All season long this was Zellweger's with no one really coming close. Scarlett had an outside chance but the vibe was always for Renee. Honestly, the nominees aren't really all that exciting based off their films and this seems like a weak year for the category overall. But I say that having only seen Ronan, who I love, and the fact that there was no real race this year. Maybe these will surprise me but I've got to watch them to find out, so let's go.
2019 Best Actress
Renee Zellweger - Judy
All awards season this was the winner. The film came out with little fanfare and was in and out without getting much buzz for the film. Zellweger was touted as the only real highlight and even with her being the front runner it didn't seem to garner much enthusiasm. It was one of those years where it just felt like a foregone conclusion and no one thought twice about it. Zellweger played Judy Garland towards the end of her life when she went to London to put on some shows. This is a snapshot look at the end of her life and we see her as being down and destitute and going through divorce and not being able to stay with her kids. It's not really a happy film by any means and Zellweger plays that depressed, anxious, jaded role as well as she can. Zellweger has that boozy, medicated wobble down pat and the expressions on her face and in her eyes seem to match the dreariness of her soul. A lot of the praise for the performance was for Zellweger's singing ability, for which she trained for a year to learn the songs and get the voice down and be able to sing convincingly. Those are my favorite parts as I feel that's when Zellweger really becomes Judy and channels her spirit the most. But there are other times in the film where it does feel like Zellweger is playing Judy and being more focused on trying to look and mimic the part rather than really being Judy. Zellweger does do a good job of showing the desperation and exasperation that Judy feels towards the end of her life. She is fed up with everyone trying to take advantage of her and with things not quite going to plan and there are scenes where you can just feel that loneliness and pain. I'm not a big fan of the film overall but I do see what people loved so much about Zellweger's performance. It also helps that the Academy loves when they can reward themselves and vote for a Hollwood icon. It might also be some people just voting for Judy by proxy, wouldn't surprise me at all. But now Zellweger has her second Oscar and we can move on to next year where hopefully the crop of nominees is much better.
Cynthia Erivo - Harriet
Cynthia Erivo seemingly came out of nowhere, though she is a Tony Award winning actress. She's a British actress, which has rubbed some people the wrong way that an American wasn't chosen to play this pivotal African American woman in our nation's history. I get that complaint as maybe an American would take the role more to heart than someone else, but we had Daniel Day-Lewis play Abraham Lincoln and Meryl Streep play Margaret Thatcher. So what does it really matter who plays Harriet Tubman? It's the second year in a row that a Best Actress nominee was also nominated for Best Song which is pretty interesting. And Erivo will be playing Aretha Franklin in the future, so there's a lot going on for the only black acting nominee this year. She obviously plays the titular character and she does a good enough job. She grounds the film and helps relate Harriet to us, but make no doubt about it - this is a showcase for Erivo. She gets to sing and sometimes at moments you don't expect, ruining the immersion. She gets to play a sort of action hero as the bewildering ending has her in a semi shootout with her former owners son and a black bounty hunter. It's a strange way to end the film and the whole thing overall isn't very good. It mashes up some different ideas but is still just boilerplate biopic, which is a shame because this is one of the first movies ever about Harriet Tubman from what I understand. Erivo is the only reason to watch this film besides to learn a little more about Tubman but without Erivo this is a dud. Erivo is good in showing the former slave become this determined woman who wants to save as many people as she can. I just didn't like the scenes where she'd have visions and talk to God. It takes away from what Tubman actually did which is just as amazing and important if not more so than God supposedly telling someone what to do or getting them out of trouble. It's a bunch of hokum and I feel like if this film were in better hands that Erivo could have shined more and the film would have been better overall. Instead we get a mess with a singular performance keeping it afloat.
