The race for Best Actor this year already feels full and the season has not yet even begun. The big names crowding the race already include Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant, Johnny Depp for Black Mass, Eddie Redmayne for The Danish Girl, Bryan Cranston for Trumbo, Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation, Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel for Youth, Joseph Gordon Levitt for Snowden and/or The Walk, Michael Fassbender for Steve Jobs, Tom Hank for Bridge of Spies, Tom Hardy for Legend, Michael Keaton or Mark Ruffalo from Spotlight, Jake Gyllenhaal for Southpaw, Ethan Hawke for Regression, Tobey Maguire in Pawn Sacrifice, Matt Damon in The Martian, Bradley Cooper for Adam Jones and these are just the ones we know about. There could be many more that aren’t front and center that could definitely reshape how we see the race in coming months.
Still we would be remiss if we walked by Ian McKellen’s astonishing portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in Bill Condon’s Mr. Holmes. There is virtually no buzz thus far for this great performance and the only reason for that is that everyone is aware of the impossibly crowded Best Actor race. Remember, though, many of these prospects are sight unseen films, and no one really knows how things will wind up by year’s end.
AO Scott writing about McKellen:
The film’s plots are soft and flimsy, and they don’t mesh as gracefully as they might, but they do serve as an adequate trellis for Mr. McKellen’s performance, which is gratifyingly but unsurprisingly wonderful. With his craggy visage and papery diction, his Holmes is a study in wry, intellectual charisma. Anachronistic as it might be, it isn’t hard to imagine Benedict Cumberbatch, the kinetic, intensely focused Sherlock of the BBC series, aging into this mellow codger. (The same can’t be said for the smirky action-hero version played by Robert Downey Jr. in Guy Ritchie’s tedious franchise.)
You might also detect some kinship between Holmes and Magneto, Mr. McKellen’s mutant in the “X-Men” movies, whose genius is filtered through rage and resentment. Not that Holmes is angry, though he does now and then betray a flicker of impatience. He is, however, very much a man of feeling as well as a creature of reason, and the suggestions of buried emotion that can sometimes be detected between the coolly logical lines of Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories are brought to rich life here.
The film suggests that there is much about Sherlock Holmes that his fans don’t know. Its most ingenious conceit is that the real man has grown old alongside his legend, slipping into theaters to watch movies made about his exaggerated exploits and gently correcting some of Watson’s fabrications. A long retirement has humanized him, and the specific longings and regrets chronicled in “Mr. Holmes” might constitute only a partial list.
That at least, is the tantalizing possibility implicit in Mr. McKellen’s whispered reminiscences and slow, graceful movements: that beyond the potted vignettes we are witnessing lies the untold story of a great, complex soul, a man more mysterious than any of the crimes he is supposed to have solved.
Review after review cites McKellen’s mesmerizing work as the aging and melancholy Holmes, even if the film overall is being met with less enthusiastic response. McKellen has, unbelievably, never won an Oscar. He is beloved within the industry, however, and received a standing ovation when the film screened for the Academy.
Although McKellen certainly qualifies for the “gold watch” slot we need to remember he’ll be competing with three other veterans — Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel in Youth, along with Robert Redford in Truth. Long shot or not, McKellen’s work deserves to be noted and appreciated. Whether he makes it into the winner’s circle or whether his performance becomes yet another warmly-regarded role we talk about in reflecting upon his impeccable career, one thing we know for sure: McKellen is indeed one of our very best actors whose enduring gift to the movies has yet to be recognized at the Oscars.
I actually sat there momentarily stymied with “Is this the same person after all who is in Vicious?” LOL.
Whatever I might think of Vicious – omg – the transformation is a testament in itself. He towers above others & absolutely should receive every top award this year.
I loved the whole film too actually – so many subtle layers of beauty. A keeper for me to see again for sure.
I really liked Mr. Holmes. Interesting movie.
