Judy reviews

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Sabin »

dws1982 wrote
I'm still a Ronan voter in Best Actress, but I think Zellweger is very, very good. I could definitely understand someone saying that her performance is not at all naturalistic and is full of tics and mannerisms, but I think that is probably in keeping with someone who is as drug- and alcohol-dependent as Judy Garland was at that stage of her life, and there's also genuine brokenness and vigor to her performance that I found really moving.Yes, the real-life situation of Zellweger as the past-her-prime star playing the past-her-prime star probably adds some resonance to the film and the performance (as does the fact that everyone watching the movie knows that Garland is at the end of her life) that Zellweger doesn't actually contribute through her acting, but honestly, Best Actress awards have been given out for much, much less.
This is exactly how I felt, but I never really had hope that Academy voters would choose Ronan. If Academy voters weren't going to vote for Saoirse Ronan for Brooklyn or Lady Bird, they weren't going to vote for her for a part they already saw Winona Ryder and Katherine Hepburn play and passed on, even though Ronan is very good.

Watching Judy, I didn't feel like I was watching a caricature. I felt like I was watching something more personal, more interesting, but also just a bit tiresome. That's mainly the fault of the script, not her, for failing to give her much of interest to do. But it's not like anyone in that lineup was terribly robbed, so... moving on.
"How's the despair?"
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by dws1982 »

Rewatched this now that it hit streaming.

I wasn't a hater the first time, or a detractor of Zellweger's awards run for it, but I thought it was nothing more than a standard snapshot biopic with a solid leading performance.

I'm still a Ronan voter in Best Actress, but I think Zellweger is very, very good. I could definitely understand someone saying that her performance is not at all naturalistic and is full of tics and mannerisms, but I think that is probably in keeping with someone who is as drug- and alcohol-dependent as Judy Garland was at that stage of her life, and there's also genuine brokenness and vigor to her performance that I found really moving.Yes, the real-life situation of Zellweger as the past-her-prime star playing the past-her-prime star probably adds some resonance to the film and the performance (as does the fact that everyone watching the movie knows that Garland is at the end of her life) that Zellweger doesn't actually contribute through her acting, but honestly, Best Actress awards have been given out for much, much less.

The ending is pretty ridiculous. I get it--validation for the performer/artist who was not appreciated or loved in to the extent that they should have been in real life--but it's still ridiculous and still happens too much in movies like this.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

I'm not an Academy member, but I won't vote for Lopez for anything I do vote for because I think she gave a one-note performance playing a one-note character. As I've said before, the only revelatory thing she does in Hustlers is show that she can still shimmy up a pole at 50. Jane Fonda can probably still do that at 81. So what?

I think Zellweger, on the other hand, as cliché as it may sound, does an amazing job evoking Garland near the end of her life when she was only 47 but looked a good ten to twenty years older and probably felt ten or twenty years older than that. It's a performance that resonates with older actors and audiences to their core.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Sabin »

MaxWilder wrote
Way to infer a lot from a little.

Virtually every review of Hustlers says Jennifer Lopez gives her best performance since Out of Sight. Which is true. It's also a reminder that for 20 years she was more interested in being a multi-hyphenate celebrity than an actor. So pardon me for not thinking her first real effort in years and years should get her an Oscar. I'd have no objection to her being nominated, however. It would be deserved.
Since Out of Sight, she's been in 22 films. If she wasn't interested in being an actor, she did a bad job of it. No, they're not great but she's clearly taking being an actor some kind of seriously.

I don't know if this is a thing for you over the years, holding winning an Oscar to a high-bar that people like Matthew McConaughey, Jared Leto, or Burt Reynolds should not be able to reach because of past discretions. But if that's the case, fine. You do you.
MaxWilder wrote
I mentioned that Renee Zellweger won an Oscar. I'm quite aware that she is a good and serious actor. I'm also bored to death of people winning for playing very famous people from recent history. I'd much rather see Saoirse Ronan win her first Oscar (for a movie I loved) than Zellweger win a second (for a total snooze).

How monstrous of me.
If you said that anywhere, I haven't read it. What I've read from you is that you don't think she deserves it because it's just a sympathy bid and a way for people to pat themselves on the back. You've written that quite a bit. I think you're pivoting here.

Whatever. It doesn't matter. I'm sure there are people who will vote for Renee Zellweger out of sympathy just as much as there are those who won't vote for Jennifer Lopez because of her career. There is something about dismissing the two of them because one of them shouldn't be taken seriously and the other is just a sympathy bid that reads a little weird. I say this as someone who likes their performances but might not vote for them myself given the opportunity.
"How's the despair?"
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Judy reviews

Post by MaxWilder »

Sabin wrote:The question for me is why are you so snarky about Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez having career comebacks or how they're not worth taking seriously. The answer is pretty simple. You don't think they're good enough actors. They don't fit your definition of what a serious actor is.
Way to infer a lot from a little.