Scarlett Johansson - Marriage Story
The double nominee has a great time acting in this divorce flick. Noah Baumbach creates these films that are so New York usually but still echo as a universal truth. Maybe I should have saved that line for the review of the film itself but it's true. He makes these particular films that seem like they are for only a few people but end up be for everyone. Johansson may be a successful actress now working in avant-garde theater who decides to move to LA for a pilot that gets picked up. None of us can relate to that. But we can relate to her relationship overall. We've probably all experienced parts of what she goes through, if not the whole gamut of her emotions. She has spent ten plus years with a man who she gave up a more successful career path to be with to have a family and nothing feels her own. Her husband has become more famous and she kinda longs for what once was. That's my take and I feel that women might see it differently and that's okay. This film leaves a lot open for discussion and takes and all that. For Johansson, playing an actress is probably a great thing. This is acting. It's italicized because it's serious acting and it's where the character recounts some story while they pace a room and go through one hundred emotions and it lasts ten minutes and everything is choreographed to look spur of the moment. She gets to focus on the acting and really get to the essence of the scene. The whole film is somewhat like that as we see what feels like a normal, regular couple going through a divorce. It's just done in such a great bit of acting. There's a ton of emotion from Johansson and everything feels so real and authentic and you say something to your ex and then it gets turned up to a hundred in court. Yeah, their anger and their frustration with each other while staying amicable is amazing. The scene where Scarlett and Driver tear into each other and say every awful thing they are thinking about each other in his dingy little apartment is so moving and tense. It feels like an argument I would have if I was smart enough in arguing which I suck at and end up never explaining myself and always losing. Johansson's crying in the office the first time she meets her lawyer but then walking around the room and blowing her nose and recounting everything is what actors dream of and is the hallmark of a Noah Baumbach film. It focuses on the actors and the dialogue and the emotions and it builds out from there. I think this is the best work Johansson has ever done and I'm not convinced she shouldn't have won the Oscar for this. I think it's super strong and just amazing work almost tailor made for her.
Saoirse Ronan - Little Women
I love Saorise Ronan so much. She is my celebrity crush and I very much want her to win an Oscar someday. She has four nominations by age 25 which is absolutely incredible. And all of her nominations are well earned and deserve the high praise they have received. In this one, she plays Jo, the second oldest of the March sisters. You've probably seen a version of Little Women before or read the book in school, so you know the kind of person Jo is. She is an intelligent, independent woman who is headstrong and stubborn at the same time. She's boyish and more interested in being a writer than finding a boy and settling down. She's the driving force behind the film and Ronan imbues her character with the necessary energy to keep it all going. She really sets the tone of the film, giving it a vibrancy and freshness that is much needed for this old classic tale. It's a modern take for a character that was always way ahead of her time anyway, so we see that aspect really come to life through Ronan. The sisterly love and camaraderie is also quite evident between the actors and that makes for a much stronger bond between the characters which is what the book is about. Jo doesn't want to succumb to romance because she wants to keep her family together. But life happens and she ends up finally finding love. Ronan is strong and compelling as Jo and without her to drive the narrative, the film might falter from lack of cohesion. She becomes Jo and her enthusiasm for the character is infectious. We feel what she feels and that's the sign of a great actress. I will say, though, as much as I love Ronan, I think that Florence Pugh gives a more interesting performance. Mostly due to the fact that she has to play the youngest sister (even though she's like 24 in real life) and then mature into a young woman. It's a great arc for Pugh and great acting as well. Just so you don't think I'm blind to anything but Ronan. I honestly can't wait for Ronan to finally win her Oscar because it's coming sooner than later.
