Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Best Actor 2009: Results
Best Actor 2009: Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker
Jeremy Renner received his first Oscar nomination for portraying SFC William James in The Hurt Locker.
The Hurt Locker tells of a explosives disposal unit during the Iraq War.
Jeremy Renner performance is a different type of performance that seems to be nominated a lot of times these days, I feel, because it is an action based performance in many ways, and he really is not given many scenes where he is suppose to give a big Oscary performance scene. Instead he has to show his character development largely well the film moves forward quite rapidly.
In this respect Renner succeeds quite well. In his early moments we do not stop and see who exactly he is, or where he has come from precisely but Renner manages to indicate what sort of man he is with ease. It is rather fascinating in the way Renner goes about the first bomb disposal, he shows a command most certianly in the situation, suggesting his long history of a bomb disposing.
As well Renner effectively brings the audience in to the disposal incredibly, his performance conveys the risk of the job, and interestingly suggests the joy and kick he gets out of the job. He shows that James loves to do his job, loves to do it well, and does not exactly mind the risk because of a certain need that it provides for him. This whole drive for risk is suggested more than said, but it is abundantly clear due to Renner understated and realistic portrayal of it.
Renner whole performance is effective work because he manages to be a truly compelling lead, in what is in many ways a director's film, in terms of style. He also manages to be a compelling and in his own unique way charismatic. He gives a leading man performance really, in an entirely unorthodox fashion, which works wonders for his characterization.
Renner's few moments that more directly let him expand his character, are terrific scenes for him. One for example is when he shows the rest of his squad his box of thinks that almost killed him. His fascination with death the death causing instruments is almost chilling because Renner portrays James' feelings in an understated fashion.
Also Renner carefully in this same scene tells about his home life with his son, and wife, who he seems to admire in a fashion, but clearly has his deep routed troubles. The best part of Renner's whole portrayal is that he does not tell everything about William James, he instead more realistically, shows only part of a very complicated man.
This a strong performance that knows that just because he does not have constant scenes devoted specifically to character development, that does not mean it can't be a fully developed character anyways. Renner is tremendous from each scene, in his small subtle revelations about his character.
Renner's performance is filled with realistic understated reactions which is why his performance is so effective. Renner always brings out the most out of each scene because of this, particularly in the disturbing bombs that are used with people attached scenes.
He never overplays his performance, trying instead to meld his more off the wall leanings, mixed in with his duties which never seem forced or off the mark. This is perfectly attuned performance which brilliantly makes use of restraint, making his more emotional moments all the more effective.
Jeremy Renner performance is a different type of performance that seems to be nominated a lot of times these days, I feel, because it is an action based performance in many ways, and he really is not given many scenes where he is suppose to give a big Oscary performance scene. Instead he has to show his character development largely well the film moves forward quite rapidly.
In this respect Renner succeeds quite well. In his early moments we do not stop and see who exactly he is, or where he has come from precisely but Renner manages to indicate what sort of man he is with ease. It is rather fascinating in the way Renner goes about the first bomb disposal, he shows a command most certianly in the situation, suggesting his long history of a bomb disposing.
As well Renner effectively brings the audience in to the disposal incredibly, his performance conveys the risk of the job, and interestingly suggests the joy and kick he gets out of the job. He shows that James loves to do his job, loves to do it well, and does not exactly mind the risk because of a certain need that it provides for him. This whole drive for risk is suggested more than said, but it is abundantly clear due to Renner understated and realistic portrayal of it.
Renner whole performance is effective work because he manages to be a truly compelling lead, in what is in many ways a director's film, in terms of style. He also manages to be a compelling and in his own unique way charismatic. He gives a leading man performance really, in an entirely unorthodox fashion, which works wonders for his characterization.
Renner's few moments that more directly let him expand his character, are terrific scenes for him. One for example is when he shows the rest of his squad his box of thinks that almost killed him. His fascination with death the death causing instruments is almost chilling because Renner portrays James' feelings in an understated fashion.
Also Renner carefully in this same scene tells about his home life with his son, and wife, who he seems to admire in a fashion, but clearly has his deep routed troubles. The best part of Renner's whole portrayal is that he does not tell everything about William James, he instead more realistically, shows only part of a very complicated man.
