Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 14:53:13 GMT
It has to be Cate Blanchett's nomination for 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age,' right? I mean, showering another worshipful nomination on an actor who was already a lock in the Supporting Actress category for a much worthier performance simply because of the Academy's fond memories of the original, Anglophilia, Blanchett's default nominee status, etc... The nomination for this performance will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 13, 2017 15:01:06 GMT
Morgan Freeman in Invictus and Robert De Niro in Silver Linings Playbook are the first to come to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Oct 13, 2017 15:20:33 GMT
I have to go with Lawrence in Joy or Streep in Florence Foster Jenkins
With Lawrence it seemed like a case of wanting to throw another nomination at Hollywood's 'It Girl'. In the case of Streep, I'll defend all her post Prada nominations that people tend to rag on, aside from this one. I still think Streep has one more phenomenal performance in her that is worthy of her reputation and of another Oscar win, but a nomination or two more in the realm of this one will make it hard for that to happen.
I'm not even pooping on either of these performances, as both ladies were good enough in the roles, but 2015 & 2016 both had a minimum of a dozen better performances in Lead Actress.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 13, 2017 15:24:21 GMT
I have to go with Lawrence in Joy or Streep in Florence Foster Jenkins I liked Lawrence in Joy more than her previous two O. Russell collaborations, but that one also came to mind. And I've often said that most of Streep's nominations could be chalked up to them just lazily writing her name down for whatever she cranks out in a given year, but I know I am in the minority there. |
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557 
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Oct 13, 2017 15:50:34 GMT
I have to go with Lawrence in Joy or Streep in Florence Foster Jenkins With Lawrence it seemed like a case of wanting to throw another nomination at Hollywood's 'It Girl'. In the case of Streep, I'll defend all her post Prada nominations that people tend to rag on, aside from this one. I still think Streep has one more phenomenal performance in her that is worthy of her reputation and of another Oscar win, but a nomination or two more in the realm of this one will make it hard for that to happen. I'm not even pooping on either of these performances, as both ladies were good enough in the roles, but 2015 & 2016 both had a minimum of a dozen better performances in Lead Actress. Preach. Both were good, but in both years the Academy had so many better options to choose from. 2015 wasn't as strong for the category as that the last two seasons have been, but Lawrence was still such a waste of a nomination, especially considering how lovely the rest of the line-up was. You had the luminous Carey Mulligan single-handedly elevating Suffragette, Emily Blunt delivering some of her best work in one of the best films of the year, and (most shocking of all) no awards body even considered throwing a bone to Theron, who'd delivered a win-worthy turn in Young Adult just four years before and was left in the dust. Hell, they found it in them to give Fury Road 6 immensely deserved wins, yet they default to a David O. Russell mess instead of even thinking about giving Furiosa her due. Same with Streep, really. I don't begrudge any of her other nominations this decade, but that top 10 was ridiculously strong. Arrival is some of Adams' best work, even if this snub helped even the score and make up for some of her undeserved past awards love. Bening and Chastain were both fantastic, yet went by largely unnoticed (20th Century Women in particular deserved far more love than it got overall). The Girl on the Train wasn't good, but Blunt was sensational. Even Henson, who I wasn't quite that big on, would've benefitted far more from a sophomore nod than Streep did from a 86th filler spot. And that's just sticking to the alternatives that actually had a viable shot. Recently it's like whenever Best Actress is at its most unusually packed and the Academy can benefit the most from thinking outside the box, that's when they'll double down on their Streep love at the expense of far better picks. It was like that in 2011 and 2016, and it'll most likely be the same this year (perhaps the strongest of the three). |
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Oct 13, 2017 16:12:39 GMT
PEnelope Cruz in Nine.
What stupid movie and nothing perfomance.
How she could be nominated?
Weinstein was the producer I catched
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Oct 13, 2017 17:21:02 GMT
PEnelope Cruz in Nine. What stupid movie and nothing perfomance. How she could be nominated? Weinstein was the producer I catched Yes, it wasn't a bad performance, but it just seemed like all of the nominations that Nine got for its acting especially that SAG Award nomination were because people were lazy and just automatically voted for it instead of realizing what a bomb it was. I know that Marion Cotillard was campaigned in leading as not to compete with Penelope Cruz, but I would have no problem had Cotillard been the nomination from that film. It just seemed like because they loved Penelope Cruz so much at that time, and because Nine was so hyped up, they were just already prepared to give her a nomination no matter the actual performance. Not to say it was bad, but there were definitely worthier performances out there that year. I would have preferred one of the women from Inglorious Basterds, Samantha Morton for The Messenger, or giving Rosamund Pike her first nomination that time for An Education. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 17:36:53 GMT
Jacki Weaver for Silver Linings Playbook, in the sense that the Academy lazily voted for her film in every possible category rather than focusing on more substantial work in less beloved pictures.
Also agree with the previous mention of Morgan Freeman in Invictus.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Oct 13, 2017 17:56:43 GMT
I have to go with Lawrence in Joy or Streep in Florence Foster Jenkins With Lawrence it seemed like a case of wanting to throw another nomination at Hollywood's 'It Girl'. In the case of Streep, I'll defend all her post Prada nominations that people tend to rag on, aside from this one. I still think Streep has one more phenomenal performance in her that is worthy of her reputation and of another Oscar win, but a nomination or two more in the realm of this one will make it hard for that to happen. I'm not even pooping on either of these performances, as both ladies were good enough in the roles, but 2015 & 2016 both had a minimum of a dozen better performances in Lead Actress. Preach. Both were good, but in both years the Academy had so many better options to choose from. 2015 wasn't as strong for the category as that the last two seasons have been, but Lawrence was still such a waste of a nomination, especially considering how lovely the rest of the line-up was. You had the luminous Carey Mulligan single-handedly elevating Suffragette, Emily Blunt delivering some of her best work in one of the best films of the year, and (most shocking of all) no awards body even considered throwing a bone to Theron, who'd delivered a win-worthy turn in Young Adult just four years before and was left in the dust. Hell, they found it in them to give Fury Road 6 immensely deserved wins, yet they default to a David O. Russell mess instead of even thinking about giving Furiosa her due. Same with Streep, really. I don't begrudge any of her other nominations this decade, but that top 10 was ridiculously strong. Arrival is some of Adams' best work, even if this snub helped even the score and make up for some of her undeserved past awards love. Bening and Chastain were both fantastic, yet went by largely unnoticed (20th Century Woman in particular deserved far more love than it got overall). The Girl on the Train wasn't good, but Blunt was sensational. Even Henson, who I wasn't quite that big on, would've benefitted far more from a sophomore nod than Streep did from a 86th filler spot. And that's just sticking to the alternatives that actually had a viable shot. Recently it's like whenever Best Actress is at its most unusually packed and the Academy can benefit the most from thinking outside the box, that's when they'll double down on their Streep love at the expense of far better picks. It was like that in 2011 and 2016, and it'll most likely be the same this year (perhaps the strongest of the three). DON'T even get me started on 2011. That year was so ridiculously strong, yet had one of the worst line-ups of the decade for Best Actress. Can't believe they dumped Theron, Dunst and Swinton for 4 mediocre performances in baity movies. The only one from the nominees I actually agree is Mara, and I like Davis a bit too but not enough for a nod. |
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Oct 13, 2017 18:20:50 GMT
Preach. Both were good, but in both years the Academy had so many better options to choose from. 2015 wasn't as strong for the category as that the last two seasons have been, but Lawrence was still such a waste of a nomination, especially considering how lovely the rest of the line-up was. You had the luminous Carey Mulligan single-handedly elevating Suffragette, Emily Blunt delivering some of her best work in one of the best films of the year, and (most shocking of all) no awards body even considered throwing a bone to Theron, who'd delivered a win-worthy turn in Young Adult just four years before and was left in the dust. Hell, they found it in them to give Fury Road 6 immensely deserved wins, yet they default to a David O. Russell mess instead of even thinking about giving Furiosa her due. Same with Streep, really. I don't begrudge any of her other nominations this decade, but that top 10 was ridiculously strong. Arrival is some of Adams' best work, even if this snub helped even the score and make up for some of her undeserved past awards love. Bening and Chastain were both fantastic, yet went by largely unnoticed (20th Century Woman in particular deserved far more love than it got overall). The Girl on the Train wasn't good, but Blunt was sensational. Even Henson, who I wasn't quite that big on, would've benefitted far more from a sophomore nod than Streep did from a 86th filler spot. And that's just sticking to the alternatives that actually had a viable shot. Recently it's like whenever Best Actress is at its most unusually packed and the Academy can benefit the most from thinking outside the box, that's when they'll double down on their Streep love at the expense of far better picks. It was like that in 2011 and 2016, and it'll most likely be the same this year (perhaps the strongest of the three). DON'T even get me started on 2011. That year was so ridiculously strong, yet had one of the worst line-ups of the decade for Best Actress. Can't believe they dumped Theron, Dunst and Swinton for 4 mediocre performances in baity movies. The only one from the nominees I actually agree is Mara, and I like Davis a bit too but not enough for a nod. and Olsen  |
