Best Supporting Actor 2011: Results

5. Jonah Hill in Moneyball- Jonah Hill's performance is functional enough, but it never really stands out as anything that needed to be awarded.

4. Nick Nolte in Warrior- Nolte tries hard and gives a descent performance, but as with all of his performances, he never completely realizes the potential of his part.

3. Christopher Plummer in Beginners- Plummer's performance almost seems misused in the course of the film muting his emotional impact, when Plummer is on screen though he gives an effective enough of a performance.

2. Max von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close- Although he is in a very bad film, and must support an awful actor in the lead, Sydow's performance is the best part of the film creating a moving and mysterious portrait of a man who refuses to speak due to his past.

1. Kenneth Branagh in My Week With Marilyn- Branagh tops this weak year, although there were plenty of not nominated supporting performances. Interesting enough the order of the nominees is almost the reverse order of how I would rank the films the nominees, something that rarely happens I must say. Branagh stands as my choice with his good but not perfect impersonation of Laurence Olivier. What really gives him the win though is his ability to actually turn Olivier into a compelling character despite the sever limitations of the script, as well as have the potential problem of getting caught trying to make just an impression.

Deserving Performances:
Albert Brooks in Drive
Bryan Cranston in Drive
Mark Strong in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life

Best Supporting Actor 2011: Jonah Hill in Moneyball

Jonah Hill received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Peter Brand in Moneyball.

Jonah Hill's nomination as the meek numbers cruncher who works for Brad Pitt's General Manger Billy Beane in Moneyball is one of those confusing sort of nominations. It could be looked upon as simply a bonus nomination for the film which was nominated for Best Picture as well as Hill sort of tagged along with Brad Pitt's lead nomination. The only problem is somehow he was recognized multiple places and ended being nominated over the far superior performance by Albert Brooks in Drive. All I can say is simply what do they see in this performance that is so special? Well all I can say is there isn't anything special about it.

This is not to say he is bad though, but it is not a particularly remarkable performance. He plays the number cruncher as one would expect the number cruncher he has rather unimpressive presence all throughout and Pitt dominates every scene they are in together. Hill basically keeps Peter Brand as the fairly unassuming individual of the two who tells Beane what he needs to know, but never really does more than that. Hill remains functional most certainly, and is as Brand should be what that is is not anything notable. He only ever offers ammunition to the overall plot, and to Pitt, but never really takes a shot himself.

I suppose most of the performance really is what his chemistry with Pitt is but really their relationship is not really two sided in the film. As I said Pitt dominates every scene, Hill just does as he needs to for Brand nothing more. His scenes with Pitt I never found to be the standout in the scene, and if they were effective scenes that was really all do to Pitt. Hill performance simply is pretty much repetition of Peter Brand's simple manner of telling what he knows and nothing more. Really though I think Peter Brand actually could have been more under different hands than Hill's, as he could have stood out more if he actually took a scene from the film's leading actor but Hill never does.

Hill does have two scenes where he is suppose could have been used to show a different side other than the solely number crunching side of Brand. One he makes a deal over the phone for Beane and has a reaction when he succeeds. I have to say Hill again is very standard with this moment, and reacts as one would expect but he really does not show any particularly special joy, or passion in this scene to make it of note. His other scene is his final scene where he basically tries to cheer up Beane, but again Hill does not do anything special here. It might have been a little more meaningful if he showed Brand to be more supportive, of a character throughout, or perhaps showed growth of some really passion for Beane's cause, but the simple truth is Hill never does this.

In the end I really did not feel like Hill's performance ever gave Peter Brand much of a purpose other than to just set up the plot of the film. I suppose Peter Brand could have been a far more humorous and frankly more interesting if he had been portrayed by a stronger performer, but as is it just a standard standard part as portrayed by Hill. I still won't say that Hill is awful really, but this is not a strong performance by any means in anyway. I am just amazed really that anyone could find this performance to be something substantial, and something that just has to be awarded over far superior from far better actors, particularly one funnier comedian who also is a far more talented actor. Also I should note I promise not to bring up Brooks' snub in any more of my reviews of the other performances.

Best Supporting Actor 2011

And the Nominees Are:

Max Von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Kenneth Branagh in My Week With Marilyn

Christopher Plummer in Beginners

Jonah Hill in Moneyball

Nick Nolte in Warrior

Winners Breakdown: Sound Mixing & Editing

I'm going to start breaking down each category (or 2 at a time) and let you know my thoughts on who I want to win, and who I think will win. Starting it off with the Sound Categories! 


