the scenes she's in and actually stands out a bit more than other supporting characters do but I'll have to watch the rest of this group to see if she was the only real choice.
Diane Ladd - Rambling Rose
Ehhh. That pretty much sums up this performance. Ladd is okay, but the film is beyond awful. This might truly be one of the few films I unequivocally hate as a film. The performances are what they are. I don't think it deserved two acting nominations at all because neither inspire much of anything in me, though. It's a very weird film about a poor girl who is essentially a big slut who loves attention from men and plays innocent and coy like she's a child but she knows full well what she's doing. She moves in with a very odd, eccentric family as their helper and issues surround the woman ensue. Ladd plays the mother of the house who is a space cadet (not literally) and just a strange, strange woman. She's trying to get her PhD from school and is partially deaf and talks very matter of factly with her kids about everything. She's just a very odd duck and not in a way that is memorable or cute or funny or Oscar worthy. It's just in a way that's somewhat unsettling. And that's the thing for the performance is that sure, Ladd is good at being kinda creepy but I don't think that's what the character or Ladd was meant to be like at all. I think the main reason both Dern and Ladd are nominated is because they are mother and daughter in real life. I think the Academy really liked that synergy and wanted to nominate them both for the same movie and did. I also think that Dern got it because of that reason and because they wanted to build up her star power. The film, though, is so bad that I never want to watch it again. It makes no sense and it's got such a creepy vibe that I can't see very many people liking this one.
Juliette Lewis - Cape Fear
Sometimes I read about a film or performance before watching it to get a good idea of what I'm in for. Now, I've gone on and on about that in my previous blogs about whether I should or should not read reviews and criticisms. I'm fine with gauging whether or not I'm going to like something or not. I didn't expect much from Lewis in this performance but I'll say I was pleasantly surprised. I read how others thought her character was annoying, which I can understand. But I think that she captures what a teenager is in her performance. She's carefree and gullible. She is enamored with what she perceives as positive attention from the villain Max Cady and essentially forms a crush on him. Lewis sells all of that as being realistic for her character. It is utterly believable. Even if you find it annoying or frustrating because she falls for the bad guy in a juvenile way, it's still authentic and natural. She is a fully formed character which has been hard to find lately in this category. And that's all thanks to Lewis who portrays her character with a lot of maturity in her acting ability while still being the ditzy, goofy, malleable teenager. By that I mean, she was about 17-18 when this was filmed but seems much older as an actress with the choices she makes and the way she interacts with everyone else. Lewis surprised me with how interesting she made her character out to be. Lewis is a very good supporting character and will be hard to beat as of right now.
Kate Nelligan - The Prince of Tides
Ugh, this movie. This is just not a good movie and not something I would ever seek out on my own. The conceit isn't very interesting and I'm not a Streisand fan so watching this was brutal. Watching this performance was no fun, either. Nelligan plays a sort of dual role. She plays the mother of Nick Nolte, both when he was a young boy and when he was an adult (and therefore actually Nick Nolte and not a child actor). Thing is, Nelligan is 9 years younger than Nolte and is playing his mother in this movie. Even though Nelligan has been gussied up to look older, she still doesn't really look older. A minor quibble, no doubt, but there's not a whole lot to the performance so when she doesn't quite look old enough it becomes a bigger issue. I guess the main thing the performance has going for it is that Nelligan's character gives her abusive husband some crap (or dog food) right back. She doesn't really have much presence when she is portraying the older version of Nolte's mother. She bickers with Nolte and the relationship is obviously strained by events years earlier but that's about it. There's no impact from this character and only a minor impact from the younger version of the mother. She's at least a bit more memorable in those scenes but I don't think anywhere near enough to warrant an Oscar nomination. This is a very forgettable performance.
Jessica Tandy - Fried Green Tomatoes
Not much to this nomination. It's a veteran one, but shockingly one I don't really mind being here. I've railed in the past about veteran nominations not being worthy and taking spots from more deserving actors and being a general waste of everyone's time but I'm fine with Tandy getting another one here. She was still in the grace period after her Best Actress win a couple years prior that she could get nominated for pretty much anything. Now in this film she plays an old woman at a retirement center that meets Kathy Bates and regales her with stories of her youth. It's never explicitly said if she is Idgie but you gather that she either is or is related to her in some way. She tells tales of Idgie and Ruth who are lifelong friends and go through all kinds of trials and tribulations - literally. Tandy narrates these stories and comes off as a kooky, fun old lady who shows up at one point with purple hair and is excited to have someone to talk to. I think Tandy is perfectly Supporting, bringing enough to the role that you enjoy watching and listening to her. That's certainly better than some other performances in this category where I either can't stand them or don't see the point. The point here is that Tandy can be entertaining even in her older years. She even has a small arc which a lot of supporting players don't ever get: we met her, see she's kind of miserable in the retirement home, and then leaves while gaining a friend in the process. Tandy delivers a fine performance, one that doesn't wow you or win awards, but makes you glad to have seen it.
Another mixed batch of nominees. Some really bad ones and some that I enjoyed, though not profusely. The bottom two are both meh to bad, I guess depending on how I'm feeling and how recently I watched their films. I wanted to put Ladd last but she is at least in the film and doing things that's relevant to the plot unlike Nelligan who is around briefly and if she weren't in the film, wouldn't be missed. I would rather watch The Prince of Tides over Rambling Rose 100 out of 100 times, however. I can't believe a film like Ladd's was loved. Squarely in the middle is Tandy. She's entertaining and gives a good performance. She had already won an Oscar so this was just more icing on the cake for her. Then we get to Ruehl and Lewis. I can understand why Ruehl was given the Oscar based off this group. It was clearly between her and Lewis and Ruehl has the more mature performance. She probably had more voters backing her due to rep in the industry, I really don't know, but that's my guess. She's good and I'm fine with her win but I did like Lewis a lot more. So for me, the easy choice was Lewis because I thought she brought a lot more to her film than Ruehl. Definitely looking for more like the top 3 and less like the bottom 2, which seems to be the pattern lately.
