MovieChat Forums > The Color of Money (1986) Discussion > Worst film to win Best Actor?

Worst film to win Best Actor?

posted 14 years ago by user-153
20 replies | jump to latest

Firstly, the film is a mess, the worst kind of 80's money-driven, hard-lit Tom Cruise-over-acting rubbish. Awful. We all love Paul Newman, of course we do, the man is a legend. But his performance in this film is lackluster. Bob Hoskins gave one of the most emotive performances ever in Mona Lisa the same year, so go figure the Academy giving the little man to Newman. It shows what a nonsense the Oscars are. The fact that Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, who, let's be honest, can't act at all, got nominated underlines the face.

I can't think off hand of another film which was so bad but spawned a best actor/actress - anyone?

[–] liveonppv 14 years ago

I actually think all of them did a great job. Even though Tom Cruise is not the best actor of his generation, he wa spretty convinving in his role as Vincent.

Paul Newman isn't a versatile actor but he's good at what he does and I think this is his best role ever, including the Hustler.

Mary Elizabeth Masteranotnio did a fine job here as well.

[–] user-153 14 years ago

and in answer to the question?

[–] hattorihanzo69 14 years ago

In answer to the question: You. Are. Wrong.

'Sand is overrated... It's just tiny, little rocks.'

[–] user-153 14 years ago

Insightful. I think I have read your work in The New Yorker.

[–] hattorihanzo69 14 years ago

Lol, i can't think of a witty comeback

'Sand is overrated... It's just tiny, little rocks.'

[–] balthazar_bee 13 years ago

I'd say no. I like John Wayne's work, but I'd rather watch this than the original True Grit any day of the week.

[–] tiger01 13 years ago

Firstly, I really enjoy pool, so I am kind of biased in judging the film. I disagree with you about Newman's performance because without him, I just cannot imagine this film being very successful and appealing to me. I cannot really articulate it, but he has these little subtle moments throughout this film that makes me really enjoy this performance. I'm not really a Tom Cruise fan, but he really fit this specific role to a tee. In my opinion, MEM really could have been replaced by any other actress and it would have made no difference to me.

I cannot comment on Bob Hoskins (who is a very underrated actor anyway) since I have not seen that film. However, I can comment on the Oscars and am in total agreement with you about what a farce they really are. Stuff like Raiders of the Lost Ark losing to Chariots of Fire and things like Basil Poledouris' score for Conan and Kilmer in Tombstone not even being recognized are just absolutely crazy in my opinion.

As to your main question, I am sure it is all about tastes, but I (personally) thought As Good as It Gets was a pretty underwhelming film to say the least to win best actor (even though Jack did the "House M.D." type of role before it was cool, I guess). Again, personal opinion here.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-153 13 years ago

haha, very funny!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-153 13 years ago

Hha, ok, stop it now, I'm beginning to think you're being serious!!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-153 13 years ago

Just so I've got this straight, you think Bo Hopkins was in Mona Lisa. Well, I'll put a link to the film in this message, and you can tell me where his name is in the cast.

You WILL see Bob Hoskins is in it though. He played George and his name's at the top.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091538/

(ps. I've bet myself that, realising your mistake, you don't respond to this message. You are brilliant though - very funny!)

[–] mariahfan-1 13 years ago

Paul only won on this occassion because the academy felt like it owed him. if anything he should've tied with Sidney Poitier in 1964 or Tomy Hanks in 1995 Hud & Nobody's Fool are both better performances all around than TCOM is.

"why are you married to him then if you can't work with him how do you live with him?"

[–] gluserty (626) 7 years ago

Right, since most people who have seen 1982's "The Verdict" believe (I know I do) that Paul Newman should've won an Oscar for his role there, but with "Gandhi" in the running that year, that didn't happen (no disrespect to Ben Kingsley intended). now, I think the film is perfectly fine, but I thought it lacked a little punch and was associated with probably more awards than warranted. However, I think the performances are right on the ball, especially from Newman, the Cruise cruise, & Mastrantonio.

[–] MurrayChadwick 13 years ago

obvious troll is obvious

[–] GrigoryGirl 13 years ago

It was Newman's "lifetime" Oscar. The Academy does that a lot. Newman has given much better performances.

It was like when Al Pacino won for Scent of a Woman. Pacino had many better performances in his career.

[–] gashden 13 years ago

This is going way back, but... IN OLD ARIZONA. Atrocious performance from Warner Baxter. I know the standards were a little different, considering talkies were still new. But honestly, there's no redeeming quality. His accent alone is unnerving.

And just by comparison, Lee Marvin in CAT BALLOU (the winner...) versus Rod Steiger in THE PAWNBROKER. Steiger delivered one of the better screen performances of his time and lost to an action star who dared...to play two roles exactly the same. It was and still is a shame.

[–] jason-brooks15 11 years ago

Halley Berry won an award for "Monster's Ball"... enough said.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]