Paul Giamatti in Sideways
Showing posts with label 2004. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2004. Show all posts
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Best Actor 2004: Results
Paul Giamatti in Sideways
Best Actor 2004: Leonardo DiCaprio in The Aviator
Leonardo DiCaprio received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Howard Hughes in The Aviator.
The Aviator is a very good biography picture of Howard Hughes because it focuses on specific moments of Hughes' life rather trying to fit his whole story, which I find is a failing of many similar films.
Leonardo DiCaprio is usually a charming, and very energetic screen presence. This is true for his performance as Howard Hughes which is an incredibly challenge role. He uses his usually charm in the right way though, and does adjust it to fit Hughes' personality, which makes him change it to a sort of a quiet charm. He is never obviously trying to be charming in his romantic scenes at all, DiCaprio makes it clear that Hughes simply just asserts himself in command, even when he looks like he is not trying to do this. DiCaprio is perfect in showing Hughes' quiet determination in a fashion that fits Hughes perfectly.
DiCaprio properly loses his charm though throughout the film though as Howard Hughes' obsessive compulsive disorder slowly gets the better of him. DiCaprio handles the disorder very well, and how it causes Howard's disintegration. DiCaprio handles the small indications at first, as something clearly effecting Hughes inside, but outwardly it seems just an odd quirk that Hughes does. Later though a minor dirty spot can cause Howard just to stare at it until it is gone, and DiCaprio makes this a really problem that effects Hughes so much he is almost unable to function because of something so minor.
DiCaprio handles this whole part of Hughes expertly, because he does not only ever focus on the direct effects of the disorder, but also the other effects. DiCaprio slowly loses Hughes charm, very realistically as he becomes more paranoid about just about anything around him. He loses all of his positive aspects slowly, as his disorder becomes worse. All the mannerisms that Hughes slowly gains such as his injury, and his obsessive repeating of sentences are well handled by DiCaprio not all making them seem forced but completely natural to the Howard Hughes.
DiCaprio does something interesting in his performance which is show his possible recovery since he slowly loses what he has but never completely during this film, even though it is quite clearly suggested at the end that he is going to lose everything. It is fascinating because DiCaprio shows him at the brink when he sits naked in his room urinating in bottles, which DiCaprio actually makes it believable that he is doing it, because he showed that Hughes disorder slowly brought him down to this point. But at the same time DiCaprio manages to show that Hughes partially pulls himself up to face his war profiteering charges. DiCaprio is particularly strong in these moments because he shows his pain in performing the slightest task because of his disorder, but also shows that Hughes is not completely gone, and still has his quiet persuasion, and charm left in the hearing scenes, which DiCapario handles simply brilliant.
I really do not want to sound negative because this is a great performance but I never fully saw him as Howard Hughes I did in a way someone rather just like Howard Hughes. Being completely Howard Hughes though is something no actor probably could do entirely, and DiCaprio became very close which is incredible achievement considering the incredible challenge of Howard Hughes.
Leonardo DiCaprio is usually a charming, and very energetic screen presence. This is true for his performance as Howard Hughes which is an incredibly challenge role. He uses his usually charm in the right way though, and does adjust it to fit Hughes' personality, which makes him change it to a sort of a quiet charm. He is never obviously trying to be charming in his romantic scenes at all, DiCaprio makes it clear that Hughes simply just asserts himself in command, even when he looks like he is not trying to do this. DiCaprio is perfect in showing Hughes' quiet determination in a fashion that fits Hughes perfectly.
DiCaprio properly loses his charm though throughout the film though as Howard Hughes' obsessive compulsive disorder slowly gets the better of him. DiCaprio handles the disorder very well, and how it causes Howard's disintegration. DiCaprio handles the small indications at first, as something clearly effecting Hughes inside, but outwardly it seems just an odd quirk that Hughes does. Later though a minor dirty spot can cause Howard just to stare at it until it is gone, and DiCaprio makes this a really problem that effects Hughes so much he is almost unable to function because of something so minor.
DiCaprio handles this whole part of Hughes expertly, because he does not only ever focus on the direct effects of the disorder, but also the other effects. DiCaprio slowly loses Hughes charm, very realistically as he becomes more paranoid about just about anything around him. He loses all of his positive aspects slowly, as his disorder becomes worse. All the mannerisms that Hughes slowly gains such as his injury, and his obsessive repeating of sentences are well handled by DiCaprio not all making them seem forced but completely natural to the Howard Hughes.
DiCaprio does something interesting in his performance which is show his possible recovery since he slowly loses what he has but never completely during this film, even though it is quite clearly suggested at the end that he is going to lose everything. It is fascinating because DiCaprio shows him at the brink when he sits naked in his room urinating in bottles, which DiCaprio actually makes it believable that he is doing it, because he showed that Hughes disorder slowly brought him down to this point. But at the same time DiCaprio manages to show that Hughes partially pulls himself up to face his war profiteering charges. DiCaprio is particularly strong in these moments because he shows his pain in performing the slightest task because of his disorder, but also shows that Hughes is not completely gone, and still has his quiet persuasion, and charm left in the hearing scenes, which DiCapario handles simply brilliant.
I really do not want to sound negative because this is a great performance but I never fully saw him as Howard Hughes I did in a way someone rather just like Howard Hughes. Being completely Howard Hughes though is something no actor probably could do entirely, and DiCaprio became very close which is incredible achievement considering the incredible challenge of Howard Hughes.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Best Actor 2004: Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby
Clint Eastwood received his second acting Oscar nomination for portraying Frankie Dunn in Million Dollar Baby.
Million Dollar Baby is a film that impresses me less and less every single time that I watch it.
Clint Eastwood's performance as Frankie Dunn is in many ways the later career Clint Eastwood character. The no nonsense tough aging guy, who doesn't take crap from no one but still is beaten down anyways in his own way, and has poor relations with his immediate family. Trust me later in his career Eastwood played a variation on this character several times, other examples include later in Gran Torino and earlier in Heartbreak ridge. Clint Eastwood really tends to be a guy who does not need to act to be tough he generally simply comes off that way.
His tough nonsense persona fits the character of Frankie Dunn well, but for some reason now and again during his performance I felt Eastwood trying extra to make him seem even gruffer. He is Clint Eastwood he does not need to seem any gruffer, he is gruff enough as it is causing his performance to feel for me a bit forced at times. This does not really hurt his performance, I just feel he did not need to do that, he's Clint Eastwood after all. Most of the time though he is just his normal gruffness which works well for his performance, and Clint Eastwood, is completely believable most of the time as Frankie even when some his dialogue is a bit cliched such as everything about his belief that women can't be fighters.
Sometimes I feel Eastwood is a better screen presence than an actor who really tries to develop a unique character. I was never amazed by Eastwood's performance really even though he did just a fine job most likely better than anyone else could do early on since Eastwood fits the character very well. I still though never felt he made Frankie a really compelling character especially through the first half.
I really felt he was doing a usual Eastwood performance which is good, and something only Eastwood can do, but still it does not make it a great performance. Later after the big change in the film, I thought his performance was emotionally correct, as in he did not express the wrong emotions, nor did ever ever express these emotions in a false fashion. I though never felt his performance became that emotionally powerful though. The result of his whole performance was just fine technically hitting the right notes, but never generating truly great moments for me anyways.
Clint Eastwood's performance as Frankie Dunn is in many ways the later career Clint Eastwood character. The no nonsense tough aging guy, who doesn't take crap from no one but still is beaten down anyways in his own way, and has poor relations with his immediate family. Trust me later in his career Eastwood played a variation on this character several times, other examples include later in Gran Torino and earlier in Heartbreak ridge. Clint Eastwood really tends to be a guy who does not need to act to be tough he generally simply comes off that way.
