John Turturro in Barton Fink
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1991. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1991. Show all posts
Best Actor 1991: Results
John Turturro in Barton Fink
Best Actor 1991: Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs
Anthony Hopkins won an Oscar from his first nomination for portraying psychotic cannibalistic killer Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs.
The Silence of the Lambs is a very effective psychological thriller and certainly is far superior than the other films with nominees for best actor this year.
One question commonly asked about Hopkins' performance is whether it is lead or supporting. This performance is one that seems to defy these distinctions, because it is incredibly short in terms of screen time, and his character is not the focus of the film. He though is one of if not the most memorable part of the film, and still seems absolutely essential to the film, despite not even really being the villain of the film. His performance really is one that I am not sure which he is but due to the quality of the rest of the actor nominees I would most certainly put his performance in the lead category.
Hopkins performance is a short one for sure, and one that can actually easily be reviewed by each of his individual scenes. Hopkins' opening scene is actually one of incredible challenge, because of the huge build up to his appearance made as Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) makes her way to him. Hopkins certainly utilizes this to great effect, since he makes a big impression as the camera pans over him oddly standing in the middle of his cell. Hopkins performance is fascinating because I am sure the way he stands and moves, the way he looks with his eyes, and his voice were all very calculated, yet in the film his performance never comes off this way. Some how it is never artificial despite the nature of the character. His first scene Hopkins brilliantly controls the film, with the way he tries to manipulate Starling. Hopkins instantly shows us a man psychotic, without showing him doing any violence, and a man with complete control of his surrounding despite the fact that he is a prisoner in a glass cell.
Foster and Hopkins simply create fascinating scenes together. They play off each other perfectly in all of their scenes, developing a bizarre yet strangely interesting relationship. They play an odd game of sorts for Hannibal's enjoyment and for Starling need for information about another killer Buffalo Bill. The game they play together could not have been done any better or more effective they simply brilliant together. Hopkins is always fascinating because of how carefully and perfectly he displays Hannibal's mile a minute mind. He reacts and attack Starling, and Hopkins does this perfectly with his manner of speaking with that brilliant voice he uses, who knew a combination of Truman Capote and Katherine would be so viscerally effective, and with his eyes which are always piercing through, like Hannibal sees everything at all times. He mixes his odd love for Starling but also his love for the game like competition of minds without fault.
Hopkins keeps Hannibal on the right note and tone in all of his brief scenes and always makes the most of his screen time. He never over acts even though it would be so easy too, he always knows exactly to play a scene and simply gives a truly great villainous performance. Every moment in his performance really is spot on. Especially the use of his face and eyes, and certainly makes the most of every close up he has. He always conveys the evilness, psychotics and genius of Hannibal in every scene. Hopkins properly never stops with him, every scene even when he is reacting you can always see he is looking for weakness, and his chances in every moment, simply a brilliant performance. Hopkins gives makes one of the most memorable characters all in a short amount of screen time. He never faults once in a performance that could have been full of them, and gives a truly unforgettable performance.
One question commonly asked about Hopkins' performance is whether it is lead or supporting. This performance is one that seems to defy these distinctions, because it is incredibly short in terms of screen time, and his character is not the focus of the film. He though is one of if not the most memorable part of the film, and still seems absolutely essential to the film, despite not even really being the villain of the film. His performance really is one that I am not sure which he is but due to the quality of the rest of the actor nominees I would most certainly put his performance in the lead category.
Hopkins performance is a short one for sure, and one that can actually easily be reviewed by each of his individual scenes. Hopkins' opening scene is actually one of incredible challenge, because of the huge build up to his appearance made as Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) makes her way to him. Hopkins certainly utilizes this to great effect, since he makes a big impression as the camera pans over him oddly standing in the middle of his cell. Hopkins performance is fascinating because I am sure the way he stands and moves, the way he looks with his eyes, and his voice were all very calculated, yet in the film his performance never comes off this way. Some how it is never artificial despite the nature of the character. His first scene Hopkins brilliantly controls the film, with the way he tries to manipulate Starling. Hopkins instantly shows us a man psychotic, without showing him doing any violence, and a man with complete control of his surrounding despite the fact that he is a prisoner in a glass cell.