Oscar Winner: Mercedes Ruehl - The Fisher King
My Winner: Juliette Lewis - Cape Fear
Mercedes Ruehl
Jessica Tandy
Diane Ladd
Kate Nelligan
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Best Picture 1992
Finally bringing this year to a close. I feel like I've been doing this year for months and months. It's always nice to bring a year to a close and move on. I'm almost to the 80s which is a huge milestone whenever I hit it. On paper, this doesn't look like too bad of a group with some very recognizable and strong films. I'll have to see if that holds up as true!
1992 Best Picture
Unforgiven
This was kind of the no brainer winner for 1992. Look at the rest of this group and what are you going to take? Maybe Howards End but that wouldn't have held up as a good winner. Unforgiven was your winner from the beginning because it's honestly a damn good film. If you haven't seen it by now, go do that and then come back. It's essentially a dark, more realistic portrayal of life in the west or at least in a Western. It sort of turns everything that's typical about the Western genre on it's head. The man who would have been the hero in the past is a complicated, nuanced, brutal depiction of a sheriff. That's Gene Hackman, who more than deserved his Oscar win. Then you've got Eastwood's character who is really a kind of villain but Eastwood makes himself into a hero of sorts by the end, which is the main thing I dislike about the film. That's a minor thing, though, as the rest of the film is so interesting and evocative that it's a great Best Picture winner. As I said in the other reviews for this film, it is essentially a scathing take on the brutality of violence - even violence perpetrated by the so-called good guys. It's not romantic or idealistic or something to chuckle at; it's violence and murder and mayhem through and through. That's what I really love about this film is how it shines a light on all the hypocrisy of other Western films when it comes to the wanton killing and violence. I think it's a provocative message even if Eastwood and the writer say it wasn't their outright intent. It's great when a film can make you think about something like that without beating you over the head with the message at every chance. The acting is all pretty good, though Eastwood isn't my favorite. The scenes are wonderfully shot and the film has a very brisk pace that's nice to see when there are so many meandering, slow films that confuse length with quality. It's a really great ode to the end of the Westerns (at least at that time) and a really great Oscar winner.
The Crying Game
As I will say for the other nominees from this film, you should definitely watch this film first before reading anything about it because it will get spoiled for you and going in blind will allow for the moment to have a bigger impact when you don't know it's coming. And that's sort of the crux of this film. It has this big moment that is pretty shocking by even today's standards that throws the film into a different light so to speak. It makes the film about more than just an IRA member on the lam falling in love. It starts off with Forest Whitaker being kidnapped by some IRA members in hopes they can free a fellow prisoner. Big issue here is that Whitaker's accent is beyond god awful. I don't know why they couldn't find someone else to play the part because his terrible accent is very distracting. Not much happens for the first 35-40 minutes as Stephen Rea and Whitaker start to bond a little and then there's an escape attempt where Whitaker is killed and the IRA hideout is blown up. Rea flees to England and meets up with Whitaker's girl to tell her what happened but he instead falls in love with her and they date and then when about to have sex, the woman reveals her penis in full view to us. A big shocking twist of a moment that is supposed to make you question notions of love and all that. But this is really all the film has going for it. The IRA stuff is generic and boring. But the transgender reveal is a big deal and transforms the film from being by the numbers Irish-British drama to something entirely different. Except I don't think the impact lasts long enough to sustain the rest of the film. It's still mostly boring and once the film moves on from it's big reveal it goes back to being uninteresting for the most part. Rea and Davidson get back together and the IRA members find Rea and make him join a plot to kill some judge and Davidson explodes in anger and kills Miranda Richardson. It's all over the place at the end but still doesn't feel like an important Oscar film, regardless of it's shocking moment and use of a transgender character. I'm thinking that's partially why it was nominated here, that and the fact that films about Irish issues seemed to be the big rage in the early 90s. After hearing about this for awhile, I was expecting more of a classic instead of a dud. But I guess that's why you have to watch the films for yourself and form your own opinion about them.
A Few Good Men
Not going to lie, I've got a soft spot for these types of films. They are purely entertaining and not important as say a Schindler's List, but still enjoyable all the same. Like in 1993 with The Fugitive or Babe in 1995, there are those popular, entertaining, popcorn flicks that deliver an enjoyable movie watching experience. Not all make it to Oscar, of course, but I'm fine with the ones that do. I'd also probably be okay with Die Hard making it on the Best Picture list but that's another discussion. Now, don't get me wrong, this film has it's fair share of flaws but it is highly entertaining and nowhere near actual Best Picture winner worthy. So I feel like being really harsh about the film is somewhat pointless. Cruise is a little too polished and douche bro-y in the beginning before he settles into being super awesome lawyer guy. Nicholson is the typical bad guy but elevates the character with his performance. Demi Moore is the hard ass, take me seriously, eye candy who is a smart lawyer that gains everyone's respect by the end. The fun is watching them all go toe to toe and butt heads and flex their acting muscles. The story is fun and interesting as most courtroom dramas are because you spend your time trying to figure out how one side is going to win the case in the final hour. Which for this film is probably my biggest issue. If the story had let everything play out and then showing Cruise tripping up Nicholson in court and catching him in a lie, the effect would have been much more powerful. Instead, we got the tactic force fed to us in case we didn't understand what was going on, I guess. It was lazy, needlessly expository writing. The writing, by the way, came from Aaron Sorkin which I didn't realize until after I watched it again and looked it up but makes sense with it's snappy, polished feel. The best scenes are of course the courtroom scenes where Cruise and Nicholson bring their star power to a boiling point. It's a good film, I'm fine with it being nominated knowing it wasn't ever going to win, and it's something I can enjoy without using too much of my brain and thinking too hard about - a win all around.