Charlize Theron - Bombshell
The big winner of this film was the makeup team who rightly won an Oscar for their work. They transform Theron into Megyn Kelly with her angular face and it's totally convincing. There are times it's hard to actually see Theron under the look, so that helps for the immersion in the story. Theron is fine in the film and obviously no stranger to transformations to try and win an Oscar. Monster saw her uglify herself but also dive deep down into the soul of a serial killing woman who had been abused by men her whole life. I'm struggling to find a point to this film or a reason to care. Yes, sexually harassing women at work or anywhere is an awful thing that still goes on all over the country and world today. We get that sexual harassment and coercion and rape and all that is inherently wrong and evil. We have been told and shown that in films throughout the years and especially recently as the Me Too movement has taken root. But we've also had that issue told in better films with smarter, more nuanced stories that have emotional heft and don't just say this is bad, give us Oscar. The film to me is mostly surface level stuff. You get all these Fox News cameos by actors playing all the on air personalities we know and it becomes more of a game about who is playing that anchor or where is Geraldo or something. And what's the lesson learned from the film? Yeah, it's wrong to do that but Fox News is still a cesspool of America that is rotting this country from the inside. They are still the same company and news organization that brought us Trump and don't care at all about women or minorities or human decency at all. So the company got sued and Roger Ailes was let go but everything has continued on. The message of this film hits weak and it seems it's more done to capture Adam McKay's funny, but serious style and expose the underside of Fox News. Except all the women involved have been worse off where Megyn Kelly is now doing news from Instagram. It wasn't a watershed moment and I feel they try to make it look more powerful than it was. Now, how does this relate to Theron. Well, I don't really care much about her performance. I recognize that it is good for what it needs to be, but it's mostly style over substance. Megyn stands up for herself after Gretchen Carlson comes out with her accusations but she was still a piece of shit herself who helped flame all the racism and alt-right garbage we have going on. The women at Fox don't care about humanity unless it conforms to their world view. No, they didn't deserve what happened to them but also nothing really happened. Theron does try to treat Megyn as a normal person caught up in a terrible situation but when you don't care for the character, how can you invest in the film? A great performance will make you care and this is by the numbers in a soft as hell movie.
This certainly wasn't the strongest group, which is a shame. And a shame that Zellweger had it locked up for so long. Lots of other great female performances out there getting overlooked, especially foreign ones. One day those will be recognized. Theron is an easy fifth because it's more about the makeup and the look than about the acting. It was what you'd expect and I'd rather be challenged by the nominees. Erivo gets by on the strength of her gravitas. The film is mostly a dud, but she makes it interesting even if she can't elevate it. I'm sure we will see more of this woman in the future, though. Zellweger was just gunning for another Oscar and got it. The performance is fine and I like the singing and some of the Judy bits, but it's mostly just Renee playing Judy. I need more than that to win an Oscar. Give me a full performance! Ronan is great but is also upstaged a bit in her film. This wasn't the one to win but hopefully she gets hers soon. Johansson, the double nominee, should have won for a tremendous performance if all was right with the world. Crazy that she didn't even really challenge Renee. A disappointing group for the most part and I hope this doesn't continue for next year.
Oscar Winner: Renee Zellweger - Judy
My Winner: Scarlett Johansson - Marriage Story
Saoirse Ronan
Renee Zellweger
Cynthia Erivo
Charlize Theron
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Supporting Actor 2019
You look at this list of names and it's a who's who of acting giants. Everyone on this list already has an Oscar (Pitt's was for producing 12 Years a Slave) and I wonder how many times that has happened in history. I'm happy that Brad gets his first acting Oscar as this was his night from the start of the race. No one else even came close. I know I'm going to enjoy all of these performances because I don't think anyone on this list could be awful when they actually try. Interesting that from these giants, no one had been nominated since 2012 for acting and that was Brad. Before that it was 2000 for Tom Hanks, so it's been awhile for everyone here to have been nominated again. Good to see them all back.
2019 Best Supporting Actor
Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
This win was locked up from the start and the whole race was just a victory tour for Brad. It's probably the best outcome and certainly the best performance of the bunch. Finally, Brad gets his acting Oscar and now everyone on this list has at least one. To me, this is sort of the perfect type of role for Brad. He's this laconic, cool guy figure that draws you in using only a stare or these brief badass moments where he fights Bruce Lee or a hippy. For what seems like such a simple performance, Brad brings a ton of depth to the role. He's not just an aging stunt guy hitched to another aging star. He's a protector and comfortable with where he is in life and the simplicity of it all. The story alludes to so much more to this character and we never really get to dive in to figure it all out, but Brad helps fill in some of those missing pieces just from his presence in a certain scene. We learn a lot about who he is without him dumping a bunch of exposition on us about his past or what he's thinking in every second. We can try to figure it out just from him sideways glancing at Bruce Lee or figuring out there's some weird stuff going on at the Spahn Ranch. Brad is the kind of actor that can act without having to say a lot and it serves him well in this role. I'm so glad that he finally won an acting Oscar and even more glad it was for a role that he seemed to really love and give his all to. This is one of those wins you can look back on say that the Academy got it absolutely right.
