Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters
Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan
Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful
Edward Norton in American History X
Nick Nolte in Affliction
Who do you predict, and pick?
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Best Actor 1998
Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters
Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan
Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful
Edward Norton in American History X
Nick Nolte in Affliction
Who do you predict, and pick?
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Best Actor 1937: Results
Cary Grant in The Awful Truth
Stan Laurel in Way Out West
Oliver Hardy in Way Out West
Best Actor 1937: Paul Muni in The Life of Emile Zola
Paul Muni received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying French writer Emile Zola in The Life of Emile Zola.
The Life Emile Zola is not a great movie by any means, and it takes a very long time to get going. I feel it does when it reaches the Dreyfus affair but it should probably have just been called the Dreyfus Affair with Zola being an important character. I think that would have made a better film.
Muni here plays a character who is almost always in the right and likes to tell other people how they are wrong, all through his life. Muni role is simple in this way, as Zola is rarely conflicted and almost always right. I will say an actor can actually excel in roles like these like Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird, but Muni does not quite excel. He moves along throughout the film with a fine adequate performance, even though at times he certainly does overact especially in the opening scene. He throws up his arms and makes some over the top faces for no real reason. He does these at times throughout his performance they are never that distracting but always stick out in a bad way.
He does do something well in this film and that is quite well. He ages incredibly well in this film. I really believed him as the elderly Zola, and thought he did a good job doing the mannerism of older age without over doing it. The other thing he does well enough are his speeches. I will say some he is a little annoying, but he is always properly passionate in the role. His best speech is his one to the Jury where he wants proper justice. He delivers this speech particularly well and certainly does a good job of it. His performance works well for the film, and I think he was right for the part. I would say I could have done without his overacting at times, but still he delivered the "goods" so to speak when he had to in this performance.
Muni here plays a character who is almost always in the right and likes to tell other people how they are wrong, all through his life. Muni role is simple in this way, as Zola is rarely conflicted and almost always right. I will say an actor can actually excel in roles like these like Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird, but Muni does not quite excel. He moves along throughout the film with a fine adequate performance, even though at times he certainly does overact especially in the opening scene. He throws up his arms and makes some over the top faces for no real reason. He does these at times throughout his performance they are never that distracting but always stick out in a bad way.
He does do something well in this film and that is quite well. He ages incredibly well in this film. I really believed him as the elderly Zola, and thought he did a good job doing the mannerism of older age without over doing it. The other thing he does well enough are his speeches. I will say some he is a little annoying, but he is always properly passionate in the role. His best speech is his one to the Jury where he wants proper justice. He delivers this speech particularly well and certainly does a good job of it. His performance works well for the film, and I think he was right for the part. I would say I could have done without his overacting at times, but still he delivered the "goods" so to speak when he had to in this performance.
Best Actor 1937: Fredric March in A Star is Born
Fredric March received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Norman Maine in A Star is Born.
The original Star is Born really does not work all too well especially when you have seen the 1954 version which is better in just about every single way. This version seems rushed, and the whole story of Vicki Lester does not work particularly well, since in this version it seems her success really is entirely because of Norman Maine.
Norman Maine actually takes little bit to show up and does not appear until being bothered by paparazzi in an opera house and violently reacting toward them bothering him. Later he meets Vicki, and that get on famously as he moves to have her become a star. March is just fine in these early scenes he has the right amount of charm as Maine in these early scenes, along with adding a little humor when he can as well.
His chemistry with Janet Gaynor as Vicki is not anything all that special unfortunately even though I feel that is because of Gaynor more than March. March tries his best to be charming and romantic scenes in their scenes together, and I think he does a good job. The problem though is Gaynor always stays basically the same throughout her performance, and really does not adjust well along with March, to really be convincing in their romantic scenes. March I do think is charming in these scenes but the scenes remain unspectacular due to Gaynor.
One aspect of Maine that is very underdeveloped is Maine's alcoholism. In the 1954 there is always an inkling of it with Maine at almost all times. Here it is not consistent, March does not make it so nor does the film. His whole presentation of Maine's alcoholism is not perfect because the film is incredibly inconsistent. It never really shows it to be that much of a problem for him, until the plot requires that it be.
I will say March is fine when showing the alcoholism or his problems involving this problem but unfortunately this whole aspect of the film is poorly done because it is not given enough time, and again it is not consistent. For example in the 1954 his drunken tirade at the Oscars is well lead to and well handled, in this version it sort of comes out of nowhere, and the actual occurrence of the scene seems strange. March handles it well, but the film certainly holds him back, from giving a great performance. Like Boyer's performance from this year there are certainly good examples of the performance throughout the film especially his final scene, but still the film has a character written fairly poorly disabling the actor to be truly effective. I moved up to a 4 because he is still very charming, and I felt he deserved more credit for what he did well.
Norman Maine actually takes little bit to show up and does not appear until being bothered by paparazzi in an opera house and violently reacting toward them bothering him. Later he meets Vicki, and that get on famously as he moves to have her become a star. March is just fine in these early scenes he has the right amount of charm as Maine in these early scenes, along with adding a little humor when he can as well.
His chemistry with Janet Gaynor as Vicki is not anything all that special unfortunately even though I feel that is because of Gaynor more than March. March tries his best to be charming and romantic scenes in their scenes together, and I think he does a good job. The problem though is Gaynor always stays basically the same throughout her performance, and really does not adjust well along with March, to really be convincing in their romantic scenes. March I do think is charming in these scenes but the scenes remain unspectacular due to Gaynor.
One aspect of Maine that is very underdeveloped is Maine's alcoholism. In the 1954 there is always an inkling of it with Maine at almost all times. Here it is not consistent, March does not make it so nor does the film. His whole presentation of Maine's alcoholism is not perfect because the film is incredibly inconsistent. It never really shows it to be that much of a problem for him, until the plot requires that it be.
I will say March is fine when showing the alcoholism or his problems involving this problem but unfortunately this whole aspect of the film is poorly done because it is not given enough time, and again it is not consistent. For example in the 1954 his drunken tirade at the Oscars is well lead to and well handled, in this version it sort of comes out of nowhere, and the actual occurrence of the scene seems strange. March handles it well, but the film certainly holds him back, from giving a great performance. Like Boyer's performance from this year there are certainly good examples of the performance throughout the film especially his final scene, but still the film has a character written fairly poorly disabling the actor to be truly effective. I moved up to a 4 because he is still very charming, and I felt he deserved more credit for what he did well.
Best Actor 1937: Charles Boyer in Conquest
Charles Boyer received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Napoleon Bonaparte in Conquest.
Conquest simply does not work because the film does not set its tone well nor does really know what it is trying to do. It is the bad type of biography picture because it does not lay out a time frame, and it just seems to go nowhere special. Also Greta Garbo is surprisingly unspectacular in this film, and is actually thoroughly up shown by her male co-star.
Charles Boyer I must first say that he seems the perfect choice to play Napoleon Bonaparte. He just seems to fit that part perfectly and is technically perfect cast as him. I really am rather annoyed by this film actually, because it seems Boyer could have been a fantastic Napoleon in another film, but unfortunately he is held back by this version of Napoleon. Napoleon is portrayed in such a artificial way, and baseless fashion that no character development can really be achieved by Boyer. It is not that his character is inconsistent just the script never really gets inside Napoleon very well, it always stays at an odd distance that is a huge failure of the film.
I will say the way Boyer presents Napoleon in the way he talks and walks is well handled. I believed him as Napoleon, as he has the right command and control in the part. Also something else I was glad to see was that Boyer plays him with a little light humor, which actually does work well. I think his best scene and the best scene in the film is when he plays cards with an old woman who does not know who he is and is not aware of who he is either. It certainly is a funny scene do to Boyer's comedic timing, unfortunately this is the only scene like this and does not really correspond with the rest of the film. I think possibly if it had been a light comedic romantic portrayal of Napoleon it could have worked but alas.
His scenes with Garbo are not all that special due to the script, even though I think Boyer does a fine job nonetheless. He is properly romantic in his sort of odd Boyer sort of way that I think does work well for Napoleon. I do not think Garbo actually reciprocates that well, but Boyer still remains good. Napoleon is incredibly random character here since the movie is so random. Boyer tries to do what he can to be consistent but the movie is just too poorly directed. Since it lacks a focus Boyer has nothing to focus on but when he has the chance to shine he actually does, such as a brief scene with a dying soldier, in which Boyer is very effective. His final scenes are also fine but Boyer cannot make up for the bad writing. This simply is a performance that could have been great with better material, but instead is just good.
Charles Boyer I must first say that he seems the perfect choice to play Napoleon Bonaparte. He just seems to fit that part perfectly and is technically perfect cast as him. I really am rather annoyed by this film actually, because it seems Boyer could have been a fantastic Napoleon in another film, but unfortunately he is held back by this version of Napoleon. Napoleon is portrayed in such a artificial way, and baseless fashion that no character development can really be achieved by Boyer. It is not that his character is inconsistent just the script never really gets inside Napoleon very well, it always stays at an odd distance that is a huge failure of the film.
I will say the way Boyer presents Napoleon in the way he talks and walks is well handled. I believed him as Napoleon, as he has the right command and control in the part. Also something else I was glad to see was that Boyer plays him with a little light humor, which actually does work well. I think his best scene and the best scene in the film is when he plays cards with an old woman who does not know who he is and is not aware of who he is either. It certainly is a funny scene do to Boyer's comedic timing, unfortunately this is the only scene like this and does not really correspond with the rest of the film. I think possibly if it had been a light comedic romantic portrayal of Napoleon it could have worked but alas.
