Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1957

And the Nominees Were Not:

Lee J. Cobb in 12 Angry Men

Jack Hawkins in The Bridge on the River Kwai

Burt Lancaster in Sweet Smell of Success

Bengt Ekerot in The Seventh Seal 

Gunnar Björnstrand in The Seventh Seal

46 comments:

koook160 (Robert MacFarlane) said...

1. Bjornstrand
2. Cobb
3. Lancaster
4. Ekerot
5. Hawkins

GM said...

1. Lancaster
2. Bjornstrand
3. Cobb
4. Ekerot
5. Hawkins

luke higham said...

1. Bjornstrand
2. Cobb
3. Lancaster
4. Ekerot
5. Hawkins

Louis: Your ratings & thoughts on the cast of Paths of Glory.

bondfan said...

1. Cobb
2. Lancaster
3. Bjornstrand
4. Ekerot
5. Hawkins

GetDonaldSutherlandAnOscar said...

1. Lancaster
2. Cobb
3. Bjornstrand
4. Ekerot
5. Hawkins

Also, thoughts and ratings on Leo Mckern in Help!, Trevor Howard in Von Ryan's Express, and Noel Coward in Bunny Lake.

GetDonaldSutherlandAnOscar said...

also, Wallace Ford in A Patch of Blue

Maciej said...

1. Cobb
2. Lancaster
3. Ekerot
4. Bjornstrand
5. Hawkins

koook160 (Robert MacFarlane) said...

I'm just going to assume anyone putting Bjornstrand lower than the first slot hasn't seen it.

luke higham said...

RatedRStar: Have you seen Selma or American Sniper yet, if so, Your ratings & thoughts on Oyelowo, Wilkinson, Egogo, Roth and Cooper.

JackiBoyz said...

1)Lancaster
2)Bjornstrand
3)Cobb
4)Hawkins
5)Ekerot

I have seen The Seventh Seal and I still think Lancaster would be my choice.

luke higham said...

I'm changing mine
1. Bjornstrand
2. Lancaster
3. Cobb
4. Ekerot
5. Hawkins

Fisti said...

Bjornstrand gives my favorite supporting performance of all time, hands down, no questions.

RatedRStar said...

@Luke: I have not seen American Sniper, Selma, or even Into The Woods just yet, I have only seen Big Eyes recently.

1)Bjornstrand
2)Lancaster
3)Cobb
4)Hawkins
5)Ekerot

Anonymous said...

RatedRStar could you give us your thoughts about the films themselves when you see them?

RatedRStar said...

Ok ill start with Big Eyes;

Big Eyes is a wildly uneven film, it's direction is very bad, it also has many poor supporting performances (only Stamp and Schwartzman give fine enough work and even then they underused) It also fails to work as a biopic as it doesn't delve deep enough into Margaret and Walter Keane and instead becomes an over the top melodrama, many scenes are so over the top, the courtroom scene is terrible and is unintentionally funny and the scene where Waltz practically turns into a serial killer and starts terrorizing Margaret is just terrible.

RatedRStar said...

Big Eyes is by far the worst Oscar contender I have seen for 2014 so far.

moviefilm said...

1) Gunnar Bjornstrand
2) Burt Lancaster
3) Lee J. Cobb
4) Jack Hawkins
5) Bengt Ekerot

luke higham said...

RatedRStar: That's fine, because I do like your opinions a lot, I'd have you tied with Michael Patison and just behind Louis on who's opinions I like reading the most on the blog or otherwise, with no disrespect to the others as well.
Your ratings & thoughts on the cast of Big Eyes.
I'll say that I liked American Sniper, well enough, although I'm not as positive as Michael Patison is, I thought Cooper was great and I may give him a 5, whenever I get Louis's thoughts/review since it could bring him over the line.

With Selma, I thought it was a very good film and a vast improvement over Lee Daniel's The Butler, It is a bit overrated, but would still be a deserving nominee for Picture and Director. It is more akin to Lincoln than 12 Years a Slave, but no less effective than the former film, I mentioned. Oyelowo owns the film from beginning to end, as he is able to capture the essence and cadence of Martin Luther King very effectively, despite not having a very close resemblance to him, he thankfully stays very subtle and realistic in his emotions & reactions with the scenes, that he has with the grieving father, an advisor in the jail cell, a disgruntled young protestor and his wife (played very well by Carmen Ejogo). Another positive that I have was that Duvernay did not sugercoat his flaws, such as his infidelities. Last but not least Oyelowo is absolutely perfect in the speech scenes, as he brings the absolute conviction and command through his words.

