Best Actor 2000: Results

5. Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls- A good reaction or two do not make up for his paper thin characterization.

4. Geoffrey Rush in Quills - Rush goes overboard with his performance focused to much on the extreme actions of his character to be bothered to really bring any depth to the man.

3. Ed Harris in Pollock- Harris mostly gives a surprisingly dull performance, but overacts whenever he is not dull. Also he is completely overshadowed by Marcia Gay Harden.

2. Russell Crowe in Gladiator- Crowe brings an old school cinematic presence which effortlessly carries his film. 

1. Tom Hanks in Cast Away- Well Hanks in my opinion should have been the only one actually nominated therefore he definitely is my choice. Hanks though gives a very good performance as an average guy in a dire situation. His whole change is carefully and effectively portrayed, and simply gives a strong compelling performance in a film that is almost a one man show.  

Best Actor 2000: Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls

Javier Bardem received his first Oscar nomination for portraying homosexual writer Reinaldo Arenas in Before Night Falls.

Before Night Falls tell the story of Reinaldo Arenas' life story as a writer in Cuba, and eventual escape from the country to the United States due to being persecuted.

Javier Bardem's performance I am sad to say is much like most of the other nominees this year, which is a lacking unimpressive performance. Reinaldo Arenas technically should be an interesting character, but Bardem portrays him in a rather uninteresting fashion. His performance basically is too reactive, and these reactions never amount to all that much.

He looks sad when something sad is happening, he looks happy when something happy is happening. He never really shows Reinaldo to be too much of a fascinating man, rather just a pretty boring man. He does just so little to really get deeply inside his character and I never really felt I saw all that much of an honest actual characterization. I more of saw just very base external reactions showing very little of an actual person.

Bardem never becomes a very compelling presence in the film either. I really did not get too caught up with his journey because he failed to create enough empathy for his character.  Bardem's performance also failed to have any real charm, or power despite there seemingly plenty of chances to show it. I think this is because he never does get too deeply into his character, which he needed to do.

Bardem unfortunately does also do a little bit of overacting at times, such as his homosexual mannerisms he employs. The problem with these are not so much that he does them, but because he is not consistent, sometimes he does them, and sometimes he does not making them automatically unnatural. Bardem is not terrible I guess, as some of his reactions are fine, and in one instance, where he is threatened with a gun, his reaction is strong. Overall his performance is lacking and another seemingly missed opportunity in this disappointing year.

Best Actor 2000: Tom Hanks in Cast Away

Tom Hanks received his fifth Oscar nomination for portraying Chuck Noland in Cast Away.

Cast Away of course tells the story of  man who attempts to survive alone on an isolated island.

Tom Hanks is an actor I have had quite the mixed view on. I found him unimpressive in Forrest Gump, and Philadelphia, but I thought he was good in Saving Private Ryan. Well there is a distinct difference between those two roles. In Gump and Philadelphia he put on a voice, mannerisms, and portrayed two different characters very different from himself, but in Ryan he portrayed just normal guy. Well in Cast Away he portrays just a normal guy once again.

At the beginning of the film Hanks portrays Chuck Noland as an average guy who is not particularly special, but is concerned always about business and time. Hanks is fine in these early scenes quickly establishing the over working nature of the character, as well as being charming enough in an average guy sort of way. Hanks is good enough here to make someone you want to follow, even though his character is not one of the most original or unique characters which is really the point since he is suppose to be really average.

Well his plane goes down over the ocean and ends up alone on a island. Hanks is good here because hd never shows Chuck's struggle as anything more than as an average man. He also is basically silent in his early moments as he just tries to comprehend his situation and to see what he can do. Hanks is quietly effective and allows the proper amount of empathy with his character as he struggles to find ways to survive on the island.

Hanks is very good particularly in his way of finding how to start a fire looking at the packages, finding what he has and what he is capable of doing. Hanks is effective because he really is realistic in his way of trying different things, and really showing a slow learning process of Chuck on the island. He also is effective in his show of the characters pain, which is realistically and effectively shown by Hanks. He seems like an actual tired man on the island, and in that situation rather than an actor.

Hanks performance does become gradually louder though as he becomes more successful on the island as well as slightly losing his mind due to his time on the island. An effective change is actually done by Hanks as he begins to talk to his volleyball friend Wilson, and becomes more and more skilled at living on the island. I actually thought that Hanks actual managed to make Chuck's change slow and gradually effective. I also felt his relationship with Wilson was actually believably, and even honestly portrayed.

