I feel like I've been doing a lot better as of late with keeping up
with this thing. I think now that I'm close to 2000 I'm rushing to
finish it so I can catch up with 2012 and beyond which I've got all the
films for and have a better understanding of the Oscar race from those
years and feel I can maybe give a better review. I think I'm just really
excited about getting out of the 2000s eventually. Almost there!
2000 Best Picture
Gladiator
Are you not entertained?! Well....no, kinda. Okay, so Maximus' famous line somewhat applies but, wow, this movie didn't age all that well! I mean, it's only 15 years later and there are times where this movie feels so dated and cheesy. Seriously, there are moments in this where the music is just that overly cinematic crap where it tells you how to feel or what's going to happen type of thing and it really hurts the movie here. The CGI was heavily criticized even back in 2000 and now it still looks terrible and severely outdated at times. It even won the Best Visual Effects Oscar, though it's competition was pretty poor. I guess I was hoping that Gladiator would stand up firmly as a Best Picture winner but that is certainly not the case. I'll admit I loved it back in 2000 and thought it was pretty cool and all that but watching it again is tough because for starters the story is actually quite boring. It's just overall lacking in anything interesting. It starts off with that really cool battle in Germania and you think you're going to get this really intense and interesting account of the Roman times but then it nosedives into something else. It loses steam and only picks up once Crowe becomes a gladiator because at least the action in this movie is something it can be proud of - from the opening battle to the gladiator fights. That's the best thing the movie has going for itself. It has a half hearted romantic plot that goes nowhere, gets mired in a political intrigue plot that's sleep inducing, supporting characters (besides Phoenix who does a great job) that are not fully fleshed out or even close to being anything more than window dressing, a revenge factor that's too quickly glossed over, and an ending that feels way too anti-climactic. I think maybe people just got caught up in the hype like I did way back when because if you really look at this movie with a magnifying glass you're not gonna find much to it. It doesn't help that Crowe doesn't do much acting, instead playing more of the action star/misunderstood brute role. Neither of which were deserving of the top prize. And I know it's easy to hate on the winners years after the fact and denigrate them to no end and say that something else should have won but I don't feel like that applies here. I don't think if Gladiator hadn't won, that anyone would be championing it to take home the Oscar. I do think it's easy to look through a list of Best Picture winners and skip over Gladiator as yeah that's a fine win without really thinking too much about it or looking into it and latching on to the usual winners that get called out for not being very good. I feel this win was very much of the time and would be different if done any other time.
Chocolat
Okay, so the reason Chocolat sticks out like a sore thumb is due to it being a Miramax film which means those dumb Weinsteins were involved. I know I sound like a broken record but I hate that they crammed their movies into the Oscar race because they had money and connections. It's great that they gave a voice to independent film at a time when it was needed but they blew that by then hammering home all these lackluster movies that ended up nominated for huge awards like Best Picture. Does Chocolat deserve to be here? Absolutely not! It's not that good of a movie that it should be honored with a place in history for being one of the top 5 for 2000 according to the Academy. It's entirely forgettable. I found it to be very boring. It's a movie about a woman who moves into a new town and opens up a chocolate shop but the town is very religious and the mayor doesn't like her corrupting the townspeople and tries to sabotage her. It's about as complex as a Hershey Kiss! It offers up nothing more than a sugary sweet, feel good, pap fest. It's message is too obvious and incredibly heavy handed. It's all about tolerance and acceptance which is a nice sentiment but this movie just clobbers you over the head with it. Not mention it deals with domestic violence in such a laissez faire way trying to get a few laughs along the way without really condemning it as portrayed in the movie. The ending is absurdly ridiculous. The mayor goes to trash Binoche's chocolate shop but while doing so gets some chocolate on his lips and then succumbs to temptation and cries himself to sleep in her display window and then once found, they strike up a mutual respect. Just completely absurd and stupid. I know this was a hit of sorts in theaters but this is nothing more than Midwesterners feeling proud of themselves for having seen a French film and culturing themselves. Everything about Chocolat is just so syrupy. It's like when you go to the movies and buy a box of Whoppers and a Diet Coke and eat it all while watching and then after it's over you realize your stomach hurts and there was nothing of substance to what you just ate. That's Chocolat. I don't think this will ever stick in the subconscious of the American collective. I'm glad the days of a wholly undeserving movie making the Best Picture field is over or at least we nominate a bunch more films to cancel out any possible stinkers like this. And anyway, no one ever buys any chocolate! She just makes a bunch and gives a lot of it away, makes no sense.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Finally! After 15 years since it came out, I get to watch this film. I remember back when it did come out, that it was super hyped. It was a huge success and talked about non-stop for weeks and weeks. It was exotic and different and yet still highly entertaining for people. I think that's partially due to the American public just being ready for an Asian martial arts film to come out and entertain. And that's the big key, I think, that as long as a foreign film or really specific genre film is entertaining first and foremost, that's all that matters. If a wuxia martial arts film is worth watching, well, people will watch it. And then from there who knows where the hype train can take it. That train took Crouching Tiger all the way to almost winning a Best Picture Oscar. This film was very, very close to upsetting Gladiator and that would have been a truly amazing win and feat for foreign films and genre films at the Oscars. The plot of this film is pretty simple really, about a martial arts master that wants to gift a jade sword to some other guy but it gets stolen and some fighting happens. It's much simpler to follow while watching than me trying to describe it. I was fully expecting a lot more action and fighting and guide wire moves but the early part of the film is pretty tame and sets things up which isn't bad at all. The wuxia high wire stuff is pretty entertaining and like nothing the public had ever seen before so it's easy to see why it took the country by storm. But the impossible physics does kind of get annoying, it's very much like a video game. I guess it's all up to your tolerance of the wuxia stuff. It's fun for sure but I like a little more realistic quality to my martial arts. The cinematography is really fantastic, however, especially the caravan scenes. Crouching Tiger is just overall the most enjoyable film out of this whole group and it expertly mixes the martial arts with the love story and man, is just good. It's as simple as that.
Erin Brockovich
How crazy is it that Steven Soderbergh was nominated for BOTH of his films for Best Director and BOTH made the Best Picture list?? That's seriously impressive and I must say that I find Soderbergh to be one of my favorite directors simply because he is so diverse and so good at being diverse. It's not that he jumps around genres but he gives us really interesting films and makes them look really, really good. To go from Erin Brockovich to Traffic in one year is pretty mind boggingly crazy and awesome. Would you ever think they were directed by the same person? Probably not! And that's his genius. Erin Brockovich is the more simple of the two, relying on the strong performances of Julia Roberts and Albert Finney to carry the story. Soderbergh adds in some neat little things like closeups of court papers and documents that while not being revolutionary or even particularly amazing, stand out enough for me - something that can be hard to explain why exactly I like those little quirks. I will say that I don't think the film starts out very strong. It throws a bunch of the plot at you right away such as Erin losing her personal injury case and then getting a job at her lawyer's through bullying while also quickly hooking up with her motorcycle loving neighbor. I get that they wanted to focus on the big case but it all whizzes by and is shoved together making the beginning feels so rushed. Once it settles in, however, it finds it's groove and settles in. I think both Roberts and Finney get better as the film progresses and it's just overall more fun to watch. The film also avoids laying the sentimentality on thick. It could easily twist our arms to force tears because the case is about people getting sick with cancer and all kinds of diseases because they were lied to about their drinking water but it never sinks to that low. It lets Roberts shine as the highlight instead of melodrama. The instances where you do start to feel sad are few and measured, it's not done just for the sake of getting tears and that's something I can respect. I wish that we would have gotten to see some of the trial or more about that part of the story but I recognize that this film is about Erin and her fight and her life. This film is more about the performances than anything else and that's quite alright when they are both pretty fantastic.
Traffic
The second of the Steven Soderbergh films. This one obviously being the more complex and serious of the two. From looking back at the Best Picture groups, I think this is the first film (at least in awhile from what I can tell since I haven't seen a lot of them only read about them) that uses the interwoven storylines idea that we would see over and over again in the coming years. I've always liked the concept because it keeps things fresh and a director can do a lot more interesting things with the story and characters. Traffic follows the drug war/trade from many different angles including users, politicians, traffickers, and cops. It's kind of weird watching this and realizing that in 2000 this was the big issue in America at that time and a film like Traffic carried a lot of weight behind it. Of course after 9/11 the focus was shifted away from the war on drugs to the war on terror so this story seems almost minuscule and pointless in comparison. Drugs just aren't the big bad villain anymore especially now as the country begins to legalize marijuana. I'm sure other, smarter people could go on and on about the current state of the war on drugs but that would honestly bore me and probably you. That also is one of the things I like about Traffic is that it's not preachy at all. It almost takes a hands off approach and let's you see things from all sides which is much better than being force fed some agenda or ideology. Soderbergh also uses an interesting trick of color coding the different storylines which from what I read was to make it all easier for the audience to follow, which makes sense. I like the choice for the most part but there were moments where I would have liked some consistency with the look. The acting is all around good and it's just simply a well made film.
