John Malkovich Vs. Tommy Lee Jones
-
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 -
brandomarlon2003 — 19 years ago(October 13, 2006 02:33 PM)
I agree that Malkovich gave a much more effective performance with "In The Line Of Fire". I think they gave Jones the Oscar for "The Fugitive" because they didn't give it to him in 1992 when he was nominated for the role of Clay Shaw in Oliver Stone's "JFK". I am not crazy about "JFK" but I think in particular Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, and Joe Pesci gave wonderful performances in there. Malkovich is an excellent actor and makes a terrific, flamboyant villain. He was one of the best things about the no-brainer "Con Air" and he was the only freaking good thing as the mobster bad guy in "Knockaround Guys" (that movie was a piece of beep Malkovich deserved to win an Oscar for "Fire" and for his earlier role as a blind man in "Place In The Heart" (a rare tender and sympathetic character for him; he usually place intense figures). He was also superb in 2003's "Ripley's Game".
-
Austerlust — 17 years ago(March 07, 2009 05:41 PM)
I for sure agree that Malkovich would be a more worthy winner of the academy award then lee Jones in -93, but as a few others have already said Fiennes was better in Schindlers list.
Fiennes loosing to Lee jones in -93 will for me probably always stand as one of the most incompetent decisions the academy has ever made. -
wrwt2 — 16 years ago(July 16, 2009 06:48 AM)
Lee was good, but no way in hell did he deserve it going against the likes of Ralp Fiennes and John Malkovich(Dicaprio and Postlethwaite were better than him too). It would have been fine if Malkovich won, buit Ralp might have deserved it more. Malkovich should have won it for his role in PLaces of the Heart back in 1983.
-
padjbyrne-1 — 16 years ago(July 24, 2009 01:04 AM)
What about Ralph Fiennes not winning fo schindles list. The biggest oscar snub ever would be Denzel washington winning for training day instead of Russel crowe for a beautiful mind. And the biggest best picture snup would be Shakespere in love beating Saving Private Ryan.
-
Austerlust — 16 years ago(July 25, 2009 06:19 AM)
Can`t say I disagree with you that Crowe should have won instead of Denzel, but to be fair I think Denzel played better then Lee and that Finnes was better then Crowe to compare who they were up against.
And I also think Crowe 'lost' his award because of some controversy of some sort.
And as for Shakespeare in Love vs Private Ryan, I have not seen the SIL but if Private Ryan would have ever won a best picture award it would indicate for me that its competitors would not be much. It is a good movie but for me because of the cinematography, the story and acting is nothing special. -
perfect909 — 16 years ago(October 20, 2009 07:37 AM)
I know I'm getting into his conversation rather late, that it started - what, 3 years ago? But there is a point here that I think needs to be made.
Not only are the Oscars a joke and a rip off, but their purpose is not even to reward good films, filmmaking and acting.
The purpose of the Oscars is to recreate, year after year, high school elections for class officers, homecoming queen, student council and the rest.
The Oscars work exactly the same as those elections, with the popular kids winning most of the time. The choices are usually pretty obvious. So-and-So has the highest grade point average, is on the basketball team - not a star, but on the team, which shows he's not just a brain - and he runs the fall charity fundraising event. He's gonna be class president - who else? Never mind that What's-His Name is a political genius who could really DO SOMETHING as class president. He'll be overlooked.
There will be an occasional upset by a not-quite-so-popular-but- currently-in-favor kid winning sometimes, some offices given to a token kid because everyone's conscience is bothering them a little, and every now and then an election goes to someone surprising and nobody can figure out quite how it happened.
And just like class elections, where most students don't care but they have to take some part, have some opinion, the Oscars don't really matter, but if you love movies, you have to pay some attention, have some opinion about them, and be outraged time after time about the whole process.
Just my humble opinion, of course. Others may disagree.
Perfect Paul -
Gus-69 — 16 years ago(November 21, 2009 06:13 AM)
Neither.
Ralph Fiennes. Period.
Mulholland CineLog:
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/ -
everydayboredom1980 — 16 years ago(January 24, 2010 02:57 AM)
Malkovich's performance was better.
His character was an underrated villain. Not often enough on those "best villain" lists, not even in the AFI's greatest 50 villains.
Why not? Malkovich was beep awesome in this. -
crloskot — 16 years ago(February 17, 2010 02:28 PM)
I have watched both movies on DVD several times now since their releases. "The Fugitive" really is about Sam Gerard's pursuit of Richard Kimble; Gerard is the focal point of the film and drives the plot, which means that Tommy Lee Jones should have been nominated for Best Actor, rather than Best Supporting Actor. Of course, Columbia and Castle Rock had a pretty good feeling that Tom Hanks would win for "Philadelphia," leaving Tommy Lee on the outside looking in. There is no question that Jones is superb as Gerard. But, good as he is, I think Malkovich was better. His grasp of the Leary character and the range that he demonstrates are elements in the film that I do not believe could have been surpassed by any other actor. But the Academy's politics and sentimentality have been messing up the Awards for 80 years now, and the award to Jones over Malkovich, while not a travesty like the award to Taylor over Deborah Kerr in 1960, was just plain wrong.
-