Home Forums Movies Oscars outrage: Who gave the WORST Best Actor performance?

Oscars outrage: Who gave the WORST Best Actor performance?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 114 total)
Created
6 years ago
Last Reply
2 months ago
113
replies
15709
views
64
users
Jeffrey Kare
7
estrelas
6
Gabe Guarin
6
  • Profile picture
    Butz
    Joined:
    Oct 15th, 2020
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236157

    Sean Penn for Milk. Mickey Rourke gave one of the best performances of all time.

    Colin Farrell should have won for In Bruges in a landslide and he wasn’t even nominated. I will literally die on that hill.

    FYC - Oscars 2022:
    NINE DAYS in all categories, including:
    - Best Picture
    - Best Director
    - Best Original Screenplay
    - Best Actor (Winston Duke)
    - Best Supporting Actress (Zazie Beetz)
    - Best Supporting Actor (Benedict Wong)

    Letterboxd: Ray_In_Bruges

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Aimerarrow
    Joined:
    Feb 11th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236181

    Colin Farrell should have won for In Bruges in a landslide and he wasn’t even nominated. I will literally die on that hill.

    In Bruges is one of the funniest/coolest movies of all time! Just watched it not too long ago… I’ve missed out on some good comedy. At at least Colin got that globe.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Barbra please
    Joined:
    Oct 21st, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236189

    I think being a forgettable winner is much worse than being a bad one. Atleast bad winners like Rami Malek, Sean Penn (Mystic River, etc for example are being remembered for being bad, campy, or because they beat a better performances.

    Henry Fonda, Jean Dujardin, Eddie Redmayne, and Jeff Bridges is a perfect example of a forgettable winners.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Aimerarrow
    Joined:
    Feb 11th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236199

    Speaking of forgettable winners… I almost forgot about Eddie Redmayne’s forgettable performance. Bradley deserved that Oscar (his best performance easily) in American Sniper. The movie’s got problems, but he is outstanding.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Sir Pierce
    Joined:
    Feb 7th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236260

    Humphrey Bogart and William Holden’s wins do not hold up.

    Stalag 17 and The African Queen are both pretty good films. But the performances of Bogart and Holden are not a huge part of their film’s successes.

    It doesn’t help that both actor’s best work wasn’t even nominated – The Maltese Falcon/The Big Sleep/In A Lonely Place/Treasure Of Sierra Madre (for Bogart) and The Wild Bunch (for Holden) –  which make these feel like consolation prizes.

    I second whoever said Steiger’s win was undeserved – he should have won for the Pawnbroker. Poitier is significantly better in the same film and all the other nominees have held up much better than Steiger’s work – especially Hoffman and Newman.

    Not a huge fan of Hoffman’s win for Rain Man. Pretty decent film, but an on-screen portrayal of autism that has tainted the general populace’s perception of autistic people. Everyone now thinks they are all Maths savants and mumble to themselves all the time, which isn’t particularly accurate. Hackman or Hanks should have won.

    Controversially, I don’t like Hopkins’ win, but that is perhaps more to do with me feeling that his role was, in reality, a Supporting one, as well as this, perhaps, being the Academy’s best opportunity to give an Oscar win to Warren Beatty. A win, at this point, for Jeff Bridges (who wasn’t even nominated for The Fisher King) would have been more deserved than his 2010 win for Crazy Heart.

    Tom Hanks really shouldn’t have won for Philadelphia. It’s a pretty mediocore and surface-level film that doesn’t explore the issue half as well as subsequent movies have. Hanks, himself, is playing a different character to usual, but I don’t find any of his acting all that spectacular. I prefer Denzel in the same film. For this year, Day-Lewis gives one of his greatest performances and Neeson gives the greatest performance of his entire career – with one of the most expertly crafted character arcs that had been nominated in a while.

    Russell Crowe’s win for Gladiator has always kind of rubbed me the wrong way. Sure, he’s good in it. But did he deserve an Oscar for it? Probably not. The issue is that the other nominees aren’t exactly awe-inspiring, with, perhaps, the exception of Hanks. George Clooney and Christian Bale should have been nominated for O Brother, Where Art Thou? and American Psycho consecutively.

    Jamie Foxx in Ray is a good performance, sure, but the film isn’t all that and he isn’t blowing me away like some other actors that year. DiCaprio, probably, should have won. But I’m certainly partial to Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda, as well as the (not nominated) Tom Cruise for his memorable portrayal in Collateral.

    I like Crazy Heart and Jeff Bridges is certainly good in it, but Jeremy Renner’s performance in The Hurt Locker is undeniably a much better performance.

    Colin Firth is kind of mediocre in the King’s Speech, which I don’t mind as a film, mostly because Geoffrey Rush is, actually, very good in it. Not a great line-up, though. Bridges is a Supporting performance (Steinfeld is very obviously the lead), so it’s hard to compare him to the others. And Javier Bardem is in a film that isn’t so great. Eisenberg is very good, though, although I’m not convinced it’s an Oscar-worthy performance. In my view, out of the nominees, James Franco would have been the most deserving for his performance in 127 Hours, which is really a tour-de-force. Ignoring the nominees, though, I’d give the Oscar to either Ryan Gosling for Blue Valentine or DiCaprio for Shutter Island. Whilst I’m here, Jim Carrey was unceremoniously snubbed for his performance in I Love You, Phillip Morris, which is literally better than half the nominees.

    As many have said, Jean Dujardin is a weak winner. Out of the nominees, Brad Pitt is the easy pick, but Clooney and Oldman were certainly giving great performances. I would, also, argue that Owen Wilson (for Midnight In Paris), Ryan Gosling (for Drive) and Michael Fassbender (for Shame) were significantly better than Dujardin.

    DiCaprio’s win for The Revenant is very clearly a career-win and it’s very far from his best work. For me, I’d say that Fassbender probably should have won or Steve Carell for his unnominated work in The Big Short.

    Gary Oldman’s win for Darkest Hour is a blatant career-win and his other two Oscar-nominated performances are far more deserving. Kaluuya or Day-Lewis deserved to win, as did the unnominated Robert Pattinson for Good Time.

    Rami Malek, as pretty much every other sane person has said, didn’t deserve to win. Pretty obvious that either Ethan Hawke or Bradley Cooper deserved to win, which makes it all the more bizarre that Christian Bale was the presumed second place, even if he is pretty good in Vice.

     

    A very annoying young man, who loves cinema. 🙂

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/pierce_sir
    Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/11higuys/

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Sir Pierce
    Joined:
    Feb 7th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236262

    I think being a forgettable winner is much worse than being a bad one. Atleast bad winners like Rami Malek, Sean Penn (Mystic River, etc for example are being remembered for being bad, campy, or because they beat a better performances. Henry Fonda, Jean Dujardin, Eddie Redmayne, and Jeff Bridges is a perfect example of a forgettable winners.

    I can’t be the only person that thinks Penn in Mystic River is one of the best Oscar-winning performances of the 21st Century.

    A very annoying young man, who loves cinema. 🙂

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/pierce_sir
    Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/11higuys/

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Oscirus Jones
    Joined:
    Mar 8th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236313

    People really gonna die on that hill where they say that Leo shouldve won the oscar for playing a richer version of himself with ocd?  If y’all wouldve said Depp or cheadle was more deserving, I could maybe see where you were coming from, but dicaprio? lol.

    Other than the obvious benini for life and penn for milk, I’d probably go John Wayne.

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    String Cheese Theory
    Joined:
    Aug 16th, 2020
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204236371

    Tom Hanks really shouldn’t have won for Philadelphia. It’s a pretty mediocore and surface-level film that doesn’t explore the issue half as well as subsequent movies have. Hanks, himself, is playing a different character to usual, but I don’t find any of his acting all that spectacular.

    This shows how the passage of time, totally changing the context, alters the critical & social reception of the arts (not to mention broader social norms and behaviours).

    When Philadelphia came out in 93-94, we hadn’t seen anything like it. It was really gut wrenching, massively controversial and tackled a topic and a relationship never seen on screen before for a mass audience. I was 14 years old and more aware of HIV/AIDS than the average kid my age, but my parents wouldn’t let me see it until much later, even though I was mature, and we’d watched Big and Splash on repeat in my house growing up. There was something about this role which was being rewarded and Hanks was also being rewarded for – yes – the bravery in playing a gay man in a mainstream movie. To say it was pivotal in changing people’s perceptions of gay male relationships, and the impact of AIDS, is an understatement. It helped make it personal, with a character we had grown to connect with through the course of the film. Forgive me if I’m preaching, but coming so soon after Freddie Mercury’s death, which I think shocked a lot of people, plus the growing awareness of the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, people were ready at that moment to begin waking up and throwing off their homophobia.

    Say what you will now, with the benefit of “subsequent movies”. We didn’t know subsequent movies at the time.

    A similar comment was made recently on here about Kramer vs Kramer. While it is legitimate to criticise how movies don’t hold up over time (e.g. American Beauty), sometimes hindsight is harmful when looking back on groundbreaking material.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    iWantTheGold
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204237089

    This shows how the passage of time, totally changing the context, alters the critical & social reception of the arts (not to mention broader social norms and behaviours).

    When Philadelphia came out in 93-94, we hadn’t seen anything like it. It was really gut wrenching, massively controversial and tackled a topic and a relationship never seen on screen before for a mass audience. I was 14 years old and more aware of HIV/AIDS than the average kid my age, but my parents wouldn’t let me see it until much later, even though I was mature, and we’d watched Big and Splash on repeat in my house growing up. There was something about this role which was being rewarded and Hanks was also being rewarded for – yes – the bravery in playing a gay man in a mainstream movie. To say it was pivotal in changing people’s perceptions of gay male relationships, and the impact of AIDS, is an understatement. It helped make it personal, with a character we had grown to connect with through the course of the film. Forgive me if I’m preaching, but coming so soon after Freddie Mercury’s death, which I think shocked a lot of people, plus the growing awareness of the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, people were ready at that moment to begin waking up and throwing off their homophobia.

    Say what you will now, with the benefit of “subsequent movies”. We didn’t know subsequent movies at the time.

    A similar comment was made recently on here about Kramer vs Kramer. While it is legitimate to criticise how movies don’t hold up over time (e.g. American Beauty), sometimes hindsight is harmful when looking back on groundbreaking material.

    This is a good comment. I, too, found Hanks’ performance in “Philadelphia” extremely underwhelming – I felt like they gave him the award because he was primarily a comedic actor and they didn’t think they’d have another chance to honor him (little did they know…), and, much more distastefully, strictly for having the courage to play a gay dude. It really was a different time, though, and I understand how that movie meant a lot for the gay community (and people ignorant of the gay community) – even though it has aged VERY poorly. Some of the Denzel scenes towards the beginning are brutal….

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    iWantTheGold
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204237122

    DiCaprio’s performance in The Revenant is just awful – all of his bad instincts rolled into one overwrought performance. Didn’t help that the movie itself was a pretentious piece of shit. He should’ve won for Wolf of Wall Street (which this was a mea culpa Award for, along with the fact that he made them a boatload of cash).

    I’ll also never get over Sean Penn robbing Bill Murray in 2003. Great actor, wrong performance.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    MultipleOscarWinner
    Joined:
    Mar 3rd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204237146

    John Wayne is the worst Oscar winner ever in this category and maybe the worst in acting overall. On the other hand, just like Roger Ebert, I’ll defend Art Carney’s Oscar.

    These last two decades (perhaps even three) have (just like best actress) horrible winning performances. Instead of wasting too much time on those roles, I’ll say that Casey Affleck and Anthony Hopkins were very deserving of their statues.

    FYC:

    Best Actor:
    Delroy Lindo - Da 5 Bloods

    Best Actress:
    Sidney Flanigan - Never Rarely Sometimes Always

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Oscirus Jones
    Joined:
    Mar 8th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204237150

    Hanks in Philadelphia as a gay guy forced to stay in the closet worked for me, only real issue is this pretty much came across as Denzel’s movie since his lawyer had the huge character transformation and pretty much had the best scene in the movie. That being said, I wasn’t adverse to Hanks winning it, especially given his competition.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Chitanda170
    Joined:
    Apr 1st, 2020
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204237447

    DiCaprio’s performance in The Revenant is just awful – all of his bad instincts rolled into one overwrought performance. Didn’t help that the movie itself was a pretentious piece of shit. He should’ve won for Wolf of Wall Street (which this was a mea culpa Award for, along with the fact that he made them a boatload of cash). I’ll also never get over Sean Penn robbing Bill Murray in 2003. Great actor, wrong performance.

    I think after what happened this year, is very clear the overdue narrative doesn’t exist, Leo won that year because it was a very weak year for the best actor category and the AMPAS liked his performance more than the others, nothing more. And Johnny Depp should’ve won instead of Penn that year.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Sir Pierce
    Joined:
    Feb 7th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204237458

    People really gonna die on that hill where they say that Leo shouldve won the oscar for playing a richer version of himself with ocd? If y’all wouldve said Depp or cheadle was more deserving, I could maybe see where you were coming from, but dicaprio? lol.

    I don’t see how this is controversial. The Aviator is near-universally regarded as a better film than the competition and DiCaprio’s performance is regarded as one of his best. An actor playing themselves is barely a critique, as this is pretty much what a majority of actors are paid to do – play a variation of themselves.

    A very annoying young man, who loves cinema. 🙂

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/pierce_sir
    Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/11higuys/

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Oscirus Jones
    Joined:
    Mar 8th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204238089

    I don’t see how this is controversial. The Aviator is near-universally regarded as a better film than the competition and DiCaprio’s performance is regarded as one of his best. An actor playing themselves is barely a critique, as this is pretty much what a majority of actors are paid to do – play a variation of themselves.

    Slow your role on the whole universal thing, it’s 86 percent at rotten tomatoe and if it wasnt a scorsesee film it wouldve been lower.

    It is when you’re playing an actual historical person. He wasnt playing Howard Hughes, he was just being Leo with OCD, other than maybe Clint Eastwood, easily the worst performance in that lineup.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 114 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Bianca17 - Jun 25, 2021
Movies
Emil Pe... - Jun 24, 2021
Movies
Chris B... - Jun 23, 2021
Movies