Best Picture 2001

I feel like I've been doing a lot better as of late with keeping up with this thing. I think now that I'm close to 2000 I'm rushing to finish it so I can catch up with 2012 and beyond which I've got all the films for and have a better understanding of the Oscar race from those years and feel I can maybe give a better review. I think I'm just really excited about getting out of the 2000s eventually. Almost there!

2001 Best Picture

A Beautiful Mind

I never liked this choice by the Academy for a Best Picture win. I just never really thought it was as good as a lot of people made it out to be. To me, it's a formulaic Serious Subject film that glosses over the heavy issues in favor of Hollywood pap that aims to please, manipulate, and ultimately win awards. Kudos to Ron Howard for taking on a big film about paranoid schizophrenia and mental illness. It's definitely something that needs to be more talked about in today's society and bringing it into the public arena in the format of a big budget film makes it more palatable to talk about. It allows the discussion to happen in the public which is a great thing even if the film itself isn't the greatest representation. That is the main positive for me about A Beautiful Mind. Unfortunately, it's also a dishonest portrayal of John Nash's life and makes schizophrenia seem cute and frivolous at times. Howard and his people explained that it wasn't meant to be a literal interpretation of Nash's life but that is a specious argument. It turns an interesting and compelling narrative into something easily swallowed by the general public. Are we to believe that through sheer determinism and willpower that Nash can suppress his mental illness enough to be a functional and respected member of society? No! Because it does take medication and counseling and support of many people to deal with the illness. This is the type of film that panders to an audience that doesn't want to be challenged, only wanting neatly wrapped up feel good stories that don't make them think about the world and the people around them. To me, it's the worst kind of Oscar movie. It wastes a few good actors with insipid characters, deviates from the truth, and gives us a mediocre look into a great mind. It makes me angry when this shit continually wins, especially when there are better contenders among the rest of the group.

Gosford Park

Full discretion I was looking forward to this film for the longest time. I knew this was a Robert Altman film and that it would be very involved. I loved the English countryside manor setting with an ensemble cast idea because I just knew it would be pretty entertaining. There were two Best Supporting Actress nominees so surely the acting was superb and I would kick myself for missing out on this film for so long. Unfortunately, only some of that is true. It is entertaining, but I'm not kicking myself and the nominated acting was less than stellar. But it was entertaining indeed and that's important. While the acting was Oscar worthy, they weren't bad either. They accomplished what was meant of them in their roles and that's fine. The film itself is slyly humorous. There were a lot of instances where I laughed but wasn't sure if I was supposed to but then didn't care because whatever it was was legit funny. I liked that it didn't really take itself so serious but didn't do it in a juvenile way or in a lame wink at the audience type way. It was chock full of interesting characters and it built the intrigue of the murder and knowing more about the guests quite well. The film actually reminded me often of The West Wing and other material from Aaron Sorkin with it's rapid fire, witty dialogue and fast pace and weaving of characters. It's no surprise then that this film essentially led to Downton Abbey, which was supposed to be a spin-off before merely being inspired by the film. These sorts of whodunit type films are inherently watchable usually. You always want to know what happens next and who did what because of what crazy reason. That's part of what makes Gosford Park entertaining is that you start watching and get sucked in even when it's focusing on the less intriguing moments. It might not have the grand, stands the test of time quality that other Oscar winners and nominees have but it does have the quality of just being a good film that's easy and fun to watch if you're in the mood.

In the Bedroom

Before this project, I had never really heard of this film and had no idea what it was even about. Now that I have watched it, I wish I would have seen it earlier. This is the kind of film that I love and I mean love. I am drawn to bleak, darker, sad, but realistic, gritty, highly unglamorous stories where the ending might be ambiguous, the characters might be relatable but not necessarily likable, and the whole thing feels real. In the Bedroom is in that same mold of what I like. It's very much a film about grief and how it affects us and how we deal with it. Spacek and Wilkinson play an older couple whose son is killed by a jealous ex of his lover and they deal with the killer being out and about in their small Maine town when he's released on bond. That's the quick synopsis that doesn't do the film any justice but it was so totally engrossing for me. Just so raw, real, and natural. It was like watching a surgery with a large open wound from above and seeing how the doctor was able to close it up. The direction (from first time director Todd Field) is superb. It's unobtrusive like we're peering into the lives of this family and witnessing things meant to stay behind closed doors. The performances are all low key and quiet but have such power behind them. I love how realistic they are and how they make the grief seem so natural and not a Hollywood construct of what someone thinks looks good on screen. Even the location, while beautiful and picturesque, stays out of the limelight while the camera, story, and director focus on family. The ending of the film is somewhat controversial. Even as it was heading to it's eventual and evident climax, I was telling Wilkinson's character no, no, no don't do it, it's not worth it! If you've seen it, you'll understand what I mean. The ending offers up a sort of fantasy for families who have dealt with similar tragedies. I think the ending fits well within the narrative and doesn't offer up any type of closure. That works because revenge doesn't always feel good or right or help heal the deep wounds left by a tragedy. In the Bedroom presents this ending as is without neatly wrapping anything up, staying true to it's premise of being realistic. The end is truly powerful because we don't know what's going to happen next. It seems Wilkinson's character might have done what he did out of a sense of duty to the family but I'm not sure he feels good about it. Spacek's character gets up and goes to make coffee, seemingly fine with what happened and moving on. It gives you a ton to think about and sticks with you long after it's over. I'm still thinking about it a day later. What does revenge do for grief? It doesn't bring back a loved one. It causes more problems and still leaves you feeling unfulfilled. It's a hypnotic film that I highly recommend.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Ah, so it begins! I had a sort of quandary with this trilogy: how do I watch these films? Do I start with the first as is natural or do I go back in time as I do each year and write about them that way? I thought about it for a bit and decided to just watch them in order even if it meant writing about them in advance. With that issue solved, let's get to the trilogy! I'll say that FotR is my favorite of the three and just feels like a complete film to me and easily stands alone. The second one suffers from, well, being the middle one and continuing a story on both ends. And the third has about 84 endings. But Fellowship is easily the best and I think the most fun. Maybe that has to do with it introducing all the characters and concepts that will play out for the following 9 hours or so. I like that at it's core, it's a tale about friendship and watching Frodo and Samwise make their journey is what watching movies is all about. It's the most lighthearted of the three and utilizes a lot of comedy in place of the action we get in the later installments. The scale is epic and the world is just amazing to behold. Peter Jackson went all out and just completely mashed it out of the park. Every character is spot on and the music is probably my favorite part. All of it is so memorable and fun to listen to. I'm not sure how much really needs to be said about The Lord of the Rings really. If someone hasn't watched this and is over the age of like 10, then I don't even want to associate with those people. Those people are the absolute worst. Like those that take pride in never seeing Star Wars. Ugh. If I had my way, I'd probably give this one the Oscar as to represent the trilogy instead of the third, but I understand why that was done. This one is just supremely watchable from start to finish.

Moulin Rouge!

So this is what caused the Academy to give Chicago the win in 2002. This film got them all jazzed up about musicals again and it didn't get to reap the reward of that monumental task. This was my first time watching it and all I knew going in was that I like Baz Luhrman movies and I hated that Lady  Marmalade song that played incessantly when it came out. From the very beginning, Moulin Rouge! is inventive with a nice play on the 20th Century Fox opening logo, setting the tone for the rest of the film. I was hooked in the first 10 minutes. It's a strong beginning that reminded me of a Terry Gilliam film with the myriad of colors and strange characters. That's one of the things I do love about this film is just how great it looks and that's something that can be said of all the Luhrman movies. The art direction is killer and deservedly won an Oscar for the efforts. It makes Moulin Rouge! come to life and is so vibrant and ostentatious and glitzy that it's nice to just sit back in awe of it all. The high point for me, as in every Luhrman movie, is the music. I enjoy the mix of genres and the old and new pop music because it injects a much needed breath of fresh air into a static film genre or turns conventions on it's head. Just because it's set around 1900 doesn't mean it's inappropriate to include Smells Like Teen Spirit in a flashy mash-up dance number. I find it bold and most of all thrilling. Ewan McGregor does a great job as the leading man and I find him to be extremely likable in everything he does which certainly helps here. I do think that the film sags a little in the middle during the romantic parts between McGregor and Kidman. Maybe if there were different musical choices to spice it up it wouldn't feel like it drags. The ending is as equally strong as the beginning with a touching stage number that is sure to get some of you weepy. It's a shame that this film set up a movie like Chicago for the big reward and didn't get take home the top prize itself. Amazingly, this was the first live action musical since (by my calculations) 1979 nominated for Best Picture. I'd say this was a worthy nomination.


I'm just not a fan of the winner this year. Okay yeah, once we knew LotR wasn't going to win it was no threat at all. There was a lot of hype for Moulin Rouge! and I know it was a front runner. For some reason A Beautiful Mind won out and I don't know why because I would have voted for every other film nominated including Gosford Park which was such a letdown to me. Knowing that LotR already won in 2003, my winner is easily In the Bedroom which blew me away. Such a great movie that needs way more publicity. If it had won maybe smaller, more independent films would have flourished.

Oscar Winner: A Beautiful Mind
My Winner:  In the Bedroom
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Moulin Rouge!
Gosford Park
A Beautiful Mind

Leading Actor 2001

I feel this is never ending and it really is. I've started a new job that takes up so much time that I kinda resent coming home for my 4-6 hours of free time before I go to bed and dedicating it to some movie I know sucks or a movie I've seen 3 times or something that just doesn't make me excited to watch it at that time. You know sometimes I want to come home and just veg out and watch The Office or Bob's Burgers. I don't always want to watch a Holocaust movie or a slow movie that's 2.5 hours long! I dunno. It's just that I kind of expected Oscar movies to be awesome and great and amazing more often than not and that's just not the reality. This is more of just an observation and not an indictment on this category. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Sometimes watching sucks and feels like unpaid work! But I love it so shut up, me! This is a group I've seen a couple of and am looking forward to the rest.