This a strong performance that knows that just because he does not have constant scenes devoted specifically to character development, that does not mean it can't be a fully developed character anyways. Renner is tremendous from each scene, in his small subtle revelations about his character.
Renner's performance is filled with realistic understated reactions which is why his performance is so effective. Renner always brings out the most out of each scene because of this, particularly in the disturbing bombs that are used with people attached scenes.
He never overplays his performance, trying instead to meld his more off the wall leanings, mixed in with his duties which never seem forced or off the mark. This is perfectly attuned performance which brilliantly makes use of restraint, making his more emotional moments all the more effective.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Best Actor 2009: Colin Firth in A Single Man
Colin Firth received his first Oscar nomination for portraying George Falconer in A Single Man.
A Single man tells of George a homosexual whose lover Jim (Matthew Goode) has recently died, so he decides to commit suicide.
Colin Firth's is the type of performance that the Oscars do seem to enjoy now more than ever. A problem I most certianly have with film these days is the way so many seem tailored for awards, rather than being films first. But I digress. Well not quite yet because in this film he voice over narrates the fact that he must hide his homosexuality through a facade, where back in 1971 Peter Finch was able to tell us this without having to voice over narrate it in Sunday Bloody Sunday, but I even further digress I must separate this performance from some of the problems I have with modern films.
Colin Firth is an actor who has developed over the last two years a sudden reputation that he is one of the greatest actors, for some reason. I can't quite say I share such enthusiasm about him as an actor, certianly he is not a bad actor I will grant that, but I cannot say he is by nature an amazing one. In fact I would say he falls under the group of actors whose performances can feel just a little bit calculated in nature.
I think that is the case for many of performances, and perhaps here too, but luckily for him it does work in favor of the calculated man George Falconer is suppose to be. George is always suppose to be calculating his approach to each day, creating the George he wants to show to the outside world, and hide the George that is actually on the inside.
Firth is interesting in the way he displays the two George's the one at home, and the one in the outside world. They are not completely different men actually but rather two shades of the same man. On the outside he seems to be rather proper English expatriate, who teaches his college course with a restrained but a strong passion, on the inside he is still an English expatriate but a more relaxed, and in some ways more lively of a fellow.
Both incarnations of George are well handled by Firth although not quite as different as his voice over might want you to believe. The largest part of Firth's performance is George's grief over the death Jim. Unfortunately I never felt in this aspect Firth was as strong as I wanted him to be, he is good in these scenes but there were a few issues I always felt with the performance.
For example when he first hearts about the death Firth slowly shows George's emotional devastation over hearing this. It is well done technically, but still I felt the whole action was a tad calculated on Firth's part, making it seem like a great display of acting, rather a completely genuine human reaction.
Also every one of his flashback scenes with Matthew Goode always left wanting more. They fine enough together. They seem to like each other well enough, and all that, but there seems to be something missing. I just never felt either of the actors, particularly Firth brought about the deeper connection that one would think they should have, since Jim's death is suppose to leave George suicidally depressed.
Also his whole depressing over the death, also always left me wanting a little more, it is fairly well handled by Firth, but I wanted just a little more. For example I wish Firth showed a bit more of struggle to hide his grief well trying to get through the day. I never always sensed the grief was there, yes at some moments but really not enough, since after all it probably should since he is suicidally depressed.
Firth though certainly has some great moments anyways, despite some of my problems with some of his performance. For example his scene where he talks to the little girl next door is a brilliant moment for Firth, contain a certian warmness of his exterior in that scene which reflects quite interestingly off of his grieving interior.
Also Firth's whole scene with Julianne Moore as Charley is terrific. The two actors together create a fascinating relationship together, becuase together they certainly have a love for each other but rather restrained and very specific one. Firth is interesting in that he shows a different side of George in the way he really shows his bitterness about his loss, and how the relationship with her was just who he was.
His final scenes should be stronger than they are, and I think they are indeed weakened by an overacted, and dull performance by Nicholas Hoult as one of George's students. Their scenes do not have as much power as they should, as George finally truly reflects on his life, and on Jim's death. Firth though still manages a powerful moment or two with proper poignancy to the situation, but unfortunately the overall effect of these final moments aren't as good as they could be.