What's crazy is just how close Crouching Tiger came to winning. It was super hyped and much talked about and going into the ceremony it was mostly between it and Gladiator and Traffic to a lesser extent. Imagine if it won, though?! How awesome would that have been? Instead we got a boring, tired, obvious choice. I'd pick Crouching Tiger, easily. Traffic is a good second choice that's impact has been a little lessened because of what happened the next year and transformed the world. Erin Brockovich is a pretty good movie that has an even better main performance to buoy it. Then we get Gladiator that just doesn't hold up. Like at all, surprisingly. And then we have one of the worst, or at least most I really don't give a shit about it nominees so far. Chocolate. I mean Chocolat. Who cares.
Oscar Winner: Gladiator
My Winner: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Traffic
Erin Brockovich
Gladiator
Chocolat
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Leading Actor 2000
Almost done with 2000! Which is a huge feat. This year always felt like it was indeed 15 years away and I'm glad I'm almost finished. This Best Actor group offers up 3 small movies and 2 box office smashes. I'm very curious about the smaller films in this group.
2000 Best Actor
Russell Crowe - Gladiator
Crowe finally gets his Oscar....wait, this was only his 2nd nomination? Didn't it feel like this was the Academy giving Crowe a makeup Oscar for not winning the year before and for being around for so long and nominated a lot even though that's not true? Because it certainly does to me! I don't like this win because I don't really think Crowe did much acting in Gladiator. He plays General Maximus who is a favorite of the current Emperor of Rome but then that guy dies and his son takes over who hates Crowe and banishes him and then Crowe becomes a gladiator and fights his way back to Rome and kills Phoenix's character. Oops, spoiler! But come on, this is telegraphed from the very beginning and doesn't come as much of a surprise. Crowe plays more of an action hero type role, where all the acting is really being able to sell the gladiator fights and look all muscle-y and intimidating. That's about all there is from Crowe. There are some quieter moments that should have and could have added more depth to Maximus but they get glossed over in favor of the action. The script and story never allow Crowe to do much more than what we see. Oh your wife and son are killed? You can be sad for a brief time but then you must go fight and look tough. This movie is less about the character of Maximus than it is about showing cool fights and the Coliseum and the costumes and the whole spectacle of everything. It never becomes introspective and when it starts to, it makes sure to yank itself out before we get any real emotional depth to the character. We are told it's all for revenge but that aspect just feels robotic and a necessity of the script. Crowe is able to make a decent action star/gladiator for sure but he doesn't get to do much else in this movie. It's frustrating because we know he can be a good actor because of his nominations in 1999 and 2001, which are definitely better than this one. It's basically one of those yeah, Crowe deserved an Oscar but just not for this one which he won for type deals. If he wins for The Insider or A Beautiful Mind, we might not mind a nomination for Gladiator but a win is just too much.
Javier Bardem - Before Night Falls
It can be very hard to judge foreign language performances. I think I might have said that same thing the last time I reviewed a non Coen Bros Bardem movie. Bardem at least speaks mostly in English in this one but there are very long parts where he delivers a monologue in Spanish. I confess that I only know a small amount of Spanish from my years of attempting to learn it in school so those long monologues are mostly lost on me, but it does allow me to focus on the face of Bardem and to take in his physical acting instead of what's being said. That's a unique thing that I don't get from many nominees since few are of the foreign variety. It's kind of nice because acting is a very universal thing even if you can't understand the speaker, you can understand the expressions and the what's being conveyed. Before Night Falls tells the story of a gay Cuban writer and his life. Bardem portrays the man from the early stages in the the 40s or 50s up until his death from AIDS in 1990 or so. That spans many years, obviously, but gives many opportunities for Bardem to recreate his character as he grows and confronts the many challenges of living in a revolutionary Cuba as a gay writer. We know Bardem is a great actor. He's got his Oscar win and a few Goyas (Spanish Oscars) and many other accolades and this was the Academy's first nomination for him and first focused attention. I think it might have changed Bardem's life even if he was destined to be a great actor anyway but it's pretty prescient of Oscar and shows that sometimes they can be ahead of the curve. There's a lot of Bardem in this movie and he is someone that can be a strong actor through voice or look or movement and it's legit a treat to watch. When I watched Biutiful (or more like when I couldn't find it and then eventually did months later) for this project I looked at what else Bardem had on Netflix watched a great performance by him in a Spanish movie about unemployment. Entirely in Spanish but was just universally understood as a great performance (it had subtitles but the acting transcended them). This was never going to win in this year but was more of an introduction of Bardem to the American public and I think he caught our eye. I want to see the rest of his Spanish movies and I can't wait to see what he does next.
Tom Hanks - Cast Away
While watching Cast Away, it became clear that this was basically a quintessential Tom Hanks performance because it captured the two different styles of his acting. In the bookends for the deserted island scenes, we get what I kinda think of as the classic Tom Hanks. He plays the sweet, charming, Mr. Nice Guy role with some self effacing humor which is found throughout a lot of his other characters. In this film, it's the weaker of the two types and comes as mostly an afterthought since the deserted island stuff is the main course. If the beginning and end were trimmed down, I don't think we'd miss it all that much especially since the ending devolves into some boring melodrama. But that's on Zemeckis the director, really. The other style is what makes up most of this film and is clearly the best part and what got him nominated. That is the intense, focused, turned up to another level, serious Tom Hanks. The two can be equally great but, man, do I think Hanks as the stranded Fed Ex employee on a deserted island part is incredibly strong, even by Hanks' own standards. He spends the majority of his time on the island acting without saying anything, with only some occasional mumbling and talking to the volleyball, Wilson. The fact that he's able to carry the film without saying much speaks to his tremendous acting ability. He sucks you in to his world and along with it all the fear, frustration, anger, pain, sadness, and hopelessness that comes with that world. I found myself wishing he could stay on the island longer so I could see how he dealt with being alone for so long and wished it wouldn't have cut to 4 Years Later so soon because I wanted to see just how Hanks transitioned from marooned man to survivor man. It's unfortunate that the bookends drag the performance as a whole down because the middle is so good. If the entire film was focused on the survival aspect, this would have been considered right up there with Tom Hanks' best. Instead, it's just pretty good which is usually better than most - including 2000's winner Russell Crowe.
Ed Harris - Pollock
What I knew of this film before hand was very little, only that it was a passion project for Ed Harris. What I know of passion projects is that they are one of two things mostly: a self indulgent mess or a bonafide masterpiece. When it comes to Pollock, I'd say it's essentially the latter. It's quite evident that this was a 10 year labor of love for Harris, who also produced and directed it. The word passion does not do it much justice because you can tell Harris labored over this creation with blood, sweat, and tears. That's the big takeaway from the film is that it shows how passionate Harris was with this. The directing is really good and I like a lot of the compositions he used in the film especially playing with shadows. That comes off as pretentious but man, it's noticeably good. I was worried that maybe given the subject, a modernist painter, that it might be a very pretentious work itself but what we get is not a typical biopic. It speaks more to the process of painting and to the demons Pollock faces than the typical early lifetime, middle tormented genius part, and then the redemption. I anticipated a little artsy film that played to the sensibilities of film people and actors but I was wrong. It is a little film but it feels much bigger than it is. A surprisingly great performance from Harris for a film I didn't think would be all that much. I just realized I didn't really talk much about Pollock's performance which is really good! He plays the painter with such an intensity that you can almost feel it while watching. It's very much an actor in the zone and you can see why Harden was able to feed off that and give a great performance herself. Acting in that type of environment must be a dream come true for an actor. I think that's what makes it so enjoyable to watch is that you can see that love and passion come through in the performance. Harris is much better in the early goings of the film than in the end where Pollock becomes a more ardent alcoholic cavorting with younger women and living off his ego. That's obviously an easier thing to portray and I feel that the early acting from Harris is just better and more truthful. I was definitely surprised that I liked this performance so much.
Geoffrey Rush - Quills
So Geoffrey Rush was alright in this, I guess. It's more like I didn't feel too strongly one way or the other about his performance. For someone playing a sexual deviant that's locked up in prison and wild in his antics, I should at least feel something for the character, but I didn't. I openly admit that I'm not a fan of Rush at all. I haven't seen his Oscar winning role yet but everything else has been very theatrical in style, including this one. Rush plays the Marquis de Sade as a rockstar holed up in a hotel causing chaos and being held down by the man. It's a portrayal that should be larger and more interesting than it is but sadly it's just kinda meh to me. If you're going to be a rockstar, go all out and be a rockstar! Maybe Rush was kept in check by the director or something, I don't know, but I know a character like that should really shine through everything else. I've also got beef that the Marquis wasn't exactly the main actor in this. He's more of a bigger supporting role so I'm not sure it belongs here but that's the Academy for you. Not much else to say about this one really. Rush is pretty meh and I don't think stands out too much yet the Academy liked it for whatever reason. Not something I'd ever single out but I don't get a vote.
So this should have been one of the easiest groups to predict because this was boiled down to Crowe vs. Hanks. Harris starred in a very small, barely seen film, Rush played a sexual deviant in another smaller film, and Bardem played a gay Cuban writer in a, you guessed it, small film. So it was up to the Academy to award Crowe who many thought could have and should have won the year before for The Insider or give Hanks his 3rd(!) Oscar for talking to a volleyball on a deserted island. That's an easy choice, right? Crowe was the hot commodity and giving a 3rd Oscar is rarely done. If you were to go by performance alone this is a hell of a group. Harris and Bardem would have equal claim to the win along with Crowe and Hanks. Rush is just kinda there. So Hanks would be my winner with Harris and Bardem right behind. Crowe and Rush would bring up the rear. Obviously, not bad at all from my perspective - if only the Academy saw things my way!
