Showing posts with label Hugh Jackman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hugh Jackman. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2024

15 Actors Most Overdue for Oscar

1. Ralph Fiennes — Longtime cinephile's favorite online publication The Film Experience often refers to him as the best actor of his generation not to win. In addition to his two nominations in the 90s, he also was a great lead in another Best Picture nominee in Quiz Show. In the 00s, he garnered buzz in Constant Gardener, and the trifecta of Reader/In Bruges/Duchess (which might have split votes) in 2008, in addition to infusing one of the decade’s big franchises with Voldemort. He also got in on the Hannibal action in Red Dragon. In the 2010s, his output lessened. He likely was the most inventive Wes Anderson protagonist ever put to film in Grand Budapest Hotel (sorry Jason Schwartzman in Rushmore) and was quietly brilliant in The Dig a bit more recently.

2. Bradley Cooper -- While finishing a distant third in this past year's Oscar race, Cooper is well-known to have education bona fides (he went to an elite school) and to be a serious actor with a capital S. His streak of 3 straight nominations from 2012-2014 shows and 5 total shows that he's managed to break through at the top of wish lists by now. He’s getting so immersive (and possibly desperate) that he might pull a more extreme stunt like Revenant and get himself eaten by a bear.


3.  Paul Giamatti — I think the voters and media got a taste of how good the possibility of “And the Oscar Goes to Paul Giamatti” would have sounded. That he does not like a conventional leading man has worked in his favor as he is very much an ordinary man in the same way that Dustin Hoffman and Ernest Borgnine captured our imaginations.

4. Harvey Keitel — With luminaries like James Caan, Ned Beatty, and Danny Aiello tragically gone, he might be the last of the greatest generation of character actors who changed acting in the 1970s. Like Bill Nighy or Bruce Dern with recent norms, it might never be too late

5. Daniel Craig — Sean Connery won an Oscar for James Bond, but Craig had a far wider range and showed before and after Bond that he was willing to take risky roles, like Truman Capote’s lover in Infamous or a detective whose idiosyncrasies seemingly are modeled after Foghorn Leghorn. There are a ton of great roles in between in Craig’s filmography and his turns as Bond and LeBlanc make him a more marketable figure than, say, Colin Firth.

6. Johnny Depp — I’m not sure I’d cast him on a film because his drunken and difficult on-set behavior has become quite legendary (exacerbated through accounts at the Amber Heard trial), but to the degree that he would get cast, he’s never less than brilliant and superbly inventive. That can’t be denied.

7. Hugh Jackman — A convincing musical lead is hard to deny like his work in Les Miserables or Greatest Showman (a fan favorite, didn’t go so well with critics on the left). With his popularity with the Wolverine roles, and his range of work like The Front Runner or The Fountain, it’s not far-fetched at all that in a given year, he might have the best performance of the year. If it’s close, I have faith that the extremely amicable Jackman could get the award by doing well on the awards circuit

8. Benedict Cumberbatch — I tend to think best actors should be a little on the older side, and after Casey Affleck and Rami Malek, I’m happiest with actors winning the lead award over, say, 40, which is why Adam Driver seems a bit young for me (he’s 39, and nowhere near due). Cumberbatch might be there at 48. Damn, how the time has flown. He’s been superb in movies dating quite a while, and even if he doesn’t have a gazillion nominations, he does have an Emmy, and he’s the kind of guy you know could nail any future challenging role. He has been in 5 Best Picture nominees (War HorseImitation Game12 Years a SlaveAtonement1917), so his filmography is solid, even if his roles in a couple of his pictures were small.

9. Ed Norton — An actor’s actor, Norton has had some great break-out roles in the 90s, and has acted in a wide range (he even directed a romantic comedy). Motherless Brooklyn (his second directorial film) and his role in the Glass Onion show he’s still pretty ambitious.

10. Liam Neeson — His batting average of noticeable performance to regular performance is low considering how prolific he is, but he’s pretty beloved, and he has an excuse for acting in so many movies (it helps him get over his wife’s death). The probability that he has another brilliant performance like Kinsey or Schindler’s List shouldn’t be that far out of reach.

11. Eddie Murphy — The degree to which he held up SNL and the film industry in the 1980s can’t be underestimated. If you want to give a comic star an award, Murphy would be a good choice. The problem is that there isn’t that often a role like Dolemite is My Name or Dreamgirls.

12. Michael Fassbender — In 2011, he broke out with simultaneous plaudits for Shame, Dangerous MethodX-Men, and Jane Eyre all at once. He got two nominations in the next four years and I think he’s still growing strong. He’d be on the newer end of nominees.

13. Jon Hamm — The leading man on Mad Men fits the mold of a leading man very easily and I’m often thinking he’d be a good lead whenever I armchair cast a film idea I think of in my head.

14. Steve Martin — Hard to think of a more beloved legend in comedy. Roles like 2005’s Shopgirl show he can do something big if he gets the right role. He’s retiring soon, so he can market such a win as his swan song.

15. Richard Gere — This 75-year-old actor has had roles in key films in the 1970s (Days of Heaven), 1980s (Officer and a Gentleman), 1990s (Pretty WomanPrimal Fear), 2000s (UnfaithfulChicagoAmelia), and 2010s (Arbitrage). He’s never been the preeminent of his generation and he’s never had the hot streak of a lot of great movies in a row, but his filmography stretches back a ways. With a good role, I don’t see why he wouldn’t be cheered as a consummate screen icon.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

The Greatest Showman: A schmaltzy hit



The Greatest Showman--a Hugh Jackman vehicle based on the life of circus godfather P.T. Barnum  -- is an anomoly in that it was released in the sink-or-swim period in the last couple weeks of December and looked like it was going to sink because of critical panning but somehow still found audience. It has consistently placed it in the Box Office top 10 throughout the entirety of January and February. This past weekend it was in 6th place in the 9th week of release with an extremely healthy $6 million dollars, while Star Wars: The Last Jedi isn't even in the top 20 anymore (David Simms at the Atlantic has a good essay about this)

This dissonance was also inherent in my viewing experience. On the one hand, I found myself emotionally moved by the film and even shed a tear or two at the love story and the way this man uplifted the lives of all these outsiders. At the same time, I felt something was off. Good criticism is about reacting honestly and articulating that reaction. In this case, it took me a while to articulate that to myself. Ultimately, I found two main faults in the film.

The first was that this was a biopic of the old-fashioned model  (The Darkest Hour, Aviator, and Selma represent the latter model of focusing on a period of said historic figure's life) where there was a need to check off every part of this man's life without any discernment for which parts need more deep focus. With the musical numbers taking up so much of the running time, it puts a chronological stretch and the result was a superficial look at Barnum's life.

The second is something that I agree with the film critics in one of their gripes but in a different way than they state it. One of the many beefs of the critics (they also found the songs unusually bland and various plot holes) is the deviation from history but I regularly go to the website www.chasingthefrog.com and don't think the film is more ahistorical than your average work of historical fiction. In particular, this was a 19th century figure, and while audiences at large generally assume we have as much material available about someone 150 years ago as we do about someone 50 years ago, I can assure you as a researcher at the National Archives that's simply not true.

The quote "there's a sucker born every minute" is something that the film's detractors are saying is attributed to Barnum but that's not a certainty. Part of this is the mass of critical consensus generally picks up on issues of racism in ways that are overemphasizing. While Barnum was exploitative of black members in his employ, there seems little evidence that he was any more exploitative of that class of people than anyone else, and in missing the trees for the forest, he was a staunch abolitionist (it's theorized his theater got burned down by confederate allies).

Moreso, the idea that he was exploitative would have made him a great biopic subject because that's what made him complicated. He uplifted people's lives while also feeding off these people. It's a Faustian bargain the freaks had to make but it couldn't be denied that they'd rather be in the circus than not. This film, of course, was too glossy and superficial to deal with that and if you were thinking this film had an obligation to do so, you were looking for the wrong movie.

To the degree that the film deals with anything thematic, it's about the protagonist's self-actualization being tied to class and his need to shed the chip off his shoulder from once being on the lower rungs of society. The freaks in his employ turn out to be part of his salvation but they are still pushed to the side more than they could have and some scenes don't deal with this as much as they could. In particular, the scene where Jackman

At the end of the day, however, I agree with the film critics, because I didn't feel like I was watching PT Barnum. It wasn't historical inaccuracy, however, but rather, the relationship of the project to its lead: It was well-publicized that this was Jackman's pet project. It was clearly Hugh Jackman the gregarious song and dance man I was seeing on the screen and not any attempt at immersion into a part. That kind of approach might have been ok in the biopics of the old days (Gary Cooper in Pride of the Yankees or Cary Grant in Night and Day are those two guys just carrying their winning personas on screen) but it doesn't fly today.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Review of X-Men 2

Review of X2:
With much of the exposition out of the way, the second installment of the X-Men is much freer to develop its characters and engage in some summer fun along the way. The film benefits from its large and talented ensemble, which includes a number of new heroes and villains entering the scene. New characters include a vanishing monk named Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) and a conflicted teenager with firepower named Pyro (Shawn Ashmore). Of course, we're treated to a brand new villain (Bryan Cox), which adds a new dimension to the battle of good vs. evil as the good guys and bad guys are forced to enter into a temporary alliance and some riveting complications result thereafter. Overall, Bryan Singer has the challenging task of navigating the complexities of this comic and showing the appealing side of this band of misfits, and he comes through in flying colors
With much of the exposition out of the way, the second installment of the X-Men is much freer to develop its characters and engage in some summer fun along the way. The film benefits from its large and talented ensemble, which includes a number of new heroes and villains entering the scene. New characters include a vanishing monk named Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) and a conflicted teenager with firepower named Pyro (Shawn Ashmore). Of course, we're treated to a brand new villain (Bryan Cox), which adds a new dimension to the battle of good vs. evil as the good guys and bad guys are forced to enter into a temporary alliance and some riveting complications result thereafter. Overall, Bryan Singer has the challenging task of navigating the complexities of this comic and showing the appealing side of this band of misfits, and he comes through in flying colors