Page 2 of 3

Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:50 pm
by Pervert
Duvall won the year he was the only non-Brit nominated (tough luck that year to Messrs Caine, Conti, Courteney and Finney).

Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:51 pm
by Pervert
Can't say I rate him much as an actor.

Someone who made some truly awful films, as well as some great ones which were overlooked: Tony Curtis (brilliant in Sweet Smell Of Success and The Boston Strangler).

Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:07 pm
by Ace
Johnny Depps obvious talent has been discussed here before.
I agree that some EXCELLENT performances in great films have been overshadowed with dire films.
Mickey Rourke was electric in Diner, Rumblefish, Angel Heart and Pope of Greenwich Village and DIRE in Prayer for the Dying and anything from 1992 onwards


Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:24 pm
by DavidS
Not sure when the Oscars started. Peter Lorre's portrayal of the pathetic child killer in Fritz Lang's 1931 masterpiece 'M' certainly deserved one.

Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:28 pm
by Pervert
I'm in total agreement there. And if there was an Oscar for best ensemble cast, he'd have won for Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. Other overseas actors worthy of consideration include Max von Sydow (Seventh Seal), Toshiro Mifune (Throne Of Blood), Klaus Kinski (Fitzcarraldo), Bernard-Pierre Doandieu (The Vanishing) and Gerard Depardieu (the sublime Cyrano de Bergerac)---but not that slag Roberto Bellini.

Oscars started in 1927, I believe

Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:26 am
by mart
See the complete history here


Mart


Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:19 pm
by jj
Tony Blair.

Re: Best Actor NOT to win an Oscar

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:58 pm
by nosey
Surely an actor or actress should be only considered to be Best actor/tress
for their stage work and not films, because when filming they have many takes on a scene to get it right whereas on the stage they do it before an audience. Also they can be made to look good in films by clever editing. Shoot me down if you like but that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it, so there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.


And the best actor isn't...

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:03 am
by The Last Word
Jeremy Irons ought to have won for his twin roles in Dead Ringers - a shocking slip-up which the academy sheepishly tried to rectify later by handing him the gong for the only okay-ish Reversal of Fortune.

Perhaps it's more a case of who shouldn't have won that's more pertinent. There was concern when Hopkins won for 'Lambs, as his actual on-screen time ran for barely twenty minutes - other supporting actor nominees had appeared more prominently, or so it goes. But top of the list are Dustin Hoffman & Daniel Day-Lewis for Rainman/My Left Foot, back in the days when the academy went affliction mad. Not so much acting as the relentless and showy impersonation of symptoms (and any schoolboy of my generation could've nailed Lewis' role effortlessly.) Making a bank manager interesting is where the challenge lies, darlings.