in my opinion, Sly deserved the oscar, his performance in Creed is much more of life and much more realistic. I'd even take Mark Ruffalo over his performance of Abel.
shareCreed? Lol, it's pracically unwatchable and I love the Rocky movies.
------------------------------
Prepare to be judged....with a FGM-148 Javelin!
If you think Mark Rylance's win is even CLOSE to the most underserved Oscar ever, you have zero business commenting on the Oscars. Heck, it wasn't even the most undeserving Oscar at last night's ceremony!
I find Oscar Bait infinitely more interesting than ticket bait
Should have went to Ruffalo or Stallone. The only reason Rylance got it was because the film was a Spielberg film and Spielberg has a huge following in the academy. Bridge of Spies was one of his poorest films and should have never been in the running with films like The Revenant, Big Short, Spotlight and Mad Max Fury Road. In fact Creed which is a weaker overall movie than the above mentioned still also surpassed Bridge of Spies in terms of the director doing something thats fresh and entertaining, but you have a young black man named Ryan Coogler vs old white Jewish man Steven Spielberg...you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know who's ass the academy is going to kiss.
shareNo need to resort to the old anti-Jewish stereotype. That's ugly. Especially since it's false, what you say about Spielberg. For years, it was considered that the Academy had it in for him. It was only after Schindler's List that he finally won, even though many felt he deserved Best Director many times over before. So your point is wrong regardless....Spielberg has been largely unfairly treated by the Academy. Hardly any sucking up there.
The bottom line is that I agree with the OP. Rylance IS a terrific actor but he's done much better work, as in "Wolf Hall". This role had very little to it.
If a great performance is sulking throughout the entire thing and staring at the floor, then it was an amazing job. Stallone- robbed.
"The future is tape, videotape, and NOT film?"
The only reason Rylance got it was because the film was a Spielberg film and Spielberg has a huge following in the academy
Haven't seen Creed yet so won't comment on that, but Rylance's performance was far superior to Ruffalo's. I like Ruffalo but he isn't a particularly compelling actor. I don't know why he got an Oscar nom for Spotlight (which was a better film than Bridge of Spies - marginally) or why Rachel McAdams did. The best performances in that film belonged to Liev Schreiber and Michael Keaton.
Rylance disappointed me in Wolf Hall but he was superb in Bridge of Spies and easily better than all the actors nominated. Had Idris Elba received a nom for Beasts of No Nation, he would have been more deserving.
Rylance disappointed me in Wolf Hall but he was superb in Bridge of Spies and easily better than all the actors nominated. Had Idris Elba received a nom for Beasts of No Nation, he would have been more deserving.
verybody including the press and major actors and people that actually matter in Hollywood (i.e not you) though that it was going to Stallone, Hardy or Ruffalo.
Bridge of spies performed poorly at the box office
Well,I can't be sure for all 88 years of the Awards,but in my lifetime and a few years before,even the "controversial" ones like Marisa Tomei or Martin Landau,the actors had much more screen time and gave much better and important performances.
shareIf you think Mark Rylance's win is even CLOSE to the most underserved Oscar ever, you have zero business commenting on the Oscars. Heck, it wasn't even the most undeserving Oscar at last night's ceremony!
Do you seriously think that because I disagree with the OP, I have to be a paid shill? What would be the point? The Oscars are over, the movie has been on Blu-ray for weeks, why would anybody involved feel the need to pay people to disagree with you or the OP on the internet?
I find Oscar Bait infinitely more interesting than ticket bait
Agreed I just rented this today and that character was barely even in movie when the surporting role coulda been any one in this besides hanks lol.... And as last comment made is true all he did was stand and looked at floor like it is what it is...where's the acting in that lol... But besides that I thought movie was wonderful and shame how people in this country treat others for doing right.. That lawyer is a lawyer we all want on our side guilty or not this is a guy who will fight for every legal right u have even if morally speaking the guy is guilty as a lawyer his job is to defend with every right u have and when courts would rather throw the book at people cause they feel mortally affected when they in fact are to be bias'd and uphold the rights but we know judges and DA's use their personal feelings more than they should.. Glad this lawyer did the right thing by pushing for his clients rights even thou he was guilty but being guilty u should still be treated fairly.. It's about what is legally right not about what is morally right. Movie shoulda had maybe a much better Oscar... Heck all the design of "east Berlin" was better design than mad max which had a whole desert to build on..mad max was good but way to many oscars.. Heck mad max beat star wars on every chance they had wtf did Star Wars do to not even get a Oscar for sound or design or costume lol
shareAbsolutely agreed. Stallone, Hardy and Ruffalo were clearly more deserving than this barely known guy
shareI agree. Even if they didn't want to give it to "You know Who". There must have had a choice than this. Mark Rylance performance was way to lifeless that i didn't give a sh!t about his Rudolf Abel. Let alone give him an award for it.
shareStallone, Hardy and Ruffalo were clearly more deserving than this barely known guy
There was not much substance to the part and no complexity. There were no LAYERS to Rylance's performance. I don't fault Rylance...I fault the script. He was not given very much to do except sulk and stare at the ground, mostly.Just because you can't see something (or refuse to look for it) doesn't mean there's nothing there.
