Alternate Best Actor 1988

And the Nominees Were Not:

Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers

John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons

William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist

Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Forest Whitaker in Bird 

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Results

5. Val Kilmer in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang- Kilmer is just excellent in giving a deliciously amusing and cyncial performance that compliments Robert Downey Jr's leading work marvelously.

4. Jeff Daniels in The Squid and the Whale- Daniels is terrific at being one of the most self indulgent character's ever, he never strives from the indulgence instead reveling in it creating a very entertaining performance.

3. Mickey Rourke in Sin City- Rourke unlike so many of his co-stars finds just the right tone for the material giving an effective turn that is easily the best part of the film.

2. Barry Pepper in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada- Pepper is great here giving a moving performance as a foolish man who is forced to change when confronted with his crime.

1. Ed Harris in A History of Violence- This was an extremely difficult year to choose as I loved all of these performances, and the top two of Pepper and Harris were very hard to choose just one. For the moment though I will go with Harris who despite having the least screen time out of all gives performances he has just as great impact with his powerful villainous turn in this film.

1. Ed Harris in A History of Violence
2. Barry Pepper in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
3. Mickey Rourke in Sin City
4. Jeff Daniels in The Squid and the Whale
5. Val Kilmer in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
6. William Hurt in A History of Violence
7. Cillian Murphy in Batman Begins
8. Danny Huston in The Proposition
9. Clifton Collins Jr. in Capote
10. John Hurt in The Proposition
11. Matt Dillon in Crash
12. Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man
13. Liam Neeson in Batman Begins
14. Brendan Gleeson in The Goblet of Fire 
15. Donald Sumpter in The Constant Gardener
16. Gary Oldman in Batman Begins
17. Stephen McHattie in A History of Violence
18. Ciaran Hinds in Munich
19. Danny Huston in The Constant Gardener
20. Rockmond Dunbar in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang 
21. Mathieu Kassovitz in Munich
22. Jack Black in King Kong
23. Michael Caine in Batman Begins 
24. Powers Boothe in Sin City
25. Linus Roache in Batman Begins 
26. Paddy Considine in Cinderella Man
27. Tom Wilkinson in Batman Begins  
28. Michael Pena in Crash  
29. Daniel Craig in Munich
30. Julio Cedilla in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada  
31. Don Cheadle in Crash 
32. Mathieu Amalric in Munich
33. Skandar Keynes in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
34. Frank Langella in Good Night and Good Luck
35. Chris Cooper in Capote
36. Omar Metwally in Munich
37. Elijah Wood in Sin City
38. George Clooney in Good Night and Good Luck 
39. Dwight Yoakam in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
40. Terrence Howard in Crash
41. Hans Zilcher in Munich
42. Corbin Bernsen in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
43. Craig Bierko in Cinderella Man
44. Ralph Fiennes in The Goblet of Fire
45. Robert Downey Jr. in Good Night and Good Luck
46. Morgan Freeman in Batman Begins
47. Geoffrey Rush in Munich
48. Benecio Del Toro in Sin City
49. Clive Owen in Sin City
50. Bruce Willis in Sin City
51. Kevin James in Hitch
52. Ryan Phillippe in Crash
53. William Baldwin in The Squid and the Whale
54. Tim Robbins in The War of the Worlds
55. Owen Kline in The Squid and the Whale
56. George Clooney in Syriana 
57. Ashton Holmes in A History of Violence
58. Michael Gambon in The Goblet of Fire
59. Michael Clarke Duncan in Sin City
60. Ian Mcdiarmid in Revenge of the Sith
61. Chris Bridges in Crash
62. Brendan Frasier in Crash
63. Kyle Schmid in A History of Violence

 Next Year: 1988 Lead

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Mickey Rourke in Sin City

Mickey Rourke did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Marv in Sin City.

Sin City is a film that has effective elements but frankly its style wears thin and the numerous problems of the film start to wear down heavily on re-watch. 