2001 Best Actor

Denzel Washington - Training Day

The first black Best Actor Oscar winner since Sidney Poitier in 1963 and part of a historic 2001 ceremony where both Leading categories went to black actors and even Sidney Poitier got an honorary award. There is a little controversy that maybe this was an undeserved Oscar given simply because Denzel is black and it coincided with a year where the Academy wanted to end the black Oscar drought. You could also argue that Denzel was due for one so to speak. All of that may be true, but there's no denying that Denzel turns in a great performance outside of all that other mess. Try to watch Training Day and not be blown away by his commanding screen presence. The knock on Denzel is that he plays Denzel too much and some said it showed even more so here, but I think he just makes that type of acting look natural for him. You do get the sense that these later performances were cribbed from this one and he kept building off that persona. It looks put on in some of his other roles where he's clearly acting in a familiar way but all of that is not this performance in Training Day. He plays the corrupt and questionably dirty narco cop that has a hell of a day while training Ethan Hawke's new guy. It's a continual series of unbelievable events that just mount and mount and lead to the explosive ending. Denzel does a great job of displaying a man who has a huge ego that believes he rules the streets, can manipulate anyone to do whatever he commands, and is completely untouchable. He's great at taking situations that aren't what he anticipates and instantly rolling with things and coming up with a slick plan or defusing an escalating situation with a laugh and big grin. Part of that is Denzel's charm and he is also able to take some of the dialogue that might otherwise be cheesy or cringe worthy and kick it up a notch into something quotable years down the line. Denzel is at his best in the moments where he's thinking of his next move or not in control of the situation and the bravado gets turned down. I think it's those insights into the true character of Denzel's cop that make the performance really stand out. Yes, the machismo and imposing badass persona is a lot of fun to watch, especially coming from Denzel, but it needs the balance of the quieter instances to fully be appreciated and work for the character. I'm perfectly okay with this being what got Denzel his Oscar, because he definitely deserved one.

Russell Crowe - A Beautiful Mind

There was very real talk that Crowe could be the first to repeat as Best Actor winner since Tom Hanks did it in the early nineties. This was the tail end of the Crowe heyday where it seemed that everything he did was nominated. It's quite evident that this is an actor that is on top of his game. So there's no doubt that he is a great actor. In A Beautiful Mind, he plays John Nash, a mathematician who cracks codes and eventually develops paranoid schizophrenia.The first thing you notice is that he's too buff and handsome for a nerdy mathematician. And then you'll notice the tics, which is a nice little attention to detail but is it too affected? At times it is. Characters like these always seem to invite this type of affected acting for some reason. That to portray dorky, nerdy, or crazy characters means to have these weird little mannerisms and rapid fire quick witted quips. It would have been nice to see Crowe not stoop to that tired level of acting but he tries to make the most out of it. Crowe is the most convincing when he's playing the crazy part of Nash. It's strong acting that doesn't over do it. It treads a fine line and makes the character more believable. Was it truly deserving of a second consecutive Oscar win? No, I don't think so. Crowe demonstrates why he was and is one of the best but it doesn't entirely work for me. I think some of that blame can be placed on the writer and director who are okay with safe and pedestrian even with the schizophrenia subject. That's to say it's not a bad job by Crowe at all, just not worth a historic win.

Sean Penn - I Am Sam

I've been very interested in finally seeing this Penn performance since it's been lampooned and mocked and even referenced in Tropic Thunder (never go full retard!). It's kinda hard to watch, honestly! It's difficult to separate all the parodies from the real thing because when you watch the very beginning it plays exactly, I mean exactly, like a well shot parody. It doesn't help that the movie is shot in that annoying late 90s, very early 2000s style of constant camera movement and zoom ins and outs and it's almost nauseous how overused it is. I've got to say even though Sean Penn did go full retard in this I can find the charm and warmth of the performance. I think the dedication with which Penn approached the character of Sam is something to be commended (even if Penn can be a scumbag). He gives real humanity to Sam and doesn't actually go full retard, meaning I don't think the portrayal is as exaggerated or overblown as could be. The movie itself is overly sentimental, with saccharine and cloying being better adjectives to describe it. But Penn does tone down the film from being a farce. The movie and performance is very predictable but you know what you're getting hen you watch a movie like this. It's a very easy performance to make fun of and it's an easy character to fuck up. I think Penn is able to keep it from going off the rails and keeps Sam grounded in reality. Is it the best? No. Is it worthy of being included? Absolutely. It's a brave decision that somewhat pays off, although it's still a performance that launched a thousand jokes and bad parodies. That automatically deducts points. I think if people really look at it they won't be as turned off but they'll also get pretty much what the expected.

Will Smith - Ali

This is the role that made the Fresh Prince a legit actor/Oscar possibility. Before this it was the Bad Boys and The Wild West type movies, but Ali made Will Smith into a bonafide Oscar actor. Smith does a really good job with playing Muhammad Ali and you can tell he gave it his all, so I'm not going to be too harsh. Smith is practically in every scene and has the gravitas and charisma to carry every scene he is in, there's no doubt about that. One thing you can't say about Will Smith is that he lacks screen presence. He doesn't look all that like Ali but that's a forgivable thing when it comes to biopics. I do think he's let down a bit by director Michael Mann (who I love) who maintains an uneven pace throughout the film. Some scenes go on for way too long, like way too long. Others aren't expounded on enough. So Will Smith's performance does feel a little uneven and I think it's due to the director/editor. If the film was more tightly focused maybe Will Smith would come off as more in tune with Ali. Which brings up the fact that Oscar winners and nominees are probably more beholden to their editors than the general public gives them credit for. Will is extremely good at the hard stare which might make up a third of the film, seriously! It's where he looks out a window or into the distance like a hard gangster or a troubled man. It really is the most obvious thing about the performance. There's more to acting than looking hard of course and there's way more to Oscar caliber acting than staring off. I think that's where the director and/or editor needed to make some executive decisions regarding Smith's version of Ali and what the script demanded of him. But for a huge biopic such as this about a figure as mythical as Muhammad Ali, Will Smith did a good job in portraying the Champ in this film. It's not a knockout, but I'd say it's a decent split decision.

Tom Wilkinson - In the Bedroom

It's nice to see the love for Tom Wilkinson from the Academy. This was his first of his two nominations (his other was for Michael Clayton). I always forget that he's British because he plays so many American characters and makes the accents seem natural. Anyway, Wilkinson plays a grieving father in this film and it's such a low key, quiet performance. That's quintessential Tom Wilkinson to me. You're going to get the steady, solid, powerful performances where it looks like he's not doing much but they leave you impressed at the end.  Wilkinson's performance is devastating after his son is killed and we get those simple moments of him walking to tell his wife and looking around his son's room. There's so much going on in these scenes that is quietly unstated with just how he looks and walks and exists, it's powerful without being obvious.The subtleties in Wilkinson's expressions make paying attention to him so rewarding. And with the performance being so subtle and low key, the fight between him and Spacek is mesmerizing. There are year's of frustrations boiling up and over with all the grief that's spilling out. The two actors play off each other so well and not just with the dialogue but with the silences as well. The film shifts more towards Wilkinson's character's perception at the end where he shines as more of a reluctant participant in the revenge carrying out what seems like a necessary fatherly/husband duty to his family. You know the deed changes Wilkinson and we never know if the marriage survives or how well the revenge assuaged their grief but Wilkinson is tremendous in the last part of the film. I love that powerful, engaging acting can be very minimalist in execution. It's probably the style I gravitate to liking much more than any other. Wilkinson was a great fit for In the Bedroom.


This is a tough group to judge. There's a tiny width separating 1 from 5. Will Smith is the newbie and gives a good effort but is let down by his director/editor. Crowe would be next up because I just didn't like the movie and he didn't do much to change my view of it. It's meh. Penn did a better than originally thought job. You think of it and laugh but he gave a pretty good performance. I loved Wilkinson in his film. It was great and underrated, even with the nomination. Denzel is good and powerful and charismatic and just of the moment. I like his win and I'm glad he won for it. Can't deny his magnetism in that film. Like I said 1-5 were super close so I'm kinda not into writing pages about each for this.

Oscar Winner: Denzel Washington - Training Day
My Winner:   Denzel Washington - Training Day
Tom Wilkinson
Sean Penn
Russell Crowe
Will Smith

Leading Actress 2001

I have seen none of these performances, so it's a fresh category for me! Interested to see just how Berry is in her win - did she deserve it or not?

2001 Best Actress

Halle Berry - Monster's Ball

This is obviously a huge historical moment for black women in film, with Berry becoming the first African-American woman to win the Best Actress award. Not bad for Berry. I've always wondered if it was given based on the merits of the performance or because the Academy finally wanted to give it to a black woman and this year just happened to be historic on a few different levels and it worked out that way. And now I know. It's a God awful win. Like this seriously won? Berry's acting in the beginning is so bad and so cringe worthy that I had to wonder if I was watching the correct movie. Her bumbling, can't do anything right, poor woman shtick is straight out of some Lifetime movie of the week. Her drunk acting before the weird sex scene is horrid and the accent is terrible and the way she says "make me feel good" is comically bad. She can't elevate the dialogue and can't give the scenes any sense of life. It's like watching someone act without a soul, there's no feeling to the character. The romance with Billy Bob Thornton is wholly unbelievable, not helped any by him being a racist douchebag who all the sudden tries to help save Berry's son's life and then falls for her? What? There doesn't seem to be any reason why they'd end up together other than they both lost their sons and are dealing with it by banging each other. But there's no chemistry and no spark and I'm left wondering why this is going on. The end of the movie is the only real acting we get from Berry and it comes way too late to salvage any sort of decent performance, let alone a damn Oscar winning one! The ending is too little, too late though. I just wonder where that complexity of the final scene(s) was throughout the rest of the movie. It would have been nice if Berry could have tried to balance more than one emotion from the beginning. I dunno, I think this may be the Academy trying to garner some goodwill or maybe pat itself on the back for being progressive 74 years too late. It's not a good win or even a good nomination. If this was left off the ballot, would anyone have batted an eye? Would anyone have fought hard for this to be included? I sure as hell hope not! I could go on writing for another hour about how disappointed this win makes me and how terrible this performance is but I need to go to bed. I'll close by saying that it's embarrassing that this is the only performance by a black woman to win Best Actress so far in the history of Oscar. Ugh.

