Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2004: Cameron Bright in Birth

Cameron Bright did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Young Sean in Birth.

Birth follows a widow Anna (Nicole Kidman) who is approached by a young boy who claims to be her reincarnated husband. 

Cameron Bright plays the young boy who shows up to Anna’s apartment, just as she’s about to be remarried, telling her not to marry her fiancée and that he is her dead husband reborn. Bright, who had a brief period as the child actor for slightly dramatic parts, plays the central role in the sense that all action of the film is in reaction to the actions of this boy. The character is that of an enigma whose actions are elusive to all including his own parents, yet he challenges everyone seemingly with his knowledge that is far greater than some random boy pulling a prank. Bright’s performance is one that I would describe as hollow, though hollow with a purpose. The purpose in director Jonathan Glazer’s vision makes him not easily discernible in terms of the truth. Instead what Bright portrays is this cold determination of sorts. All the information he conveys, all of the claims about him being the dead man, it is with calm troubling conviction where it seems like he simply knows this rather than needing to think about it. Even when stating he’s no longer his mother’s “Stupid son” but rather this man, it is with just this directness where the emotion is almost that of a slight annoyance that someone would doubt his claim. Bright’s face rarely changes expression however the expression itself does serve the purpose as this ever watching pestering face in that detachment. 

He’s not teasing, he’s not smiling, he’s just there and in that consistency you get the sense of why others would find the boy’s behavior more than a little infuriating after a while. Even when getting in a bath with Anna, Bright’s performance still accentuates this matter of fact distance in the action rather than any intention beyond almost duty. Eventually however Young Sean is challenged by a lover of the real Sean as the real love of his life breaking ruse. Even in the breaking of said ruse however, Bright’s performance as he admits not being Sean, not as someone admitting fault or a game, but almost in this logical dictation that he cannot be Sean because he loves Anna and the real Sean did not. Eventually leading him to finally leave Anna alone and seemingly return to his own life. An aspect that is only briefly touched upon as we see him taking a school picture, and suddenly there no longer is that detachment to boy in Bright’s performance and perhaps even normalcy. Bright’s performance I would say delivers on the need of the design of the character to an extremely specific end. There’s no “why” exactly to the young Sean about his performance, nor do we see the steps in the transformation to or back from it. Rather he is as he is and stays the enigma even when the “truth” is shaken. I would say it is a good performance, and I think importantly Bright doesn’t play up any creep factor in a traditional sense that might’ve been the easy route. Having said that, it think the performance services the need of the film but in the end exists within a certain limitation of that need without really an impact beyond it. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2004: William Hurt in The Village

William Hurt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Edward Walker in The Village. 

The Village follows an isolated village surrounded by a forest where strange creatures seem to lurk. 

William Hurt plays the elder of the village, a performer who may have had the best armor to deal with the sometimes ropey dialogue of M. Night Shyamalan, because Hurt himself sometimes has a very peculiar way of delivering lines. And for me, unless he’s lost in space, this works regardless even if most actors you might call it stilted, for Hurt it works and for Hurt I was convinced every word he says in this film which is an achievement in itself, particularly when also very talented actors like Joaquin Phoenix and Sigourney Weaver I found fumbled a bit when trying to get every word across. Hurt handles it with ease. Hurt is effective in doing his best to essentially earn the twist in playing the man who is part of the village, bringing the general needed gravitas as the elder so to speak. What Hurt does so well is play very much with the twist in mind throughout the film and more than anyone earns in his performance. As there is the sense of the weight of the lie in everything that he does, even as he tries to keep this general calm of the man projecting concern and strength for his community. 

Within the moments where the young village stalwart Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix) decides that he should try to leave the village for better medicines, Hurt’s reactions within this area with a combination of concern and admiration. The former even not for the man’s life but rather something else that is nagging at him. When even Lucius attempts to make the trip unauthorized, Edward doesn’t react with anger rather appreciation for the bravery of the young man. Hurt’s reaction in the moment portrays honest affection for the spirit of the young man and really even a sense of hope for the future. The main crux of the story comes as Lucius is severely injured by the mentally unwell Noah (Adrien Brody), leaving Edward’s blind daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) to want to save him. Coming to the revelations of the piece, though again I’ll credit Hurt for very much wanting to do the work to try to provide a bit of depth within the context of the twist. Including when Edward tells Ivy of his own father, a financial wizard who was murdered for his wealth. Hurt brings within the delivery of this speech frankly a sense of modernity, a hint of nostalgia for his dad, but also a very strong sense of motivation for the man’s rejection for the rest of the world. Leading to the twist which felt unavoidable at the time of the film’s release, as Edward shows her that the strange creatures lurking in the woods are in fact costumes the elders wear to keep their children to stay within the village. Hurt even within this revelation even excels in his almost half embarrassed/half calming declaration that it is “farce” as he supports his daughter breaking the rules and leaving the forest.