One of the major flaws of the film is the acting. Many of the performances are just awful as they struggle to read the lines, and sound as wooden as possible. Also the way the film tries to replicate the scenes from its source material make many of the actors stand and moves in ways that makes their performances seem extremely stilted. Also sometimes a performance can switch from awful to effective in the same scene like Bruce Willis at the beginning of the film. Some of his physical pain is well handled but his early scene where he talks with Michael Madsen's character it feels like both of them are reading off of cue cards.

Where so many of the actors get swollen whole by the overwhelming style of the direction and the rather cumbersome script, particularly its dialogue, its amazing that Mickey Rourke manages to avoid all of the problems that so many of the other actors suffer from. The film basically consists of three stories of equal importance and they each have a lead character the first being Rourke's, the second being Clive Owen's and the third being Bruce Willis's. They are each the lead in their own story, and due to that none of them drive the entire film making it more of an ensemble all together. Out of the three though Rourke's story is easily the best mainly because Rourke easily gives the best performance.

Out everyone in the cast Rourke just meets the material perfectly, and wears it perfectly from his elderly Kirk Douglas makeup, to even his place in the stylized background, Rourke just fits. I don't know frankly how he does it here, but where so many of the actors seem stiff in the recreations of the comic book scenes Rourke seems entirely natural, even if stylized. He meets the style just right that it really works only to amplify the effectiveness of the character and the story. He meets the style not only in a physical sense but he does so equally within his performance. Where so many of the actors struggle with the faux noir style of the language Rourke is just a master of it.

What perhaps works so well about Rourke's performance is that even though he embraces the style to the right degree, he in his own still goes about giving a convincing performance as Marv. Marv's story is about him having a one night stand with a beautiful woman Goldie who he finds is dead in the bed right next to him unaware of how it happened. After finding out he has been framed for the murder he goes about trying to discover who did it and get revenge for her death. This is a performance that very much has to move quickly as Marv is rarely given any time to talk. Rourke very much has to create Marve from scratch as fast just as he runs through the plot, and he does a marvelous job of it.

Mickey Rourke makes Marv an intensely likable hero who does all his mayhem with a certain bit of humor that is well utilized. He has a lot of fun in the role and makes us be able to take a ride with Marv through the film nicely, and actually does well to make the overly grim aspects of the film not as overwhelming due to the lighthearted fashion that he takes with the part. The lines that are so forced coming from the other actors just fly off the tongue out of Rourke, he just knows exactly what to do with the material. It all really comes down though to mixing just the right amount of realism with the style, sure his part is larger than life, but Rourke keeps him grounded in just the right degree in the right area.

Rourke combines well the physical humor aspects flawlessly with portraying the emotional drive in Marv that comes from him losing the only woman other than his mother that ever seemed to honestly love him. Rourke honestly is very subtle in the brief moments of portraying the very real pain and doubts of his character. These scenes are quick and to the point but Rourke does well to make the emotions honest, and not at all stylized. This great entertaining work by Rourke, and it easily makes his section of the film the most watchable. He is one of the few actors to really not get in engulfed by the material, and is the only actor to make his very own distinct mark on the film, although that is obvious since he is easily the best part of the film.

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Val Kilmer in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Val Kilmer did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning a Satellite award (yes that award is considered a bit of a joke but hey they awarded Javier Bardem for Skyfall so they can reward a good performance), for portraying  "Gay" Perry van Shrike in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Val Kilmer here portrays a private detective who work for a film studio. In the beginning of the film he takes on our hero and accidental actor Harry (Robert Downey Jr) on an investigation to supposedly prepare him for a film role. Val Kilmer's character is named Gay Perry for a reason, and its not because he is happy all the time. Playing a character who is explicitly gay certainly is place for pitfalls as shown by the likes of Ed Harris and Tom Hanks. Kilmer though luckily does not fall into this. He uses a slight accent, and mannerisms in his performance but in a very low key fashion that only amplifies his character.

I might as well not beat about the bush and say that Kilmer is a joy to watch in this film as he, like Robert Downey Jr, knows just how to play the material. As Downey does in his lead performance he finds just the right tone for his performance being slightly comic throughout yet displaying such an ease with the more dramatic moments as well. Kilmer though is slightly different here as he is the supporting player whereas Downey is the lead. Kilmer properly makes Perry less sympathetic than Harry, although still very likable, but he properly has a more cynical edge that causes him to differ from Downey' performance.

Kilmer is great in the role as he takes a bit of a rougher approach to some of the material that work particularly well for the film, as well as does a lot to emphasize the experience that Perry has in the sort of matters that take place in the film oppose to Harry who is a bit more of a freshman. Kilmer is properly convincing in the role as Perry and Harry deal with the mystery. Kilmer has the proper conviction and strength in the role to properly suit the mentorish properties of Perry. Kilmer exudes just the right degree of confidence in the role that works well in the film, almost being a comforting factor at times because he shows Perry to be just about always on the ball.

Val Kilmer most importantly has terrific chemistry with Robert Downey Jr. They are just a great duo throughout the film, and they play off each other wonderfully making all of their scenes together delightful. Kilmer is excellent playing Perry as the smarter older, although less passionate of the two. He is particularly great in any scene where Perry straightens out Harry a little bit for the dumb decision he makes time to time. Kilmer is always hilarious in these moments having just the right bluntness in the moments. The two are just perfect together in their antagonistic scenes always bringing out the humor in their conflict brilliantly.

This is a very entertaining performance bringing the best out of the script of the film, and even out of Robert Downey Jr. They both just play the scenes so well that they do not overshadow each other than just amplify each other. Val Kilmer turns his mentor/partner character into just an extremely likable character throughout the film. Kilmer's performance here just works to the point that I have to admit I was very relieved when Perry was alive for no sensible reason at the end of the film other than Perry is just awesome. Kilmer is the one who makes Perry as awesome as he is. Kilmer gives another fantastic characterization here, and shows along with Tombstone that it is shame his talent is not exploited more often.

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Jeff Daniels in The Squid and the Whale

Jeff Daniels did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe for portraying Bernard Berkman.

The Squid and the Whale is an intriguing and entertaining film about the conflict that develops when a literary family is broken apart by divorce.

Daniels here boarders I would say on a lead and a supporting performance. I would say he can be taken as lead by his ample screen time and strong presence in the film. He can also be taken as supporting as the film never is from his perspective as well as there are plenty of scenes without him in it. The true lead of the film is Jesse Eisenberg as Bernard's son Walt as the film largely entails the way he deals with the divorce. The same case can be made for Owen Kline as Bernard's son Frank, but in the end he really takes a back seat to Walt's story. I say Daniels can fairly be put in either category, and for the moment he is in supporting.

Daniels anyway is brilliant in this performance in just the way he creates this character. This is a performance that can be taken as almost one note in the broad strokes, though that is not true due to the subtleties of Daniels's work. What Daniels does here is take self absorption to an all new level with his performance here as a once great writer who still considered himself so, even though no one else seems to. Daniels always is reassuring the fact that Bernard is as much into himself as a man possibly can. Daniels doesn't show a hint of doubt as he says such things as the Tale of Two Cities being "lesser Dickens" or than Kafka was one of his predecessors.

Daniels makes it clear throughout the film that he has no concerns in any way if people even doubt his genius because he is so self assured. Daniels is terrific here because there is not ever a doubt in our minds that he has no doubt about himself. Daniels is actually quite hilarious in how pure the self absorption is in his performance. Daniels portrays Bernard as a man very much in love with himself without the need for anyone else's approval because they are not geniuses like him anyways. It is almost a derangement considering how sure of himself he really is, but Daniels of course shows it only ever to be a calm very very collected derangement that Bernard has.

It is a brilliant note that Daniels plays the part at and really it would be wrong for Daniels to ever get off that note as Bernard never does lose his intense devotion to himself, even at the end of the film Daniels still stays firm in support of Bernard's derangement. Daniels shows that Bernard simply is incapable of losing his superiority complex. Daniels is pure as whether it is trying to teach his kids a lesson, or fighting with his wife Bernard never stops with his own approach of quiet reserved smugness. The only time he really breaks this frame is when he is shown not to be the best, and Daniels is quite good that only when pushed into a corner that exposes an inferiority does he break out in anger.

Daniels is brilliant in his broader creation of course, but his best moments perhaps are in the silent expressions of his performance. He is particularly excellent in any scene where someone praises Bernard's wife's writing in his presence. Daniels always portrays a deep wound in his face in Bernard anytime that he hears that his wife may be a better writer than he. Daniels is equally strong in his moments of interacting with his kids particularly when he expresses love to them. Daniels is particularly interesting in these seems as when Bernard tries to talk warmly to them he does and he doesn't. Daniels finds just the right difficult tone needed as Bernard does love his kids, but never enough to love them more than he loves himself.

This is a terrific performance by Jeff Daniels where he succeeds in making an extremely unlikable character extremely enjoyable to watch. The challenge of this character really is a big one in that Bernard could easily just be obnoxious with his constant self promotion, or dull with his relaxed manner of doing so. Jeff Daniels though more than meets the challenge presented by the character with such an effortless assurance with his performance. He simply has a grasp on the part, which is essential for this character to work as he really cannot have even the slightest doubts to be believed. Daniels absolutely makes his character work as well as he possibly could being the entertaining despicable "genius" Bernard Berkman should be. 

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Barry Pepper in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

Barry Pepper did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mike Norton in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.

Barry Pepper plays someone here who is best described as a bit of an idiot. Mike Norton is a boarder guard who basically spends his time looking at Porno magazines when he is not beating up Mexicans trying to cross into the United States. He spends time at home mostly watching television and unceremoniously having sex with his wife. Playing an idiot is something that actually is far more a challenge than one would think as it commonly can be used to give a one dimensional performance, but Pepper although most certainly is playing Mike as an idiot he makes him a compelling character nevertheless.

In all truth Pepper's approach is what makes not only his performance work but really the film work as a whole. Mike Norton is the man who killed Melquiades Estrada, and one could try to say that he is therefore the villain of the film. Pepper certainly does no portray him as a villain in any respect though, and instead portrays him as a thick headed man who honestly did something very bad simply because he just is not very smart. As strange as it sounds Pepper is honest in his portrayal of Norton's stupidity, he never plays it for laughs, but instead establishes it as really the motivating factor of most of his behavior.

For example when we see Mike actually perform the act of Melquiades Estrada there is no hate in his face or anything remotely similar to that. Instead Pepper shows it as entirely an act of desperation, and he emphasizes the lack of understanding in Mike. Mike jumps too quickly to firing back from a stray bullet, and Pepper shows that this action comes from Mike's lacking skills as a frankly just responsible person let alone boarder guard. When Mike see what he has done, Pepper allows us to actually sympathize with Norton to some degree as he portrays instantly the regrets of Mike over the situation, because his face shows that he honestly did not mean to do it.

Mike troubles grow though when Melquiades Estrada's best friend Pete (Tommy Lee Jones) decides to kidnap Mike to go on an expedition to properly bury his friend. Pepper is excellent in his scenes with Jones by playing the reactions of Mike very much close to the bone. Pepper is very good in simply playing the role as realistically as possible in his reactions to Pete demands of him. He is convincing through the entirety of their journey and Pepper matches the jumbled emotions of Mike all the way. Whether it is his anger at being taken, his pain from the various displeasure he suffers along the way, the regrets he feels when the point of Melquiades death comes up, and most powerfully his fearful uncertainty over what Pete is going to do to him. 

Mike seems to undergo a transformation during their journey. It is not that he necessarily that he becomes any smarter exactly, but he seems to slowly break the stupor he seemed to be in at the beginning of the film that really lead him to the unfortunate events that caused Melquiades's death. Pepper is excellent here because he makes Mike's apparent transition something that honestly feels quite natural. He never overplays it nor does he reject the old Mike, as even near the end he still suggest some of the old Mike as he still acts defiantly to Mike. His transition though is made moving by Pepper as he portrays it coming from both a greater understanding of something other than himself as well as in part the psychological and physical trauma he faces through the journey.

This really is not a quiet by nature character, but really the power of Pepper's performance is very much in his face. At the beginning of the film it is a stubborn indistinct expression that he carries mostly that sums of Mike as a person. As the film proceeds though the expression opens up though and he allows us to emphasize with Mike, as he truthfully portrays Mike's changes throughout with particularly strong moments when he opens up fully. These moments are earned, and used perfectly by Pepper as his performance show exactly what Mike is going through. The moment he breaks into tears from a soap opera is extremely well handled he is understated even in the breakdown where Pepper expresses finally an actual understanding of his relationship with his wife.

Pepper builds incredibly though to his final scene where Pete forces him to ask for forgiveness to Melquiades. He starts well though by still showing some of the old Mike as he almost teases Pete. Pepper though is terrific as he genuinely portrays the regrets and sadness Mike does feel for what he has done, even though he pressured Pepper shows what does come is the truth. The only moment better than this in his performance is his final short line asking if Pete will be okay. In this single short sentence Pepper shows us a changed Mike. His expression empathetic, with Mike's wanting to understand know about someone else, and no longer in that stupor. This is an outstanding performance by Barry Pepper creating a fascinating portrait of a stupid man.

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Ed Harris in A History of Violence

Ed Harris did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Carl Fogarty in A History of Violence.

Ed Harris portrays the Philadelphia gangster who comes looking for diner owner Tom Stall who recently killed two men trying to rob his diner. Fogarty though believes Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) to actually be Joey Cusack who was involved with the criminal underworld in Philadelphia. He is one of the two major villains, the other being William Hurt who shows up only at the very end of the film. Where William Hurt portrays Richie Cusack Joey Cusack's brother. Forgarty knows Joey from the same period, but where Richie and Joey seem to have a love hate relationship, the only seems to be the latter when it comes to Forgarty relationship with Joey.

Harris is not always my favorite actor as he sometimes can either overact or just not make any sort of distinction with his performance. Harris the tears right into the film though as Carl Fogarty as he walks into the diner. Harris as he walks in takes our attention as the man who most certainly seems out of place in this place as he sits to question Mortensen's character. Harris is particularly effective here because he does not show for a moment that Carl Fogarty might think that Tom is Joey, Harris makes it clear that Fogarty entirely knows that this is Joey. Harris portrays Fogarty's questions not as Forgarty trying to find out if he is Joey, but rather waiting to see if Tom will admit it.

Harris is a great villain here in the way he conveys the threatening quality of Forgarty as something always there, but very much below the surface. He is excellent the way he portrays the slight bemusement that Fogarty has over finding Tom's attempts to deny his accusations as pathetic. In a way Harris shows that Fogarty attitude toward Tom is one of a great deal of familiarity. Although it entirely comes from Harris, as Tom of course only keeps denying things, Harris creates Forgarty's troubled relationship with Joey through his performance. He both is able to create the sense of familiarity with Joey showing that they go way back, but that their history is quite a troubled one.

The threat comes in his performance in the subtle way Harris looks at Mortensen in their scenes together that always presents an underlying hatred in Fogarty for what Joey did to him, which was trying to rip out his eye with barb wire leaving his eye dead. Harris always keeps Fogarty very calm and collect in a dangerous fashion but he is especially fierce when his hatred comes out fully. Harris is particularly powerful when he confronts Tom's wife Edie (Maria Bello) as the full amount of hate for Tom he feels comes out as he describes what happened to his eye. Harris is excellent though as he shows Fogarty as well controlled man who returns to his conviction that Tom is Joey as he pressures Edie with questions in regard to Joey's violent abilities.

Harris actually is only in four scenes total in the film, but he makes the most out of each of them. Through his performance he creates the dark world that Joey came from in his ease in which he makes himself a threat to Tom, while never outwardly being so. Harris dominates all of scenes in his portrayal of his character's determination to get what he wants. Fogarty is a character that could have been just a one note forgettable villain considering his screen time, but Harris just does all he can with the role. Harris with ease infuses each scene with both a cryptic intensity as well as even a dark humor. Harris manages to make both the line "There's no need for that kind of Language" in a slightly comic fashion and in the same scene the line “Ask your husband, why he's so good at killing people” work perfectly without any hesitation in his performance. This just outstanding work from Harris that makes Carl Fogarty a truly memorable antagonist.

Read More