Christian Bale in American Psycho
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Tom Hanks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Hanks. Show all posts
Best Actor 2000: Results
Christian Bale in American Psycho
Best Actor 2000: Tom Hanks in Cast Away
Tom Hanks received his fifth Oscar nomination for portraying Chuck Noland in Cast Away.
Cast Away of course tells the story of man who attempts to survive alone on an isolated island.
Tom Hanks is an actor I have had quite the mixed view on. I found him unimpressive in Forrest Gump, and Philadelphia, but I thought he was good in Saving Private Ryan. Well there is a distinct difference between those two roles. In Gump and Philadelphia he put on a voice, mannerisms, and portrayed two different characters very different from himself, but in Ryan he portrayed just normal guy. Well in Cast Away he portrays just a normal guy once again.
At the beginning of the film Hanks portrays Chuck Noland as an average guy who is not particularly special, but is concerned always about business and time. Hanks is fine in these early scenes quickly establishing the over working nature of the character, as well as being charming enough in an average guy sort of way. Hanks is good enough here to make someone you want to follow, even though his character is not one of the most original or unique characters which is really the point since he is suppose to be really average.
Well his plane goes down over the ocean and ends up alone on a island. Hansk is good here because eh never shows Chuck's struggle as anything more than as an average man. He also is basically silent in his early moments as he just tries to comprehend his situation and to see what he can do. Hanks is quietly effective and allows the proper amount of empathy with his character as he struggles to find ways to survive on the island.
Hanks is very good particularly in his way of finding how to start a fire looking at the packages, finding what he has and what he is capable of doing. Hanks is effective because he really is realistic in his way of trying different things, and really showing a slow learning process of Chuck on the island. He also is effective in his show of the characters pain, which is realistically and effectively shown by Hanks. He seems like an actual tired man on the island, and in that situation rather than an actor.
Hanks performance does become gradually louder though as he becomes more successful on the island as well as slightly losing his mind due to his time on the island. An effective change is actually done by Hanks as he begins to talk to his volleyball friend Wilson, and becomes more and more skilled at living on the island. I actually thought that Hanks actual managed to make Chuck's change slow and gradually effective. I also felt his relationship with Wilson was actually believably, and even honestly portrayed.
Well so he gets off the island and finds his way back home. Surprising enough I felt this held some of the best moments of Hanks' performance. Hanks truly shows that the island has deeply effected Chuck showing his sad history through his face especially well. Also his method of looking at everything not on the island is handled quite believably. His best scene though I think his his conversation with his friend at the end where he speaks of his thoughts on what happened to him, Hanks carefully creates a deeply moving scene, showing a honestly thoughtful and changed man from his workaholic in the film's opening. Overall this is actually a strong performance from Hanks, giving an effective one man show as well as showing quite effectively complete transformation of a man.
Tom Hanks is an actor I have had quite the mixed view on. I found him unimpressive in Forrest Gump, and Philadelphia, but I thought he was good in Saving Private Ryan. Well there is a distinct difference between those two roles. In Gump and Philadelphia he put on a voice, mannerisms, and portrayed two different characters very different from himself, but in Ryan he portrayed just normal guy. Well in Cast Away he portrays just a normal guy once again.
At the beginning of the film Hanks portrays Chuck Noland as an average guy who is not particularly special, but is concerned always about business and time. Hanks is fine in these early scenes quickly establishing the over working nature of the character, as well as being charming enough in an average guy sort of way. Hanks is good enough here to make someone you want to follow, even though his character is not one of the most original or unique characters which is really the point since he is suppose to be really average.
Well his plane goes down over the ocean and ends up alone on a island. Hansk is good here because eh never shows Chuck's struggle as anything more than as an average man. He also is basically silent in his early moments as he just tries to comprehend his situation and to see what he can do. Hanks is quietly effective and allows the proper amount of empathy with his character as he struggles to find ways to survive on the island.
Hanks is very good particularly in his way of finding how to start a fire looking at the packages, finding what he has and what he is capable of doing. Hanks is effective because he really is realistic in his way of trying different things, and really showing a slow learning process of Chuck on the island. He also is effective in his show of the characters pain, which is realistically and effectively shown by Hanks. He seems like an actual tired man on the island, and in that situation rather than an actor.
Hanks performance does become gradually louder though as he becomes more successful on the island as well as slightly losing his mind due to his time on the island. An effective change is actually done by Hanks as he begins to talk to his volleyball friend Wilson, and becomes more and more skilled at living on the island. I actually thought that Hanks actual managed to make Chuck's change slow and gradually effective. I also felt his relationship with Wilson was actually believably, and even honestly portrayed.
Well so he gets off the island and finds his way back home. Surprising enough I felt this held some of the best moments of Hanks' performance. Hanks truly shows that the island has deeply effected Chuck showing his sad history through his face especially well. Also his method of looking at everything not on the island is handled quite believably. His best scene though I think his his conversation with his friend at the end where he speaks of his thoughts on what happened to him, Hanks carefully creates a deeply moving scene, showing a honestly thoughtful and changed man from his workaholic in the film's opening. Overall this is actually a strong performance from Hanks, giving an effective one man show as well as showing quite effectively complete transformation of a man.
