In Contention

Tag: Tim Roth

  • The Great Performances: 1995

    (from left) Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison CountyBased on some of the comments I received last week regarding my article on great acting, I took the suggestion of a young lady and am kicking off a series of articles, one per week, that will explore the best performances ofeach year, beginning today with 1995.  So let’s go back and work our way towards 2008 and discover the great film performances we know about, and maybe a few we do not.

    The Academy did a pretty fine job in 1995 when it came to the acting nominees.  Sure there was some shock when John Travolta was snubbed for his superb work in “Get Shorty,” and those hoping for a three-peat with Tom Hanks missed it when the actor was not nominated for his solid work in “Apollo 13.” I personally would like to have seen Clint Eastwood nominated for his wonderful work in “The Bridges of Madison County,” but there are just five slots open, and so many fine pieces of acting.

    One could also argue for Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, both excellent in David Fincher’s “Seven,” or Bruce Willis, who was nobly brilliant in “Twelve Monkeys,” and perhaps even Jack Nicholson in “The Crossing Guard.”

    Nobody could argue with Nicolas Cage in “Leaving Las Vegas,” Sean Penn in “Dead Man Walking” or Anthony Hopkins for “Nixon” as Best Actor nominees.  And frankly I believe Penn gave the best performance of the year, one for the ages in fact. However, Richard Dreyfuss in “Mr. Holland’s Opus?” Seriously?  I love Dreyfuss and I think he’s even been short-changed in the past, but come one.  He does fine work and it’s not his fault the script asks him to be mushy and sentimental, but I have struggled with his nomination over Hanks, Travolta and Eastwood for many years.

    (more…)

  • Great performances in bad movies

    Tim Roth in Planet of the ApesIt happens, sometimes when a really fine actor manages to give a brilliant performance in a terrible or weak film, a diamond in the rough. In fact, some of the best actors working have shone brightly in bad films as far back as the 1940s, though I will focus on the 1970s to present day here today.

    For whatever reason the respective film fails: perhaps the writing was weak, the direction went horribly wrong, or all the ingredients needed to make a great film, hell even a good film, simply were not there. Yet a single actor did everything right, understood their character, understood the impact they needed to make in their scenes and they give a superb performance despite his or her surroundings.

    Look at Bruce Dern in “The Great Gatsby.”  Here we have an exceptional actor in one of the roles of his career.  He WAS Tom Buchanan, elevating every single scene he was in with sheer presence. Jack Clayton’s direction was lumbering, Robert Redford was woefully miscast and Mia Farrow? Please.  (The single burning question we need to ask ourselves is what about Daisy attracts Gatsby when he can now have anyone — she doesn’t appeal on that level.)

    Dern radiates the sort of danger Redford needed to have in the role of Gatsby, but is far too good as Tom to even think of him in a different role here.  The lead really should have been Jack Nicholson.  Can you imagine the sparks between him and Dern?

    Perhaps one of the best performances ever given in a bad film was Morgan Freeman’s breakthrough in “Street Smart,” portraying a vicious pimp using a journalist portrayed by Christopher Reeve to get off a murder rap without realizing that he too is being used. Freeman is brilliant, all smiles and kindness, the sort of guy you would like to hang out with until his temper flares (to say the least). With just a few moments of screen time he gave an unforgettable performance as Fast Black.

    (more…)

  • Edward Norton and the not-so-jolly green giant

    What can be said of the fearless Edward Norton, who recently became an on-screen comic book hero?  I never understood his choice to take on the role of Bruce Banner, a.k.a. The Incredible Hulk.  And now, post-release, I’m still puzzled.

    He walked into a franchise that became a fast mess just five years ago.  And according to IMDb, he turned the role down back then. Given the actor’s commitment to characterization in his performances, it makes sense that he would turn the other cheek.  After all, so much of Bruce Banner, or at the least what audiences might want to see, is a technological creation. Unlike any of the characters in “Iron Man” or in the upcoming “The Dark Knight,” Mr. Norton doesn’t get to sport a good makeup job and put his true talents on display. He has to disappear all together.  It seems so unlike him.

    (more…)

  • REVIEW: “The Incredible Hulk” (***1/2)

    When Ang Lee set out to direct the first feature film adaptation of Marvel’s Incredible Hulk property five years ago, some things were…different.

    Lee was coming off of the major awards success of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” which led audiences – many of them skeptics – to ponder what he might be able to accomplish with the psychology of another action-oriented effort.

    However, Marvel had its hands tied. Unlike Detective Comics properties, which fall under Time Warner ownership and therefore receive continual distribution out of Warner Bros. Pictures, Marvel was still at the whims of studio discretion, its properties scattered to the winds despite having the consistency of an Ari Arad behind the scenes.

    Nothing could be said less of Lee as a filmmaker when the finished, disastrous product was unveiled. He took a gamble and hit craps…hard. And he bought back in two years later, bouncing back with a Best Director Oscar to show for it. But Marvel was left with a serious consideration that had likely lingered for many years: how to get a developmental handle on a catalogue of material that was bursting at the seams with cinematic potential.

    The difference now is Marvel Studios, which saw its first production “Iron Man” held on high by critics and audiences alike just one month ago. It was a home run for an unexplored property on the big screen, but could it be duplicated? And via a franchise that wasn’t nearly far enough removed from it’s immediate past to be considered stale by any means?

    Apparently so. Because Louis Leterrier’s “The Incredible Hulk” is not only likely to be the biggest, most exhausting (in all the good ways) film-going experience you’ll have this year, but it also holds the second turtle dove of a young studio’s seizure of what promises to be one of the greatest cinematic roll outs the genre has, or perhaps will ever see.

    (more…)