Amazon Has Cool Stuff

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

I Hate The Oscars: Best Supporting Actor Nods

Remember, we live in a world where Joe Pesci has won an Oscar

The ceremony is pompous! People dress up! We act like this really matters!

Here's your rundown of gentlemen who would have been leading men pending one more rewrite.


Matt Damon, Invictus
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: The Academy feels obligated to throw Clint Eastwood some sort of yearly bone lest he gun them all down and drink their blood. I suppose his performance in The Informant! wasn't enough to get Damon a big boy nomination?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. Apparently Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon have the gravitas to carry a movie. Who knew?

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't seen this one yet, although I did take an obvious jab at the trailer when I saw it during 2012 (see my notes at the end of the review).

WILL HE WIN?: Is he Christoph Waltz? No? Sorry, Matt.


Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Apparently everyone's favorite zombie-killing bartender displays some serious acting chops in this little-seen drama about a team of Marines that inform families about soldiers that were killed in action.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Every aspect of the film received high marks from the critical community, especially Harrelson's performance.

IHYFM RESPONSE: This was one of those small dramas I regrettably missed in the theaters this past year, although I had read several interviews with Harrelson and was very intrigued. I'll be catching this one as soon as I can.

WILL HE WIN?: The film's limited release may be Woody's biggest setback.


Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He's playing Tolstoy, and he's Christopher Plummer.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: So-so. The film is said to be carried by Helen Mirren's performance.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Yet another offering of 2009 I haven't seen. Kind of like Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Role Models on Coca Cola, I like the idea of it more than I think I'd actually like it.

WILL HE WIN?: Meh.


Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: I have no fucking idea.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Piss-poor. At 33%, it's about 5 times as good as "Old Dogs"!

IHYFM RESPONSE: People. I'm a snob. I usually avoid movies in the 70% range on RT.

WILL HE WIN?: If he does, it'll probably be because everything else he does is so good. I've read that this role isn't so much acting for Tucci as it is wearing glasses and frowning.


Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Because he was an amazing supporting actor.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Waltz in particular was cited as being one of the movie's strongest points.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really liked the movie (moreso than this review would lead you to believe), and also thought Waltz was superb.

WILL HE WIN?: Is his name Christoph Waltz? It is? Then probably.


MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Tom Hollander, the bumbling minister from the potent satire In The Loop
- Aaron Wolf, the soon-to-be-Mitzvah'd son in A Serious Man
- Anthony Mackie, a soldier scared of his commanding officer in The Hurt Locker

No comments:

Post a Comment