Judi Dench - Iris

This is the third Leading Actress nomination for someone playing a character that becomes afflicted with Alzheimer's disease since I've started this project (although I haven't yet reviewed Julianne Moore's win for Still Alice). So if the old cliche is that in order to get a nomination as an actress you need to uglify yourself, maybe we should add portray a woman with Alzheimer's as well. Dench plays the famous writer Iris Murdoch in her later years as she develops Alzheimer's and has to deal with that reality. I feel like comparing the three performances that I've seen is somewhat unavoidable and necessary. Julianne Moore's work is phenomenal and deserved that Oscar win. She gives a scarily convincing performance of the gradual change. Julie Christie's work in Away From Her more delicately deals with a woman losing the battle with Alzheimer's and her husbands frustrations with the disease and having to put her in a nursing home. Iris at times goes to the extremes of the disease, showing us Dench wandering in traffic, lashing out like a child, and mumbling and shuffling around confused. The film also focuses on showing the contrast of Iris' wild, carefree younger days to try and make the juxtaposition hit the audience harder. It's a sad little film, for sure, but in comparison with the other is the weakest of the three. Dench has the more showy of the three roles and I feel like it's easy to portray the extremes I noted above. It's in the moments of lucidity and realization that are tougher to get across and Dench does an alright job at them but nowhere near as good as the other two. It probably is unfair to compare and I should take this performance on it's own merits but I've seen better and more convincing takes on it. I'm sure this was a more eye opening experience back in 2001 but I don't have the benefit of a time machine so I unfortunately can't react the same way.

Nicole Kidman - Moulin Rouge!

My dislike of Kidman should be apparent by now (although if you're reading this in chronological order, then probably not). I know that she's a talented actress and all that but she just never seems to inspire anything in me besides a meh or legit hatred. And that goes the same for this performance that was touted as being a possible win and part of the reason she won in 2002. Sure, it's alright and it's not bad at all. Kidman ably sings and dances and doesn't look terrible at it like Renee Zellweger in Chicago terrible, thankfully. It's not the highest caliber of singing and dancing, however, so that tempers a lot of enthusiasm for the performance. The good thing is that Baz Lurhman's film calls for a bit of fun overacting which I think Kidman is game enough to accomplish. That's part of the appeal of the whole film and Kidman does nothing to sabotage that feeling of theatricality. The melodrama in her performance works pretty well for the character and she's good at playing disappointed and being a fragile little lamb, so to speak. Thing is, I won't come back to Moulin Rouge! for Kidman. I'll come back because I thoroughly enjoyed the entire film and the whole spectacle of it's pastiche. Sometimes I wish I could see what other people see in Kidman because I'd love to be aboard that hype train as well. Instead, I'm always a little let down that I have to watch her bore me or worse. That's really about all I can sum up for Kidman here, it's perfectly adequate for the film but not a performance that will have me rushing out to sign up for her fan club. I'm sure others think it's fantastic but that's just not me.

Sissy Spacek - In the Bedroom

Before watching this performance, I was concerned that maybe this would be one of those reputation nominations or a veteran nomination. I know I always go on and on about those types in these reviews but I'm glad to say Spacek's performance makes it Oscar worthy on it's own merits. I read other people who thought she didn't do all that much in the role of the grieving mother. I thought she treated the character the right way. In the Bedroom is a film about grief and the different ways it affects us and how we deal with it. Spacek's character is hit hard by the tragedy of her son being killed and becomes a sullen, critical, devastated, quiet mess. Spacek and Wilkinson internalize their grief and deal with it in different ways until it's forced to come out when they confront each other. Spacek understands her character's internal struggle and plays it in a very realistic way. She gets upset at her husband because she doesn't see him grieving the same way she is and thinks he might not care as much that their son is gone. Throughout this characterization, Spacek really shines. The power in her performance resonates equally between what she says and also the silence when she's not saying anything. The two actors work remarkably well together and you can feel the tension of the tragedy on screen as well as the years of unsaid things in the marriage. It's very real and completely un-Hollywood. That's part of what attracts me to the performance so much is that it is very raw and real and an unglamorized look at a mother and wife in grief. It reminds me of Spacek's role in the Netflix series Bloodline, where she plays a matriarch that has had some tragedies in the past. It hits a lot of the same beats as this role does. Some really strong acting from Spacek that I'm ashamed to say I didn't really expect, but glad that I was wrong.

Renee Zellweger - Bridget Jones's Diary

This is a very interesting nomination! I remember that this movie was a big hit at the time and just seemed to tap into the zeitgeist at the right time for whatever reason. It's definitely not the most typical Academy choice, far from it. It's nice that every once in awhile, Oscar will surprise and nominate a comedic performance or something that is completely out of left field. They do it every so often and it restores my faith in the Academy every time. While not the most convincing of British accents (even though she was praised for it), it's easy to see why the public and the Academy would fall in love with Zellweger here. Sure, we would get tired of her in the coming years especially since she was nominated the next two but the first one is inspired. Bridget Jones the character is just a a funny, charming, goofy girl that's easily likable and very easy to relate to. She brings the comedy but also the emotional depth that the character absolutely needs to succeed. She's able to blend the two and make a pretty good character out of it, can't really ask for more. The movie itself is a quick, fun watch and Zellweger is the main attraction, unless you came for Colin Firth or Hugh Grant. I'm all for more fun nominations like this. It doesn't deserve to win but I'm very glad that it's part of the history of Oscar. The more comedic roles, the better especially for women.

After watching this group, especially after watching Halle Berry to end the group, I feel defeated. I feel let down. I feel like I need a strong Best Actress group in the near future to pick me back up because I can't take much more of the awful and mediocre performances touted as being amazing and being actual winners. Berry is the clear loser for me. It's kind of unfair that I judged Dench on the other two Alzheimer's performances but her's just doesn't stack up at all. So I can't really bump her up in my list. Zellweger was just glad to be there in a rom-com role but it's one I'd watch again if nothing else was on and I was bored. Faint praise but still an interesting inclusion. Kidman is next solely because she was adequate for the part and didn't suck. Sissy Spacek was great I thought. I'd have given her another Oscar easily in a very underwhelming group. I have no idea if I will award a black woman with the top prize as I go back in time but I feel that's a distinction that shouldn't just be handed out because the Academy feels bad or they feel like they need to get it over with. It's sad that in my Oscar world there are no black female winners yet, but I blame the Academy for not nominating enough of them to even be considered.

Oscar Winner: Halle Berry - Monster's Ball
My Winner:   Sissy Spacek - In the Bedroom
Nicole Kidman
Renee Zellweger
Judi Dench
Halle Berry

Supporting Actor 2001

This continues to be my favorite category to watch, usually giving me some really good performances and interesting films. Not much else to say except I'm looking forward to this one!

2001 Best Supporting Actor

Jim Broadbent - Iris

By now, it has become cliche for me to say that a nomination/win like this is merely the Academy's attempt to reward an aging actor for their distinguished career. I've said it often and I'm sure I'll say it a lot more as I keep going with my project. It's also clear that the Academy likes to nominate actors that have a year in which they appear in a bunch of highly thought of, possibly Oscar nominated films. We see it time and again, like in 2002 with John C. Reilly, and it also applies here with Jim Broadbent. He had quite the year starring in Iris, Moulin Rouge!, and Bridget Jones's Diary, all of which received some Oscar love. So with that double whammy, it's no surprise he was nominated and surely no surprise he won. Those two things alone are something that can give a win but his performance in Iris was touching to boot. He plays the husband of an aging writer that begins experiencing Alzheimer's and goes through the difficulties associated in dealing with a loved one who has that disease. He's a doting, caring, concerned husband that does his best to keep Iris lucid and cared for but ultimately gets frustrated and resentful of the disease that took his wife from him. He still loves her but is unable to stop the deterioration of her once razor sharp mind. Broadbent attacks the role in a sprightly manner, showing good charisma in the early days of Iris' condition. His performance is buoyed, however, by the younger version of his character played by Hugh Bonneville (who looks exactly like Broadbent) who equals and at times surpasses Broadbent in ability. The two together make a wonderfully whole performance and while Broadbent does a great job, there's still a bit lacking in his singular role. His struggle to come to the realization that the Iris he fell in love with is gone and accept that truth is very convincing. It's just not an overwhelming performance which again I think works better in tandem with Bonneville's younger part.

Ethan Hawke - Training Day

I used to not really like Ethan Hawke awhile ago, but lately I've warmed up to his acting. Not sure why exactly other than I guess I've seen more of his work and come to appreciate it a bit more. For a while I didn't know what to say about this performance. I'm fine with it being nominated although it always seemed like a co-lead to me since the film mostly focuses on Hawke's first day in the narco unit and he's in almost every single scene. Him being in Supporting is a bit disingenuous but, hey that's Oscar. I just never felt super strongly in support of it but I would never say it was boring or bad or anything. I think maybe some of that is due to Denzel being so overpowering in the film that we see Hawke's performance as being a little muted and overshadowed. One blogger described it as reactionary and I'd agree with that term. I think that's mostly by design as we see Hawke interact with Denzel on his first day of training and that's to be expected. He does come off as a meek, straight laced, cowardly figure but shows flashes of brilliance when he stops to save a young girl from getting raped and of course the whole ending. It seems people equate characters that are essentially squares like Hawke's as not being good performances. Hawke plays his cop honestly and let's Denzel do the big acting, which seems far more accurate for his character. I wouldn't want Hawke to all the sudden flip a switch out of nowhere and be like Denzel's character. His character develops naturally and Hawke does a good job of getting that across. Hawke's character is basically a conduit for the audience starting out nervous and then disbelieving what is truly going on in the narco world to eventually being fed up with doing things he feels are not right and taking action. Hawke makes his character easy to identify with. It's a good, effective effort by Hawke.