Howards End
Always been interested in seeing if these Merchant-Ivory films were as good or as bad as people talk them up to be. Some people loathe these British films while some other people say they watch whichever one at least once a week/month. I've been fine with all the Merchant-Ivory films I've encountered so far, firmly in the middle with them. This film started out so promising that I was left wondering what the hell happened by the end. Seriously, the film starts out so interesting with the music and the shot of Vanessa Redgrave walking in a field. The characters are compelling and I want to find out more about them (Redgrave's character, for example), the direction is lively and fresh feeling, and the promises of class intrigue are numerous. But then after the beginning Redgrave's character exits the film and we start to get the stale, stuffy British class film you might expect. So for me, Howards End was a tale of two films. I was impressed with the first part and was hoping that the modern take on class struggles was going to be the entire film. Alas, the second part takes over where there is too much people sitting around talking and familial issues than what the first part led me to believe I'd be getting as far as the story goes. The lively direction is gone, in favor of boring shots of interiors and all that. The intrigue as to what is going to happen with all the different social classes interacting is gone, since the payoff was nowhere near exciting enough. I feel like Howards End could have been such a great, memorable film instead of a film that starts off exciting before turning back to the stale, stuff classical type of film we are used to seeing. I think if done today by say a Joe Wright or someone like that, this film could be electric and dazzling. It has the potential to be really interesting with all of the interplay of the social classes and whatnot. I would categorize this film as a let down for me, personally. The sad thing is that it legitimately feels like what the Academy would and should nominate for Best Picture back then. They love their big British prestige classic literature films. It's nice to have finally watched this film and I understand it's nomination but it won't be part of my consideration for the winner this year.
Scent of a Woman
Having read the Inside Oscar entry for 1992, this was never really a consideration even for Best Picture until it for some reason hit with the Golden Globes people. We all know they are star fuckers and for some reason can dictate what people in the Academy think based off of their choices which is ludicrous because they are like 45 shadow people controlling big developments in the Oscar pantheon, essentially. This had no traction before the Golden Globes and then built up steam to a surprise nomination. It's not that good of a film, though, so let's settle that right away. Al Pacino's win is a make up for his career and nothing else. The film is centered on a loud, abrasive, asshole Pacino who is a blind, ex-Army officer who wants to off himself. He enlists the care of Chris O'Donnell's insufferable, shitty, meek college kid and the two go off to New York City. I would say there is really a love-hate relationship with Pacino's performance but I think most sane people see it for what it is and hate or dislike it. Disliking it means what else are you left with? The film is too long for it's own good. Needs to be pared down by maybe an hour to really be effective. The college stuff is just so boring and cheesy and inconsequential. It's all set up so that we can have the big Pacino speech at the end to sway how we feel about him as not being such an asshole. There are some scenes that do resonate and stick out because of their tenderness like the tango scene which I do think is well done, even if a bit shoehorned in. The music is good but then you realize it was further developed into the great, transcendent scores for American Beauty and Shawshank Redemption (Thomas Newman really deserves an Oscar after 13 nominations). It's overall not the most compelling argument for a Best Picture nomination. Besides Pacino, there's just not much left to really enjoy.
This really not that bad of a Best Picture group. It's not strong, mind you, but not terrible. I'd quickly get rid of The Crying Game in favor of Glengarry Glen Ross because that film is flat out brilliant. I just feel like The Crying Game gets in on the basis of it's big reveal. Once you know it, there's not much to the film. Scent of a Woman is not very good either, buoyed mostly by Pacino. It's just very one note and not too interesting. Anything would probably have been better suited for this group. Then we get Howards End, which is actually a pretty good period piece Merchant-Ivory drama. It's watchable and fits the Oscar mold snugly so right in the middle is a perfect place for it. A Few Good Men is second purely because it's entertaining and a fun watch. It's not a masterpiece but you could do far worse for a BP nomination. The easy, undisputed winner is Unforgiven. It's a classic and something you can watch over and over without getting sick of it and holds up as a strong BP winner. Like I said not bad but not the best. A good middle of the road group with a great winner.
Oscar Winner: Unforgiven
My Winner: Unforgiven
A Few Good Men
Howards End
Scent of a Woman
The Crying Game
1992 Best Picture
Unforgiven
This was kind of the no brainer winner for 1992. Look at the rest of this group and what are you going to take? Maybe Howards End but that wouldn't have held up as a good winner. Unforgiven was your winner from the beginning because it's honestly a damn good film. If you haven't seen it by now, go do that and then come back. It's essentially a dark, more realistic portrayal of life in the west or at least in a Western. It sort of turns everything that's typical about the Western genre on it's head. The man who would have been the hero in the past is a complicated, nuanced, brutal depiction of a sheriff. That's Gene Hackman, who more than deserved his Oscar win. Then you've got Eastwood's character who is really a kind of villain but Eastwood makes himself into a hero of sorts by the end, which is the main thing I dislike about the film. That's a minor thing, though, as the rest of the film is so interesting and evocative that it's a great Best Picture winner. As I said in the other reviews for this film, it is essentially a scathing take on the brutality of violence - even violence perpetrated by the so-called good guys. It's not romantic or idealistic or something to chuckle at; it's violence and murder and mayhem through and through. That's what I really love about this film is how it shines a light on all the hypocrisy of other Western films when it comes to the wanton killing and violence. I think it's a provocative message even if Eastwood and the writer say it wasn't their outright intent. It's great when a film can make you think about something like that without beating you over the head with the message at every chance. The acting is all pretty good, though Eastwood isn't my favorite. The scenes are wonderfully shot and the film has a very brisk pace that's nice to see when there are so many meandering, slow films that confuse length with quality. It's a really great ode to the end of the Westerns (at least at that time) and a really great Oscar winner.