Tom Hanks - A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
It's been forever since Tom Hanks has been nominated for an Oscar after it seemed like he could get nominated for anything. And in that time since his last nomination in 2001, he has done some tremendous work and probably should have been nominated for a few of them. For this one, he plays the lovable Mr. Rogers. This film isn't a Mr. Rogers biopic, though, hence why Hanks is nominated in Supporting Actor. It's really a film about a journalist who is made to interview Mr. Rogers and then the two become friends and it's about how that friendship shaped and affected the journalist. Filling Mr. Rogers' shoes and sweater is a tall task. I'm not sure anyone but Hanks could even be up for the task and even he fails a little. Not that Hanks isn't right, just that no one can match Mr. Rogers' genuine warmth and compassion and humanity and his love for people. That always came through on his show and Hanks has the tough job of trying to replicate that. And while Hanks is a warm, likable guy himself he just can't quite match Mr. Rogers. It's a damn good try, though, as Hanks really does try to get to the heart of Mr. Rogers. It's just that no one can really match that so we are left with seeing Hanks play Mr. Rogers on screen, but in fairness he plays him really well. He has the warmth and ethos of Mr. Rogers down pat and watching him makes you nostalgic for sitting around watching the actual show as a kid. I think it's that spirit of Mr. Rogers that Hanks evokes that makes this a successful performance. It might not be quite all the way there, but no one would be able to do that. But this is definitely a palatable approximation of a much loved wonderful man. To be clear, I don't want a full on imitation of Mr. Rogers, I am merely saying that he is a unique individual and Hanks' interpretation of the man is quite something. It's a nice welcome back to the Oscars for Hanks.
Anthony Hopkins - The Two Popes
Hopkins plays Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI. We briefly see him as Cardinal after the previous Pope has died and doing the political maneuvering thing before the vote. Most of the time is him as Pope Benedict and his conversations with Jonathan Pryce's Cardinal Bergoglio. It's an intimate look at two men who lead a religion and have differences in opinion on how the faith should be interpreted. They respect each other, though, and from that we see this mutually satisfying discussion on faith and what it means. Hopkins eventually lets on that he's going to resign because he's old and can't hear God anymore and there are lots of scandals swirling around the Vatican. It's almost a crisis of faith but not quite as Hopkins gives us a really honest portrayal of a complex man. It felt like he was just having a talk with me as the viewer as corny as that sounds, but it felt so personal. It's like we are a fly on the wall as these two men shape the direction of the Church. There's a lot of brief, dry humor in this film that Hopkins excels at that keeps this film from caving in from it's own serious weight. He allows us to see the Pope is not some infallible person, he likes drinking orange Fanta and playing the piano. He's a man that's been put into a position of power that he's now not sure he can or should wield. I like that Hopkins and Pryce talking together feels more like two equals conversing rather than it being something contentious or a competition. The two compliment each other well and feed off of each other and it's so fun to watch. I adore Pryce's performance, but Hopkins is no slouch here. He paints a complex portrait of a man losing faith who has to make a tough decision. You can see the anguish and doubt on his face and that's all because of Hopkins' acting. He's tired and wants something better for the Church. Hopkins is so convincing in this aspect and it makes for a very good performance.