Oscar Winner: Russell Crowe - Gladiator
My Winner: Tom Hanks - Cast Away
Ed Harris
Javier Bardem
Russell Crowe
Geoffrey Rush
2000 Best Actor
Russell Crowe - Gladiator
Crowe finally gets his Oscar....wait, this was only his 2nd nomination? Didn't it feel like this was the Academy giving Crowe a makeup Oscar for not winning the year before and for being around for so long and nominated a lot even though that's not true? Because it certainly does to me! I don't like this win because I don't really think Crowe did much acting in Gladiator. He plays General Maximus who is a favorite of the current Emperor of Rome but then that guy dies and his son takes over who hates Crowe and banishes him and then Crowe becomes a gladiator and fights his way back to Rome and kills Phoenix's character. Oops, spoiler! But come on, this is telegraphed from the very beginning and doesn't come as much of a surprise. Crowe plays more of an action hero type role, where all the acting is really being able to sell the gladiator fights and look all muscle-y and intimidating. That's about all there is from Crowe. There are some quieter moments that should have and could have added more depth to Maximus but they get glossed over in favor of the action. The script and story never allow Crowe to do much more than what we see. Oh your wife and son are killed? You can be sad for a brief time but then you must go fight and look tough. This movie is less about the character of Maximus than it is about showing cool fights and the Coliseum and the costumes and the whole spectacle of everything. It never becomes introspective and when it starts to, it makes sure to yank itself out before we get any real emotional depth to the character. We are told it's all for revenge but that aspect just feels robotic and a necessity of the script. Crowe is able to make a decent action star/gladiator for sure but he doesn't get to do much else in this movie. It's frustrating because we know he can be a good actor because of his nominations in 1999 and 2001, which are definitely better than this one. It's basically one of those yeah, Crowe deserved an Oscar but just not for this one which he won for type deals. If he wins for The Insider or A Beautiful Mind, we might not mind a nomination for Gladiator but a win is just too much.
Javier Bardem - Before Night Falls
It can be very hard to judge foreign language performances. I think I might have said that same thing the last time I reviewed a non Coen Bros Bardem movie. Bardem at least speaks mostly in English in this one but there are very long parts where he delivers a monologue in Spanish. I confess that I only know a small amount of Spanish from my years of attempting to learn it in school so those long monologues are mostly lost on me, but it does allow me to focus on the face of Bardem and to take in his physical acting instead of what's being said. That's a unique thing that I don't get from many nominees since few are of the foreign variety. It's kind of nice because acting is a very universal thing even if you can't understand the speaker, you can understand the expressions and the what's being conveyed. Before Night Falls tells the story of a gay Cuban writer and his life. Bardem portrays the man from the early stages in the the 40s or 50s up until his death from AIDS in 1990 or so. That spans many years, obviously, but gives many opportunities for Bardem to recreate his character as he grows and confronts the many challenges of living in a revolutionary Cuba as a gay writer. We know Bardem is a great actor. He's got his Oscar win and a few Goyas (Spanish Oscars) and many other accolades and this was the Academy's first nomination for him and first focused attention. I think it might have changed Bardem's life even if he was destined to be a great actor anyway but it's pretty prescient of Oscar and shows that sometimes they can be ahead of the curve. There's a lot of Bardem in this movie and he is someone that can be a strong actor through voice or look or movement and it's legit a treat to watch. When I watched Biutiful (or more like when I couldn't find it and then eventually did months later) for this project I looked at what else Bardem had on Netflix watched a great performance by him in a Spanish movie about unemployment. Entirely in Spanish but was just universally understood as a great performance (it had subtitles but the acting transcended them). This was never going to win in this year but was more of an introduction of Bardem to the American public and I think he caught our eye. I want to see the rest of his Spanish movies and I can't wait to see what he does next.
Tom Hanks - Cast Away
While watching Cast Away, it became clear that this was basically a quintessential Tom Hanks performance because it captured the two different styles of his acting. In the bookends for the deserted island scenes, we get what I kinda think of as the classic Tom Hanks. He plays the sweet, charming, Mr. Nice Guy role with some self effacing humor which is found throughout a lot of his other characters. In this film, it's the weaker of the two types and comes as mostly an afterthought since the deserted island stuff is the main course. If the beginning and end were trimmed down, I don't think we'd miss it all that much especially since the ending devolves into some boring melodrama. But that's on Zemeckis the director, really. The other style is what makes up most of this film and is clearly the best part and what got him nominated. That is the intense, focused, turned up to another level, serious Tom Hanks. The two can be equally great but, man, do I think Hanks as the stranded Fed Ex employee on a deserted island part is incredibly strong, even by Hanks' own standards. He spends the majority of his time on the island acting without saying anything, with only some occasional mumbling and talking to the volleyball, Wilson. The fact that he's able to carry the film without saying much speaks to his tremendous acting ability. He sucks you in to his world and along with it all the fear, frustration, anger, pain, sadness, and hopelessness that comes with that world. I found myself wishing he could stay on the island longer so I could see how he dealt with being alone for so long and wished it wouldn't have cut to 4 Years Later so soon because I wanted to see just how Hanks transitioned from marooned man to survivor man. It's unfortunate that the bookends drag the performance as a whole down because the middle is so good. If the entire film was focused on the survival aspect, this would have been considered right up there with Tom Hanks' best. Instead, it's just pretty good which is usually better than most - including 2000's winner Russell Crowe.
Ed Harris - Pollock
What I knew of this film before hand was very little, only that it was a passion project for Ed Harris. What I know of passion projects is that they are one of two things mostly: a self indulgent mess or a bonafide masterpiece. When it comes to Pollock, I'd say it's essentially the latter. It's quite evident that this was a 10 year labor of love for Harris, who also produced and directed it. The word passion does not do it much justice because you can tell Harris labored over this creation with blood, sweat, and tears. That's the big takeaway from the film is that it shows how passionate Harris was with this. The directing is really good and I like a lot of the compositions he used in the film especially playing with shadows. That comes off as pretentious but man, it's noticeably good. I was worried that maybe given the subject, a modernist painter, that it might be a very pretentious work itself but what we get is not a typical biopic. It speaks more to the process of painting and to the demons Pollock faces than the typical early lifetime, middle tormented genius part, and then the redemption. I anticipated a little artsy film that played to the sensibilities of film people and actors but I was wrong. It is a little film but it feels much bigger than it is. A surprisingly great performance from Harris for a film I didn't think would be all that much. I just realized I didn't really talk much about Pollock's performance which is really good! He plays the painter with such an intensity that you can almost feel it while watching. It's very much an actor in the zone and you can see why Harden was able to feed off that and give a great performance herself. Acting in that type of environment must be a dream come true for an actor. I think that's what makes it so enjoyable to watch is that you can see that love and passion come through in the performance. Harris is much better in the early goings of the film than in the end where Pollock becomes a more ardent alcoholic cavorting with younger women and living off his ego. That's obviously an easier thing to portray and I feel that the early acting from Harris is just better and more truthful. I was definitely surprised that I liked this performance so much.
Geoffrey Rush - Quills
So Geoffrey Rush was alright in this, I guess. It's more like I didn't feel too strongly one way or the other about his performance. For someone playing a sexual deviant that's locked up in prison and wild in his antics, I should at least feel something for the character, but I didn't. I openly admit that I'm not a fan of Rush at all. I haven't seen his Oscar winning role yet but everything else has been very theatrical in style, including this one. Rush plays the Marquis de Sade as a rockstar holed up in a hotel causing chaos and being held down by the man. It's a portrayal that should be larger and more interesting than it is but sadly it's just kinda meh to me. If you're going to be a rockstar, go all out and be a rockstar! Maybe Rush was kept in check by the director or something, I don't know, but I know a character like that should really shine through everything else. I've also got beef that the Marquis wasn't exactly the main actor in this. He's more of a bigger supporting role so I'm not sure it belongs here but that's the Academy for you. Not much else to say about this one really. Rush is pretty meh and I don't think stands out too much yet the Academy liked it for whatever reason. Not something I'd ever single out but I don't get a vote.
So this should have been one of the easiest groups to predict because this was boiled down to Crowe vs. Hanks. Harris starred in a very small, barely seen film, Rush played a sexual deviant in another smaller film, and Bardem played a gay Cuban writer in a, you guessed it, small film. So it was up to the Academy to award Crowe who many thought could have and should have won the year before for The Insider or give Hanks his 3rd(!) Oscar for talking to a volleyball on a deserted island. That's an easy choice, right? Crowe was the hot commodity and giving a 3rd Oscar is rarely done. If you were to go by performance alone this is a hell of a group. Harris and Bardem would have equal claim to the win along with Crowe and Hanks. Rush is just kinda there. So Hanks would be my winner with Harris and Bardem right behind. Crowe and Rush would bring up the rear. Obviously, not bad at all from my perspective - if only the Academy saw things my way!