RatedRStar said...

@Luke: I've given my thoughts on the film, as for the performances.

Waltz (2.5) This is tough because early on, Waltz is very good at being this charming energetic salesman, he makes it very easy why Adams would fall for him so quickly, I also feel he brings a great sleazy quality to him, the problems all come later into the film, the first is when Waltz starts drinking and starts attempting to set Margaret and her daughter on fire (yes this happens) Waltz overdoes it completely as he seems less like a sleazeball and more like a serial killer which doesn't stack up at all and makes the tone just odd, its actually surprising how over the top he gets after this point, from here on Waltz just hams completely, his scene when he confronts Terence Stamp is also bad, he just screams all over the place in a melodramatic fashion, the worst scene is the courtroom scene when Waltz attempts to defend himself on his own after his defense council abandons him, Waltz just goes berserk lol but this isn't a comedy, its played completely straight and its just laughable, I should say I laughed a lot when Waltz attempts to paint and then fakes an injury by making the most cartoonish AHH noise ever, such a disappointment.

Adams (3) She is always decent enough at reacting and suspecting that Waltz is up to no good, she is hindered by the terrible direction by Burton which writes her as just a decent person with not much depth, she is always fine in the film but, she never really does that much overall, shes kinda overshadowed by Waltz in his good and bad scenes.

There isn't anything to say about the rest I am afraid, because they all so one note and quite dull. Stamp is enjoyable enough at being a rather snobby art critic and I wish he was here more, Schwartzman is also fine in a similar snobby role but he just isn't in enough.

The film didn't make me angry I was just dissapointed in how over the top it actually was.

RatedRStar said...

Oh thanks for saying you like my opinion, its nice to know someone does lol =D I like urs 2.

luke higham said...

RatedRStar: Your welcome.
Your thoughts on the film were posted, while I was writing my piece, so no bother.

luke higham said...

RatedRStar: Thank you.

Michael Patison said...

I deleted my previous prediction comment because I'm going to change:
1. Gunnar Björnstrand
2. Burt Lancaster
3. Lee J. Cobb
4. Jack Hawkins
5. Bengt Ekerot

Luke: What did you dislike about American Sniper? Were your issues with it similar to mine, just more extreme? Do you think nationality (specifically ours being different) played a role?

Also, thanks for the compliment.

luke higham said...

Michael Patison: On a 100 point scale, I'd give it 85 out of 100, since my only real complaint and is more of an unfortunate setback, which is of course the ending. I thought Cooper was terrific in all of the scenes away from home and very good vice versa, especially the scene with his wife after his daughter's birth.
In conclusion, it's a good film that may grow on me in the future.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Meeker - 4(Meeker gives a moving portrayal of a man who basically takes everything perhaps too much in stride, even when he is marked for death. Meeker though is very good at providing the internal turmoil in the man, while staying believable as he refuses to lose his reserve even when he is about to be executed)

Menjou - 3(He brings enough cynical pompousness to the role but George Macready is more memorable in a very similar role)

Macready - 4(He's all pompousness in everything he does from his step just to everything single thing he says. Macready properly develops the nonsensical mindset through his performance and is completely convincing that a man could be so calm when sending men to their deaths for "cowardice". Macready and Menjou both are good in creating that foolishness of military protocol making Douglas's lashing out scene all the more satisfying)

Morris - 3(He's a tad on the caricature side of things as the stupid officer who screws everything up. I do really like his last scene with Meeker though and he's rather moving in showing the apology that is obviously far too late to do any good)

GetDonaldSutherlandOscar:

McKern - 4(Ah yes Help! the second time a parade of great British character actors parade around doing their best to make up for The Beatles's lack of acting skills. McKern is a hoot in the role as the nondescript religious leader. He does kinda have pseudo menace to his performance well being just rather funny in the part. For some reason I really enjoy the way he says "Go to the Window")

Howard - 4(Howard and Sinatra make a pretty good double team with each other as they create the passive aggressive steak the two have for one another. Howard carries himself with a great English cool here for the most part, but when their are a few more dramatic moments, such as talking with Von Ryan about killing the woman, Howard delivers there as well)

Coward - 4(It's a real shame the film botched its final act so much because I was rather liking it before then. I particularly liked Coward as the land lord as he might take sleaze to a whole different level here. He's great as he keeps his so refined diction well being such an unrepentant dirty old man, he's hilarious while being quite creepy)

Ford - 3.5(I like Ford's performance here because he gives just not enough warmth, but in the right way. Ford does have some comfort to him as he establishes that he does love his granddaughter, certainly much more than her mother does, but he's too much of an old wreck himself to really overpower the hate of Winter's mother figure)

koook160 (Robert MacFarlane) said...