Firth's performance is most certainly an interesting performance that cannot be denied, after all I usually do not write this much about a boring performance. The only problem was I always felt it was parts of a great performance, but never quite simply a great performance. It is never really obviously lacking, but rather I always though he could have done more with the part. This is a good performance, I have to stress that most assuredly, but it is one I never found myself loving as many do.
Colin Firth's is the type of performance that the Oscars do seem to enjoy now more than ever. A problem I most certianly have with film these days is the way so many seem tailored for awards, rather than being films first. But I digress. Well not quite yet because in this film he voice over narrates the fact that he must hide his homosexuality through a facade, where back in 1971 Peter Finch was able to tell us this without having to voice over narrate it in Sunday Bloody Sunday, but I even further digress I must separate this performance from some of the problems I have with modern films.
Colin Firth is an actor who has developed over the last two years a sudden reputation that he is one of the greatest actors, for some reason. I can't quite say I share such enthusiasm about him as an actor, certianly he is not a bad actor I will grant that, but I cannot say he is by nature an amazing one. In fact I would say he falls under the group of actors whose performances can feel just a little bit calculated in nature.
I think that is the case for many of performances, and perhaps here too, but luckily for him it does work in favor of the calculated man George Falconer is suppose to be. George is always suppose to be calculating his approach to each day, creating the George he wants to show to the outside world, and hide the George that is actually on the inside.
Firth is interesting in the way he displays the two George's the one at home, and the one in the outside world. They are not completely different men actually but rather two shades of the same man. On the outside he seems to be rather proper English expatriate, who teaches his college course with a restrained but a strong passion, on the inside he is still an English expatriate but a more relaxed, and in some ways more lively of a fellow.
Both incarnations of George are well handled by Firth although not quite as different as his voice over might want you to believe. The largest part of Firth's performance is George's grief over the death Jim. Unfortunately I never felt in this aspect Firth was as strong as I wanted him to be, he is good in these scenes but there were a few issues I always felt with the performance.
For example when he first hearts about the death Firth slowly shows George's emotional devastation over hearing this. It is well done technically, but still I felt the whole action was a tad calculated on Firth's part, making it seem like a great display of acting, rather a completely genuine human reaction.
Also every one of his flashback scenes with Matthew Goode always left wanting more. They fine enough together. They seem to like each other well enough, and all that, but there seems to be something missing. I just never felt either of the actors, particularly Firth brought about the deeper connection that one would think they should have, since Jim's death is suppose to leave George suicidally depressed.
Also his whole depressing over the death, also always left me wanting a little more, it is fairly well handled by Firth, but I wanted just a little more. For example I wish Firth showed a bit more of struggle to hide his grief well trying to get through the day. I never always sensed the grief was there, yes at some moments but really not enough, since after all it probably should since he is suicidally depressed.
Firth though certainly has some great moments anyways, despite some of my problems with some of his performance. For example his scene where he talks to the little girl next door is a brilliant moment for Firth, contain a certian warmness of his exterior in that scene which reflects quite interestingly off of his grieving interior.
Also Firth's whole scene with Julianne Moore as Charley is terrific. The two actors together create a fascinating relationship together, becuase together they certainly have a love for each other but rather restrained and very specific one. Firth is interesting in that he shows a different side of George in the way he really shows his bitterness about his loss, and how the relationship with her was just who he was.
His final scenes should be stronger than they are, and I think they are indeed weakened by an overacted, and dull performance by Nicholas Hoult as one of George's students. Their scenes do not have as much power as they should, as George finally truly reflects on his life, and on Jim's death. Firth though still manages a powerful moment or two with proper poignancy to the situation, but unfortunately the overall effect of these final moments aren't as good as they could be.
Firth's performance is most certainly an interesting performance that cannot be denied, after all I usually do not write this much about a boring performance. The only problem was I always felt it was parts of a great performance, but never quite simply a great performance. It is never really obviously lacking, but rather I always though he could have done more with the part. This is a good performance, I have to stress that most assuredly, but it is one I never found myself loving as many do.
Best Actor 2009: Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart
Jeff Bridges won his Oscar from his fifth nomination for portraying 'Bad' Blake in Crazy Heart.
