Tom Hanks finally has his first Oscar nomination since Cast Away. Passed over five times for playing real life people between 2013 and 2017 (Captain Phillips, Walt Disney, James Donovan, Sully Sullenberger and Ben Bradlee) for which he was an expected nominee, he's finally nominated for playing another one (Mr. Rogers) in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and in another year might have won, but the competition is too just tough this year.
Al Pacino is no one's idea of Jimmy Hoffa but he's effective in the role in The Irishman even if he's not as good as either fellow nominee Joe Pesci or the film's non-nominated star, Robert De Niro.
Joe Pesci has the role of his career as the soft-spoken crime boss in The Irishman and he has several critics' awards to prove his worth. He won't, however, be collecting a second Oscar this year.
Anthony Hopkins was to me a revelation as Pope Benedict in The Two Popes. It's not a warts-and-all biography of the controversial pope - we'll probably have to wait for his death for someone to make that film - but he brings him vividly to life within the confines of the film, something he was unable to do for me in Nixon which I tried to watch again a week or two ago and once again found his portrayal all wrong. He won't win, of course, but like all the nominees in the category this year, his is a well-deserved nomination.
Brad Pitt has always been an affable actor, but his performances have always seemed surface level until this year. I liked him a lot in Ad Astra, and I really liked him in Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood as did most of the world, it seems. He'll win and make another self-deprecating speech that everyone will love.
Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor
Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes
Al Pacino, The Irishman
Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Margot Robbie accepted Brad Pitt's award and said: "Hey, Britain. Heard you just became single. Welcome to the club."
Hopkins' first-in-two decades-plus nomination for The Two Popes is reward in and of itself. I doubt he'll show up.
Hanks seemed like a threat at the start of the season. I think if A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood was a better film, he might still be. But it wasn't. I don't think this film gave anybody the Tom Hanks-as-Mr. Rogers experience they wanted. He's probably lucky this wasn't a stronger field.
I remember the Al Pacino vs. Joe Pesci conversations on Twitter near the start of the Oscar season. Which one was the standout? Which one was going to win? All wasted energy now that the film is likely to go 0/10. The Irishman is going to be a very big Oscar loser. We can point fingers in a lot of different directions. It's irrelevant now but I think those who favor Pacino and those who favor Pesci are people who value different parts of The Irishman. Those who favor Pacino love how the film digs into the complications of Post-War America. Those who favor Pesci could well do without much of the film and might walk away a little disappointed overall but find the flip of the expected De Niro/Pesci on-screen relationship to be truly special.
Brad Pitt's clean sweep for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood still mystified me a little. First off, I had Pitt pegged as one of those actors who never wins an Oscar. All of his talents fly in the face of what the Academy usually honors: effortless on-screen confidence and a penchant for playing weirdos. I had assumed if it was going to happen, there's no way it would be for anything like his great work in Moneyball. But here he is with a performance that's even more laid back and it's cleaning up. Compared to the importance behind previous winners Mahershala Ali (x2), Sam Rockwell, and Mark Rylance, there's a relaxed quality to Pitt's work that seems anathema to Academy preference.
The most obvious explanation is that his film is still going and his competition's films seem dead. Also even though Pitt is only a few years younger than Hanks, they all seem old (in their films) and he seems young. Or rather their performances are about being old while his is about no longer being young. It just stands out more. Again, it's strange to me how Brad Pitt managed to eek out an Oscar for a movie star performance (and one that comments on his very career). Even though he isn't my choice (Pesci), I'm glad that Brad Pitt will have his Oscar for a performance that generally lines up with his appeal rather than subverts it.
Great speeches too.
Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes
Al Pacino, The Irishman
Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Margot Robbie accepted Brad Pitt's award and said: "Hey, Britain. Heard you just became single. Welcome to the club."
Hopkins' first-in-two decades-plus nomination for The Two Popes is reward in and of itself. I doubt he'll show up.
Hanks seemed like a threat at the start of the season. I think if A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood was a better film, he might still be. But it wasn't. I don't think this film gave anybody the Tom Hanks-as-Mr. Rogers experience they wanted. He's probably lucky this wasn't a stronger field.
I remember the Al Pacino vs. Joe Pesci conversations on Twitter near the start of the Oscar season. Which one was the standout? Which one was going to win? All wasted energy now that the film is likely to go 0/10. The Irishman is going to be a very big Oscar loser. We can point fingers in a lot of different directions. It's irrelevant now but I think those who favor Pacino and those who favor Pesci are people who value different parts of The Irishman. Those who favor Pacino love how the film digs into the complications of Post-War America. Those who favor Pesci could well do without much of the film and might walk away a little disappointed overall but find the flip of the expected De Niro/Pesci on-screen relationship to be truly special.
Brad Pitt's clean sweep for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood still mystified me a little. First off, I had Pitt pegged as one of those actors who never wins an Oscar. All of his talents fly in the face of what the Academy usually honors: effortless on-screen confidence and a penchant for playing weirdos. I had assumed if it was going to happen, there's no way it would be for anything like his great work in Moneyball. But here he is with a performance that's even more laid back and it's cleaning up. Compared to the importance behind previous winners Mahershala Ali (x2), Sam Rockwell, and Mark Rylance, there's a relaxed quality to Pitt's work that seems anathema to Academy preference.
The most obvious explanation is that his film is still going and his competition's films seem dead. Also even though Pitt is only a few years younger than Hanks, they all seem old (in their films) and he seems young. Or rather their performances are about being old while his is about no longer being young. It just stands out more. Again, it's strange to me how Brad Pitt managed to eek out an Oscar for a movie star performance (and one that comments on his very career). Even though he isn't my choice (Pesci), I'm glad that Brad Pitt will have his Oscar for a performance that generally lines up with his appeal rather than subverts it.
Great speeches too.
"How's the despair?"