The Crying Game
As I will say for the other nominees from this film, you should definitely watch this film first before reading anything about it because it will get spoiled for you and going in blind will allow for the moment to have a bigger impact when you don't know it's coming. And that's sort of the crux of this film. It has this big moment that is pretty shocking by even today's standards that throws the film into a different light so to speak. It makes the film about more than just an IRA member on the lam falling in love. It starts off with Forest Whitaker being kidnapped by some IRA members in hopes they can free a fellow prisoner. Big issue here is that Whitaker's accent is beyond god awful. I don't know why they couldn't find someone else to play the part because his terrible accent is very distracting. Not much happens for the first 35-40 minutes as Stephen Rea and Whitaker start to bond a little and then there's an escape attempt where Whitaker is killed and the IRA hideout is blown up. Rea flees to England and meets up with Whitaker's girl to tell her what happened but he instead falls in love with her and they date and then when about to have sex, the woman reveals her penis in full view to us. A big shocking twist of a moment that is supposed to make you question notions of love and all that. But this is really all the film has going for it. The IRA stuff is generic and boring. But the transgender reveal is a big deal and transforms the film from being by the numbers Irish-British drama to something entirely different. Except I don't think the impact lasts long enough to sustain the rest of the film. It's still mostly boring and once the film moves on from it's big reveal it goes back to being uninteresting for the most part. Rea and Davidson get back together and the IRA members find Rea and make him join a plot to kill some judge and Davidson explodes in anger and kills Miranda Richardson. It's all over the place at the end but still doesn't feel like an important Oscar film, regardless of it's shocking moment and use of a transgender character. I'm thinking that's partially why it was nominated here, that and the fact that films about Irish issues seemed to be the big rage in the early 90s. After hearing about this for awhile, I was expecting more of a classic instead of a dud. But I guess that's why you have to watch the films for yourself and form your own opinion about them.
A Few Good Men
Not going to lie, I've got a soft spot for these types of films. They are purely entertaining and not important as say a Schindler's List, but still enjoyable all the same. Like in 1993 with The Fugitive or Babe in 1995, there are those popular, entertaining, popcorn flicks that deliver an enjoyable movie watching experience. Not all make it to Oscar, of course, but I'm fine with the ones that do. I'd also probably be okay with Die Hard making it on the Best Picture list but that's another discussion. Now, don't get me wrong, this film has it's fair share of flaws but it is highly entertaining and nowhere near actual Best Picture winner worthy. So I feel like being really harsh about the film is somewhat pointless. Cruise is a little too polished and douche bro-y in the beginning before he settles into being super awesome lawyer guy. Nicholson is the typical bad guy but elevates the character with his performance. Demi Moore is the hard ass, take me seriously, eye candy who is a smart lawyer that gains everyone's respect by the end. The fun is watching them all go toe to toe and butt heads and flex their acting muscles. The story is fun and interesting as most courtroom dramas are because you spend your time trying to figure out how one side is going to win the case in the final hour. Which for this film is probably my biggest issue. If the story had let everything play out and then showing Cruise tripping up Nicholson in court and catching him in a lie, the effect would have been much more powerful. Instead, we got the tactic force fed to us in case we didn't understand what was going on, I guess. It was lazy, needlessly expository writing. The writing, by the way, came from Aaron Sorkin which I didn't realize until after I watched it again and looked it up but makes sense with it's snappy, polished feel. The best scenes are of course the courtroom scenes where Cruise and Nicholson bring their star power to a boiling point. It's a good film, I'm fine with it being nominated knowing it wasn't ever going to win, and it's something I can enjoy without using too much of my brain and thinking too hard about - a win all around.
Howards End
Always been interested in seeing if these Merchant-Ivory films were as good or as bad as people talk them up to be. Some people loathe these British films while some other people say they watch whichever one at least once a week/month. I've been fine with all the Merchant-Ivory films I've encountered so far, firmly in the middle with them. This film started out so promising that I was left wondering what the hell happened by the end. Seriously, the film starts out so interesting with the music and the shot of Vanessa Redgrave walking in a field. The characters are compelling and I want to find out more about them (Redgrave's character, for example), the direction is lively and fresh feeling, and the promises of class intrigue are numerous. But then after the beginning Redgrave's character exits the film and we start to get the stale, stuffy British class film you might expect. So for me, Howards End was a tale of two films. I was impressed with the first part and was hoping that the modern take on class struggles was going to be the entire film. Alas, the second part takes over where there is too much people sitting around talking and familial issues than what the first part led me to believe I'd be getting as far as the story goes. The lively direction is gone, in favor of boring shots of interiors and all that. The intrigue as to what is going to happen with all the different social classes interacting is gone, since the payoff was nowhere near exciting enough. I feel like Howards End could have been such a great, memorable film instead of a film that starts off exciting before turning back to the stale, stuff classical type of film we are used to seeing. I think if done today by say a Joe Wright or someone like that, this film could be electric and dazzling. It has the potential to be really interesting with all of the interplay of the social classes and whatnot. I would categorize this film as a let down for me, personally. The sad thing is that it legitimately feels like what the Academy would and should nominate for Best Picture back then. They love their big British prestige classic literature films. It's nice to have finally watched this film and I understand it's nomination but it won't be part of my consideration for the winner this year.