Just because you can't see something (or refuse to look for it) doesn't mean there's nothing there.
They should have focused much less on his character and more on Francis Gary Powers's aspect of the story including his capture and his torture at the hands of the Soviets. The focus on the story should have been getting him back to the U.S.
I don't know why they portrayed Abel so sympathetically. He was a Soviet communist and an enemy of the United States and should have been portrayed as such. His beliefs were as evil as Nazi and radical Islamic beliefs. They would never portray a loyal Nazi so sympathetically, though Letters From Iwo Jima did portray the Japanese war criminals who started WW2 and attacked Pearl Harbor in a sympathetic light.
They should have focused much less on his character and more on Francis Gary Powers's aspect of the story including his capture and his torture at the hands of the Soviets. The focus on the story should have been getting him back to the U.S.Why? The film is based on Donovan's book "Strangers on a Bridge". It's (mostly) about the Abel trial. The exchange comes late in the book and there is not that much about Powers because he was not a part of Abel's trial. You want to make a film about Powers, go right ahead. Just remember, Powers was reviled in America at the time, something I'm sure you would have trouble conveying.
I don't know why they portrayed Abel so sympathetically. He was a Soviet communist and an enemy of the United States and should have been portrayed as such.So what? In case you didn't notice, he was on trial for his life for crimes committed against the United States. Why do you have such a panty bunch about this? It's perfectly clear in the movie. Donovan's book describes Abel's character in great detail. The film follows that part quite well. What you think of Abel is unimportant. How you think he should have been portrayed matters even less. That's how Donovan describes him and that is what matters. Sorry he doesn't fit your "commie from central casting" stereotype but that's how he was. Like it or lump it.
They would never portray a loyal Nazi so sympathetically, though Letters From Iwo Jima did portray the Japanese war criminals who started WW2 and attacked Pearl Harbor in a sympathetic light.If you say so. Do you have any evidence that this is true? Do you think your own personal bent and lack of ability to think critically for yourself might have a significant role to play in your lack of touch with basic reality? Why should anyone make movies to appeal to your personal political bent? share
Frankly i don't know if Mark Rylance should have been nominated. His role was more that of a special guest star than a full on supporting actor. Most people who are nominated for supporting actors are in it for more than just 30 minutes or 25% of the movie. The problem is you don't get the time to know him as a character. He was there more to just to move the plot forward. Frankly i didn't care about him at all. And infact i found his character to be bland. If Rylance is a great actor. This was not the movie that showcased it.
shareFor those complaining that he was bland: He was a prisoner of war. How was he supposed to act?
Rylance absolutely deserved the award, others did too. That's what happens with awards.
Rylance's role was nuanced and well-acted. It's subtle, but that's what makes it worthy of the award.
For those complaining that he was bland: He was a prisoner of war. How was he supposed to act?
Rylance absolutely deserved the award, others did too.
Just repeating "ONE NOTE! ONE NOTE!" over and over again doesn't make it true.
Tell me, then... if the performance was so clearly one note and subpart, why did he win the Oscar? Not only that, why did he win or be nominated for so many critics awards, none of whom are affiliated with the Academy? Why did even reviewers who were lukewarm on the movie as a whole single him out for praise?
Are they lying? Corrupt? Deluded? Please explain this to me, preferably with supporting evidence beyond "ONE NOTE!"
I find Oscar Bait infinitely more interesting than ticket bait
Just repeating "ONE NOTE! ONE NOTE!" over and over again doesn't make it true.
Tell me, then... if the performance was so clearly one note and subpart, why did he win the Oscar?
Not only that, why did he win or be nominated for so many critics awards, none of whom are affiliated with the Academy? Why did even reviewers who were lukewarm on the movie as a whole single him out for praise?
Are they lying? Corrupt? Deluded? Please explain this to me, preferably with supporting evidence beyond "ONE NOTE!"
There have been many examples throughout the years of Oscars that shocked people when they won. Marisa Tomei is one.
What people should be comparing him to to determine whether his role was well-acted or not is the REAL Abel. If this was the real Abel's demeanor and personality in real life, then what's to complain about?
Has anyone seen any footage of the real Abel to see what he was really like? THAT's what we should compare Rylance's version to.
It's a very subtle and reserved performance, he underplays the character really well, and that's important, especially because he's playing off Tom Hanks in most scenes. He left a great impression with very little screentime.
shareIt's a very subtle and reserved performance, he underplays the character really well, and that's important, especially because he's playing off Tom Hanks in most scenes. He left a great impression with very little screentime.