Foster and Hopkins simply create fascinating scenes together. They play off each other perfectly in all of their scenes, developing a bizarre yet strangely interesting relationship. They play an odd game of sorts for Hannibal's enjoyment and for Starling need for information about another killer Buffalo Bill. The game they play together could not have been done any better or more effective they simply brilliant together. Hopkins is always fascinating because of how carefully and perfectly he displays Hannibal's mile a minute mind. He reacts and attack Starling, and Hopkins does this perfectly with his manner of speaking with that brilliant voice he uses, who knew a combination of Truman Capote and Katherine would be so viscerally effective, and with his eyes which are always piercing through, like Hannibal sees everything at all times. He mixes his odd love for Starling but also his love for the game like competition of minds without fault.
Hopkins keeps Hannibal on the right note and tone in all of his brief scenes and always makes the most of his screen time. He never over acts even though it would be so easy too, he always knows exactly to play a scene and simply gives a truly great villainous performance. Every moment in his performance really is spot on. Especially the use of his face and eyes, and certainly makes the most of every close up he has. He always conveys the evilness, psychotics and genius of Hannibal in every scene. Hopkins properly never stops with him, every scene even when he is reacting you can always see he is looking for weakness, and his chances in every moment, simply a brilliant performance. Hopkins gives makes one of the most memorable characters all in a short amount of screen time. He never faults once in a performance that could have been full of them, and gives a truly unforgettable performance.
Best Actor 1991: Robin Williams in The Fisher King
Robin Williams received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Parry a mentally unstable homeless man in The Fisher King.
The Fisher King is better than Bugsy, and The Prince of Tides, since it does not fail completely and it attempts at something a little more original, but it does not succeed enough for me to say it was really a very good film.
Robin Williams plays Parry who actually does not show up too quickly in the film. It focuses largely on Jeff Bridges who plays a Howard Stern esque shock jock Jack Lucas. Parry shows up to save Jack after he is attacked by two hoodlums. When Williams first showed up I really was very annoyed. When he initially shows up, he goes for pure Williams Shtick. He does some voices that are suppose to be funny, and does a Williams seen to its most annoying. He does not create a character in these first scenes but instead tries just for comedy through his usual type of routine.
Williams though after these initial scenes does change his method of portraying the character a little bit differently. I felt he started to tone down the Williamsisms and tries harder to be a real character. He does not fully succeed at this but I am glad that he tries to create a person with Parry rather than just a routine. He is suppose to be a man who becomes mentally unstable after seeing the brutal murder of his wife, and he is suppose to be almost blocking those memories by creating another personality. At times his crazy acts seem forced crazy, and really do not hold any truth to them, a few times Williams pulls them off but most of the time he does not find the proper authenticity for Parry's madness.
Williams' best scenes are though when he tones it down and acts much more quiet. He actually is pretty good in the scene where he tells of the Fisher King. He suggests more about Parry with his brief quiet scenes than his over the top loud scenes. He has a few scenes like this besides that one where he is effective, he also is effective do to that reason with his romantic interest played by Amanda Plummer. He is never perfect in the role but when he is quiet he fines a subtler strand of the character that works well. Unfortunately he really does not have enough scenes that really on this better technique. Most of the time he does the obvious crazy that just never is that well done. Overall an okay performance, that is weakened especially by the beginning where he does not really stay in character.
Robin Williams plays Parry who actually does not show up too quickly in the film. It focuses largely on Jeff Bridges who plays a Howard Stern esque shock jock Jack Lucas. Parry shows up to save Jack after he is attacked by two hoodlums. When Williams first showed up I really was very annoyed. When he initially shows up, he goes for pure Williams Shtick. He does some voices that are suppose to be funny, and does a Williams seen to its most annoying. He does not create a character in these first scenes but instead tries just for comedy through his usual type of routine.
Williams though after these initial scenes does change his method of portraying the character a little bit differently. I felt he started to tone down the Williamsisms and tries harder to be a real character. He does not fully succeed at this but I am glad that he tries to create a person with Parry rather than just a routine. He is suppose to be a man who becomes mentally unstable after seeing the brutal murder of his wife, and he is suppose to be almost blocking those memories by creating another personality. At times his crazy acts seem forced crazy, and really do not hold any truth to them, a few times Williams pulls them off but most of the time he does not find the proper authenticity for Parry's madness.
Williams' best scenes are though when he tones it down and acts much more quiet. He actually is pretty good in the scene where he tells of the Fisher King. He suggests more about Parry with his brief quiet scenes than his over the top loud scenes. He has a few scenes like this besides that one where he is effective, he also is effective do to that reason with his romantic interest played by Amanda Plummer. He is never perfect in the role but when he is quiet he fines a subtler strand of the character that works well. Unfortunately he really does not have enough scenes that really on this better technique. Most of the time he does the obvious crazy that just never is that well done. Overall an okay performance, that is weakened especially by the beginning where he does not really stay in character.
Best Actor 1991: Nick Nolte in The Prince of Tides
Nick Nolte received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Tom Wingo in The Prince of Tides.
The Prince of Tides as a movie is.... wait I erased it from my memory, I'll watch one more time, I'll be right back.......................the horror, the horror.
Anyways Nick Nolte is an actor I will admit, is not a favorite of mine. I just not seen a performance of his that really is all that amazing. It is strange to me that he was a leading man, because he seems to especially have problems with these, and seems like an actor who seems like he would be better as a character actor than a lead actor.
Nolte plays Tom Wingo one of the three children of a very troubled family. He has all sorts of repressed memories from his childhood that leads to troubles in with his own immediate family. Nolte's early indications of the character are just odd, and seem very unnatural. He tries to show Tom as a guy who seems a little off kilter, and has repression, but Nolte failed to do either of these things very well. His mannerisms to show his off kilter problems are weird smiles and such which do not really seem to be correct, and he really he let the movie explain around him that he had repression issues, opposed to Nolte actually showing them in his acting.
Nolte shares many scenes with Barbra Streisand who plays his suicidal sister's and eventually his psychiatrist called Lowenstein. He shares many scenes with Streisand, they are either the dramatic scenes or the romantic scenes together. In the dramatic scenes Nolte offers a very mixed bag of emotions. Many of his scenes where he yells all the time do not really work that well I mean he certainly yells a lot but he does not do all much more than yelling, he plainly adds no substance to his yelling. It just never adds up to emotionally effective scenes, because Nolte simply never seems that distressed about what he is yelling which includes frustrations of his own childhood, and his sisters attempted suicide. He never seems to be that honestly troubled, keeping Wingo as only really a character as only really emotionally troubled on the surface, and seems fairly artificial.
He does have a few scenes that are better when he quiets down a little bit. I will give him a little credit, his quiet confessions are fairly well done, even if not amazing. His final big confession Nolte does do a fine job with it, but it certainly is wasted since in this movie a person instantly gets over their emotional troubles from talking about them only once, therefore any authenticity from Nolte's confession is automatically wasted. This confession leads to the terrible romantic moments with Streisand. These moments are strange, and absolutely false. Their chemistry is bizarre, and makes little sense, since the relationship makes so little sense. They do not do anything with it and their scenes together are rather cringeworthy at times. He also shares a few scenes with Streisand's real son who plays Lowenstein's son, these scenes are unbearably cheesy, but go along well with the terrible film, and I guess Nolte needed terrible scenes with two generations of Striesands. His overall performance has a few scenes with something to it, but overall he lacks conviction and has some extra bad scenes to make things even worse.
Anyways Nick Nolte is an actor I will admit, is not a favorite of mine. I just not seen a performance of his that really is all that amazing. It is strange to me that he was a leading man, because he seems to especially have problems with these, and seems like an actor who seems like he would be better as a character actor than a lead actor.
Nolte plays Tom Wingo one of the three children of a very troubled family. He has all sorts of repressed memories from his childhood that leads to troubles in with his own immediate family. Nolte's early indications of the character are just odd, and seem very unnatural. He tries to show Tom as a guy who seems a little off kilter, and has repression, but Nolte failed to do either of these things very well. His mannerisms to show his off kilter problems are weird smiles and such which do not really seem to be correct, and he really he let the movie explain around him that he had repression issues, opposed to Nolte actually showing them in his acting.
Nolte shares many scenes with Barbra Streisand who plays his suicidal sister's and eventually his psychiatrist called Lowenstein. He shares many scenes with Streisand, they are either the dramatic scenes or the romantic scenes together. In the dramatic scenes Nolte offers a very mixed bag of emotions. Many of his scenes where he yells all the time do not really work that well I mean he certainly yells a lot but he does not do all much more than yelling, he plainly adds no substance to his yelling. It just never adds up to emotionally effective scenes, because Nolte simply never seems that distressed about what he is yelling which includes frustrations of his own childhood, and his sisters attempted suicide. He never seems to be that honestly troubled, keeping Wingo as only really a character as only really emotionally troubled on the surface, and seems fairly artificial.
He does have a few scenes that are better when he quiets down a little bit. I will give him a little credit, his quiet confessions are fairly well done, even if not amazing. His final big confession Nolte does do a fine job with it, but it certainly is wasted since in this movie a person instantly gets over their emotional troubles from talking about them only once, therefore any authenticity from Nolte's confession is automatically wasted. This confession leads to the terrible romantic moments with Streisand. These moments are strange, and absolutely false. Their chemistry is bizarre, and makes little sense, since the relationship makes so little sense. They do not do anything with it and their scenes together are rather cringeworthy at times. He also shares a few scenes with Streisand's real son who plays Lowenstein's son, these scenes are unbearably cheesy, but go along well with the terrible film, and I guess Nolte needed terrible scenes with two generations of Striesands. His overall performance has a few scenes with something to it, but overall he lacks conviction and has some extra bad scenes to make things even worse.
Best Actor 1991: Warren Beatty in Bugsy
Warren Beatty received his fourth acting Oscar nomination for portraying Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel in Bugsy.
I will admit to being a sucker for fact based period pieces, but even that fact cannot save this film for me. It is simply poorly directed in many ways, its story seems poorly focused at times,and its tonal shifts are terrible.
Warren Beatty is an almost always an actor for me who does not seem to ever get that deep into his roles and almost always seems to rely on his charisma. This is particularly ineffective in this performance because he is portraying a real person, and he simply never ever seems to be Bugsy Malone. I never once for a moment believed he was the really person at all. There were times that I believed he was Clyde in Bonnie and Clyde but not here at all. He just seems wrong for the part, and clearly is because he never personifies the real man, which is a huge problem, but unfortunately not the biggest problem with this performance.
Warren Beatty though has even bigger problems because he does not seem to know how to even start to portray Bugsy. I do not know what he was going for in this performance. Some of the time it seemed he wanted to be the real deal gangster but I felt at other times he wanted to almost parody the gangster style character. That does not work either but it seems that he wants to almost mock the over the top personality of someone like Siegel. I am not sure if he was but it comes off as that way, and really just makes for a very poor performance. He also has his bizarre "romance" scenes with Annette Bening. The movie did not seem to know what to do precisely with their performance, and neither do Beatty and Bening. It simply is another factor that does not work.
Finally the work part of his performance is his scenes where he is suppose to show the darker, and more sensitive side of Bugsy. When Beatty goes for these scenes he seems to shoot high and miss completely. He never is convincing at all in these sides, and just comes off as weird at times. He at times gets unintentionally funny in scenes where he is suppose to be menacing. Nothing really works in this performance, it just starts out poorly, and goes no where from there. This is a performance that fails from its simplest technique. Beatty does not give a good performance, I am sure some of what made it so bad came from the film being so strange in its tone, but Beatty is never better than the film itself.
Warren Beatty is an almost always an actor for me who does not seem to ever get that deep into his roles and almost always seems to rely on his charisma. This is particularly ineffective in this performance because he is portraying a real person, and he simply never ever seems to be Bugsy Malone. I never once for a moment believed he was the really person at all. There were times that I believed he was Clyde in Bonnie and Clyde but not here at all. He just seems wrong for the part, and clearly is because he never personifies the real man, which is a huge problem, but unfortunately not the biggest problem with this performance.
Warren Beatty though has even bigger problems because he does not seem to know how to even start to portray Bugsy. I do not know what he was going for in this performance. Some of the time it seemed he wanted to be the real deal gangster but I felt at other times he wanted to almost parody the gangster style character. That does not work either but it seems that he wants to almost mock the over the top personality of someone like Siegel. I am not sure if he was but it comes off as that way, and really just makes for a very poor performance. He also has his bizarre "romance" scenes with Annette Bening. The movie did not seem to know what to do precisely with their performance, and neither do Beatty and Bening. It simply is another factor that does not work.
Finally the work part of his performance is his scenes where he is suppose to show the darker, and more sensitive side of Bugsy. When Beatty goes for these scenes he seems to shoot high and miss completely. He never is convincing at all in these sides, and just comes off as weird at times. He at times gets unintentionally funny in scenes where he is suppose to be menacing. Nothing really works in this performance, it just starts out poorly, and goes no where from there. This is a performance that fails from its simplest technique. Beatty does not give a good performance, I am sure some of what made it so bad came from the film being so strange in its tone, but Beatty is never better than the film itself.
Best Actor 1991: Robert De Niro in Cape Fear
Robert De Niro received his sixth Oscar nomination for portraying psychopathic rapist Max Cady in Cape Fear.
Cape Fear is not a great thriller. There are some scenes that are effective, but many are poorly done or do not hold up under any simple logic. Its point of having almost all character negative does not really work, and Martin Scorsese who usually can direct a film almost perfectly, here does many visual things that are simply poorly done. There are many problems in this film, and it is not helped by the perfect parody Simpsons episode of the same name. I would note one thing I did like was Robert Mitchum who played Cady in the original version, gives a great performance in just a simple role as a police detective.
I mention Mitchum for two reasons the first being I feel his cameo performance deserves some recognition, and secondly that Mitchum's original performance is a useful source to show the problems of De Niro's performance. One of the first and most obvious problems with his performance is the accent he uses for Cady. Like Mitchum he uses a southern accent for Cady, but where Mitchum's accent was subdued and well done, De Niro's is unfortunately over the top like the type people use to make fun of people with a southern accent. An accent usually does not ruin a performance, but it is incredibly harmful for his performance, because he is suppose to be scary and frightening, and his accent really harms his ability to do this.
Now there are some strengths that he and Mitchum share in their performance as Cady. Mitchum all the time and De Niro some of the time show Cady as a man who seems calm and oddly cool on the outside, but suggests the psychopath brilliantly below the surface. De Niro does this very well in his scene with Juliette Lewis, his scene where he picks up Nick Nolte's co-worker, and when he talks to Nolte in his car, and discusses what Nolte really owes him for what he did. De Niro is very effective here showing his charm and hatred very well subtly. I think Mitchum trumps De Niro when the psychopath comes out though. De Niro does it well enough in two thirds of the film even if it is in a more obvious way, but Mitchum seems to be really truly psychotic, and less movie psychotic.
De Niro does have strength in his performance but all the good parts of his performance become drained out in my opinion in the last segment of the film, maybe drained by all the rain I do not know. De Niro simply goes way too over the top in the final struggle, where Mitchum on the other hand perfectly nailed it. De Niro starts over the top with all his screaming but just gets worse and worse as the struggle goes on. He really goes way too far after his face gets burned, he starts yelling and screaming, and it is way too unrealistic and really not scary at all. Finally his performance comes to a terrible close when he starts rambling and joking at the very end. He was unintentionally funny I, if it was suppose to be funny that it simply made no sense tonally either, and was especially unrealistic. De Niro is certainly a good actor and gives a fairly effective performance at first, but his performance ends up as just wrong.
I mention Mitchum for two reasons the first being I feel his cameo performance deserves some recognition, and secondly that Mitchum's original performance is a useful source to show the problems of De Niro's performance. One of the first and most obvious problems with his performance is the accent he uses for Cady. Like Mitchum he uses a southern accent for Cady, but where Mitchum's accent was subdued and well done, De Niro's is unfortunately over the top like the type people use to make fun of people with a southern accent. An accent usually does not ruin a performance, but it is incredibly harmful for his performance, because he is suppose to be scary and frightening, and his accent really harms his ability to do this.
Now there are some strengths that he and Mitchum share in their performance as Cady. Mitchum all the time and De Niro some of the time show Cady as a man who seems calm and oddly cool on the outside, but suggests the psychopath brilliantly below the surface. De Niro does this very well in his scene with Juliette Lewis, his scene where he picks up Nick Nolte's co-worker, and when he talks to Nolte in his car, and discusses what Nolte really owes him for what he did. De Niro is very effective here showing his charm and hatred very well subtly. I think Mitchum trumps De Niro when the psychopath comes out though. De Niro does it well enough in two thirds of the film even if it is in a more obvious way, but Mitchum seems to be really truly psychotic, and less movie psychotic.
De Niro does have strength in his performance but all the good parts of his performance become drained out in my opinion in the last segment of the film, maybe drained by all the rain I do not know. De Niro simply goes way too over the top in the final struggle, where Mitchum on the other hand perfectly nailed it. De Niro starts over the top with all his screaming but just gets worse and worse as the struggle goes on. He really goes way too far after his face gets burned, he starts yelling and screaming, and it is way too unrealistic and really not scary at all. Finally his performance comes to a terrible close when he starts rambling and joking at the very end. He was unintentionally funny I, if it was suppose to be funny that it simply made no sense tonally either, and was especially unrealistic. De Niro is certainly a good actor and gives a fairly effective performance at first, but his performance ends up as just wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