His tough nonsense persona fits the character of Frankie Dunn well, but for some reason now and again during his performance I felt Eastwood trying extra to make him seem even gruffer. He is Clint Eastwood he does not need to seem any gruffer, he is gruff enough as it is causing his performance to feel for me a bit forced at times. This does not really hurt his performance, I just feel he did not need to do that, he's Clint Eastwood after all. Most of the time though he is just his normal gruffness which works well for his performance, and Clint Eastwood, is completely believable most of the time as Frankie even when some his dialogue is a bit cliched such as everything about his belief that women can't be fighters.
Sometimes I feel Eastwood is a better screen presence than an actor who really tries to develop a unique character. I was never amazed by Eastwood's performance really even though he did just a fine job most likely better than anyone else could do early on since Eastwood fits the character very well. I still though never felt he made Frankie a really compelling character especially through the first half.
I really felt he was doing a usual Eastwood performance which is good, and something only Eastwood can do, but still it does not make it a great performance. Later after the big change in the film, I thought his performance was emotionally correct, as in he did not express the wrong emotions, nor did ever ever express these emotions in a false fashion. I though never felt his performance became that emotionally powerful though. The result of his whole performance was just fine technically hitting the right notes, but never generating truly great moments for me anyways.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Best Actor 2004: Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda
Don Cheadle received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda.
Hotel Rwanda is an effective film which does have many similarities to Schindler's list in its story of one man against genocide, but also in its emotional intensity, and strength. It is not quite as good as that film, but few films are.
Don Cheadle's Paul Rusesabagina character is in some ways similar to Liam Neeson's Oskar Schindler in that they are both runners of a business which they use to save people facing genocide otherwise. They both initially are not devoted to this cause but Paul is not just a selfish profiteer like Schindler really, but rather a man who doubts people could really could commit such atrocities, and at first seems to be more concerned with his family's safety mostly. As soon as he is pressed to help others in a potentially deadly situation he does, proving a that he was a good man all along. Cheadle does handle Paul's good nature well, by not over doing it at all. He still makes him a common man who does his best in completely uncommon circumstances.
A rather interesting part of the film and Cheadle's performance is the specific scenes in which he deals with the violent threats, and helps to save the people in his hotel. His method is an interesting contrast to the method of Liam Neeson's Schindler. In Schindler's list Schindler many times dominated the Nazi's he was manipulating to serve or save his workers, on the other hand Paul never really shows off a larger than life presence to manipulate people. Cheadle shows that Paul who is just a normal man who very modestly convinces them through bribes, and quietly laid threats. Cheadle handles the pleads and manipulations of Paul exceptionally well, since I found every success Paul made completely believable.
Cheadle acts well as a very human guide through the atrocious circumstances of the genocidal Rwanda. Cheadle is compelling to watch, and he allows us as the audience to follow him through his hardships and dangerous circumstance. He acts as an emotional core to the film who does his best to stand for what is right despite the odds against him, and gives a quietly passionate performance that works well for Paul as a man. Cheadle's performance allows us to really empathize with him throughout his circumstances, and Cheadle makes the most emotional scenes of the film even more so.
Cheadle gives authentic emotions throughout the film, which gives the film an honesty that somehow becomes inspiring despite the subject of the film. Cheadle makes every emotion all the more effective because of his honesty in his performance. I think particularly strong moments are when he tells his wife to commit suicide if the the Hutus ever attack, and his reaction scene after he gets back to the hotel after he accidentally stumbled across a scene of a massive massacre. Cheadle's performance makes these emotional moments completely heartbreaking because of the honesty of his performance. Cheadle performance is strong authentic modest piece of work, that works impeccably well with the film it is in.
Don Cheadle's Paul Rusesabagina character is in some ways similar to Liam Neeson's Oskar Schindler in that they are both runners of a business which they use to save people facing genocide otherwise. They both initially are not devoted to this cause but Paul is not just a selfish profiteer like Schindler really, but rather a man who doubts people could really could commit such atrocities, and at first seems to be more concerned with his family's safety mostly. As soon as he is pressed to help others in a potentially deadly situation he does, proving a that he was a good man all along. Cheadle does handle Paul's good nature well, by not over doing it at all. He still makes him a common man who does his best in completely uncommon circumstances.
A rather interesting part of the film and Cheadle's performance is the specific scenes in which he deals with the violent threats, and helps to save the people in his hotel. His method is an interesting contrast to the method of Liam Neeson's Schindler. In Schindler's list Schindler many times dominated the Nazi's he was manipulating to serve or save his workers, on the other hand Paul never really shows off a larger than life presence to manipulate people. Cheadle shows that Paul who is just a normal man who very modestly convinces them through bribes, and quietly laid threats. Cheadle handles the pleads and manipulations of Paul exceptionally well, since I found every success Paul made completely believable.
Cheadle acts well as a very human guide through the atrocious circumstances of the genocidal Rwanda. Cheadle is compelling to watch, and he allows us as the audience to follow him through his hardships and dangerous circumstance. He acts as an emotional core to the film who does his best to stand for what is right despite the odds against him, and gives a quietly passionate performance that works well for Paul as a man. Cheadle's performance allows us to really empathize with him throughout his circumstances, and Cheadle makes the most emotional scenes of the film even more so.
Cheadle gives authentic emotions throughout the film, which gives the film an honesty that somehow becomes inspiring despite the subject of the film. Cheadle makes every emotion all the more effective because of his honesty in his performance. I think particularly strong moments are when he tells his wife to commit suicide if the the Hutus ever attack, and his reaction scene after he gets back to the hotel after he accidentally stumbled across a scene of a massive massacre. Cheadle's performance makes these emotional moments completely heartbreaking because of the honesty of his performance. Cheadle performance is strong authentic modest piece of work, that works impeccably well with the film it is in.
Best Actor 2004: Johnny Depp in Finding Neverland
Johnny Depp received his second Oscar nomination for portraying J.M. Barrie in Finding Neverland.
Finding Neverland is a somewhat enjoyable film I suppose, I do think the fantasy scenes work as well as they really should, but I still did not mind watching it again.
Johnny Depp who usually plays rather strange fellows, many times with a whole lot of mannerisms, which attempts to usual bring a whole lot of attention to his performance. This is a rather unusual Johnny Depp performance because he portrays J.M. Barrie in generally a rather quiet performance. He portrays Barrie in an extremely modest fashion which does not at all try to stand out all that much most of the time. Now I appreciate Depp for not trying to make Barrie flamboyant, but at the same time perhaps his performance is a little too understated.
Depp performance really at times is barely noticeable. He really is an always nice man, who just likes to have a quietly good time with the children of a sick mother (Kate Winslet) well he is quietly writing Peter Pan. Depp I must say does not really suggest must of a man, just a quiet unassuming man. The only time he really acts out at all are the fantasy scenes, but even the he still remains fairly understated. The biggest in terms of acting non-quietly is when he plays pirated with the children, and does a little bit of his Jack Sparrow bit, I did not have a problem with that or how he handled any of the fantasy moments, but I also did not find his performance particularly amazing ever.
Overall Depp's performance really is nothing special. I think it is okay, it serves its purpose in that it allows for a nice scene here and there, but overall really his performance never amounts to anything really worth noting. It is a nice quiet performance, which really fits how Barrie is presented in the film as a nice quiet man. It never really gets deeply into much depth hidden or otherwise about Barrie, he is written simply just to make a simple sweet story, therefore Depp method of portraying him is fine, just not very special.
Johnny Depp who usually plays rather strange fellows, many times with a whole lot of mannerisms, which attempts to usual bring a whole lot of attention to his performance. This is a rather unusual Johnny Depp performance because he portrays J.M. Barrie in generally a rather quiet performance. He portrays Barrie in an extremely modest fashion which does not at all try to stand out all that much most of the time. Now I appreciate Depp for not trying to make Barrie flamboyant, but at the same time perhaps his performance is a little too understated.
Depp performance really at times is barely noticeable. He really is an always nice man, who just likes to have a quietly good time with the children of a sick mother (Kate Winslet) well he is quietly writing Peter Pan. Depp I must say does not really suggest must of a man, just a quiet unassuming man. The only time he really acts out at all are the fantasy scenes, but even the he still remains fairly understated. The biggest in terms of acting non-quietly is when he plays pirated with the children, and does a little bit of his Jack Sparrow bit, I did not have a problem with that or how he handled any of the fantasy moments, but I also did not find his performance particularly amazing ever.
