The biggest possible problem with Day-Lewis' performance is not his skill (which is unmatched), but the fact that it is a copy of John Huston. Now, some argue that invalidates Day-Lewis' achievement (though this is certainly up for contention).

quote:

Originally posted by Cinematical:
The biggest possible problem with Day-Lewis' performance is not his skill (which is unmatched), but the fact that it is a copy of John Huston. Now, some argue that invalidates Day-Lewis' achievement (though this is certainly up for contention).

happy 19th!

Why, thank you very much!

so how is it a copy of John Huston?

quote:

Originally posted by Cinematical:
Why, thank you very much!

Interestingly enough, John Huston died on your half-birthday...why are coincidences always there for me to find?

His voice is dead-on John Huston. The inflection, the tone, all of it. Some also claim the way he carries himself, the way he walks, etc, are Huston. I'm just citing the one major criticism that's been leveled against Day-Lewis. He may have done it completely unintentionally - maybe.

"I believe that Clooney, however, played a role so against his type, and did it well, it earned an Oscar."

Clooney played Clooney. He didn't even deserve a nomination. The whole film was mediocre and predictable.

And you can say Day-Lewis was doing John Huston. Clooney has gotten a lot of praise for his role, and so did the film in general (in fact, it has about the same Rotten Tomatoes score as There Will Be Blood). Ultimately, I cannot comment directly on the film because I haven't seen it, but I can cite what's already been said.

You could say he took the voice and some cues from Huston, but how do you explain the raw emotion he showed during the baptism and end scenes? Or the fact that he delves deeper and deeper into madness and is scarily convincing? The point is that he's not just delivering his lines and smiling slyly and raising his eyebrow. It's a captivating performance, and not something any actor can do. He became that man. I like Clooney, but Day-Lewis is leagues ahead of him in the acting department.

Also, who cares what the popular vote is? If No Country didn't win, I'd still think it's this year's best film. Michael Clayton is a buzz movie and filler for the Oscars. There are so many other people and films that should have taken its slot for best actors and best picture, namely David Fincher's excellent Zodiac.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy Hatts:
There are so many other people and films that should have taken its slot for best actors and best picture, namely David Fincher's excellent Zodiac.

Or from the other David... Inland Empire . I know he could never get a Best Picture award from the Academy ( but in my opinion it WAS the best picture of 2007...and just about of all time) Though I think if more people would have watched it, it could've easily gotten noms for Best Actress {Laura Dern} and Best Sound Design.
Not that Lynch even cares about Oscars. (He distributed the film himself )

quote:

There are so many other people and films that should have taken its slot for best actors and best picture, namely David Fincher's excellent Zodiac.

I have to agree. I was really very disappointed to see that Zodiac was overlooked this year. Definitely one of my top films of 2007.

Yes, I must agree about Zodiac as well.

Oh, and Braininabox, did you see the Golden Compass win coming? I actually saw the film (for free, and begrudginly), and not only was it terrible, but the special effects ranged from OK to downright terrible. Transformers, for how bad a movie it was, had some great effects.