Oscar Winner: Russell Crowe - Gladiator
My Winner: Tom Hanks - Cast Away
Ed Harris
Javier Bardem
Russell Crowe
Geoffrey Rush
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Leading Actress 2000
I've only seen Julia before among this group and I already know that she's most likely my winner. I'm not sure if a role ever fit an actress so well because Julia is Erin is Julia. The other 4 have a lot to live up to!
2000 Best Actress
Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich
Has an Oscar win ever fit so damn well? If this film were title Julia Roberts it would still make sense. I'm pretty sure that's why everyone, including me, loved this performance so much because it's just as much Julia as it is Erin Brockovich - and we don't care that we see both sides. Seriously, Julia's personality comes out tenfold in this performance probably because the real Erin and her are so similar. But while this would detract from other actresses attempting the same thing, it strengthens Julia's performance here. She gets to be America's Sweetheart here but in a more Julia way. For the record I'll say I hated all those trashy outfits not because I'm a prude or anything but because they just made her look so ugly to me and took away from the performance even though that's part of what Erin was about. And the beginning of the film really puts an emphasis on those outfits which doesn't help things. Once she settles in and it becomes less about the shock factor, Julia really gets into the Erin character and lets loose. She's obviously having fun and it shows. And she's obviously very in tune with the character of Erin and it shows. What I do like a lot about her performance is how natural and easy it feels. That's where the whole not sure if you're watching Julia or Erin thing comes into play because if someone told me it was all ad-libbed, I wouldn't doubt them. So yeah, I think this was the perfect role for Julia and she definitely made the most of it. An easy choice for the Academy here.
Joan Allen - The Contender
I was really hoping for a knockout performance after reading the description for the film (which I initially thought was going to be a boxing film) because I think it's a really juicy role for any female lead. Joan Allen plays a Senator who is tapped to become the next Vice President due to a vacancy and she must go through the rigors of the confirmation process. That means the Republicans, because she's a Democrat, asking all sorts of sordid questions about her past and leaking false info to the internet and all that I guess a screen writer in the late 90s thinks a woman would or should go through if this were true. There are all these very sexual rumors and half truths and lies that come out about Allen's character and she has to deal with that so she can potentially be the first female Vice President. It's a very interesting concept that does get bogged down in the liberalness and super democratic aspect of things. Allen handles herself gracefully and imbues in the character a sense of power and stateliness. She doesn't want to even address the false rumors and wants to keep her private life private which is noble, especially following Clinton's boners (pun!) and this shows how maybe a woman would fare but Allen and her character stay strong and on course. You can almost feel the weight of the character bearing down on Allen's shoulders as if this performance is for real because this is the closest we've gotten to a woman actually getting into office besides Ferraro or Palin. I like that Allen doesn't overact but she does seem to play it a bit too cool and perfect. She says all the right things even if the film wants to misdirect us at every turn and make us believe things are going terribly for her. I just think that Allen rises to the challenge of portraying a female Vice Presidential candidate with plenty of balls. She does a good job even if her running and playing basketball is sooooo incredibly awkward and makes you think she's never done either before this film. She also like to run through I guess the National Cemetery? Arlington maybe? It's just super weird like she runs through the headstones which I kinda think is really disrespectful even if it was meant to show how much she cares about the country. Never run over veteran graves! A decent performance from Allen that could be stronger.
Juliette Binoche - Chocolat
I was a little interested in seeing what Binoche could bring to a movie I always thought (without having seen it) was just a fluffy, feel good, makes Midwesterners feel cultured type of movie. Having finally seen it, I don't think that description is too far off really. So what does Binoche bring to the role of the woman who moves from town to town and sets up a chocolaterie? Well, she gives an effortless, but boring, performance. I watched her and the first word that sprang to mind for this review was casual. As in Binoche's character is just very casual and relaxed for most of the movie which should tell you that she doesn't go through a whole bunch of complex emotions in this and only towards the end does she really kind of step outside of her normal demeanor. It wasn't sickly sweet or anything like that but it was just very relaxed. She's not welcome in the town because it's very religious and the mayor feels she's corrupting the townspeople. But for most of the beginning she just takes it all calmly in stride without much turmoil until the end when her daughter was almost killed and she wanted to move but decided to stay because a few of the townsfolk decided to help out her chocolate shop. So as you can see not the most intricate or involved of performances and it really sums up Chocolat as a whole, honestly. It's a movie that bored me and this is a performance that bored me. I think it's the fact that there's just not a whole lot for her character to do. I know Binoche can be better than she does here but she's not even given the chance in this one. Unfortunately this is as forgettable a nomination and performance as a bag of generic chocolate.
Ellen Burstyn - Requiem for a Dream
I'm not sure if I've been as excited to watch a film for this project as I have been to watch this one. I've heard so much about this film and it being crazy and all kinds of things that I'm so glad I was able to mark it off my list. This was absolutely the cautionary tale everyone told me it was going to be. Something we should show to teenagers so they think twice about getting addicted to drugs. Ellen plays a woman whose son is a junkie but she herself is addicted to tv and eventually becomes further addicted to diet pills so she can go on a certain tv show. Addiction is what this whole film is about from legit drugs to tv and diet pills to sex. Ellen is representative of the entire film because it's a bit different and not exactly up the Academy's alley. Ellen does do a fantastic job as the mother who becomes addicted to the diet pills and can't quite get the thrill of the uppers she's on because she's seeing a hack so she increases it herself and then gets sick and goes to an ER and they put her in a psych ward and then she gets some electroshock done to her brain which is completely fucked up. This is the extreme for watching tv and buying diet pills but it makes a statement on America as a whole that we are a consumer culture that want everything solved now - whether that's colds or weight loss or bigger things such as addictions. I don't dislike this nomination as a whole because it's really great that addiction can be talked about in these terms but I don't feel Ellen should have won because it's way too obvious she was nominated because of the film as a whole. The ass to ass thing was crazy even if Keith David is a nice dude (I've met him at the film fest I work for - awesome dude!) and I admire Aronofsky's willingness to tell a story about something most people don't want to hear about. This is an eye opener and something most people should be aware of the fucked up nature of the subject. A must watch for everyone.
Laura Linney - You Can Count On Me
When it comes to smaller film nominees, and even first time nominees, such as this, I always hope that the Academy got it right. I always hope that this will be a hidden gem that has gone overlooked by many yet is in reality a wonderful, instant favorite, engaging, and most importantly deserving of the nomination. So that's kind of what I always judge these smaller type performances on - did it grab me and wow me? And for Laura Linney in You Can Count on Me, well, let's just say that it didn't do either one. Which is unfortunate because I like Linney in a lot of her other roles, especially in The Mothman Prophecies (one of my personal faves). What's disappointing is that her two Oscar nominations are for performances that are simply not very memorable (Kinsey was super meh for me). In this film, Linney plays a woman in small town New York State who has a kid but no husband and then her brother comes back in town out of the blue and we see a slice of their life with all their problems and history. Critics seemed to love it as a day to day life snapshot and a quietly affecting film. I mean, I guess so but I feel like I've seen this film a hundred times and it just did not have any affect on me like it did these critics. Linney was fine with her acting but I thought Mark Ruffalo was the star of the film. Linney doesn't have any big acting moment and doesn't exactly shine above everyone else, either. She steadfastly gets the job done and does a good job at it. The story doesn't demand all that much from her and she doesn't exceed expectations, unfortunately, because I know she can do way better work than this. And if you are going to have a "realistic" slice of life film like this then Linney needs to be on point and I was kept waiting for a moment where I could go Aha! that's why the Academy chose her. It never came. I do also realize that I'm again judging a film on stuff I've seen since 2000 and it kind of reminded me of all those mumblecore movies where we peer into someone's life and it's this existential take on raising a family, or being married, or looking for love. Those movies are more believable and more naturally acted than this and I wanted this film to be like that and for Linney to act like that. It's sort of unfair to expect that but it's what I want from an indie like this. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble so I'll wrap this up by saying that I know Linney could have given us a much better take on her character and I don't really see this as belonging on the Oscar list.
I'm always optimistic about this category. This year offered up a group that I knew the winner was deserving but could anyone else dethrone her and where would everyone else fall. Let's face it, Julia was made for that role and was legit the best of the year. I truly think that. But then it becomes who fleshes out the rest of the four. I think second goes to Joan Allen for a very strong and gutsy portrayal of a woman ascending to the highest office in the land for a woman so far and bringing a certain no bullshit attitude to it. From there it's whatever. Ellen Burstyn is in a seriously haunting movie and lots of people should see it. She does an alright job but the message of the film outweighs her. Then Linney enters with a very boring nomination followed by Binoche in a movie I hate. Just boring and not worth spending time exploring or getting to know. I always have faith that the previous year is going to give me an instant classic and something to be revered but until then I'm stuck with these jokes.
Oscar Winner: Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich
My Winner: Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich
Joan Allen
Ellen Burstyn
Laura Linney
Juliette Binoche
2000 Best Actress
Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich
Has an Oscar win ever fit so damn well? If this film were title Julia Roberts it would still make sense. I'm pretty sure that's why everyone, including me, loved this performance so much because it's just as much Julia as it is Erin Brockovich - and we don't care that we see both sides. Seriously, Julia's personality comes out tenfold in this performance probably because the real Erin and her are so similar. But while this would detract from other actresses attempting the same thing, it strengthens Julia's performance here. She gets to be America's Sweetheart here but in a more Julia way. For the record I'll say I hated all those trashy outfits not because I'm a prude or anything but because they just made her look so ugly to me and took away from the performance even though that's part of what Erin was about. And the beginning of the film really puts an emphasis on those outfits which doesn't help things. Once she settles in and it becomes less about the shock factor, Julia really gets into the Erin character and lets loose. She's obviously having fun and it shows. And she's obviously very in tune with the character of Erin and it shows. What I do like a lot about her performance is how natural and easy it feels. That's where the whole not sure if you're watching Julia or Erin thing comes into play because if someone told me it was all ad-libbed, I wouldn't doubt them. So yeah, I think this was the perfect role for Julia and she definitely made the most of it. An easy choice for the Academy here.
Joan Allen - The Contender
I was really hoping for a knockout performance after reading the description for the film (which I initially thought was going to be a boxing film) because I think it's a really juicy role for any female lead. Joan Allen plays a Senator who is tapped to become the next Vice President due to a vacancy and she must go through the rigors of the confirmation process. That means the Republicans, because she's a Democrat, asking all sorts of sordid questions about her past and leaking false info to the internet and all that I guess a screen writer in the late 90s thinks a woman would or should go through if this were true. There are all these very sexual rumors and half truths and lies that come out about Allen's character and she has to deal with that so she can potentially be the first female Vice President. It's a very interesting concept that does get bogged down in the liberalness and super democratic aspect of things. Allen handles herself gracefully and imbues in the character a sense of power and stateliness. She doesn't want to even address the false rumors and wants to keep her private life private which is noble, especially following Clinton's boners (pun!) and this shows how maybe a woman would fare but Allen and her character stay strong and on course. You can almost feel the weight of the character bearing down on Allen's shoulders as if this performance is for real because this is the closest we've gotten to a woman actually getting into office besides Ferraro or Palin. I like that Allen doesn't overact but she does seem to play it a bit too cool and perfect. She says all the right things even if the film wants to misdirect us at every turn and make us believe things are going terribly for her. I just think that Allen rises to the challenge of portraying a female Vice Presidential candidate with plenty of balls. She does a good job even if her running and playing basketball is sooooo incredibly awkward and makes you think she's never done either before this film. She also like to run through I guess the National Cemetery? Arlington maybe? It's just super weird like she runs through the headstones which I kinda think is really disrespectful even if it was meant to show how much she cares about the country. Never run over veteran graves! A decent performance from Allen that could be stronger.
Juliette Binoche - Chocolat
I was a little interested in seeing what Binoche could bring to a movie I always thought (without having seen it) was just a fluffy, feel good, makes Midwesterners feel cultured type of movie. Having finally seen it, I don't think that description is too far off really. So what does Binoche bring to the role of the woman who moves from town to town and sets up a chocolaterie? Well, she gives an effortless, but boring, performance. I watched her and the first word that sprang to mind for this review was casual. As in Binoche's character is just very casual and relaxed for most of the movie which should tell you that she doesn't go through a whole bunch of complex emotions in this and only towards the end does she really kind of step outside of her normal demeanor. It wasn't sickly sweet or anything like that but it was just very relaxed. She's not welcome in the town because it's very religious and the mayor feels she's corrupting the townspeople. But for most of the beginning she just takes it all calmly in stride without much turmoil until the end when her daughter was almost killed and she wanted to move but decided to stay because a few of the townsfolk decided to help out her chocolate shop. So as you can see not the most intricate or involved of performances and it really sums up Chocolat as a whole, honestly. It's a movie that bored me and this is a performance that bored me. I think it's the fact that there's just not a whole lot for her character to do. I know Binoche can be better than she does here but she's not even given the chance in this one. Unfortunately this is as forgettable a nomination and performance as a bag of generic chocolate.
Ellen Burstyn - Requiem for a Dream
I'm not sure if I've been as excited to watch a film for this project as I have been to watch this one. I've heard so much about this film and it being crazy and all kinds of things that I'm so glad I was able to mark it off my list. This was absolutely the cautionary tale everyone told me it was going to be. Something we should show to teenagers so they think twice about getting addicted to drugs. Ellen plays a woman whose son is a junkie but she herself is addicted to tv and eventually becomes further addicted to diet pills so she can go on a certain tv show. Addiction is what this whole film is about from legit drugs to tv and diet pills to sex. Ellen is representative of the entire film because it's a bit different and not exactly up the Academy's alley. Ellen does do a fantastic job as the mother who becomes addicted to the diet pills and can't quite get the thrill of the uppers she's on because she's seeing a hack so she increases it herself and then gets sick and goes to an ER and they put her in a psych ward and then she gets some electroshock done to her brain which is completely fucked up. This is the extreme for watching tv and buying diet pills but it makes a statement on America as a whole that we are a consumer culture that want everything solved now - whether that's colds or weight loss or bigger things such as addictions. I don't dislike this nomination as a whole because it's really great that addiction can be talked about in these terms but I don't feel Ellen should have won because it's way too obvious she was nominated because of the film as a whole. The ass to ass thing was crazy even if Keith David is a nice dude (I've met him at the film fest I work for - awesome dude!) and I admire Aronofsky's willingness to tell a story about something most people don't want to hear about. This is an eye opener and something most people should be aware of the fucked up nature of the subject. A must watch for everyone.
Laura Linney - You Can Count On Me
When it comes to smaller film nominees, and even first time nominees, such as this, I always hope that the Academy got it right. I always hope that this will be a hidden gem that has gone overlooked by many yet is in reality a wonderful, instant favorite, engaging, and most importantly deserving of the nomination. So that's kind of what I always judge these smaller type performances on - did it grab me and wow me? And for Laura Linney in You Can Count on Me, well, let's just say that it didn't do either one. Which is unfortunate because I like Linney in a lot of her other roles, especially in The Mothman Prophecies (one of my personal faves). What's disappointing is that her two Oscar nominations are for performances that are simply not very memorable (Kinsey was super meh for me). In this film, Linney plays a woman in small town New York State who has a kid but no husband and then her brother comes back in town out of the blue and we see a slice of their life with all their problems and history. Critics seemed to love it as a day to day life snapshot and a quietly affecting film. I mean, I guess so but I feel like I've seen this film a hundred times and it just did not have any affect on me like it did these critics. Linney was fine with her acting but I thought Mark Ruffalo was the star of the film. Linney doesn't have any big acting moment and doesn't exactly shine above everyone else, either. She steadfastly gets the job done and does a good job at it. The story doesn't demand all that much from her and she doesn't exceed expectations, unfortunately, because I know she can do way better work than this. And if you are going to have a "realistic" slice of life film like this then Linney needs to be on point and I was kept waiting for a moment where I could go Aha! that's why the Academy chose her. It never came. I do also realize that I'm again judging a film on stuff I've seen since 2000 and it kind of reminded me of all those mumblecore movies where we peer into someone's life and it's this existential take on raising a family, or being married, or looking for love. Those movies are more believable and more naturally acted than this and I wanted this film to be like that and for Linney to act like that. It's sort of unfair to expect that but it's what I want from an indie like this. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble so I'll wrap this up by saying that I know Linney could have given us a much better take on her character and I don't really see this as belonging on the Oscar list.
I'm always optimistic about this category. This year offered up a group that I knew the winner was deserving but could anyone else dethrone her and where would everyone else fall. Let's face it, Julia was made for that role and was legit the best of the year. I truly think that. But then it becomes who fleshes out the rest of the four. I think second goes to Joan Allen for a very strong and gutsy portrayal of a woman ascending to the highest office in the land for a woman so far and bringing a certain no bullshit attitude to it. From there it's whatever. Ellen Burstyn is in a seriously haunting movie and lots of people should see it. She does an alright job but the message of the film outweighs her. Then Linney enters with a very boring nomination followed by Binoche in a movie I hate. Just boring and not worth spending time exploring or getting to know. I always have faith that the previous year is going to give me an instant classic and something to be revered but until then I'm stuck with these jokes.
Oscar Winner: Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich
My Winner: Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich
Joan Allen
Ellen Burstyn
Laura Linney
Juliette Binoche
Supporting Actor 2000
By names alone this looks like a heck of a group. I'm eager to see a few of these that I've wondered about for years.
2000 Best Supporting Actor
Benicio del Toro - Traffic
I was honestly expecting to be a little more blown away by this win. I've read that he won a few precursor awards even for Best Actor not just Supporting, so what did everyone see in it? I do think that this nomination represented the film as a whole and I wonder if people voted it to win to seem progressive? I'm not entirely sure and I don't want to make it seem that this is a horrible performance because it absolutely is not. Del Toro is probably the character in the film that has the most depth and is used as almost the guide through the film. He's sort of the moral point by which to gauge the film as a whole. He is a Mexican cop that finds himself in a tough position of, well, being a Mexican cop that is supposed to stop drug smugglers yet the cartels and the Army are all battling for supremacy of the area and can easily control the small cops like del Toro. They all reach out to him in some capacity so he has to deal with that in order to survive and make money and keep a job. It's an untenable position and while the story doesn't focus solely on this plot line, del Toro makes the most out of his screen time. It's a very realistic portrayal and easily the best acting out of the entire film, which includes a very star studded cast. It's a good enough performance but I just don't see what everyone else sees that makes so great that it was heavily touted before the ceremony.
