Forum Replies Created
January 15, 2020 at 1:25 pm #1203286577
2. Marriage Story
3. Ford v Ferrari
5. Little Women
7. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
8. The Irsihman
9. Jojo RabbitNovember 8, 2019 at 2:32 pm #1203171594
We were just having this conversation so I’m sorry for bringing it up again, but Toni Collette in Hereditary. I’m not going to say she was terrible or overacted as it was still a technically well-executed performance, but I will never understand the frenzy on GD and film Twitter about her being undeniable and an unforgivable snub.
I’m happy to say that she was both terrible and overacted.
Which is weird because she’s one of the best actresses in the business. I’d give her the win in ’99 (And ’95 TBH).November 8, 2019 at 2:03 pm #1203171549
I don’t think Johannson wins for this. She’s great. She’ll get her first nom but there’s nothing there to beat the likes of Zellweger and lovers of the films have Dern and Driver to support.
If Renee gets taken down it will have to be someone with either an undeniable performance or a better narrative. So far we haven’t seen either of those things emerge.
The nomination is her win. Hopefully it will lead to many more as she’s a fantastic actress.November 8, 2019 at 7:06 am #1203170919
Phoenix isn’t a lock. I don’t even think of him as the favourite.
Driver seems a far more likely choice to me and everything can change once the precursors start announcing. I’d imagine the likes of Banderas are going to be formidable competition.November 7, 2019 at 3:46 pm #1203170280
Without having seen it, Bale having stated he’s retired could garner good wishes and push him into top five. My hunch is vote splitting won’t be much of a factor.
I’ve seen it. Bale has by far the flashier role. Damon is fine but forgettable.
It’s really entertaining but category is FAR too crowded for both to make it. Unless it’s a huge hit I’d doubt Bale gets in.
Most deserving nominee would be Tracy Letts which could deffo happen if they get a campaign behind him.October 27, 2019 at 5:14 am #1203154576
I’m not arguing that J.Lo is clear cut category fraud just that the role could just as easily have been placed in Lead and no one would have complained. Constance is clearly the Lead of the film but all that means is that she could only be placed in that category, it doesn’t mean that no one else should join her. To me Supporting should be for the lesser characters, those that don’t drive the plot, aren’t played by A List names and don’t have all of a films publicity based around them. In the past J.Lo would have gone Lead. Hers isn’t an offensive case but is certainly open for debate.
Obviously there are cases of huge stars appearing in true supporting roles – Pacino in The Irishman this year is clear example – but according to Goldderby’s current predictions he’s going to be joined by Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, Willem Dafoe and Anthony Hopkins all of of whom are questionable at best and downright criminal at worst. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. Especially bizarre in Hopkins case who insisted on going Lead for Silence of The Lambs in what was an obvious Supporting role.
By the current definition of Supporting Bette in All About Eve could be shunted off there.October 26, 2019 at 10:57 am #1203153885
Meryl Streep of The Laundromat is quite a special case, one can argue for both lead and supporting…
Luckily we don’t have to worry about it cos she’s not getting in for either.
But again I would say that if you’re Meryl Streep and it’s borderline then you’re Lead. Top billed with no other possible Lead characters and 2 roles to boot. There isn’t one central character asuch but she’s as close as you get.October 26, 2019 at 10:54 am #1203153877
Also Willem Dafoe.
Is Hanks not truly supporting in A Beautiful Day then? I read that his character is less central than the ads would suggest.
Totally borderline. Not his story but the story doesn’t exist without him. He’s also top billed and Tom Hanks!!!
I’d call him the secondary Lead.
It’s not fraud exactly but there was a time when huge movie stars in large borderline Supporting roles would automatically go Lead. It was deemed undignified seem to go Supporting and compete against newcomers and character actors. This unfortunately is no longer the case.
Amongst others all in a similar boat, all went Lead and won.October 16, 2019 at 3:51 pm #1203140146
After last years shocking display looks like the fraud is going to be just as rampant this year.
All various degrees of fraudulent or at least questionable placement and that’s just the A list stars.October 16, 2019 at 3:37 pm #1203140118
Baby Clyde, were you at least intrigued by their take on Hoffa’s disappearance?
I wish I could just read the screenplay. It wouldn’t take me 3 and one half hours.
Not really. It’s so unnecessarily long that by the time you get to the proper meaty part of the story I’d kind of lost interest. It’s also concerned with such thoroughly reprehensible people it’s hard to care about what happens to any of them or the aftermath.
There’s a shot near the beginning (I mean it’s probably 90 minutes in but that’s still near the start) that suggests that the Anna Paquin character is going to become important. It’s signalled that this is the way the plot is heading, but it never comes. Instead we get more smoky nightclubs, more subpoenas being served, more people being shot in the face, more Pacino overacting. It’s so tiresome.
The films is obviously well made and directed. There’s lots to admire. It’s not even boring exactly even if the length is ludicrous. It’s just so unnecessary and unadventurous. It’s Scorsese so people will rave over it but this is just a legendary director, self indulgently, treading water.October 15, 2019 at 6:15 pm #1203138475
You could easily chop an hour out of the middle of this self indulgent chore and it would still be way too long. It’s almost a parody. Literally every single aspect of this film we’ve seen before from the EXACT same people. Are they not bored? I certainly was.
In a film that’s 3h 30 mins long there are maybe 5 female speaking roles. They probably take up about 3 minutes of screen time. The most prominent one, Oscar winning Anna Paquin, has precisely 1 line of dialogue.
This is the year that Geena Davis is being rewarded an Honorary Oscar for her work promoting gender equality in Hollywood. Seems like she has a lot more work still to do.August 29, 2019 at 2:10 pm #1203046866
Meryl also hit all big four precursors, Florence Foster Jenkins also had a makeup nomination and almost got in for Hugh Grant as well (who else would’ve been 6th in 2016?).
If Adams missed to anybody, it was sole nominee with only CC+GG Ruth Negga.
She is fantastic in FFJ, does everything that’s required of her and more. It’s only unnecessarily hated because it’s a comedy and because Negga took Adams spot, not Streep.
Exactly this. Whether you think she deserved the nom or not it’s not Meryl who got in over Adams. Negga was clearly the surprise nom and it’s she who Amy got snubbed for. Personally Negga was my #1 so really happy she made it in.
As for Meryl I’m aghast a people suggesting A Cry In The Dark is amongst her worst. It’s one of her best ever. certainly Top 3. Do the people criticizing it even remember Lindy Chamberlain? Meryl was note perfect.
As she was in The Iron Lady. It’s a terrible film but Streep is brilliant in it? I grew up with Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister and was blown away at how accurate the performance was. She got her exactly right. Again it’s one of her all time best.
She doesn’t really have undeserving nominations because as has been noted she gets all the best roles. Some are lesser than others but it’s only those 2 late 90’s filler noms for One True Thing and Music of My Heart that I’d take away.June 3, 2019 at 3:42 pm #1202922257
This award gets more ridiculous every year. Used to make me angry. Now it just makes me roll my eyes.