Too bad Val Kilmer wasn't even nominated for his work in Tombstone, which was seen by many as a major snub. Jones did really well but out of all the noms, I think I would have gone with Fiennes.
Here's the nominees-
Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive
Leonardo DiCaprio - What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Ralph Fiennes - Schindler's List
John Malkovich - In the Line of Fire
Pete Postlethwaite - In the Name of the Father
I would have given it to Fiennes, he was absolutely horrifying as Amon Goeth
shareYeah, Kilmer first, then Jones or DiCaprio. they all did very good.
shareTommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive
shareEither him or Malkovich
shareAll the other nominees were better. Tommy Lee Jones should have won for JFK over Jack Palance in City Slickers.
shareAbsolutely - Jones as Clay Shaw was riveting. Palance just played Jack Palance.
I always thought Val was at least nominated for Tombstone. I mean, he was more Doc Holliday than the real Doc Holliday probably was. He elevated that flick to all-time classic level in the Porkins household.
That's why I hate the Oscars so much. It's not always about the best performance. It can be 'he's been nominated so much let's give him one for a lesser work' or 'he's gonna die soon and is iconic.'
Yeah. It reminds me of another decision by them. Sean Connery winning for the Untouchables over Morgan Freeman in Street Smart and Denzel Washington in Cry Freedom. I like Sean Connery but consider him more an action star than a great dramatic actor. In a way it is rather silly cause most people would consider Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington better actors.
shareYeah, Kilmer turned the legend into a legend in Tombstone. Although, not too long ago, I heard that Val Kilmer is real difficult to work with, which could have played a role in why he eventually didn't get the nom.
shareI have not seen In The Name Of The Father, so not sure about that performance, but Val in Tombstone was amazing.
shareKilmer first and foremost, then Fiennes.
shareJones deserved it.
share