Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

OscarGuy wrote:My apologies. I was thinking more True Grit than Crazy Heart (though, I don't know why). He was good, but he was definitely weaker. I'll have to reconsider my selection. Definitely not enough to off-set.

That makes much more sense then. I would actually have given Firth the Oscar for A Single Man and Bridges his long-awaited one for True Grit if I had my druthers.

I struggled between 2007 and 2008, finally choosing 2007.

Day Lewis just blows you away with his power and creativity. Penn was real good.

Cotillard is fine. Just don't get Winslet.

Ledger's plunge into the depths of madness and Bardem's eccentric assassin were extraordinary.

Swinton turned a pedestrian part into one of brilliant depth and nuance. Cruz was likewise brilliant in her manic, unhinged ex.

The re-vote option is in effect.

Probably the decade with which I least agree, having agreed with only 12 out the winners. For 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005 I didn't agree with any of the winners. For 2000 and 2007 I agreed with just one. For 2008 and 2009 just two. The years with which I most agreed were 2004 and 2006 in which I agreed with 3. Between those two, I prefer the winners of 2006 so that gets my vote.

My apologies. I was thinking more True Grit than Crazy Heart (though, I don't know why). He was good, but he was definitely weaker. I'll have to reconsider my selection. Definitely not enough to off-set.

In 2000 the leads spoil the bunch.
Washington, Berry and Connelly are among the worst choices ever.
2002 is good, but I'd like a more powerful female couple. Zeta-Jones is dynamic, but almost negligible.
I hate 2003. I think it's the most over the top bunch of winners I can think of. Four showy, extremely overrated performances.
Jamie Foxx spoils 2004.
The late Seymour Hoffmann deserved better company in 2005.
Alan Arkin and Jennifer Hudson may be the worst supporting winners ever.
I love Penn, Winslet and Ledger, but I'm sorry for my compatriot. She didn't deserve to win, and she prevents me from voting for 2008.
In 2009, yes, iconic supporting winners, but a bunch with Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side can't be the best of the decade.
So that leaves 2007, the best overall by far. Cotillard really succeeds in a bad movie. Swinton is as strong as it gets. Bardem is definitely unforgettable, though needless to say, in No Country For Old Men he's not at his best nor it is a performance for the ages. And Day-Lewis being unsurprisingly great.

close one for me...2007 and then 2008.

OscarGuy wrote:Bullock is the weak spot in 2009, but Mo'Nique, Waltz and Bridges are just so astoundingly good that they bring that quartet up quite well.

Bridges is astoundingly good in Crazy Heart? Eh. Really? That seemed to be the very definition of a career Oscar to me.

The lead Oscars that years very much paled in comparison to the almost iconic supporting performances that won.

Every single one of these groups has at least one dud in them, some of them two. There are a few years where the other winners almost fully counteract the weaker winner, the top of these for me is 2009. Tilda's great in Michael Collins, but Bardem is so awful, she just isn't strong enough, even with Day-Lewis and Cotillard at the top. Bullock is the weak spot in 2009, but Mo'Nique, Waltz and Bridges are just so astoundingly good that they bring that quartet up quite well.

And before anyone says anything, yes, I detest Bardem's one-note performance in No Country for Old Men.

The first decade of the new millennium left us some weak groups to choose. What do you think?