And McKellan’s performance was very subtle. He made you believe he was really Sherlock Holmes (not an easy feat). I would bet on him for a nomination this year. Other people have mentioned Sir Ian’s work in Gods and Monsters and also Richard III. Mr. Holmes stands neck-and-neck with those performances. I’m not a LOTR’s fan (sorry, I just found the movies excrutiatingly repetitive). He was good in those movies, but not “showy” enough for an Oscar. Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast was UNFORGETTABLE. He would have received my vote.
I also thought Laura Linney was wonderful (with a spot-on accent – see? Meryl Streep isn’t the only American actress who can do accents). Linney also might be remembered at awards season. She, too, is an actress who is “overdue”.
One more comment – I always pay attention to the music in films, and the score by Carter Burwell was beautiful. He’s another one who deserves recognition (and hasn’t won an Oscar yet). You can’t think of “Fargo” without thinking about Burwell’s music.
It’s a beautiful performance in a lovely film. A real Sunday afternoon film.
I would love to see both Ian McKellen and Maggie Smith at the Oscars next year. They’re both overdue for nominations. It
would be great to see them in the spotlight early next year.
I’m SCREAMING in full agreement at every comment Ryan and Bryce left already–though I’d say Mr. Holmes is better than 9 of the last 10 films that won the Best Actor race (all except There Will Be Blood).
Mr. Holmes is WONDERFUL and deserving of every ounce of praise any critic or Oscar forecaster is brave enough to give it. I say “brave” because it’s clear that the film/performance has already veered into the “we’re scared to back this because its chances seem so unlikely and I don’t want my predictions to be laughed at” territory, as evidenced by this very post.
I’ve only fallen asleep in during 2 movies before in theaters and I nearly did during Mr. Holmes but that’s only because I was out and about all day long and saw the 9:45pm showing. With the deliberately slow pace and McKellan’s soothing voice I was practically being dared to drift off. It’s a shame because I liked the overall movie and I loved McKellan…but I may need to give it another view because I know I missed a lot of nuances and I can’t judge where on the awards spectrum this will fall on. I will say the makeup they did on him was out of this world good to make him look older, if that really was makeup at all.
I don’t think this is a performance that will be forgotten come awards season. The critics are going ga ga over his performance and they will remind people of this when they hand out their awards. It’s too big a performance to be ignored…it will stand out from the crowd – and deservedly so!
It’s a little surprising how this movie has flown so low under the radar in the US…it’s getting plenty of attention overseas. Some critics have even reappraised the film just a few weeks after their original review, saying that it lingers in the mind long after the first viewing.
And here I thought the use of the term “low-key” would be uncontroversial… 😉
Wait, I though ‘low-key’ was analog to “not into the ‘lifestyle'”.
Carry on.
Ehhhh, what are the new formatting codes? Bold, italic etc.? I’m a dunce.
Ehhhh, what are the new formatting codes? Bold, italic etc.? I’m a dunce.
it’s a bit tricky.
use “em” instead of “i”, Auntie Em
The 2001 Supporting Actor Oscar was unquestionably Ben Kingsley’s As was the 2003 Leading Actor Oscar. But then he already had one, and Jim Broadbent didn’t… and neither did Ian.
It’s not a “summer” movie, and it’s best chance to breakout would have been with some Awards buzz.
A “summer” movie? Exactly what is a “summer” movie? Pixels, perhaps? Which may fail to break even on an already highly-deflated, modest budget? Here’s the thing: Mr. Holmes is holding up very well at the box office, and stats show that it’s resonating with older audience members on a level which no comparable titles have of late. Its summer release is proving to be productive, whereas a fall release might have seen the film (I won’t call it ‘low-key,’ Ryan, perhaps just ‘understated’) passed over in favour of shit like The Danish Girl or whatnot…
(I won’t call it ‘low-key,’ Ryan, perhaps just ‘understated’)
Paddy, of course, I don’t even have anything against the words “low-key” and Danny, of course, I know you didn’t write that as a slur. The Oscars would make better choices in every category every year if they could learn to appreciate low-key performances in low-key films as much as they seem to adore blasted bombast.
Thanks for speaking up in defense of low-key, Paddy, so I get a chance to be sure Danny knows I didn’t mean to sound scolding.