Sound Editing:
-Drive
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War Horse

Now, I'm no expert on Sound Editing. I know it's the creation of Sound Effects, but that's really about it. But when it comes to Sound Effects, and just general sound recording in films, I'd say Hugo and War Horse will be the biggest competitors, and I'm leaning more towards Hugo because of how many nominations it's received it'll most likely sweep in the Technical Awards. But don't count out the others. The real underdog here is Drive. This being it's only nomination, I wouldn't be surprised to see it win in this category.

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: War Horse
Dark Horse: Drive
Who I Want to Win: War Horse


Sound Mixing:
-The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War horse


Sound mixing I know a teeny bit more about. It's the mixing of levels of the already created sound, dialogue and music. Again, I'd probably say War Horse and Hugo are the big names here, but I particularly enjoyed the mixing in Moneyball- I actually noticed it. I'm betting for War Horse for this one (since it's either that or Hugo for both I figured it'd bet both on different categories, getting, likely, one right). Here I'd like to see Moneyball win. We'll see about that. 

Will Win:War Horse
Could Win: Hugo
Dark Horse:Moneyball
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball

Moneyball

Moneyball, 2011
Directed by Bennett Miller
Potential Nominations Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography

Synopsis: It's 2001, and the Oakland A's is the lowest salary team in the league. Billy Beane, the General Manager is fed up with losing, and losing good players to richer teams. How can you make a good team when you're running on $40 million, when the Yankees are running on $120 million? When Billy meets Peter Brand, a player analysis, he introduces Billy into a new way of thinking about baseball that could change everything anyone's ever thought baseball was about, and change it forever.

Before you start thinking, I'm a little late on reviewing it, just like Midnight in Paris, this is my review after watching it a second time. I went and saw it in theatres a few weeks after it's release in September, and loved it. Now, I'm no baseball fan. Sure, I've been to a few games. I've seen the Jays several times over the years, and went and saw the Yankees in NYC last April, but overall, baseball is not my thing at all. It doesn't really captivate me, nor interest me. It's a little slow-running for me, personally. However, this film really invited me right in. It was a film about baseball, but there wasn't a whole lot of baseball in it.

The film consists of the behind-the-scenes of baseball. Billy Beane is trying to figure out how to build a successful team from a tiny budget. Peter Brand tells him you aren't buying players, you're buying wins. And by buying wins you're buying runs, meaning you have to get people "who get on base". So many players are overlooked for a variety of different reasons. And we see that there is value in different ways than people think.

The story was really well told, with a really honest screenplay. It was well-paced, and introduced enough that non-baseball fans could follow it, but it wasn't too simplistic, it was just right. Additionally, the cinematography of this film is completely underrated, as is the sound mixing. The cinematography on the big screen was pretty dazzling in a subtle way. The green of the field was surrounding, and the montage scenes were beautifully shot, as were the everyday things, such as the dressing room and stands at night, the empty fields, everything. It probably won't be nominated, but I loved it anyways.

Along with that, the score by Mychael Dana is perfect for this film. It's slow-paced, and just so inspirational sounding. It's simple, and is so effective. The sound mixing for this film is great. So many times we have silence, and it's so effective. Silence, except for the sound of a ball hitting a bat, or just the low notes of the cello. While the score isn't thrilling by itself, it's extremely effective paired with the film.

I'd also like the mention the acting. Brad Pitt was really good in this film. He played all the different sides of Billy Beane so well, going from father, to GM, anger, love, pride, and competitiveness, and teacher. He was very convincing in his role, and expect him to receive a nomination, though I felt Clooney will likely steal the win, having given a slightly better performance. I've become a big fan of Brad Pitt lately. Not just the looks or whatever, but find him to be a really good actor, and always makes really good choices. Would love to see him win an Oscar, but sadly, it won't be this time. Additionally, like Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris, it's nice to see an actor who is usually in terrible movies (Superbad just being one of them) do a serious role, and show some potential. This especially paid off for Jonah Hill, having been great as Peter Brand, the awkward, statistics whiz kid that Billy befriends. He really showed some good potential, and he has a good shot at making the Supporting Actor cut on Tuesday.