Best Actor 2000
Ed Harris in Pollock
Geoffrey Rush in Quills
Russell Crowe in Gladiator
Tom Hanks in Cast Away
Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls
Best Actor 1994: Results
Deserving Performances:
Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption
Best Actor 1994: Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump
Tom Hanks won his second Oscar from his third nomination for portraying the titular character of Forrest Gump.
Forrest Gump as I am sure you know follows a slow man as goes and sees and creates many important events throughout U.S.A History. Gump has an interesting reputation as some in fact many support its wins, and say it is a great film, but others just a many hate the film, and sees it as almost as a punchline.
I suppose some of what determines ones hate or love for Forrest Gump comes from how one view the main performance by Tom Hanks. Performances like these are bound to be exceedingly decisive no matter what, of the unknowing, naive character who has a sort of wonderful philosophy, or personality or something wonderful about them, there is an entire genre of films around a character like this, this film, Being There, Rain Man, I Am Sam. They are all driven in a way or completely by their lead performances. I am not opposed to performances like these because when they work well they can be effective like Peter Sellers in Being There, or they can be incredibly bad, and be far too obvious and bad acting involved like Sean Penn in I am Sam.
Now how about Tom Hanks though the first requirement of a performance like this is there way or method of speaking. Well he talks slowly, and with a southern accents of sorts, along with a drawl. I really was especially annoyed by his voice the first time I watched the film. Now every time I watch it I get less annoyed by it, I suppose I got used to it. I will give credit to Hanks that he keeps his voice consistent and never breaks out of it.
Next up is the characters mannerisms. Forrest is a tall standing, simple moving sort of fellow very structured in his manner. He shows his slowness here in his sometimes slow manner but always very proper in terms of his movements. Again I will give credit to Hanks he keeps them consistent and doe snot fail to keep his character consistent.
So he keeps his characterization consistent, and never breaks it during the film, which is good but is his character endearing or annoying? Well a Gump liker I would think would say he is endearing, a Gump hater would say he is annoying though. I am a little in the middle, although I really found him annoying in my initial viewings he has grown on me a little, not that I think him all that likable character now, but he has improved in that he seems less annoying now.
Hanks is allowed to show more emotions than some of these character depictions, since he is slow but not unemotional. He shows his feelings in a slow always naive, always rather abrupt fashion. When Forrest is sad he is sad, when he gets angry he is angry, in rather blunt fashion, which are as they should be played actually due to the blunt naive nature of Forrest, so Hanks again is fine, and consistent as Forrest once again.
One challenge of a performance like this is whether it comes off as "acting" or not. I am a little mixed about Hanks in this respect. I think he character never completely has a life of his own for me, but I never really say Hanks doing a "look I am playing a very slow man", not that he completely avoided this at all times, but he was never that bad about it either.
The overall performance is completely consistent as a character like this should be, but is it amazing acting ever, to me it never quite makes it for me. He creates his character who is fine, but I never found his creation to be amazing. He is sticks with his character the whole through though, and I can see how people liked this so much, even if I do not myself.
I suppose some of what determines ones hate or love for Forrest Gump comes from how one view the main performance by Tom Hanks. Performances like these are bound to be exceedingly decisive no matter what, of the unknowing, naive character who has a sort of wonderful philosophy, or personality or something wonderful about them, there is an entire genre of films around a character like this, this film, Being There, Rain Man, I Am Sam. They are all driven in a way or completely by their lead performances. I am not opposed to performances like these because when they work well they can be effective like Peter Sellers in Being There, or they can be incredibly bad, and be far too obvious and bad acting involved like Sean Penn in I am Sam.
Now how about Tom Hanks though the first requirement of a performance like this is there way or method of speaking. Well he talks slowly, and with a southern accents of sorts, along with a drawl. I really was especially annoyed by his voice the first time I watched the film. Now every time I watch it I get less annoyed by it, I suppose I got used to it. I will give credit to Hanks that he keeps his voice consistent and never breaks out of it.
Next up is the characters mannerisms. Forrest is a tall standing, simple moving sort of fellow very structured in his manner. He shows his slowness here in his sometimes slow manner but always very proper in terms of his movements. Again I will give credit to Hanks he keeps them consistent and doe snot fail to keep his character consistent.
So he keeps his characterization consistent, and never breaks it during the film, which is good but is his character endearing or annoying? Well a Gump liker I would think would say he is endearing, a Gump hater would say he is annoying though. I am a little in the middle, although I really found him annoying in my initial viewings he has grown on me a little, not that I think him all that likable character now, but he has improved in that he seems less annoying now.
Hanks is allowed to show more emotions than some of these character depictions, since he is slow but not unemotional. He shows his feelings in a slow always naive, always rather abrupt fashion. When Forrest is sad he is sad, when he gets angry he is angry, in rather blunt fashion, which are as they should be played actually due to the blunt naive nature of Forrest, so Hanks again is fine, and consistent as Forrest once again.