Jeff Bridges - The Contender
Jeff Bridges is actually pretty presidential...but in a cool way. Or maybe I should say a Jeff Bridges way, because let's face it, The Dude will always be cool. So obviously Bridges, plays the President in this film and he is nominating a female for the vacant Vice President position. She goals through all kinds of controversy during the confirmation hearing because she's a chick and chicks are sluts and whores and not fit for higher office. It's a dumb conceit and I don't think it would play today, especially as Hillary is poised to maybe be a presidential nominee here soon. Anyway, Bridges is a real charmer and schmoozer. He's the real likable President that can disarm, dissuade, and distract anyone from anything by his good ol boy charm and honesty. He is straight out of an Aaron Sorkin piece and belongs on The West Wing. He has this final speech that's very American and Democratic and For The People and just oozes idealism. Bridges plays it all casually but forcibly. He's a natural at the presidential thing and I'd almost want to see him in another film in a not so blatantly idealistic role to see what he could do. He's nominated here most likely because he is Jeff Bridges. And that's not a bad thing. I like the character and performance but wow is Gary Oldman better in this film. If Oldman didn't have a reputation as an asshole he probably would have been nominated in place of Bridges here. His sleazy, conniving Republican character is what makes this film for me and makes it worth the watch. Oldman is terrific for sure even if he has the more theatrical role in this. The life he brings to his character is really something to see. So all in all, I'm not against Bridges here but Oldman is the better pick from the same film.
Willem Dafoe - Shadow of the Vampire
It should be obvious by now that the Academy loves to reward actors and films that portray the history of cinema, essentially allowing the Academy to pat themselves on the back and wink at each other knowingly. In this film, Dafoe plays Max Schreck who was the actor that played Count Orlok in Nosferatu. So it's pretty meta but this comes with a twist: Schreck is actually a real vampire. Now that makes for a compelling conceit! However, for being such a quick, little film Dafoe is quite fantastic in this. He's almost unrecognizable as Schreck/Count Orlok and if I understand it correctly there are scenes from the real film spliced in and I couldn't notice a difference. Dafoe has all the creepy movements down flawlessly and he's able to inject some pretty good humor into the character. I mean, he's a vampire who the rest of the crew (except for the director) thinks is just really method but he wants to feast on them. It's not laugh out loud funny but just the way Dafoe acts as Schreck/Count Orlok is really funny to me. The performance even has a bit of melancholy to it as the character is the only vampire around and there's some fleeting moments where he seems almost human in his sadness. I never would have watched this film, though, because I'm not much of a horror guy including vampires and the like so I would have avoided this on name alone. I'm glad the project made me watch this because it was really good performance from Dafoe that I wasn't expecting at all and I imagine most people wouldn't, either.
Albert Finney - Erin Brockovich
I think I've said it before, but this is what a veteran nomination should be. One that is incredibly solid and helps carry the film and never seems out of place. I actually feel bad calling it a veteran nomination because that kinda carries a negative connotation with it and Finney really does deliver a strong performance. He's just supremely likable and acts as the meat and potatoes of the film. I think his character helps ground Julia Roberts' Erin Brockovich but doesn't do it in any kind of false or contrived way. Their interaction feels very natural and that's due to the abilities of Roberts and Finney. They do make a pretty good team and are a lot of fun to watch together. It's also a bit unbelievable to me that Finney is English (which I knew beforehand) because his accent is so very American and not the proper way, either. He does sound like some old crusty lawyer and it makes the character that much more believable. What I like about the performance, too, is that there is no fluff. He doesn't oversell anything, he doesn't try to be too subtle. He just takes it straight on and gives us a solid piece of acting. I think that the whole no frills thing is what I like the most about Finney here and that's somewhat funny given that I really enjoy Dafoe's performance which is very showy and full of frills! It's amazing that different films and performance can elicit different reactions but also that two disparate performances can both be equally interesting and awesome. This certainly makes me want to watch some more of Albert Finney to see if he can bring the same quality. Luckily (hopefully), I'll get 4 more chances.
Joaquin Phoenix - Gladiator
This performance and nomination should have been the eye opener that Joaquin Phoenix would become a phenomenal actor because the talent is very present here. He plays Emperor Commodus and brings a bit more depth to a role that would otherwise just be purely villainous and nothing else. His character is essentially a spoiled brat who craves attention from his father who realizes his son is an embarrassment. Once Phoenix becomes the Emperor and banishes Crowe's Maximus we see his petty nature come alive. That is what's so good about Phoenix in this movie, that yes this is a strictly villainous role but he doesn't just play it in a singular fashion. He brings an intensity to the role that makes it stand out and brings the Joaquin touch to it. That means he doesn't half ass it or give a familiar performance, he gives us his version. His Emperor is such a dick and so acidic and just a little snake that we hate him so much. It makes Crowe look better and gives the movie more of a rooting interest. I just think it's a pretty good evil Emperor type of role and I'm glad that Phoenix was recognized here because who knows if we would have gotten the great performances from him in the future if not for this nomination. This is one of those times where the Academy identifies an up and comer and gets it so right. Hopefully Phoenix will win an Oscar at some point because he's consistently given some pretty great performances starting with this one.
Here's to another Best Supporting group that didn't let me down! Benicio was always the favorite from what I've read because he even got some Best Actor play in various festivals. Did he make my winning cut? Nope! I didn't get the hype at all, not that it was a bad performance or anything. Just not the greatness I was led to believe it would be. I very much liked both Phoenix and Finney. So who gets my vote? I'm gonna have to go with Albert Finney because he gave a strong performance that really resonated with me for whatever reason. Like I just genuinely liked him in his film. Phoenix is the slight 2nd place for me, but juuuuust slightly. Dafoe created a very fun character and surprised me very much with how interesting it was. Then you could reach into a hat and come up with both Bridges and del Toro. They are about equal but I'll give the edge to del Toro for this blog. He does a good job as does Bridges. Both are definitely worth watching. All in all, another pretty damn good Supporting Actor group and I hope this continues forever.
Oscar Winner: Benicio del Toro - Traffic
My Winner: Albert Finney - Erin Brockovich
Joaquin Phoenix
Willem Dafoe
Benicio del Toro
Jeff Bridges
2000 Best Supporting Actor
Benicio del Toro - Traffic
I was honestly expecting to be a little more blown away by this win. I've read that he won a few precursor awards even for Best Actor not just Supporting, so what did everyone see in it? I do think that this nomination represented the film as a whole and I wonder if people voted it to win to seem progressive? I'm not entirely sure and I don't want to make it seem that this is a horrible performance because it absolutely is not. Del Toro is probably the character in the film that has the most depth and is used as almost the guide through the film. He's sort of the moral point by which to gauge the film as a whole. He is a Mexican cop that finds himself in a tough position of, well, being a Mexican cop that is supposed to stop drug smugglers yet the cartels and the Army are all battling for supremacy of the area and can easily control the small cops like del Toro. They all reach out to him in some capacity so he has to deal with that in order to survive and make money and keep a job. It's an untenable position and while the story doesn't focus solely on this plot line, del Toro makes the most out of his screen time. It's a very realistic portrayal and easily the best acting out of the entire film, which includes a very star studded cast. It's a good enough performance but I just don't see what everyone else sees that makes so great that it was heavily touted before the ceremony.
Jeff Bridges - The Contender
Jeff Bridges is actually pretty presidential...but in a cool way. Or maybe I should say a Jeff Bridges way, because let's face it, The Dude will always be cool. So obviously Bridges, plays the President in this film and he is nominating a female for the vacant Vice President position. She goals through all kinds of controversy during the confirmation hearing because she's a chick and chicks are sluts and whores and not fit for higher office. It's a dumb conceit and I don't think it would play today, especially as Hillary is poised to maybe be a presidential nominee here soon. Anyway, Bridges is a real charmer and schmoozer. He's the real likable President that can disarm, dissuade, and distract anyone from anything by his good ol boy charm and honesty. He is straight out of an Aaron Sorkin piece and belongs on The West Wing. He has this final speech that's very American and Democratic and For The People and just oozes idealism. Bridges plays it all casually but forcibly. He's a natural at the presidential thing and I'd almost want to see him in another film in a not so blatantly idealistic role to see what he could do. He's nominated here most likely because he is Jeff Bridges. And that's not a bad thing. I like the character and performance but wow is Gary Oldman better in this film. If Oldman didn't have a reputation as an asshole he probably would have been nominated in place of Bridges here. His sleazy, conniving Republican character is what makes this film for me and makes it worth the watch. Oldman is terrific for sure even if he has the more theatrical role in this. The life he brings to his character is really something to see. So all in all, I'm not against Bridges here but Oldman is the better pick from the same film.