Virtually every review of Hustlers says Jennifer Lopez gives her performance since Out of Sight. Which is true. It's also a reminder that for 20 years she was more interested in being a multi-hyphenate celebrity than an actor. So pardon me for not thinking her first real effort in years and years should get her an Oscar. I'd have no objection to her being nominated, however. It would be deserved.

I mentioned that Renee Zellweger won an Oscar. I'm quite aware that she is a good and serious actor. I'm also bored to death of people winning for playing very famous people from recent history. I'd much rather see Saoirse Ronan win her first Oscar (for a movie I loved) than Zellweger win a second (for a total snooze).

How monstrous of me.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Reza »

Sabin wrote:
Reza wrote
Actually Crowe has been very active ever since 2006 and in fairly important, interesting and varied movies. Just won a Globe as well for a tv mini series. Not a good example for the mind experiment.
Oh, you mean the same night that Renee Zellweger won her Golden Globe?

Also, it's a perfectly fine example. He's been in a few more movies than Zellweger (20 to her 13). I think it's pretty stretching to call his post-2005 oeuvre "fairly important, interesting, and varied" but that's not really my point. I brought up Crowe because his star dropped considerably around the same time hers did and neither were operating in the same, commercially and artistically ascendant way since. If you want to say that Russell Crowe has done anything that has hit in the groove as The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, or Master and Commander, I'd be open to hearing it. Everything he's done since has been solid variations on stuff we've seen as he tries to stay commercially relevant, and I doubt you'd find many people would do disagree.
Nobody has a career trajectory that continues only upwards. Everyone goes through ups and downs. If you strictly compare these two actors then Crowe wins hands down as he has continued to appear in varied films - huge Hollywood productions, smaller films and in tv films (yes, he won the Globe in the lead tv actor category the same night as Zellweger). No he was not nominated for Oscars for any of the films during this period and so if that is the barometer of his continued relevance that you are referring to then yes you are right. But apart from Streep nobody keeps getting nominated yet Crowe compared to Zellweger has always been around. She, on the other hand, took a huge dip in her output mainly due to her personal issues. And although hardly a comeback because she did sporadically make movies in between they were hardly as prominent as the ones Crowe appeared in.

Anyway Zellweger is amazing in Judy and deserves this renewed recognition.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Sabin »

Reza wrote
Actually Crowe has been very active ever since 2006 and in fairly important, interesting and varied movies. Just won a Globe as well for a tv mini series. Not a good example for the mind experiment.
Oh, you mean the same night that Renee Zellweger won her Golden Globe?

Also, it's a perfectly fine example. He's been in a few more movies than Zellweger (20 to her 13). I think it's pretty stretching to call his post-2005 oeuvre "fairly important, interesting, and varied" but that's not really my point. I brought up Crowe because his star dropped considerably around the same time hers did and neither were operating in the same, commercially and artistically ascendant way since. If you want to say that Russell Crowe has done anything that has hit in the groove as The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, or Master and Commander, I'd be open to hearing it. Everything he's done since has been solid variations on stuff we've seen as he tries to stay commercially relevant, and I doubt you'd find many people would do disagree.
"How's the despair?"
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Reza »

Sabin wrote:But let's do a mind experiment: Russell Crowe was a big deal for about six years (1997-2005). Roughly the same window. Since then, he has done close to nothing worth mentioning. Let's say Russell Crowe makes some big comeback and wins an Oscar. Will you be snarking about how he shouldn't be taken seriously either?
Actually Crowe has been very active ever since 2006 and in fairly important, interesting and varied movies. Just won a Globe as well for a tv mini series. Not a good example for the mind experiment.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Sabin »

MaxWilder wrote
Judy is about how Hollywood mistreated and discarded Judy Garland. You can't tell me people watching it don't think, "You know, it kinda sucks, what happened to Renee Zellweger. She got a raw deal." The parallels are right there. Sympathy is on her side. You can vote for her and feel good about yourself for doing it.
- "Are voters only voting for Renee Zellweger in Judy because they feel bad for her?"

They might also be voting for her because they feel sympathy for her but first and foremost she has to be good. Like, objectively giving some kind of good performance. If not, then *nobody* cares. Can you imagine how terribly this film would be received if Renee Zellweger wasn't actually good in this movie? Can you fathom it? Almost every year, an actor plays a famous person and it's a total disaster and money and respect is lost. After an almost fifteen year absence from the screen, for her to show up and play one of the most respected entertainers of the 20th century who she doesn't look or sound like? If she wasn't good, the movie wouldn't even be released.

I also think you're ignoring one big thing. A bigger factor than sympathy is nepotism. Renee Zellweger is in their club. She has a shit load of nominations and wins and industry friends. We may not see Zellweger on the screen that much but she is one of them. They probably see her at parties all the time. They're happy for her for her comeback but you're making a mistake to think of her as a poor, wastrel sitting alone at home, waiting for the phone to call to offer her another role.

So.

The question for me is why are you so snarky about Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez having career comebacks or how they're not worth taking seriously. The answer is pretty simple. You don't think they're good enough actors. They don't fit your definition of what a serious actor is. So, you're chalking up theories as to why they're really winning.

