Sunday 17 November 2013

Best Supporting Actor 1998: Robert Duvall - A Civil Action

Robert Duvall starts to be a strange surprise for me. I never liked him very much. I respected him as a fine and worshipped actor, but his acting has never blown me away. The only performance of his that I really liked was in Get Low. All of the other performances were just too subtle to be outstanding. But if you visit this blog regularly, you already know that I also liked his performance in The Godfather, which I fully appreciated after more viewings of that film. So what's happened?
I just can't see why is this happening to me, but lately I found his subtle acting somehow fascinating. Maybe I'm getting older, or something, but I liked him a lot in A Civil Action, although his performance in it is as subtle, as usually.
The same thing happened to me with the film itself. I used to find it very dull, but as I was watching it because of this review I thought it was very fine. Duvall plays a lawyer that is an opponent to the leading character played by John Travolta. His an old lawyer that has the most of his career behind himself. Therefore his character is very calm and doesn't make a big deal out of anything.
This is a case similar to Ed Harris's character in The Truman show. It was a subtle portrayal of a very calm and almost stoic character that is just very fascinating to watch. He really got into the character and is very very realistic and natural. There are some scenes that were supposed to be funny in A Civil Action and most of them come from Duvall's character. And he succeeded in this, as well.
All right, on the other hand he wasn't somehow showy, or magnicifent and as I said I wasn't blown away by it. But it's very very decent performance that seems to have no technical flaws. Only you won't remember it very often after watching it, because there nothing special or extraordinary about it. It's just so much great performance...
The chances of winning an Oscar: I think he was the second, or the third. I mean, he's won SAG Awards for it, he must have had some support among the voters...

Sunday 10 November 2013

Worst Supporting Actor 2003

6. Al Pacino - Gigli   
As I said, Pacino really is not deserving of a nomination here. His one scene seems to be the only really good and even funny scene of the entire film. I think he is only deserving of a nomination because he agreed to play in this film and that is probably the reason he was nominated. But the performance is not deserving at all.

5. Anthony Anderson - Kangaroo Jack
There is really nothing wrong about this performance. It is a very solid comedic exhibition that is embarrassing and silly sometimes, but it logically comes with a crazy comedy. Of course he was overacting and things like that, but even when it's silly, you don't feel bad for him. Very fine and likable performance...

4. Christopher Walken - Gigli
One scene that is not bad, nor good. Though he portrayed very well how tired of his work the cop he played is, the side effect of this fact was the dullness of his performance. But still, I wouldn't nominate him here...

3. Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over
Though he was obviously enjoying playing this part (or these parts), he was very overacting and embarrassing. I must give him some credit for being a funny sometimes, but it wasn't in the moments he wanted to. The other thing is that he really can't handle playing various characters.

2. Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the hat
Overacting, silly and not funny performance. There is not even an effort from Baldwin to give some depth into this character. He is self-conscious and unreasonable in playing this role and he doesn't have any chemistry with his co-actors. And it's only his guilt.

1. Christopher Walken - Kangaroo Jack
Bad and very dull performance. As a mob boss he should induce some respect, but he doesn't. I can't understand the reasons of my feeling, but I just think that Walken struggled while playing this part. As if he took the role only because of the money.

Note: The Razzie Awards sometimes nominate one actor for more performances and then let him win for both (which is very stupid, because rarely both of them really deserve to win, or are equally bad). But to follow the rules I give my win to Walken for both of the performances. His performance in Kangaroo Jack is really the worst of the nominees and the other one is just in a terrible film. Maybe if he won, he would rebound and stop taking parts in such bad films. Therefore he'd be deserving for both of them...

My Nominees:
1. Christopher Walken - Kangaroo Jack
2. Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the hat
3. Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over
4. Michael Shannon - Kangaroo Jack
5. Robert Vito - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

The Spy Kids trilogy (though the third part, especially) used to be my guilty pleasure. It is so bad, that it is good. The badness was very enjoyable for me. But as I was watching it after a long time ago now, because of this review, I found it a bit boring at some moments, though it still was very entertaining.
Sylvester Stallone plays various characters in Spy Kids. The main of them is the narrator of the Game and the rest are just his alter-egos. All right, we all know that Stallone is not very much of a character actor, so you wouldn't even expect some depth from his performance. The narrator is just there as a villain that only needs to be bad and in this particular case even funny sometimes.
He suceeded in being bad, as well as funny. The sad thing about it is that his acting is bad and he is funny not the way he was supposed to be. He is very very overacting and it's not as entertaining, as he intended it to be.
On the other hand I must give him some credits for enjoying this role. Though his performance just isn't technically good, it's obvious that he really liked what he was doing. And as I always keep saying: If an actor enjoys playing his part, so does the audience enjoy watching it. So there's one thing I must admit. Scenes with Stallone never were the ones that bored me.
What about his best scene? It's hard to choose one, because he is equally bad in his entire performance. But the final scene with an uncle might be played the best. And his worst scene is the scene, in which all of his character get the space. Here we can see how little he did for these character and how equal they all are. I mean, changing the accent and being masked isn't very much...

Saturday 12 October 2013

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Christopher Walken - Kangaroo Jack & Gigli

Christopher Walken is an Academy Award winner, but in 2003 he was taking part in films that are not quite good. It would matter, if his performances in them were as good, as you would expect from an Oscar holder. Were they? The answer is "no".
Both of Walken's performances are surprisingly dull. In Kangaroo Jack he plays a mob boss. (Funny thing is that Al Pacino also plays a mob boss in Gigli, for which he was also Razzie-nominated the same year.) That is a character that should induce some respect. Walken completely failed in that. In fact, it was the only purpose he was supposed to reach, because in this particular case his role didn't want him to do anything else. Really there is nothing else to play. Just induce some respect. It's sad when you're only purpose in the film is so much easy and you can't succeed in reaching that. And it's a shame when you're an Academy Award winner. So as for me, his nomination for Kangaroo Jack was deserving.
Let's take a look at his second nominated performance, which we can see in Gigli. It's a very similar case to Pacino - if we're talking about the screentime. Walken only has got a scene in Gigli. He plays a very weary cop that hardly cares about the resolution of his case. This performance of Walken is a bit better, because he at least showed how sick and tired of his work he is, He showed it well, but he became very dull. Some people were enjoying his performance (and maybe it's because they saw the entire film and it may really be one of the two best scenes of it), but I think it was nothing special. I would call it fine, yet boring.
So, to sum it up, Walken failed completely in one of his performances and in the other one he was nothing extraorinary. And both of the performances were extremely dul...

Wednesday 9 October 2013

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Al Pacino - Gigli

First of all, a little confession of mine. I have never seen Gigli. Ergo, I have never seen it full. I've heard so many bad things about it that I just didn't have enough courage to actually watch it. So I just made myself sure that Pacino and Walken only play in one scene and I watched just their parts. Therefore my review(s) might not be good enough, because I haven't seen the performance in the context of the film, but in this case I don't think it will rule the objectivity.
Al Pacino is a living legend and undoubtably a great actor. I really didn't believe that his performance in Gigli will be bad, because I didn't believe he could ever be bad. Luckily, his reputation wasn't destroyed in my eyes after watching his really supporting performance as a mob boss in Gigli. From the first second we can see Pacino is really enjoying playing this character. Sometimes an actor needs to just chill out and take a role that isn't a challenge for him and that isn't very difficult to play.
And Pacino used this opportunity. I mean, he had nothing to lose. Of course he couldn't get an Oscar nomination for such role, but his performance really has nothing to do on the list of the five worst supporting performances of the year.
And back to the performance. The fact is that he is happy to be there and play this character. On the other hand, he is overacting many time, which is obvious. If an actor has a lots of fun playing the character, very probably will he be overacting. But his character didn't need to be acted with the best character acting.
Pacino loved to be on the screen in this role. And we really like watching him. That's all that matters...

Tuesday 3 September 2013

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Anthony Anderson - Kangaroo Jack

If you believe it or not, I liked Kangaroo Jack much more, than anyone would expect. It's not the best comedy I've ever seen, but it's very fine and I don't regret the time I spent with it. I've had a good laugh at some moments, and though I wasn't laughing out loud, I enjoyed it enough.
Anthony Anderson plays the best friend of the leading character of the film. After the series of crazy accidents they gotta go to Australia and give an envelope to the man called Smith. As they find out in the plane, the envelope is full of money and another series of crazy accidents start when a kangaroo kind of steals the envelope.
The first wrong thing about this nomination is that it's a category fraud. Anderson is co-lead, so if he was worthy of a nomination, than in the leading category.
The second wrong thing about it is that Anderson simply didn't deserve to be nominated. I absolutely don't see what was so bad about his performance that they needed to nominate him. Of course it is not a character acting and it's not even a perfect comedic performance. But Anderson succeeded in what the film wanted him to, so I don't have a complaint.
There is no doubt about the fact that Anderson is overacting throughout the whole film and there is not a single convincing moment in his performance. But he is funny most of the time.
On the other hand, we have Jerry O'Connell in the leading role. He is also overacting, but most of the time it's just not funny. It's happens to be embarrassing, instead.
However, Anderson's performance has got some bad moments. For example the moment when he informs O'Connell's character that the kangaroo has stolen the money. Some parts of the scene are in the trailer, but I don't know why. I really disliked the way Anderson's chosen to deliver his lines.
Or the scene at the end of the film, where his character should be finally serious for a moment. This scene should really be touching and maybe here it would fit, if Anderson play it convincingly. But he just didn't. I didn't believe him that he means the lines he was saying. And that's not very good.
But I think Anderson succeeded in what the film wanted him to, anyway. He was at least funny and entertaining. And though I don't usually watch films that are bad, or have bad performances I think that there were much more performance that would deserve to be nominated much more, than Anderson did...

Monday 17 June 2013

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the Hat

Alec Baldwin received his only Razzie nomination to date for portraying Larry in The Cat in the Hat.
The Cat in the Hat is a very strange film. Its whole content is meant for children. But this version is completely inappropriate for them. So its biggest problem is that it doesn't know who does it want to be for. Therefore there are some very embarassing moments that make this film bad.
Alec Baldwin plays the biggest bad-ass in The Cat in the Hat. He is trying to ball the mother of the leading characters (played by Dakota Fanning and Spencer Breslin), but he hates her children, especially the one played by Spencer Breslin and so he's trying to suspend him to some camp (or somewhere, it's not important).
If you believe it or not, there's not any purpose for Baldwin's character's behaviour. We never know why he wants to be with Fanning's and Breslin's mother. We never know, why he hates her children. It is happening, because the screenplay says so and that's all. Therefore it's extremely bad character to play.
Many other actors would try to find this reason and somehow reflect it into their performance. But Baldwin doesn't do it. He doesn't care about this fact. He plays his part very self-consciously. And that's a big problem. He is extremely overacting, which wouldn't be so bad in this kind of roles. But he plays as if he wanted to be the main star of this film. As if he wanted to be the only one to shine. And that's the worst thing he could. An actor should know, where is his place.
So because of this self-consciousness he never has got a chemistry with some of his colleagues. And there's nothing worse than this for an actor.
I hope Baldwin won't be reading this review, so that he won't feel offended and he won't try to contact me publicly. But, just in case: Usually I adore Alec as an actor (I also enjoyed his so much criticised Oscar hosting.), this is just a performance that just didn't impress me, at all...

Saturday 15 June 2013

Next Year: Worst Supporting Actor 2003

Don't worry. I'll finish best supporting actor 1998 soon. Right now I just had a crazy idea that I simply had to carry out. What if I reviewed the acting nominees for Razzie Awards, instead of Academy Awards? So right now I'm going to review the nominnes for the worst supporting actor 2003 and then I'll rank them (the first is the worst performance and the last is the best performance).
At the beginning I chose the year that will hopefully be easy to do. And who knows? Maybe I (and you) will like it so much, that I'll get stuck with this idea for the future of this blog. So here are the first nominees for my experiment:

Al Pacino - Gigli
Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the Hat
Anthony Anderson - Kangaroo Jack
Christopher Walken - Gigli and Kangaroo Jack
Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

So write your predictions for my pick, or ranking in comments. You may also write your ranking of these performances. And you may write even your opinion about this idea of mine... 

Friday 17 May 2013

Best Supporting Actor 1998: Geoffrey Rush - Shakespeare in Love

Shakespeare in Love is a very fine and likable romantic comedy with a wonderful cast. I fine with its best picture win, though I don't think it's the best film of the nominees. But it's so much likable and sweet film, that there's just no way to resist it.
The film is fulfilled with a very decent and fine performances. All of the performances actually work very well for the film and I couldn't name any that was wrong (yes, even Ben Affleck did what he was to do).
Geoffrey Rush plays the owner of the theatre Shakespeare write for. It's not any serious role, it's a comedic role and Rush handles is very well. Though this performance doesn't have the depth and it's more of a comedic creation, than a character acting. But it works well enough for the film.
He first appears at the absolute beginning of the film in which he's being tortured and he must promise to pay the debt he has. He lies that Shakespeare has already written a play. In the very next scene he persuades William to really write this play. This scene is really great, just as all of the common scenes he has with Joseph Fiennes. Both of the actors handles their parts quite well.
Then later in the film Rush rarely appears. Even when he appears it's mostly a very brief moment. Though there are a few scenes that are a bit longer, most of the time he gets to be in the corner. But his best scene though, I would say was the scene that is not very long. It's the scene in which he's drunk. He was not only funny, but he also was believable, which he wasn't in the rest of his performance. I could easily believe him being drunk.
But anyway, it's not so much of a serious character acting. It's a very well handled comedic role that works perfectly for the film. I can imagine this role to be very forgettable. In Rush's hands it's at least a very fine and likable performance. There's just no way, you won't like his character. Why? That's a mystery...
The chances of winning an Oscar: He was the last. It's a minor comedic role and he won an Oscar two years before...

Tuesday 14 May 2013

Best Supporting Actor 1998: Ed Harris - The Truman Show

The Truman Show is one of the best films of 90's. It's also one of the most original films I've ever seen. It's one of the few films, in which everything works brilliantly - the directing that is very claustrophobic, the screenplay and the performances that are great. Every single actor of The Truman Show gives a superb performance. Yes, even Jim Carrey, whose snub started the long journey of his snubs, but also belongs to one of the biggest mistakes of the Academy.
The Truman Show tells a story of a young man that is has been followed by cameras his entire life, because of the TV show. Ed Harris plays the director, the producers and the creator of this TV show.
His character is very calm and aloof. He does his job which is watching someone his whole life and he does it and acts as if there was nothing wring about that. He has taken somebody's life away and created it the way he wanted and he doesn't even have remorse. This stoic calmness is perfectly portrayed by Harris.
Everywhere he comes, the seriousness starts.
We could say that this behavior would be irrational in the real world. We also think it, till some moment in the film. It's the moment his character explains, why does he do this all. This is so much powerful moment. He says his reasons and Harris is so realistic and natural in this performance that we start to understand his behavior. He comes with so rational explanation, that for a moment we think that there is nothing wrong about what he did do Truman. This scene is very powerful and I would consider it his best scene.
From his character's presence we have a feeling that he doesn't absolutely care about Truman. But the truth is that he cares about him much more, than anyone. There is a scene, in which he comes to the TV screen, on which we can see Truman sleeping. Harris's character come to the screen and caresses Truman. In other actor's hand this would maybe look dumb. He acts as if he didn't care about Truman and then, when he's alone, he shows the opposite. This is a contrast and a twist from his previous behavior, but Harris handles is very well.
At the end I will only sum it all up. Harris didn't have an easy job playing this character. But he handled it with such an ease, that it could seem extremely easy to play it, which is not true...
The chances of winning an Oscar: I won't dare to guess. I think he wasn't a contender for a win, he was the third, maybe the fourth...

Sunday 12 May 2013

Next Year: Best Supporting Actor 1998

The Nominees:
Billy Bob Thornton - A Simple Plan
Ed Harris - The Truman Show
Geoffrey Rush - Shakespeare in Love
James Coburn - Affliction
Robert Duvall - A Civil Action

What are your predictions for my ranking? What are your nominees? What is your ranking? Write in comments... 

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actress 2012

5. Jacki Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook
Weaver is effective enough as a mother of mentally ill Pat, but the truth is that it's not actually very showy part. Her screen-time is not only very short, but she even doesn't have many things to do. It's a performance that would never be noticed, if the campaign wasn't so strong. But still it's very fine and decent performance...

4. Sally Field - Lincoln
This is a very inconsistent performance that mostly suffers from a very bad screenplay and not very good direction. Many of her scenes are overacted, her madness was either too lackluster, or too much over the top and her chemistry with Lewis is not very good (but that's mostly Lewis's fault), but on the other hand there are many moments that show the fact that Field is a natural. Her emotional scenes are really perfect and she tries to build her character as well, as she's able to.

3. Amy Adams - The Master
This is a case very similar to the Weaver's. Adams spends the third share of her performance in the background, but the difference from Weaver is that Adams has much more acting opportunities in the rest of the performance. And, as we know, Adams is a great actress who uses them excellently.

2. Helen Hunt - The Sessions
This is a very subtle, but really great performance given by Hunt. Her chemistry with Hawkes is wonderful and she uses every scene she has. In the hands of a less capable actress this would be a completely forgettable performance and we would absolutely not care about her character. But in Hunt's hands it fortunately didn't happen. 

1. Anne Hathaway - Les Misérables
Though this might not be the best female supporting performance of the year, it's definitely the best from this lineup. Her performance has got many technical mistakes. She's overacting sometimes and her acting is very obvious at some moments. But it's so much pleasure to watch her acting...

Louis, your prediction was right, so you can choose another year that you want me to do. I'll do my best to do it as soon, as possible.
My next year is not going to be best leading actress 1968, as I have planned before. I'll will finish the musical project, but right now I just don't have spirits for watching some of those films (yes, Rachel Rachel would be a huge Affliction). Therefore I'm rather going to watch Affliction while doing best supporting actor 1998...

My Nominees:
1. Nicole Kidman - The Paperboy
2. Judi Dench - Skyfall
3. Anne Hathaway - Les Misérables
4. Helen Hunt - The Sessions
5. Shirley MacLaine - Bernie

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actress 2012: Anne Hathaway - Les Misérables

If you haven't seen Les Misérables, you should do your best to watch it as soon, as possible. If there's no other reason, then because of the performances.
Anne Hathaway plays the role of Fantine, that appears in the film for less than twenty minutes. Even this short screen-time was enough for her to win an Oscar, thousands of other awards and the appreciation of the audience. It is all deserving?
Absolutely. Watching Hathaway acting is something breathtaking and it's a real pleasure. The first scene she's in, is the one in the fabric. Her colleges take her the letter and she tries to get it back. In this scene it is revealed that Fantine's got a daughter. Most of her performance in this scene is wonderful and realistic.
When I say 'the most' I mean the most. Some of her reactions are a bit over the top. And her entire performance is accompanied by this overacting.
Though it's obvious that Hathaway is acting, I still loved to watch her acting. I don't know why is that so, but somehow I loved Hathaway's overacting. It's her charm, or something that made me love her performance even though it has got some objective mistakes.
If you take or instance her big 'I Dreamed a Dream' scene. Would you expect anyone to handle it this way? The live singing is one thing, but handling it really realisticly with breaths and crying is another. Hathaway did so much with this character.
Her best scene though would not be 'I Dreamed a Dream' in my opinion. I think her best part is the song 'Lovely Ladies', especially the end of it. Her depression, sadness, desperation and hate is perfect in her gestures, but mostly in her eyes.
In thirty years this will be extremely worshiped performance, trust me...

Sunday 5 May 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actress 2012: Sally Field - Lincoln

It's not a secret that I didn't enjoy Lincoln very much. I have seen it four times yet and I hope I won't have to watch it again.
The fourth time I've been watching it was because of this review and something strange happened to me. The three times before made me sure I have a resistant opinion about Field's performance, which was not very good to her. But I don't know how, I realized it's not actually as bad, as it seemed to me. 
The biggest problem I had (and still have) with this performance is the overacting. Field's portrayal of Molly Lincoln is actually full of inconsistence. On the first hand we have perfectly acted scenes, on the other hand there are scenes so overacted, that they can hardly be believable. 
If you take for instance her subtle scenes, they are the the proof of Field's ability to be a wonderful actress. The scene, in which she cries about her dead son and the following scene at the Grand Reception are really great. In bot of them she superbly builds her character and shows off the emotions.
She also has some brief moments at the councils. She handles them well enough, but the truth is that she doesn't have a lot to do in them. She only delivers one, or two lines at the most, but mostly it's about her look.
On the other side we have scenes, where she is completely unrealistic. For example the scene of her emotional outburst, which ridiculously became her Oscar clip, is extremely overacted. I didn't believe a single line she said. Or there is a scene at the opera, in which she moves and acts as she was told to, but it never seemed natural to me.
When I think about these mistakes, I used to blame Field for her. But the last time I've watched the film I realize that it's the screenplay and the direction who's to blame here. I don't absolutely understand the praises given to the screenplay. The lines are extremely unnatural and the direction failed to help it. But it's even the failure of Field, so why I blame Spielberg so much? Because he not only fails to help the factitiousness, he seems to support it at some moments. But that's another story.
The best scene of Field's performance would be the above-mentioned scene of the crying.
The chances of winning an Oscar: The fight was down to her and Hathaway. But we all knew Field's not going to happen... 