I asked this before, but you never answered; What are your ratings ant thoughts on Garner and Sandler in Men, Women, and Children?

Louis Morgan said...

Robert: Sorry about that.


Sandler - 2.5(Leaning towards 2. I really don't have a problem with his performance here exactly in that he plays a sad guy and he looks sad well playing him. He succeeds at that, but that's all there is to his performance. There's no nuance, or growth throughout the film. He's one note but not really even all that effective on that one note. He certainly fits in with the rest of the cast other than Norris, Greer and ......)

Garner - 1(Norris and Greer don't fit in because they actually try to show any other sides to their characters. Garner on the other hand does not fit because of how actively terrible she is in the role. Now her character is written absurdly anyways, as an overbearing mother worried about all technologies, the problem is it is hard to say what Garner is going for. If she's trying to be funny with how she overacts and over does every mannerism here she fails since she's not funny. Also that would be weird for the tone technically but then again Reitman's direction is completely tone deaf here anyway. If she's trying to be a real person though then this is an atrocity of acting. She gives one of the worst performances of the year either way)

luke higham said...

Louis: Seen any new films.

Louis Morgan said...

The Imitation Game
Unbroken

I'll be going to see Selma and American Sniper tomorrow.

koook160 (Robert MacFarlane) said...

Ratings and thoughts on the casts of both films? Barring Cumberbatch, of course.

luke higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on the films and Ratings & Thoughts on the casts.
Also, please see Joe before the alternate supporting lineup, since I thought Gary Poulter was amazing and Nicolas Cage gave his best performance to date, even better than Bad Lieutenant.

Louis Morgan said...

The Imitation Game - (It takes the approach of the glossy prestige picture for Alan Turing, which might not fit exactly as it technically is a much more tragic tale than will fit in such view. Nevertheless I liked it as this sort of film and as this sort of film I thought it was well done. It was inspiring, entertaining enough, and really just good enough. Turing's homosexuality only factors in lightly, and do to the aim of the film, since that is where the tragedy lies as well as it has little to do with cracking enigma, I understand why it was treated as it is. Also I don't think it failed to include to at least the extent in which it would fit for this type film. I will say I do have some reservations even so. Mainly I think Tyldum's direction falters slightly in the espionage related scenes because suddenly its like he's doing a John Le Carre adaptation which does not meld with the rest of the film. It also wraps up too quickly, not even in regards to Turing's fate, but rather I think it would be interesting to see why they made the decisions regarding to the intelligence they obtained. I think a great film could be made about Alan Turing, this film's not it, but I do think it's a good film)

Knightley - 2.5(It probably would been more interesting if the part had been cast truer to life and maybe there would have been a more interesting dynamic created. Knightley I just felt was serviceable most of the time, but did not bring that much life to the role. There always seemed something missing and she was never her co-star's level. Also I thought she was downright terrible in the scene where she calls Turing a monster, as she seemed off in that entire sequence)

Goode - 3(Okay where was some of this charm as Ozymandias? Goode is fine here. He's mostly here to be an opposite of Turing's style but he does the outgoing smart guy routine fairly. I liked him and I would not have minded if they built his and Turing's relationship/rivalry up a bit more)

Strong - 3.5(I'll admit I did kinda enjoy the way he seemed to appear out of nowhere in all of his scenes, even if I think the direction around his character was a misstep for the film. Strong though delivers in bringing some cold harsh exposition with his performance. Again I may not have even minded that tone shift if the film stuck with it for more than about five seconds therefore gave us more Strong being awesome)

Dance - 3(Okay Dance was being pretty lazy here since everything about this performance was just Tywin Lannister. I kept waiting for him to go on about a speech about family legacy since everything he did was pure Tywin. Dance is not a one-note actor if you've seen some of his other work, so maybe Tyldum said "just do Tywin". Well here's the thing Dance as Tywin is a great performance, but that performance is far more fitting to a medieval style lord than a WWII Commander. I still thought he was effective, but he should have made a few adjustments)

Louis Morgan said...


Unbroken - (Well if is not broken sometimes you do need to fix. I apologize. Anyways....this film is a great example of why you create an inaccurate film, because sometimes you just have to. This is too much of a lionization because it sacrifices character for its sake. No one is anyone here not even Zamperini, the closet you technically get is with The Bird. Everyone else is a background sufferer or marginal encourager. A composite character sometimes is needed because you want to stay with them. There was potential with Gleeson's character for example, but since it stayed accurate we are cut off from him just as we might get something out of him. Every other scene are dramatic moments that should be moving simply because they would be in real life, but film does not create the investment in needs to because we barely get to know a single character. Also how long the final text scrolls are is very telling. When I saw them all I thought was that the prisoner going to forgive his captors may be an interesting thing to cover, but ah forget that.)

I'm only saving Miyavi because you never know. I sincerely hope that he does not knock any of the five I listed in the predictions though.

O'Connell - 3.5(Like I said who is Zamperini? I guy who knows that if you can take it you can make it that's it. There's nothing else to this guy other than just general loyalty to his brothers and the U.S. O'Connell does his best though in his nothingness though. He properly reflects the physical degradation, and he always seems authentic to whatever scene he is in. I only wish there was a bit more than though)

Gleeson - 3(The film needed more guys like Gleeson, if it was not going to be rewritten, because he happens to have that natural character about him that could make for the lack of material. Gleeson does and stands out probably more than he should just through his natural talent. He also matches O'Connell each step, perhaps more so, in depicting the physical wreck he becomes. I wish he'd at least stuck around)

Luke:

I'll definitely get around to Joe soon.

Anonymous said...

2.5 for Knightley? I'm quite shocked. I thought she was terrific... She was sweet and endearing for most of the movie, and she really delivered in her two big scenes. I would give her much more credit than you do.

luke higham said...

I've decided to knock O'Connell down to a 4 and Knightley to a 3 since the scene you mentioned has bugged me, the more and more I think about it.
I'm guessing you fucking hated Miyavi.
And Cumberbatch is a definite 4.5 at the least from the look of it.

koook160 (Robert MacFarlane) said...

Rent Begin Again for a great Knightley performance. Also, for a great fucking movie.

koook160 (Robert MacFarlane) said...

I'll be honest, I find myself disliking The Imitation Game the more I think about it. The filmmaking seems more pedestrian and undercooked, the script seems more problematic, and overall it hits even more biopic clichés than The Theory of Everything.

luke higham said...

Big Eyes Ratings
Adams - 4
Waltz - 2.5
Stamp - 3
Schwartzman - 2.5
Huston - 2

Anonymous said...

I loved The Imitation Game, it was haunting, harrowing, compelling and inspiring. I hope Cumberbatch will get a 5 from Louis although I don't think it will happen. Knightley was great for me, and yes I even liked her "monster" scene, she's effective in showing that Joan would do everything to keep working, even marrying a man she knows he doesn't love her back. I can understand the criticsm she gets but I think she'd be a better winner than Arquette.

luke higham said...

Has anyone seen Selma yet.

houndtang said...

Could you do a mini-review for all the supporting actors in Twelve Angry Men? Not all Oscar-worthy of course, but I'm sure you could say something interesting about them all.

Louis Morgan said...

houndtang: Yeah I intend on covering the other 10 in Cobb's review.

mcofra7 said...

1. Bjornstrand
2. Lancaster
3. Cobb
4. Ekerot
5. Hawkins

mcofra7 said...

Have thoughts/rating been given for Max von Sydow in the Seventh Seal?

luke higham said...

Mcofra7: He hasn't listed Sydow as of yet in the lead ranking.

Michael McCarthy said...

I'm seeing Selma tonight, I can list my ratings when I do. In regards to The Imitation I thought it was completely satisfying but not great, I definitely liked it a little more than Theory of Everything. As for Knightley, I think Louis is right about her "you're a monster" scene, but I thought she made up for it in her last scene, which I thought was incredibly nuanced and resonant on her part. I also agree with Louis on Unbroken, it was basically The Passion of the Christ but set in WWII.