One challenge of a performance like this is whether it comes off as "acting" or not. I am a little mixed about Hanks in this respect. I think he character never completely has a life of his own for me, but I never really say Hanks doing a "look I am playing a very slow man", not that he completely avoided this at all times, but he was never that bad about it either.
The overall performance is completely consistent as a character like this should be, but is it amazing acting ever, to me it never quite makes it for me. He creates his character who is fine, but I never found his creation to be amazing. He is sticks with his character the whole through though, and I can see how people liked this so much, even if I do not myself.
Best Actor 1994
Paul Newman in Nobody's Fool
John Travolta in Pulp Fiction
Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump
Nigel Hawthorne in The Madness of King George
Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption
Best Actor 1998: Results
Best Actor 1998: Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan
Tom Hanks received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying Capt. John Miller in Saving Private Ryan.
Saving Private Ryan certainly is well made in some aspects, most certainly, but I feel the writing fails to be really all that great. Although when it originally came out it was praised for a lack of cliche, and although John Wayne is not the leader, the crew is just as cliched in a lot of ways than the ones in some of his movies that I have seen. There is the straight laced religious sniper, the crusty right hand man, the cynical guy, the wet behind the ears guy, the cannon fodder, or basically the one dimensional guy besides a token scene or one aspect of the character.
Tom Hanks is the leader of the small group of men searching for Private Ryan to bring him home. Hanks works as the normal man in an extreme situation who can be followed throughout the film. He maintains presence in the film despite the fact that it is a big war movie, and an ensemble piece in some ways. He does work as the common man well, and can be fairly well identified with. I never fully believed Tom Hanks as a World War II solider, but that is hardly his fault, and his performance is good enough to get around this. He keeps realism in the film, and despite Miller being a standard character in a few ways Hanks still allows room for development.
Much of his performance are reactions though, whether it is to the battles he is in, to what he sees, reaction to his men, or something else. Hanks' reactions are always authentic, and always properly reinforce the feelings of the scenes he is in. Hanks is able to find the right tone for the scenes, and even can handle the scenes of a little humor well without spoil the tone of the film by ever seeming to actory in his performance. Despite many of his scenes being mostly functional such as giving orders or being in the action, or reactionary Hanks still finds moments in which he shows Miller's development and complexity. He never really says everything about Miller but he suggests incredibly well, especially when speaking of the man he has possibly saved or his quiet reactions to the deaths of his men.
The other main aspect of Miller that Hanks does a good job handling is his leadership. He is not a loud or imposing leader who calls out his orders, rather a more quiet man who is quiet in his control and motivation of his troops through his own respect he sort of earns. Hanks seems believable as a leader, and as a quiet leader like this. A leader who resolves his issues quietly. I would say though when he is doing a few scenes of the large command he is less believable. Especially at the end when he organizes the plan, I just did not at all fully believe his performance there or a few other scenes where he perhaps could have used just a little strong command. Still though a very good performance, still sticks out in a film of this type, and fulfills his role for the most part and adds more when he can.
Tom Hanks is the leader of the small group of men searching for Private Ryan to bring him home. Hanks works as the normal man in an extreme situation who can be followed throughout the film. He maintains presence in the film despite the fact that it is a big war movie, and an ensemble piece in some ways. He does work as the common man well, and can be fairly well identified with. I never fully believed Tom Hanks as a World War II solider, but that is hardly his fault, and his performance is good enough to get around this. He keeps realism in the film, and despite Miller being a standard character in a few ways Hanks still allows room for development.
Much of his performance are reactions though, whether it is to the battles he is in, to what he sees, reaction to his men, or something else. Hanks' reactions are always authentic, and always properly reinforce the feelings of the scenes he is in. Hanks is able to find the right tone for the scenes, and even can handle the scenes of a little humor well without spoil the tone of the film by ever seeming to actory in his performance. Despite many of his scenes being mostly functional such as giving orders or being in the action, or reactionary Hanks still finds moments in which he shows Miller's development and complexity. He never really says everything about Miller but he suggests incredibly well, especially when speaking of the man he has possibly saved or his quiet reactions to the deaths of his men.
The other main aspect of Miller that Hanks does a good job handling is his leadership. He is not a loud or imposing leader who calls out his orders, rather a more quiet man who is quiet in his control and motivation of his troops through his own respect he sort of earns. Hanks seems believable as a leader, and as a quiet leader like this. A leader who resolves his issues quietly. I would say though when he is doing a few scenes of the large command he is less believable. Especially at the end when he organizes the plan, I just did not at all fully believe his performance there or a few other scenes where he perhaps could have used just a little strong command. Still though a very good performance, still sticks out in a film of this type, and fulfills his role for the most part and adds more when he can.
Best Actor 1998
Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters
Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan
Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful
Edward Norton in American History X
Nick Nolte in Affliction
Who do you predict, and pick?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