Crazy Heart is about a broken down country singer who has a chance for redemption due to the love of a woman, wait a minute did I not already review the exact same film Tender Mercies. Oh wait Tender Mercies has poignancy, brilliantly understated moments, a true sense of place, Crazy Heart has some sex scenes, some vomiting, and some pretty obvious moments attempting to be dramatic, my mistake.
Jeff Bridges is that old broken down country singer in this one, although not as broken down as he really could be he still gets plenty of jobs, although in rather small venues, but still gets to open for his old protege . His major problem is his constant drinking that is slowly destroying him. Bridges is good in portraying his broken down, he most certianly looks haggard, and warned down from his troubled life.
I think this performance is almost limited in a ways because so much focus is put on the troubles of his life, requiring Bridges to do a lot of falling down, as well as vomiting, and as well as looking sick for awhile. He is always good in his portrayal of the condition of his character, but it is not exactly a fascinating thing to watch that is for sure.
Bridges though is required to present how he got there, and his whole relationships he had beforehand particularly his relationship with Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell), which I think Bridges perhaps overplays a little bit. I always felt that Bridges suggested that Sweet had done something that really wronged Bad, but in fact when he finally meets him it is clear he did not. Bridges really makes it seem something major, rather than just hurt pride because he is opening for his former student.
His most important relationship is with Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) a reporter whom he falls in love with. This whole relationship is not all that believable. They frankly jump too quickly in it, and the two performers frankly needed more chemistry to make it fully believable. She decides to sleep with him just a little too quickly for it to be fully believed, especially how she acts defensive later on in the film.
I really feel they do lack chemistry, but Bridges is not bad in these scenes, because he still has ample charisma, and charm in them even if it does not amount to as much as it could if the film was better written and directed. Bridges can't quite make the connection with Gyllenhaal, leaving it lacking, I really think it is mostly the script, and actually Gyllenhaal as well who seem to be the problem.
Jeff Bridges performance though is good in showing Bad's troubles as he desperately tries to improve himself but is just unable to make the leap completely. He is successful in portraying the pain that has been with him for a long time, particularly in the scene where he calls his son, or in his scene where he tries to ask Jean for forgiveness.
It should also be noted that Bridges is convincing as a country singer, he sings well, has the right look and manner as well. He is not amazing as a singer but properly realistic. He mostly just sings the songs competently until at the end of the film where he sings the weary kind, and in that scene he really infuses his soul and that does work quite effectively.
I can't say I was ever amazed by this performance. Some of it comes from the weaknesses of the film, which there are plenty of. This film hinders him in creating a truly memorable characterization, as well there are few missteps in his performance. Bridges' strong presence certainly shines through, and what he does get right, he really gets right. Never an amazing performance, but certainly a good performance.
Jeff Bridges is that old broken down country singer in this one, although not as broken down as he really could be he still gets plenty of jobs, although in rather small venues, but still gets to open for his old protege . His major problem is his constant drinking that is slowly destroying him. Bridges is good in portraying his broken down, he most certianly looks haggard, and warned down from his troubled life.
I think this performance is almost limited in a ways because so much focus is put on the troubles of his life, requiring Bridges to do a lot of falling down, as well as vomiting, and as well as looking sick for awhile. He is always good in his portrayal of the condition of his character, but it is not exactly a fascinating thing to watch that is for sure.
Bridges though is required to present how he got there, and his whole relationships he had beforehand particularly his relationship with Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell), which I think Bridges perhaps overplays a little bit. I always felt that Bridges suggested that Sweet had done something that really wronged Bad, but in fact when he finally meets him it is clear he did not. Bridges really makes it seem something major, rather than just hurt pride because he is opening for his former student.
His most important relationship is with Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) a reporter whom he falls in love with. This whole relationship is not all that believable. They frankly jump too quickly in it, and the two performers frankly needed more chemistry to make it fully believable. She decides to sleep with him just a little too quickly for it to be fully believed, especially how she acts defensive later on in the film.
I really feel they do lack chemistry, but Bridges is not bad in these scenes, because he still has ample charisma, and charm in them even if it does not amount to as much as it could if the film was better written and directed. Bridges can't quite make the connection with Gyllenhaal, leaving it lacking, I really think it is mostly the script, and actually Gyllenhaal as well who seem to be the problem.
Jeff Bridges performance though is good in showing Bad's troubles as he desperately tries to improve himself but is just unable to make the leap completely. He is successful in portraying the pain that has been with him for a long time, particularly in the scene where he calls his son, or in his scene where he tries to ask Jean for forgiveness.
It should also be noted that Bridges is convincing as a country singer, he sings well, has the right look and manner as well. He is not amazing as a singer but properly realistic. He mostly just sings the songs competently until at the end of the film where he sings the weary kind, and in that scene he really infuses his soul and that does work quite effectively.
I can't say I was ever amazed by this performance. Some of it comes from the weaknesses of the film, which there are plenty of. This film hinders him in creating a truly memorable characterization, as well there are few missteps in his performance. Bridges' strong presence certainly shines through, and what he does get right, he really gets right. Never an amazing performance, but certainly a good performance.
Best Actor 2009: Morgan Freeman in Invictus
Morgan Freeman received his fifth Oscar nomination for portraying Nelson Mandela in Invictus.
Invictus tells the story of the winning season of the South African Rugby team, and how it aligned with race relations in a post apartheid South Africa.
Morgan Freeman's performance as Nelson Mandela is really a far too calculated one in many ways. The way he shakes his hand, the way he stands, and walks, the way he talks is all calculated to make him seem like the real Nelson Mandela. The problem is a lot of the time it just seems to be a bit too much, he just seems to be trying to hard most of the time, making it seem a tad unnatural.
It is not helped by that Freeman is not always entirely consistent either, he fails to always be the Mandela he is in one scene as he is in another scene. This is quite disappointing, and unfortuantely true. In some scenes his mannerisms, and voice completely fall by the way side making his performance even more lacking. This is unfortunate because Freeman seems like he should be perfect for the part, but he just is not, frankly sometimes it seems director Clint Eastwood should had few takes to always ensure the voice and mannerisms were consistent.
Freeman performance unfortuantely mostly consists of these mannerisms, since Mandela really is not investigated all that much in the film, or at least as one would think. Mandela really is only dealt with in relation to the Rugby team. There are minor scenes that attempt to tell more about him, such as when asked about his family, but really it can't be said his Mandela does much more than make passionate speeches about the need to unify the country behind the rugby team.
Freeman is properly passionate I suppose though in his speeches, as well as Freeman does have his natural charisma that shines through here as it usually does in his performances. Also the breif moments that show his past while in prison are well handled by Freeman as he does have some weight in his single look he gives showing the struggles Mandela is going through and will continue to be going through. Still though the mannerisms almost completely sink the performance, they are just far too broad, and overarching to be ignored. This performance is a bit of a missed opportunity, not all bad, but most certianly lackluster.
Morgan Freeman's performance as Nelson Mandela is really a far too calculated one in many ways. The way he shakes his hand, the way he stands, and walks, the way he talks is all calculated to make him seem like the real Nelson Mandela. The problem is a lot of the time it just seems to be a bit too much, he just seems to be trying to hard most of the time, making it seem a tad unnatural.
It is not helped by that Freeman is not always entirely consistent either, he fails to always be the Mandela he is in one scene as he is in another scene. This is quite disappointing, and unfortuantely true. In some scenes his mannerisms, and voice completely fall by the way side making his performance even more lacking. This is unfortunate because Freeman seems like he should be perfect for the part, but he just is not, frankly sometimes it seems director Clint Eastwood should had few takes to always ensure the voice and mannerisms were consistent.
Freeman performance unfortuantely mostly consists of these mannerisms, since Mandela really is not investigated all that much in the film, or at least as one would think. Mandela really is only dealt with in relation to the Rugby team. There are minor scenes that attempt to tell more about him, such as when asked about his family, but really it can't be said his Mandela does much more than make passionate speeches about the need to unify the country behind the rugby team.
Freeman is properly passionate I suppose though in his speeches, as well as Freeman does have his natural charisma that shines through here as it usually does in his performances. Also the breif moments that show his past while in prison are well handled by Freeman as he does have some weight in his single look he gives showing the struggles Mandela is going through and will continue to be going through. Still though the mannerisms almost completely sink the performance, they are just far too broad, and overarching to be ignored. This performance is a bit of a missed opportunity, not all bad, but most certianly lackluster.
Best Actor 2009: George Clooney in Up in the Air
George Clooney received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Ryan Bingham in Up in the Air.