His scenes with Garbo are not all that special due to the script, even though I think Boyer does a fine job nonetheless. He is properly romantic in his sort of odd Boyer sort of way that I think does work well for Napoleon. I do not think Garbo actually reciprocates that well, but Boyer still remains good. Napoleon is incredibly random character here since the movie is so random. Boyer tries to do what he can to be consistent but the movie is just too poorly directed. Since it lacks a focus Boyer has nothing to focus on but when he has the chance to shine he actually does, such as a brief scene with a dying soldier, in which Boyer is very effective. His final scenes are also fine but Boyer cannot make up for the bad writing. This simply is a performance that could have been great with better material, but instead is just good.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Best Actor 1937: Robert Montgomery in Night Must Fall
Robert Montgomery received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Danny in Night Must Fall.
Night Must Fall is an effective thriller, not quite perfect because most of the characters pale in comparison to the lead nominated character, but still the film is very strong.
I will obviously say right now this is a spoiler filled review, since it is necessary to tell of the depth of Montgomery's performance. I was actually not knowing what to expect from Montgomery this time since his other nominated performance I was not very impressed by, but I pleasantly found out Montgomery has the two most different nominated performances in Oscar history I believe. Different in more than on way, since one character is a nice guy boxer, and this one is a murderous psychopath. I was also surprised to see such a completely amoral character nominated this early in terms of Oscar years. Although I assume he must have had absolutely no chance of winning because of this.
When Danny first arrives, Montgomery creates a truly pitch perfect performance from the get go. His voice he uses for Danny is one feature that is brilliant. His light Irish is terrific, because it is such a soft voice, suggesting a very soft man which he is not. As Danny he brilliantly is charming in his early scenes as he charms his future employer, and others. His smile, and that little swagger he as is just perfect, since he is so unassuming as Danny, but very charming. He first seems just like a charming young man nothing exactly wrong with him, well almost. Montgomery in even these early scenes does offer an incredibly small, almost unnoticeable sight of something else deeper inside him. This is very difficult to do, since he could have shown too much of Danny early on or too little, but Montgomery shows just the right amount.
As Danny moves along and it reveals more about him, he really is excellent. He shows how Danny actually is always constantly acting. That his charming smile, and everything about him is really just a facade that is false. Montgomery shows his falseness correctly, but it properly disconcerting though because he does seem authentic despite always lying. His strength of his performance though really lies in when he specifically changes from the fake happy and charming Danny, to in secret the psychotic Danny. I also like how whenever he mixes the two at once reacting to the more suspicious Olivia (Rosalind Russell), such as when he catches her and others going through his luggage. His reaction is perfect and shows Montgomery brilliance because he at first reacts with his charming way, but still shows carefully and subtlety his actually hatred from what they have done. Another aspect of the film that is not perfect is the fact that Olivia in a way becomes attracted to Danny despite her knowing quite well that he is not on the level. The film does not write this part of the film perfectly but Montgomery plays it well and almost makes it work. He makes Danny properly alluring and exciting in his dark scenes. Although still clearly a psychopath, he still shows that Danny always charming in his disturbing way.
Danny at the very end of the film, has some especially strong scenes that really exemplify the strengths of his performance. First his murder scene with Dame May Whitty is truly darkly effective, and incredibly disturbing because he shows his lighter fake side for awhile. He plays around with her and singing quietly her to sleep, but than Montgomery shows Danny true ways and is perfectly frightening. Than after being confronted by Olivia, Montgomery is completely and utterly chilling, in his final scene as he tells her that he is going to kill her, but still stays charming well he does this. A truly darkly chilling achievement for Montgomery, that also helps in the full circle of the character at the very end. He gets caught and attempts to charm one more time, but than the pathetic side of Danny comes just as Naturally by Montgomery. Than finally his last moment when he stares into his mirror finally seeing his true self to himself, is truly an amazing end to a very strong performance.
I will obviously say right now this is a spoiler filled review, since it is necessary to tell of the depth of Montgomery's performance. I was actually not knowing what to expect from Montgomery this time since his other nominated performance I was not very impressed by, but I pleasantly found out Montgomery has the two most different nominated performances in Oscar history I believe. Different in more than on way, since one character is a nice guy boxer, and this one is a murderous psychopath. I was also surprised to see such a completely amoral character nominated this early in terms of Oscar years. Although I assume he must have had absolutely no chance of winning because of this.
