The oscar should have been given to Mickey Rourke. Milk wasn't even a good movie and Rourke did way better in The Wrestler then Sean Penn did in Milk.
shareI personally believe the award should've gone to Frank Langella for his portrayal of Richard Nixon. That was just...a phenomenal performance
shareFrank Langella for this year. That is all.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MoviePro84?feature=mhee
(Rate and Comment On Videos.)
Mickey Rourke may have had the role of his life, but compare his performance to Penn's and you see why Sean Penn won and deserved to win.
Rourke did great and he acted good, although to be honest it wasn't really a challenge since he basically played himself.
Sean Penn on the other hand didn't act, he WAS Harvey Milk. Every movement, every speech, every gesture was pure Milk. It's like Milk returned to life or something.
And that's why Penn won the Oscar. There's a difference between acting and acting!
Penn became his character, and made you believe he was real. With Rourke you knew it was acting, good acting indeed but still acting!
I don't know about Penn's voice though. He spoke with that funny sounding "feminine" voice just like many gay people do but I just watched some Harvey Milk interviews and speeches and he didn't sound like that at all. He used his natural voice and did not alter it to "gay voice".
shareI would have given Best Actor to Frank Langella that year. Sean Penn had already won that award for his work in Mystic River five years earlier. But the Oscars don't always spread the wealth even when they have a good opportunity to do so.
shareMickey Rourke is way much better than him. His performance in The Wrestler is my #3 movie performances of all time.
There's something wrong with Esther.