Up in The Air tells about about who fires people, and loves his never stopping life style, although has to take a look back at his life due to what seems like a more serious relationship, and due to changes in his job.
George Clooney's performance in this film fails to ever interest or intrigue me. Why because he fails to realize anything past himself in terms of his characterization, especially in this performance as Ryan Bingham, which would be described as coasting to its fullest extent. Now one could argue, no that is because he has so much ease in the part as to look like he is coasting, but they would be wrong. Clooney does not show an ease with the part because he is not playing a part, but just being himself and reading lines for most of the film, although not all of it.
When Clooney was doing anything as Bingham, whether it was giving his stupid speeches about back packs or when he is doing one of his firing speeches, I really just see Clooney making these speeches, I sense no character along with him, just Clooney reciting. Now I again would could criticize me due to my liking of performances from people like Clark Gable, or Sidney Poitier who many accuse of just playing themselves in certain roles. I would say no they take their self and utilize it for the performance, but Clooney just plays himself, there is a big difference, due to a lack of conviction in the actual character.
The scenes that require Clooney to come out of his comfort zone such as when he talks about his big frequent flyer mileage build up. Now this should be a distinct feature of Ryan Bingham but one will notice that Clooney really fails to really convey the excitement Bingham probably should have over this achievement of his lifetime. Instead in this scene he frankly seems rather uninterested in the prospect himself, because he just seems to be saying it with a little emphasis, but a phony feeling emphasis, because he still is just being Clooney.
Clooney fails there and many similar moments, and his big changes in the character are not ones I find he is able to pull off either, because again he fails to develop Bingham into a human being keeping him instead always on the surface lacking any real depth to really portray a conviction to make Bingham a believable person. Clooney is challenged more near the end where he must evaluate his life, Clooney self evaluation part is as uninteresting as the rest of his performance, and really he changes gives rather telegraphed glances to portray everything such as feelings of being betrayed by who he thought was a kindred spirit, or when he loses his belief in his back pack speech. It still never becomes internalized in any fashion, it always stays as an external performance, that relies too heavily on his supposed charisma, which frankly I just have never found to be that charming.
George Clooney's performance in this film fails to ever interest or intrigue me. Why because he fails to realize anything past himself in terms of his characterization, especially in this performance as Ryan Bingham, which would be described as coasting to its fullest extent. Now one could argue, no that is because he has so much ease in the part as to look like he is coasting, but they would be wrong. Clooney does not show an ease with the part because he is not playing a part, but just being himself and reading lines for most of the film, although not all of it.
When Clooney was doing anything as Bingham, whether it was giving his stupid speeches about back packs or when he is doing one of his firing speeches, I really just see Clooney making these speeches, I sense no character along with him, just Clooney reciting. Now I again would could criticize me due to my liking of performances from people like Clark Gable, or Sidney Poitier who many accuse of just playing themselves in certain roles. I would say no they take their self and utilize it for the performance, but Clooney just plays himself, there is a big difference, due to a lack of conviction in the actual character.
The scenes that require Clooney to come out of his comfort zone such as when he talks about his big frequent flyer mileage build up. Now this should be a distinct feature of Ryan Bingham but one will notice that Clooney really fails to really convey the excitement Bingham probably should have over this achievement of his lifetime. Instead in this scene he frankly seems rather uninterested in the prospect himself, because he just seems to be saying it with a little emphasis, but a phony feeling emphasis, because he still is just being Clooney.
Clooney fails there and many similar moments, and his big changes in the character are not ones I find he is able to pull off either, because again he fails to develop Bingham into a human being keeping him instead always on the surface lacking any real depth to really portray a conviction to make Bingham a believable person. Clooney is challenged more near the end where he must evaluate his life, Clooney self evaluation part is as uninteresting as the rest of his performance, and really he changes gives rather telegraphed glances to portray everything such as feelings of being betrayed by who he thought was a kindred spirit, or when he loses his belief in his back pack speech. It still never becomes internalized in any fashion, it always stays as an external performance, that relies too heavily on his supposed charisma, which frankly I just have never found to be that charming.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Best Actor 2009
Colin Firth in A Single Man
Morgan Freeman in Invictus
Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart
Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker
George Clooney in Up in The Air
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)