My Best:

James Cagney, Yankee Doodle Dandy

-It's not even his best role, but it's motha fuggin' Jimmy Cagney, ya dig?

Robert DeNiro, "Raging Bull"
-yeah, it was hammy, but it was pitch-perfect ham (mmm, pitch-perfect ham)

Rod Steiger, "In the Heat of the Night"

Jack Nicholson, "Cuckoo's Nest"

Adrien Brody, "The Pianist"
-oddly enough, it's just about the only role I've liked him in.

Worst:

1. Kevin Spacey, "American Beauty" - an embarrassing performance in the film that marks the Academy's most embarrassing moment

2-5. Kevin Spacey, "American Beauty"
-yes, it's that bad.

Dishonorable Mention:

Peter Finch in "Network" (A role that is lame as hell), Hanks in "Gump," Poitier in "Lilies of the Field," Anthony Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs", and Kevin Spacey in "American Beauty"

These were my picks:

Best 5:

1. F. Murray Abraham - Amadeus
2. Marlon Brando - The Godfather
3. James Stewart - The Philly Story
4. Gene Hackman - The French Connection
5. Gregory Peck - To Kill A Mockingbird

Worst 5:

1. Roberto "The Greatest A***hole to Win Any Award, Ever" Benigni
2. Russell Crowe - Gladiator (Incidentally, this film is my choice as the worst ever to win an Oscar)
3. Kevin Spacey - American Beauty
4. Yul Brynner - The King and I
5. Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man

I'm so happy to see Benigni get so much hate. I loathe Life Is Beautiful, and it's very satisfying to see that after all the hype wore down, everyone seems to agree.

My best 5:
1. Robert DeNiro - Raging Bull
(The legend was well earned. One of the few fully imagined characters I've seen.)
2. Gene Hackman - The French Connection
(The mania the role was given elevates this entire movie. Action pictures worthy of Oscars, wow.)
3. F. Murray Abraham - Amadeus
4. Gregory Peck - To Kill a Mockingbird
(I'm not sure how many points go to "acting" versus remarkable presence. But, given how much movies are built around presence we can't give it the short shrift. Plus, he created the transcendence.)
5. Marlon Brando - On the Waterfront (I'm not sure how much I even love the movie, but the breakdown in the car at the end is haunting.)
My worst 5:
1. Russell Crowe - Gladiator
(Somehow this man mustered up brilliant performances in the Insider and LA Confidential and completely flubbed many roles after. A Beautiful Mind was one of the worst examples of this.)
2. Kevin Spacey - American Beauty (It's odd, but almost everyone involved in this did better work, especially Ball and Spacey. Spacey is gifted but the movie was so unsubtle that it's remarkable that it got its accolades.))
3. Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
4. Anthony Hopkins - Silence of the Lambs (Yes, it WAS great but the followups have hurt the strength here. Plus Hopkins has been far better elsewhere, especially in Nixon and the M/I films.)
5. Paul Newman - The Color of Money (Meh. He's been fabulous before and after. This movie was consistently unengaging other than as a sequel.)

Wow, looking back at the winners, it's a lot easier to find bad ones than performances that have stood the test of time...

I seem to agree with most everybody on most everything. Gotta disagree with Mr. Long, Peter Finch was wonderful (not the best performance in Network, but there's depth beyond the yelling, especially in his scene with Ned Beatty... amazing). Alec Guiness, Jimmy Stewart in The Philadelphia Story, Paul Scofield, all great.

Worst? Rex Harrison, Lee Marvin, Sean Penn, Spacey, Denzel, etc. You folks are on the right track.

Though I gotta defend Tom Hanks in Gump at this point. The movie is unimaginably bad, no doubt, but Hanks really is giving it his best shot. Gimmicky role, worst-of-the-worst sort of film, but he's not the problem with it.

Overall, Best Actors... not that great. Sorta ehh all around.

Pacino is Scent of a Woman? Nobody watches it? I completely disagree with that statement and no for a fact that many people revisit this flick and it has a following everywhere. Does Pacino overact? Of course. Is it within the realms of his abrasive character to do so? Of Course! How could you not include Rissell Crowe's win for Gladiator on your list? Especially after seeing his performance in The Insider?

Best:

1. Marlon Brando - The Godfather. Iconic performance by an icon. When one thinks of The Godfather, they think of Marlon.

2. Robert DeNiro - Raging Bull - Most astonishing transformation onscreen by an actor ever.

3. Marlon Brando - On the Waterfront. The scene with Terry and his brother Charlie just may be Brando's best work.

4. Anthony Hopkins - The Silence of the Lambs. He's only in the movie for a short time, yet he looms over it in it's entirety.

5. F. Murray Abraham - Amadeus. Astonishing portrayal of a man who both admires and is jealous of one man.

Honorable Mention - George C. Scott - Patton, Adrien Brody - The Pianist, Kevin Spacey - American Beauty, Jack Nicholson - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,

Worst:

1. Roberto Benigini - A Beautiful Life.
Annoying and cloying. How the hell did the Academy think that he was better than Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Nick Nolte and Edward Norton?

2. Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man.
I think that Tom Cruise gave the much better performance in the movie.

3. Russell Crowe - Gladiator.
I don't think the film or the performance is bad, just that Russell turned in better work the year before and after with The Insider and A Beautiful Mind.

4. Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump. He gets mention on the list just for denying Morgan Freeman his Oscar for a decade.

5. Jack Nicholson - As Good As It Gets - I liked the movie when it came out, but I haven't watched it since which should tell you just how little I think if Jack's performance here.

I'd be embarrassed to pick any top or bottom five here (having probably seen about only half), but let me just summarize my thoughts on Jim's pick for second worst:

"Is that MAY DAWTER IN DERE?!?!"

Calm the **** down, indeed.

Boy, do I love pointless list making. Here are my choices.

Worst:
- John Wayne, True Grit
One of the most wooden performances for an actor not necessarily known for his emotional range and how did he beat out Dustin "Rizzo/Ratso" Hoffman anyway?
- Denzel Washington, Training Day
A good actor who was probably snubbed for some of his better leading performance. This one, unfortunately, was all gusto and no nuance.
- Russell Crowe, Gladiator.
A painfully obvious pick from a movie that seems painfully quaint in our post-neocon world.
- PA-CI-NO!!!, Scent of a Woman.
Who-ah! Who-ee!
- Jack Nicolson, As Good As it Gets.
Contrare. I do believe "Five Easy Pieces" was as good as it got for Jack.

Best-
- Tom Hanks, Philadephia.
The fact that I was genuinely moved by this film, despite a plodding and overwrought script, has everything to do with Hank's genuinely moving performance. Oh yeah, and his High School drama teacher was gay.
- Alec Guinness, Bridge over the River Kwai.
I can think of about five Alec Guinness performances I love better, which makes this one no less deserving.
- Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront.
I can't imagine how it was received in 1954, but it is definitely one of the performances that brought movie acting into the modern age.
- F. Murray Abraham, Amadeus.
Probably the first performance that made me root for the villain.
- Daniel Day-Lewis, My Left Foot.
This had to be one of the most difficult roles to pull off. Day-Lewis was the perfect actor to do it.

BEST:

1) Marlon Brando (The Godfather) - His presence is so towering that he's able to make it felt OFFSCREEN in II (at the surprise party scene)

2) Michael Douglas (Wall Street) - He's so great, he converts the audience (like the Teldar shareholders) into believing that greed is, in fact, good. What seems a simple morality tale is elevated into something more complex by the fact that Gordon Gekko makes his case more convincingly than the "good guys".

3)Robert De Niro (Raging Bull) - An even more convincing and insideous look at jelousy than F. Murray Abraham's Salieri.

4) Anthony Hopkins (The Silence of the Lambs) - Scarier because he's not only so smart, but so refined. The exact opposite of what a serial killer should be. Oozes charm and evil simultaneously.

5) Jeremy Irons (Reversal of Fortune) - Speaking of oozing evil and charm...Interesting because we don't know what happened. I especially appreciate Claus' sense of humor about the whole thing (such as in the very last scene- "and a vial of insulin please").

WORST

I had a much harder time with this list, since I can find SOME redeeming qualities in almost all of these performances.

1) Geoffrey Rush (Shine) - I wouldn't wan't to spend 5 minutes with this character, let alone the length of this movie.

2) Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman) - The only thing I liked about this movie was as an early showcase for my favorite actor, Philip Seymore Hoffman, pre-playing against type as the cool kid. Grating is too kind for how I felt about Pacino.