Willem Dafoe - Shadow of the Vampire
It should be obvious by now that the Academy loves to reward actors and films that portray the history of cinema, essentially allowing the Academy to pat themselves on the back and wink at each other knowingly. In this film, Dafoe plays Max Schreck who was the actor that played Count Orlok in Nosferatu. So it's pretty meta but this comes with a twist: Schreck is actually a real vampire. Now that makes for a compelling conceit! However, for being such a quick, little film Dafoe is quite fantastic in this. He's almost unrecognizable as Schreck/Count Orlok and if I understand it correctly there are scenes from the real film spliced in and I couldn't notice a difference. Dafoe has all the creepy movements down flawlessly and he's able to inject some pretty good humor into the character. I mean, he's a vampire who the rest of the crew (except for the director) thinks is just really method but he wants to feast on them. It's not laugh out loud funny but just the way Dafoe acts as Schreck/Count Orlok is really funny to me. The performance even has a bit of melancholy to it as the character is the only vampire around and there's some fleeting moments where he seems almost human in his sadness. I never would have watched this film, though, because I'm not much of a horror guy including vampires and the like so I would have avoided this on name alone. I'm glad the project made me watch this because it was really good performance from Dafoe that I wasn't expecting at all and I imagine most people wouldn't, either.
Albert Finney - Erin Brockovich
I think I've said it before, but this is what a veteran nomination should be. One that is incredibly solid and helps carry the film and never seems out of place. I actually feel bad calling it a veteran nomination because that kinda carries a negative connotation with it and Finney really does deliver a strong performance. He's just supremely likable and acts as the meat and potatoes of the film. I think his character helps ground Julia Roberts' Erin Brockovich but doesn't do it in any kind of false or contrived way. Their interaction feels very natural and that's due to the abilities of Roberts and Finney. They do make a pretty good team and are a lot of fun to watch together. It's also a bit unbelievable to me that Finney is English (which I knew beforehand) because his accent is so very American and not the proper way, either. He does sound like some old crusty lawyer and it makes the character that much more believable. What I like about the performance, too, is that there is no fluff. He doesn't oversell anything, he doesn't try to be too subtle. He just takes it straight on and gives us a solid piece of acting. I think that the whole no frills thing is what I like the most about Finney here and that's somewhat funny given that I really enjoy Dafoe's performance which is very showy and full of frills! It's amazing that different films and performance can elicit different reactions but also that two disparate performances can both be equally interesting and awesome. This certainly makes me want to watch some more of Albert Finney to see if he can bring the same quality. Luckily (hopefully), I'll get 4 more chances.
Joaquin Phoenix - Gladiator
This performance and nomination should have been the eye opener that Joaquin Phoenix would become a phenomenal actor because the talent is very present here. He plays Emperor Commodus and brings a bit more depth to a role that would otherwise just be purely villainous and nothing else. His character is essentially a spoiled brat who craves attention from his father who realizes his son is an embarrassment. Once Phoenix becomes the Emperor and banishes Crowe's Maximus we see his petty nature come alive. That is what's so good about Phoenix in this movie, that yes this is a strictly villainous role but he doesn't just play it in a singular fashion. He brings an intensity to the role that makes it stand out and brings the Joaquin touch to it. That means he doesn't half ass it or give a familiar performance, he gives us his version. His Emperor is such a dick and so acidic and just a little snake that we hate him so much. It makes Crowe look better and gives the movie more of a rooting interest. I just think it's a pretty good evil Emperor type of role and I'm glad that Phoenix was recognized here because who knows if we would have gotten the great performances from him in the future if not for this nomination. This is one of those times where the Academy identifies an up and comer and gets it so right. Hopefully Phoenix will win an Oscar at some point because he's consistently given some pretty great performances starting with this one.
Here's to another Best Supporting group that didn't let me down! Benicio was always the favorite from what I've read because he even got some Best Actor play in various festivals. Did he make my winning cut? Nope! I didn't get the hype at all, not that it was a bad performance or anything. Just not the greatness I was led to believe it would be. I very much liked both Phoenix and Finney. So who gets my vote? I'm gonna have to go with Albert Finney because he gave a strong performance that really resonated with me for whatever reason. Like I just genuinely liked him in his film. Phoenix is the slight 2nd place for me, but juuuuust slightly. Dafoe created a very fun character and surprised me very much with how interesting it was. Then you could reach into a hat and come up with both Bridges and del Toro. They are about equal but I'll give the edge to del Toro for this blog. He does a good job as does Bridges. Both are definitely worth watching. All in all, another pretty damn good Supporting Actor group and I hope this continues forever.
Oscar Winner: Benicio del Toro - Traffic
My Winner: Albert Finney - Erin Brockovich
Joaquin Phoenix
Willem Dafoe
Benicio del Toro
Jeff Bridges
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Supporting Actress 2000
I haven't seen any of these performances before and I'm hopeful that I'll get a good group for once. Always hopeful!
2000 Best Supporting Actress
Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
Marcia Gay Harden looks like a chubbier Bettie Paige throughout this film and it works. She plays the wife to Jackson Pollock and is the driving force behind his rise to fame. I loved her entrance to the film when she pops up unannounced to Pollock's apartment and says hello with her fast talking New York accent. Eventually she gets let in and sees his paintings and they become a couple. She stands by him even though he's a raging alcoholic and treats her poorly at times. Harden imbues the character with an earnestness of being. While Harris' Pollock is a moody, temperamental artiste, Harden makes her Lee Krasner become a doting, maternal, business like wife and manager. I think Director Ed Harris gets a lot out of Harden's performance and the sense of the film is so low key and not your typical biopic that the characters come off as a bit more real. You don't get the broad, over the top caricatures as in some biopics. Harden and Harris feed off each other wonderfully and have an interesting dynamic. I enjoyed every time Harden was on screen because Harris could be a bit intense as Pollock, which is not a knock on him at all. She grounded the film and was a realist and offered up a whole lot more than the simple, boring supporting character. I think in the early goings of the film she was what held it all together and made the ending more satisfactory to watch even though she wasn't in it because we were able to suffer through Pollock's destructiveness. Looking at this group, it's clear Harden gives the best performance.
Judi Dench - Chocolat
(I had a bunch written out but my computer froze writing this one and none of it saved grrrr) I'll be honest, I'm all Judi Dench'd out. Like I legitimately am not all that interested in watching her anymore. She was nominated like 6 times in 10 years and I think that can take a toll on a reviewer when not every nomination is worth it. And when not every nomination is of substantial quality, well, fuck right off with your Judi Dench nominations! Find someone new to nominate every year. We could get something new, interesting or different instead but the Academy likes to go to the same well over and over and it's frankly boring and frustrating, especially when the performances aren't all that worthy. Part of that blame can be placed squarely on the Weinsteins (fuck them) who pushed through movies and performances like Chocolat that most likely wasn't going to get a Best Picture nom and maybe not even it's other nominations. That strong arm, buy everyone off approach left out some great films and performances, unfortunately. As for Dench's performance here, she plays an eccentric old landlady who rents to Binoche so she can set up her chocolaterie. It's a character that seems all too familiar for Dench. I'm saying this going backward through her oeuvre so in 2000 this might have been seen differently but it's what I think of when I think of a Dench performance. She plays a grumpy old woman who may also have a kindly interior or something like that. This fits that to a T. She's grumpy but has a warm heart as seen when she connects with her grandson and helps out Binoche's character. There's a big reveal that's laughable and then she meets a tragic end and that's it. It's pretty standard stuff from an actress that is certainly one of the best going, no doubt, but it doesn't register with me as anything important. It's very much like a piece of chocolate that is good for a few seconds but then that's it and you wonder if eating it was a good idea. Just not something I think is Oscar worthy.
Kate Hudson - Almost Famous
I was always wary that Almost Famous wouldn't be as good as everyone said it was, especially since it seemed like so many different people loved it. Maybe I don't think it's the best of the year after watching it, I certainly do think it's really good and highly enjoyable. It's kind of a feel good-y film and one that was a hit with critics but also played to the nostalgia factor. The detractors all seem to be way older or of the way younger variety. But I think it touches on more than just nostalgia for a simple or better time. Obviously it speaks to early loves and the sense of adventure and wanting to be cool, which is something everyone can relate to. Another thing everyone can relate to is their fantasy woman. Kate Hudson portrays the manic pixie dream girl and to her credit she's up to the task of playing that ideal. She's not a groupie but a super fan that shags one of the band members, which seems true to life for her given her personal history. Nowadays you don't think of Hudson as this Oscar nominated actress, she's more well known for terrible rom coms so it was nice to watch her in this film and actually like her performance and her character. She plays the dream girl but she does it in a non-cloying way. Her character could easily get swallowed up in the attractive character who is only there to be eye candy abyss but she actually brings some legit acting to the table. As a supporting character she's what you'd want, I think. She gives a sweet performance and never tries to take her character into dangerous territory and ruin a simple, loving, honest role. Reading back over that it sounds like a whole bunch of nothing but Hudson keeps it sweet without being sickening and resists just being the pretty girl. I don't see it as being good enough for a win but I quite enjoyed the performance and the film as a whole.