Al Pacino - The Irishman
What I liked about this film from Scorsese was that it was a return to form for everyone involved. And it wasn't a Goodfellas Part 2 that I think a lot of people were hoping for. It's this reflective, pensive story about the past. It's hard to imagine that Pacino and Scorsese had never worked together until now, but it feels like a match made in heaven. This was indeed a return to form for Pacino as his turn here as Jimmy Hoffa. What I like best about it is that this is acting and not just Pacino yelling loudly and wildly flailing his arms and looking crazy and calling that acting. He can create the persona of Jimmy as the huge influential guy with lots of power without resorting to the cliches he's done in the past. He's playing Jimmy Hoffa and bringing that presence to the film and not playing Al Pacino and bring his own overpowering presence to the film. Even when Pacino does have to get loud when rousing the teamster union guys, it's with a purpose and still constrained a bit. That intense passion for the union and the people comes out in the performance and we see some of that in the interactions between Hoffa and De Niro's character who become good friends. There's control and fight in this performance as we see Hoffa deal with the union and other leaders and the mob and their people as well as the government. This determination and control from Pacino lends a nice earnest quality to Hoffa. He's a man with a plan who wants to get things done but also loves the power of it all. Which is part of his downfall and how it all comes about is a bit heartbreaking and that's due to Pacino and De Niro having such great working chemistry. I was wary going into this film that the nominations would be well earned or just given because of who they are but Pacino earns this one easily. This is his best work in years and I wish we'd get more of this on the big screen from him.
Joe Pesci - The Irishman
It's so weird to be around for films getting made. By that I mean this had been a rumored film for Scorsese for awhile and it was just a matter of when he'd make it. And then when it started to be a reality it came out that Pesci kept turning down a role in the film before finally taking it. I remember seeing still shots from the set of Pesci and De Niro and then it finally comes out. So there's this whole expectation of waiting for something and thinking how performances might end up based on previous work. What I love a ton about Pesci's performance in this film is that it subverts all of those expectations. We think of Pesci as this explosive little man who will intimidate you by getting in your face and yelling or by just blowing your face off. He's always played these powerful roles in Scorsese flicks and this is no different. The actual difference is that he comes out of retirement and plays a guy who quietly gets things done behind the scenes. He might just suggest something happen or even give just a look, but people know what he wants and expects from them. There are no outbursts from Pesci in this film. He stays pretty even keeled all the way through and gets things done my merely talking with people and asking. That's where Pesci excels with the character. It's not that he just demands people do this or gives them an ultimatum. He talks with them and makes it seem like it's something they want to do, like it's their idea and he's just offering a suggestion. In the scene where he tells De Niro he's going to have to be the one to off Hoffa, it's as if he understands how tough the ask is but it's going to happen so why not have De Niro be the one instead of someone else. I just like how quiet and understated the performance is and that we are getting to see a different side of Pesci in a Scorsese film. I hope this isn't the last we see from Pesci but I fear it probably is and if that's true, then he left us with some truly great performances.
I am very satisfied with this group of incredible actors. You look at this group and see all the iconic names and know they are some of the best to ever do it. You might think the Academy is playing it same and nominating guys it already knows and is comfortable with, but everyone gave a great performance here. Would I like to see more variety and diversity? Hell yeah - if it's earned. But these guys are all here for a reason. When Hopkins is at the bottom, you know it's a strong group. He's terrific as the Pope who is losing faith and it's great to see him back here. Hanks is wonderful as Mr. Rodgers, which is definitely a tough task to undertake. No one else could probably do it and Hanks does a great job. Pesci comes out of retirement and knocks it out of the park again. I wish we had more Pesci to review! Pacino gives one of his better performances in a long time and that was nice to see. He's been doing a lot of good work lately in film and TV, so it's great to see him challenging himself even at this stage. Brad wins it easily and it's a quintessentially Brad performance. So glad he won in a very strong year. Hopefully 2020 brings us some equally good work!
