Page 1 of 1

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:41 pm
by mlrg
Waltz

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:37 am
by OscarGuy
I have not seen Plummer, but of the remaining four, toss Matt Damon for sure. He has an accent. Woo! Such a great performance that...toss him.

Stanley Tucci isn't that great in The Lovely Bones, nor is he that spectacular in Julie & Julia, though it's an improvement. I haven't been impressed with him since The Devil Wears Prada (not along ago, but still).

Between Waltz and Harrelson, I've never gotten the absolute adoration of Waltz. There's more subtlety at work from Eric Roth in the film. But, we all know that Waltz gives a showboaty performance and sticks with it throughout. I won't begrudge him that, but the male actors in the film shouldn't have been recognized over the females, because there's just no comparison.

Harrelson is very good in The Messenger. I won't say perfect, because he's not, but he does bring a level of honesty and gruffness to his character that works for it. The underlying sympathy and insecurity comes out at the right times and it's one of those performances that often get overlooked because it's not overzealous. So, my vote went to Woody.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:14 am
by ITALIANO
This is one of those categories where I shouldn't vote, as I haven't seen The Last Station. And on paper, let's be honest, Christopher Plummer has probably the greatest role ever given to an actor - getting to play one of the most important artists in the history of mankind would be any actor's dream. (Tolstoi is like God for Russians, yet interestingly - or maybe for this reason - as far as I know they never made a movie about him, with the exception of a not-very-good one in the 80s, and maybe something else but really nothing memorable). I hope Plummer (and, though I have my doubts, Michael Hoffman) gave him the treatment he deserves.

I will still vote though, and of those I have seen it's clearly between Waltz and Harrelson. Waltz is obviously a talented actor; if he changes moods during the movie - from scary to clownish, etc - it's because of the character and the way it's written, and the fact that Waltz can still create a character despite these contradictions is an accomplishment in itself. It's one of those pleasantly showy performances, and showiness, especially in a not-realistic picture, has its good reasons sometimes. (And Damien, I think this is exactly, unlike Ralph Fiennes, the kind of Nazi the Academy would love to vote for).

But it's also true that Woody Harrelson is one of the best American actors around. Always original, never predictable, never playing the same characters and always finding unusual (and not necessarily pleasant) aspects in the characters he's given - this is certainly a unique, one-of-a-kind performer, a truly committed one. He's also, unfortunately, the kind of actor who never wins an Oscar.

I will still pick Waltz here, but it's not an easy choice.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:24 am
by Reza
Voted for Waltz but I have yet to see the performances of both Harrelson and Plummer.



Edited By Reza on 1267784706

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:01 am
by Damien
Sabin wrote:Nope. You don't get a miracle.

Waltz wins. Yay, secular humanist rock floating in space.
But truth be told It's an entertaining but lousy performance.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:44 am
by Sabin
Nope. You don't get a miracle.

Waltz wins. Yay, secular humanist rock floating in space.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:40 am
by Damien
Woody Harrelson is wonderful in The Messenger and he received my vote. But, please God!!!! let there be a miracle and Waltz not win!!

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:46 pm
by Snick's Guy
if you had an oscar ballot, who would you be voting for best supporting actor?