3) Jack Nicholsen (As Good as It Gets) - His character was such a jerk, they had to invent that he had a disease in post-production just to explain his jerkiness. And I'm a HUGE Jack fan.

4) Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland) - Not really bad acting or anything, but the story in this movie had me thinking that Idi Amin was a pretty good guy.

5) Roberto Benini (Life is Beatiful) - I was trying to leave him off the list in the interest of being different, but I find that I cannot.

And for the record, I love American Beauty, and thought Spacey was fine (though upstaged, as many actors are, by Chris Cooper).

Where to begin? We have this demented onslaught of "American Beauty" hate, coupled with Jim's dismissal of Sean Penn's entire body of work? Never in my life have I gotten the Benigni hate thing. "Life on Earth"? "Down by Law"? "The Monster"? "Johnny Stecchino"? And to call "Life is Beautiful", an act of Holocaust denial is just as absurd as when Jonathan Rosenbaum suggested that "The Deer Hunter" is somehow a justification of the Vietnam War. "Night and Fog", it ain't, but an "act of Holocaust denial" is a bit over the top. But I expect similar contrarian responses when Daniel Day Lewis takes his Oscar for his work in the masterpiece that is "There Will Be Blood". Some will bitch, some will grouse, and I will laugh, most pettily.

My suggestions, in chronological order, from the films I've seen:

Best:
Robert Donat - Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)
Gary Cooper - High Noon (1952)
Alec Guinness - The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
George C. Scott - Patton (1970)
Peter Finch - Network (1976)

Worst:
Humphrey Bogart, The African Queen (1951) - flat performance, outgunned by Hepburn.
Gene Hackman - The French Connection (1971) - in retrospect, we now know he can do much better than this e.g. "The Conversation", "Unforgiven"
Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) - Peter Sellers should have walked this (on water?) for "Being There", but lost to a soap opera.
Jack Nicholson - As Good as It Gets (1997) - totally outshone by a more-deserving Helen Hunt.
Sean Penn - Mystic River - for the reasons given already.

PS: I generally have plenty of time for Tom Hanks, but I have no time for "Forrest Gump": it sends totally the wrong message as a movie, that being dumb is a virtue, and you can sleepwalk through life and be fine.

I can't believe no one has mentioned Rex Harrison as one of the worst Best Actors. That guy couldn't even sing in My Fair Lady, and he beat one of the greatest comedic performances of all time from Peter Sellers. Absolutely unforgivable!

Funny about revisionism, huh? Even allowing for shifting mores and the maturation of the art form, there's just some movies/performances whose critical success is baffling in hindsight.

I'm as guilty as the next guy. Speaking of Spacey, I find The Usual Suspects unbearably pedestrian and unexceptional now, though at the time, probably in a post-Pulp Fiction glow, I liked it a lot. At best, it's all form, no content.

My best 5
1. Dabney Coleman- Nine to five.
2. Robby Benson- One on one
3. Charles Martin Smith- America Graffiti.
4.Lou Diamond Phillips- Young Guns.
And 5.Corey Haim. Lost Boys.

Jim - all great choices, and the first I read to single out Ernest Borgnine in an AMAZING performance, too often overlooked in these polls.

BEST

1. Roberto Benigni- Apparently I'm in the minority on this one, but this was as close a performance I've ever seen to a modern-day Chaplin, and if anything combining humor with the Holocaust is at a mininum daring, and albeit allegorically and empathically, he succeeded masterfully.

2. Robert De Niro- Raging Bull -For obvious reasons

3. Marlon Brando- On the Waterfront- I could've admittedly picked "The Godfather," here but one could argue that was a supporting role, and besides, he refused the award for that, so I'll take the one he kept, I don't think anyone will disagree with this either.

4. Jack Nicholson-One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest- Jack being Jack, yes, but Jack being Jack at his best at being Jack.

5. James Cagney- Yankee Doodle Dandy- Still one of the most watchable biodrama performances ever, and just one of the most purely enjoyable.

WORST

1. Lee Marvin- Cat Ballou- Really, "Cat Ballou," is what Lee Marvin won for!

2.Paul Newman- The Color of Money- Let's be fair, this was his win for "The Hustler," 20+ years too late.

3.Russell Crowe-Gladiator- A great actor winning for a godawful movie. In the same 5-years span, he was in "The Insider," "A Beautiful Mind," and "Master and Commander...", it's a shame he won for "Gladiator"

4. Dustin Hoffman-Kramer vs. Kramer- This is arguable, but, compared to all the performances he didn't win for, this sticks out.

5. Art Carney-Harry and Tonto- I love Art Carney as much as anybody, but it's not like it was a week year, he beat Nicholson in "Chinatown," Pacino in "Godfather Part II", Dustin Hoffman for "Lenny," and Albert Finney for "...Orient Express,". This was a screw-up.

Note: Obviously, I haven't seen every best actor winning film, so I may have missed a few good and bad choices that I haven't seen.

Rob H.: That's interesting about "Scent of a Woman." Maybe it's just me. I haven't heard anybody talk about it -- or even mention it -- in years. Well, except for the occasional BOO-YA! But that could be from something else ("Jarhead"?), too. I agree completely about Russell Crowe and "The Insider." I did an article for MSN Movies last year (I think) about cases like that, where somebody received what amounted to a retroactive Oscar, to make up for the movie people belatedly realized he/she should have won for. The reason I didn't put Maximus Australius on my list is simply that I don't remember a single thing about Crowe's "Gladiator" performance. Nothing. If it wasn't for the poster, I wouldn't even remember he was in it. We were, of course, limited to voting on performances we'd actually seen -- but that also means they had to have left some sort of impression!

Mike S.: I suppose some of this is revisionism, but many of us were thrilled -- or appalled -- with these performances, and their subsequent awards, at the time. I was a lot more upset on Oscar night when Benigni won than I am now, for example. That's another movie that everybody was talking about at the time, but that doesn't seem to matter much anymore. (Is that revisionism? I don't know -- maybe it's just perspective.) Benigni's fellow nominees Tom Hanks ("Saving Private Ryan"), Ian McKellen ("Gods and Monsters"), Nick Nolte ("Affliction") and Edward Norton ("American History X") seem more relevant today (although I didn't think much of "X" as a movie) than Benigni, whom I'd rather remember for his roles in Jim Jarmusch's "Down By Law" and "Night on Earth."

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Hold on one sec, everybody. This Kevin Spacey hating leaves me gobsmacked. I know that Jim does not like "American Beauty." I know a lot of people who hate "American Beauty," but Kevin Spacey's performance "embarrassing" as Mr. Long said?

His performance in "The Shipping News" was embarrassing, yes. I'd like to know if you've ever seen him on stage when he was in Eugene O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey into Night" or "The Iceman Cometh." The man, simply put, is a magnet. Regardless if you feel that the bag floating in the wind was silly or the film's tone smug or condescending or you resented the fact that it seemed to carry a sort of unearned superiority about it, Kevin Spacey's performance as Lester Burnham (Humbert Learns) is not only a perverse triumph of black humor but a genuinely poignant transformation from self-centered and superficial (only cares about looking good naked and getting his rocks off) to understanding and aware. The deepening of a conscience. He spits barbs at his wife and dumbfounds his young boss with a sudden burst of gleeful sick malevolence that is delightful to watch if you have a twisted sense of humor.

Also, I think you're way off when you say "American Beauty" is the most embarrassing Best Picture winner. What about 2002, when "Chicago" a brainless, witless musical beat "The F***ing Pianist"?

What about when "Forrest Gump" beat "Pulp Fiction"? What about when "Rocky" beat "Taxi Driver"? What about when "How Green was My Valley" beat "Citizen Kane"? Each of these examples shows safe, good-hearted sentimental naivete triumphing over challenging and transgressive works of invention. No one wants the dark, pessimistic, cynical film to win. That would be like admitting defeat to some of these voters responsible, who don't realize that by choosing the safe choice they are collectively dumbing down the entire Academy by association, which is as bad as Roberto Benigni suger-coating the Holocaust. Sure, there is always a fluctuation back and forth in the choices for Best Picture over the decades. After the consecutive wins of "Silence of the Lambs," "Unforgiven," and "Schindler's List," it is no surprise that "Forrest Gump" wins Best Picture. People want a breath of fresh air (however false and artificial) from 3 years of bleak existential despair and foreboding obsessive journeys into evil. But just because they *want* it doesn't mean it's right. Roberto Benigni doesn't seem to be aware of just what an execrable disservice he's done to the Holocaust, and so that lessens his culpability. The same goes for the Academy.