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Oct 13, 2017 19:21:15 GMT
DON'T even get me started on 2011. That year was so ridiculously strong, yet had one of the worst line-ups of the decade for Best Actress. Can't believe they dumped Theron, Dunst and Swinton for 4 mediocre performances in baity movies. The only one from the nominees I actually agree is Mara, and I like Davis a bit too but not enough for a nod. Yep. The golden quartet of Swinton, Theron, Mara and Dunst would be at the top for me, with Olsen close behind them, so I guess it's a good thing that at least one of them made the cut. Like I said, I don't outright dislike Streep's win, but to me she was all dressed up with nowhere to go in The Iron Lady. The present-day scenes are masterful stuff and really set up a fascinating character study, but they're intercut with the far less effective Parliament material, which strips away the intriguing portrait of a once ruthless, now dementia-ridden and weakened leader (which Streep absolutely nails) and replaces it with a Maggie Thatcher: Greatest Hits compilation (which she does well, but brings the overall work down a notch due to how uninspired the writing and directing are). That's why I'm mixed on Streep. She brings her A-game, but Abi Morgan gives her little substance to apply it to. Davis was very good and would've been a fine choice. I would've picked her out of the two, but I don't begrudge her loss knowing that she won this year for an even better, more deserving performance. Her Rose Maxson may be my favorite Supporting Actress winner of the decade so far. I remember very very little of Albert Nobbs, but Close was very good and McTeer was brilliant, so I'm fine with their nodds. As for Williams... I really like her and I'm 100% on board with her recent comeback, but My Week with Marilyn had no business at all making this lineup. Even Branagh made no impression on me. So yeah. Not my favorite year for the category. |
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Oct 13, 2017 19:39:40 GMT
Jacki Weaver for Silver Linings Playbook and Rachel MacAdams in Spotlight  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 13, 2017 19:42:38 GMT
Jacki Weaver for Silver Linings Playbook and Rachel MacAdams in Spotlight I can understand and sympathize with your feelings on Weaver (although I thought she did much more with a lot less than De Niro did), but I will defend the fuck out of McAdams's nomination. She was miles better than Ruffalo and worthy of her spot. |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Oct 13, 2017 19:47:42 GMT
Streep in at least half her nominations post-2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Oct 13, 2017 19:54:53 GMT
Jacki Weaver for Silver Linings Playbook and Rachel MacAdams in Spotlight I can understand and sympathize with your feelings on Weaver (although I thought she did much more with a lot less than De Niro did), but I will defend the fuck out of McAdams's nomination. She was miles better than Ruffalo and worthy of her spot. I really don't understand the big deal about McAdams : she was just there taking notes and looking concerned once in a while .  She didn't bring anything special to the film . I blame the writing , though : no charcater development . She did the best she could with the material given to her. At least , Ruffalo had a few memorable and powerful scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 13, 2017 19:57:48 GMT
I can understand and sympathize with your feelings on Weaver (although I thought she did much more with a lot less than De Niro did), but I will defend the fuck out of McAdams's nomination. She was miles better than Ruffalo and worthy of her spot. I really don't understand the big deal about McAdams : she was just there taking notes and looking concerned once in a while . She didn't bring anything special to the film . I blame the writing , though : no charcater development . She did the best she could with the material given to her. At least , Ruffalo had a few memorable and powerful scenes. I thought she was the heart and soul of the film (well, at least in terms of the investigative team). And while I would agree there wasn't much to her character, she managed to make me care about her. Not so with whatever the hell Ruffalo was doing; his "big" scenes were by far the worst moments of an otherwise strong procedural. |
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Oct 13, 2017 20:01:02 GMT
I really don't understand the big deal about McAdams : she was just there taking notes and looking concerned once in a while . She didn't bring anything special to the film . I blame the writing , though : no charcater development . She did the best she could with the material given to her. At least , Ruffalo had a few memorable and powerful scenes. I thought she was the heart and soul of the film (well, at least in terms of the investigative team). And while I would agree there wasn't much to her character, she managed to make me care about her. Not so with whatever the hell Ruffalo was doing; his "big" scenes were by far the worst moments of an otherwise strong procedural. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree . It was an average performance . Any actress could have played that part in her sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 13, 2017 20:02:58 GMT
I thought she was the heart and soul of the film (well, at least in terms of the investigative team). And while I would agree there wasn't much to her character, she managed to make me care about her. Not so with whatever the hell Ruffalo was doing; his "big" scenes were by far the worst moments of an otherwise strong procedural. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree . It was an average performance . Any actress could have played that part in her sleep. I think the whole "any actress could've played that part in her sleep" is a rather glib dismissal, but to each their own, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Oct 13, 2017 20:05:18 GMT
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree . It was an average performance . Any actress could have played that part in her sleep. I think the whole "any actress could've played that part in her sleep" is a rather glib dismissal, but to each their own, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by FrancescoAbides on Oct 13, 2017 21:03:28 GMT
Meryl Streep's nominations since Adaptation (except maybe Doubt)
|
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Oct 13, 2017 21:05:03 GMT
Preach. Both were good, but in both years the Academy had so many better options to choose from. 2015 wasn't as strong for the category as that the last two seasons have been, but Lawrence was still such a waste of a nomination, especially considering how lovely the rest of the line-up was. You had the luminous Carey Mulligan single-handedly elevating Suffragette, Emily Blunt delivering some of her best work in one of the best films of the year, and (most shocking of all) no awards body even considered throwing a bone to Theron, who'd delivered a win-worthy turn in Young Adult just four years before and was left in the dust. Hell, they found it in them to give Fury Road 6 immensely deserved wins, yet they default to a David O. Russell mess instead of even thinking about giving Furiosa her due. Same with Streep, really. I don't begrudge any of her other nominations this decade, but that top 10 was ridiculously strong. Arrival is some of Adams' best work, even if this snub helped even the score and make up for some of her undeserved past awards love. Bening and Chastain were both fantastic, yet went by largely unnoticed (20th Century Woman in particular deserved far more love than it got overall). The Girl on the Train wasn't good, but Blunt was sensational. Even Henson, who I wasn't quite that big on, would've benefitted far more from a sophomore nod than Streep did from a 86th filler spot. And that's just sticking to the alternatives that actually had a viable shot. Recently it's like whenever Best Actress is at its most unusually packed and the Academy can benefit the most from thinking outside the box, that's when they'll double down on their Streep love at the expense of far better picks. It was like that in 2011 and 2016, and it'll most likely be the same this year (perhaps the strongest of the three). DON'T even get me started on 2011. That year was so ridiculously strong, yet had one of the worst line-ups of the decade for Best Actress. Can't believe they dumped Theron, Dunst and Swinton for 4 mediocre performances in baity movies. The only one from the nominees I actually agree is Mara, and I like Davis a bit too but not enough for a nod. At least Weaver had a couple of great scenes. Her nom was more worthy than Thelma Ritter in All about Eve |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Oct 13, 2017 21:21:23 GMT
Meryl Streep's nominations since Adaptation (except maybe Doubt) Doubt is among the best work of her career, IMO. Don't have a problem with her Julie and Julia nod either. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Oct 13, 2017 21:23:32 GMT
Keira Knightley in The Imitation Game and both the Spotlight acting noms.
|
|
jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Post by jakob on Oct 14, 2017 4:02:09 GMT
Alan Arkin in Argo.
It felt like all award season, voters felt obligated to nominate SOMEONE from Argo and they thought "Alan Arkin... he's a recent Oscar winner...he's funny...he says Argo F yourself.."
|
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Oct 14, 2017 9:50:30 GMT
Most of Meryl Streep's nominations since 1990, actually (not just since 2000, as others have already said). By the end of the 80's, Streep was already considered one of the best living actresses, and in the 90's she began to be the default or safe choice for a nomination whenever the year wasn't too strong and there wasn't much to choose from. The Bridges of Madison County, The Devil Wears Prada, Adaptation and maybe Dout are among the best of her career, but the rest are just stains in an otherwise immaculate collection of great performances.
I understand the Blanchett reference, but from what I recall, that year wasn't particularly strong for the category.
|
|
She didn't bring anything special to the film . I blame the writing , though : no charcater development . She did the best she could with the material given to her. At least , Ruffalo had a few memorable and powerful scenes.