Ben Kingsley - Sexy Beast

Another film that I knew nothing about before this project (this year has been great for these types of films for me!). It's an interesting little film, just an hour and a half long, and is a highly entertaining performance from Sir Ben. It's immensely fun and I think what makes it such a riot is that this is the guy who also played Gandhi and would eventually play a strict, no-nonsense Iranian military man. So this is totally antithetical to what we understand Kingsley to be, that sort of serious actor who does serious stuff. Kingsley plays a British gangster who recruits guys for jobs and is a seriously sadistic sociopath. His character crashes through the film like a tornado that zigs around and never lets up in destructive power. He's a man that overpowers every one - and every scene - he comes into contact with. I must say that it does make the film more enjoyable when he's around and it's never an uncomfortable tone to his performance, just a crazy British gangster that you come to expect from these types of films. It's both funny and engaging and has just the right amount of insane to it. I think this is a performance that most people will overlook and never get to experience but if someone seeks it out, they'll find a nice little gem.

Ian McKellen - The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

This is a sort of all encompassing nomination. I feel that it represents not only the entire cast of the film (and even the whole trilogy) but Ian McKellen's career up to this point as well (this being his second nomination with the first happening back in 1998). Here is the Academy knocking out two birds with one stone. I for one think it's a very well deserved nomination both for the film and for McKellen. I mean, can you really picture anyone else as Gandalf? I certainly can't and that's because McKellen does such an outstanding job of inhabiting the character. Even thinking of someone else as Gandalf seems sacrilegious. It is odd that McKellen is nominated in Supporting because Gandalf is the driving force behind Fellowship even though we are following Frodo on his journey. He's present throughout most of the film and has some of the most memorable and gripping scenes of the first film. His departure at the end of the film is emotional and that's all because McKellen has endeared the character to us as a powerful, yet grandfatherly old wizard. It's an iconic role that clearly belongs here and represents the trilogy well.

Jon Voight - Ali

When it comes to the 5th spot in some of these categories, I don't know what happens to the Academy, it's like they lose their mind. Often times voting in veterans or people that have a ton of nominations because god forbid they go out of their comfort zone. I'd rather the 5th spot, assuming it's truly just for well we don't know what else to nominate, go to up and comers or some really out there performances or maybe comedy or even just a safe, but legit, pick. Voight seems to occupy the veteran nom spot unfortunately. He plays Howard Cosell but it's really nothing more than an impression of Cosell. It's an uneven one at that. It wavers between decent Cosell and Voight forgetting that he's Cosell. The makeup and all that is spot on and really impressive but his impression of Cosell lacks. He's also not in the film all that much, though he does have some key scenes with Will Smith's Ali. He doesn't have any scenes of his own, however, and shows up mostly just for the fights and does some announcing voice over work. I can't honestly understand what made this Oscar worthy. I mean, okay, it's a somewhat fine impression but it's not good or great. Cosell is tied to all the impactful scenes with Ali where it's designed to make him more human or to comment on Ali's inner thoughts but it's so thin. It's like drive by acting and it shows. Not worthy of a nomination and definitely not a must see.

Ahhhhhh, I love when my favorite category delivers. Sure we got one head scratcher in Jon Voight, but the other 4 all pretty good to fantastic. It says a lot when Oscar's winner is my 4th best option! My win goes to Gandalf because, let's face it, Gandalf rules and I feel that LotR should have been rewarding with at least one representative acting win, so why not McKellen? It makes a lot of sense to me especially because Broadbent's performance isn't exactly something that's gonna wow you. No doubt he wins because of his body of work that year plus the whole veteran thing. The highlight of this group, and probably the whole year for me, is Kingsley. That was an exceptionally fun performance to watch and any other year would have probably been my winner. Glad the project introduced me to it. And Hawke is a solid 3rd and middle guy here, definitely not shabby. Can't wait to see what 2000 brings!

Oscar Winner: Jim Broadbent - Iris
My Winner:  Ian McKellen - The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Ben Kingsley 
Ethan Hawke
Jim Broadbent
Jon Voight

Supporting Actress 2001

What is it with this category having like 15 total things to review for the blog? Each of the movies in this category has at least 3 total reviews. By finishing this category I'll have finished like 60% of the reviews which is kind of insane! But I'm pretty eager to dive in because I've only seen the winner and none of the rest so this should be a fun category.

2001 Best Supporting Actress

Jennifer Connelly - A Beautiful Mind

I'll say right off the bat that I don't like Jennifer Connelly as an actress. For some reason she just annoys me in everything I've ever seen her in. There's been nothing of hers that I've seen where I was like oh yeah that's really great! And that's not any different for this performance. We are introduced to her as this super confident sexpot but the character comes off as too Hollywood, too unbelievable. Not to say women can't be both beautiful and a genius but Connelly's character is just too immediately a femme fatale. She seems added only to give Crowe's Nash a love interest. Connelly is all sexy sultry with no heart thrust in our faces in the beginning by the writer and director without any buildup. She is toned down once the romance turns to marriage and Connelly floats through scenes until a not so climactic, but certainly cliche, yelling in a bathroom smashing a mirror scene. I don't think she adds all that much to the film as a whole and I could easily see any number of actresses taking over the role and doing an equally satisfactory job if not better. It doesn't help any that Connelly is plagued by resting bitch face which makes it hard for her to emote physically. Obviously I'm not a fan, but I really don't see what was so Oscar worthy here. I guess she plays the concerned mother and wife ably at the end of the film but nothing stands above and beyond anyone else that's played a role like that. I wish I could see what the Academy saw because I just don't get the love.

Helen Mirren - Gosford Park

To say I was beyond excited to watch this film is a huge understatement. I never knew what this film was about but the more I read about it, the more excited I got. I knew Robert Altman films (the first film of his I've ever seen by the way) were known for their humor and large casts so I was looking forward to something really intriguing. A sort of whodunit in an English manor with lots of interesting actors was right up my alley. The two nominations in this category made me think I was going to get some fine acting and memorable characters, especially since Oscar darlings Mirren and Maggie Smith were involved. The film itself was interesting, Helen Mirren's character was not. She was the head lady in charge of the downstairs crew of the manor and basically had no impact on the story until the very end. I mean the very end. Without ruining the film, she knew one of the guests and that's the big reveal but Mirren added nothing to the film. Like I have no fucking clue why this was nominated. Okay so maybe they wanted to honor Robert Altman or his movie or the old folk of the Academy wanted to highlight Mirren and Maggie Smith. I have no idea. She is barely in it. Like super barely. So why did the Academy focus on these elder statesmen I don't know. I kind of understand the impact based on the ending of this one but it's not worth it. A very unsatisfying nominee.

Maggie Smith - Gosford Park

Okay, I mean Maggie Smith did even less than Helen Mirren in this movie! I was tempted to say just read the above bullshit because fuck it, there's nothing to either performances. I was super excited for Gosford Park. It was this Best Picture nominee with two Best Supporting Actress nominees that seemed way interesting but there was nothing of note in these performances. These two ladies don't contribute much at all to the film. Mirren was the head maid and Smith was a gossipy, sourpuss Countess or Lady or something. I can't believe they nominated two people from this movie. Neither deserved this reward and we may have gotten more inspired choices or an up and comer or anything else at all. I did think Smith was a hair better than Mirren. She gets more clever lines and has the stuffy British character that says things that are funny but doesn't laugh at herself thing going on. But again, there's just not much in either one and it's frustrating. I really wanted to like these two performances and was hoping to be angry that I hadn't seen the movie earlier. It's also frustrating when there were other actors from this movie that would have been better suited for a token nomination. I really liked Kelly Macdonald's Irish servant and Clive Owen was decent, as well. Sure, Smith and Mirren are the bigger names but that shouldn't equal automatic nominations. Not sure I've been this frustrated with a nomination (or two) since I started my project. At least Gosford Park itself was entertaining.

Marisa Tomei - In the Bedroom

Let's talk about how underrated Marisa Tomei is for a second. Yeah, she's got one Oscar win and three total nominations under her belt but everyone ridicules her win because they think Jack Palance misspoke her name and because it was a comedy (for the most part). She never gets mentioned with great actresses even though her two other nominations are both pretty damn good. She's quietly created some memorable performances and no one seems to care. Or at least that's how it seems to me. In this film, she plays a separated mother of two who is engaged in a relationship with a college kid. Her ex still comes around begging to be taken back and turns menacing when she rebuffs his overtures. This leads to the tragedy that the film deals with. The essence of her performance is that it's so authentic, which is something I'll say a lot about In the Bedroom. She has this natural ability to portray the every woman convincingly with little effort. In The Wrestler, she's an aging stripper that sees the good in Mickey Rourke's character. In My Cousin Vinny, she grounds the character in realism even though it's a highly comedic role and can be an exaggerated depiction of the character at times, she still reminds us of the every woman. This role shows great honesty and is an entirely believable character. I wish she was in the entire film and we got to see more of how she dealt with the tragedy instead of the family, but that's the sign of a good performance - wanting to see more. It's a mostly low key performance and it might not wow everyone, but it connected with me and I really enjoyed it. This might just be my winner.