Well so he gets off the island and finds his way back home. Surprising enough I felt this held some of the best moments of Hanks' performance. Hanks truly shows that the island has deeply effected Chuck showing his sad history through his face especially well. Also his method of looking at everything not on the island is handled quite believably. His best scene though I think his his conversation with his friend at the end where he speaks of his thoughts on what happened to him, Hanks carefully creates a deeply moving scene, showing a honestly thoughtful and changed man from his workaholic in the film's opening. Overall this is actually a strong performance from Hanks, giving an effective one man show as well as showing quite effectively complete transformation of a man.

Best Actor 2000: Ed Harris in Pollock

Ed Harris received his third Oscar nomination for portraying painter Jackson Pollock in Pollock.

Pollock has moments of a stronger film, but I felt much of it was lacking, which I think comes from the central performance.

Jackson Pollock in theory should make for quite an interesting character and could allow an actor to give a great performance. Ed Harris despite having a strong resemblance to Pollock seems strangely lost in the role at times. Pollock by Harris is showing to basically have two phases of behavior between quiet and earnest, to loud and drunk. Harris really I felt did not create too much between these two types of Pollock's behavior.

Harris' performance frankly surprised me how dull he is most of the time as Pollock. For much of the performance all I really thought was, is that all he is doing with the character? I can appreciate trying to give a more subtle performance of artist rather than a mad artist one usually sees portrayed on film, but I really do not think he achieved at anything subtle with his quieter moments and frankly just was oddly dull.

Now he has plenty of scene where he is not portraying Pollock in quiet fashion, and gets to get drunk, and loud in plenty of scene. Every time that he did get loud, and drunk I thought Harris really heavily overacted. I just always felt I was seeing him performing drunk, or performing crazy. I never felt he be came convincing or really realistic at all. I never saw him really tuning his performance appropriately into an actual effective characterization.

I think actually another problem with his performance actually is it does suffer greatly in comparison to Marcia Gay Harden's performance as Pollock's wife Lee Krasner. With her one can see how Harris' performance should have been. She is both effective in her quiet subtle moments, as well as convincing in her louder ones as well. She frankly steals every scene from Harris that they share, due to her believability, and strength of her performance compared to his dullness and lack of creditability. Overall Harris' Jackson Pollock was a big disappointment for me with his performance that is either overacting loud scenes, or boring quiet ones. 

Best Actor 2000: Geoffrey Rush in Quills

Geoffrey Rush received his third Oscar nomination for portraying The Marquis de Sade in Quills.

Quills is a rather predictable film about the late days of Marquis de Sade as he struggles against his censorship in a mad house.

Rush makes no attempts for a real historical characterization of Marquis de Sade, and instead just gives one his standard theatrical performances for the Marquis instead. He is always in the picture acting wildly and outrageously. He keeps with his wild man writer characterization throughout the film, sometimes crying out when being censored or attempting to act darkly seductive at other times.

Rush puts his usual gusto into the role, and although I like that some of the time, I felt that it in this performance became quite tiresome rather quickly. I knew exactly what his performance was going to be, and exactly what Rush was going to do with his performance from his first scene. I'll give him credit for trying, and I won't say he fails at the precise type of performance he was going for, but for me it seemed rather unremarkable.

Sure his theatricality does technically work for the style of the film, which is wildly over the top, and rather obvious, but for me all his theatricality did technically nothing. It felt like a chore for me to get through this performance because I knew exactly what his performance had in store. His performance always stays a very external performance, that failed to ever become particularly interesting, or even effective for me.

Best Actor 2000: Russell Crowe in Gladiator

Russell Crowe won his Oscar from his second nomination for portraying Maximus Decimus Meridius in Gladiator.

Gladiator of course tells the story of a former Roman General turned into a Gladiator after the murder of his family, and now only desires the death of the evil Emperor Commodus who did it to him.

Maximus Decimus Meridius is not a particularly complex character. He is at first a noble soldier, than an angry and revenge seeking although still noble Gladiator. Crowe keeps him on a fairly simple level as the great stoic hero that is the polar opposite of the evil Commodus played Joaquin Phoenix. Crowe keeps with his macho, noble portrayal throughout the film, with his dark stares and dramatic recitation of speeches. After that initial scene they beat him down send him on his way, and turn him into a gladiator. Now he is dark brooding sort of, never frankly seems to grieve all that much, over his brutally murdered family. What Crowe does is keep that dark hero brood with his performance. Which he actually does just fine enough to make him fuel the big dramatic speeches in the way they should be fueled. This performance does work in the most basic sense of just the lone hero who wants his revenge against the evil man who wronged him.

Best Actor 2000

And the Nominees Were:

Ed Harris in Pollock

Geoffrey Rush in Quills

Russell Crowe in Gladiator

Tom Hanks in Cast Away

Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls