5. Woody Harrelson in The People vs Larry Flynt- Harrelson is absolutely nothing special, and very standard for the first half of his performance but then the second half when he starts trying to imitated Flynt he is terrible.
4. Billy Bob Thorton in Sling Blade- I understand the point and the use of the character but this type of performance does not usually equal great acting to me. Also I never fully believed his character either which does not help a performance like this.
3. Geoffrey Rush in Shine- Rush I think does his mannerisms just fine and are close enough to the real deal, but still his performance never can really be amazing. He does succeed a little when he has the chance to show more but he also fails in his last scene.
2. Ralph Fiennes in The English Patient- I think there is something lacking in his character that holds him back, and I feel he was possibly trying too much at the beginning. Still though he succeeds well with the various aspects of the character. He shows the Count's romance, his struggles, and his end very well.
1. Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire- I was tempted to go with Fiennes but I felt Cruise's performance was technically a little better despite his lighter material. First he uses his star quality and charisma perfectly well in his performance here, but at the same time he still develops his character along with his usual charm. The changes of the character which are abrupt are handled well, and the notable scene of the film I feel are really notable because Cruise handles them as well as he does.
Deserving Performances:Noah Taylor in Shine
|
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1996. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1996. Show all posts
Best Actor 1996: Ralph Fiennes in The English Patient
Ralph Fiennes received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Count Laszlo De Almasy in The English Patient.
The English Patient is usually a fairly divisive film that is usually either loved or hated. I myself am more of in the middle there are good things in it, but something seemed missing for me. I can't quite put my finger on it but there something it just does not have.
Ralph Fiennes' performance I would say is part of this something that is missing. Not that it is a bad performance at all, but I felt there was something missing in the character of Laszlo. There is a motivation a history, that I felt was sorely needed to fully realize the character. This is not Fiennes' fault though it really is in the film itself, I suppose I could say he does not show this part of the character I am looking for but it really is not written there.I know his character is suppose to be something of a mystery bit I still felt there was something lacking there.
Besides that though there is something very interesting about his performance, is that you can see two incredibly different performances at the same time. His severely injured and disfigured English Patient, and his romantic lead performance. The first romantic lead performance, is a good one although I do think he tried to be the dark secretly truly romantic man at the beginning. Although I find he tried it, I would say despite clearly trying he did in fact eventually succeed to be just that so the although I felt he might of been slightly obvious in his portrayal he did succeed with the portrayal. After all he is described as always thinking, and he certainly portrays that perfectly. He was suppose to be mysterious with his hidden romantic abilites, and Fiennes showed that too.
His performance though becomes better as he becomes less mysterious. I think his scene with Kristen Scott Thomas, are properly romantic in their particular way. They do not overplay or underplay the scenes, and do find the right tone for them to succeed well. I do like how a slightly warmer personality of the Count is well shown when he is with her opposed to when he is not. He reveals more about these scenes well and very naturally, since he finally seems to be able to easily talk with someone he truly connects with. His strongest scenes involving this part of his performance though are the last scenes with Kristen Scott Thomas. He is very strong in showing the Count unbearable sadness in his loss, he is equally strong when he tries to get help and does not find any. His mix of frustration and sadness as he pleads for help is brilliantly shown by Fiennes.
Fiennes though also has the scenes as the "English" patient, and he does not leave the whole performance up to his make up. He shows the Count's final depressions and thoughts well. Despite how much he is made up he still gives a poignant performance in these end scenes. Especially when he describes his final moments, where both part of his performance compliment each other incredibly well. His final scene as he describes his final actions, in the past, his final death, and how he has already felt dead is properly portrayed by Fiennes and does fine the right strength for this final scene. Although not a perfect performance since it lacks a little here and there, and sort of keeps me at a distance but still a good one.
The English Patient is usually a fairly divisive film that is usually either loved or hated. I myself am more of in the middle there are good things in it, but something seemed missing for me. I can't quite put my finger on it but there something it just does not have.
Ralph Fiennes' performance I would say is part of this something that is missing. Not that it is a bad performance at all, but I felt there was something missing in the character of Laszlo. There is a motivation a history, that I felt was sorely needed to fully realize the character. This is not Fiennes' fault though it really is in the film itself, I suppose I could say he does not show this part of the character I am looking for but it really is not written there.I know his character is suppose to be something of a mystery bit I still felt there was something lacking there.
Besides that though there is something very interesting about his performance, is that you can see two incredibly different performances at the same time. His severely injured and disfigured English Patient, and his romantic lead performance. The first romantic lead performance, is a good one although I do think he tried to be the dark secretly truly romantic man at the beginning. Although I find he tried it, I would say despite clearly trying he did in fact eventually succeed to be just that so the although I felt he might of been slightly obvious in his portrayal he did succeed with the portrayal. After all he is described as always thinking, and he certainly portrays that perfectly. He was suppose to be mysterious with his hidden romantic abilites, and Fiennes showed that too.
His performance though becomes better as he becomes less mysterious. I think his scene with Kristen Scott Thomas, are properly romantic in their particular way. They do not overplay or underplay the scenes, and do find the right tone for them to succeed well. I do like how a slightly warmer personality of the Count is well shown when he is with her opposed to when he is not. He reveals more about these scenes well and very naturally, since he finally seems to be able to easily talk with someone he truly connects with. His strongest scenes involving this part of his performance though are the last scenes with Kristen Scott Thomas. He is very strong in showing the Count unbearable sadness in his loss, he is equally strong when he tries to get help and does not find any. His mix of frustration and sadness as he pleads for help is brilliantly shown by Fiennes.
Fiennes though also has the scenes as the "English" patient, and he does not leave the whole performance up to his make up. He shows the Count's final depressions and thoughts well. Despite how much he is made up he still gives a poignant performance in these end scenes. Especially when he describes his final moments, where both part of his performance compliment each other incredibly well. His final scene as he describes his final actions, in the past, his final death, and how he has already felt dead is properly portrayed by Fiennes and does fine the right strength for this final scene. Although not a perfect performance since it lacks a little here and there, and sort of keeps me at a distance but still a good one.
Best Actor 1996: Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire
Tom Cruise received his second Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in Jerry Maguire.
I did not hate Jerry Maguire, nor did I exactly like it all that much, I guess I could say it was just okay.
Tom Cruise is an actor that I do not always like all that much, sometimes he can just plainly be annoying, or seem not to have what it takes with for a role. I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to find that I did not respond to his performance in Jerry Maguire as I thought I would. I am surprised to say that this star performance of his actually works for me fairly well.
One reason for this is because he actually uses his own charisma, but also does develop a character along with it. Not that Jerry Maguire is the most complicated character ever but Cruise still takes the time to make him one opposed to just simply being Tom Cruise. Although most of the development is in the first ten minute or so, Cruise still does a good job of it. First being the artificial and cocky jerk, but again learning his morality again. This change is fast and very hasty, but I will say Cruise handles it very well, and makes the transition an actually believable transition despite the suddenness of it.
Also I must say his charisma is much more apparent here than I feel it is in many performances. His star quality does actually shine through in this performance, and he is always a watchable presence throughout this film. He gives simply a very strong leading performance. He is entertaining, interesting to watch and very charming in this film. Despite the sometimes hokey in the romantic scenes with Renee Zellweger, they still work very well together, and Cruise is very strong in these scenes. Although the scenes is constantly mocked now their big end scene is incredibly well played by Cruise. Not an extremely heavy performance, or complicated one but a good one from Cruise showing his true abilities as a star.
I did not hate Jerry Maguire, nor did I exactly like it all that much, I guess I could say it was just okay.
Tom Cruise is an actor that I do not always like all that much, sometimes he can just plainly be annoying, or seem not to have what it takes with for a role. I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to find that I did not respond to his performance in Jerry Maguire as I thought I would. I am surprised to say that this star performance of his actually works for me fairly well.
One reason for this is because he actually uses his own charisma, but also does develop a character along with it. Not that Jerry Maguire is the most complicated character ever but Cruise still takes the time to make him one opposed to just simply being Tom Cruise. Although most of the development is in the first ten minute or so, Cruise still does a good job of it. First being the artificial and cocky jerk, but again learning his morality again. This change is fast and very hasty, but I will say Cruise handles it very well, and makes the transition an actually believable transition despite the suddenness of it.
Also I must say his charisma is much more apparent here than I feel it is in many performances. His star quality does actually shine through in this performance, and he is always a watchable presence throughout this film. He gives simply a very strong leading performance. He is entertaining, interesting to watch and very charming in this film. Despite the sometimes hokey in the romantic scenes with Renee Zellweger, they still work very well together, and Cruise is very strong in these scenes. Although the scenes is constantly mocked now their big end scene is incredibly well played by Cruise. Not an extremely heavy performance, or complicated one but a good one from Cruise showing his true abilities as a star.
Best Actor 1996: Billy Bob Thorton in Sling Blade
Billy Bob Thorton received his first acting Oscar nomination for portraying Karl Childers in Sling Blade.
Sling Blade is a fine southern drama, although probably a bit long.
Thorton's performance he is incredibly similar to Geoffrey Rush's in Shine. There performance basically is finding the right note, and mannerisms and then keeping with them throughout the film. Thorton like Rush sets his mannerisms up for the first moment than continues with them for the rest of the film, his character never changes his mannerisms or the way he acts and reacts, even if the character does change throughout the film. I never fully believed his mannerisms to tell you the truth, I always thought that I really saw him acting. Not that he is terrible but I just felt that his performance felt a little forced at times. I just simply never fully believed him as this man.
I would say though that he is still okay, and tries to do his best to add meaning to his own script with his performance. But I think a flaw was that Childers keeps his mannerisms, and very simple way of reacting to everything was a bit of a problem. I mean that is the point of the character, but it does not give Thorton much movement. He just keeps with his mannerisms and sticks with them. I simply I never even impressed overly much with performance like these even when they are not flawed. But this one never seemed really truly authentic. Also Thorton's whole performance is more of something well thought out as a device for the film. Childers simplistic actions and reactions at times, were purposely written that way by Thorton, and he understood how to use his own performance. Even though if he been just a little more believable for me personally he still would not have given an amazing performance but rather a suitable one.
Sling Blade is a fine southern drama, although probably a bit long.
Thorton's performance he is incredibly similar to Geoffrey Rush's in Shine. There performance basically is finding the right note, and mannerisms and then keeping with them throughout the film. Thorton like Rush sets his mannerisms up for the first moment than continues with them for the rest of the film, his character never changes his mannerisms or the way he acts and reacts, even if the character does change throughout the film. I never fully believed his mannerisms to tell you the truth, I always thought that I really saw him acting. Not that he is terrible but I just felt that his performance felt a little forced at times. I just simply never fully believed him as this man.
I would say though that he is still okay, and tries to do his best to add meaning to his own script with his performance. But I think a flaw was that Childers keeps his mannerisms, and very simple way of reacting to everything was a bit of a problem. I mean that is the point of the character, but it does not give Thorton much movement. He just keeps with his mannerisms and sticks with them. I simply I never even impressed overly much with performance like these even when they are not flawed. But this one never seemed really truly authentic. Also Thorton's whole performance is more of something well thought out as a device for the film. Childers simplistic actions and reactions at times, were purposely written that way by Thorton, and he understood how to use his own performance. Even though if he been just a little more believable for me personally he still would not have given an amazing performance but rather a suitable one.
Best Actor 1996: Geoffrey Rush in Shine
Geoffrey Rush won an Oscar from his first Oscar nomination for portraying Schizophrenic Pianist David Helfgott.
Shine is a problematic Biography picture. It has some good moments, but it also has some serious problems. Also I must say to see the actual story of Helfgott filmed would be rather different.
Rush actually is not in the film all that much a very good portion of it focuses on the two actors playing the youngest, and younger Helfgott. It only shows briefly at the beginning, but eventually catches up with him again at the very end. This is an "acting" performance most certainly. It is all about mannerisms, and voice to show Helfgott's schizophrenia. Rush does a fine job showing the schizophrenia it is fairly realistic. I compared him to the real Helfgott, and I must say that he was pretty close to the real thing. He was not exact, but he was pretty close.
He does a good job since he is realistic without being over the top. The only problem I have with performance like these, is the actor just finds the right mannerisms, and tone but then call it a day. Which makes sense since most people with mental conditions do not really change in normal situations. Rush most of the time just keep doing the same mannerisms over and over again which are correct and he does it well. It is completely correct for the character, and for the film too, therefore I do not have a problem that he does this. Also when he does have a few chances to show a little more like his scene where he meets his father, or his reaction at the end of his comeback concert. Both scenes are very well handled and are made effective by Rush. But on the other coin his final scene he makes his mannerism sort of go away kind of oddly briefly, which is feels very false and the worst moment in his performance. Still overall he gives a good performance in a limited type of performance and tries to add more when he has the chance.
Shine is a problematic Biography picture. It has some good moments, but it also has some serious problems. Also I must say to see the actual story of Helfgott filmed would be rather different.
Rush actually is not in the film all that much a very good portion of it focuses on the two actors playing the youngest, and younger Helfgott. It only shows briefly at the beginning, but eventually catches up with him again at the very end. This is an "acting" performance most certainly. It is all about mannerisms, and voice to show Helfgott's schizophrenia. Rush does a fine job showing the schizophrenia it is fairly realistic. I compared him to the real Helfgott, and I must say that he was pretty close to the real thing. He was not exact, but he was pretty close.
He does a good job since he is realistic without being over the top. The only problem I have with performance like these, is the actor just finds the right mannerisms, and tone but then call it a day. Which makes sense since most people with mental conditions do not really change in normal situations. Rush most of the time just keep doing the same mannerisms over and over again which are correct and he does it well. It is completely correct for the character, and for the film too, therefore I do not have a problem that he does this. Also when he does have a few chances to show a little more like his scene where he meets his father, or his reaction at the end of his comeback concert. Both scenes are very well handled and are made effective by Rush. But on the other coin his final scene he makes his mannerism sort of go away kind of oddly briefly, which is feels very false and the worst moment in his performance. Still overall he gives a good performance in a limited type of performance and tries to add more when he has the chance.
Best Actor 1996: Woody Harrelson in The People Vs Larry Flynt
Woody Harrelson received his first Oscar nomination for portraying pornographer Larry Flynt in The People vs Larry Flynt.
This film is not particularly good, because like many of these issues films made today it refuses to critically look at its own subject, and then it makes the opposition basically cartoonish charactertures.
Woody Harrelson for the first half of the film gives a fairly standard performance as Flynt. He does not do any of his Harrelson obnoxiousness as in some of his performances, but there is simply nothing all that special of his portrayal. He shows Flynt as a pornographer and he plays him as you would expect him to in a film that romanticizes the pornographer a bit. He is not bad at all, just his performance is rather standard throughout the first half, being quick to make money, enjoy his business, act sleazy, and act annoyed by those who wish to censor him. Not a single facet of his performance in those qualities is bad, and usual is appropriate enough for the character. Still though he does excel in any parts to any amazing degree.
The second half of his performance on the other hand is a different story. He almost out of the blue starts giving an insanely mannered performance. Now he tries to imitate Flynt, and his mannerisms, and it just rings false. The change is not well handled at all, because it is not lead to nor does he immediately do this after becoming crippled in an assassination attempt. This is both the fault of the film, and of Harrelson's performance. As the crippled Flynt he is just over the top and I did not believe him for a second. He just went way over board and never seemed realistically so. I think his performance became outstandingly bad since he was so off, and because this style of performance came out of nowhere. I suppose he has one good scene when Courtney Love's character dies, but that is it, and even that is not all that good. He is not special at first but than very bad for the rest.
This film is not particularly good, because like many of these issues films made today it refuses to critically look at its own subject, and then it makes the opposition basically cartoonish charactertures.
Woody Harrelson for the first half of the film gives a fairly standard performance as Flynt. He does not do any of his Harrelson obnoxiousness as in some of his performances, but there is simply nothing all that special of his portrayal. He shows Flynt as a pornographer and he plays him as you would expect him to in a film that romanticizes the pornographer a bit. He is not bad at all, just his performance is rather standard throughout the first half, being quick to make money, enjoy his business, act sleazy, and act annoyed by those who wish to censor him. Not a single facet of his performance in those qualities is bad, and usual is appropriate enough for the character. Still though he does excel in any parts to any amazing degree.
The second half of his performance on the other hand is a different story. He almost out of the blue starts giving an insanely mannered performance. Now he tries to imitate Flynt, and his mannerisms, and it just rings false. The change is not well handled at all, because it is not lead to nor does he immediately do this after becoming crippled in an assassination attempt. This is both the fault of the film, and of Harrelson's performance. As the crippled Flynt he is just over the top and I did not believe him for a second. He just went way over board and never seemed realistically so. I think his performance became outstandingly bad since he was so off, and because this style of performance came out of nowhere. I suppose he has one good scene when Courtney Love's character dies, but that is it, and even that is not all that good. He is not special at first but than very bad for the rest.
Best Actor 1996
And The Nominees Were:
Ralph Fiennes in The English Patient
Geoffrey Rush in Shine
Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire
Billy Bob Thorton in Sling Blade
Woody Harrelson in The People VS Larry Flynt
Who do you pick? Who do you predict?
Ralph Fiennes in The English Patient
Geoffrey Rush in Shine
Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire
Billy Bob Thorton in Sling Blade
Woody Harrelson in The People VS Larry Flynt
Who do you pick? Who do you predict?
Labels:
1996,
Best Actor,
Billy Bob Thorton,
Geoffrey Rush,
oscar,
Ralph Fiennes,
Tom Cruise,
Woody Harrelson
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
















