Page 3 of 4
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:49 pm
by jack
taki15 wrote:I agree that Paltrow and Hunt are by far the worst Best Actress winners of the last generation.
And unless we see Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson collecting an award during the next years, they will continue to hold that dubious distinction for a long time.
Considering we had Judi Dench (Mrs. Brown) and Fernanda Montenegro (Central Station) nominated in the two years both Paltrow and Hunt won only emphasises how bad a winner both were.
I'm I correct in thinking that both Paltrow and Hunt were the only American's nominated in the Actress catagory both years?
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:38 pm
by dws1982
Why is Best Actress almost always the race that gets by far the most discussion on any message board? It fascinates me that it always seems to be the case, even when the lineup isn't all that exciting.
And why do I have to be in reply mode to read taki15's posts? On the main page they always show up as blank posts? Does anyone else have this problem?
Edited By dws1982 on 1264369237
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:35 pm
by taki15
I agree that Paltrow and Hunt are by far the worst Best Actress winners of the last generation.
And unless we see Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson collecting an award during the next years, they will continue to hold that dubious distinction for a long time.
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:06 pm
by OscarGuy
I'd cite Helen Hunt as an equally awful performance alongside Paltrow. Neither broke any new ground, Hunt just played the same character from Mad About You.
Whether you like Sandra Bullock or not, she has been nothing but genial and cordial this season and her tribute to Betty White was endearing.
Also, whether The Blind Side is a bad movie or not (which I think colors people more in their opinion of Bullock in it than the performance itself), there is no denying that the film would have been nothing without her and her performance is stronger than she's given in her career right up there with Infamous. What she does in Blind Side is take a rather pedestrian film and turn it into something more. Whether you agree or disagree with the racial aspects of the film, there is a conviction with which Bullock delivers her performance and she elevates the film itself.
I don't expect anyone here to agree with me and I don't really care. I think Bullock did more interesting work in Blind Side than Meryl did in Julie Julia, a non-performance that really was nothing difficult or exceptional for Streep. I think she would have been a better winner last year for Doubt than for this trifle.
But, I digress. I think Gabourey Sidibe also delivers a knockout performance and it's really too bad more people aren't talking up Shohreh Aghdashloo as well. She is stunning in The Stoning of Soraya M. I like Abbie Cornish in Bright Star who is much better than her material (though Paul Schneider is the stand out there).
Some other wonderful performances by woman in lead or questionably lead performances: Emily Blunt - The Young Victoria, Marion Cotillard - Nine (this is a supporting perf, but has been pushed as lead) and Elle Fanning in Phoebe in Wonderland.
So, I don't think this is nearly as dreary a year for lead performances some here might suggest.
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:41 pm
by Reza
Actually Liz was not that bad in Butterfield 8. Have yet to watch Pickford.
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:08 pm
by Big Magilla
My biggest puzzlement this year is why Tilda Swinton in Julia isn't getting more awards traction than whether it will be Meryl or Sandy who actually wins. Both are nice people playing nice people in nice movies. That some people find The Blind Side offensive probably says more about them than the film itself which is rather bland, but inoffensive in and of itself.
I personally find a film in which a nice young girl falls for a broken down, alcoholic country singer old enough to be her grandfather more troubling, but that probably says more about me than the film, too. Still, I have no problem with Jeff Bridges winning even if I personally prefer George Clooney based on performance. As we all know, the Oscars have little to do with performance and more to do with personality and perseverance.
Sandra Bullock winning for the little movie that took off at the box office beyond anyone's expectations will not be the worst winner in history - Mary Pickford and Liz Taylor (the first time) will continue to hold that record.
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:50 pm
by mashari
I agree that all of this talk about Meryl having to win because she is so deserving a THIRD Oscar is rather silly. If voters feel she's so deserving then why do they keep finding an alternative to her every year?
I also suspect that Sophie's Choice was a blessing and a curse. Until she gets as close to the bar she set with that powerful performance I feel that a majority of voters may insist she can wait.
Edited By mashari on 1264359479
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:44 pm
by jack
ITALIANO wrote:dws1982 wrote:And how can anyone be "overdue" for a third Oscar? It's a contradiction in terms.
Not a contradiction at all, if by now you deserved at least four already.
In my opinion - and I've seen ALL Best Actress winners except very few from the early thirties - Bullock would really be the worst of all times.
Would Bullock winning Best Actress really be the worst of all time? I have no interest in seeing her film, but are you not basing your opinion on the fact that she has made nothing but (mostly) shit throughout her career? There must be something to her performance if she's quickly becoming the frontrunner.
Also, I would cite Gwyneth Paltrow as the worst Best Actress winner. That was a non-performance, and a carbon copy of her Emma turn.
Edited By jack on 1264358757
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:33 pm
by Bog
Yes, unfortunately Winslet was also borderline terrible, but this more goes along with (most of) our disgust with the continued poor choices of Oscar.
I call the UAADB award for Tilda, though Yolande Moreau is hard to deny this year
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:07 pm
by ITALIANO
dws1982 wrote:And how can anyone be "overdue" for a third Oscar? It's a contradiction in terms.
Not a contradiction at all, if by now you deserved at least four already.
In my opinion - and I've seen ALL Best Actress winners except very few from the early thirties - Bullock would really be the worst of all times.
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:01 pm
by dws1982
Snick's Guy wrote:if Sandra wins, this will be the worst best actress winner since Gwyneth Paltrow.
I don't think she'd even be the worst Best Actress winner in the past twelve months.
And how can anyone be "overdue" for a third Oscar? It's a contradiction in terms.
Edited By dws1982 on 1264356127
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:45 pm
by Snick's Guy
This one is going to be a nail biter, and unfortuantely, I could see Sandra pulling it out. (Even Sandra doesn't feel she gave the best performance of the year). Of what we have to work with, Meryl is clearly the best of the bunch.
I am holding out hope that the Academy will remember that Meryl has not won in 27 years, and is overdue for Oscar #3.
if Sandra wins, this will be the worst best actress winner since Gwyneth Paltrow.
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:14 pm
by mashari
dreaMaker wrote:mashari wrote:Bullock's got this in the bag. Sorry, Meryl.
She hasn't got it yet at all.
Sure they love Bullock, but she won SAG award because Meryl won last year.
We'll see, it's going to be interesting.
2000's Best Actresses started with Julia and will very likely end with Sandra, 2 of the most popular actresses of recent years. I honestly don't see Meryl derailing this with such a lightweight film. She may get closer than she did last year, but I believe the majority of actors will push towards Sandra, rewarding her highly successful comeback more so than performance.
Edited By mashari on 1264353461
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:52 am
by Bog
As far as Oscar winner who starred in such splendid films as Speed 2: Cruise Control and Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous...this would be a lot less painful if it had been for Infamous a few years back.
I'm with Italiano and most of you, this Blind Side business doesn't make any sense...where did it even come from? The Erin Brockovich incident is one thing, but really, this film and this performance?
Befuddling
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:51 am
by dreaMaker
mashari wrote:Bullock's got this in the bag. Sorry, Meryl.
She hasn't got it yet at all.
Sure they love Bullock, but she won SAG award because Meryl won last year.
We'll see, it's going to be interesting.