February 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm #542068
Your thoughts?February 19, 2013 at 1:43 pm #542070
Not a bad category.
First of all, you have Julianne Moore, who is another case of category fraud, and then Catherine Zeta Jones who could arguably be a co-lead as well but her role is definitely second to Roxie and also seems to be slightly diminished compared to Velma’s presence in the stage show.
Kathy Bates was definitely a hoot in About Schmidt but I feel like the writing did the role for her plus there was novelty due to the infamous hot tub scene.
Queen Latifah is really charming and I always enjoy watching her even though she isn’t always the strongest actress. I did enjoy her in Chicago but I always go back and forth on whether I would nominate her.
Meryl Streep’s problem is that I have only seen her movie once (back in 2003) and thoroughly HATED it. The one thing I remember is that she was VERY showy in this movie in a way that she rarely ever is, but I don’t really think I’d rank her above 3rd in this category.
It comes down between Julianne and Catherine for me and since Julianne gets my vote in Lead, I will give my vote to Catherine here….she really was the true spark of Chicago.February 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm #542071
Julianne by a mile. She should have won both.February 19, 2013 at 5:36 pm #542072
This is my favorite Supporting Actress category of all time. Five amazing women in four brilliant films. What made it particularly interesting was Zeta-Jones’ “promotion” to the Lead Actress in a Musical/Comedy category at the Globes, allowing for Streep to win–followed by Streep’s inexplicable SAG snub and Zeta-Jones’ SAG “demotion”, allowing her to win. In that sense, it was really a neck-and-neck race between those two. However, Moore was astounding in “The Hours”, and even though this may have been category fraud, placing alongside her also well-deserved lead nomination for “Far From Heaven” would be unfair and almost fishy in the eyes of the voters and the public. That being said, her two nominations gave her a slight advantage come Oscar night; would Moore really leave empty-handed (especially in the Supporting race, seeing that her Globe-winning peer Kidman would probably prevail over Moore and “Chicago”‘s Zellweger in the lead race?)? To me, the race was open between Zeta-Jones, Streep, and Moore. In the end, it came down to awarding the brilliant “Chicago” with an acting Oscar to the most deserving of the film’s nominees. The Academy made sure of awarding “Adaptation.” and “The Hours” with acting Oscars as well–so really, the films, and everyone in them, “won”.February 19, 2013 at 6:13 pm #542073
No contest. Julianne Moore.February 19, 2013 at 6:33 pm #542074
Love the feedback. This is one of my favorite categories of all time. 5 excellent films. 5 equally excellent actresses.February 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm #542075
Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne were all co leads in The Hours. And each one of them gave an oscar worthy performance.February 19, 2013 at 8:16 pm #542076
Not my favorite, but it was an interesting lineup.
As great as they were, Streep and Moore were the leads in their film (Most especially Moore, she was the most lead of the whole film.) It did pain me, that Streep lost though cause I really wanted her to win her third.
I know most don’t support her nomination, but I thought Queen Latifah was absolutely divine in Chicago and was a real scene stealer. That “When You’re Good to Mama” scene alone was Oscar worthy.
Kathy Bates’ nomination is a real head scratcher to me. She was funny and all, but I don’t remember much of her in AS. I do agree that, that nude scene sealed her nomination. (Like it did for Keaton in 2003)
With that said, I think Zeta Jones was a pretty good winner, She was the best and most dedicated one in Chicago, and you couldn’t get your eyes of her every time she was on screen. A little hammy, but it all worked in the end. To bad her career fizzed out after the win.
@anthony, I agree. The first time I saw Adaptation, which was around 2003, I was beyond weirded out and I couldn’t even register what I saw. I took a viewing of it again later on, and it all made sense to me and I enjoyed it. I reccomend you give it another shot.February 19, 2013 at 8:22 pm #542077
Catherine Zeta-Jones absolutely lit up the screen in Chicago in a role she was born to play. From the way her character is introduced through the film’s kinetic editing to her stunning moments in “All that Jazz” and “Cell Block Tango” to the end performance where she totally outshines Zellweger, I agree she was the most deserving of the film’s nominees. She has a radiant quality in front of the camera that few actresses have — and this was a great performance at a career peak. I quite liked seeing Sean Connery present the award to her (though Kathy Bates didn’t lol), “the Scotsman to the Welsh girl,” and Zeta-Jones’ speech, where she came off as quite humble and gracious (she should rewatch that now) — great moment, deserved win.February 19, 2013 at 8:23 pm #542078
Without a doubt Streep. One of my fav of her performances…a delight! Moore was very good in a similar role to her leading nomination that year. Bates was OK. I love CHICAGO, the only 2 things I didn’t like about it are Zeta-Jones & Latifah. The two most interesting characters in the story and they bored me. BTW in case you didn’t know Marshall wanted Kathy Bates or Bette Midler for Mama Morton.February 19, 2013 at 11:41 pm #542079
I know a lot of people seem to love Meryl’s perf in “Adaptation”. But frankly i dont get the hoopla, I liked her better in “The Hours”. But like several users have already said, Juilanna Moore by quite a margin.September 14, 2013 at 7:29 pm #542080
I voted Catherine Zeta-Jones for this one. This is a pretty weak category and she gave the best performance of them.September 15, 2013 at 3:36 am #542081
Meryl all the way. This is a great performance and no, she isn’t a co-lead the way Zeta-Jones and Moore are. And Meryl’s SAG snub was because of a mistake. She was entered in the lead category for both Adaptation and The Hours.