 Leading to what really is Hurt’s standout scene where the rest of the elders come to learn of the choice and some of them severely question the break of their oaths. Hurt is terrific in the scene because what he calls upon is this old passion in his performance as he speaks not only of the crimes of Noah, but the hope of his daughter and Lucius. Bringing within it not just a sense of love and concern for the future, but also the sense of conviction of someone who is reckoning essentially against the strictures of his old choice and instead supporting the fundamental spirit of why he made that original choice. It’s a strong scene for Hurt, one that naturally reveals this history professor who made the decision to go with others to hide essentially in the forest away from society to make some idealized version of society to avoid those ills, now dealing with the ills regardless. Hurt makes the pain of dealing with these realizations feel absolutely real and creates something tangible in the emotional strain he brings in every word noting the man's true passion to hold onto the idea of innocence behind the village meanwhile allowing the fundamental rules of the village to be broken.  It’s there and it is only a shame that this is basically the end of the notion and not something the film deals with beyond a certain point. Which is unfortunate as the film might’ve had something if it continued in the direction alluded to by this scene, but basically the film is wrapping up so that’s that. Regardless, Hurt delivers on alluding to that potential, in creating a performance that not only naturally supports the twist also weaves within it some genuine emotion. I will say it is unfortunate the film isn't better because what Hurt does is create a greater promise within the premise, which sadly the premise as is only allows Hurt to go so far. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2004: Tim Meadows in Mean Girls

Tim Meadows did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mr. Ron Duvall in Mean Girls. 

Mean Girls follows girls being mean.

Tim Meadows plays the principal of the school where the various teenage cliques clash. SNL alum Tim Meadows very much set out not to be any sort of strict principal of maybe past High School films and instead a largely comedic presence. Although I will say Meadows’s performance is fairly artful in the tone he manages here, which I wouldn’t say is strictly realistic but is convincing as the principal even often used in a comedic sense. Meadows in the more comedic moments playing well the essentially put on smile where his eyes seem just slightly dying inside during the basic school functions and notably at the end of the film where he attempts in vain to cut short the dramatic speech of our protagonist, where every one of his deliveries of “you really don’t need to make a speech” is pretty great in his effortless combination of cordiality with the strong undercurrent of someone saying “shut up and get off the stage”. Meadows’s performance has a bit more to it than that however in playing that convincing part of the high school principal a bit more genuinely. 

As we see his certain exasperation at the nonsense of his student population which is funny, but there is enough of a dignified manner to still be convincing beyond that. Particularly a moment where Rachel McAdams’s villainous queen bee Regina George shares her one burn book, though altered to make it look like it’s not hers, with his Mr. Duvall. Meadows plays the comedy in his eyes of deciphering what she’s up to, but with enough of a genuine pause when asking about the books noting that the high school coach was making out with students. Something that comes later where not too much is made out of the moment, but Meadows is good in bringing a low key gravitas when firmly instructing the coach to stay away from the underage girls. On a similar though slightly lighter note his annoyed delivery about leaving southside only to deal with the girl riot from the burn book, is amusing but does have a bit of weight to it, followed by his commanding requirement that all the girls go to the assembly. Followed by his fairly hilarious yet still pointed way of setting up the “peace talks” essentially, where he brings a certain grace, but with also comedy in his casual threat switch from “well keep you all night” to “well keep you to four” however with the same conviction. A conviction that perhaps is a bit lost when trying to talk to the girls immediately runs into discussion of the menstrual cycle, and Meadows’s overwhelmed reaction to passing the buck again is pretty good. The only note I’m pretty ambivalent to in this performance is the relationship between Mr. Duvall and math teacher Ms. Norbury (Tina Fey). Where we get Mr. Duvall slightly awkwardly asks her if she needs to talk about things, then we see them silently slow dancing together. I don’t think it’s bad, I don’t think Meadows performs poorly either, it’s just kind of there for me. Otherwise though this is a good well attuned performance, that delivers on the right tone, as he’s funny but also still believable. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2004: Billy Bob Thornton in The Alamo

Billy Bob Thornton did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Davy Crockett in The Alamo.

The Alamo seems like there is a good film trying to get out, which is supported by the production history where it sounds like earlier versions wanted a more complex and complete version of the history, that is sadly kept prisoner by the extremely standard mostly “print the legend” approach. 

The most substantial element of that version lies within Davy Crockett and Billy Bob Thornton’s portrayal of the character. As what Thornton and the film do, it very specifically seeks to break down the notions of the legend Davy as the “king of the wild frontier” and deal with him on more human terms. We are introduced to Davy as the politician and living legend where he’s literally at a function where someone is performing his “life story” for him. Thornton’s quite effective in managing to balance a combination of the politician taking the points with a certain smiling graciousness, yet within that smile denotes someone not entirely comfortable with the nature of the situation. After Davy loses his political seat he ends up going to Texas and joining forces at the Alamo, and honestly is a pivotal scene for Thornton’s whole performance as Davy twofold. One in his saying he got kicked out of the congress so might as well go to Texas, Thornton delivers that line very much like he’s running his PR campaign. It isn’t with the pride of a man trying to fight for freedom but entirely a man looking for some avenue to continue his career. Adding on top of that the moment where he is told that the full Mexican army is heading towards the Alamo, Thornton’s reaction and delivering of having thought there wasn’t much fighting, is with a glint of genuine fear and more than a bit of disbelief as we see guy potentially looking to score some political points now in the middle of a genuine war. 

Within the scheme of the film Thornton is consistently the most interesting aspect throughout the film as he creates a real complexity in the story of Davy within the scheme of the Alamo. Thornton does play the part as the “hero” rather what he manages to do is create a lot of different fascinating shades to the idea of the folk legend. Where Thornton is quite remarkable in finding moments of trying to live up to the name while also at others admitting to being far less than what is expected of him. You have the moments where people do speak of the legend of Davy, and I love the moment actually where Davy takes a pot shot at a Mexican soldier, where Thornton’s whole manner suddenly is very much playing the part of the legend briefly as a sort of morale boost to everyone around him, even playing off the near miss of the shot as having got caught in the wind with this certain not entirely false, but not entirely true confidence of someone doing his job of playing the part, while not entirely living up to the part. Contrasting that is when he speaks to Jim Bowie (Jason Patric), another man of legend whose stories apparently are true, unlike most of Davy’s. Thornton brings such a naturalistic realization of the slight embarrassment at needing to admit that he’s far from his legend particularly noting his lack of a Coonskin hat with a bit quiet humor, where he manages to hit the right note of sincerity of someone kind of caught in the middle of an idea he is partially responsible for but also is not. Thornton manages to find a nuance in it, not being someone who denies it, not being someone who lies about it either, finding the struggle to deal with the notion but not wanting to entirely destroy it either. 

Within the buildup towards the battle Thornton does the most out of any performer to add some genuine gravity to every moment and creates a journey which can follow with Davy in dealing with the challenges of the situation. Once more not choosing a single approach so easily, such as when after an initial skirmish Davy suggests burning down some buildings to prevent the Mexicans from using them as cover. Thornton's initial delivery is very much as the nonchalant hero as he notes he wanted to stretch his legs anyways. When actually in the action though Thornton does keep a sense of real urgency if not fear as he has to take on Mexican soldiers and even kills one. A moment where Thornton is great is the moment of shooting the man and his eyes realize the very real weight of killing a man in the moment. Following it with his particularly powerful delivery of asking what the man’s name was before the man dies, Thornton captures such a potent sense of real humanity within the moment that does not make it all a simple “killing the enemy” moment. Similarly we have a key moment when asked about his past exploits, and Thornton’s reactions are a combination of a certain humility though combined with a certain fear and even an understanding of his limits as a soldier. Thornton finding a poignancy in underplaying his exploits and more so emphasizing that his previous duties weren’t exactly of a great warrior. All except his speaking on a time where he was part of a raiding party where they killed natives in fire and the grease from the dead men cooked potatoes that their squad prepared to eat. Thornton’s quite effective because as he begins the story it is of the wise man sharing accomplishments however as it continues in each step there is a haunting shame that forms in his eyes and that even in his most unusual story it isn’t one of any kind of triumph. 

