John Malkovich Vs. Tommy Lee Jones
-
joekiddlouischama — 19 years ago(May 05, 2006 02:23 PM)
The other egregious Oscar
snub was Gene Hackman winning for Unforgiven over Jack Nicholson
in A Few Good Men, which was an absolute travesty.
Unforgiven was lousy.
I don't agree with you there. And by the same token, one could say that Clint Eastwood deserved the Best Actor Oscar over Al Pacino in 1992. But to quote Eastwood's William Munny in
Unforgiven
, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." -
vicky_lc2001 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 01:43 AM)
I have to disagree. I think Clint gave one of his best performance of his career in Unforgiven but Pacino gave an outstanding performance in SOAW and gave the best performance I've ever witnessed in any actor in TGF2.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit?Nigel Tufnel
-
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 16 years ago(January 15, 2010 02:21 PM)
I don't think that at all. Jack had already won 2 oscars at the time. Gene Hackmen only had one so I say he deserved it.
Slimer! That was my clean uniform!" Winston Real Ghostbusters Episode Lost and foundry -
wallsofjericho — 15 years ago(September 16, 2010 05:13 AM)
I agree, Gene Hackman largely deserved his win for Unforgiven. Nicholson was good in a one note role, but Hackman's little Bill was far more complex. Nicholson did have a lot less screentime than Hackman, but still, Little Bill is a more difficult role to pull of than Col.Jessep
-
myturn21 — 19 years ago(May 02, 2006 12:44 PM)
Eh, just stick with your orig argument: the Oscars are bogus! 90% of the time the actors that should win never do & the most popular actors walk off with the awards. Example: Malcolm X should have taken Best Pic & Denzel should have won for Best Actor. But the Academy doesn't like Spike Lee (they were particularly upset with him over X) & they gave Al Pacino the award simply because of his longevity.
Now, that said, the Malk vs Jones debate would be WAY too close to call for me! When the awards were handed out, I hadn't seen Line of Fire & I was quite pleased that Jones had won (back when I was more naive about the Oscars being nothing more than a bloated popularity contest). Had I been more informed I might have gone for Malk because he scared me beep
Restore accountability to the White House IMPEACH BUSH NOW!! -
minime7215 — 19 years ago(June 04, 2006 01:52 PM)
I disagree. I liked both actors and both films, but I loved Tommy Lee's performance much more. It was more enjoyable to watch overrall, though Malkovich had more color. Jones just made me smile in every scene he was in, though he plays the same character in every film nowadays and it's starting not to work. Malkovich does need an oscar
-
goleafs84 — 19 years ago(June 14, 2006 12:39 AM)
As much as I liked both acors in their rolls, I would have to go with John Malkovich hands down over Tommy Lee Jones.
Malkovich was pure evil in his role and he made your skin crawl.
Jones on the other hand as Agent Gerrard, was funny, but to me that's all he was; Just someone who uttered a bunch of one-liners after another. To be Oscar worthy, you have to offer me more. -
cristyb321 — 19 years ago(July 19, 2006 07:32 PM)
When I watched the oscars that year, I totally believed that Mr. Malkovich was robbed. And, I still believe that. Do you think he could not have won, because he was portraying a potential presidential assassin? Maybe the wrong message the academy would want to give out? I could get into the whole political sidings of Hollywood now, but I won't. I just recommended this movie to a movie buff - he was supposed to rent it tonight. I really hope he did! Malkovich was amazingly psycho, yet you wanted to watch.
-
elkor — 19 years ago(July 23, 2006 05:53 PM)
Tough call but I agree. I saw this film when I was about 18 and I thought John Malkovich was totally engrossing, his screen presence was remarkable. I have followed what he's done ever since.
But I think Tommy Lee Jones is an excellent actor as well, so I'm not surprised he won. Fugitive is also a great movie.
And as things fell apart,
Nobody paid much attention. -
commanderblue — 19 years ago(July 29, 2006 11:40 PM)
Great but I thought In the Line of Fire was better and Malkovich totally owned Jones. Why he won is so unknown to me.
"Because Booth had flair, panache - a leap to the stage after he shot Lincoln."- John Malkovich
