MovieChat Forums > In the Line of Fire (1993) Discussion > John Malkovich Vs. Tommy Lee Jones

John Malkovich Vs. Tommy Lee Jones

posted 19 years ago by otaichi
51 replies | jump to latest

It was 1993. I was sixteen. It was the first time in my life I realised the Academy Awards were B.S. The best supporting actor role went to Jones in the Fugitive. The Fugitive was hugely popular and a great film. But Jones' acting was so one dimensional without any range.

Malkovich on the other hand was cool, angry, scary, justified, calm. He had range. I was sixteen and I knew this. I say Malkovich was robbed of the Oscar. I say Tommy Lee Jones should retroactively hand it over to John Malkovich.

What do you all think. The award goes to Jones (The Fugitive) or to Malkovich (In the Line of Fire)?

[–] mitchconn 19 years ago

Not only do I completely agree with you, but I was about to start this very
topic! I love both movies and both actors, but Malkovich's performance
was better. He deserved the Oscar. The other egregious Oscar
snub was Gene Hackman winning for Unforgiven over Jack Nicholson
in A Few Good Men, which was an absolute travesty. I thought
Unforgiven was lousy.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

The other egregious Oscar
snub was Gene Hackman winning for Unforgiven over Jack Nicholson
in A Few Good Men, which was an absolute travesty.
Unforgiven was lousy.

I don't agree with you there. And by the same token, one could say that Clint Eastwood deserved the Best Actor Oscar over Al Pacino in 1992. But to quote Eastwood's William Munny in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 8 years ago

I have to disagree. I think Clint gave one of his best performance of his career in Unforgiven but Pacino gave an outstanding performance in SOAW and gave the best performance I've ever witnessed in any actor in TGF2.

Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 15 years ago

I don't think that at all. Jack had already won 2 oscars at the time. Gene Hackmen only had one so I say he deserved it.
Slimer! That was my clean uniform!" Winston Real Ghostbusters Episode Lost and foundry

[–] nathan515 14 years ago

Gene Hackman could possibly be the best film actor ever in my book....If not number 1, then darn close.

[–] wallsofjericho 14 years ago

I agree, Gene Hackman largely deserved his win for Unforgiven. Nicholson was good in a one note role, but Hackman's little Bill was far more complex. Nicholson did have a lot less screentime than Hackman, but still, Little Bill is a more difficult role to pull of than Col.Jessep

[–] myturn21 19 years ago

Eh, just stick with your orig argument: the Oscars are bogus! 90% of the time the actors that should win never do & the most popular actors walk off with the awards. Example: Malcolm X should have taken Best Pic & Denzel should have won for Best Actor. But the Academy doesn't like Spike Lee (they were particularly upset with him over X) & they gave Al Pacino the award simply because of his longevity.

Now, that said, the Malk vs Jones debate would be WAY too close to call for me! When the awards were handed out, I hadn't seen Line of Fire & I was quite pleased that Jones had won (back when I was more naive about the Oscars being nothing more than a bloated popularity contest). Had I been more informed I might have gone for Malk because he scared me *beep*

-----------------
Restore accountability to the White House -- IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!

[–] Dantès 19 years ago

X for Best Picture?

Now THAT would be a travesty.

Spike Lee is such a knob.

[–] minime7215 19 years ago

I disagree. I liked both actors and both films, but I loved Tommy Lee's performance much more. It was more enjoyable to watch overrall, though Malkovich had more color. Jones just made me smile in every scene he was in, though he plays the same character in every film nowadays and it's starting not to work. Malkovich does need an oscar...

[–] goleafs84 19 years ago

As much as I liked both acors in their rolls, I would have to go with John Malkovich hands down over Tommy Lee Jones.

Malkovich was pure evil in his role and he made your skin crawl.

Jones on the other hand as Agent Gerrard, was funny, but to me that's all he was; Just someone who uttered a bunch of one-liners after another. To be Oscar worthy, you have to offer me more.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rockycairns 18 years ago

John Malkovich turned in one of the best performances in movie history in this film ive seen both this and The Fugitive and Malkovich was definately robbed at the oscars

[–] Maddo 16 years ago

It took you till 16 to realise the Academy Awards were *beep*
You have my pity! :P

[–] capnbobbert 19 years ago

malkovich deserved it.

[–] cristyb321 18 years ago

When I watched the oscars that year, I totally believed that Mr. Malkovich was robbed. And, I still believe that. Do you think he could not have won, because he was portraying a potential presidential assassin? Maybe the wrong message the academy would want to give out? I could get into the whole political sidings of Hollywood now, but I won't. I just recommended this movie to a movie buff - he was supposed to rent it tonight. I really hope he did! Malkovich was amazingly psycho, yet you wanted to watch.

[–] elkor 18 years ago

Tough call but I agree. I saw this film when I was about 18 and I thought John Malkovich was totally engrossing, his screen presence was remarkable. I have followed what he's done ever since.

But I think Tommy Lee Jones is an excellent actor as well, so I'm not surprised he won. Fugitive is also a great movie.

And as things fell apart,
Nobody paid much attention.

[–] commanderblue 18 years ago

Great but I thought In the Line of Fire was better and Malkovich totally owned Jones. Why he won is so unknown to me.

"Because Booth had flair, panache - a leap to the stage after he shot Lincoln."- John Malkovich

[–] Stein-e 18 years ago

Ralph Finnes should have won he was extremly good in Schindler's list

[–] tomgair 18 years ago

malkovich hands down easily one of the best villians ever his voice is awesome and his performance is sterling

[–] brandomarlon2003 18 years ago

I agree that Malkovich gave a much more effective performance with "In The Line Of Fire". I think they gave Jones the Oscar for "The Fugitive" because they didn't give it to him in 1992 when he was nominated for the role of Clay Shaw in Oliver Stone's "JFK". I am not crazy about "JFK" but I think in particular Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, and Joe Pesci gave wonderful performances in there. Malkovich is an excellent actor and makes a terrific, flamboyant villain. He was one of the best things about the no-brainer "Con Air" and he was the only freaking good thing as the mobster bad guy in "Knockaround Guys" (that movie was a piece of *beep* Malkovich deserved to win an Oscar for "Fire" and for his earlier role as a blind man in "Place In The Heart" (a rare tender and sympathetic character for him; he usually place intense figures). He was also superb in 2003's "Ripley's Game".

[–] wallsofjericho 16 years ago

Ralph Fiennes should have won for Schindler's List, John was great though

[–] Austerlust 16 years ago

I for sure agree that Malkovich would be a more worthy winner of the academy award then lee Jones in -93, but as a few others have already said Fiennes was better in Schindlers list.

Fiennes loosing to Lee jones in -93 will for me probably always stand as one of the most incompetent decisions the academy has ever made.

[–] A-Town8814 16 years ago

Ralph Fiennes deserved it the most.

DiCaprio, Malkovich, and Postlethwaite were all damn good too.

And Jones was the weakest.

The oscars are a joke.