Honestly, if this film won Best Picture, I wouldn't be disappointed. It was my favourite film of the awards season, and the year, before War Horse strolled along, and I still enjoyed it very much. It was incredibly well done, looks, story, acting, etc. While the Artist was a great film, I'd love to see this film win the Big Prize, but frankly, it's not going to happen, though I'd love to see it happen.

9/10

422. Moneyball

422. (24 Sep) Moneyball (2011, Bennett Miller)* 74



With zingers clearly written by Aaron Sorkin and under Bennett Miller's intensely focused direction, Moneyball's clearest fault is its tendency to be too on the nose. Nevertheless, it's captivating filmmaking that defies sports genre cliches. (It's a novelty that Moneyball is about an underdog team that's poised to defy all the odds, but doesn't actually go the distance.) Unlike most films integrating sports or new footage, Miller isn't reliant on them. Instead, he sustains tension or lets us off the hook to craft a bona fide crowd-pleaser. Brad Pitt and Chris Pratt give the film's most accomplished performances.

MONEYBALL

Written by Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin

Directed by Bennett Miller

Starring Brad Pitt, Johan Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman

Billy Beane: There are rich teams; there are poor teams; then there’s fifty feet of crap; and then there’s us.

These days, it seems that when it comes to conversations about the American economy, the focus is on the increasing divide between the rich and the poor. In MONEYBALL, that same gap is affecting America’s favourite pass time, baseball. How can a team that only has $40 million to pay its players possibly compete with teams that have three times that amount at their disposal? The answer is simple. Input everything you know about the players into a computer and let it do all the thinking for you. And once you have all your algorithms in place, you can apply them to the sport and rob it of all spontaneity and excitement.

Unfortunately, some of the fun and excitement that usually spills over from the sport itself into the baseball movie genre, has also disappeared from MONEYBALL. Bennett Miller’s second film after his incredible debut, CAPOTE, is a succinct account of how former Oakland Athletics general manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), changed the way major league baseball teams were formed in 2002. Inspired by a concept that was brought to him by his new assistant (Jonah Hill), Beane began adding players to his roster who were notorious for getting on base. The logic was that these players cost way less and produced more consistent, if not necessarily showy, results. MONEYBALL then becomes a waiting game to see if his theory pays off and less about the actual success of the players themselves.

Pitt gives a fine performance as the frustrated Beane, choosing to play most of his struggle internally while presenting with great confidence to all who doubt him. As strong as his performance is, it is not as impressively nuanced as the turn given by Philip Seymour Hoffman as the unfortunate coach who has to play with Beane’s team of mismatched baseball rejects. Even Hill shines as a young actor who is showing more and more promise in dramatic parts. No, the trouble with MONEYBALL is not the acting but rather the thin subtext of the script. Having gone through three hands before going into production, it comes across as self-important but doesn’t have the gravitas to back it up. As a result, MONEYBALL is solid entertainment, but it never manages to crack it out of the park.

Megamind

Continuing with my recent catching-up with animation movies I finally ended up watching Megamind. Technology has reached a level now that it’s taken for granted that the animation aspect of the movie will be good. So, considering the voice talents behind the movie, I was really excited to see it. Let’s face it; you have to be jumping with anticipation when Will Farrell, Brad Pitt, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, David Cross, and Ben Stiller are all in a movie lending their voices? Unfortunately, even after having a steller comic cast, it was the humor that disappointed me the most.

The story is that of a super villain, Megamind (Will Farrell) taking over Metro City, or Metrocity as he calls it, when he accidently kills the city's resident superhero Metro Man (Brad Pitt). Megamind goes through a change of heart as he courts his love interest Roxane Ritchie (Tina Fey) under the disguise of Bernard (Ben Stiller). In the process his boredom leads to creating a new superhero Titan (Jonah Hill) who in turn turns evil.

The story progresses fairly, but there aren’t that many laugh out moments as one would expect. There are twists towards the end which are definitely a welcome change. All the characters are likeable, but they are not the type I would expect kids to go gaga over. Maybe the funniest character in the movie is Minion (David Cross) who is a fish like creature resembling and even sounding like Klaus, the fish-in-the-bowl from the animation series American Dad.

Unlike a lot of the animation that has enough going on to keep the adults happy and interested along with the children who dragged them to the movie, Megamind caters solely to the younger audience. Megamind definitely demands one watch, but one that does not include going to the cinemas. It makes for the perfect DVD that can be put on to keep your kids happy for a good hour and a half while you finish your work at home in peace.

A modest 2.5 stars out of 5.