Scent of a Woman
Having read the Inside Oscar entry for 1992, this was never really a consideration even for Best Picture until it for some reason hit with the Golden Globes people. We all know they are star fuckers and for some reason can dictate what people in the Academy think based off of their choices which is ludicrous because they are like 45 shadow people controlling big developments in the Oscar pantheon, essentially. This had no traction before the Golden Globes and then built up steam to a surprise nomination. It's not that good of a film, though, so let's settle that right away. Al Pacino's win is a make up for his career and nothing else. The film is centered on a loud, abrasive, asshole Pacino who is a blind, ex-Army officer who wants to off himself. He enlists the care of Chris O'Donnell's insufferable, shitty, meek college kid and the two go off to New York City. I would say there is really a love-hate relationship with Pacino's performance but I think most sane people see it for what it is and hate or dislike it. Disliking it means what else are you left with? The film is too long for it's own good. Needs to be pared down by maybe an hour to really be effective. The college stuff is just so boring and cheesy and inconsequential. It's all set up so that we can have the big Pacino speech at the end to sway how we feel about him as not being such an asshole. There are some scenes that do resonate and stick out because of their tenderness like the tango scene which I do think is well done, even if a bit shoehorned in. The music is good but then you realize it was further developed into the great, transcendent scores for American Beauty and Shawshank Redemption (Thomas Newman really deserves an Oscar after 13 nominations). It's overall not the most compelling argument for a Best Picture nomination. Besides Pacino, there's just not much left to really enjoy.
This really not that bad of a Best Picture group. It's not strong, mind you, but not terrible. I'd quickly get rid of The Crying Game in favor of Glengarry Glen Ross because that film is flat out brilliant. I just feel like The Crying Game gets in on the basis of it's big reveal. Once you know it, there's not much to the film. Scent of a Woman is not very good either, buoyed mostly by Pacino. It's just very one note and not too interesting. Anything would probably have been better suited for this group. Then we get Howards End, which is actually a pretty good period piece Merchant-Ivory drama. It's watchable and fits the Oscar mold snugly so right in the middle is a perfect place for it. A Few Good Men is second purely because it's entertaining and a fun watch. It's not a masterpiece but you could do far worse for a BP nomination. The easy, undisputed winner is Unforgiven. It's a classic and something you can watch over and over without getting sick of it and holds up as a strong BP winner. Like I said not bad but not the best. A good middle of the road group with a great winner.
Oscar Winner: Unforgiven
My Winner: Unforgiven
A Few Good Men
Howards End
Scent of a Woman
The Crying Game
Leading Actor 1992
One thing about the Leading categories is that there's a whole lot of biopic performances. Sometimes that's awesome because you get some memorable characters and films. Other times you've got to sit through an overly long, bloated mess that is more of an actor showcase instead of a bonafide in depth look at an interesting person. I know we've got 2 here, one of which I've already seen, but it's something I've noted as I've gone through the years. I will say I enjoy completely new characters a lot more than biopic ones. I'm very interested to see which side Downey's performance falls on though.
1992 Best Actor
Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
Al Pacino's Oscar win. Nope, it's not for The Godfather Part II or Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface or a couple of his later big films. No, it's for Scent of a Woman, the performance and role that everyone says was an Oscar grab and a make up for all his years of great work that went unrewarded. That's what everyone always first says about this win, that it's a make up and not really worthy. How would you like to be Al Pacino and have your win somewhat tarnished by the fact that most people don't think it's very legit? I mean, I doubt he cares very much but the fact that his win is seen as being for an inferior performance is telling. How exactly is his performance in this film? Well, it's loud and it's brash and it's pervy and it's unapologetic. Pacino plays a blind, retired Army LTC (Lieutenant Colonel for you non-Army folk) who wants a big, glorious weekend before he goes out with a bang. Pacino's character is quite funny at times with his comebacks and non-sequiturs, but the man never shuts the hell up and his shtick becomes quite grating. There's times where you might agree with his win and other times where you curse whoever decided to nominate him. That's how polarizing his character can be in the same scene, even. Most everyone who encounters him feels the same way until we are made to think he's this great, misunderstood guy because he defends Chris O'Donnell in a big ending scene and teaches him how to be a man throughout. It's just one big display for Pacino who gets to yell and say Hooah! a lot and talk about pussy (which take another look at the title of the film) and be a general creep and asshole. He knows it and wants to kill himself though O'Donnell persuades him not to do so. It's a mostly one note performance that doesn't have much subtlety. He drops his accent at random times, the yelling scenes channel too much of his previous characters, he just goes over the top for a lot of the performance. There are a couple times where Pacino tones it down and comes off charming or at least offers more depth to the character like the tango scene. All of that is overshadowed by his overall loud performance and is why this is seen as just a make up Oscar and not a truly deserved Oscar. His Supporting Actor role is much more deserving to me of getting an Oscar than this one, honestly. I think this really does hold to the notion that it's a make up Oscar which is kinda sad because it's a good performance in its own way! It takes a Pacino to pull off this character and not make him completely insufferable. It's just also not what I would consider the best of this year.
Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
I honestly didn't know what to expect going into this film because absolutely no one ever talks about Chaplin or Downey's performance. I've heard he's good and the film is only okay but that's really about it for what should be a very big biopic about a Hollywood icon. Nowadays, not a peep. So I guess you could say my expectations were a bit tempered which might be a good thing for the film overall, but Downey's performance doesn't need tempered expectations to be qualified as really flipping good. He is spot on as Chaplin the entertainer, I mean spot on. He's got the moves down like he's the one who created them. He's effortless in this part even though I'm sure it took a great deal of effort to perfect. Put Downey and Chaplin up against each other in black and white and you may have trouble figuring out which is the real Chaplin. Yeah, that's a bit of overstuffed praise but he's that good in those acrobatic, vaudevillian moments. It's also a lot of fun to watch and made me want to go watch some Chaplin films myself. Downey is tremendous in this part and it's very hard to argue that he's not worthy of a possible win here. It's not imitation, it's pure respect. I'd say where the film lets Downey down at is in getting to know the real Charles Chaplin, getting into his mind. Downey plays these serious moments just fine but they don't quite delve into who Chaplin is and so Downey doesn't get to work that side of his Chaplin much. We breeze through all the women in Chaplin's life but never feel connected to them or feel their importance in Chaplin's life. I would have been more interested in seeing how his feelings about his mother transformed his work and life and relationships but we didn't get that. So Downey flits around being charming and then serious and then charming again without much deep introspection or explanation for his motives. Downey also portrays Chaplin in his much older years and this is actually some very good acting, as well. I think Downey gets a lot out of being dressed up in old age make up than just looking the part. He brings some genuine feeling to the role and a bit of the introspection I wish was in the younger parts. This could have also been done more in depth, too, but it's a step in the right direction. Downey shows off his ability to do many different things with this complicated role and I'm very glad he was nominated here. Now if only people could remember he existed as an actor before Iron Man.
Clint Eastwood - Unforgiven
I feel like this nomination came along for the ride because the Academy was so enamored with the film itself. They loved it as evidenced by its Best Picture win and loved Eastwood as evidenced by his Best Director win and nomination here. He was the darling of the moment and finally delivered a film that he directed that connected with a wide audience after a smattering of kudos for some smaller films he directed previously. I think the Academy was just itching to nominate him for acting and were finally able to do so and this is the result. I don't think Eastwood stands out all that much here. He's good and competent and very Western, as he should be with his history. But his arc, character, and role are all pretty basic. He plays a retired bandit and killer who wants to live out his days on a pig farm with his kids and no trouble. He is convinced to take out some cowboys who roughed up some whores for some money and the film grows from their to become more than just a simple retaliation/revenge tale. Eastwood is still seen as the hero even if he's an antihero for much of the film and has a lot of the meatier parts. He gets his butt kicked and is injured yet heals up quick and then gets revenge for his partner who is killed but quite easily killing a room full of guys without a scratch and returning to his old ways but not really coming off as bad to the viewer. The film's theme is really about the brutality and reality of life in the West and how the killing isn't noble or romantic, yet Eastwood's character comes across as being just that. I don't know if Eastwood couldn't keep himself from not being the big, sympathetic hero even under complicated circumstances but it's a bad look for the film. Luckily, the film is strong enough to not really be affected by Eastwood's choices but imagine if we didn't really endear ourselves to his William Munny. The film would have been even stronger. The other characters get the lamentation of age and reputation and their own history right in a way that Eastwood doesn't. I just wish Eastwood would have played it a little more realistically and not like one of his previous action movies. Having Munny really struggle with returning to being a bad guy would have made the film even stronger. Thankfully, Unforgiven is good enough to not suffer from Eastwood's acting choices.
Stephen Rea - The Crying Game
Again I will say you should probably go watch this film before reading anything about it, whether here or anywhere else, because it will be spoiled for you and it will lessen the impact of the spoiling scene in question. I'll also say again that I'm not a big fan of this film and don't understand it's inclusion for Best Picture. I understand that it has a big moment that probably shocked viewers back then as it still does today, but it's just one moment. With all that said, I was completely underwhelmed with Stephen Rea's performance as a whole. I'd describe it as tepid, honestly. It doesn't motivate or interest me all that much and I feel like a Best Actor nominee should bring something to the table for me to point to and say aha! that's why it's an Oscar nominated performance. There's nothing I can point to in Rea's performance that does that. Rea plays an IRA member who helps kidnap Forest Whitaker, a British soldier and becomes a bit chummy with him while guarding him. There's an escape attempt that doesn't end up well for Whitaker and the IRA members and Rea eventually flees to England to hide out and meet up with a girl Whitaker liked/loved/whatever. Rea wants to tell her what happened but falls for her before that happens and then we get the big twist that Dil, the woman, is actually a man. Rea is revolted but still kinda likes her and they continue to hang out until the IRA finds him again and force him to help kill a judge. That all sounds very exciting but Rea's character never really has the heart for being an IRA extremist, seemingly just along for the ride - much like Rea is only along for the ride while his character does all the work if that makes sense. By that I mean, instead of Rea owning the character, the character owns him and he ends up reacting to various things and not standing out very much. He's chummy but boring with Whitaker, then shy and feeble with Dil, then ordered around by the IRA members and Dil even to some extent. And while that may be the way the character is and Rea is just portraying him as he should, it never excites me or moves me as a viewer. I was left thinking why this unenthusiastic performance was nominated. Strip away the big shocking moments and does the performance and film still feel Oscar worthy? The answer to me is no. Rea's performance just simply isn't good enough for me.
Denzel Washington - Malcolm X
This was the last thing I watched and reviewed for this year. I wasn't too excited about watching a three and a half hour Spike Lee film that I've already seen twice before but I powered through. It was actually a bit quicker paced than I remembered but it's still a bloated mess of a film. That's all due to Spike Lee wanting to create an epic about a pivotal figure in Black History but Denzel is fine at the titular character. But that's the thing about his performance for me. It's good, it's solid, it's fine - it just doesn't resonate with me on any emotional level. It's not something that really wowed me yet I know is a proficient performance. Denzel has the tough job of being on screen for pretty much all of the three and a half hours but never wears out his welcome. Yes, there are times where it feels we are moving in circles when it comes to the story and not exactly gleaming anything new from Malcolm but that's mostly the problem of Spike Lee. Better editing may have made Denzel's performance hit harder and resonate more for me. His performance also gets better as the film progresses through Malcolm's life, which seems only natural. In the beginning he plays a two bit, though charismatic, criminal doing drugs and sleeping with white women. You might call it a loud portrayal in the early goings but the character and the story calls for it. Denzel is fine, though I don't feel the film does him any favors here. As we go through Malcolm's life in prison and his radicalization after getting out, Denzel shines. It's a very serious role and Denzel gives it the depth and nuance it deserves. It's great acting and I wish Lee would have focused more on the later aspects of Malcolm's life instead of giving himself screen time as Denzel's early buddy and spending too much time setting it all up. The end of the film where Malcolm walks around almost in a daze, seemingly at peace with what's inevitably going to happen to him is why I like Denzel as an actor. Sure, his over the top gangster stuff is fun to watch, but the subtle, quieter moments feel more rewarding. So overall, this is a performance that ramps up in intensity and quality as the film goes on. Hard for me to get too excited about this performance based on the early parts that are underwhelming but it's a decent take on Malcolm X by Denzel.
This is kind of a blah Best Actor group, honestly. And it starts with the winner at the top with Pacino. It's a career award that the Academy was itching to give him. I guess it's fine that it was this year where there really isn't any runaway winner. Everyone has their issues and faults. Rea is just kinda there in a film that's mostly about a twist. Eastwood is okay but definitely not the best actor in his own film, too much of the Eastwood style. Pacino is just too much of the same over exaggerated mannerisms that wears thin in a film that's not all that great. Then it becomes a toss up of two actors whose films never let them realize their characters' full potential. They are half baked but still pretty tasty, maybe you can call it cookie dough performances. Denzal is solid but not amazing. Just a typical Denzel performance. Downey Jr is great in the physical aspects of Chaplin and is equally solid as Denzel, his film just doesn't allow him to dive deep into the man himself. With all that said, I think I'd give it to Downey Jr out of all of these because it's the one I liked the most. Simple as that.
Oscar Winner: Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
My Winner: Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
Denzel Washington
Al Pacino
Clint Eastwood
Stephen Rea
1992 Best Actor
Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
Al Pacino's Oscar win. Nope, it's not for The Godfather Part II or Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface or a couple of his later big films. No, it's for Scent of a Woman, the performance and role that everyone says was an Oscar grab and a make up for all his years of great work that went unrewarded. That's what everyone always first says about this win, that it's a make up and not really worthy. How would you like to be Al Pacino and have your win somewhat tarnished by the fact that most people don't think it's very legit? I mean, I doubt he cares very much but the fact that his win is seen as being for an inferior performance is telling. How exactly is his performance in this film? Well, it's loud and it's brash and it's pervy and it's unapologetic. Pacino plays a blind, retired Army LTC (Lieutenant Colonel for you non-Army folk) who wants a big, glorious weekend before he goes out with a bang. Pacino's character is quite funny at times with his comebacks and non-sequiturs, but the man never shuts the hell up and his shtick becomes quite grating. There's times where you might agree with his win and other times where you curse whoever decided to nominate him. That's how polarizing his character can be in the same scene, even. Most everyone who encounters him feels the same way until we are made to think he's this great, misunderstood guy because he defends Chris O'Donnell in a big ending scene and teaches him how to be a man throughout. It's just one big display for Pacino who gets to yell and say Hooah! a lot and talk about pussy (which take another look at the title of the film) and be a general creep and asshole. He knows it and wants to kill himself though O'Donnell persuades him not to do so. It's a mostly one note performance that doesn't have much subtlety. He drops his accent at random times, the yelling scenes channel too much of his previous characters, he just goes over the top for a lot of the performance. There are a couple times where Pacino tones it down and comes off charming or at least offers more depth to the character like the tango scene. All of that is overshadowed by his overall loud performance and is why this is seen as just a make up Oscar and not a truly deserved Oscar. His Supporting Actor role is much more deserving to me of getting an Oscar than this one, honestly. I think this really does hold to the notion that it's a make up Oscar which is kinda sad because it's a good performance in its own way! It takes a Pacino to pull off this character and not make him completely insufferable. It's just also not what I would consider the best of this year.
Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
I honestly didn't know what to expect going into this film because absolutely no one ever talks about Chaplin or Downey's performance. I've heard he's good and the film is only okay but that's really about it for what should be a very big biopic about a Hollywood icon. Nowadays, not a peep. So I guess you could say my expectations were a bit tempered which might be a good thing for the film overall, but Downey's performance doesn't need tempered expectations to be qualified as really flipping good. He is spot on as Chaplin the entertainer, I mean spot on. He's got the moves down like he's the one who created them. He's effortless in this part even though I'm sure it took a great deal of effort to perfect. Put Downey and Chaplin up against each other in black and white and you may have trouble figuring out which is the real Chaplin. Yeah, that's a bit of overstuffed praise but he's that good in those acrobatic, vaudevillian moments. It's also a lot of fun to watch and made me want to go watch some Chaplin films myself. Downey is tremendous in this part and it's very hard to argue that he's not worthy of a possible win here. It's not imitation, it's pure respect. I'd say where the film lets Downey down at is in getting to know the real Charles Chaplin, getting into his mind. Downey plays these serious moments just fine but they don't quite delve into who Chaplin is and so Downey doesn't get to work that side of his Chaplin much. We breeze through all the women in Chaplin's life but never feel connected to them or feel their importance in Chaplin's life. I would have been more interested in seeing how his feelings about his mother transformed his work and life and relationships but we didn't get that. So Downey flits around being charming and then serious and then charming again without much deep introspection or explanation for his motives. Downey also portrays Chaplin in his much older years and this is actually some very good acting, as well. I think Downey gets a lot out of being dressed up in old age make up than just looking the part. He brings some genuine feeling to the role and a bit of the introspection I wish was in the younger parts. This could have also been done more in depth, too, but it's a step in the right direction. Downey shows off his ability to do many different things with this complicated role and I'm very glad he was nominated here. Now if only people could remember he existed as an actor before Iron Man.
