MovieChat Forums > City Slickers (1991) Discussion > Jack won an Oscar !

Jack won an Oscar !

posted 19 years ago by freakaman24
16 replies | jump to latest

I loved this movie- it was funny and well written and acted, but I really think Jack Palance won his Oscar because of sentimentality. He was good in the movie, but I would hardly call it Oscar worthy. I hate it when people say an actor won for this or that because they are old or they haven't won b-4 after so many noms, but his really smacks of it. The other noms were-

Michael Lerner in Barton Fink - hilarious- I would have voted for him.

Harvey Keitel in Bugsy

Ben Kingsey in Bugsy

Tommy Lee Jones in JFK

City Slickers was a popular hit and it gave Palance a nice showcase , but I still think he won by default. Keitel and Kingsley cancelled themselves out and JFK was under fire for straying away from what was considered the truth so that wrecked Tommy's chance and Michael Lerner was not well known so they gave it to the vet actor Palance.
Just my opinion- any-one else ?

[–] ijonesiii 19 years ago

I agree that Jack Palance's Oscar was more a "Body of Work" Sentimental Oscar rather than for his work in CITY SLICKERS, which was hardly Oscar-worthy. I would have to dsagree with you about who should have won...I would have given the Best Supporting Actor Oscar that year to Tommy Lee Jones for JFK.

[–] insanemansam5 19 years ago

I just assumed it was a bone award because the academy didn't want to give this movie any other oscars

[–] rockycairns 18 years ago

we all know the oscar should of gone to Gary Oldman for JFK

We all need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are from time to time

[–] krp-7 17 years ago

He wasn't any better in this than he was in Shane.

It may have well been a "make-up" Oscar.

[–] ijrichter 17 years ago

I though he was amazing when he first appeared, but it didn't really feel Oscar worthy, and then he disappears from the film. So, yeah, it feels like a carrer Oscar. If I were to nominate anybody in this film, it would be either Daniel Stern or Bruno Kirby, both of whom really touched me with several of their scenes. Also, I felt that year, they nominated the wrong people from the other films in this category. I felt Tommy Lee Jones was nothing special in JFK, he just looked funny. I would've nominated Donald Sutherland for that (he only has one scene, but it's so memorable). Also, Michael Lerner was just a comic relief in Barton Fink, s for that film, I would've gone with John Goodman (a truly underrated actor). Of the five nominees of that year, my vote would be Ben Kingsley for Bugsy, for playing a character we know is dangerous but we also feel some sympathy for his tough situation. Harvey Keitel was good as well, but I preferred him in Thelma & Louise (that same year). So, basically, I'm not a big fan of the lineup overall, and while Jack Palance was truly memorable in his short time in this film, it truly feels they gave it to him for career sympathy (though he was a hoot with his acceptance speech).

[–] salvin 16 years ago

I don't agree with you at all. Jack managed to create a wonderful character, allthough his very short screen time. He really made me believe that he was the last of a dying breed. And the transistion from a scary badass, to a sweet old man, is outstanding. Wonderful performance from Jack, and 100% oscar worthy.

[–] rocker6289 16 years ago

YESSSSS!!!! Thank God. I was kinda tired of reading about how he shouldn't have won. I thought it was a great performance. Not to take away from the other actors. But i think if everyone wants to say how this guy or that guy should have won, they should do it on that actors page. I'm not saying this in an offensive way, after all it is a free country, everyone has their right to say whatever they want. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, and because i appreciate the man's work, out of respect for the actor.

[–] rtcnz 16 years ago

The problem is they gave Jack Palance a token career Oscar, denying Tommy Lee Jones the JFK Oscar. Then the next year, they gave Tommy Lee Jones a token "apology" Oscar when any of the other nominees should've won. It's stupid, the best actor should win, not the one who is "due".

[–] A-Town8814 16 years ago

None of those nominees were really outstanding.

Palance, Jones, Kingsley, Lerner, and Keitel were all nothing special.

But Jones or Lerner deserved it the most.

[–] satviewer2000 16 years ago

There are nearly 6000 people who vote for the winners of the Academy Awards. Are you implying that somehow all these voters get together and conspire to vote for certain actors etc just because they feel sorry for them?

Whether they deserve to win or not is a matter of opinion, but I doubt that there is any sort of conspiracy going on so that certain actors/movies/directors can win.

[–] gbromberg 15 years ago

I couldn't disagree with you more. Jack Palance was terrific in this movie. Probably the most memorable character in this movie, even moreso than the three main leads.

Those others you mentioned ... Kingsley, Jones, Keitel, Lerner. Good actors, good performances, but memorable?

[–] freakaman24 15 years ago

Oh My God - He didn't do anything - Don't get me wrong - He was funny , but come on , he played a parody of himself from Shane ( which he was great ) but I still think he won because he was old - Not to knock what you you feel about his performance and it was memorable but not Oscar Worthy

[–] pking-2 15 years ago

He didn't do anything

What do you mean?

It seemed like he acted (well) in a memorable supporting role. What more do you demand to become an Oscar nominee? (no, being your personal favorite doesn't count as valid criteria, sorry...it's a vote by the academy...)

You mean, like he'd be more award-worthy if he cried on cue or portrayed a disease or effected an accent or stuntwork or ?

(he did portray heart disease after all :-) or something)

I will give you that I've seen some roles (eg Beatrice Straight in Network) that won but were quite small. Is that what you mean? (though that situation certainly doesn't apply to Curly's role in City Slickers)

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 15 years ago

I agree. Though I haven't seen Bugsy. I didn't really like JFK very much at all. And I wasn't really that impressed with Tommy Lee Jones' performance in it. But I really don't think Jack Palance deserved the oscar for it that much.

Hans: When you steal 600 million they will find you unless they think you're already dead.

[–] virtueteen85 14 years ago

I would agree but here's a tidbit. I would think that Harvey Keitel or Ben Kingsley would have at least won the oscar because of their roles in Bugsy. Even with Tommy Lee Jones in JFK I would agree on him winning. But with Lerner and Palance, I agree on their nominations but with Palance I wish they chose better.

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 12 years ago

I think it's basically the same old We're sorry we snubbed you oscar. Like Sean Connery winning for the Untouchables and Tommy Lee Jones winning for the Fugitive.

"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Seinfeld