Thornton during the battle and build up scenes, really just brings a much needed weight in every moment, from even just trying to ease tensions by playing the violin, to later every single reactionary moment through the battle where you can feel every moment of loss most through him. Leading eventually to his final scene where I think you do see the most weakness of the film get in the way, as the more human idea of Crockett is pushed aside for his hero moment as he unleashes his disgust against General Santa Anna rather than ask for mercy. There was probably a way to reach this point, where we see Davy purposefully play up the notion of being the “legend” that could’ve been better realized, however I wouldn’t say on a writing side entirely builds up to it perfectly. Having said that, I think Thornton does more than an admirable job of not overplaying the moment, finding the needed venom in his delivery, the disdain in his eyes, and his “what the hell” moment of accepting his demise to make it work as well as he can. And while in a way I think it is his least interesting scene, as he more so becomes part of the rest of the film so to speak, he in no way gives a bad performance in the scene. Thornton’s work and the character of Crockett however is a testament to the potential of the film, because he does offer a complex and more subtle depiction of the historical figure. Given how good Thornton is here working with the imperfect material, I would say if the film had maybe stuck closer to these ideas, we might’ve had a truly great historical epic and I think Thornton could’ve gone even further in the role. Having said that, even existing in a flawed film, Thornton does his best to elevate what he has and is by the far the most worthwhile element of the film. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2004: Daniel Wu in New Police Story

Daniel Wu did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Joe Kwan in New Police Story. 

New Police Story follows a superstar police officer Chan (Jackie Chan) as he faces off against a team of young criminals. 

Daniel Wu plays Joe Kwan, the head of those criminals who solely exist to pester Officer Chan, and appear early on as a masked crew who entrap Chan’s fellow officers, putting them in a death trap then forcing Chan to play various games of skill unless they kill the officers. Wu is the figurehead of this group and essentially plays the part as very much the smug snake. There isn’t too much complication early on as he just smiles with a casual disgust for Chan and in every delivery basically pronouncing his own greatness compared to Chan, as he kills those officers with only a bit of joy and certainly without any hesitation. He certainly is one of the villains that exist in an action movie. 

This sends Chan down a spiral, only becomes reinvigorated when a young police officer Frank (Nicholas Tse), who also reinvigorates the movie by being the best part of the film, through his easy going charisma, natural humor he finds throughout but also very much delivering on the stakes even when his co-stars aren’t quite as convincing. Tse’s simple fun to watch in bringing that endearing energy through every scene he is, including the action scenes where he's sort of more surprised though trying to go with the flow demeanor just adds to each and every one. Although this is common for Tse, and by that I mean I seem to be often reviewing a different performance from a Hong Kong film where Nicholas Tse is the best part. Back to the requested performance, Wu on the other hand I don’t find particularly or endearing or menacing, as we learn his character is the privileged, screw up son of the chief of police. An element that doesn’t exactly make him more menacing or sympathetic for the most part. Rather as Wu played the note of smugness as the villain, as the son he presents a very generalized fed up rebellion and not much more. We proceed then to follow the heroes, who become a bit more interesting thanks to the efforts of Tse. He brings a bit of wily conviction as we learn he’s a fake policeman who pretended to be one to avenge his family against the gang. An element Tse does what he can with and again makes for the one character I actually care about fully in the film. 

This eventually leads to some fights between the sides, where we mostly get Wu doing his best, I’m smelling something face, followed by that overly satisfied smile as he gets away. Pretty much rinse and repeat until the final confrontation, where he and Chan play one more game of put together the gun and shoot it. That’s where Wu is at his best because the loss of that smug face as he sees Chan will win, is a more than decent moment. Followed by Joe choosing to get killed by the cops then turn himself in to his own father. Wu is good to bad in this moment, as his initial reaction of anguish at this realization of his humiliation and there is some sense of the years of that relationship with his father. Then he falls into just some emotional mugging and becomes considerably less good by the end of it. Leaving this to be a not particularly impactful villainous turn in any way. Tse on the other hand makes for a strong surprising sidekick who quite frankly steals the film from Chan, to the point you wish he had more to work with, more to do as what only holds him back is the film is only kind of interested in his character. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2004: Al Pacino in The Merchant of Venice

Al Pacino did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. 