When Danny first arrives, Montgomery creates a truly pitch perfect performance from the get go. His voice he uses for Danny is one feature that is brilliant. His light Irish is terrific, because it is such a soft voice, suggesting a very soft man which he is not. As Danny he brilliantly is charming in his early scenes as he charms his future employer, and others. His smile, and that little swagger he as is just perfect, since he is so unassuming as Danny, but very charming. He first seems just like a charming young man nothing exactly wrong with him, well almost. Montgomery in even these early scenes does offer an incredibly small, almost unnoticeable sight of something else deeper inside him. This is very difficult to do, since he could have shown too much of Danny early on or too little, but Montgomery shows just the right amount.
As Danny moves along and it reveals more about him, he really is excellent. He shows how Danny actually is always constantly acting. That his charming smile, and everything about him is really just a facade that is false. Montgomery shows his falseness correctly, but it properly disconcerting though because he does seem authentic despite always lying. His strength of his performance though really lies in when he specifically changes from the fake happy and charming Danny, to in secret the psychotic Danny. I also like how whenever he mixes the two at once reacting to the more suspicious Olivia (Rosalind Russell), such as when he catches her and others going through his luggage. His reaction is perfect and shows Montgomery brilliance because he at first reacts with his charming way, but still shows carefully and subtlety his actually hatred from what they have done. Another aspect of the film that is not perfect is the fact that Olivia in a way becomes attracted to Danny despite her knowing quite well that he is not on the level. The film does not write this part of the film perfectly but Montgomery plays it well and almost makes it work. He makes Danny properly alluring and exciting in his dark scenes. Although still clearly a psychopath, he still shows that Danny always charming in his disturbing way.
Danny at the very end of the film, has some especially strong scenes that really exemplify the strengths of his performance. First his murder scene with Dame May Whitty is truly darkly effective, and incredibly disturbing because he shows his lighter fake side for awhile. He plays around with her and singing quietly her to sleep, but than Montgomery shows Danny true ways and is perfectly frightening. Than after being confronted by Olivia, Montgomery is completely and utterly chilling, in his final scene as he tells her that he is going to kill her, but still stays charming well he does this. A truly darkly chilling achievement for Montgomery, that also helps in the full circle of the character at the very end. He gets caught and attempts to charm one more time, but than the pathetic side of Danny comes just as Naturally by Montgomery. Than finally his last moment when he stares into his mirror finally seeing his true self to himself, is truly an amazing end to a very strong performance.
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Best Actor 1937: Spencer Tracy in Captain Couragoeus
Spencer Tract won his first Oscar from his second Oscar nomination for portraying Manuel Fidello a fisherman in Captain Courageous.
Captain Courageous I actually liked for the most part, I felt it was simply but well told story of a spoiled boy Harvey (Freddie Bartholomew) who learns what it really means to be a man when he lives on a fisher boat for awhile do following off a luxury liner.
Spencer Tracy is not actually the lead in Captain Courageous Freddie Bartholomew is as Harvey. He is most certainly supporting. There is nothing all that special about this supporting performance. I will say the character of Manuel does have a heartwarming quality that note even a bad performance can mess up.
That is the only thing I can say that is positive about Tracy's simple and very poor performance. He never for a second is believable as the fisherman even less so than in the Old Man and the Sea, I suppose fishermen were not his forte. His accent he tries is strange, and incredibly inconsistent. A performance really is has a problem when the actor can not even keep a bad accent straight. Manuel dialogue is a tough sell I will say, and Tracy naturally is unable to sell it. He certainly smiles a lot, but so what there is nothing special about that.
There is never anything special about his performance at all. Whenever he tries something more with Manuel, or is required to do more he fails. This certainly just is not a high point for Tracy, after all even Tracy though lowly of it, well before people told him he was good, and won an award for it. This simply is not a good performance, almost everyone acted better than him in this movie, Freddie Bartholomew, Lionel Barrymore, Melvyn Douglas, even Mickey Rooney.
Spencer Tracy is not actually the lead in Captain Courageous Freddie Bartholomew is as Harvey. He is most certainly supporting. There is nothing all that special about this supporting performance. I will say the character of Manuel does have a heartwarming quality that note even a bad performance can mess up.
That is the only thing I can say that is positive about Tracy's simple and very poor performance. He never for a second is believable as the fisherman even less so than in the Old Man and the Sea, I suppose fishermen were not his forte. His accent he tries is strange, and incredibly inconsistent. A performance really is has a problem when the actor can not even keep a bad accent straight. Manuel dialogue is a tough sell I will say, and Tracy naturally is unable to sell it. He certainly smiles a lot, but so what there is nothing special about that.
There is never anything special about his performance at all. Whenever he tries something more with Manuel, or is required to do more he fails. This certainly just is not a high point for Tracy, after all even Tracy though lowly of it, well before people told him he was good, and won an award for it. This simply is not a good performance, almost everyone acted better than him in this movie, Freddie Bartholomew, Lionel Barrymore, Melvyn Douglas, even Mickey Rooney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)