Overall Depp's performance really is nothing special. I think it is okay, it serves its purpose in that it allows for a nice scene here and there, but overall really his performance never amounts to anything really worth noting. It is a nice quiet performance, which really fits how Barrie is presented in the film as a nice quiet man. It never really gets deeply into much depth hidden or otherwise about Barrie, he is written simply just to make a simple sweet story, therefore Depp method of portraying him is fine, just not very special.
Best Actor 2004: Jamie Foxx in Ray
Jamie Foxx won an Oscar from his first lead nomination for portraying Ray Charles in Ray.
Ray I must say was I film that I hard time sitting through. I mainly had this problem because how boring the film is. It lacks anything really interesting about it, and I feel it fails to show the larger importance of Ray Charles in any meaningful fashion.
Jamie Foxx's performance really astounds me not because it is good, but because of quite the opposite. I will say first of all I never at all believed him as Ray Charles, even a movie rendition as Ray Charles. I always felt I clearly saw him acting throughout the film, which exactly what an actor does not want to do, especially when portraying a real life person in a serious fashion. Actors can usually employ mannerisms in a performance, and when used well they can help amplify aspects of a performance, or more fully realize a character. Foxx though seems to focus far too much on the mannerisms, using them for his performance at times rather than with his performance.
His mannerisms seem rather forced to me anyways, particularly in trying to give the perpetual Ray Charles facial expression which looked rather stiff at times, like he was really trying to get that look rather just merely having it. I felt about the same about his physical mannerism which again looked like a rather imperfect imitation, rather than something natural. I again felt the same way of his Ray Charles voice which again seemed like a obvious acting technique used by Foxx, that did not sound natural at all.
Jamie Foxx's performance never at all has authenticity, whether it is with his mannerisms, or just his emotions he is trying to convey. I felt every time he tried to convey an emotion he would always overplay the emotion immensely. I thought everything he did in the film range falsely in at least someway, and I must say he did not at all make the lip syncing at all believable, this looks especially wrong in the later scenes, which just simply do not look like Foxx is at all singing the songs. Although even if he sang himself it would not make his performance at all more convincing or less obvious. Foxx's performance simply just never impresses me, and fails with many of the basic needs of a realistic performance.
Jamie Foxx's performance really astounds me not because it is good, but because of quite the opposite. I will say first of all I never at all believed him as Ray Charles, even a movie rendition as Ray Charles. I always felt I clearly saw him acting throughout the film, which exactly what an actor does not want to do, especially when portraying a real life person in a serious fashion. Actors can usually employ mannerisms in a performance, and when used well they can help amplify aspects of a performance, or more fully realize a character. Foxx though seems to focus far too much on the mannerisms, using them for his performance at times rather than with his performance.
His mannerisms seem rather forced to me anyways, particularly in trying to give the perpetual Ray Charles facial expression which looked rather stiff at times, like he was really trying to get that look rather just merely having it. I felt about the same about his physical mannerism which again looked like a rather imperfect imitation, rather than something natural. I again felt the same way of his Ray Charles voice which again seemed like a obvious acting technique used by Foxx, that did not sound natural at all.
Jamie Foxx's performance never at all has authenticity, whether it is with his mannerisms, or just his emotions he is trying to convey. I felt every time he tried to convey an emotion he would always overplay the emotion immensely. I thought everything he did in the film range falsely in at least someway, and I must say he did not at all make the lip syncing at all believable, this looks especially wrong in the later scenes, which just simply do not look like Foxx is at all singing the songs. Although even if he sang himself it would not make his performance at all more convincing or less obvious. Foxx's performance simply just never impresses me, and fails with many of the basic needs of a realistic performance.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Best Actor 2004
Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda
Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby
Jamie Foxx in Ray
Johnny Depp in Finding Neverland
Leonardo DiCaprio in The Aviator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)