But I'll take you on. One quick thing: I think you're underselling what an awards bait magnet Renee Zellweger was between 2000 and 2004 She got five Golden Globe nominations, three wins, four SAG nominations, three wins, three Oscar nominations, and one win. And before that window, she had a genuine star-is-born moment in Jerry Maguire in 1996. She was a serious fucking actor and I don't think you can find me many actors of that era who had the same string of awards. And her she is playing a famous person going through a physical transformation, doing her own singing, and you're saying "Oh, they must feel bad for her."

But let's do a mind experiment: Russell Crowe was a big deal for about six years (1997-2005). Roughly the same window. Since then, he has done close to nothing worth mentioning. Let's say Russell Crowe makes some big comeback and wins an Oscar. Will you be snarking about how he shouldn't be taken seriously either?
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by OscarGuy »

Or vote for her because she gives a terrific performance? Why does it have to be an apology? You're essentially saying that she doesn't deserve to win for any reason other than because she was mistreated by Hollywood.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Judy reviews

Post by MaxWilder »

Sabin wrote:If Renee Zellweger's performance wasn't that good, she wouldn't be getting awards and that's it. Do you honestly think that anyone in Hollywood is laying up awake at night wondering how and when Renee Zellweger is going to make a comeback? The only reason she's in the conversation is because she's good in the film. I honestly don't get your weird categorizing of "some actors being worthy of awards" and "some actors aren't" just because of who they are and what their career looks like. It's also weird because you talk a lot of shit about Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez not being serious actors or worthy of awards but you're clearly willing to give Adam Sandler the benefit of the doubt. What's that about?
I can't tell if this is directed at me. I haven't seen Uncut Gems and the only thing I've said about Sandler is recommending The Meyerowitz Stories.

Renee Zellweger was a big star in the early/mid 2000s. She won an Oscar. Then she started to age, as all humans do. Her appearance—or change in appearance—was the subject of much criticism. (The New York Times: Why the Strong Reaction to Renée Zellweger’s Face?) She wasn't a star anymore.

Judy is about how Hollywood mistreated and discarded Judy Garland. You can't tell me people watching it don't think, "You know, it kinda sucks, what happened to Renee Zellweger. She got a raw deal." The parallels are right there. Sympathy is on her side. You can vote for her and feel good about yourself for doing it.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Reza »

Sabin wrote:
flipp525 wrote
MaxWilder wrote
Zellweger's is also about her career. Rather, her not having one for years. This will be an apology Oscar.
What an absurd comment. Zellweger’s performance has been almost universally praised since the film debuted on the festival circuit. To claim that this recognition is about her “career” makes no sense. Apologizing for what? It might have a tinge of a “welcome-back” quality, but the performance is better than the film which contains it and that’s what has elevated her to the top tier of contenders this year.
It's also weird because you talk a lot of shit about Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez not being serious actors or worthy of awards but you're clearly willing to give Adam Sandler the benefit of the doubt. What's that about?
:lol:

All three are very good in their respective films and deserve to be nominated.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Sabin »

flipp525 wrote
MaxWilder wrote
Zellweger's is also about her career. Rather, her not having one for years. This will be an apology Oscar.
What an absurd comment. Zellweger’s performance has been almost universally praised since the film debuted on the festival circuit. To claim that this recognition is about her “career” makes no sense. Apologizing for what? It might have a tinge of a “welcome-back” quality, but the performance is better than the film which contains it and that’s what has elevated her to the top tier of contenders this year.
If Renee Zellweger's performance wasn't that good, she wouldn't be getting awards and that's it. Do you honestly think that anyone in Hollywood is laying up awake at night wondering how and when Renee Zellweger is going to make a comeback? The only reason she's in the conversation is because she's good in the film. I honestly don't get your weird categorizing of "some actors being worthy of awards" and "some actors aren't" just because of who they are and what their career looks like. It's also weird because you talk a lot of shit about Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez not being serious actors or worthy of awards but you're clearly willing to give Adam Sandler the benefit of the doubt. What's that about?
"How's the despair?"
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Judy reviews

Post by flipp525 »

MaxWilder wrote:
Sabin wrote:On one hand, Zellweger's moment is all about the performance she's giving while Glenn Close's moment last year was more about her career.
Zellweger's is also about her career. Rather, her not having one for years. This will be an apology Oscar.
What an absurd comment. Zellweger’s performance has been almost universally praised since the film debuted on the festival circuit. To claim that this recognition is about her “career” makes no sense. Apologizing for what? It might have a tinge of a “welcome-back” quality, but the performance is better than the film which contains it and that’s what has elevated her to the top tier of contenders this year.

Ingrid Bergman in Anastasia- that would be an example of an “apology” Oscar (which I assume is different from a “make-up” Oscar).
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Judy reviews

Post by MaxWilder »

Sabin wrote:On one hand, Zellweger's moment is all about the performance she's giving while Glenn Close's moment last year was more about her career.
Zellweger's is also about her career. Rather, her not having one for years. This will be an apology Oscar.
Post Reply

Return to “2019”