Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:59 pm
by Hustler
Zellweger and Connelly were totally undeserved. Zellwegger is the worst.
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:40 am
by Reza
Big Magilla wrote:Reza wrote:Big Magilla wrote:I thought we years ago forgave Connelly for her "lifeless acceptance speech" caused by then boyfriend Josh Charles dumping her on the way to the Oscars.
I had no idea about her being dumped on Oscar night.
Anyway she is an actress and was an Oscar winner that night. She should have 'performed' the speech. NOT forgiven.
I agree with Greg that the acceptance speech shouldn't have anything to do with whether the performance deserved the award but if we're going to count acceptance speeches as part of our criteria, none was ever worse than the mechanical ones Zellweger gave all throughout awards season as if by rote. So a double whammy to Zellweger from me.
Sometimes a weak or lousy winning performance followed by a dazzling acceptance speech shows up the actor (overall) in a positive light. But ofcourse you are right performances are being judged here and speeches at a later date have absolutely no bearing on the performance itself.
I just felt Connelley's win was a head scratcher to me and it was followed by that speech where she just read off a piece of paper without even looking at the audience. Maybe she WAS devastated at being dumped by a boy friend on Oscar night and she just wanted to wrap things up and leave............although, I think, she was photographed later at a number of Oscar parties following the award ceremony.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:08 pm
by Big Magilla
Reza wrote:Big Magilla wrote:I thought we years ago forgave Connelly for her "lifeless acceptance speech" caused by then boyfriend Josh Charles dumping her on the way to the Oscars.
I had no idea about her being dumped on Oscar night.
Anyway she is an actress and was an Oscar winner that night. She should have 'performed' the speech. NOT forgiven.
I agree with Greg that the acceptance speech shouldn't have anything to do with whether the performance deserved the award but if we're going to count acceptance speeches as part of our criteria, none was ever worse than the mechanical ones Zellweger gave all throughout awards season as if by rote. So a double whammy to Zellweger from me.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:31 pm
by FilmFan720
The Original BJ wrote:Torn between Connelly and Zellweger. The former appears in a much worse movie, and has much less of a part. She might as well be in a coma, whereas at least Zellweger is doing SOMETHING.
On the other hand, Zellweger does a lot more to actively sabotage her film. She practically appears to have ridden in from another movie entirely.
Today, I chose the severely miscalculated performance over the completely boring one and picked Zellweger.
It has been many years since I sat through Cold Mountain, so I am talking based on vague recollections, but I think the argument could be made that Renee Zellwegger is not the one sabotaging the film. The entire story seems to be asking for a Greek tragedy style, as the entire story is completely over the top. Zellwegger seems to be the only one reaching for the stars in this film (as well as some of the smaller supporting actors). Maybe it is the underacting of Jude Law and Nicole Kidman that is sabotaging the film...had everyone been making the same choices as Zellwegger the film would have at least been more fun to watch.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:58 pm
by The Original BJ
Torn between Connelly and Zellweger. The former appears in a much worse movie, and has much less of a part. She might as well be in a coma, whereas at least Zellweger is doing SOMETHING.
On the other hand, Zellweger does a lot more to actively sabotage her film. She practically appears to have ridden in from another movie entirely.
Today, I chose the severely miscalculated performance over the completely boring one and picked Zellweger.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:33 pm
by Greg
I fail to see how an acceptance speech has any bearing on whether or not the performance deserved an award.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:50 pm
by Reza
Big Magilla wrote:I thought we years ago forgave Connelly for her "lifeless acceptance speech" caused by then boyfriend Josh Charles dumping her on the way to the Oscars.
I had no idea about her being dumped on Oscar night.
Anyway she is an actress and was an Oscar winner that night. She should have 'performed' the speech. NOT forgiven.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:45 pm
by FilmFan720
Mister Tee wrote:A pretty thin bunch.
I voted for Zeta-Jones, partly because she impressed me not at all, but also because of the unfathomable level of praise she received from some critics. I thought she was strictly one-note.
I might have voted for Zellweger as well, but I figured she'd find plenty of support elsewhere.
At least Zellwegger was trying (albeit also failing) to do something interesting. I will always give points to actors who make big choices that don't work out (and you must admit that character is full of big choices, and alot of verve) versus performances that come across lifeless and passionless. Zeta-Jones makes no interesting choices and brings nothing to a role that demands presence and passion. She got my vote.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:43 pm
by Big Magilla
I thought we years ago forgave Connelly for her "lifeless acceptance speech" caused by then boyfriend Josh Charles dumping her on the way to the Oscars.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:37 pm
by Reza
Connelley.......lifeless performance and an equally lifeless acceptance speech.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:55 am
by Mister Tee
A pretty thin bunch.
I voted for Zeta-Jones, partly because she impressed me not at all, but also because of the unfathomable level of praise she received from some critics. I thought she was strictly one-note.
I might have voted for Zellweger as well, but I figured she'd find plenty of support elsewhere.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:18 am
by Damien
Cate Blanchett. A wan impersonation.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:57 am
by dws1982
I can see why people will gravitate towards Connelly, Zeta-Jones, and Zellweger. Connelley's performance is fairly dull and lifeless; Zeta-Jones's performance was serviceable I guess, but it's soulless and it's clear that the editor cut around her graceless dancing which still made her look like some drunk college girl. Zellweger's performance is broad and way over-the-top, but she's kind of entertaining and you can look at her as playing a character who's playing a character.
I'm not a huge fan of them, but I can see how people would be fans of these performances or at least why the actresses won. So I'll vote for Penelope Cruz. Hers is the one win this decade that just doesn't make any sense. I don't have a clue what people saw in this performance.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:45 am
by Big Magilla
I tossed a coin and voted for Zellweger, but Cruz was even more wretched.
I don't get the hate for Connelly. She was unmemorable but not grating like those two.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:41 am
by Eric
Most of these performances don't do much for me. My latent StinkyLulu tendencies were sorely disappointed this decade.
Throwing my vote toward Weisz simply because I haven't actually seen Connelly's allegedly paint-primer performance.