John Malkovich Vs. Tommy Lee Jones
-
SofaOnWheels — 15 years ago(August 17, 2010 06:47 PM)
Ok I realize it's been 4 years since the original post, but are you serious?! John Malkovich should have won over Jones? Are people forgetting Ralph Finnes was nominated that year for Schindler's List, arguably one of the most ruthless and evil roles ever seen on film?!
To say Malkovich deserved to win over Finnes is blasphemy. -
danmankp37 — 15 years ago(March 19, 2011 02:23 PM)
Jones winning the award for the Fugitive over the thrilling performance John gave for in the line of fire was an embarassment to the awards. The Fugitive was a good film but there is nothing spectacular about that performance or unique. The movie is your basic cops and bad guys chase movie. Only it is better made than most of that genre. Jones played a role that has been done many many times. The stern cop who is determined to track down the bad guy. Just in this case the bad guy is not really the bad guy. But John's performance was layered with depth, emotions and drama. The former government agent betrayed by his country now determined to make them pay by killing the president.
John was flat out robbed.. -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 14 years ago(January 21, 2012 07:17 PM)
The only reason Tommy Lee Jones won was because they felt stupid about not giving the oscar to him for JFK. Instead they gave it to Jack Palence in City Slickers which I doubt is the favorite movie of any of Jack Palence's fans. The oscars are a joke. This, Al Pacino not winning for any of the Godfather movies, Morgan Freemen not winning for Driving Miss Daisy or Shawshank, and Sean Connery winning for the untouchables over Denzil Washington in Cry Freedom are some of the many stupid decisions by the academy.
"Time to die! Like a man!" Venom Spider-Man Web of Shadows -
kylektm1998 — 13 years ago(August 27, 2012 07:17 PM)
In the Line of Fire is one of my favorite movies. If it weren't for John Malkovich's haunting performance it probably would go from a solid nine to a mediocre 6. Tommy Lee Jones on the other hand wasn't bad either. However, I see where you are going with his performance being two dimensional. If I had to pick between the two of them I would probably pick Malkovich. But, if I was picking out of all five nominees I would pick Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List. I think Tommy Lee Jones is a good actor but his performance was the least good compared to the other four. Hopefully Malkovich will one day receive the Oscar he deserves.
-
everydayboredom1980 — 13 years ago(March 10, 2013 12:48 PM)
Jones got it because the Academy thought it was "his time" and for his overall body of work, I guess. He was good but in no way Oscar-worthy. Malkovich had a better performance.
It happens a lot, it's kind of annoying.
Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List)
Sean Penn (Carlito's Way)
Denzel Washington (Philadelphia)
All gave better performances than Jones. I haven't seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape, but people have said that Leo DiCaprio also gave a better performance. -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 12 years ago(June 25, 2013 08:40 PM)
"It happens a lot, it's kind of annoying.
Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List)
Sean Penn (Carlito's Way)
Denzel Washington (Philadelphia)"
Not to mention Denzel Washington losing for Cry Freedom to Sean Connery in the Untouchables. Or a few years before 1993 when Jack Palence won an oscar for City Slickers over Ben Kingsley in Bugsy and Tommy Lee Jones in JFK.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Seinfeld -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 12 years ago(September 11, 2013 09:17 PM)
No offence but to me there's no difference to me between Tommy Lee Jones' role in the fugitive and his roles in Men in Black and Volcano. John Malkovich and Ralph Fiennes were more deserving. Tommy Lee Jones should've won for JFK and it's ridiculous he lost to Jack Palance in City Slickers.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George, Seinfeld