Glenn Whipp from the LA Daily News puts his Oscar bids in: http://www.insidesocal.com/reeldeal/2006/09/gurus_o_gold_picks_are_up_1.html My Oscar nominee picks in David Poland’s “Gurus o’ Gold” went up today on Movie City News. Remember: This is how I see the Academy leaning, though I did go out of my way to trumpet Matt Damon, who delivers an amazing performance in Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed.” Damon and “The Departed” – they’re my favorites so far this year. Word has it that Damon’s lead role in Robert De Niro’s spy thriller “The Good Shepherd” might be more Oscar-friendly (the character, apparently takes more of a “journey”), but it’s hard to imagine De Niro’s movie will top that of his one-time master.

Thanks Stuck. Surprised to see Damon mentioned here and not Leo. Most reviewers seemed wowed by Leo's performance. it’s hard to imagine De Niro’s movie will top that of his one-time master. I wish nothing but the best for De Niro, but it would be very cruel if he were to win over Marty.

That's why I had to post the link - rare to see a Matt mention above Leo. His link to Gurus didn't work, but it's: http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2007/gurus_060929.html

Stuck Thanks for Daily news excerpt and link to Guru's chart :) Did you see photo of Damon/his wife/baby in this week's 'OK' magazine...is cute photo...if you haven't ...I will scan it for you Stormy Yes ..noticed on Guru's Oscar Actor contenders DiCaprio has 87 pts Damon has 27 Nicholson 23 Dale = all of Stormy's votes :)

In support of Damon I've always felt he has the harder of the two leads to emote. DiCaprio's role is the more expressive one while Damon's is the one that has to keep it all inside. And while Damon is a bad guy he's not supposed to be uncharismatic. He's not supposed to be a hateable character. I'm not attacking DiCaprio's work in The Departed at all, I just htink that right now he's getting all the praise for being the emotive one but a couple years from now the one that people will praise will be Matt Damon for his constrained and most likely more internalized performance. But then agin I'm more of a Damon fan than a DiCaprio fan so my judgement is colored.

The Rotten Tomatoes page is active and it starts out with a nice round number... :)

(Peanut, I'd love to see that photo/scan if you could scan it for me - thanks!)

Yes, it's interesting how people view different performances. I think Damon is an interesting actor but from a purely emotive standpoint, I think he's actually better playing roles that are somewhat internalized. That may be why he could do well in The Good Shepherd. He's a very intelligent man from what I understand. He studies his roles from the outside in. On the other hand, DiCaprio is actually, when you look at his best work (I think he was wonderfully emotive and connecting in his earlier films - WEGG, TBL, TBD, MR, R&J, even Titanic, though it's not my fave of his roles) he works from the inside out - he's best when he's being intuitive, tender and volatile at the same time, and revealing emotions boiling up from the character. For whatever reasons, and this is my judgment only, as I realize Peanut and others may heartily disagree, I haven't been as connected to things he did post Titanic. Richard of The Beach was underwritten, far too PG13 and the movie was a big disappointment to me. I liked him in GoNY but never felt he got very far with the character of Amsterdam. He just never looked entirely comfortable with the part. I thought Day Lewis had the more interesting character by far. In The Aviator, he did a great job and yet he only really disappeared most compellingly into Howard Hughes late in the film when he had that mustache and was playing older. I think his last few films have been like a bridge from an awkward period in his life when he's no longer a boy but not quite a man either. But this seems to be a time when he is reconnecting with the earlier strengths he had as an actor, and what amazing strengths they can be, and combining them with more assured maturity. It's nice to see.

One Film Lover, Ah... don't despair. Here's a person (c'est moi) who is a fan of the original's Ming. :) Since I haven't seen TD yet, I would speak from the perspective of IA as I had always done (don't honestly know aspects surrounding TD well enough compared to everyone here! ). Anyways - what I found for IA, and I am pretty sure it wouldn't be too different for TD, is that a successful portrayal of the two characters must be defined independently. The acting style that works for Billy would not be work for Collin, and by extension the two characters would be best portrayed, in the sense of having a strong individual personality and at the same time being able to have good chemistry with his "twin", if their perspective actor employs more contrasting approaches in their performance. Billy, as the good guy, would have scored more automatic points with the audience to start with; but roles similar to his are also more common in movies and therefore less attractive in that sense - thus a good Billy would have to emote well, to stand out from his peers and portray his turmoil well enough for the audience to set him aside from the other characters in this film as well as from other moles in previous movies; if he fails in that respect, Billy would be good but not memorable. Collin on the other hand, would start with negative points. The audience is supposed to hate him and if the actor manages to get sympathy points from them, his performance should already be considered worthy. Collin's character doesn't demand as much to be "loved" but rather to be understood; that when the audience sees him they recognise what he is doing is wrong but can consider his behavior as only human in a certain respect. In fact, if Collin is too lovable it would, IMHO, put his ability into question. Moreoever, in contrast to Billy, Collin's character cannot stand out too much from his peers; the audience should not have the idea of "how could people around him NOT notice he is a mole?" ever during the movie. If they do, then the character could be considered a failure too because he is not believable. Thus Collin would probably benefit from a much more subdued way of acting - and though that would make him perhaps less eye catching as Billy, the novelty of his role (the "reverse mole") would help him gather interest from the audience. So.. that's my longwinded spiel on it... in summary I think I would just say that comparing Billy and Collin is not really a fair assessment to either - and I think most reasonable people would be able to see that. Of course, we all have our favorite actors, but that doesn't mean we are incapable to enjoy and appreciate the fine performance of others... I think many of the posters here have made clear of their favorites, but they have never striked me as someone who would scorn other actors just to add points to who they like. Ultimately, you and I and everyone here are a member of the ticket purchasing bunch, and the opinion of one is as valuable and worthy as another. :D

Kartoffel, I'm completely in agreement with you on performances. Sometimes I watch an actor in a film who gets seemingly short shrift yet who is nothing short of amazing to me compared to other actors/performances rated much higher by critics and public alike. It is in the eye of the beholder and certainly we all have actors who appeal to us in different ways and on different levels but we shouldn't forget that performances should only be judged on how well a character comes through, not whether the character is particularly sympathetic, loveable or a real bastard. There is difficulty in playing any of these characters -- some actors are just better at disappearing into certain roles than others.

Stuckonlife Sent the scan link to you via pm :) Joseph As to actors/performances/films.... As I've always said....none of us...you...me...critics ..or anyone else..comes to a movie 'empty handed'...we all come carrying our personal set of luggage filled to the brim with our own personal preferences/prejudices/dislikes/experiences that affect how we 'look' at a film /performances Or as the wise man said "We may all LOOK at the same thing ..but .. we don't all "SEE" the same thing " And that is why being active on movie discussion board such as this is so much fun as you get to express how you 'see' things ..while at same time...getting a glimpse of how 'others' see things :)

___
As far as in the future, Damon being recognized more for his work because its less showy or whatever, then maybe a comparison is with GONY and Daniel Day Lewis and Leonardo - I always felt a lot of the reason Daniel Day Lewis got more praise than LD was that his part was more showy, more expressive, more explosive than Amesterdam. That's not to say Day Lewis wasnt great because he was. And so in the same vein, with TD, it's probably LD's role allows him to standout more but also he wouldn't be getting the praise he is getting if he wasn't giving a great performance- I think critics are more than ready to diss LD if they had the chance; he really has to be good to get praise from most critics, IMO. But botom line, I wish people would get away from this comparison thing. Didnt Damon say in one of the recent interviews, he didn't care about awards and /or getting mentioned for awards, the most important thing was getting out a great product and if another actor did great and got notice for it, he was fine with it because that means the film is that much better.