Alan Rickman RIP

[jeremyp]

Another great Brit gone at 69. He of the mellifluous voice and wonderful sneer. Loved him in "Die Hard" but my favorite role for him was in "Galaxy Quest." A hoot! Like many great Brit actors a great stage actor. Wish they'd film these for those of us not close to great Theater districts.

[cubehead]

A wonderful Sheriff of Nottingham.

[CKuykendall]

He was overlooked by the Oscars for a Best Actor nomination for Bottle Shock in 2008.

[booond]

He was overlooked by the Oscars for a Best Actor nomination for Bottle Shock in 2008.

Mediocre movies don't garner many awards.

[gh]

great mashup: every important Snape scene, in chrono order (c15 minutes)

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/putting-every-professor-snape-scene-140031069.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb

[jeremyp]

Mediocre movies don't garner many awards.

He was more renowned for Stage work, as is Mark Rylance. He thought he was slumming when he did "Die Hard." Liked the paycheck.

[bambam1729]

Actually I heard this morning that Rickman wasn't paid much for Die Hard. He said that the reason they hired him was that they were paying Bruce Willis so much ($7M) that they needed people who would work cheap for the other roles and he was willing to do it.

[booond]

He was more renowned for Stage work, as is Mark Rylance. He thought he was slumming when he did "Die Hard." Liked the paycheck.

I'll agree with Rylance but Rickman lost the "stage actor" headline once he did "Die Hard" and especially after he did "Harry Potter". He made his nut in front of the camera. We're not talking Brian Bedford - the actor - (who also passed away this week).

[CKuykendall]

Mediocre movies don't garner many awards.

I don't think a 3-1/2 star Roger Ebert movie (tops for Ebert was 4 stars) quite qualifies as mediocre. Or see the 4.4 star ratings (tops being 5) on Amazon by 600+ ordinary viewers who wrote reviews or brief commentary. The Rolling Stone reviewer liked it. Granted, other reviews, not so much, and almost no awards and IMDb voter ratings pretty average. My point, in any event, was that Rickman was good.

[booond]

And my point was that mediocre movies - 48% on Rotten Tomatoes - don't garner many awards. I watched the movie and Rickman is great but the movie is forgettable. There are many fine performances in average films but they get lost. Rickman will be remembered for Die Hard, Harry Potter, and Galaxy Quest among others. He was never nominated for an Academy Award but did have 4 Bafta Noms and 1 win as a supporting actor for Robin Hood.

[Master Po]

I appreciate the mentions of Galaxy Quest -- just watched it this week, and it remains a favorite. But for my viewing, my favorite Rickman roles/movies are Truly, Madly, Deeply; and Sense and Sensibility. A really enjoyable actor, across a range of movies, and a range of good to not-so-good movies. Always enjoyed his contributions, regardless.

(And I just noticed that this was my 3,000th post. Do I get a gold star or something for that?)

[booond]

I appreciate the mentions of Galaxy Quest -- just watched it this week, and it remains a favorite. But for my viewing, my favorite Rickman roles/movies are Truly, Madly, Deeply; and Sense and Sensibility. A really enjoyable actor, across a range of movies, and a range of good to not-so-good movies. Always enjoyed his contributions, regardless.

(And I just noticed that this was my 3,000th post. Do I get a gold star or something for that?)

Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my wife's favorites. Very underrated movie.

[CKuykendall]

And my point was that mediocre movies - 48% on Rotten Tomatoes - don't garner many awards. I watched the movie and Rickman is great but the movie is forgettable. There are many fine performances in average films but they get lost.

When I said that Rickman "should" have been nominated for what you yourself call his "great" performance in Bottle Shock, which even detractors of the movie, for example in IMDb reviews, mostly say was the main highlight of a movie they otherwise didn't like, I *really do mean* that he *should* have been nominated. T&FN, USATF, and the IAAF don't remove athletes with good marks from annual performance lists because the mark occurred at a venue some people subjectively think, but others do not, was a crummy track & field meet. In the Hollywood case the corresponding some are the Rotten Tomatoes voters, the IMDb voters, and most critics, whereas the corresponding others were Ebert, the Rolling Stone critic, the Amazon reviewers, and, from I read of IMDb reviews, the audiences at Sundance. But even if one goes along with the some, that a movie wasn't any good, that doesn't mean an acting performance from it should be ignored any more than a good track & field mark in an otherwise crummy track & field meet should be ignored. So please don't consider me a sap for expecting Hollywood to behave like T&FN, USATF, and the IAAF on performance lists, and to recognize fine performances that get lost among average or forgettable movies. I didn't say I *expected* anything, from Academy voters. I just said he *should" have been nominated for that particular movie. So you're either debating a straw man of your own conjuring, or you're telling me what I already am fully aware of, about what Hollywood and the Oscars tend to do. Or, if it's just a non-argumentative observation, yeah, you're pretty much correct about Hollywood and Oscar tendencies, although exceptions could probably be found.

[26mi235]

Galaxy Quest is almost unique for me in terms of being interesting/worth watching for something in its genre.

I think that he did a good job with Snape because he made you dislike him even when started to see what he was accomplishing and what Snape's problems were.

[booond]

When I said that Rickman "should" have been nominated for what you yourself call his "great" performance in Bottle Shock, which even detractors of the movie, for example in IMDb reviews, mostly say was the main highlight of a movie they otherwise didn't like, I *really do mean* that he *should* have been nominated. T&FN, USATF, and the IAAF don't remove athletes with good marks from annual performance lists because the mark occurred at a venue some people subjectively think, but others do not, was a crummy track & field meet. In the Hollywood case the corresponding some are the Rotten Tomatoes voters, the IMDb voters, and most critics, whereas the corresponding others were Ebert, the Rolling Stone critic, the Amazon reviewers, and, from I read of IMDb reviews, the audiences at Sundance. But even if one goes along with the some, that a movie wasn't any good, that doesn't mean an acting performance from it should be ignored any more than a good track & field mark in an otherwise crummy track & field meet should be ignored. So please don't consider me a sap for expecting Hollywood to behave like T&FN, USATF, and the IAAF on performance lists, and to recognize fine performances that get lost among average or forgettable movies. I didn't say I *expected* anything, from Academy voters. I just said he *should" have been nominated for that particular movie. So you're either debating a straw man of your own conjuring, or you're telling me what I already am fully aware of, about what Hollywood and the Oscars tend to do. Or, if it's just a non-argumentative observation, yeah, you're pretty much correct about Hollywood and Oscar tendencies, although exceptions could probably be found.

And I said that mediocre movies don't win awards. You argued that the movie wasn't mediocre when you should've agreed and railed about the Academy's inability to see great performances are available to award in all movies, not just good movies or movies shown in the last two months of the year. We would've had common ground. Instead you keep arguing the wrong thing. It's silly. It was a mediocre movie with a good performance. It's too bad but that's life. Bel Powley should've gotten a nomination for best actress but the movie came out too early. It's the game.