Oscar Winner: Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
My Winner: Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Al Pacino
Joe Pesci
Tom Hanks
Anthony Hopkins
2019 Best Supporting Actor
Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
This win was locked up from the start and the whole race was just a victory tour for Brad. It's probably the best outcome and certainly the best performance of the bunch. Finally, Brad gets his acting Oscar and now everyone on this list has at least one. To me, this is sort of the perfect type of role for Brad. He's this laconic, cool guy figure that draws you in using only a stare or these brief badass moments where he fights Bruce Lee or a hippy. For what seems like such a simple performance, Brad brings a ton of depth to the role. He's not just an aging stunt guy hitched to another aging star. He's a protector and comfortable with where he is in life and the simplicity of it all. The story alludes to so much more to this character and we never really get to dive in to figure it all out, but Brad helps fill in some of those missing pieces just from his presence in a certain scene. We learn a lot about who he is without him dumping a bunch of exposition on us about his past or what he's thinking in every second. We can try to figure it out just from him sideways glancing at Bruce Lee or figuring out there's some weird stuff going on at the Spahn Ranch. Brad is the kind of actor that can act without having to say a lot and it serves him well in this role. I'm so glad that he finally won an acting Oscar and even more glad it was for a role that he seemed to really love and give his all to. This is one of those wins you can look back on say that the Academy got it absolutely right.
Tom Hanks - A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
It's been forever since Tom Hanks has been nominated for an Oscar after it seemed like he could get nominated for anything. And in that time since his last nomination in 2001, he has done some tremendous work and probably should have been nominated for a few of them. For this one, he plays the lovable Mr. Rogers. This film isn't a Mr. Rogers biopic, though, hence why Hanks is nominated in Supporting Actor. It's really a film about a journalist who is made to interview Mr. Rogers and then the two become friends and it's about how that friendship shaped and affected the journalist. Filling Mr. Rogers' shoes and sweater is a tall task. I'm not sure anyone but Hanks could even be up for the task and even he fails a little. Not that Hanks isn't right, just that no one can match Mr. Rogers' genuine warmth and compassion and humanity and his love for people. That always came through on his show and Hanks has the tough job of trying to replicate that. And while Hanks is a warm, likable guy himself he just can't quite match Mr. Rogers. It's a damn good try, though, as Hanks really does try to get to the heart of Mr. Rogers. It's just that no one can really match that so we are left with seeing Hanks play Mr. Rogers on screen, but in fairness he plays him really well. He has the warmth and ethos of Mr. Rogers down pat and watching him makes you nostalgic for sitting around watching the actual show as a kid. I think it's that spirit of Mr. Rogers that Hanks evokes that makes this a successful performance. It might not be quite all the way there, but no one would be able to do that. But this is definitely a palatable approximation of a much loved wonderful man. To be clear, I don't want a full on imitation of Mr. Rogers, I am merely saying that he is a unique individual and Hanks' interpretation of the man is quite something. It's a nice welcome back to the Oscars for Hanks.
Anthony Hopkins - The Two Popes
Hopkins plays Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI. We briefly see him as Cardinal after the previous Pope has died and doing the political maneuvering thing before the vote. Most of the time is him as Pope Benedict and his conversations with Jonathan Pryce's Cardinal Bergoglio. It's an intimate look at two men who lead a religion and have differences in opinion on how the faith should be interpreted. They respect each other, though, and from that we see this mutually satisfying discussion on faith and what it means. Hopkins eventually lets on that he's going to resign because he's old and can't hear God anymore and there are lots of scandals swirling around the Vatican. It's almost a crisis of faith but not quite as Hopkins gives us a really honest portrayal of a complex man. It felt like he was just having a talk with me as the viewer as corny as that sounds, but it felt so personal. It's like we are a fly on the wall as these two men shape the direction of the Church. There's a lot of brief, dry humor in this film that Hopkins excels at that keeps this film from caving in from it's own serious weight. He allows us to see the Pope is not some infallible person, he likes drinking orange Fanta and playing the piano. He's a man that's been put into a position of power that he's now not sure he can or should wield. I like that Hopkins and Pryce talking together feels more like two equals conversing rather than it being something contentious or a competition. The two compliment each other well and feed off of each other and it's so fun to watch. I adore Pryce's performance, but Hopkins is no slouch here. He paints a complex portrait of a man losing faith who has to make a tough decision. You can see the anguish and doubt on his face and that's all because of Hopkins' acting. He's tired and wants something better for the Church. Hopkins is so convincing in this aspect and it makes for a very good performance.