Frances McDormand - Almost Famous
In the very beginning of the film, I was worried it would just be Frances McDormand playing Frances McDormand and that was it. It kind of looked like that might be what we would get because it's not an easy role to build a character from. But as the film went on, I fell for the character McDormand was creating. She plays the overprotective mother to a charmingly sweet T. When she shows up, she brings some fun levity to the scenes she's in and wins you over with her gosh darned earnestness. Her maternal charm is something easy to relate to and you're glad that she loves her son so much but sees his potential and allows him to go off and find himself. Director Cameron Crowe modeled the character after his own mother and I think that shines through in the script and story. McDormand brings a warmth to the film that helps ground it in reality. It's sort of a quaint, understated performance that also hits big when you least expect it. It also doesn't seem quite there for a win but the two nominated women for this film help make it into a deceivingly good film.
Julie Walters - Billy Elliot
I'm not sure what makes some critics pick out performances such as this one and champion it with a lot of adjectives about how good and remarkable it is. Julie Walters does not give a bad performance at all as the local ballet instructor who sees real potential in Billy Elliot, that's not where I'm going with this. This is a typical, solid supporting turn of acting. But while watching it, I didn't get any sense of something amazing unfolding in front of my eyes that deserved to be singled out. These are the hardest performances to write about because I just don't feel strongly one way or the other. Walters does a good job at playing the determined old ballet teacher who must convince Billy's father that he has the talent necessary to go on to the Royal Ballet School. What could have and should have been her big shining moment in the film is eclipsed by music playing over top of her arguing with Billy's father. She's a veteran actress that does exactly what's needed of her character. Hopefully her nominated work in Educating Rita from 1984 will be more interesting.
Overall not too bad! Having not seen any of them prior, I'm glad they all weren't terrible. Eventually I'll get a year where they all hit with me but 2000 wasn't so bad. I've been reading Inside Oscar 2, which is this great book that details (and I mean details!) each Oscar year with the lead up to nominations and then the race and ceremony itself. It's great and the original Inside Oscar is a must have for any movie buff and it covers the beginning up to 1994. The second books covers 1995 to 2000 and I wish they'd come out with a third. Anyway, the buzz was mostly around Kate Hudson and Judi Dench so Harden's win was like a minor shock but damn if she doesn't deserve it in this group. She's clearly the best and my winner, too. I can understand why Hudson was so praised as she is my second and I enjoyed McDormand as well. Then we get Walters who is just kinda meh and Dench who I just don't think belongs (Walters either but yeah). So I'll take 3 good performances any day!
Oscar Winner: Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
My Winner: Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
Kate Hudson
Frances McDormand
Julie Walters
Judi Dench
2000 Best Supporting Actress
Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
Marcia Gay Harden looks like a chubbier Bettie Paige throughout this film and it works. She plays the wife to Jackson Pollock and is the driving force behind his rise to fame. I loved her entrance to the film when she pops up unannounced to Pollock's apartment and says hello with her fast talking New York accent. Eventually she gets let in and sees his paintings and they become a couple. She stands by him even though he's a raging alcoholic and treats her poorly at times. Harden imbues the character with an earnestness of being. While Harris' Pollock is a moody, temperamental artiste, Harden makes her Lee Krasner become a doting, maternal, business like wife and manager. I think Director Ed Harris gets a lot out of Harden's performance and the sense of the film is so low key and not your typical biopic that the characters come off as a bit more real. You don't get the broad, over the top caricatures as in some biopics. Harden and Harris feed off each other wonderfully and have an interesting dynamic. I enjoyed every time Harden was on screen because Harris could be a bit intense as Pollock, which is not a knock on him at all. She grounded the film and was a realist and offered up a whole lot more than the simple, boring supporting character. I think in the early goings of the film she was what held it all together and made the ending more satisfactory to watch even though she wasn't in it because we were able to suffer through Pollock's destructiveness. Looking at this group, it's clear Harden gives the best performance.
Judi Dench - Chocolat
(I had a bunch written out but my computer froze writing this one and none of it saved grrrr) I'll be honest, I'm all Judi Dench'd out. Like I legitimately am not all that interested in watching her anymore. She was nominated like 6 times in 10 years and I think that can take a toll on a reviewer when not every nomination is worth it. And when not every nomination is of substantial quality, well, fuck right off with your Judi Dench nominations! Find someone new to nominate every year. We could get something new, interesting or different instead but the Academy likes to go to the same well over and over and it's frankly boring and frustrating, especially when the performances aren't all that worthy. Part of that blame can be placed squarely on the Weinsteins (fuck them) who pushed through movies and performances like Chocolat that most likely wasn't going to get a Best Picture nom and maybe not even it's other nominations. That strong arm, buy everyone off approach left out some great films and performances, unfortunately. As for Dench's performance here, she plays an eccentric old landlady who rents to Binoche so she can set up her chocolaterie. It's a character that seems all too familiar for Dench. I'm saying this going backward through her oeuvre so in 2000 this might have been seen differently but it's what I think of when I think of a Dench performance. She plays a grumpy old woman who may also have a kindly interior or something like that. This fits that to a T. She's grumpy but has a warm heart as seen when she connects with her grandson and helps out Binoche's character. There's a big reveal that's laughable and then she meets a tragic end and that's it. It's pretty standard stuff from an actress that is certainly one of the best going, no doubt, but it doesn't register with me as anything important. It's very much like a piece of chocolate that is good for a few seconds but then that's it and you wonder if eating it was a good idea. Just not something I think is Oscar worthy.
Kate Hudson - Almost Famous
I was always wary that Almost Famous wouldn't be as good as everyone said it was, especially since it seemed like so many different people loved it. Maybe I don't think it's the best of the year after watching it, I certainly do think it's really good and highly enjoyable. It's kind of a feel good-y film and one that was a hit with critics but also played to the nostalgia factor. The detractors all seem to be way older or of the way younger variety. But I think it touches on more than just nostalgia for a simple or better time. Obviously it speaks to early loves and the sense of adventure and wanting to be cool, which is something everyone can relate to. Another thing everyone can relate to is their fantasy woman. Kate Hudson portrays the manic pixie dream girl and to her credit she's up to the task of playing that ideal. She's not a groupie but a super fan that shags one of the band members, which seems true to life for her given her personal history. Nowadays you don't think of Hudson as this Oscar nominated actress, she's more well known for terrible rom coms so it was nice to watch her in this film and actually like her performance and her character. She plays the dream girl but she does it in a non-cloying way. Her character could easily get swallowed up in the attractive character who is only there to be eye candy abyss but she actually brings some legit acting to the table. As a supporting character she's what you'd want, I think. She gives a sweet performance and never tries to take her character into dangerous territory and ruin a simple, loving, honest role. Reading back over that it sounds like a whole bunch of nothing but Hudson keeps it sweet without being sickening and resists just being the pretty girl. I don't see it as being good enough for a win but I quite enjoyed the performance and the film as a whole.
Frances McDormand - Almost Famous
In the very beginning of the film, I was worried it would just be Frances McDormand playing Frances McDormand and that was it. It kind of looked like that might be what we would get because it's not an easy role to build a character from. But as the film went on, I fell for the character McDormand was creating. She plays the overprotective mother to a charmingly sweet T. When she shows up, she brings some fun levity to the scenes she's in and wins you over with her gosh darned earnestness. Her maternal charm is something easy to relate to and you're glad that she loves her son so much but sees his potential and allows him to go off and find himself. Director Cameron Crowe modeled the character after his own mother and I think that shines through in the script and story. McDormand brings a warmth to the film that helps ground it in reality. It's sort of a quaint, understated performance that also hits big when you least expect it. It also doesn't seem quite there for a win but the two nominated women for this film help make it into a deceivingly good film.
Julie Walters - Billy Elliot
I'm not sure what makes some critics pick out performances such as this one and champion it with a lot of adjectives about how good and remarkable it is. Julie Walters does not give a bad performance at all as the local ballet instructor who sees real potential in Billy Elliot, that's not where I'm going with this. This is a typical, solid supporting turn of acting. But while watching it, I didn't get any sense of something amazing unfolding in front of my eyes that deserved to be singled out. These are the hardest performances to write about because I just don't feel strongly one way or the other. Walters does a good job at playing the determined old ballet teacher who must convince Billy's father that he has the talent necessary to go on to the Royal Ballet School. What could have and should have been her big shining moment in the film is eclipsed by music playing over top of her arguing with Billy's father. She's a veteran actress that does exactly what's needed of her character. Hopefully her nominated work in Educating Rita from 1984 will be more interesting.
Overall not too bad! Having not seen any of them prior, I'm glad they all weren't terrible. Eventually I'll get a year where they all hit with me but 2000 wasn't so bad. I've been reading Inside Oscar 2, which is this great book that details (and I mean details!) each Oscar year with the lead up to nominations and then the race and ceremony itself. It's great and the original Inside Oscar is a must have for any movie buff and it covers the beginning up to 1994. The second books covers 1995 to 2000 and I wish they'd come out with a third. Anyway, the buzz was mostly around Kate Hudson and Judi Dench so Harden's win was like a minor shock but damn if she doesn't deserve it in this group. She's clearly the best and my winner, too. I can understand why Hudson was so praised as she is my second and I enjoyed McDormand as well. Then we get Walters who is just kinda meh and Dench who I just don't think belongs (Walters either but yeah). So I'll take 3 good performances any day!
Oscar Winner: Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
My Winner: Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
Kate Hudson
Frances McDormand
Julie Walters
Judi Dench
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)