Paddy’s own review of Mr Holmes is fair-minded and exquisitely worded. Like all Paddy’s reviews, he packs more substance into 20 lines than most so-called metacritics can manage to do in reviews 10x longer.
In his review Paddy explains why he think Mr Holmes falls short of masterpiece, but he nevertheless elegantly conveys that Ian McKellen’s performance is masterclass.
When I write that I wish we wouldn’t be gauging McKellen’s prospects on the basis of how airtight this movie may be, my only point is that literally hundreds of actors and actresses have made it safely to the shores of an Oscar nomination rowing boats far leakier than Mr Holmes.
M1, it was a strong year indeed. I mean, Broadbent winning wasn’t scandalous by any measure. But standing by Gandalf here. SEXY BEAST was one of the great movies of ’01.
That’s pretty much where I was coming from Ryan.
Ugh!
This must end now.
JOY will break us my friend.
the only acceptable option from 2001.
McKellen is great in Fellowship of the Ring, but I’m not surprised or disappointed he lost because Broadbent in Iris (who was a fine winner that year) and especially Kingsley in Sexy Beast are also terrific performances and IMO better than McKellen that year. Either way, it was a strong Best Supporting Actor category that year with Ethan Hawke also nominated for his wonderful work in Training Day.
a better movie than seven(7) out of the ten(10) movies that gave us the last ten(10) Best Actor winners
The Theory of Everything
Dallas Buyers Club
Lincoln
The Artist
The King’s Speech
Crazy Heart
Milk
There Will Be Blood
The Last King of Scotland
Capote
That’s a pretty strong list of movies right there. So I’m curious, which three are the ones Mr. Holmes is NOT better than?
That’s a pretty strong list of movies right there. So I’m curious, which three are the ones Mr. Holmes is NOT better than?
Can I vote?
– I don’t see how Mr Holmes can be better There Will Be Blood, Capote or Lincoln.
– I don’t see how Mr Holmes can be worse than The Artist, King’s Speech, Crazy Heart*
– It would not surprise me if I enjoy Mr Holmes on par with Dallas Buyers, Theory of Everything, Last King or Milk
*(like I said before, I never made it past a half hour into Crazy Heart, but I doubt if Mr Holmes will make my ears bleed like 30 minutes of Crazy Twang ‘n’ Drawl did).
And for the record, MR. HOLMES is a better movie than seven(7) out of the ten(10) movies that gave us the last ten(10) Best Actor winners; so like Ryan said, this theory don’t hold a couple drops.
I will never know how much better Mr Holmes is than Crazy Heart because I will never be able to sit through Crazy Heart.
McKellen should have two by now! I also have him winning for FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING — his iconic creation is by a ridiculous margin the only acceptable option from 2001.
I recognize the obstacles against him as well as the possibility of a he’s-due-and-we-screwed-up-before sentiment pushing him through in the end, although the obstacles (low-key film, early in the year, lots of competition up ahead) are undeniable.
But I’ll just be keeping my fingers crossed that this will end up being McKellen’s year.
How about we maybe all try to help by refraining from saying Mr Holmes is “low-key,” or “lackluster,” or “not really very good”?
Because not everybody agrees with those assessments. Turan at the LATimes, Foundas at Variety, Bilge Ebiri New York Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times all gave Mr Holmes metacritic scores of 80 or higher.
Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Post, and Peter Travers all gave it metacritic scores of 75.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The Hollywood Reporter: Metacritic scores of 70.
If you think these numbers do not look like 90s, you’re right.
The review score for Mr Holmes is also NOT a 54. Which is what metacritic collectively gave The Iron Lady.
The Iron Lady. For poor neglected Oscar-starved Meryl Streep. Because she really had to have a 3rd one or the terrorists would win and zombie Margaret Thatcher would rise from the grave to inflict more misery on England than all the monumental misery she inflicted when she was stalking the decimated British countryside alive.
Despite the way metacritic has so many people fooled: All Critics Are Not Created Equal.