Merchant of Venice follows theoretical Shakespeare comedic romantic antics while a much darker story is going on in the background. 

This film marks the first and still only full cinematic representation of Al Pacino’s training and passion as a Shakespearean actor. Previously getting a doc with scenes version in his self-directed Looking For Richard, but here we get the full force of Pacino’s Shakespearean powers and he does not disappoint. Although now for the darker elements of the film where essentially Shylock is an antisemitic stereotype of the Jewish moneylender, the villain of the piece who must be dealt with at some time while the rest of the story is going along. This version specifically attempts to rework this idea, something I wouldn’t say works entirely in terms of the film as a singular package, by providing additional historical context and creating a sympathetic background for Shylock. The additional opening scenes were particularly important for Pacino and this depiction of the character, as we see him visually spat upon by Antonio (Jeremy Irons), rather than just referred to, a former Jewish man. Pacino portrays in these silent moments a man quietly giving his devotion to his faith, and taking in the mistreatment from Antonio with grace, yet his eyes are not of a man forgetting the injustice. An idea is to return to where we see Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) seeking money for a trip, a mutual acquaintance of both men. Pacino thrives with the words of the Bard, with a precision but also an ease. They just flow from him so articulately in a way that speaks to his version of the character of Shylock, finds a certain music to them, but also most importantly makes them comprehensible and captivating. 

Pacino’s performance really is rather remarkable because in this career there became a sort of expected Al Pacino type performance, which weren’t necessarily bad but were part of his later career kind of “star persona” he developed essentially as offshoots of his Oscar winning performance. Pacino in this film however fully evokes classic actor driven Pacino in his realization and real devotion to the part of Shylock. He is dialed in and his delivery of the language is part of that, but a natural tool that is the potent realization of the character of Shylock. A character Pacino realizes far beyond that of just a villain as you could easily argue was the way Shakespeare designed him. Pacino is incredible in the scene of getting Antonio to fund Bassanio with the promise of a “pound of flesh” from Antonio to Shylock if it is not paid. Pacino’s working on multiple levels and very much takes the moment far beyond a villain making a strange request. Rather what Pacino does in his delivery is throw it out as pure business, yet in his eyes and manner there is a decisive pressing of Antonio. Within Pacino’s performance you see his disgust for the man, and the very unusual debt and payoff Pacino issues in his eyes as the challenge from Shylock to see Antonio suffer. Suffer specifically though for the wrongs that the man had inflicted upon him. 

Pacino consistently comes against each scene of his to create an empathetic state for Shylock. We see this as he exists in his home and gives instruction to his daughter Jessica, while essentially trying to defend his Jewish home. A speech that could be of a self-enclosed villain in his place, only concerned about money, yet Pacino finds his own avenue quite notably. Pacino brings this exhaustion in every statement to defend himself and his life. Finding a man burdened by society essentially being against him and just trying to exist within his faith to the extent he can. Pacino grants motivation and life to the character as we follow him into the process of demanding the pound of flesh from Antonio within his monologue for insisting on collecting the debt, a monologue where perhaps you can make the best case for defending Shakespeare’s own work by at least granting some humanity to the character. Pacino more than runs with this amount as he is genuinely heartbreaking in the passion he brings to describe the commonalities between a Jewish person and a Christian. Pacino finding more than just anger towards the notion of othering a Jewish person, as there is the sense of the years of pain in the man, the torture to his soul, and even in his rage, it is a rage filled with real human plight of a man who has been mistreated all his life. It is a stellar moment as Pacino is gripping with every word and is one of the great Shakespearean speeches caught on film and delivered by Pacino. 