Saturday 4 May 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actress 2012: Jacki Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook

The mother roles have always been very likable to the best supporting actress Oscar category, so it shouldn't be such a surprise when Jacki Weaver was announced to be nominated for this role. But I almost swallowed my spoon, while watching the announcement.
The reason for that was very simple. She really doesn't have a lot to do in Silver Linings Playbook. Her nomination is probably the logging of Harvey Weinstein, but let's look at her performance a bit deeply. Is it really as deficient, as many people say?
I gave a question that is really difficult to answer. The first time we see Weaver's character is in a medical institution when she comes to let his son off and she handles this scene really very well. The scene in the car in which she takes him home are almost perfect.
But the truth is that later in the film she mostly just stands in the corner and says one or two lines, at the most. But she delivers them very well.
I believe in one thing: I (or the Oscar-performances bloggers in general) should care about the quality of the performance, not the quantity of the scenes. Of course, I also have to take the length of it into the consideration, but it's not the main thing I should care about. Therefore I don't hate, or dislike Weaver's performance. Her pity is that she really doesn't have much screen-time, but her tries to do everything she is able to in such a short time.
Her best scene would probably be the one in which De Niro's and Lawrence's characters persuade Weaver's character to lie to Pat (Cooper's character). In this scene she really shows how much her character cares about his son and she's afraid to disappoint him. There is a great amount of emotions shown in this single scene.
The chances of winning an Oscar: Don't make me laugh...

Saturday 27 April 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actress 2012: Amy Adams - The Master

I have already reviewed two performances from The Master before, so you probably know I liked it enough. Though it's not my favorite Anderson's film, but I enjoyed it. One of the reasons are the performances in it.
Amy Adams plays the wife of Lancaster Dodd, the character played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The first thing I want to talk about is the chemistry between these two actors. They met together before in Doubt, but there he played a priest and she played a nun. Therefore he should be more authoritative and their scenes together went well. But in The Master they're supposed to play a married couple, but Hoffman still must be more authoritative, because he's the leader of the scientological church and she is pushed aside for the church. They greatly mirror this fact into the film and they have a well-working and strange chemistry.
Adams plays a young caring mother, who supports his husband and takes care about their child. She is always ready to help him in his job and tolerates him. She's afraid of him, and sometimes she wants to open his eyes, when he doesn't see something that is wrong for him.
These are actually the scenes I liked the most from her performances. The first one is her Oscar clip, where she explains Hoffman that they should attack. The other one is really perfect and it's the scene at the dinner, in which she tells him that Freddie (Phoenix) may not be as secure, as he seems to be. This scene is the highlight of this performance.
I also have to mention the scene of the masturbation, which is very powerful.
Until now I have been writing about the good points of her performance. Now is the time for the bad ones. There are not any bad points. But there is one thing I need to mention, because I didn't like it very much, though it's not actually bad. It's the fact that she has got many scenes she has nothing to do in. She's got too many scenes that don't allow her to truly show off the talent. It wouldn't matter that much, if these scenes weren't approximately the third share of her performance...
The chances of winning an Oscar: I think the fight was between Field and Hathaway, but Adams was probably the third behind them. Harvey is very powerful in Hollywood and Amy is a great actress that is (sooner or later) going to win her gold...

Saturday 20 April 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actress 2012: Helen Hunt - The Sessions

The Sessions is a very decent biographic film, but without the great performances it would be a bit boring. But I enjoyed it enough and even cared about its characters.
Helen Hunt's performance is one of those that make this film easier to watch. He plays Cheryl, a sex therapist. When I first read about this film and her role, I thought it's an Oscar-baity character - a prostitute that helps an immobile virgin to lose his virginity. Therefore it's almost unbelievable that while watching this film it never came to my mind she's a prostitute. She handled this role so naturally, that her job almost seemed to me normal and usual.
One very important thing that needs to be said is that her performance could never be perfect without a great performance of the leading actor. Fortunately, John Hawkes gives a wonderful performance in The Sessions, so that we can sympathize and familiarize with him. The other needed thing was that Hunt herself had to give a very natural, realistic and likable performance.
Now that both of the actors did their job greatly, we could absolutely care about the character of Cheryl. Just when we completely sympathize with Mark and we understand him, we can see Cheryl through his eyes and only then she is likable enough. Luckily, both of the actors succeeded in doing this.
She becomes so likable, that in the end, when she's supposed to leave after the last session (and never come back) and both of the characters are really sad about the whole thing, I realized it's not only the characters that don't want that to happen. I also didn't. That's the best proof of a great performance given by Hunt...
The chances of winning an Oscar: Very very low. I think even Jacki Weaver had better support among the Academy members because of Harvey Weinstein. This small (but great) performance in such a small film was just happy to be nominated...

Thursday 18 April 2013

Next Year: Musical Project: Best Supporting Actress 2012

The Nominees:
Amy Adams - The Master
Anne Hathaway - Les Misérables
Helen Hunt - The Sessions
Jacki Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook
Sally Field - Lincoln

So, what's your nominees? What's your ranking? What's your prediction for my ranking? Write in comments... 

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actor 1972

5. Eddie Albert - The Heartbreak Kid
Right now, when I'm writing this brief conclusion of Albert's performance I can hardly remember a thing from it. He was fine and his only purpose in The Heartbreak Kid was to hate the leading character and in this he was succeeded very well. But he didn't have many things to do here...

4. James Caan - The Godfather
He portrayed the anger in some of his scenes very well, but in other moments he was a bit unrealistic. And though his character was supposed to be likable, I didn't care about his fortune, at all. On the other hand it's obvious from his performance that the character of Sonny really cares about and loves his family. But he didn't amuse me anyhow this time...

3. Robert Duvall - The Godfather
I remember I didn't like him very much the first time, but this time I really liked him. He knows where his place is, but he doesn't forget to create a complex and likable character. The calmness of his character is perfect and chilling. It's very subtle and yet still very powerful performance given by Duvall...

2. Al Pacino - The Godfather
I've given Pacino a win for his portrayal of Michael Corleone in the second part and he is almost as powerful here, as he was in that. At the beginning of the film he is just an innocent boy and the only spotless member of the Corleone family, but he changes throughout the film. This change is so slow and non-violent, that it is very very natural. Very good performance...

1. Joel Grey - Cabaret
Though it's not the best character for the film, it's good enough for this musical. Grey gives a great amount of energy into his part and he's just adorable as the Master of Ceremonies. He sings perfectly, he dances extremely well and I can't imagine a single person that would not like his performance. As I said in my review, the could be the prototype of a good musical performance...