The names above are A-listers. Which critics gave Mr Holmes scores of 50 or lower to drag down its average? Famous nobodies like Ed Frankl, Cath Clarke, Chris Cabin and Rex “I’m Never Right” Reed.
So if we would really and truly like to see Sir Ian be nominated and give him a chance to slug it out with the likes of Michael Keaton, then perhaps could we please stop acting like Sir Ian McKellen in Mr Holmes is less impressive than Christian Bale in American Hustle?
Want to know my idea of a movie that’s “not very good”? The Goddamned Blind Side. And that PoS was unstoppable Oscar gold apparently.
Hugh Jackman got an Oscar nomination for Les Misérables and that disastrous mess has got miserable right there in its title.
Metacritic (a word I’m so fucking sick of typing)
53 – The Blind Side
54 – The Iron Lady
67 – Mr Holmes
74 – The Theory of Everything
Don’t make me write something like this for the main page. Because, my dear Watson, keep on with this “not really very good” bullshit and I’ll effing do it.
Holmes felt remorse for something he could not recall, a big theme, not uncommon, perhaps universal. The remorse one sets aside for later contemplation, catches up. Solving the riddle of a particular case, to the length of traveling to post-bomb Hiroshima for the right drug, was Holmes way in, and his last chance, at finding the character flaw for which he must atone.
Id love to see him nominated
I halfway wonder if he might have won for Gods and Monsters if it had come out after LOTR/X Men instead of right before.
Good question, Justin.
I wonder if Ian McKellen might have won for Gods and Monsters if half the men in the Academy were not fusty crusty old homophobes.
The movie is okay but not great, and Sir Ian’s performance is only okay (by his high standards) and not great. Part of the trouble is that while Cumberbatch and Downey would be lucky to be half the actor McKellen is, Sherlock Holmes himself feels kind of played out right now due to the ongoing BBC series and the Downey films. Even the idea of ‘old Sherlock Holmes’ has been explored before in various books and films. The movie isn’t breaking any new ground, and so I suspect McKellen will go un-nominated yet again.
I liked the movie better than many critics, but McKellen is truly fine. He’s so reliable, that I fear many take him for granted – “Yeah, McKellen is great AGAIN…next….”
I have no idea why SHERLOCK was released in July, however. It’s not a “summer” movie, and it’s best chance to breakout would have been with some Awards buzz. Sadly, McKellen will likely join Michael Sheen (FAR FROM MADDING CROWD) on the sidelines come Awards time (voters seem to have ridiculously short memories), no doubt bumped my middling performances in “big” December Oscar bait movies.
Wait a minute…McKellen hasn’t even won a BAFTA? Yikes.
I would almost rather see McKellen avoid another scramble at the trough and receive an honorary Oscar – like O’Toole or Kerr – or even the Jean Hersholt for his humanitarian activism.
He’s definitely worthy. Loved his Richard III and Gods & Monsters was my top film that year.
He has won 6 Olivier’s, 4 Drama Desk awards, and a Tony. Whenever they announce “Best Actor” and then say a name other than his, it’s all a bit of a sham.
McKellen’s performance is deserving of all the awards recognition it might receive. He is a pleasure to watch.
Laura Linney and Milo Parker were excellent, too. The screenplay could have been a bit more structured, but I liked the naturalism very much. Loose ends are normal.
There was a strong theme in Mr. Holmes that was not underlined, his treatment/disregard of women, and his late in life breakthrough.
I can’t see Miramax campaigning effectively for him. Sir Ian is spared the bs. But he should be held up as deserving.
Ryan, those stats gobsmacked me!
What about Christopher Plummer in “Remember”?
has yet to be recognized at the Oscars.
shockingly, not just the Oscars.
AMPAS: 2 nominations, no wins
BAFTA: 3 nominations, no wins
EMMY: 5 nominations, no wins
McKellen has a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor in a Movie Made for TV (Rasputin, 1996)
the Independent Spirit Awards and British Independent Film Awards did not get sucked into the horrid hammy vortex of Roberto Benigni, so McKellean got awards from both Indie groups on two continents for Gods and Monsters.