Kate Winslet - Iris

I was super pumped to see this film finally. This is the most current year when I start looking back where I haven't seen the majority of the films or at least recognized what they are. Besides the winning film in this category, I had no idea what the other three were even about! So that means I'm getting to experience films like this one with a fresh, untainted perspective. I'm definitely not the biggest Kate Winslet fan, but I was able to overlook that going in and tried to just view the performance as a singular experience. It's a perfectly supporting role which I'm glad for. No category fraud, no 10 minute drive by blip. Winslet plays the younger version of the title character, Iris, and it's certainly the easier role to portray due to the character being flighty and free spirited and being someone that does whatever she wants, a very progressive character. That freedom to not be bound to a certain trait I think makes it easier on the performer to inhabit the character. It's a broad role that doesn't ask too much of Winslet and honestly, I don't think Winslet gives too much in return which is the right thing. It doesn't need an over the top performance. Winslet gets it right by giving a solid portrayal of the young Iris and nothing more. It's fine for a nomination (which might be due to it being a Miramax film and the Weinstein power) but doesn't deserve a win. A nice little nomination for Winslet to add to her collection and that's about it.


Welp, a year after praising this group for not having a bad performance in the bunch I get a group of boring, frustratingly lacking, and uninspired snores - save for Marisa Tomei. She is my clear winner although her performance doesn't jump out and scream Oscar, but of course not every winner has to be loud and over the top. Connelly would be next because she did a lot more in her role than the next three combined. She put in work and I can respect that even if I wasn't a fan. Then it's basically I don't care from here down. Winslet next because she wasn't bad at all, but she didn't really make an impression either. Smith and Mirren bring up the rear due to barely being in their film and not making much of an impact on me or the film, really. I'm so glad that I got one surprise in this group, at least. In the Bedroom was one of the reasons I started my project: to find performances and films I would have overlooked that simply floor me. Hopefully 2000 offers a bit more for me.

Oscar Winner: Jennifer Connelly - A Beautiful Mind
My Winner:  Marisa Tomei - In the Bedroom
Jennifer Connelly
Kate Winslet
Maggie Smith
Helen Mirren

Best Picture 2002

So many goddamn Miramax films! That's the big thing I noticed while watching all the films for this year was just how many started out with the Miramax logo, which means the Weinsteins had a big hand in probably bribing or wining and dining voters to get their films and people nominated. I hate that aspect of the Oscars. Wish the films and performances would just be voted on for their own merits and not because someone gave them money to do so. This is definitely right around the heyday of Miramax who had a very prominent role for a few years before it died down, thankfully. On to the films, though!

2002 Best Picture

Chicago

I love musicals! But I'm having a hard time figuring out what sets Chicago apart and makes it a Best Picture winner. So what does makes it an Oscar winner? The songs are only okay, the acting is not totally great, the singing is awful, the dancing is cringe worthy and the feel of it is inauthentic. So why did this win Best Picture? Simple answer: no fucking clue. As I alluded to in my write-up of the Best Supporting Actress group, I feel like Chicago hit at the right time after Moulin Rouge! broke out the year prior and it became evident that the public's appetite for flashy musicals was still there. It does seem like a cash and Oscar grab kind of movie, somehow capturing the zeitgeist and doing extremely well. Maybe people wanted a movie that was all about fun and made them feel good after the world completely turned on it's head in 2001? The rest of the Best Picture nominees is certainly not an uplifting, feel good, let's have a great time group. Maybe it just simply appeals to the lowest common denominator? It's not a terrible movie by any means and I can absolutely see the appeal. But it never fully comes together for me. It's got the spectacle part down pat and has a great look to it especially during the song and dance numbers. I think that's easily the best part of the movie, the way it looks. But I'm not sold on the performances or the music or the dancing and all of that is pretty vital to the success of a musical. I'm glad a musical won, I just wish it was a better musical that was able to win Best Picture instead of the mediocrity we get with Chicago.

Gangs of New York

I really enjoy watching this film but confession time, prior to right now I had never watched it all the way through in one sitting. It's just under three hours long and Martin Scorsese is notorious for letting his films go on and on even when they should probably be trimmed down. One of the big complaints for Gangs of New York is just that. That it is too long and the story (and Scorsese) needed to be reigned in. On one hand I can kind of agree with that. I find the love story part between DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz is mostly dull and boring and pretty unnecessary. I also really dislike Diaz in the role of the love interest because I just don't think she's a good fit at all. Her accent is alright, I guess, but I just don't buy the love interest part. She's a little bit better at playing the tough thief/pickpocket ward of Bill the Butcher but not enough to sell me on the rest of her character. And that's the big minus for the film for me. Maybe if her part was lessened the story would be a bit more focused and not so long. But on the other hand, Scorsese has so much material to work with and it's clearly obvious he wanted to try and include as much of it as he could. I own the book this story is derived from and it is very dense with so many different names, gangs, places, and just overall information about that time period. A miniseries might have better suited the concept so as to be able to tell all the different stories about the different gangs and about the corruption and culture of that time instead of focusing on Bill the Butcher and lightly touching on the myriad of other things. Now that would have been something to see. But the film version is quite good anyway. I love the music that plays throughout and sort of personifies the different gangs or moods, just a nice touch. And the film looks amazing. Vivid colors and the set pieces look and feel lived in and not just constructed on a sound stage. It's a very real production and one that's a lot of fun to watch. The DDL versus DiCaprio storyline is insanely good because both are phenomenal actors and they throw themselves 100% into their roles. It's easily the strength of the film and I wish Scorsese had more tightly focused on them instead of shoehorning the rather lame love triangle idea.

The Hours

I didn't realize that this was a Stephen Daldry film, but it made sense after I found out. I didn't like The Reader and I wasn't a fan of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and I can't say that I really liked The Hours all that much, either. Each had different reasons but they were all too melodramatic for my tastes. The Hours, however, was also quite dull. That's the main thing that I read about in some of the more negative reviews and I'd have to agree. It's dull and for me the plot is a bit convoluted. The three stories are tangentially related but I didn't really see why or how they related to each other in any real important way. The Hours is about the depressed author Virginia Woolf who is writing a book, Mrs. Dalloway, that Moore's housewife character reads and connects with leaving her to abandon her family. Moore's son grows up to be a famous poet that's also gay and angry about the abandonment and is friends with Streep's character whose name is Clarissa like the main character of Woolf's book. It's a dour two hours and the score is relentlessly ever present, though I do enjoy Phillip Glass otherwise. The film thrives on the acting performances which are all quite good. But I think it's just too slow and somber and not nearly as interesting as it wants to be. It's definitely not the type of film I can see people going back to over and over. Watch it once and experience and that's plenty enough. Without the acting, there's just not much else to watch.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The Two Towers picks up right where Fellowship of the Ring leaves off. Duh. But I do love how seamlessly they transition into one another. It's quite evident that the trilogy was filmed all at once and that was a brilliant decision by Peter Jackson. Everyone looks the same, the production values are are the same, there's no weird inconsistencies that jump out at you screaming to be noticed. You can focus on the story and become instantly immersed again. Two Towers introduces a ton more of Gollum which might be the single best use of CGI and motion capture acting ever. It's not too jarring and fits in extremely well. Gollum is a fully fleshed out character, acting and voice work included, which is a testament to Andy Serkis' acting abilities. One that carved out a career for himself and thrust motion capture acting into the Oscar discussion as a legitimate choice for nominations. One day I think we'll see a motion capture performance or one like it be nominated, all thanks to this beginning. As for the film itself, I think the major issue against Two Towers is that it is the middle film. The gang has already started their journey and it ends with them still on their journey. There are more action pieces, sure, even impressive ones. But it's easy to get bored at certain points, usually in between those action scenes. It just doesn't have the same flow as Fellowship and so, tends to drag. It's still a great film but not as great as the first one to me.

The Pianist

This was always a film that intrigued me when looking over my list of films to watch for my project. All I ever knew about this one was that it was a long, sad, Holocaust film that also had the youngest Oscar winning Best Actor performance in it. So one hand, it's kind of dreaded due to the whole depressing Holocaust thing and on the other I was anxious to see how Adrien Brody beat out 4 other heavily Oscared veteran actors. And after watching it...wow. It's definitely way better than I ever imagined it would be. It's for sure powerful, emotional, compelling, maddening, depressing, hopeful, and matter-of-fact. It has great acting from Adrien Brody as he survives and hides from Nazi capture in Warsaw, Poland. It has some imagery that should and will resonate with the viewer. Some of the atrocities committed by the Nazis on the Jews are just so matter-of-fact with no great fanfare and brutal in their bluntness that they should stick in your mind forever. How anyone could ever believe that the Holocaust was faked or that Jews deserved what they got is beyond my comprehension. It's a reprehensible part of human history and it's good that we have film to remind us that yeah, this actually happened. Roman Polanski's childhood was similar to Brody's character in that he escaped a Polish ghetto like this one and hid out until the war was over. The intensity of some of the scenes is evident and the film has a no non-sense feel to it. This isn't playing up things for shock value. It's presenting a truth in the most unashamed way. The filmmaking doesn't really celebrate or linger on things for too long. It kind of mirrors Brody's performance of starting out kinda meh or unsure but quickly finds it's voice and releases itself in such a passionate way. It does feel autobiographical at times and it just comes off as a powerful reminder that yes, this did happen and here's the cold truth. Look at it, take it in, remember it, and never forget. We certainly won't forget The Pianist.


When you really look at this group of nominees, I mean really look hard at the 5, what honestly could have won? The Two Towers is the middle film in a trilogy that's going to get it's due next year anyway. The Hours is ultimately kind of dour and depressing and doesn't really inspire anyone to clamor for a win. The Pianist is a Holocaust film that is also depressing and sad and long and, well, a Holocaust film. It was a heavy favorite at points before the ceremony having won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, BAFTA for Best Film, Cesar (French Oscars) for Best Film and many, many others. Gangs of New York is a very long, violent, aggressive, manly film that's good but also alienating. When I put it that way, Chicago actually looks like the easy, no shit choice. It's really not a surprise it won, especially with the Weinsteins behind it. It's the only truly feel good film of the bunch and coming after a difficult year in an uncertain world it makes sense. Do I agree? Nah. I just don't feel Chicago is strong enough to be a winner and Gangs of New York is pretty good though I'm not as fervent of an advocate as say when I was in high school and thought it was soooo awesome. I do think it would be a good winner, though. But right now I'd have to give it to The Pianist. I don't feel manipulated by it which is good for a Holocaust film. Present the story and let history be the background. It's just really good and even if it's sobering, it would probably make a better winner in hindsight than Chicago.

Oscar Winner: Chicago
My Winner:   The Pianist
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Chicago
The Hours

Leading Actor 2002

Another interesting year, one that I know surprised a lot of people on Oscar night. Did Brody deserve to win? Was he the winner because of a split in the vote between the other nominees? Let's dive in and see what I think!

2002 Best Actor

Adrien Brody - The Pianist

I've always had apprehension about this watching this win. I wanted so badly to like it but was always afraid that it would suck or that even worse it would be meh. Meh is absolutely worse. Polarizing is understandable but something that is in the middle that wins is almost unforgivable. I know that sounds weird and insane but I'd rather have good/great or bad rather than just meh. This was the last film/performance I watched for 2002, savoring the moment of finally getting to watch it. And I liked it! It's still fresh to me as a write this but man, did I like this. It's satisfying that the Academy didn't fuck this up. Even if the vote was split and that's how Brody won, you can't hate on this performance really and the win is justifiable. I was even worried at the beginning of the film when Brody didn't seem all that remarkable but as he undergoes his change from all the tragic events he witnesses in the Nazi occupied Warsaw, his performance just gets better and better. He is able to act without speaking all that much and just survives on his pure acting ability. And he's able to get us to react emotionally without saying a word and it still comes across as being powerful. That's what really impressed me is that even in silence or in German (which I didn't get subtitles in my version so I was left to sort of piece together what they were saying with what was happening) Brody was able to convey the desperation and the hurt and the true human spirit. He persevered but not in the classical heroic sense. No fighting as part of the underground uprising movement or or daring escapes or cliche Hollywood big moment. Just a man that survived due to sheer dumb luck, the kindness of strangers, and perhaps some divine intervention. It was a very real portrayal and one that absolutely deserves the title of Best Actor. Maybe once I've had a significant time to digest this film and performance I might come down on how good I think it is, it certainly does stand with the rest of the group as a strong addition to the Best Actor race. Brody does a wonderful job here.

Nicolas Cage - Adaptation.

I'll admit that I like almost anything Nic Cage does, from his great performances like this one to those terrible straight to DVD ones as well. And I think those terrible straight to DVD movies are what put a lot of people off to Cage. So much so that I think they might scoff a little at seeing him on a list of Oscar nominees even though he has an Oscar win under his belt. Therefore it's rewarding when he is able to sort of focus and put all his talent and energy behind such a great performance. And it really truly is a great performance. He has the dual role of playing the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and his brother (who may or may not be real) and dual roles are always tough to pull off. Cage makes it look easy. He is superbly hilarious and his comedic talents are actually well suited for the nerdy, pathetic Kaufman that he portrays. Cage is best at the neurotic, odd ball characters which are the ones I typically really like from him. When he tries to go too badass or macho, it often doesn't work out too well. But those movies are usually pretty terrible action movies to begin with so maybe that's why I like the other ones so much. At any rate, Cage really carries the film. His breathless tone for the voice overs works so well and really makes it sound like we are in Kaufman's head as his thoughts race around. Even things like his posture and forgetting the food after he runs into his agent at the restaurant when he leaves are these nice touches for the character that go above and beyond what a lesser actor would do. I just wish that Cage would get more roles like this because they really highlight how good of an actor he can be. A really well deserved nomination here.

Michael Caine - The Quiet American

More like The Quiet Englishman, amiright? Ok, no it's not a quiet performance or about a mute or anything like that. What it is about is Michael Caine is an English journalist living in Vietnam in the 1950s before American involvement. What we get is the typical Caine performance. He's charming and witty and does a solid job with the material. So that makes it seem like a veteran nomination, but he's already got 2 wins, one of which was relatively recent to this in 1999. Then you think maybe they wanted to nominate a sort of anti-war film/performance given the recent events of the time with 9/11 and war in Afghanistan and a run up to Iraq. I really do think that the anti-war thing comes into play as a legit reason why he was nominated. But as for Caine himself here, his character is introduced to us as a guy enjoying the escapist lifestyle with his lunches, trips to the opium dens, his relationship with his 20 year old Vietnamese mistress. Gradually he becomes more involved rather than just a passive journalist content with not doing much. He deals with Brendan Fraser's American CIA agent and the increasing of hostilities in Vietnam and Caine is able to transition from one extreme to the other convincingly. It's an effective performance in a completely overlooked film that probably deserves a bit more love.

Daniel Day-Lewis - Gangs of New York

I mean, what is there left to say about Daniel Day-Lewis? He is without a doubt THE greatest actor living today and one could make an argument for greatest of all time. There is no debating that he is great. The stories of his unparallelled devotion to method acting and living as his characters are well known and show why exactly he is so great. He is meticulous about the small details: authentic accents, the facial expressions he uses, the way he moves around, how natural he looks doing certain tasks. It's amazing and a wonderful gift to us film lovers. You know if DDL is involved, you're getting the very best performance he could give and one that is typically can't miss. In Gangs of New York, DDL plays Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, the head of an American born gang. Since it is DDL, his Bill the Butcher is passionate, intense, and highly entertaining. There's shades of Daniel Plainview in this character so it's interesting to see what at times looks like an early version of his second Oscar win. There are similarities with the look and certainly with the voice, which is frankly my favorite part of Bill the Butcher. It just amazes me when a British actor such as DDL can so convincingly sound American like he does here. It blows me away. The entire performance is amazing and absolutely a must watch for anyone. Brilliant work.

Jack Nicholson - About Schmidt

I actually thought this was my second Jack Nicholson review for the blog, think he was nominated for Something's Gotta Give, but nope I was wrong! Which I think speaks to the acting of Nicholson that I want to give him even more nominations than he already has. Amazingly, this is his last nomination and probably will be forever barring some late career stroke of genius. And if this is his last nomination then it's a pretty damn good nomination to go out on. We all know that Jack is one of the greatest actors ever. For me, it was refreshing to see him in this film because he was so human and so real instead of the larger than life movie star. Alexander Payne is great at getting some truly grounded performances out of his talent and this was no exception. Nicholson plays a newly retired insurance man who lived a safe, predictable life. But early on in the film, loses his wife and that causes him to find himself and the meaning of his place in the world. It's a sort of existential character in the not so obvious way and Jack relates so well for the audience. We can see ourselves as him and we can both empathize and sympathize with what he's dealing with. His performance is both emotional (but not in the tear jerking way) and heartfelt. There are these truly human moments where Nicholson shines and lots of little slyly comedic ones where he really flexes his acting muscles. The fact that he can so seamlessly transition between this myriad of emotions is a testament to his abilities and defines what makes Jack so damn good. About Schmidt is a lovely little film that will make you understand just what a treasure Jack Nicholson is.


God damn it this is hard! So besides Brody, everyone else had at least one Oscar win already and 3 of them (minus Cage) had at least 2 (or will have in the future, actually)! That's kind of insane to think about and makes accepting Brody's win a lot easier. No one was harmed by his win. There will be no make up awards down the line, heck, Day-Lewis would win his second AND third years later on his own merit. So it's this weird kind of place where you can't really be mad if you didn't like the Brody win. That tempers things a bit as far as that goes. But! It's a hell of a strong group on it's own. You've got 5 strong performances. I mean 5 fucking strong performances! How the hell do you choose from this group? I totally believe that Brody could have won because the vote was split but how was it split? I wish we could see vote totals because I think this might be one of the closest totals from top to bottom. They are all good. I'll go with Brody as the win because it was a great performance as well as he was the only one without an Oscar. Maybe DDL next because he's amazing and then Nicholson for going against type and wowing us still and then Cage for his dual role amazingness and Caine for being his usual strong actor self. The divide between Brody and Caine is microscopic. Mix em all up and pick from a bag and you really can't go wrong. One of the best groups so far, if not the best group so far. I want more like this.

Oscar Winner: Adrien Brody - The Pianist
My Winner:   Adrien Brody - The Pianist
Daniel Day-Lewis
Jack Nicholson
Nicolas Cage
Michael Caine

Leading Actress 2002

As usual, the Actress categories offer up films I'd otherwise probably never see. This year's group brings 3 films I've never seen, one I've seen but can't remember and then Chicago. The names, however, are all strong so I look forward to diving in!

2002 Best Actress

Nicole Kidman - The Hours
 
There's a lot of things that spring to mind when you think about Kidman's Best Actress win. I think the first thing everyone remembers is that she wore a fake nose for her role as the depressed author Virginia Woolf. There were a lot of jokes made about it at the time and some people felt it was one of the contributing reasons for her win. One of those Oscar stereotypes where a beautiful actress uglifies herself. I don't honestly think it's as easy as that, though. What also comes to mind is that Kidman lost the year prior to Halle Berry, which was a historic win but many thought that Kidman should have won instead and that she won this year to make up for that. And seeing as how one could possibly classify her role as Supporting instead of Lead, well, it looks all set up in her favor to win. If not for those factors, would Zellweger have pulled out the win? And then maybe someone else wins the Best Supporting Actress the next year instead of Renee? Oscar is full of these type of what if moments and it's fun to speculate. But Kidman did win for this role and it's not exactly an undeserved win, either. Kidman is almost unrecognizable as Woolf because of the fake nose (which I actually like) and the frumpy, demure look she sports. Her characterization of Woolf is intense. Her whole being is hardened and she seems to exist deliberately. You could almost say that she comes off as a sociopath because she's so cold and removed and unfeeling in the normal ways. Kidman does a great job and I'm glad to admit that, as I'm definitely not the biggest Kidman fan. Stripped of all the beauty and movie star trappings, she gives an honest performance that's worth of an Oscar win.

Salma Hayek - Frida

Frida was something of a passion project for Salma Hayek and it shows. It took a long time to get the story of surrealist painter Frida Kahlo to the big screen and Hayek was a major part of that process. However, not all passion projects end up being as enjoyable for the audience to watch as it is for the project to be completed by whoever is involved. That's certainly the case here with Frida. While there are parts of the film that are inspired, like the paintings melting into real life, there's overall something lacking, something missing. The same can be said of Hayek's performance. There are times when certain roles just seem tailor made for certain actors, when you can't see anyone else playing the character and it just feels like they were born to do it. Hayek portraying Frida is one of those. With that in mind, however, you'd think the performance would be a little less uneven. Sometimes the passion of bringing the story to life doesn't translate all that well to the actual acting. You can tell she's having fun and enjoying it but it comes off at times as a little too self serving. Like I said, there's just something that's lacking from the film overall. I'm not sure if what would be needed is a stronger performance from Hayek or if they needed to make it seem so less by the numbers or play up the surreal aspect more or not gloss over all the turmoil in Frida's life, I don't know. But that sentence should point to exactly what's wrong with Hayek's performance. I'm glad she was able to be nominated but I just wish we got a lot more out of it.

Diane Lane - Unfaithful

The Academy doesn't often go for these sorts of sexual thrillers much anymore and I can't say I blame them. Movies like these can easily devolve into schlock if those involved aren't careful enough. Ultimately for me, they have to be really, really, exceptionally, amazingly great to get me to like them. I'm not sure I even know of any like that to be honest. Usually there's some pointless and/or gratuitous sex and nudity that does nothing at all for the story and serves only to titillate and tease. Unfaithful does have a little bit of that even though I do think Diane Lane is super hot in this. The thing is, I expect way more from an Oscar nomination and I just don't see what Lane's performance brings that warrants any kind of awards attention. She plays a woman who has a great life but I guess feels bored and decides to cheat on her husband and feels more shame at the idea of getting caught or falling in love with the guy instead of the actual cheating part. Her husband (Richard Gere) finds out and, well, yeah I won't ruin it. But suffice it to say that this is neither an Oscar movie nor an Oscar caliber performance. It doesn't stand out and feels like any other actress could have played the part and hit all the same notes. It has no depth, pushes no boundaries, confronts no taboos or real emotions. It's a paper thin performance and one that reeks of either the Academy wanting to boost the career or Lane and make her into a star or some successful lobbying for votes. I'm sure there was another performance out there somewhere that could have made the list instead. And I don't think the lack of anything that really wows is the fault of Lane, I think this is her in her comfort zone and possibly as good as she can do. I just think it's a shame that the Academy thought this was good enough to be a Best Actress nominee. If you haven't seen it, don't waste your time.

Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven

This is one of those performances that I've marked down in my mind so I can really pay attention to it. Before Julianne Moore won her Oscar this year for Still Alice, most of the talk online was about how she was probably the most deserving actress going who hadn't won an Oscar and everyone usually pointed to this performance as her best and the one she should have won for. So obviously that's some high praise and is going to make me pay extra attention to this performance. It's interesting that both of her nominations in 2002 were essentially for the same type of role: the 50's housewife who battles some demons, whether self made or society made. In this film, Moore plays a housewife whose husband is gay and deals with that by connecting and confiding with a black man. Scandalous stuff for the 1950's. Unfortunately the initial impression of Far From Heaven for me isn't Moore's acting but rather the distractingly terrible old time movie vibe that sucks me right out of the film. It's excruciatingly bad at times and just really doesn't fit the story. The director was trying to go for an actual 50's movie with a modern story but those two ideas clash violently. I don't get the choice, especially because it obscures Moore's acting. Yes, she absolutely looks and acts like she good fit in 50 years ago along with today. The performance itself is full of cringey dialogue and nods to the acting of yesteryear and thankfully Moore is able to rise above that potential disaster. Moore is a gifted actress and has incredible range and it's a testament to that ability that she makes her housewife character still look strong and able despite the ridiculousness of the whole film. Up to that point, it might have been her best work but I think she has grown as an actress since and I'm kinda glad the film wasn't rewarded. The thing about Moore's performance here is that upon first glance it meets the superficiality of the whole film style aping the 50s aesthetic. But if you really start to look at the performance, you'll notice Moore does a lot more with the character than maybe she should or maybe that others would and not in a wrong way. I think it's a better performance than the film actually deserves and I can see why everyone loved it so much. (I kept reading about this film getting compared to Douglas Sirk films and I have no idea who he is. Reviews seemed to like the old school vibe that I hated because it reminded them of his movies. I guess that's the perils of going backwards instead of starting from the beginning since I can't draw these parallels myself. I do know that I'm not one for melodrama, even if it's reverential.)

Renee Zellweger - Chicago

Right in the middle of the Zellweger Renaissance. Or just Zellweger Happening. Or the Zellweger Nightmare, whatever you prefer. She'd get an Oscar the next year but this actually felt like it might be her strongest case. Chicago captured the zeitgeist for whatever reason and as evidenced by the tons of nominations was just a pure Oscar juggernaut. I think with Catherine Zeta-Jones winning in the Best Supporting Actress category, Zellweger was going to get overlooked regardless. Couple that with the Kidman storyline of her being due and, well, it wasn't going to happen. Which is why she won the following year for Cold Mountain. But getting swept up in the love for Chicago was a great shot at winning for her. Unfortunately, I don't think she's all that great as Roxie Hart, the wanna-be star who kills her lover in a fit of rage and goes to jail. While in jail, she makes a name for herself and she finally becomes the celebrity she so desired to be. Not a bad story! Except this is a musical and Zellweger can't sing or dance (or act) for shit, so you're left with a character that's not as interesting or even remotely compelling as she should be. The race that year was between Kidman and Zellweger and I can't for the life of me understand why people were hoodwinked by Zellweger except that they just really seemed to love her for some inexplicable reason. Chicago as a movie falters on Zellweger's performance. She is needed to give the movie the sex appeal and zest it desperately needs but instead we get the sour faced, tone deaf nightmare of a performance. Okay, it's not exactly that awful but it's absolutely not that good. Certainly not good enough to win a Best Actress Oscar!

After the 2003 group, I was hoping that 2002 would be a bit more balanced. Well it was, just not with great performances throughout which is what I'd like. It's kind of a rather mundane group, honestly. Kidman's win certainly isn't one that you hold up and exclaim is quintessential Oscar. It felt more like the Academy wanted to finally reward her and were unable to do it the year prior so here we are. I'd say it's a toss up between Kidman and Moore for me. Moore would eventually win one, so knowing that I might give Kidman the win here so we are spared from make up nominations/win down the road. Tough to say because I don't feel strongly either way. Maybe Moore by a nose. Then you can follow that up with Hayek and Zellweger who are a bit uninspiring and Lane who probably shouldn't be here. Blah. On to 2001 and hopefully a better group.

Oscar Winner:  Nicole Kidman - The Hours
My Winner: Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven
Nicole Kidman
Salma Hayek
Renee Zellweger
Diane Lane

Supporting Actor 2002

Now this is a veteran group of actors. I'm looking forward to watching these guys do their thing as I know it's going to be a great group.

2002 Best Supporting Actor

Chris Cooper - Adaptation.

I don't think I've ever seen Chris Cooper act better than he did in this role. Everyone in Adaptation. delivered some top notch performances but Cooper's was downright amazing. I said before for Streep, it's glaringly obvious that everyone was having a ton of fun on set and with their roles because they simply own them and give us pure acting gold. Cooper plays a Florida man who has become an orchid thief, illegally harvesting the flowers from deep in the South Florida swamps. Cooper plays a Florida cracker pretty well and is a real redneck genius. His character is able to attract the New York based Streep character who is writing about him precisely because he's so passionately himself. There's no sense of trying to be someone else or wanting to be someone else. He legitimately thinks he's the smartest orchid guy in the world or whatever new passion he's started on and it's refreshing to see someone not put on airs. This all works because of Cooper's oozing charisma with every toothless grin. Honestly, he's just plain fun to watch and what I'm trying to say with this jumbled mess is that he is really, really good and absolutely deserved his Oscar.

Ed Harris - The Hours

This is a really interesting nomination. When you think of Ed Harris performances, you think rough and tough and manly badass or villain type roles. But in The Hours, Harris plays a gay poet dying of AIDS who is friends with Streep's character. It's a stark contrast to what we expect from Harris and he does a pretty good job of changing up those expectations. The way Harris delivers his lines in a kind of poetic, literary way is a neat touch and fits the character wonderfully. Harris is basically only in two extended scenes with Streep, so he gets to act off one of the greats who is just doing her usual thing. Even though Harris' scenes are short, he leaves an impression on the audience. It sort of jazzes up the modern day story in the film when he's on screen because frankly the story is mostly a bore and I didn't one hundred percent understand it's point to the overall film. Streep's character is named Clarissa Dalloway which is the name of the character from the Virginia Woolf book that Kidman writes and that Moore's character reads and her son is Harris. A convoluted mess but Harris plays his part to perfection. It's a small role that makes an otherwise noteworthy impact on a mostly dull story.

Paul Newman - Road to Perdition

My first Paul Newman! Which makes it sound like I'm collecting baseball cards or something. I'm excited for when I can finally get into some of his more juicy roles, even though that will probably be 10 years from now. It's plainly obvious that this nomination is a veteran nomination, a last chance to honor and reward one of the all time greats. So in that sense, I'm okay with these kinds of veteran nominations. It's a serious acting show from Newman and not just a glorified cameo or something so it doesn't taint the allure and luster of the Oscar nomination. It's a good enough performance, if unremarkable. It doesn't necessarily stand out and doesn't feel memorable, though his final scene is somewhat powerful in it's simplicity. But it works extremely well within the story, with Newman playing the old crime boss whose nefarious ways finally catch up to him. If the Academy is going to keep rewarding actors as a nod to their career, this should be the benchmark by which all the future veteran and career nominations are set against.

