Categories One-by-One: Best Actress

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

Postby Hustler » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:10 pm

VanHelsing wrote:Thanks Italiano. Just wondering, is Nine your most favorite film of last year?

Sabin, I guess it means you're a little bit slow, nah? And totally looooooove the creepiness part.

And since Bog has summoned me, please allow me to say this: Academy Award Nominee SANDRA BULLOCK

Sweeeeeeet! Christmas couldn't come any sooner. Yeah baby! :laugh:

Van Helsing, you have predicted in the other thread Gabourey Sidibe for best actress and Runner Up, Carey Mulligan. How does it come? What about your Sandra? Don´t you think she´s going to win?

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

Postby Hustler » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:03 pm

The point is I´ll have to wait till March the 18th to watch The Blind Side due to schedule release dates, so I can´t express an opinion regarding the film. Anyway, I still mantain the hope in seeing Meryl winning for the third time.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3784
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:32 am

VanHelsing wrote:Thanks Italiano. Just wondering, is Nine your most favorite film of last year?

Well, no... I don't think it can be anyone's favorite film of last year.

User avatar
VanHelsing
Assistant
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
Contact:

Postby VanHelsing » Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:55 am

Thanks Italiano. Just wondering, is Nine your most favorite film of last year?

Sabin, I guess it means you're a little bit slow, nah? And totally looooooove the creepiness part.

And since Bog has summoned me, please allow me to say this: Academy Award Nominee SANDRA BULLOCK

Sweeeeeeet! Christmas couldn't come any sooner. Yeah baby! :laugh:




Edited By VanHelsing on 1267286270
With a Southern accent...
"Don't you dare lie to me!" and...
"You threaten my congeniality, you threaten me!"

-------

"You shouldn't be doing what you're doing. The truth is enough!"
"Are you and Perry?" ... "Please, Nelle."

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:11 am

Well that proves my point doesn't it? You thought she was quite good even though excellence of performance was not the main criteria.

I hate stomping on Sandra Bullock and The Blind Side. I really do. I like her and I like her in the film, though I would hardly call what she does great acting. The thing is I don't think anyone else does either. That's the conundrum.

Reza
Laureate
Posts: 7037
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Postby Reza » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:39 am

Big Magilla wrote:With Elizabeth Taylor's first win, I don't know what it was, but there are people on this board who swear it was for more than her tracheotomy.

It was the tracheotomy, being in the headlines constantly for the past 3 years or so, her fourth straight nod (without winning) and playing a hooker (life imitating art??.....although she claimed to have married all the men she had affairs with). Anyway it was her time to win..........as in many other cases the actual performance had nothing whatsoever to do with the win itself. I personally think she wasn't all that bad at all........the film was crap........but she was quite good. Maybe I need to re-visit the film.

I would have voted for Melina Mercouri that year.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:16 pm

True, but aside from Mary Pickford in Coquette I don't think there's ever been a Best Actress winner that didn't have a group of supporters who actually thought the winner gave an award worthy performance.

With Ginger Rogers, it was she epitomized the working girl. With Loretta Young, it was she did a flawless accent in a role intended for Ingrid Bergman. With Elizabeth Taylor's first win, I don't know what it was, but there are people on this board who swear it was for more than her tracheotomy.

Bullock's performance is competent, even touching at times, but I haven't heard, read or seen anyone say she should win because she gave the year's best performance - if she wins she will the first to do so purely on off screen charisma and respect within the industry since Pickford eighty years ago.

Maybe Sean Penn will pull one of his no-shows and they can get Ben Stiller to do double duty and present Best Actress instead.




Edited By Big Magilla on 1267244252

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:32 pm

Big Magilla wrote:MacGraw was nominated because she was the "darling of the moment" but when the majority of the voters sat down to place a check mark next to the name of one of the names they just couldn't place it next to hers.

The same thing should apply to Bullock - great gal, charming actress whose films bring in lots of money, but does she really deserve an Oscar based on her performance?

No, she doesn't, but if excellence of performance was the primary criterion, the list of Oscar winners would look a lot different,
"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

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6757
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:16 pm

OMG! For whatever reason, I haven't noticed that Van Helsing's Sandra Bullock avatar blinks until right now! God, it's creepy!

...and yet, the range of emotion displayed is so uncannily similar to real life!
Philomena is one of the year's best Philomenas!

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:47 pm

criddic3 wrote:
That she failed to score suggested to me there (thankfully) was a level below which Oscar voters wouldn't go.


Why nominate them if they are so terribly below their standards? Maybe the reality is that a different sentiment took over and they chose someone else. Or maybe the margin of victory was small. It may not have been that Academy voters were so appalled at giving McGraw an award.

MacGraw was nominated because she was the "darling of the moment" but when the majority of the voters sat down to place a check mark next to the name of one of the names they just couldn't place it next to hers.

The same thing should apply to Bullock - great gal, charming actress whose films bring in lots of money, but does she really deserve an Oscar based on her performance?

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Postby criddic3 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:35 pm

That she failed to score suggested to me there (thankfully) was a level below which Oscar voters wouldn't go.


Why nominate them if they are so terribly below their standards? Maybe the reality is that a different sentiment took over and they chose someone else. Or maybe the margin of victory was small. It may not have been that Academy voters were so appalled at giving McGraw an award.

I think Bullock is in front-runner status partly because of her appeal. She is well-liked. And the surprise factor of her nomination is something Academy voters may respond to. I think someone said something similar earlier about the actors branch identifying with her struggles as an actress. The "fairy tale" aspect of it may be what drives her win, even though she has been a star for many years now.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2721
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Eric » Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:31 am

That's funny. My Lutheran upbringing is, more and more, compelling me to shut the hell up.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3784
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:50 am

Like during the Witch Hunt, I won't name names, but no, it wasn't Van Helsing. Anyway, it's in the past, and my Catholic upbringing forces me to forgive, and go on with our lives and this divisive Oscar season ;)

User avatar
VanHelsing
Assistant
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
Contact:

Postby VanHelsing » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:46 am

Bog, what's your problem?

And for the record, I did not send that PM. ITALIANO, you'd better clear my name.

:angry:
With a Southern accent...

"Don't you dare lie to me!" and...

"You threaten my congeniality, you threaten me!"



-------



"You shouldn't be doing what you're doing. The truth is enough!"

"Are you and Perry?" ... "Please, Nelle."

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Postby Bog » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:51 am

ITALIANO wrote:Not just glimpse actually - I got a very direct private message threatening me to be exhiled forever if I go on trashing this movie

This sounds a little too nuts....but maybe just nuts enough to have been Van Helsing...my God where has he gone??

I can only imagine how much more excruciating this whole process would have been had he stuck around...my thoughts go out to the members of the board where he's now focused his otherworldly Sandra obsession...


Return to “82nd Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest