Good to know I'm not the only one perplexed by the love for Charlize Theron's Monster. I didn't find her performance rich and well-modulated. In fact, I was cognizant of "acting," and not good acting - lack of subtlety, scene-chewing, cliches and overall amateurishness.
And, the make-up wasn't believable.
Best Actress 2003
Re: Best Actress 2003
One of the nice things about Bizarre's posts in these threads is that it's gotten me to go back and re-read and re-live a lot of discussions. I've laughed out loud a lot.
Reading this particular 2003 thread reminds me of a joke going around Hollywood at the time about the reportedly difficult-to-work-with Theron: "Oh, in Monster she was just playing herself."
Reading this particular 2003 thread reminds me of a joke going around Hollywood at the time about the reportedly difficult-to-work-with Theron: "Oh, in Monster she was just playing herself."
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Re: Best Actress 2003
My choices:
1. Eva Löbau, in "The Forest for the Trees"
2. Charlize Theron, in "Monster"
3. Uma Thurman, in "Kill Bill: Vol. 1"
4. Shinobu Terajima, in "Vibrator"
5. Laia Marull, in "Take My Eyes"
6. Carolina Lizarazo, in "The First Night"
7. Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, in "It's Easier for a Camel..."
8. Candela Peña, in "Torremolinos '73"
9. Lim Su-jeong, in "A Tale of Two Sisters"
10. Nicole Kidman, in "Dogville"
1. Eva Löbau, in "The Forest for the Trees"
2. Charlize Theron, in "Monster"
3. Uma Thurman, in "Kill Bill: Vol. 1"
4. Shinobu Terajima, in "Vibrator"
5. Laia Marull, in "Take My Eyes"
6. Carolina Lizarazo, in "The First Night"
7. Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, in "It's Easier for a Camel..."
8. Candela Peña, in "Torremolinos '73"
9. Lim Su-jeong, in "A Tale of Two Sisters"
10. Nicole Kidman, in "Dogville"
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
Snick's Guy
- Temp
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:43 pm
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
One thing notable about this year was the fact that over a dozen names seemed like they could genuinely have made a showing on Oscar morning -- with so few standouts, anyone remotely in Oscar territory was considered a threat for a nomination. And still, the Academy managed to throw some real curve balls into the mix, coming up with a diverse and interesting list that clearly showed they were thinking for themselves for a change.
And yet, diverse and interesting doesn't necessarily mean impressive either, and in that way, I'm mostly in line with the consensus that this was a weak field, though at least it wasn't a totally boring one.
Keisha Castle-Hughes is maybe more than just a cute kid playing a cute kid. But not that much more, and certainly not enough for an Oscar.
I'm glad I finally loved Samantha Morton in The Messenger, because for a while, she seemed like the coolest actress I'd yet to really embrace. Her hospital bed scene is terrific, but on the whole, it's not a very dominant role at all. (In fact, I think the most memorable performances in In America were the ones who WEREN'T nominated.)
I liked Theron at the time, but a recent revisit has lowered my opinion of her work a bit. I still think she has some very powerful moments (that last phone call to Christina Ricci), but she also has some completely ridiculous, over-the-top ones too (the bus station meltdown). In the end, her Oscar story reads like a complete cliche: pretty lightweight babe deglams to play real-life lesbian hooker! They might as well have handed her the trophy once she signed on to play the role.
Yes, Something's Gotta Give is Keaton's shtik...but it sure was pleasing to see again. She shows a surprising amount of range given the material, obviously nailing the comic bits ("I'm just a turtleneck kind of gal"), but also making the dramatic moments really touching ("I can't tell if you hate me, or if you're, like, the only person who ever really got me.") But, like Julie & Julia this year, it's pretty lightweight stuff for trophies.
So is my vote Naomi Watts? In some ways, her performance here is like the last half of Mulholland Drive for two hours. And, in fact, I'd have preferred she won Best Actress back in '01, for showing far more range in her star-making role. But she does give a rather electrifying performance here, playing someone who acts over the top, without actually being over the top, and without losing sight of the character beneath the theatrics (the way Theron did.) Plus, I think she's one of the key actresses to really emerge this decade, and a win during this period would be appropriate.
On the whole, this is a year for which I have trouble coming up with a win-level performance, but at least (unlike '05) I can find a good number I think are worth considering for nominations.
And yet, diverse and interesting doesn't necessarily mean impressive either, and in that way, I'm mostly in line with the consensus that this was a weak field, though at least it wasn't a totally boring one.
Keisha Castle-Hughes is maybe more than just a cute kid playing a cute kid. But not that much more, and certainly not enough for an Oscar.
I'm glad I finally loved Samantha Morton in The Messenger, because for a while, she seemed like the coolest actress I'd yet to really embrace. Her hospital bed scene is terrific, but on the whole, it's not a very dominant role at all. (In fact, I think the most memorable performances in In America were the ones who WEREN'T nominated.)
I liked Theron at the time, but a recent revisit has lowered my opinion of her work a bit. I still think she has some very powerful moments (that last phone call to Christina Ricci), but she also has some completely ridiculous, over-the-top ones too (the bus station meltdown). In the end, her Oscar story reads like a complete cliche: pretty lightweight babe deglams to play real-life lesbian hooker! They might as well have handed her the trophy once she signed on to play the role.