Clint Eastwood - Unforgiven
I feel like this nomination came along for the ride because the Academy was so enamored with the film itself. They loved it as evidenced by its Best Picture win and loved Eastwood as evidenced by his Best Director win and nomination here. He was the darling of the moment and finally delivered a film that he directed that connected with a wide audience after a smattering of kudos for some smaller films he directed previously. I think the Academy was just itching to nominate him for acting and were finally able to do so and this is the result. I don't think Eastwood stands out all that much here. He's good and competent and very Western, as he should be with his history. But his arc, character, and role are all pretty basic. He plays a retired bandit and killer who wants to live out his days on a pig farm with his kids and no trouble. He is convinced to take out some cowboys who roughed up some whores for some money and the film grows from their to become more than just a simple retaliation/revenge tale. Eastwood is still seen as the hero even if he's an antihero for much of the film and has a lot of the meatier parts. He gets his butt kicked and is injured yet heals up quick and then gets revenge for his partner who is killed but quite easily killing a room full of guys without a scratch and returning to his old ways but not really coming off as bad to the viewer. The film's theme is really about the brutality and reality of life in the West and how the killing isn't noble or romantic, yet Eastwood's character comes across as being just that. I don't know if Eastwood couldn't keep himself from not being the big, sympathetic hero even under complicated circumstances but it's a bad look for the film. Luckily, the film is strong enough to not really be affected by Eastwood's choices but imagine if we didn't really endear ourselves to his William Munny. The film would have been even stronger. The other characters get the lamentation of age and reputation and their own history right in a way that Eastwood doesn't. I just wish Eastwood would have played it a little more realistically and not like one of his previous action movies. Having Munny really struggle with returning to being a bad guy would have made the film even stronger. Thankfully, Unforgiven is good enough to not suffer from Eastwood's acting choices.
Stephen Rea - The Crying Game
Again I will say you should probably go watch this film before reading anything about it, whether here or anywhere else, because it will be spoiled for you and it will lessen the impact of the spoiling scene in question. I'll also say again that I'm not a big fan of this film and don't understand it's inclusion for Best Picture. I understand that it has a big moment that probably shocked viewers back then as it still does today, but it's just one moment. With all that said, I was completely underwhelmed with Stephen Rea's performance as a whole. I'd describe it as tepid, honestly. It doesn't motivate or interest me all that much and I feel like a Best Actor nominee should bring something to the table for me to point to and say aha! that's why it's an Oscar nominated performance. There's nothing I can point to in Rea's performance that does that. Rea plays an IRA member who helps kidnap Forest Whitaker, a British soldier and becomes a bit chummy with him while guarding him. There's an escape attempt that doesn't end up well for Whitaker and the IRA members and Rea eventually flees to England to hide out and meet up with a girl Whitaker liked/loved/whatever. Rea wants to tell her what happened but falls for her before that happens and then we get the big twist that Dil, the woman, is actually a man. Rea is revolted but still kinda likes her and they continue to hang out until the IRA finds him again and force him to help kill a judge. That all sounds very exciting but Rea's character never really has the heart for being an IRA extremist, seemingly just along for the ride - much like Rea is only along for the ride while his character does all the work if that makes sense. By that I mean, instead of Rea owning the character, the character owns him and he ends up reacting to various things and not standing out very much. He's chummy but boring with Whitaker, then shy and feeble with Dil, then ordered around by the IRA members and Dil even to some extent. And while that may be the way the character is and Rea is just portraying him as he should, it never excites me or moves me as a viewer. I was left thinking why this unenthusiastic performance was nominated. Strip away the big shocking moments and does the performance and film still feel Oscar worthy? The answer to me is no. Rea's performance just simply isn't good enough for me.
Denzel Washington - Malcolm X
This was the last thing I watched and reviewed for this year. I wasn't too excited about watching a three and a half hour Spike Lee film that I've already seen twice before but I powered through. It was actually a bit quicker paced than I remembered but it's still a bloated mess of a film. That's all due to Spike Lee wanting to create an epic about a pivotal figure in Black History but Denzel is fine at the titular character. But that's the thing about his performance for me. It's good, it's solid, it's fine - it just doesn't resonate with me on any emotional level. It's not something that really wowed me yet I know is a proficient performance. Denzel has the tough job of being on screen for pretty much all of the three and a half hours but never wears out his welcome. Yes, there are times where it feels we are moving in circles when it comes to the story and not exactly gleaming anything new from Malcolm but that's mostly the problem of Spike Lee. Better editing may have made Denzel's performance hit harder and resonate more for me. His performance also gets better as the film progresses through Malcolm's life, which seems only natural. In the beginning he plays a two bit, though charismatic, criminal doing drugs and sleeping with white women. You might call it a loud portrayal in the early goings but the character and the story calls for it. Denzel is fine, though I don't feel the film does him any favors here. As we go through Malcolm's life in prison and his radicalization after getting out, Denzel shines. It's a very serious role and Denzel gives it the depth and nuance it deserves. It's great acting and I wish Lee would have focused more on the later aspects of Malcolm's life instead of giving himself screen time as Denzel's early buddy and spending too much time setting it all up. The end of the film where Malcolm walks around almost in a daze, seemingly at peace with what's inevitably going to happen to him is why I like Denzel as an actor. Sure, his over the top gangster stuff is fun to watch, but the subtle, quieter moments feel more rewarding. So overall, this is a performance that ramps up in intensity and quality as the film goes on. Hard for me to get too excited about this performance based on the early parts that are underwhelming but it's a decent take on Malcolm X by Denzel.
This is kind of a blah Best Actor group, honestly. And it starts with the winner at the top with Pacino. It's a career award that the Academy was itching to give him. I guess it's fine that it was this year where there really isn't any runaway winner. Everyone has their issues and faults. Rea is just kinda there in a film that's mostly about a twist. Eastwood is okay but definitely not the best actor in his own film, too much of the Eastwood style. Pacino is just too much of the same over exaggerated mannerisms that wears thin in a film that's not all that great. Then it becomes a toss up of two actors whose films never let them realize their characters' full potential. They are half baked but still pretty tasty, maybe you can call it cookie dough performances. Denzal is solid but not amazing. Just a typical Denzel performance. Downey Jr is great in the physical aspects of Chaplin and is equally solid as Denzel, his film just doesn't allow him to dive deep into the man himself. With all that said, I think I'd give it to Downey Jr out of all of these because it's the one I liked the most. Simple as that.
Oscar Winner: Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
My Winner: Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
Denzel Washington
Al Pacino
Clint Eastwood
Stephen Rea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)