I've never understood why Hanks won an Oscar when there is one particular scene in this film where his acting is so bad it's shocking that it made the cut. I won't say which scene it is but it takes place during the first half hour. Every time this movie comes out on the pay channels I always stick around to catch it. It's simply preposterous! LOL.
shareHe won because it was a perfect Oscar bait role for an actor. It was a brave role of him to take, but it's all about the writing that won him an Oscar. Homosexual aids diseased person wrongfully dismissed, and fighting for his rights even though he dies in the end. Ticks every box for the Academy.
It didn't hurt that Hanks is a great actor, but I feel like any better than average actor would have also won the Oscar. I thought his performance was pretty good, but I thought Washington was better.
No expectations, no disappointments.
He won because he played a homosexual and Hollywood loves gays. Plain and simple. Look at Brokeback Mountain and all the accolades that movie got. It was a good movie, but no where near as great as Hollywood would lead you to believe.
--------------------------------
You couldn't handle my undivided attention - Dwight K. Schrute
rubblebubblecake suggests that Hollywood is biased TOWARDS gays, ciing Brokeback Mountain, casually ignoring the fact that both lead actors were NOT awarded the Best (Supporting) Actor award and that the film did not win Best Picture (losing to the markedly inferior film, Crash).
sharehe did not won because he played a gay man, he won as the film was about hiv/aids which in 1993 was a highly taboo issue which was a death sentence.
share[deleted]
I don't know what scene the OP is talking about but I agree the oscar is undeserved;
He did a decent job with his role but how many lines did he have in the second half of the film? Contrast that to cast away when he brought a freaking volleyball to life and didn't win an oscar? Definitely won the oscar here merely for taking the role as opposed to how he executed it.
Best acting awards are not given for the quantity of lines or even screen time, but rather quality of the performance. Marlon Brando won for The Godfather and was barely in half the movie. IMO Liam Neeson should have won for Schindler's List, but I have no problem with Hanks winning.
shareYeah, Washington was more of a lead than Hanks. I don't know which scene the OP is talking about either (or why they're being mysterious about it), but I know, for me, Hanks' performance turned me off early when he got the promotion. That entire scene just seemed very clumsily handled to me, between Hanks over-acting and the incessant close-ups.
I respect what the film was trying to do, but it had this unshakable after-school-special feel to it. The first half was kind of a mess.
As far as Best Actor goes, I thought Anthony Hopkins (THE REMAINS OF THE DAY) and Liam Neeson (SCHINDLER'S LIST) were more deserving.
I do not think Hanks has ever given a bad performance. This movie was about emotion, which he portrayed perfectly.
shareNot a fan of Hanks but I thought his performance was astounding.
shareYou clearly don't know an awful lot about acting. It was a brilliant performance through and through. You probably don't like it because you don't like Hanks, period. Or gays, period. If you're so confident the movie contains a scene so preposterously bad, I fail to see why you wouldn't indicate which scene it is. Your vague derision lacks integrity so it's a little hard to take it seriously.
shareEven just lookin at your title makes me laugh. Even lately, when Tom stars in rubbish movies, he still acts great. So just get a life.. amazing performance here. Noone does it so subtle and emotional like him.
share