John C. Reilly - Chicago

One might easily dismiss this nomination as simply being here because it got swept up in the tremendous love for Chicago that year. But if you look at his resume for 2002, you'll see Reilly is also in 2 other Best Picture nominees: Gangs of New York and The Hours. So this very much seems like a nod to his amazing year on top of his acting ability. Oscar always seems to find a way to nominate actors/actresses that appear in a couple Best Picture worthy films. So how exactly is Reilly's performance in the film? Well, there's not a whole lot to it, honestly. He plays Zellweger's husband and stands by her no matter what looking like quite a buffoon. But he plays the part well enough and has one song and dance number that is mostly forgettable. It's a perfectly benign performance. This was definitely a moment where Oscar rewarded the actor with a nomination based on the sum of his parts rather than his specific performance here. And I'm totally okay with that. Reilly is an underrated actor who is just as good in the dramatic as he is in the comedic. A well deserved nomination based on a tremendous year's worth of work.

Christopher Walken - Catch Me If You Can

When it comes to Christopher Walken, it's easy to forget that he actually is a really talented actor (and dancer) despite all of our preconceived notions about him. Yes, lately he essentially become a kind of caricature of himself and is more well known for the more cowbell SNL sketch or the Fatboy Slim music video. But Walken has some serious acting chops and those are put to good use in this Spielberg film. His signature idiosyncrasies are mostly muted. He talks without his trademark stilted cadence and doesn't lumber around scenes looking like a vacant shell of himself. He is fully engaged in the role of Leonardo DiCaprio's father who has done some shady stuff in the past but doesn't want to see his son get in trouble like he is even though he's extremely proud of what he has accomplished, real or otherwise. I'm not sure if it's because we are used to the eccentric Walken or what but this performance comes off as measured and dare I say normal? I hate to just make it seem that Walken is just this weird, crazy dude that stopped knowing how to act but this isn't what we (I) are used to! He's a great actor and it shows in this film. I'm really eager to watch some of his other, earlier work (he was nominated and won for his role in The Deer Hunter) and I know he'll be in a couple films on my journey even if I don't get to them until 2021. Christopher Walken is supremely talented and that fact can be lost on some people, including me. He does a great job of reminding us of this talent in Catch Me If You Can.

As usual the Best Supporting Actor category delivers a group of nominees that don't disappoint when it comes to their performances. It's a strong group but there is a very clear winner here. Even though it was a sort of surprise on Oscar night, Cooper is hands down the winner. His performance is easily the best of the 5 and is one I can watch over and over without getting tired of it. The rest of the group all kind of fit into the same mold: good but not great. Harris showcases his range, Walken reminds us he is a serious actor, Newman caps off a storied career, and Reilly caps off a hell of a year. Always glad to get a strong group like this one to watch.

Oscar Winner: Chris Cooper - Chicago
My Winner:  Chris Cooper - Chicago
Ed Harris
Christopher Walken
Paul Newman
John C. Reilly

Supporting Actress 2002

By name, it's a pretty good group. 4 of the 5 have eventually won an Oscar or three. So my hope is that I'll finally get a strong group of Supporting Actresses to watch!

2002 Best Supporting Actress

Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago

Whenever I think about Chicago as an Oscar movie, I never really think of it as having Oscar winning performances. Yet Zeta-Jones won for her Velma Kelly character and won pretty easily. I will say that out of all the Chicago nominated performances, Zeta-Jones is the one that I like the most and think has the most meat on the bones so to speak. CZJ does everything better than Zellweger in a lesser role. She sings, dances, acts, and just looks better than her counterpart. I feel like she brings a bit more clout to the movie and to the role, even though Zellweger was the darling at the time. Her song and dance routines are just plain better and ooze sex appeal, which she has in spades. I like to think that the audience is drawn more to her abilities than the rest of the cast and that translated into the voters, as well. Her win is a nod to the cast of Chicago. Especially because the roles between her and Zellweger are incredibly similar. Rewarding both would have been redundant and CZJ was clearly the better choice. I still feel a little lukewarm about the win but I think that just mirrors my thoughts on Chicago as a whole.

Kathy Bates - About Schmidt

I was getting worried as the film went along and Kathy Bates hadn't shown up yet. It's not until over an hour in that she finally does and my big worry with that is that we are getting a nomination based off reputation or as a veteran nod to a performance that doesn't really deserve it because it's so small and/or has not much weight behind it. We've seen that before on this blog and I know it will happen again, probably soon. But at least this performance is good enough to warrant a nomination, I think. It's kind of what has become a typical Alexander Payne role. There seems to be at least one person in his films that is unfiltered. Someone that says or does things that are out of the ordinary for what you think they should be. Bates' character is the mother of the groom that Nicholson's daughter is marrying and she is kind of a free spirit. She gets naked with Nicholson in a hot tub and says whatever comes to mind and is an overall comfortable in her skin type of person. I see the appeal for Oscar voters as it adds comedy to the film and is sort of brave for an actress that's older and bigger to get naked on camera. It's easy to be attracted to those roles because we don't see them that often in movies. The other thing is that Bates doesn't play the character over the top at all. It's a very human portrayal. Yes, it's funny and absurd but not in an out place way and it never veers into caricature. That's one of the things I like about Alexander Payne's film is that they are grounded and real but can still poke fun and be absurd at times. As far as a Supporting Actress nomination for this performance, I'm totally okay with it. It serves the story well and doesn't take you out of the film at all. It's a performance where you look at the list go yeah, that belongs and keep moving.

Julianne Moore - The Hours

This performance almost feels like a co-lead. Or is it tri-lead? I'm pretty sure Moore has more screen time than Kidman who won Best Actress and about the same amount of time as Streep who was touted as possibly being nominated for Best Actress as well. It's all a kind of confusing mish mash that accurately describes the Oscar races. Lots of category fraud and should they nominate this actress for this movie or that movie based on chances and backroom dealings. No doubt Streep's nomination for Adaptation. was done to get Kidman her Oscar and Moore was placed here due to already being in the Best Actress race for a different movie. All these machinations are supremely intriguing. So how was Moore's performance here? She's a gifted actress and she delivers a delicate, reserved woman who isn't comfortable living the housewife life and feels suffocated.  Moore is teetering on the verge of a breakdown the entire time but never actually falls off balance. It's as if you can see her battling her inner demons every time she is on screen, like she's tip-toeing through a minefield. I think it's wonderful acting by Moore and highlighted just how talented she truly is. It's obvious that it would be too long before she finally won an Oscar herself, which she did in 2015.

Queen Latifah - Chicago

I firmly believe that Queen Latifah is nominated here purely because of the hype for Chicago because her role is exceptionally thin. Latifah plays Mama who is a prisoner with the other ladies of the movie but essentially runs the prisoners and helps facilitate meetings and whatnot. There's not exactly a lot to work with there but Latifah does a good enough job with the material she's given. She is definitely a competent actress and the nomination is the reward but there is just not enough there to really shine with. She has one song and dance number that she completely owns and I'd say she is the best singer of the whole movie, which given her singing background makes sense. She should be the best. And really that's about all there is to her role. I would have liked to see a lot more from her. That character could have easily been developed more and had a lot more depth to her. But Chicago was never overly concerned with characterization instead choosing to focus on the song and dance numbers and appeal to the musical sensibilities of a bygone era. Or at least to cash in on the musical craze that seemed to sprout up at that time. Queen Latifah was unfortunately short changed in her chance to show off more.

Meryl Streep - Adaptation.

Oscar had their choice of Meryl Streep nominations this year along with her work in The Hours. It's not really an Oscar race unless Streep is included, right? Personally, I prefer her performance in this film as opposed to the other one. This performance just has a lot more going for it and the film is way better to boot. In Adaptation. Streep plays a journalist who writes an article and later adapts it into a book about a Florida man who hunted orchids illegally. The film is way more meta than that description makes it out to be and is surreal as can be and just the perfect mix of weird and awesome. Streep's character at first is portrayed as the straight woman to everyone else's crazy, off the wall antics. So at first it seems like we are going to get the typical Streep playing Streep performance, an actor that feels to familiar. But she eventually falls off the deep end as well and really lets loose with a fun take on her character. The film itself is a lot of fun to watch and the actors are all on top of their game and you can tell they are just relishing their roles. I feel like we get just a little bit of a different Streep at the end of this one. Maybe that's because in the beginning it seems like oh, we'll just a get a boring portrayal from her while everyone else get's to act all crazy but it works. Is it her best performance? Of course not. Is it fun to watch (even more so than her work in The Hours)? Absolutely. Am I mad it was nominated? Nope, it's a perfectly adequate inclusion.


Hey look at that! A Supporting Actress group that doesn't have a bad nominee among it at all! It's a miracle! And well overdue. I've been waiting for a good group for what seems like forever and I'm glad that I finally got it. Now is there a performance in here that will stand the test of time and be remembered as a classic? No. But they are all good performances and are kinda what supporting performances should be in a way. Since nothing really stands out to me, I'll go ahead and go with the Academy on this one. CZJ is a fine win, I guess. I'd say Bates and Streep are easily interchangeable depending on when I've last seen their films. Then Moore who is in a pretty dull film and is very intense throughout followed by Queen Latifah who didn't get as much to work with as the others. All in all, a pretty good success for the blog and hopefully we can find a group in this category that all just blow me away instead of just being merely good.

Oscar Winner: Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
My Winner:  Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
Kathy Bates
Meryl Streep
Julianne Moore
Queen Latifah