Al Pacino - The Irishman
What I liked about this film from Scorsese was that it was a return to form for everyone involved. And it wasn't a Goodfellas Part 2 that I think a lot of people were hoping for. It's this reflective, pensive story about the past. It's hard to imagine that Pacino and Scorsese had never worked together until now, but it feels like a match made in heaven. This was indeed a return to form for Pacino as his turn here as Jimmy Hoffa. What I like best about it is that this is acting and not just Pacino yelling loudly and wildly flailing his arms and looking crazy and calling that acting. He can create the persona of Jimmy as the huge influential guy with lots of power without resorting to the cliches he's done in the past. He's playing Jimmy Hoffa and bringing that presence to the film and not playing Al Pacino and bring his own overpowering presence to the film. Even when Pacino does have to get loud when rousing the teamster union guys, it's with a purpose and still constrained a bit. That intense passion for the union and the people comes out in the performance and we see some of that in the interactions between Hoffa and De Niro's character who become good friends. There's control and fight in this performance as we see Hoffa deal with the union and other leaders and the mob and their people as well as the government. This determination and control from Pacino lends a nice earnest quality to Hoffa. He's a man with a plan who wants to get things done but also loves the power of it all. Which is part of his downfall and how it all comes about is a bit heartbreaking and that's due to Pacino and De Niro having such great working chemistry. I was wary going into this film that the nominations would be well earned or just given because of who they are but Pacino earns this one easily. This is his best work in years and I wish we'd get more of this on the big screen from him.
Joe Pesci - The Irishman
It's so weird to be around for films getting made. By that I mean this had been a rumored film for Scorsese for awhile and it was just a matter of when he'd make it. And then when it started to be a reality it came out that Pesci kept turning down a role in the film before finally taking it. I remember seeing still shots from the set of Pesci and De Niro and then it finally comes out. So there's this whole expectation of waiting for something and thinking how performances might end up based on previous work. What I love a ton about Pesci's performance in this film is that it subverts all of those expectations. We think of Pesci as this explosive little man who will intimidate you by getting in your face and yelling or by just blowing your face off. He's always played these powerful roles in Scorsese flicks and this is no different. The actual difference is that he comes out of retirement and plays a guy who quietly gets things done behind the scenes. He might just suggest something happen or even give just a look, but people know what he wants and expects from them. There are no outbursts from Pesci in this film. He stays pretty even keeled all the way through and gets things done my merely talking with people and asking. That's where Pesci excels with the character. It's not that he just demands people do this or gives them an ultimatum. He talks with them and makes it seem like it's something they want to do, like it's their idea and he's just offering a suggestion. In the scene where he tells De Niro he's going to have to be the one to off Hoffa, it's as if he understands how tough the ask is but it's going to happen so why not have De Niro be the one instead of someone else. I just like how quiet and understated the performance is and that we are getting to see a different side of Pesci in a Scorsese film. I hope this isn't the last we see from Pesci but I fear it probably is and if that's true, then he left us with some truly great performances.
I am very satisfied with this group of incredible actors. You look at this group and see all the iconic names and know they are some of the best to ever do it. You might think the Academy is playing it same and nominating guys it already knows and is comfortable with, but everyone gave a great performance here. Would I like to see more variety and diversity? Hell yeah - if it's earned. But these guys are all here for a reason. When Hopkins is at the bottom, you know it's a strong group. He's terrific as the Pope who is losing faith and it's great to see him back here. Hanks is wonderful as Mr. Rodgers, which is definitely a tough task to undertake. No one else could probably do it and Hanks does a great job. Pesci comes out of retirement and knocks it out of the park again. I wish we had more Pesci to review! Pacino gives one of his better performances in a long time and that was nice to see. He's been doing a lot of good work lately in film and TV, so it's great to see him challenging himself even at this stage. Brad wins it easily and it's a quintessentially Brad performance. So glad he won in a very strong year. Hopefully 2020 brings us some equally good work!
Oscar Winner: Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
My Winner: Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Al Pacino
Joe Pesci
Tom Hanks
Anthony Hopkins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)