Yes, Something's Gotta Give is Keaton's shtik...but it sure was pleasing to see again. She shows a surprising amount of range given the material, obviously nailing the comic bits ("I'm just a turtleneck kind of gal"), but also making the dramatic moments really touching ("I can't tell if you hate me, or if you're, like, the only person who ever really got me.") But, like Julie & Julia this year, it's pretty lightweight stuff for trophies.
So is my vote Naomi Watts? In some ways, her performance here is like the last half of Mulholland Drive for two hours. And, in fact, I'd have preferred she won Best Actress back in '01, for showing far more range in her star-making role. But she does give a rather electrifying performance here, playing someone who acts over the top, without actually being over the top, and without losing sight of the character beneath the theatrics (the way Theron did.) Plus, I think she's one of the key actresses to really emerge this decade, and a win during this period would be appropriate.
On the whole, this is a year for which I have trouble coming up with a win-level performance, but at least (unlike '05) I can find a good number I think are worth considering for nominations.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
As most are saying, a crappy year, and I don't think the alternatives were terribly impressive, either (though House of Sand and Fog was certainly impressive by Connelly's standard).
Whale Rider with its "You go (Maori) girl!" simplistic-ness is the kind of movie most critics would sneer at in an American setting but somehow swoon over when it has an exotic gloss. Pleasant enough kid with nothing to act.
Morton was the kind of candidate you discover after a year is over and there aren't enough people to nominate -- "Well, I guess Samantha Morton wasn't bad; let's put her in"
I don't despise Theron the way some do, nor lionize her the way too many have. I was constantly aware of the effort involved, and, while I can appreciate a stretch, all I could think here was, why didn't you hire someone who was actually suited to the role? (Answer: then you wouldn't have had an uglified Oscar winner)
I don't get what so many (including here) saw in Keaton's performance. There were many times post-Annie Hall I thought she rated consideration, for a real broad range of work, but here I thought she was just doing her standard shtik. It's lovely shtik, but Jack Nicholson, doing roughly the same thing, got not a whit of consideration for best actor, so I have to presume it was the dearth in the best actress category that made people suddenly re-appreciate Ms. Keaton.
I went with Watts. 21 Grams is minor stuff -- a Joan Crawford plot inflated by the time-scramble -- but both Watts and del Toro give very good performances. And, in a year this thin, that's enough to get my vote.
Whale Rider with its "You go (Maori) girl!" simplistic-ness is the kind of movie most critics would sneer at in an American setting but somehow swoon over when it has an exotic gloss. Pleasant enough kid with nothing to act.
Morton was the kind of candidate you discover after a year is over and there aren't enough people to nominate -- "Well, I guess Samantha Morton wasn't bad; let's put her in"
I don't despise Theron the way some do, nor lionize her the way too many have. I was constantly aware of the effort involved, and, while I can appreciate a stretch, all I could think here was, why didn't you hire someone who was actually suited to the role? (Answer: then you wouldn't have had an uglified Oscar winner)
I don't get what so many (including here) saw in Keaton's performance. There were many times post-Annie Hall I thought she rated consideration, for a real broad range of work, but here I thought she was just doing her standard shtik. It's lovely shtik, but Jack Nicholson, doing roughly the same thing, got not a whit of consideration for best actor, so I have to presume it was the dearth in the best actress category that made people suddenly re-appreciate Ms. Keaton.
I went with Watts. 21 Grams is minor stuff -- a Joan Crawford plot inflated by the time-scramble -- but both Watts and del Toro give very good performances. And, in a year this thin, that's enough to get my vote.
These are popping up way too fast for my tastes. I was still letting 2002 marinate before posting about that race and now we're already onto the next.
What exactly is the big rush?
Edited By flipp525 on 1269009022
What exactly is the big rush?
Edited By flipp525 on 1269009022
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
For me there was only one choice and that was Diane Keaton in a rare great late career performance in Something's Gotta Give. Aside from The Family Stone two years later, her post-Marvin's Room work has mostly been garbage, but this film proved that with the right vehicle she could still be one of our most dynamic actresses.
The only other nominee I really liked was Samantha Morton in In America, which for me was the year's best film. However, she's overshadowed in that by Paddy Considine and Djimon Hounsou and to an extent, the Bolger Sisters.
The others, as far as I'm concerned, were fill-ins and that includes Chalize Theron who clearly won for the time honored Oscar tradition of playing against type.
The only other nominee I really liked was Samantha Morton in In America, which for me was the year's best film. However, she's overshadowed in that by Paddy Considine and Djimon Hounsou and to an extent, the Bolger Sisters.
The others, as far as I'm concerned, were fill-ins and that includes Chalize Theron who clearly won for the time honored Oscar tradition of playing against type.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Definitely not a good year.
If I had to name my lineup for the year, it would probably be:
Patricia Clarkson - The Station Agent
Scarlett Johanson - Lost in Translation
Charlotte Rampling - Swimming Pool
Charlize Theron - Monster
Uma Thurman - Kill Bill, Vol. 1
While I made my pick back in 2003 as Charlize Theron, whose performance I still like today, I would have to amend my choice after reflection to Charlotte Rampling.
If I had to name my lineup for the year, it would probably be:
Patricia Clarkson - The Station Agent
Scarlett Johanson - Lost in Translation
Charlotte Rampling - Swimming Pool
Charlize Theron - Monster
Uma Thurman - Kill Bill, Vol. 1
While I made my pick back in 2003 as Charlize Theron, whose performance I still like today, I would have to amend my choice after reflection to Charlotte Rampling.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin