August 17, 2013 at 10:36 am #109005
Do you guys think The Kids Are Alright should have won any Oscars? And should have Julianne Moore been nominated for the film?August 17, 2013 at 11:00 am #109007
Wonderful little film.
I thought Julianne Moore definitely should have included in the line-up, but this is one of those Thelma and Louise, Notes on a Scandal, August Osage County, in which there are two lead actresses with roles that had award potential. It’s a shame the traction didn’t pick up for Julianne Moore. At the same time, I understand why she wasn’t. Who was she going to replace that year?
I liked Annette’s work here, but would I have picked her over Natalie Portman? Not really because 1) it’s another borderline lead performance and to be frank, less flashy than Black Swan. 2) I enjoyed Black Swan more that this one.August 17, 2013 at 11:08 am #109008
Well, Julianne Moore should’ve been nominated. And yes, I definitely do think that Bening was much better than Portman. And Kidman too.August 17, 2013 at 11:14 am #109009
Of cours Julianne should have been nominated. It was a crime.
I cant see any extra nomination other than that neither any Oscar win. But it deserved all the nominations it got.August 17, 2013 at 11:55 am #109010
Brilliant film, one of the best films of 2010, which is already one of the best years for film in recent memory (not something that would be evident by the year’s best picture winner).
For Best Original Screenplay I would have this tie with Inception. They’re both excellent screenplays for very different reasons.
When I first saw the film I thought Moore was lead and Bening was supporting, but after subsequent viewings it became more and more obvious that they were co-leads. All of the best actress nominees were extremely strong that year.
I do believe, truly, that the Best Actress field should have been extended to six nominees that year to include Moore. Is that even allowed/has it happened before in any category? I know that at the Emmys have the 2% rule, but what about the Oscars?
I would still give the win to Portman though.August 17, 2013 at 12:47 pm #109011
I wasn’t as fond of The Kids Are All Right as some other people here, but I did like it. But I actually thought Moore was better than Bening, so yeah, Julianne Moore should have been nominated.August 17, 2013 at 12:47 pm #109012
I do not understand why Bening had so much awards traction while Moore had none.August 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm #109013
Yep, definitely agree Moore shouldve been nominated and, with Hailee Steinfeld in supporting, she would’ve deserved to win had she gotten in. But to be fair, the Globes and BAFTA nominated her, so she definitely had some traction. She probably ended up #6 or #7 that year.August 17, 2013 at 1:32 pm #109014
I was a hardcore advocate for Bening this year. I think her performance is so great in The Kids are All Right. I can see why Portman won, though.
I really enjoy the movie, overall. Despite a few minor quibbles, I think it is remarkably believable and entertaining, and the cast has great chamistry. I think the moment Bening drinks the glass of wine in slow motion is the most effectively directed and acted moment of 2010.August 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm #109015
I do not understand why Bening had so much awards traction while Moore had none.
Bening’s character is more sympathetic since she was cheated on. The character is also very different from what we associate with Annette Bening performances.August 17, 2013 at 5:31 pm #109016
[quote=”thedemonhog”]I do not understand why Bening had so much awards traction while Moore had none.
Bening’s character is more sympathetic since she was cheated on. The character is also very different from what we associate with Annette Bening performances. [/quote]
Since when anybody cares about sympathetic characters? Remember Monique? Or Javier Bardem? Christoph Waltz or Kathy Bates? And the list is on and on and on.
She was at the same level at Bening in the movie. Their performance was quite equal, there is no explanition why the snub happened. Academy voters were stupid as usual.August 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm #109017
Annette>than Julianne.August 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm #109018
I thought the film was no more than a decent TV movie, but I was rooting for Bening to win. It was a very strong performance. Her emotions and character traits felt more unique and honest than Moore’s. Moore was undermined by a somewhat cliche character and some contrivances in her storyline. She did well with her material however. I just wouldn’t give her a nod.August 17, 2013 at 5:55 pm #109019
Great great little indie film. Glad to own a copy. Moore definitely should’ve made it, sucks to look back and remember she didn’t. I actually think shes better then Bening in the movie. Outside of her the film got pretty much every nomination it deserved.August 17, 2013 at 6:23 pm #109020
Great great little indie film. Glad to own a copy. Moore definitely should’ve made it, sucks to look back and remember she didn’t. I actually think shes better then Bening in the movie. Outside of her the film got pretty much every nomination it deserved.
Why is she ‘better’? Because she said more? I like Julianne, but I’ve seen that same ‘perf/character’ from her before.
It’s possible that I’m somewhat biased in favour of Annette. I was rooting hard for her. She’s incredible in Kids imo. I also really liked Ruffalo, thought Josh was more effective than Mia; although, I’m slowly becoming more postive re her, and liked her a lot in