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actor 1972: Joel Grey - Cabaret

Cabaret is a very strange musical. It's very well made and directed, but the topic of it is so serious, that it's not as enjoyable, as musicals usually are.
Joel Grey plays the Emcee in Cabaret, which is a role much more typical for musicals. Though some of his songs are about a serious topic, they are in a very easy-to-watch mood and he even handles them as they were nothing of serious.
The Emcee (or The Master of Ceremonies) is a very theatrical character. He doesn't have a single scene, in which he would react as himself. It's a person that confers and introduces the cabaret and therefore he's always acting. We never know how he really is. It's not because of Grey, his character just doesn't have a single scene that would allow him to go into the depth.
Therefore it's not the best character for the film. In the theatre we can have a show filled with only such characters. But in the film it's not very usual and not even the best thing to do. But in Grey's hands you almost forget this fact.
He has only got four bigger scenes and all of them are musical numbers.
The first one is the very first number of the film and it's called 'Willkommen'. This song should get us into the mood and the atmosphere of the film. And Grey succeeded in doing this. He's funny and he sings extremely well. This scenes teases us, so that we want to see more of the film.
The second one is 'Money'. He shares this scene with Liza Minnelli and they have a great chemistry together. This would probably be Grey's best scene. I don't know if I'm being subjective, because I've seen this number long before seeing the film and I loved from the first second, but this is just an adorable song and number. Both of the actors never failed to be funny and extremely entertaining.
The third scene is 'Two Ladies'. I liked it enough, though it's not somehow favorite of mine. He did what was needed to and wasn't worse than in the rest of the film.
The fourth (and the last big scene) of him is 'If You Could See Her Through My Eyes'. This is the second best scene of Grey, very close after 'Money'. He has to act he is in love with the monkey. He did it so wonderfully that it is not hard to believe he really loves it. He's got a short monologue in the middle of this number, in which he talks about love itself. It's so much powerful, I really felt the catharsis.
Though it's not the best performance in a musical I've ever seen, it could be the prototype of a musical performance. It's filled with songs and dances and the great energy Grey has given into it...

Saturday 13 April 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actor 1972: Al Pacino - The Godfather

Al Pacino is one of the few actors that have been nominated for an Academy Awards twice for playing the same character. In The Godfather he plays Michael Corleone that he repeated in The Godfather: Part II, which I gave him a win for.
The fact that I gave him a win for, means I liked his performance in the second part. Did I like him in the first part? I'm going to say very soon, but what needs to be said is the fact that though he plays the same character in the film, he portrays it very differently than in the second film. The reason of that is the change of his character. From a 'normal' innocent person he becomes a typical mafioso.
At the beginning of the film he plays some kind of a black sheep of the family. He is the only member of it that didn't do anything illegal. I really liked Pacino's scenes at the beginning of the film. Especially the ones at the wedding. He really wonderfully shows the innocence of his character.
Then later, after his father is stricken, he has to take the responsibility for the family and the change of his character is perfectly showed by Pacino. I really like to think of (and compare) his first and his last scene. It's an incredible difference, and yet it's still the same character, deep down.
He has got great moments, of course, but there are also a few scenes he has nothing to play in. He just is there and though I can imagine that moment been played more memorably. But there are just few of them and I can easily forgive him.
Here is the moment I should point out the best scene of him, but I can't decide from the two of them. The first is in the hospital, where he finds out that his father is not guarded and how he solves this situation. Pacino greatly portrays the nervosity that he feels, but he has to hide it. The same emotion he has to do in the second scene, which is the one in the restaurant (if you've seen the film, you know which one I'm talking about and if you haven't, shame on you).
The chances of winning an Oscar: I think he was the second along with Duvall...

Sunday 7 April 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actor 1972: Robert Duvall - The Godfather

As I said in my previous review, after re-watching The Godfather I was surprised how much I've changed my opinion about some performances in it.
I thought Robert Duvall was very dull and lackluster in The Godfather after I've seen it for the first time. He absolutely didn't capture me, I rarely noticed him in the film and I couldn't understand his nomination. Now I can't believe I really thought this. This time I not even understood his nomination, I can see the brilliantness of this performance.
Duvall never goes over the top and knows, where his place is. He gives a very supporting performance and he doesn't try to be the scene stealer, or something like that. He gives a perfect subtle supporting performance, that I don't usually adore (and I didn't adore him before). He realized he is some kind of a messenger to the Corleone family, but he's irreplaceable to them. And this fact is wonderfully portrayed in his performance. It's a very subtle and gentle work, but also very effective and powerful.
I need to give some examples to this. For instance the scene he goes to the film director into his studio. He realized that the best thing would be just say the lines and don't do anything more (the same 'more' I wanted from Caan) and this scene works perfectly. Also the next scene at the director's house. He eats and just listens to the director. This fact, that he does nothing, that he is so calm and just eats, makes it so powerful. This fact is very promising, you wonder why is he so calm. The director is telling him something he didn't want to hear. But it's because Duvall's character knows, he's gonna get what he wants, anyway. Duvall succeeded even in this.
And finally I must mention the best scene of him, but it contains spoiler. It's the scene, where he informs Vito Corleone, that Sonny died. He showed a great amount of emotions. He is a calm man, but he cares about his brothers. His performance in this single scene amazed me more than James Caan's whole performance.
The chances of winning an Oscar: I think, he was the second, at the worst the third. He didn't have his Oscar in 1973 and his performance here is really very very decent and solid...

Friday 5 April 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actor 1972: James Caan - The Godfather

Watching The Godfather again mad me a bit surprised. I had some opinion about all of the supporting performances (not just nominated) and I've changed my mind about many of them. So did I about James Caan.
Right now I should say what I thought about him. I really liked him. Though I didn't remember exactly his performance, I knew he did a great job. After watching The Godfather again today, I don't adore his performance so much. The character of Sonny, that he plays, is very unrealisticly written. His reactions are quite ridiculous. In a moment he's angry and in a second he's supposed to laugh. Though Caan does what he is able to, it's still not enough to make this character just a bit more realistic.
Another thing I should mention is his (non-)likableness.  I believe the character of Sonny was supposed to be likable and I should care about him. Somehow I didn't. It may be my guilt, but I has very natural feelings to him. In translation, I didn't give a damn about him.
But not to be just negative, I need to say he wonderfully portrayed anger. For instance, in his best scene, in which he fights his good brother (who happens to be not so good) the anger is palpable. But it's not just case of this scene, he's been realisticly angry in more scenes.
The chances of winning an Oscar: I think he was fourth, just before Albert...

Tuesday 2 April 2013

Musical Project: Best Supporting Actor 1972: Eddie Albert - The Heartbreak Kid

Before I've seen The Heartbreak Kid I didn't like it very much. The topic seemed to be nothing for me, but it surprised me. It's not anything mind-blowing, but I enjoyed it enough, so that I wasn't bored while watching it. Anyway, I think it should stay at the theatre, because I don't see a point in filming it, but it was fine enough.
This review is going to be a bit short (when you read this, you know if it is, or not), because there's nothing to say about Eddie Albert's performance in The Heartbreak Kid. He plays the leading character's (probable) future father-in-law that completely hates him. And that's all he's supposed to do. Hate the leading character.
There is not a single bad performance in The Heartbreak Kid. But Albert's is the weakest. It's not his guilt, it's just that he really has the least acting opportunities. He succeeded in portraying the hate and in the scene after dinner, (which is his only normal scene and) which is his best scene and which offered him a bit more to do, he wonderfully used the more.
The chances of winning an Oscar: He was at the bottom. There was Joel Grey, then The Godfather gentlemen and far behind them Albert...
By the way, this is my hundredth post... :)

The problem is solved

The problems I had are solved now, so I'm going to write on both of the blogs (the same things), so I can can have some save. Sorry for confusing...

Sunday 31 March 2013

This blog was moved

This blog was moved to:

Because of some technical problems I had with this blog, I had to move it elsewhere. Hope you'll check it... :)

I need help

Hello. I have a big problem with this blog.
Yesterday I've tried to add year 1964 under Best Leading Actor. When I wanted to save it, it didn't work and the blogger showed me an inscription 'correct errors in this form' (the inscription was in Slovak language, I just translated it). I've tried everything, but I couldn't help it.
Do you have some experience with this error? If you do, please help me solve it.
I also accidentally deleted Best Leading Actor column, but it can't re-make it, because it keeps me showing the inscription.
If I won't be able to fix this, I will either have to stop blogging (which I really wouldn't like to do, especially at this time, when I really have spirits for writing and watching), or I'll have to move this blog somewhere else (wordpress, or some Slovak, or Czech equivalent of blogger), but it will take me a hell of a time...

Saturday 30 March 2013

Next Year: Musical Project: Best Supporting Actor 1972

The Nominees:
Al Pacino - The Godfather
Eddie Albert - The Heartbreak Kid
James Caan - The Godfather
Joel Grey - Cabaret
Robert Duvall - The Godfather

What do you think about this lineup? Who will I pick? What will be me ranking? What is your ranking? Write in comments... 

Musical Project: Best Leading Actor 1964

5. Rex Harrison - My Fair Lady
Harrison is not bad playing professor Henry Higgins. He succeeded well in portraying him as a cold-minded and bullheaded person. Though he doesn't sing throughout songs, he handles them very well. I just missed something more from him. Something that would make it just a bit remarkable. The charm, the jazz that Hugh Jackman mirrored into Jean Valjean, for instance...

4. Richard Burton - Becket
A very similar to Harrison. Richard Burton did everything the role of Becket asked him to do. But he let Peter O'Toole overshadow him. He had some very fine moments, indeed, but he didn't do anything to make his performance a bit remarkable. But the most memorable performance of Becket is O'Toole's, which is a bit ironic, when Becket is the leading character...

3. Anthony Quinn - Zorba the Greek
I had a hard time choosing the one winner this year and then even harder time ranking the two left performances, but this is the way I did it. Quinn is really great as Zorba. His characterization of this simple, but very wise man is almost perfect. I have just one blame. When he was on the screen with Lila Kedrova, she overshadowed him a bit. It's not so much his fault, because Kedrova's performance is outstanding, but yet it's still true...

2. Peter O'Toole - Becket
In O'Toole's hands king Henry II. is one of the most memorable kings ever. He overshadowed everything in the film, I even believe he overshadowed the film itself. He had a very juicy role to play and he used it perfectly. He was overacting sometimes, but he never crossed the line of the tolerableness. You can be sure that this performance you'll remember very very long time...

1. Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
From the top three wonderful performances I've finally decided to go with Peter Sellers. I have two reasons for that. The first reason is that he really was the biggest surprise for me. I didn't expect to like him, at all. Somehow I thought this film and this performance will be nothing for me. And yet I enjoyed both of them. The second reason is that among the nominees he really had the most difficult thing to do. Play the three different characters and really play they them differently and even play them greatly. And he succeeded flawlessly...

Louis, your prediction was right, so you can choose the year you'd like me to do right after I finish the musical project. I don't know, if I'll be able to, but if all of the films will be available to me, then I'll do it (you can choose any category)... 

Musical Project: Best Leading Actor 1964: Rex Harrison - My Fair Lady

I have seen much better musicals in my life, than My Fair Lady is. I can imagine it worked wonderfully in the theatre, but it's too long for a movie. But it's very fine, I enjoyed it enough and the performances in it are all very good, so I have nothing to complain about.
Rex Harrison plays professor Higgins who's decided to make a duchess from a poor young florist. I can't help myself, but I found Harrison's portrayal to be very dull. Sometimes I had a hard time concentrating on his performance, because the other actors very disturbing my attention with their more interesting performances. I always felt like he didn't do anything more, than what he should.
Henry Higgins was supposed to be a self-conscious, cold-minded, bullheaded and selfish man a yet the man we still sympathize with. Harrison succeeded in this quite well. But that's all he did. There's nothing more to this performance. His portrayal misses the charm, or the jazz that makes a performance unforgettable.
To the musical part: Except from one scene he doesn't dance. This scene he handle greatly. I can't even say he sings, because it's not truly singing he does. He declaims the songs instead. The strange thing is that I didn't care about it, at all. It worked perfectly for the film and that's all I need to know.
What should I say to sum it up? Rex Harrison did exactly what the film wanted him to do. He succeeded in creating a good characterization, he handles his songs well enough, but I missed something more than that. Sometimes his performance came as a bit lackluster.
His best scene is from the second act that he is much better in, than in the first. It would be one of his songs 'You did it', or 'A Hymn to Him'. Right now I'm going with the first one...

Friday 29 March 2013

Musical Project: Best Leading Actor 1964: Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton - Becket

I've decided to do the review of these two gentlemen at the same because: 1) it saves time and 2) it impossible to judge one's performance, without mentioning the other's.
Becket is a very fine, but in some moment a bit boring film about a friendship and a fight between the king Henry III. (O'Toole) and his chancellor Samuel Becket (Burton).
Even though Burton should be leading character of the film (and he is, because he is the center of the film's attention), the real star of it is king Henry. The reason of this fact is called Peter O'Toole. His portrayal of king Henry is something magnificent. He plays every moment with a great passion and though he's overacting sometimes, it absolutely doesn't matter and it fits his character perfectly.
On the other hand we have Richard Burton. The film doesn't allow him to show off his talent. He does everything the film wants him to, but he is getting lost next to O'Toole's performance. I mean, Henry gives O'Toole a great acting opportunity and he uses it excellently, but Burton has got a very subtle and disinteresting character.
Burton, though, has got some great scenes (especially at the end), but because the character paralyzes him, he cannot do anything that would be somehow remarkable. Therefore it's very hard for me to judge this performance. Because Burton did a very good job playing this character, it's just that the script didn't allow him to do something more with it.
The picture I've chosen for this review actually symbolizes how the performances work in the film. O'Toole is acting and Burton just stands in the corner, because he has to.
From O'Toole's performance I have to choose two best scenes. The first one is when the messenger comes and the second one is when Henry has kind of a heart attack. Burton's best is probably the court scene.
The chances of winning an Oscar: If Harrison didn't win, I think Peter O'Toole would get his beloved award. Burton was probably right behind him...

Thursday 28 March 2013

Musical Project: Best Leading Actor 1964: Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Dr. Strangelove is a very enjoyable satire with one of the worsts titles ever. It's very funny sometimes, even though the topic of it is very serious. In some moments it's extremely crazy and the proof of it is the fact that Peter Sellers played three characters in it.
First of all I have to say Sellers did a wonderful job by separating these characters, so that they are all different from each other. Each character is very unique and maybe if I didn't know it before watching the film, I wouldn't even notice that these three characters are played by the same actor (which is also thanks to the great makeup).
The first character is Captain Mandrake. At the beginning of the film I didn't like this portrayal of Seller's. He chose a very subtle way of performing, which made it a bit forgettable. But from the scene in Ripper's office he started to go on with a great passion. The best scene of this performance would probably be the scene, in which the shooting starts.
The second character is the President Muffley. This is probably the most subtle, yet still very powerful performance. In the first scene Sellers just rarely uses the mimicry and it works perfectly well. I would really have a hard time choosing the best scene of it, because it is equally good in all of the moments, but his fight with George C. Scott's character is really memorable, so I perhaps have to go with that.
The third performance is finally Dr. Strangelove. This character (though it's in the title) appears after fifty minutes of the film. He can be seen before, actually, but he just sits in the corner and has nothing to do. Though it definitely is the shortest performance (it only appears in about three scenes), I consider it the best. Sellers is perfect using the accent, mimicry, moves, gestures. He is really theatrical, but all of the performances here are. It's even needed for them to be. Dr. Strangelove is funny and extremely enjoyable and I completely understand that it was this character that got into the title.
At the end I must complain about ignoring a magnificent performance of George C. Scott by the Academy. He was really flawless...
The chances of winning an Oscar: I don't think they were big. This is not a type of roles Oscars are given to. They were very probably lower than Quinn's...

Tuesday 26 March 2013

Musical Project: Best Leading Actor 1964: Anthony Quinn - Zorba the Greek

Zorba the Greek is a very good, yet too long film, about two gentlemen spending some time in Crete. The younger, Basil, is very well played by Alan Bates and the older, Zorba, is greatly portrayed by Anthony Quinn.
I didn't know what should I expect from Quinn's performance. On the first hand I've heard thousands of glories about his performance, on the other hand from the clips I've seen from Zorba the Greek I didn't find him to be something special. But this is a proof of the fact that if you haven't seen the whole film, you can't judge the performance from it.
Zorba is a very likable character. He is a nice old man, that is also very simple. He isn't studied, although he is extremely wise. Some of the lines he says are so true and powerful, that I'll think of them a long long time after watching the film. Quinn had to handle these sentences the way they wouldn't seem too fatally, so they would be overacted and embarrassing. And he completely succeeded. He delivers them very non-violently and softly, just as a real person would.
As I said, Quinn is really great in this role. It's always very enjoyable to watch an actor that knows what he is doing and wonderfully portrays his character. He is the reason of the fact that many people forget how good Alan Bates was in this film. He really gave a very decent performance, but he gets overshadowed by Anthony Quinn. But everybody in this film is overshadowed by him. Except from one person.
Quinn gave a great performance, there's no doubt about it. But yet I still found his performance to be a bit of inconstancy. Though he did everything as he should, I always found it to be so. When I kept thinking about it, I finally understood it. The reason is Lila Kedrova. She was so flawless and overwhelming in her performance, that she overshadows even Quinn. Though their scenes together are wonderfully played by both of the actors, Kedrova is such a scene stealer, that I almost forgot Quinn is there.
If I am to choose the best scene of Anthony Quinn's performance I don't have to think about it too much. The best would certainly be the one he talks about the war he lived in. That's really his most powerful moment.
The chances of winning an Oscar: If the winner wasn't Harrison, I think it would be O'Toole. Quinn had two Oscars at the time and this fact pushed him in the corner, in my opinion...

Saturday 23 March 2013

The Next Year: Musical Project: Best Leading Actor 1964

The Nominees:
Anthony Quinn - Zorba the Greek
Peter O'Toole - Becket
Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Rex Harrison - My Fair Lady
Richard Burton - Becket

So what do you think? Who will I pick? What will be my ranking of these performances? What is your ranking? Write in comments. 

Thursday 21 March 2013

The Musical Project (1)

I hope that now after finally watching National Velvet to the end, I will be much more active on the blog and to prove that, I'm starting the first of many project I have prepared for the future. It is the musical project.
Here are the years I am going to do (I'll review the performances (and years) in the order I'm writting down)
a) best leading actor 1964
1. Anthony Quinn - Zorba the Greek
2. Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
3. Richard Burton - Becket
4. Peter O'Toole - Becket
5. Rex Harrison - My Fair Lady

b) best supporting actor 1972
1. Eddie Albert - The Heartbreak Kid
2. James Caan - The Godfather
3. Robert Duvall - The Godfather
4. Al Pacino - The Godfather
5. Joel Grey - Cabaret

c) best supporting actress 2002, 2006, or 2012?
Here I want you to help me to choose which of these three years should I do as a part of my musical project. So write your suggestions in comments...

d) best leading actress 1968
1. Joanne Woodward - Rachel Rachel (it's going to be very tough to watch that awful film again)
2. Vanessa Redgrave - Isadora
3. Patricia Neal - The Subject Was Roses
4. Katherine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
5. Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl

Best Supporting Actress 1945

5. Joan Lorring - The Corn Is Green
Lorring's performance in The Corn Is Green is really very annoying. She overacted every moment she had and there is probably not a single convincing thing about her performance. Only a few things save her from getting the lowest rating from me... 

4. Angela Lansbury - The Picture of Dorian Gray
I really like Angela Lansbury, but this performance of her is really nothing special. Her way of portraying is very subtle, but that makes it a bit boring and forgettable. I don't think she brought anything to this character. Except from her first scene she sings in, there is not a single one scene of her performance that would be mention-worthy. But at least she wasn't bad...

3. Ann Blyth - Mildred Pierce
Though she wasn't bad and her presence in the film is very fine, I always found her portrayal to be a bit non-complex. Her delivers the lines quite well, but she doesn't handle them as the characters tells her, but as the script tell her. And that's not very good... 

2. Anne Revere - National Velvet
Revere is very fine in her role of the mother. She does exactly what the film wants her to, though nothing more, her character is grateful enough to make it enough. Her performance makes her character very likable and I am really sorry for not picking her as my winner...

1. Eve Arden - Mildred Pierce
Though it was very difficult to choose, I'm finally going with Arden. In such a short screen-time (shorter than Revere had) she gives us a believable portrayal of a woman, that she makes so interesting, that I would not mind watching the film she would be a leading character in. It's really obvious Arden enjoyed playing this character and she did it with such an ease. Any other actress would make it a completely forgettable character... 

