Worst Best Actress Winner of the Decade

Post Reply

Worst Best Actress Winner of the Decade

Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
17
38%
Kate Winslet, The Reader
6
13%
Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose
2
4%
Helen Mirren, The Queen
0
No votes
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
1
2%
Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby
0
No votes
Charlize Theron, Monster
3
7%
Nicole Kidman, The Hours
5
11%
Halle Berry, Monster's Ball
8
18%
Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovich
3
7%
 
Total votes: 45

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

My vote for Best Winner of the Decade was between Julia Roberts and Helen Mirren. I never would've thought at the start of the decade that Julia Roberts would be in the top tier, but there you have it. She should not have beaten Laura Linney or Ellen Burstyn (or been nominated in lieu of Gillian Anderson or Björk) but she gives a strong performance which cannot be said for Berry, Kidman, Theron, Witherspoon, Cotillard, Winslet, or [presumably; still haven't seen it] Bullock. It's not like those people beat Ellen Burstyn. Theron and Witherspoon had rather weak competition, but that doesn't make their performances better than Roberts'.

I recently rewatched Requiem for a Dream and was amazed at how supporting Burstyn's performance really was. It's certainly stand-out, but this is an ensemble quartet and Marlon Wayans may have a more substantial role.
"How's the despair?"
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Post by Bog »

Hollywood Z wrote:I've gotta go with Julia Roberts on this one, if only because the criteria of what merits a terrible winner on this board seems to be who they beat out that they were competing against.
When did this happen? I don't remember that being the basis of these polls...and we all love(d) Julie Christie (in Away From Her) and Damien admits his opinion is skewed due to this...plus he didn't vote for Cotillard
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Cotillard.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

Bullock. Without any doubt.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

ITALIANO wrote:Bullock's performance is the worst of this decade - and the next one, and the decade after, etc.
Whew! At least she's not the worst of the previous decade.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Hollywood Z wrote:Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream (who should have easily won if the award was truly based on performances)
And who was nominated in the wrong category if the nomination is truly based on lead/supporting criteria.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Hollywood Z
Temp
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:07 am
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Hollywood Z »

I've gotta go with Julia Roberts on this one, if only because the criteria of what merits a terrible winner on this board seems to be who they beat out that they were competing against. While I felt that Theron, Swank and Mirren were clearly deserving of their Oscars, Cotillard and Witherspoon created very three dimnsional characters that I admire, even if they weren't the best performances that year, and I just can't begrudge Kate Winslet for winning, even if I didn't like the movie (God help me, I love that woman).

That leaves Roberts, Berry, Kidman and Bullock. While The Blind Side is nothing more than a glorified Movie of the Week, Bullock did embody the sassiness of the main character and for anyone who has ever met matriarchs from the Southern United States, let me tell you, this performance wasn't a charicature.

Concerning Halle Berry, her performance was a roller coaster of emotions, in that she was all over the place whether you enjoyed the ride or not. I wasn't a fan of the film because I felt it was nothing more than a cleverly written exploitation film that couldn't wait to get Halle Berry naked. So while she put a lot into the role, I just felt there wasn't much there to back up her performance.

Then there's Nicole Kidman, who is a fantastic actress and an incredibly talented woman. But here, in The Hours, she's hardly the best performance of the three women. In fact, her role should have been a supporting one to Meryl Streep's (where she should have won her latest award). Here, she's just too brooding and has too little screen to be considered a lead, let alone an "Outstanding Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role."

But the worst winner was the cardboard and noisy performance of Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich, who was just phoning in a more profain version of the sassy headstrong woman she's been playing for years. The movie is slight, the performance is one note and the award is just another way for the rich to reward the rich.

And her other four fellow nominees: Joan Allen in The Contender, Juliette Binoche in Chocolat, Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream (who should have easily won if the award was truly based on performances) and Laura Linney for You Can Count on Me, delivered much more complex performances and crafted more refined characters. Even other actresses who weren't nominated were better like Gillian Anderson in The House of Mirth, Michelle Yeoh in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Bjork in Dancer in the Dark, which, even though I hated the film, she was better than Julia. This win is the embodiement of everything that is wrong with the awards, where the in crowd are the only ones who can win and the people who were the true talents don't win because they can't go against the machine of fame. Julia Roberts simply won for being Julia Roberts, who isn't someone who deserved to win in the first place.
"You are what you love, not what loves you." - Nicholas Cage; Adaptation
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Damien wrote: It's like Geoffrey Rush in drag.
That's priceless.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Damn, this is tough. Hilary, Helen Mirren and Julia Roberts are easily the best.

Nicole Kidman is dreary and unimpressive in The Hours but the performance isn't really hateful.

It's silly that Reese Witherspoon won when the ceneterpiece of I Walk The Line, Joaquin Phoenix didn't, despite his great performance, but that doesn't make her win the worst.

Kate Winslet is dreadful in The Reader, and the movie is both stupid and morally repugnant,

The same can be said of Halle Berry, but even more so on all three counts -- dreadful performance, stupid and repugnant movie.

Marion Cotillard is lousy as Edith Piaf, and the performance was all in the make-up. I probably woyuldn'y hate her winning so much, though, if she hadn't beaten the wondrous Julie Christie.

Sandra Bullock isn't aggressively bad in The Blind Side. She's not convincing, though, and simply doesn't create a believable character. But then again. there's not a single believable character in the whole damn movie. And it's a repulsive and egregious movie, and as the center of the film, she must bear full responsibilty for its awfulness.

But still, the most aggressively terrible performance of this batch is Charlize Theron -- her mannerisms constitute an assualt on the audience. It's like Geoffrey Rush in drag. It's the one performance of these ten that made me want to scream, "Stop it!!!!!"

There's a lot of terribleness among these Oscar winners, but Theron is the most agonizingly bad.
"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
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Bullock's performance is the worst of this decade - and the next one, and the decade after, etc.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

Quite obviously Sandra Bullock.
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

Another tough one. I would have voted for someone other than the winner six of the last ten years. I would have voted for Mulligan this year, Huffman for 2005, Winslet for 2004 (I know many of you will be appalled, but I would have given Winslet TWO lead actress Oscars), Moore for 2002, and Linney for 2000. But I did not think any of the winning performances were undeserving of the Oscar nor did I think my preferred performance was head and shoulders above the winner. During the Aughties (I hope this catches on :)), these things happened only when Berry beat Spacek for 2001. I voted for Berry. Spacek's performance was far more skillful and I felt pleasure and admiration watching it (and I would have picked Wilkinson over Washington for lead actor but Washington gave a deserving performance).

In Berry's defense, she has given performances I have enjoyed. I thought both she and Benecio Del Toro deserved a lot more Oscar buzz for Things We Lost In The Fire. Enjoyed the film and both performances. But I found myself laughing at times during her Oscar bait scenes in Monster's Ball. Way over the top and it took away from her performance and the story.




Edited By kaytodd on 1268516377
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Berry and Theron were terrible, but as Uri once said, Winslet's performance was morally wrong. She has to get my vote, even though based solely on acting ability, she's probably second only to Mirren.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I've yet to see Bullock in The Blind Side, but I doubt her performance could be quite the mess that Halle Berry's is in Monster's Ball. I would venture so far as to call only Kate Winslet's performance the only one else that is actively bad whereas Theron's and Kidman's as doing nothing for me. But Berry is just out of her league, both over- and underbaked.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “81st and Other 9th Decade Discussions”