But in the year of 1999, transgressive themes like middle-aged men lusting after young girls, homosexuality, etc. was no longer that shocking. But "AB" still has many of the Qualities I've already mentioned about films that don't want to portray the world as anything more hopeful than it really is.

The bag floating in the wind is stupid, yes, but I think it would be a misinterpretation to say that Ricky Fitz's perspective is the same as the film's. Is the film awe-struck by the swirling bag? I don't think it is. Perhaps the film thinks the boy is as deluded for being blown away by this unremarkable sight as the scoffers in the audience do.

Consider for a moment the symbol of the shiny Red Firebird. It represents the grinning phallic Id Lester has released after keeping it bottled up all those miserable years. The Firebird is awesome, right? Then why is it sitting ominously in the background when deranged mixed-up Col. Fitz is standing before him in his driveway?

The rain might be an obvious symbol, much like it is overused in "Perdition" but remember that it is Conrad Hall shooting these two films, the Conrad Hall who so famously composed the often-mimicked shot of the young Robert Blake with the shadows of rain drops reflected off a windowsill dripping down his face like invisible tears, perhaps a symbol of mental collapse, confusion, or epiphany. Conrad Hall shoots rain better than anyone.

"Pass the asparagus."

Often the Best Actor award is really a makeup award. "Oops, Al. We should have given it to you for Dog Day Afternoon. We aren't enthusiastic about everyone else, so here you go. Sorry about that." I'll start with the least deserving:

1) John Wayne: True Grit. Good job playing... John Wayne.
2) Henry Fonda: On Golden Pond. The definition of a lifetime achievement award, even if he was excellent in the role.
3) Jamie Foxx: Ray. Yes, you can impersonate Ray Charles. Good for you.
4) Robert Duvall: Tender Mercies. Ok, I admit. I just don't like the film and can't give a good reason. It's jut one of those things.
5)Paul Newman: The Color of Money. Awarded for The Hustler. Beat James Woods in Salvadore.

Best:
1) Rod Stieger: In the Heat of the Night. He doesn't get enough credit for this performance. As the character with the dramatic arc, Rod had to do the heavy lifting in the film. His work enhanced Poitier's performance.
2) Gregory Peck: To Kill a Mockingbird. Decency is hard to make interesting without being self righteous.
3) Marlon Brando: On the Waterfront. The announcement of arrival of a towering talent.
4) Forest Whitaker: The Last King of Scotland. He almost makes you like and understand one of the most horrible people in modern history, but never once deceives you as to who he is.
5) Charleston Heston: Ben-Hur. Just a personal favorite.

You know its funny, personally I feel that Sean Penn gave a superb performance in "Dead Man Walking" portraying a loathesome character that you end up feeling is somewhat victimized. Whereas in "Mystic River" he takes a character that was somewhat victimized and makes you loathe every last thing about him. That and Laura Linney's "Lady Macbeth" speech made me want to retch.

Agreed, Ashy Larry. I was so moved by Dead Man Walking I improvised a piano etude after watching it.

Mystic River....

Law & Order with better cameras.

I agree on so much of this that I don't know how I can be so far away on Sean Penn. I don't think his "Mystic River" role was Oscar-worthy but I certainly didn't hate him (as an actor) in the part, and am still a big fan of much of his work even though, generally, I'm not a big fan of showy, saliva-spewing acting. Like say "Scent of a Woman". I also didn't hate "American Beauty" quite as much as everyone here but, yes, I agree that Spacey was awful. I identified more with Annette Bening and I don't think that was the idea. Likewise, Nicholson's portrayal in "As Good as It Gets" was, in my opinion, absolutely wrong. I don't know if that movie could have been saved by someone else but I felt he butchered every single line in a way that would have gotten him hot soup down his pants no matter how much money he had and how many personality disorders. If only James Brooks had made him want to be a better actor.

Bests (chron.)
1. Ronald Colman-"A Double Life"--here's where the saliva-spewing really works!
2. Marlon Brando-"On the Waterfront"--though it doesn't forgive 1951. (see below)
3. Burt Lancaster-"Elmer Gantry"--just because he wasn't even nominated for "Sweet Smell of Success".
4. Robert Duvall-"Tender Mercies"--I find Duvall to be a little too samey (except for "Apocalypse Now", maybe) but this was the perfect role for his persona.
5. Nicolas Cage-"Leaving Las Vegas"--I haven't seen it again and might well change my mind if I did. Which is sometimes why I don't revisit certain films that I remember with a certain kind of warm, soporific haziness.

Worsts (likewise)
1. Humphrey Bogart-"The African Queen"--but only because Brando's Kowalski is one of, if not the greatest ever losers.
2. Yul Brynner-"The King and I"
3. Charlton Heston-"Ben-Hur"--The performance is perfectly acceptable but just like "Gladiator" they were apparently voting for best sweat.
4. Peter Finch-"Network"--but only because DeNiro's Bickle is one of, if not the greatest ever losers.
5. Dustin Hoffman-"Rain Man"--I never saw "Life Is Beautiful" but was it really more untouching, unfeelgood, unappetizing than this? Plus Max von Sydow in "Pelle the Conqueror"--well, you know.
6. Al Pacino-"Scent of Hoo!-Ha".
7. Jack Nicholson-"Scent of Incinerated Bichon Frise".

Probably haven't seen enough Oscar winners to do this idea justice...

But I would like to chime in as someone who does watch Scent of a Woman. It is, in fact, one of my favorite films, mostly for Pacino's wonderful performance. So there.

This is how I know I live on a different planet than most of the high-faluting film critics who parade here.

Funny thing is, I usually consider myself a movie snob. When compared to your average, run of the mill, ugly American.

But in this group - *I* am apparently the stupid American.

I LOVED American Beauty. Perhaps it's just the phase I was going through at the time, I don't know - but I find plenty of subtlety and nuance in it. And I don't even generally like Kevin Spacey as an actor.

I LOVED Forrest Gump, and to say that its theme is "Dumb is good" - to me - completely misses the point. In fact, I think the movie has some large profundity in it, and I've argued this many times. Perhaps it's just me reading into something that isn't there - and wishing it was there - but then again, I think that's what most high-falutin' film "scholars" do with all films anyway. To me, Forrest Gump is as much about the girl, Jenny, as it is about Forrest. It's the comparison between the two, and how all this stuff has been going on in the world around us for fifty years - but everyone always likes to romanticize the past. I don't think Forrest represents "dumb is good" so much as he symbolizes how Americans, by and large, stick their heads in the sand. Jenny is the heart and soul of the movie.

OK - and I even thought Life is Beautiful was OK. Benigni is whacked, and was embarrassing at the Oscars - but so what.

Ebert gave all of these movies 4 stars.

I never thought I'd say this, because usually I'm the one getting this treatment - but get off the high-horses man ... I like movies that make you think, and I think all of them did.

My mantra is - being popular doesn't mean it's good -- but being popular doesn't mean it's bad, either. That's why I love Ebert so much.

Meant to say that the hating on Sean Penn - I don't get that either. Best Sean Penn performance: Falcon and the Snowman. Love that film.

Of course, I just saw Atonement and HATED it. Wanted to put a bullet through my head. So I hope that contrarian point of view ups my street cred.

Sean Penn (not unlike George W. Bush) has honestly earned the "hatred" many feel toward his work. I started off liking Penn a lot, back when he showed some modesty and humor: "Fast Times," "Racing with the Moon," "Falcon and the Snowman," "Carlito's Way"... He started to lose me around the time of "At Close Range," but I appreciated his subtler work in "Sweet and Lowdown." I think he deserved the Oscar nom for "Dead Man Walking" (which may be part of the reason he eventually won for "Mystic River" -- along with Tim Robbins, his "DMW" director), but the bad taste he's left in movies like "Mystic River," "Hurlyburly" and others too frightening to recall ("Shanghai Surprise" to "I Am Sam") is tough to overcome. His brothers, Chris (the late actor) and Michael (the musician), always seemed much more interesting, less monotonous, to me. I'm a fan of both.

Least Deserving:

1. Denzel Washington (2001) for "Training Day" because he beat the magisterial Tom Wilkinson from "In the Bedroom." Also, Denzel Washington is not convincing as a scumbag - he is inseparable from the aura of nobility he evokes.

2. Dustin Hoffman (1979) in "Kramer vs. Kramer" for an unremarkable performance in a "Social Issue of the Week" film. But more importantly, he beat out Peter Sellers for his sublime performance as Chance in "Being There."

3. Roberto Benigni (1998) for "Life is Beautiful."

4. Lee Marvin (1965) for "Cat Ballou." I really like "The Pawnbroker."

5. Peter Finch (1976) for "Network" because he beat out Travis Bickle, the single greatest film character to ever filmically grace the screen of film, like, ever...in film.

Most Deserving:

1. Marlon Brando (1972) for "The Godfather."

2. Robert De Niro (1980) for "Raging Bull."

3. Jaaaaaack (1975) for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" even though I'm upset with the movie for being so monumentally inferior to the book.

4. Anthony Hopkins (1991) for "The Silence of the Lambs." Yes he did. No, you're wrong.

5. Kevin Spacey (1999) for "American Beauty." To Dane: I'm sure Mr. Spacey is sorry for giving you swirlies in high school and running over your dog.

The "Meh" Awards:

I don't mean to throw spitballs at Sacred Cows but why has Gregory Peck been so lionized for his performance as Atticus Finch? It's a mediocre film adapted from a mediocre book that was apparently cutting edge for its revolutionary character of a white man who is tolerant of a black man. Atticus is decent and all but it's not like there is some powerful moment that he shares with Tom Robinson. He serves as the guy's lawyer and protects him from a crazy lynch mob. What a decent guy! To not let them kill his client! Talk about sacrifice.

Young Marlon Brando is overrated. I thought Lee J. Cobb actually stole "On the Waterfront" away from Brando. 1970's Brando is genius, but as a young man there was nothing particularly unusual or interesting about his face. 1954 Brando plays a dumb brute real well, but I don't see the alleged magnetism.

How about this...

BEST:
Paul Giamatti. Sideways.

Woops.

Jim (is it presumptuous of me to think I'm on a first name basis with you?)

I totally agree with you about "Life is Beautiful." I showed your quote "Not just because the movie itself is a despicable act of Holocaust
denial. But that helps" to my brother, who admires the film, and chuckled with malice when he frowned. Unfortunately, your quote sparked a 45 minute debate.

Uh, about Sean Penn. I think he is laughable in "Mystic River." But I DO like Sean Penn, and actually think he is an AWESOME director (haven't seen "Into the Wild"). I'm sure you've seen "The Pledge" and I'd bet money that you liked it. Seeing how much you liked the deliberate thwarting of resolution in the final scene in Holsten's diner in "Made In America" and the brilliant anti-climactic finale of "No Country For Old Men," it seems like the ending of "The Pledge" would be right up your alley. It's downright perverse in its refusal to follow convention.

Lastly, don't you think Sean Penn is good in "Sweet and Lowdown" and "The Assassination of Richard Nixon"?

Totaly agree with you about Sean Penn. I've always thought he was overrated, and never enjoyed his performances. Absolutely disagree with you about Al Pacino. I have watched Scent of a Woman MANY times and know much of the dialogue and scenes by heart. There are a couple scenes where Pacino makes my eyes get all watery everytime I watch them, including the scene where he can't take a dose of his own medicine at a family reunion. The tango scene is incredible as it overflows with unspoken feelings of joy, longing and passion. When Pacino has to say goodbye to his dance partner you can almost see his heart sinking behind his charming smile and "blind" eyes. It's true that the movie by itself is mediocre at best, and if it has greatness at all, Pacino gets the credit. Pacino is the greatness. By the end of the movie, when Pacino's character went home, I started wishing he was a real person who I could meet and spend some time with. Not often does an actor make his character so dynamic and compelling that I feel as though I've made a new friend for whom I have real affection.

Like most people, I am a big fan of Pacino's early work, but I can't extend the same admiration to his latter-day ham.

He has but one weapon in his acting arsenal now, his one "process," and it boils down to:

1 - whisper
2 - SHOUT
3 - whisper
4 - SHOUT
5 - Get in the other actor's face
6 - whisper
7 - SHOUT
8 - Open eyes widely, and stare intensely at the other actor
9 - Move bottom lip down from the top one in consecutive motions that resemble those of a goldfish
10 - whisper
11 - SHOUT
12 - Repeat steps one to eleven.

Examples? Sure. The Recruit. Any Given Sunday. The Insider. The Devil's Advocate. Ocean's Thirteen.

And, most definitely, Scent of a Woman. "WHOO-AH!" Oh, piss off, pal.

Just want to put a word in for Ray Milland in Wilder's The Lost Weekend. This would probably be my choice for best Best Picture too (as long as Sunrise doesn't count). Not that it's one of my very favourites but none of the Best Picture winners ever have been - it's amazing to look through the list and see just a handful of genuinely great films and virtually no masterpieces - although there'll be one more this year when No Country wins.

oh, and Jimmy Stewart's great but if anyone deserved the Oscar for Philadelphia Story it was Cary Grant - he steals entire scenes away from Stewart without even seeming to bother. (of course Stewart should have won for It's a Wonderful Life, Vertigo and Anatomy of a Murder but that's another story.)

I find this whole discussion irritating and somewhat below the high standards of this excellent blog. It's all hyperbole. Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn and Roberto Benigni, for example, are not inherently evil or even terrible actors. They, like Nicholson, and Brando and others are big 'leading-men' personalities who sometimes infect and deflate good films, sometimes elevate bad films, and sometimes harmonize wonderfully with the piece they are in. I thought Spacey was a lot of fun in Swimming with Sharks (which was, admittedly, sillier and less meaningful than it presented itself as being), Penn was terrific in She's so Lovely, as was Benigni in Down by Law.

I appreciate the satisfaction in kicking around pompous film stars who think they're more important than they are, but there is something self-indulgent about it. It's too easy to get carried away with being dismissive. It also creates a kind of mob mentality.

I'm not sure how useful it is to say this kind of thing in this situation, but, there it is.

I'm a bit confused about the "Holocaust denial" aspect. You could argue that it trivializes the full horror of the Holocaust (though someone- I think it may have been Harlan Ellison- once argued that the only way to trivialize the Holocaust is to forget it), but since the entire film hinges on it actually taking place, it can't really be denial in the true sense of what people like David Irving engage in.

Evan: I was making a pun on "Holocaust denial" -- as in what Benigni does to prevent his son from knowing what's really going on in the camp. My take all along has been that the film dangerously romanticizes false adult conceptions of childhood "innocence" at the expense of facing a dangerous reality and teaching the kid what he needs to know to survive. We tell our children to look both ways before crossing the street, because oncoming cars could REALLY hurt or kill them. I know "Life is Beautiful" is a fantasy (as the title declares), but I did not find the idea of pretending the Holocaust was not happening -- when the characters are in the belly of the beast -- to be very charming.

Good thread - I've always been a "High Fidelity"-type sucker for Top 5 lists, and this drove me to look up the whole historical list and re-evaluate.

What struck me most was how many of the actors on the list were guys I really love, but who got their statue for performances I didn't really think were their best. I've always known that Oscars are handed out at least as much on an historical "body of work" as they are for the particular film in question at the moment, but going over the actual list really drove this home. Here's my:

"Top 5 guys who won for the wrong movie"

5) Denzel Washington - I'm with JD/et al on this one. Plenty of good reasons to award him, but "Training Day" not first among them (at least on my list). "The Hurricane" (which would have solved the Spacey "American Beauty" problem) or "Malcom X" (ditto the Pacino "Scent..." problem) would have been better picks.

4) Russel Crowe - I'm a big Crowe fan, but Galdiator was one of his more forgettable roles. Any of the flicks David B. mentioned (as well as several since) were better turns than Minimus.

3) Al Pacino - Line me up with the "Who-waah" haters. Not for Serpico, not for Michael Corleone, but for this? Ugh. From where I sit Al went past his expiration date about 1980 (can't hardly sit through Godfather III - it's like he's a different guy).

2) Paul Newman - "Color of Money" doesn't even make the top 10 in "Newman's Own" best performances list. They might just as well awarded him for his salad dressing.

1) Henry Fonda - “On Golden Pond” was feel-good and fine, but this is the Academy's textbook example of “Quick, give it to him before he dies!” (If Peter O'Toole manages to pull one before he kicks it, he immediately goes to #1 on this list). The scarriest thing about Fonda and the Oscars is how little of his work was even nominated.

Emerson, to comment on your stuff:

Are you going to seriously argue that Jack Nicholson has been more subtle than Sean Penn in many movies? I'm not discrediting either of them, because I like both of them, but Penn has a force in his acting that may seem too obvious. I personally find it riveting.

Honestly, you think Nicholson in Cuckoo's is one of the greats? Where's the depth in his character? He is a rebel and a no-gooder to society. Sure he tries to liven up the mentals, but to no avail, except for the Chief. Honestly, read the book for a better version of the ending.

"[Life is Beautiful] is a despicable act of Holocaust denial." Wow. Who says things like this on a blog? This seems to be a larger-than-life critic play, where big statements are made for shock effect and to display that one has the ability to even say these things publicly. I'm sure you know that this is not the case in that movie, and you really don't mean that. If you do, sucks to your ass-mar.

"Rain Man" was showy? Well, this isn't like the abominable "I Am Sam" where we are just supposed to feel pity (yes, I realize I'm knocking Penn here, but I didn't say he was always a powerful actor). This movie displays the change in the Cruise character, who learns to empathize with Hoffman's problems (empathy because Cruise himself has problems). I don't feel pity for Hoffman because the movie hasn't been designed that way. Okay, so maybe Hoffman didn't deserve the oscar because he didn't display a character of change, but it was still a good performance, and not showy beyond what the material requested.

P.S. Take back that ridiculous "Life is Beautiful" commentary, for your own good.

To Xerxes: I appreciate your effort but I really need to hear it from Kev.

To Greg: Speaking for myself, I'm not hating actors, just performances, and even then only relative to the award of "Best Actor". Nevertheless, Kevin Spacey is, in fact, evil, as he gave me swirlies in *junior* high and ran over my dog.

It's a pity that so many critics seem categorically unable to say exactly what it is that they like or don't like about a particular performance. If they're convinced, the spectrum runs from "restrained" to "emotional"; if not, from "wooden" to "hamming it up". (If the character requires something unusual, we might condemn it as "stunt acting".)

It's not like these actors are C-grade incompetents; they're not flubbing lines or visibly reciting from a teleprompter. So what's going wrong? Too much gesticulation? Not enough facial expression? Diction too clear for a person supposedly in tears?

A lot of the time, they're just being blamed for the failures of their directors, writers and editors. Or praised for their successes.

The Jamie Foxx hate seems especially bizarre. "Just a Ray Charles impression?" Good grief -- he was playing Ray Charles! What else was he supposed to do?

Blake Kandah: Please see my elaboration on "Life is Beautiful" in the comment just above yours.

You write: "... Penn has a force in his acting that may seem too obvious." That is well put -- and exactly what I think rings false in his performance in "Mystic River" -- though his is hardly the only phony note in the picture. Yeah, Jack Nicholson has overacted like crazy, and sometimes it's worked within the bigger-than-life context of the movie ("The Shining," maybe "Batman") and sometimes it hasn't (I think he's hammy in "A Few Good Men," but that is a hammy movie; and he's flat-out terrible in "The Departed," for example -- throws me out of the movie every time I've seen it, because he's just doing his "Jack" schtick). Nicholson was born to play McMurphy, and Milos Forman surrounds him with a really strong ensemble that gives his performance the context it needs -- because the movie is fundamentally about how McMurphy goes from being a loaner to a leader, an individual to an inspiration (I apologize for the alliteration).

Acting (and one's response to acting) is never going to be a science. Although (as I listed above), I've liked a lot of Penn's performances, I think he's lost (or smothered) his gift for physical nuance as he's bulked up over the years (looks like steroids, but I have no way of knowing).

And I'm not pretending to be anything but subjective: Like comedy, acting is something we have strong individual responses to. There are certain actors who creep me out, who I can barely stand to look at because they invariably strike me as hollow , artificial, and overdone. Sean Penn, Tom Cruise and this year's fave, Daniel Day-Lewis, are among them. I can't help it; I can't get past all their effort. I don't believe them. And I dislike corned beef, too. (Though, oddly, I LOVE good pastrami.) Go fig.

Amen to the mention of subjectivity above, Jim. In fact, is there a more capricious exercise than picking which Oscars are most and least deserved? First of all, it's subjectivity about subjectivity. Second of all, would anyone argue that the history of Oscar winners constitutes some kind of 'canon' of cinematic excellence that deserves debate? When's the list of Most and Least Deserved People's Choice Awards coming? I wish we'd all just agree on the bottom line: The list of Oscar winners signifies NOTHING other than a list of people who have won Oscars.

I've noticed my own opinions are slightly different from other's comments so I thought that I'd share them.

I've seen 54 best actor winning films, excluding Scent of a Woman and The Color of Money (fortunately?) for whatever that's worth.

I found choosing worst performances relatively easy but best one's difficult. Anyway here goes...

WORST
1. Bing Crosby in Going My Way: I'm a little surprised this one hasn't come up before. It's a shamelessly sentimental movie from a director who could do so much better (i.e. Duck Soup!, The Awful Truth!) and Crosby's performance is void of any strength or character at all!
2. Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful: Yep, this one's been covered.
3. Denzel Washington in Training Day: This hammed up, hammed up performance was an embarrassment.
4. William Holden in Stalag 17: It's not that it's bad, it's just that I find it undistinguished from certainly one of
Billy Wilder's least memorable films. It doesn't compare to the partnering of star and director in Sunset Boulevard.
5. Jamie Foxx in Ray: I'm almost ambivalent about this performance cos the singing and piano mimicry is quite convincing but the rest of the film with his stooping and (in my opinion) over timid delivery frustrates me. Not to mention the ghastly exits from flashbacks.

BEST
1. Robert De Niro in Raging Bull: What can I say, completely faultless.
2. Marlon Brando in The Godfather: Again self-explanatory.
3. James Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy: I've never felt such enthusiasm and commitment in a portrayal as with this performance.
4. Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas: Extraordinary.
5. William Hurt in Kiss of the Spider Woman: A bit of a guilty pleasure but I loved his performance.

There are too many winning actors in too many films I haven't seen to give a valid list, and I have a hunch that is the case with many of those replying anyway. But I highly disagree with your choice of Roberto Benigni. The film was beautiful, and if I'm not mistaken, which I'm not, it was about the Holocaust and (SPOILER ALERT) the main character is murdered in the Holocaust, so I'd like to know how it was a denial of the Holocaust. I think people who don't find his humor funny enjoy hating him. Now here is an actor who I believe was nominated but didn't win... Nick Nolte for "Prince of Tides." I just saw the film for the first time, and I found his performance horrible and contrived. He was screaming for an Oscar the whole way through the film, and rang untrue. One of the few times I've disagreed with Roger Ebert (who called it an Oscar worthy performance.)

Ernest Borgnine! Thank you. I am a fan too. That was a soulful performance. Maybe it didn't get the proper respect because of the themes of the film, and it wasn't glamourous for sure. Glad to know it's appreciated though.

Here are some of my alternate best actor/actress awards, designed to correct some of the Academy's greatest oversights.

1972: I admit I'm not a big fan of the "Godfather" movies, but Brando's hardly one of the worst picks in Academy history. Still, he didn't want the so why not give it to someone far more deserving.

Best Actor: Divine for "Pink Flamingos"

1977: We're in the dark heart of the method now with Richard Dreyfuss beating yet another weak crowd for his turn in the "Goodbye Girl" which is the first big romantic comedy of the blockbuster era which is reason enough to hate it, even if it's good. Let us wipe it from our memories and give the award to a man who doesn't give a damn about method acting who was, in turn, directed by a man who wouldn't allow a method actor in his sight.

Best Actor: Bruno S. in "Stroszek"

1981: The Academy panicked and feared that Henry Fonda would die soon, so they threw him a bone for one of his least inspired roles, in "On Golden Pond." As everyone watching feared, the award was a death sentence and the great pere Fonda died shortly thereafter.

So why not give the award to someone who could enjoy for at least a few more years?

Best Actor: Divine in "Polyester"

1995: I love Roger Ebert, but he must have been drinking heavily when he called "Leaving Las Vegas" one of the best film of the 90s. Nicholas Cage wears his sad Nicholas Cage-face and occasionally varies it up but wearing his slightly sadder Nicholas Cage-face. Sure, it beats having to watch Kevin Spacey's "process" but it's still damned annoying. Let's knock back a few, and give the award to one of the best actors of today in one of the great roles of his career.

Best Actor: Johnny Depp in "Dead Man"

1998: Ah, yes, everyone's favorite. I don't dislike Benigni as much as some here do. I find him exceptionally funny in his Jim Jarmusch roles, and I think his slapstick grand-mal seizure is one of the most enjoyable displays in Oscar history. Still, the film is pretty appalling, maybe even more so for the fact that I felt guilty about liking it.

None of that matters, however, because this year featured what I consider to be the greatest Hollywood performance of the 90s, and I can't think of a close second. The award goes to:

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges - "The Big Lebowski"

Christopher Long: Firstly, Bridges's performance was not even the best in "The Big Lebowski," let alone an entire decade. He was great, certainly, but I felt he was overshadowed by John Goodman and Steve Buscemi. Steve Buscemi's performance as Donnie is the one that is sadly, sadly underrated. Some, including you, might feel Donnie is a minor character, but look at him in "Lebowski" and then look at him in "Fargo" and then look at him in "Lebowski" again. These two parts are as far removed from one another as Philip Seymour Hoffman as the vulnerable effeminate homosexual in "Boogie Nights" is from the cocky, obnoxious heckler in "Hard Eight" or the macho asshole in "Punch-Drunk Love."

I could not agree with you more about Bruno S. in "Stroszek." He is also brilliant in "The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser." However, when you say "...directed by a man who wouldn't allow a method actor in his sight," you do realize the mistake here, don't you? Christian Bale is the *ultimate* method actor, as proven by his dedication to starving himself into a walking corpse for "The Machinist."

Great call on "Dead Man" and Johnny Depp. I also happened to read your review of "Stranger than Paradise," and was pleased to see we agreed so enthusiastically on Jarmusch.

Finally, I must express shock and outrage with your not one (but two!) mentions of Divine?! I assumed you were being ironic. But If you are, in fact, serious about liking or admiring "Pink Flamingos" in any way, shape, or form, then I can see that there is a fundamental disconnect between our appreciation of cinema. I consider "Pink Flamingos" to be utterly tasteless and bottom-feeding a piece of refuse as one could ever pull out of the filthiest dregs of moviedom (Can it even be considered a film?). But then again, if you were being ironic, then the point is moot.

I will not forgive your contempt for Kevin Spacey. What is your problem with Spacey? As someone asked earlier, did he bully you in junior high or kill a beloved pet of yours?

I gave my list earlier of best and worst actor performances, naming Roberto Benigni as the best best actor performance. Now I understand the subjectivity of this, but this and a few other details I want to discuss as well, but why is everybody kicking off Benigni for the movie being "Holocaust Denial" or whatever tm is being used? I mean, the whole point of the movie is (spoiler alert) that he gave up his life protecting his son, from the violence and despicableness of the Holocaust. People seem to forget the film that the film is told from his son's memories, and not the Benigni character. Secondly, the film does discuss the horrors of the Holocaust! Many scenes were kids are arriving and suddenly aren't around anymore, and older people being sent to gas chambers, and the threat of being caught at any moment and sent to a similar death, aren't these similar experiences to other Holocaust survivor? And what about conversations about people being turned into soap and buttons, that's not disturbing enough of a reminder of the Holocaust for you people? I think what's upset people is how he not only violated some unwritten rule about how you can't have humor when disussing the Holocaust, but also because the movie, which starts out as a comedy takes a sudden turn and becomes a Holocaust film. So, the movie denies the real brutality of the Holocaust, well so does "Casablanca," you want to argue that's not realistic enough either, you can make a good argument for it. Benigni combined empathy and desperation with physical comedy, lets argue "City Lights," isn't any good either, why don't we?

On such other intriguing things written here, I am of the opinion that Bill Murray should've won that Oscar Sean Penn won, and to some extent it was a belated Oscar for the one Penn should've won for "Dead Man Walking," but Mystic River is a very good film, and Penn would've been my second choice for that Oscar, and I think you're coming way too hard on him for this role. The movie may have taken the form of a quote-unquote "Law & Order," type episode, but the story of the film is arguably American Shakesphearean poetry, and the guy who plays King Lear to Laura Linney's Lady MacBeth, should be a little free with his movements, especially when he spends much of the movie holding back anger and sadness of his daughter's sudden murder.

I just happen to now look at who Kevin Spacey beat to win for "American Beauty." I think an argument could be made for Denzel is "The Hurricane," or even Russell Crowe for "The Insider." But Spacey is worthy of that Oscar, if not just for doing a wonderful subtle comic performance, but getting that perfect note of a man who's monotous life has become so boring, all he speaks is in a deadpan delivery where it's sometimes impossible to tell whether he's joking or being serious, it's a tricky role. And also, how about props to a Best Actor winner, whose not winning for some biopic or playing a real life person, how rare is that. If you're going to knock such performances as Jamie Foxx as "Ray," or other numerous Oscar winning performances as basically doing another person, than you should be stepping up for people playing completely original characters. And on top of that "American Beauty," is one of the best movies of the past decade. I don't know where people are suddenly getting that "American Beauty," isn't good, this is a movie that gets more and more layered as sardonic as it gets more viewed. Maybe it did spawn too many imitation films about the hidden thoughts and feelings about depressed suburbanites, but it gets those thoughts right, with Spacey's character longing for the unemotional aimlessness of youth, basically Benjamin Braddock in reverse. Thinking through the film again, I think the only argument that's makeable is that the formentioned genre of films "American Beauty," created, should be more credited to Todd Solondz than to this film, but even still "American Beauty," is a sardonic masterpiece.

This discussion makes me reexamine what I usually consider as "good actor" or "good performance." I must remind myself again that the quality of a performance (and how I like or dislike it) is inseparable from the quality of writing and directing of the role and the entire movie.

It does seem to me that the more dramatic performances -- shouting, emoting, severely disabled, extreme situations -- are more likely to garner recognition than quieter, subtler ones. I'm thinking in particularly some of my favorite actors' performances: Peter Saarsgard in "Shattered Glass" and "Kinsey," Laura Linney in many movies, Paul Giamatti in "Lady In the Water" (a weak script but an interesting performance) and "American Splendor." Observe, for example, Phil Hoffman in "The Savages" this year. The role seems underwritten, and I suspect that Hoffman injected a lot of the nuances himself beyond the script. The contribution of each party in the movie-making process is what interests me.

As for Forrest Gump, it does seem that the role does not demand too much of Mr. Hanks, but is that his fault? I also wonder about the movie's true theme. Is it really to praise stupidity? I probably should see it again but there seems to be some cynical subtext lurking in the script (like "Pretty Woman"). Perhaps similar themes are extremely rare in the American culture, and intelligence and progress are always celebrated, but I am reminded of the "Holy Fools" tradition in Russia and certain anti-intellectual streaks in Chinese morality/pop literature.

You don't like corned beef? You just made the list Emerson!

I'm with Mike S. - the Oscars aren't exactly a great measure of anything other than public opinion at the time, but I’m a “High Fidelity”-type sucker for top 5 lists of any sort, so here are mine:

My Best (or should that be “Least Controverisal”) “Bests” (in no particular order):

Clark Gable – “It Happened One Night” - 1934
Alec Guiness – “The Bridge on the River Kwai” 1957
Robert DeNiro – “Raging Bull” – 1980
F. Murray Abraham – “Amedeus” – 1984
George C. Scott – “Patton” - 1970

These all do for me it for the same reasons:

- Each performance honored was actually an example of the actor's best work

- The performances came in the context of a strong movie

- There weren't any clearly better choices among the other nominees that year

As far as the “Worst” picks go, for me it's usually about the competition: If one ho-hum performance beats out some other ho-hum performances, I’m willing to chalk it up to differing tastes and give the Academy the benefit of the doubt. However, my bottom five are serious miscarriages of justice, where popularity pretty obviously trumped merit.

My Worst (or “Most Controversial”) Bests (again, in no particular order):

Yul Brynner – “The King and I” – 1956

I actually dig old musicals generally, like this movie, and I’m a big Yul fan, but let’s get serious: In what universe does this beat out James Dean and Rock Hudson in “Giant”, Kirk Douglas’ Van Gogh in “Lust for Life”, AND Olivier’s Richard III?

Rex Harrison – “My Fair Lady” – 1964

Again, I like old musicals, this is one of my favorites, and Rex is a big reason why. But… first off, he’s playing himself, which seriously counts against you in my book (yes Bing Crosby, I’m looking at you…). Second, look at the competition that year: Burton AND O’Toole in “Becket”, Anthony Quinn as Zorba, and Peter Sellers as pretty much everyone in “Dr. Strangelove”. No offense Rex old boy, but you shouldn’t have even finished in the money.

John Wayne – True Grit – 1969

I like the Duke as much as the next red-blooded American male, and I suppose the Academy couldn’t look itself in the mirror if it never quite got around to giving an Oscar to the biggest movie star ever. Unfortunately, this outing even comes in second among Rooster Cogburn movies. With Richard Burton (again…), BOTH Midnight Cowboys, and O’Toole (being robbed for the fourth time that decade) all on the ballot that year, this is just wrong.

Cliff Robertson – “Charly” – 1968

Cliff Robertson? Really? The janitor-turned-genius-turned-janitor who parlayed his best actor Oscar into a string of very moving 1980’s AT&T Commercials? This had to be where mental disability joined the Holocaust as “Automatic Oscar” fodder (yes Rain Man and Forest Gump, I’m looking at you…). Peter O’Toole should have visited Cliff’s house in a drunken stupor, beat him down, and taken what was rightfully his.

Al Pacino – “Scent of a Woman” – 1992
Count me as one of the “HooHaaa” haters. Serpico would have been fine, Michael Corleone in round 2 would have been great, but from where I sit Al passed his “sell by” date somewhere around 1980 (I can hardly sit through Godfather III – it’s like he’s a totally different actor playing a totally different character). In a year with Denzel’s Malcom X, Robert Downey’s Chaplin, Stephen Rea’s Crying Game, and an Unforgiven Clint Eastwood, this pick was more stench than scent.

Anyway… great comments all around. You all made me go back to a list of past winners/nominees and ponder.

What struck me most looking at the list is something I knew, but didn’t really appreciate the extent of: Just how often Oscars get the right guy, but for the wrong movie - the win is based on someone’s historical body of work, rather than their work in the particular role in question. I didn’t find very many “undeserving” actors among the winners, but in most cases I thought that the performance allegedly being recognized was:

a) Not the winner’s best work

b) Not really the strongest performance among that year’s nominees

I’d be interested to know everyone’s “Top 5 Winners Who Won For The Wrong Movie”

Best Actors
1. Paul Scofield, "A Man for All Seasons," 1966
2. George C. Scott, "Patton," 1970
3. Marlon Brando, "The Godfather," 1972
4. Tom Hanks, "Forrest Gump," 1994
5. Jose Ferrer, "Cyrano de Bergerac," 1950

Worst Actors
1. Richard Dreyfuss, "The Goodbye Girl," 1977
2. see above
3. Lee Marvin, "Cat Ballou," 1965
4. Jack Lemmon, "Save the Tiger," 1973
5. Art Carney, "Harry & Tonto," 1974

Jim,

You mention Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as one you didn't fully buy into. Isn't there a paradox here in the power of an actor's performance? I haven't yet seen TWBB, although I can't wait to. I have a fear though. My friend called me recently and was raving about the performance of Day-Lewis and said that "his acting is uncanny". Now, I'm afraid that when I watch the movie I'm going to be noticing his performance too much, as I have heard so much praise of it, which in turn will likely mitigate the suspension of disbelief for me. Do you think that when actors recieve lot's of praise for a particular performance, regardeless of how great the performance actually is, the power of the performance will be undermined? When we recognize a great acting performance and subsequently praise it and draw attention to it, doesn't that conflict with an actors goal to not be seen acting?

Justin: Yes, Day-Lewis's performance has been hailed as one of the greatest of all time, and dismissed as pure ham. I lean toward the ham side, but I don't hate it the way some do.

In Day-Lewis's case, I wouldn't worry about noticing his performance too much -- that would not be possible. It's not that kind of performance. It's meant to be noticed at all times -- and I found that strategy distracting from the movie, but it's absolutely intentional on the filmmakers' part.

You write: "When we recognize a great acting performance and subsequently praise it and draw attention to it, doesn't that conflict with an actors goal to not be seen acting?" You've really put your finger on something there. That may be the case with some actors, but I'm not sure it applies to Day-Lewis, whose goal as an actor has never struck me has never been to not be seen acting. He often takes a larger-than-life approach that is absolutely supposed to be seen as acting -- "Gangs of New York," "Last of the Mohicans," etc. I did think he "disappeared" into his role in "My Left Foot" at the time -- but he was not such a familiar actor then. I wonder if I re-watched it now if I would see Day-Lewis pulling the strings, a problem I've long had with him on the screen.

Oh, it's so hard to resist commenting about the sheer unmitigated awfulness of "American Beauty" but I will resist. Well, except for that comment.

I don't think an actor's goal should be "not to be seen acting" - there are all sorts of ways to be a good actor. I happen to favor performances that explore the extreme ends of the spectrum which is one reason I admire Kubrick so much - he either took his actors all the way over the top, or tamped them down to a barely visible simmer.

My relative dislike for Day-Lewis' performance doesn't stem from the fact that he's too "noticeable" but simply from the fact that I just didn't care much for what he was doing. Some people have compared TWBB to Citizen Kane, and I guess it's fair to say that Orson Welles is every bit as "noticeable" (or hammy or over-the-top) in the role as Day-Lewis is in TWBB. The difference... I just get a thrill out of watching Orson Welles be Orson Welles; I don't get the same thrill from watching Daniel Day-Lewis be Daniel Day-Lewis. Why? Obviously, it's all about personal taste first and foremost, but one factor I'll note is that to me Welles was one of those actors gifted with a unique tangible presence on film that only a handful of performers have had, an intense physicality that rarely manifests on screen. Other actors I feel the same way about: Lee Marvin, John Wayne, Toshiro Mifune, Shelley Duvall, Divine, The Three Stooges, and Jimmy Cagney.

Mike S: "The list of Oscar winners signifies NOTHING other than a list of people who have won Oscars." Nicely put! It's interesting, though, to look back and see how many of these acclaimed performances hold up, or don't, and why.

Using the Oscars (even silly lists) as a starting point for a discussion, an attempt to put acting -- and the Oscars themselves -- in some kind of perspective, is pretty interesting though, as I think the range of arguments and opinions on this thread indicates...

Bests (I know, there's 6 here):

James Cagney, "Yankee Doodle Dandy", 1942; Simply amazingly enjoyable
Fredric March, "The Best Years of Our Lives", 1946; The homecoming scene is one of the best in movie history, though it helps to be working opposite Myrna Loy.
Ernest Borgnine, "Marty", 1955; Simply wonderful.
Maximillian Schell, "Judgment at Nuremburg", 1961; Almost, almost, makes you root for the lawyer representing the worst human beings ever
Paul Schofield, "A Man For All Seasons", 1966; He beat Richard Burton, and deserved the award. Enough said.
F. Murray Abraham, "Amadeus", 1984; Hates the man, loves the music, hates God for giving him the ear and not the talent. Just wonderful.

Worsts

Rod Steiger, "In the Heat of the Night", 1967: Please...
John Wayne, "True Grit", 1969; A groundbreaking year in film, and the Best Actor Oscar goes to...the Duke with a legacy win????
Peter Finch, "Network", 1976; I actually love him in the movie, it's just not the lead role, which belonged to the very deserving William Holden.
Ben Kingsley, "Gandhi", 1982; Newman's 1986 never would have happened had in won like he should have for "The Verdict" in 1982.
Jack Nicholson, "As Good as It Gets", 1997; His win for this mildly adequate performance probably cost him a win 5 years later for his brilliant performance in "About Schmidt."

Actually, most of the 90s and early 00s could be labeled worsts.

Best
1. Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" Awesome. This role was made for Jack he and mixes his cocky, off-the-wall scenes with the beautifully subtle ones. A masterful exhibition.
2. Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront" I would have no problem putting his Vito Corleone win on here, but this is his best and most inspiring work. He changed acting forever.
3. Ray Milland in "The Lost Weekend" Very underrated movie, and Milland is extraordinary. He plays an alcoholic trying desperately to fight his addiction. Ballsy performance.
4. F. Murray Abraham in "Amadeus" An extremely passionate portrayal of a confused man who contradicts himself.
5. Ben Kingsley in "Gandhi" My favorite "transformation into a real person" performance. Kinglsey is still Gandhi to a lot of people.

Worst
1. Broderick Crawford in "All the King's Men" Crawford brashly overacts as a character that he's not sure he wants you to like or dislike.
2. Gary Cooper in "High Noon" This is Cooper's "give me an Oscar" role. It's an overrated performance in an overrated movie.
3. Paul Scofield in "A Man for All Seasons" Very evident he was acting, and very little consistency.
4. Gene Hackman in "The French Connection" It's an action movie. He's a good actor who deserved Oscars for other roles. There's no depth to this one.
5. Paul Newman in "The Color of Money" Another great actor in a "please give me an Oscar" role. If he had won for "The Hustler" you can bet he wouldn't have made the sequel.

Fun discussion.

David B, Harry Lime, etc: I really enjoyed your comments. As the above discussion demonstrates, there's nothing more fun than trashing a performance you dislike, but to me there's nothing more enjoyable than reading about what others love and why, and being inspired by their enthusiasm to revisit that work.

I watch Scent of a Woman all the time. I have the dvd. Its a great movie. I know alot of other people who do also. By the way, I dont know anyone who liked Malcom X, the movie you obviously thought should have been recognized here.

5 best:

Al Pacino- Scent of a Woman- that's right suckas one of the top 5! I still can't believe so many people don't like the performance, you'd have to be blind not top appreciate it.

Marlon Brando- The Godfather- one of the greatest characters of all time, 'nuff said.

Tom Hanks- Forrest Gump- Great lovable character, excellent movie, deserved all 6 oscars.

Jack Nicholson- One flew over a cuckoo's nest- Jack's best performance

Denzel Washington- Training Day- yeah, it was hammy but this character was so great, I wasn't sure if were supposed to hat this guy or respect him

5 Worst:

Fredric March- The Best Years of our live-I respect the actor but not the performance. What kind of idiots declared this performance better than Jimmy Stuart’s in It's a Wonderful Life, he gave one of the greatest ever!

Robert Donat- Goodbye, Mr. Chips- Once again what idiots said this performance was btter than Jimmy Stuart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington and Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind

Paul Lukas- Watch on the Rhine- How can they say this guy's better than Bogart in Casablanca!

Rod Stieger- In the heat of the night- Terribly over the top performance, Poitier was better in the same movie and Dustin Hoffman (the Graduate),Paul Newman (Cool hand Luke), and Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde)were all better also.

F. Murray Abraham- Amadeus- Great movie but Tom Hulce was better in the same movie and he's done absolutly nothing since.

"_______________ is sheer unmitigated awfulness."

Okay? And why exactly?

"Uh...because."

I think blasting performances because of the losers is really uncalled for. While I agree that there was no reason for a few to win, some of you are making ridiculous picks. Come on, Divine as Best Actor?

Best wins:
- F. Murray Abraham as Salieri in Amadeus. One of the greatest film performances ever.
- Fredric March as Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde in the '31 adaptation. Amazing dual role and the BEST version.
- Clark Gable in It Happened One Night
- James Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy. Totally made the film work.
- Paul Scofield in A Man for All Seasons.
- George C. Scott in Patton.
- Marlon Brando in The Godfather (despite O'Toole's great performance in The Ruling Class)
- Peter Finch most certainly deserved the Oscar for Network. No contest, even if up against others.
- DeNiro deserved it for Raging Bull, no contest.
- Jamie Foxx deserved it for Ray.

Bad losses:
- Orson Welles in Citizen Kane. Gary Cooper was good in Sergeant York, but Welles was better. Kane should have swept in 1941.
- Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. Haven't seen Paul Lukas' film.
- James Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life. His best role ever.
- Bogart wasn't even nominated for Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Of all films, he deserved the Oscar the most for this.
- Both Peter O'Toole and Peter Sellers losing to Rex Harrison in 1964. Sorry, Harrison is good in My Fair Lady, but O'Toole's Henry II and Seller's three roles totally overshadow. Sellers should have won this year.
- Paul Newman should have won for The Hustler.
- O'Toole as Henry II in The Lion in Winter is excellent, despite Cliff Robertson's good role in Charly.
- Why wasn't Malcolm McDowell not even nominated for A Clockwork Orange?
- Peter Sellers should have won for Being There, no contest.
- Denzel Washington was the best for 1992's Malcolm X.
- Richard Farnsworth deserved it for The Straight Story
- Tie between Jack Nicholson for About Schmidt and Bill Murray for Lost in Translation instead of Sean Penn for Mystic River.

Should have been a tie:
- Both Gregory Peck for To Kill a Mockingbird and Peter O'Toole for Lawrence of Arabia are A+ flawless performances. Should have gone for a tie like the '31 tie between Fredric March and Wallace Beery.

Haven't seen 8 of the winners (Jannings, Baxter, Arliss, Muni, Tracy ['37], Ferrer, Kingsley, Whitaker), but I almost NEVER agree with Oscar's picks. Often my favorite performances of the year fail to get nominated, and when they do, they lose. But I don't think they've ever given it to a truly horrible piece of work.

But I'll play - the Worst:
1943: Paul Lukas - my pick: Bogie or the completely snubbed Joseph Cotten (Shadow of a Doubt)
1944: Bing Crosby - Barry Fitzgerald stole the picture; guess that's why they nominated him in both Actor categories; Alexander Knox is the best choice, but for None Shall Escape, not Wilson
1956: Yul Brynner - Olivier, I guess (his Richard III certainly tops his Hamlet), better yet, the overlooked James Mason (Bigger Than Life)
1986: Paul Newman - Should've beat Schell in '61; clearly a career achievement win (even though they'd given him such an award the previous year!). I think this is the only major award Bob Hoskins didn't win for Mona LIsa.
2000: Russell Crowe - Ed Harris or Javier Bardem. Best non-nominated: Robert Forster (Diamond Men)

Best: Cagney, Brando ('54), Borgnine, DeNiro, Duvall.

Gotta weigh in on the Benigni issue, too:

jim, you said, "(...) I did not find the idea of pretending the Holocaust was not happening -- when the characters are in the belly of the beast -- to be very charming."

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone has a problem with Benigni protecting his 5-year-old son from the reality of the situation. What should he do? Huddle in a corner with the kid saying, "We're screwed, Junior. Sorry your short life had to suck so hard." He has no reason to think that either of them will survive the camp. Isn't it better to let the boy think "life is beautiful" (which it is, by the way, notwithstanding all the ugliness and evil that are also a part of it). Perhaps if the boy were a few years older, I'd see the problem, but in this case protecting the boy's innocence seems to me utterly noble and completely understandable on a human level.

That said, Benigni should've lost to Ian McKellan. :)

Eric L,

This isn't the time or place to discuss why I consider "American Beauty" to be, hands down, the worst film I have ever seen. Sorry if it gets your knickers in a twist. My advice: relax and don't worry so much when somebody's taste doesn't jibe with yours. It'll happen a lot, and it's just not worth getting all huffy about.

Og,

What's wrong with Divine as Best Actor? OK, so maybe as Best Actress. Yes, I absolutely, positively think Divine was a GREAT actor. I ask you this: exactly how many other people could have played her roles? I realize that doesn't automatically make them _good_ roles, but they are certainly distinctive performances.

For that matter, I think the early John Waters' troupe was a criminally underrated set of actors. Those who think all acting must involve "process" and "subtext" or whatever evils the method has inflicted upon the world will probably disagree. If you simply consider acting to be performance of any kind, then I have to count Divine, Edith Massey and David Lochary as some of my favorite performers of all-time. Likewise, I consider Jackie Chan to be a great actor, and I don't care how much "range" he has. I see no reason that an athletic performance is any less "acting" than a method emote-fest.

Mr. Long,

This isn't the time or place to discuss why someone who actually likes "Pink Flamingos" should never be trusted to comment on anything related to film, as it requires taste and discernment.

Divine is not an actor or an actress. He is a Jerry Springer reject.

"Oh my God almighty, someone has sent me a bowel movement!"

A thousand Alan Balls at a thousand typewriters will never craft a line so brilliant.

Let's see: We've got some in-fighting going on, Christopher Long has provoked the ire of some commenters with his Divine pick (for the record I wouldn't give him Best Actor in those years but an honorary Oscar would've been nice for actors such as he that fall outside the "mainstream respectability" of the exalted Academy - and it would make them seem more human), people are coming up with comment nicknames such as "Twisted Knickers" and "Filthiest Person Alive" and I finally, FINALLY, fulfilled a long awaited dream to mention corned beef in the comments of a blog post.

It's simply the best post ever. Ever.

I'm a different Dan than the one 12 posts up, but I agree with him about Nicholson's "mildy adequate" performance in As Good As It Gets. I feel the same way about it as Zac: I liked his performance when I first it, but I was considerably less impressed upon a second viewing. Now if the Academy thought he was past due on his third star, they should have waited a few years and given it to him for The Pledge, his last great performance, and certainly superior to Washington in Training Day.

Worst of all, they snubbed Robert Duvall for The Apostle AND Peter Fonda for Ulee's Gold in order to give it to him that year.

Good one, Dan. Duvall's performance in The Apostle was truly phenomenal, as was the film.