In the actual trial to determine the fate of Antonio and whether or not Shylock will receive his pound of flesh, Pacino is amazing. Pacino once more not taking it as a villain, despite the ridiculous violent request of his, yet he manages to bring a specific pent of anger within the scene. An anger that again has the personal disdain for Antonio but within the words of challenge against the city, Pacino’s performance is simply incredible as there is the sense in his man’s eyes his challenge of calling out essentially the injustice of all of society. Pacino is marvelous as in a way giving a greater version of his “you’re out of order” speech, as he calls out the society’s use of slaves with such distinct disdain, and his announcement that his debt is “mine”, isn’t of a man of greed, it is a man filled with dissatisfaction for the world he lives in. Shylock’s demands are stopped by some hidden disguises and logic of a pound of flesh but without blood, and if that were not enough he is also charged with intention to murder. A crime that leads him to lose half of his wealth and almost his life. Shylock is spared these punishments though with the requirement from Antonio that he convert to Christianity. Pacino is heartbreaking his physical work as you see the floor fall beneath his feet, the man barely being able to hold his constitution together, his face filled with such sickening distress, and expresses the violent loss of Shylock's self by forcing him to deny his own religion. Pacino delivers a truly great performance, that is so unique within his filmography. Excelling with Shakespeare, but also within his own work, I'd say the film overall is less successful, in morphing Shylock from a villain to a tragic figure of a man so defeated by the cruel society he lives in that vengeance becomes the only hope he can grasp onto. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2004: Bud Cort in The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

Bud Cort did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Bill Ubell in The Life Aquatic With Zissou. 

Since I had a few different options of who to cover for the last couple spots, thought I’d devote one them to give some time to Bud Cort, an actor who made a name for himself as the unorthodox leading man in the very early seventies, before working as a character actor for the rest of his career. A highlight of this section being his work here with Wes Anderson’s large trope of performers. Cort playing a role that in most films would not be of note and even more so the performer certainly wouldn’t be someone who deserves much mention. Cort specifically playing Bill Ubell the Bond company stooge that Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) must take on his new expedition in order to ensure funding for the trip. Cort’s first relatively short scene being one of my favorites in any Wes Anderson film, where Steve and Steve’s possible son Ned (Owen Wilson) just learned of Bill’s required presence and Steve instantly badgers Bill about not badgering him. Cort’s turn of curiosity has this perfect innocence to it, as does his follow up question “Why would I do that?” asked with genuine conviction. To which Steve notes him being a Bond company stooge, Cort’s reaction is both hilarious yet also genuinely moving as he so earnestly notes that he may be a bond company stooge but he’s also a human being, followed by just the perfect hangdog expression. Only made all the better when Steve apologizes and Cort’s face brightens so sincerely as being part of the time, right down to his eagerness to join hands with Steve and Ned. It’s a quick bit but honestly ideal character actor work where Cort makes it all so memorable so quickly, funny but also giving us a real sense of this character. 

Cort afterwards being part of the crew sort of where he manages to portray genuine enthusiasm in moments, with also a combination of some mild confusion, even worried concern when witnessing Steve’s decision to steal equipment from his rival. Cort brings an enjoyable directness about everything he does, including when the boat is invaded by pirates and Bill, being able to speak Filipino, negotiates with pirates. Cort’s practical manner is what is so great where he’s just direct with every line and so pure about it. Particularly the moment where the pirates take him as a hostage instead, and Cort’s “aw shucks” combined with a bit of “I guess I’ll go with it” is just great. As is his hostage call to the crew, where Cort’s whole delivery is so brilliantly matter of fact as just a practical business guy, nothing special including the kidnapping. I especially love the moment when Steve and crew are rescuing Bill, where Bill stops Steve from attacking one of the locals, where Cort’s bright smile and delivery of “he’s a friend” again paints immediately the sense of refuge in his situation and again reinforcing the funny but also heartwarming sincerity of his character. Something that manages to even extend when Bill is completely part of the crew even emphatically telling the man they stole equipment from that they stole it. Cort’s performance in the moment even sells the embracing of the chaos as even when admitting to stealing it is still of the utmost earnestness in showing Bill just as a guy who believes, even as a bond company stooge. Completing his arc of sorts in a way that is convincing and created just by his little bits throughout that are mostly funny, but there is something especially endearing out of Bill’s journey through Cort’s performance. A wonderful show of a character actor’s talent, because Cort’s not trying to steal the film, or steer it away from its course, he’s just elevating every moment he has and elevating the film that much more by giving real life to largely a bit part. And showing that while Bill may be a bit part, he can also be a human being.