My Nominees:
1. Eve Arden - Mildred Pierce
2. Anne Revere - National Velvet
3. Butterfly McQueen - Mildred Pierce
4. Ann Blyth - Mildred Pierce
5. Angela Lansbury - The Picture of Dorian Gray

Best Supporting Actress 1945: Anne Revere - National Velvet

I already wrote I couldn't ever watch National Velvet to the end. I always started to watch, then it bored me, or I had something important to do, so I stopped it and couldn't force myself to finish it. Therefore you'd expect I won't like the film. But when I got through the critical part of it (which is the first 50 minutes), I really enjoyed it, because at the end it's really very solid.
Anne Revere plays Mrs. Brown, mother of Velvet - the girl who wants to win the national race. Revere's character is very likable. It's somehow the contrast to the character of Velvet's father. Though he isn't unlikable, he always cares only about the money, but Mrs. Brown doesn't care about the material things, on the other hand.
Revere handles this character fairly well, but her presence wasn't enough to make me watch the film till the end. It doesn't mean she failed somewhere. It only means she didn't have many things to do with her character. It's a very fine performance, very subtle one, but it isn't anything breathtaking. It's not so remarkable, that you will think about it a long time after watching the film, but her portrayal of this character was very decent. She did what she was supposed to. And she did it really well. She didn't do anything more than that, but even this is enough.
For some time in the middle of the film her character disappears from the screen. But when we see Mrs. Brown again, we realize we're happy to see her again. And that's the proof of the fact, that she gave a very good performance...

Monday 25 February 2013

Oscar Random Thoughts

First of all I was really pleased by the performance of our host Seth MacFarlane. He was the best host since Hugh Jackman. Not all of his jokes were extremely funny, but at least they weren't embarrassing. And I really loved his 'We Saw Your Boobs' number.
And now to the winners:

Best picture: This year I really loved four films: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Misérables and Life of Pi (in alphabetical order). And only Life of Pi had some chance to win, so I was keeping my fingers crossed for him. But I understood it was down to Argo and Lincoln.
Actually all of the nominees are great, except from Zero Dark Thirty and Lincoln. Only American citizens can enjoy these film, because the themes of them are very close to them, but they are basically not very good films. So therefore I'm happy Argo won, though he would be probably the third worst film of the list. But his qualities are far above Zero Dark Thirty's and Lincoln's.
1) Les Misérables   *5/5
2) Django Unchained   *5/5
3) Beats of the Southern Wild   *5/5
4) Life of Pi   *5/5
5) Amour   *5/5
6) Silver Linings Playbook   *4/5
7) Argo   *4/5
8) Lincoln   *3/5
9) Zero Dark Thirty   *2.5/5

Best directing: From these nominees I would prefer Benh Zeitlin. Michael Haneke and David O. Russell were very fine, but on the second place I have Ang Lee. I was really happy he won, because Steven didn't deserve to win his third for this one.
1) Benh Zeitlin - Beats of the Southern Wild   *5/5
2) Ang Lee - Life of Pi   *5/5
3) Michael Haneke - Amour   *4.5/5
4) David O. Russell - Silver Linings Playbook   *4/5
5) Steven Spielberg - Lincoln   *3/5

Best original screenplay:
1) Django Unchained   *5/5
2) Amour   *4.5/5
3) Moonrise Kingdom   *4/5
4) Flight   *3.5/5
5) Zero Dark Thirty   *3/5

Best adapted screenplay:
1) Beats of the Southern Wild   *4.5/5
2) Life of Pi   *4/5
3) Silver Linings Playbook   *3.5/5
4) Argo   *3.5/5
5) Lincoln   *2.5/5

animated feature:
1) Wreck-It-Ralph   *4.5/5
2) Pirates! Band of Misfits   *4/5
3) Frankenweenie   *3.75/5
4) ParaNorman   *3.5/5
5) Brave   *3/5

1) Life of Pi   *4.5/5
2) Skyfall   *4/5
3) Lincoln   *3/5
4) Django Unchained   *3/5
5) Anna Karenina   *2.5/5

art direction:
1) Les Misérables   *4.5/5
2) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey   *3.5/5
3) Life of Pi   *3.5/5
4) Lincoln   *3/5
5) Anna Karenina   *1/5

costume design:
1) Mirror Mirror   *5/5
2) Les Misérables   *5/5
3) Snow White and the Huntsman   *4.5/5
4) Anna Karenina   *3/5
5) Lincoln   *3/5

1) Les Misérables   *5/5
2) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey   *3/5
3) Hitchcock   *3/5

sound mixing:
1) Les Misérables   *4.5/5
2) Life of Pi   *4.5/5
3) Skyfall   *4.5/5
4) Lincoln   *3.5/5
5) Argo   *2/5

sound editing:
1) Skyfall   *5/5
2) Life of Pi   *4/5
3) Django Unchained   *2.5/5
4) Zero Dark Thirty   *2.5/5
5) Argo   *2/5

film editing:
1) Life of Pi   *4/5
2) Argo   *4/5
3) Silver Linings Playbook   *3.5/5
4) Zero Dark Thirty   *3/5
5) Lincoln   *3/5

1) Skyfall - Skyfall   *4.5/5
2) Everybody Needs A Best Friend - Ted   *4.5/5
3) Suddenly - Les Misérables   *3.5/5
4) Pi's Lullaby - Life of Pi   *3/5
5) Before My Time - Chasing Ice (haven't seen the film though)   *2/5

1) Life of Pi   *4.5/5
2) Skyfall   *4.5/5
3) Lincoln   *3.5/5
4) Anna Karenina   *2.5/5
5) Argo   *2/5

visual effects:
1) Life of Pi   *5/5
2) Snow White and the Huntsman   *4.5/5
3) Prometheus   *4/5
4) The Avengers   3.5/5
5) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey   *3.5/5

Saturday 23 February 2013

My projects for the future

Hi there!
Now I know (and I knew it from my Jackman's review) that I won't be able to do best supporting actress 2012 till the big ceremony, I'm going to to it some time later, because I don't have spirits for watching some too new films. First of all I'm going to finish best supporting actress 1945.
And then I'm gonna start with one of my projects. So, what will my project will be about?
I will find one winner in every of the four acting categories. These four winners need to have something in common. So, for example if I choose to do musical project I will for example choose these years:
best leading actor 1956 - Yul Brynner for The King and I won
best leading actress 1972 - Liza Minnelli for Cabaret won
best supporting actor 1961 - George Chakiris for West Side Story won
best supporting actress 2002 - Catherine Zeta-Jones for Chicago
(note: This is just an example: I may choose these years, but I don't have to.)
So here are some projects that I'm planning on to do:
The musical project - winning performance is from musical
The foreign project - winning performance is from foreign language film, or the performance is (at least in some noticeable part) in foreign language
The only nominees project - winning performance is the only nomination the film got
The double-nominee project - winning performance had at least one college nominated for his performance for the same film in the same category
The Martin Scorsese project - winning performance is from Martin Scorsese's film

So now that you know some of the following projects, I would be happy for your suggestions of the years that would fit at least one of the projects...