Lets start off why was Hopkins nominated for lead actor when he had like 20 minutes of screen time. I thought Ted Levine out shined Hopkins in SOTL but that's just me. This should have been Deniros 3rd Oscar. I could live with Hopkins winning Supporting.
shareThe real joke is that Robert Mitchum wasn't even nominated for an Oscar for his performance as Max Cady in the original. Superior to DeNiro's, IMO.
I just rewatched the original, Mitchum was frightening and pure evil.
They're both hammy, but Hopkins more distinctively and memorably so. As for who gave the best lead actor performance in 1991, then my pick would certainly be John Turturro in Barton Fink.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
Ugh, seriously? De Niro was like the crazy uncle doing party tricks and telling dirty jokes at a wedding reception. In comparison, Hopkins' performance was subtle.
shareyeah, do they just go main, lead actor who gets top billing and is the main lead character in the movie so it has to be best actor. this is so stupid if the actor only has 20 minutes screen time. that's a supporting actor not a lead actor. supporting=not as much screen time as lead actor, it always does and it has to. they are just supporting the main actors. but in this case it just so happens that there isn't a lead actor. deniro was robbed.
shareDeNiro's performance was clownish. Memorable of course, but clownish and his accent was TERRIBLE.
shareI definitely agree. DeNiro was robbed. He totally owned that role. The Academy is biased towards Brit actors.
shareDont think so. You said it yourself. You would've been fine with him winning supporting so you cant say it was totally off the rail.
From the two greats I think Hopkins is the greater. Though it does make sense that 20 minutes it's too low to be considered lead. I never bought that whole idea to begin with. I've seen many memorable roles where the supporting almost had more time or just a little lesser but his role took the whole story by storm but somehow he gets the lesser accolade over bs reasoning or rules. In this case he actually got his merit. Though he was only their for 20 mins. He pretty much haunts you for the rest of your life. He plays the role like no other branding the film. Hopkins created the Hannibal himself making him out of script. Also it definitely amplifies that Hopkins had never played such a role while De Niro had. Hopkins character is also more interesting and strangely has a strong moral and romantic side while Robert's didn't. With lesser time Hopkins character had a lot more impact in a vast full of interesting characters and wonderfully played actors to Robert's.
When I had found out Hopkins won it I was actually surprised they gave it to the one deserving without knowing anything about the oscars.
When I found out Robert had be nominated I was also surprised.
When I found out they were both in the same year I had no question they gave it to the right one.