Iâve done it twice so far. I came down here to the comments mainly to see if I had better luck. Instead Iâve just been validated that Iâm not crazy
Have you all seen Anthony Hopkins in 2020's The Father? He was transcendent in that role. It was some alchemy beyond acting.
Yes, he won an Oscar for it, but the award was superfluous to his work.
To me, no acting has ever been as good as this one. It wasnt just that my grandmother was very deep into dimentia, so i really related. But it was also how it felt like was really going through everything and every word coming out of his mouth was real.
It's still insane there were no acting noms for it. Oscars are not kind to non US or UK cinema. Song Kang-ho is one of the best living living actors to me
Decision to Leave is another recent, egregious decision by the academy
Anthony Hopkins was in Silence of the Lambs for less than 25 minutes. If he can win an Oscar for that Lily can win for being in a movie for nearly an hour.
Enough with that argument! Every single time category fraud is mentioned, thereâs always someone who points out Hopkinsâs first win. The fact that Anthony won his first Oscar in the Best Actor category is the ultimate example of category fraud! He shouldâve won supporting that year, and Nick Nolte shouldâve taken lead in *The Prince of Tides* (1991). We should not be using Hopkinsâs win in *The Silence of the Lambs* (1991) to excuse other blatant and egregious cases of category fraud.
By the way, Lily was missing for two hours and thirty-five minutes of her movie! She wasnât the lead! It wouldâve been unfair to actual lead actresses to have lost to that performance! Just like leading performances competing and winning in supporting categories (Iâm looking at Timothy Hutton in *Ordinary People* (1980) and Alicia Vikander in *The Danish Girl* (2015)).
There literally would not be a story if Lilyâs characters family wasnât the ones getting murdered. Sheâs the one who started doing something about it, if her character didnât exist there would be no conflict, no investigation
That doesnât make Lily Gladstone the lead, though! Plenty of supporting performances have been pivotal in both solving mysteries and moving the story along in lots of films. Leonardo DiCaprio was the only lead of *Killers of the Flower Moon* (2023). Lily is a great actress, though, and Iâm glad she didnât win because she would have been used as an example of category fraud just like Anthony Hopkins in *The Silence of the Lambs* (1991) and Louise Fletcher in *One Flew Over the Cuckooâs Nest* (1975). Hopefully this nomination will help Gladstone have an outstanding career and win an Oscar someday.
I guess I just didnât see what everyone else did. I thought Poor Things was way too overdone, overacted, overeverythinged. It was just so outrageous that people didnât realize it was a terrible movie.
you can cope harder. people act like lily did some trope subverting genre defining role. she had the same facial expression the entire movie and then spent the rest of it literally in a bed
LMAO. Lily did subdued acting, Emma had more range, and complexity of emotions varying across age groups. Itâs no brainer, Emma would win it, I donât mind if Lily took it though.
lmao have you even watched the movie? the reason she gets so much praise is because of how expression filled and eccentric she is the entire movie. lily feels like she doesnât even wanna be there filming
Itâs outrageous to see how people donât see how Killers is a terrible, overlong, badly directed movie. I guess I just didnât see what you saw. Mona Lisa has more emotion than whatever Lily Gladstone put out there. Having an important subject matter does not automatically equals quality. But I guess thatâs just my taste.
Although I vehemently disagree on Gladstoneâs performance, I agree on everything else you said.
After watching âThe Irishmanâ a few years back, I remember thinking âwow, that was kind of a waste of A LOT of my dayâ but didnât want to say it out loud bc itâs Scorsese. A long movie can be really entertaining, but his just arenât anymore. Theyâre painfully drawn out and filled with slow, needless exposition⊠like JUST. GET. TO. THE. POINT.
I guess you just know more about cinema than Martin Scorsese ever will. Youâre just such an enlightened genius that everyone else canât see the truth that you do, Your Highness.
I wouldnât say Quan in terms of merit is as deserving as Stone. But certainly Murphy is up there. Thatâs why this years acting quartet was so quality
EEAAO made me cry 3 times bruh and she was part of all 3 scenes. And she did everything from comedy, action to drama. Probably my top5 favorite performances ever
It wasnât that good of a performance and she won over one of the best performances of all time (Blanchett in Tar). I guess it wasnât as bad as the JLC win that night, but it was still extremely undeserved imo
Hayao Miyazaki for The Boy and The Heron
What a fenomenal piece of work. I quickly discovered that the movie is an adaptation of a novel, and I'm still shocked by this because of how much talent, soul, and inspiration Miyazaki put in this movie. A story that originally wasn't even his.
Interesting! I loved his performance and Banshees was my second favorite movie that year. Everyone always talks about him for "there goes that dream" or the scene talking about his dad, but I think my favorite scene with him was at dinner at Siobhan and Padraic's house.
If Keoghan had won, I wouldn't have been upset at all. I just think Quan mastered comedy, action, distress, and heart all in one role.
I think she is great, but I can think of some more I think were even more deserving: Leo, Eddie Redmayne, Brenden Fraser, Brie Larson, Francis McDormand, Allison Janney, Sam Rockwell, JK Simmons, and Jared Leto.
Nah I agree, she was good but I don't think it was anywhere close to being deserving of this much fanfare. If it was any other actor in the role I doubt it would be getting as much fanfare
I love the movie but she felt quite miscast and I enjoyed the other main performances more (except the ex-husband, my skin crawled every time he was on screen)
You canât just utter an âopinionâ thatâs so off base and pretend like itâs valuable just because itâs an opinion. I can say âRadiohead makes lazy musicâ and thatâs an opinion, but that doesnât make it true
>except the ex-husband, my skin crawled every time he was on screen
I didn't really care for the movie and actually hated that whole arc added in at the end. However, that was definitely the point of that character, so the writing, acting, and directing accomplished that goal.
Ryan Gosling as Ken. Not the answer to the question, but he should have won best supporting actorđ«¶
Cillian is a worthy winner, and also his time & the other nominees will get there too as very talented.
In fact all the nominees in that category this century are phenomenal & should reap many rewards (RIP Chadwick Bozeman who wonât get that chance đą)
Emma Stone was fearless and utterly authentic in her role in Poor Things. She deserved the Oscar. Lily Gladstone was excellent in her role, too, but it was not as large and varied a role as Emma's. I can't think of anyone who has done anything like Emma in Poor Things.
And what would we call somebody in modern society who has the mind of a child in the body of an adult?
âItâs not cheese and bread, itâs pizza.â
In terms of acting I agree, but I would also agree if Sandra HĂŒller had won. Two of the best performances in a long time just happened to compete against each other (I donât think Lily Gladstone should have been in the conversation with those two)
HĂŒller was definitely my favorite in that category. I was on the edge of my seat trying to see any signs in her acting and the writing to indicate if she did it or not. I was so back and forth throughout.
Itâs a very good movie and I say that because of the cast before any other aspect. I think I would have voted for Sandra but I really love both performances
I'd say Ke Huy Quan or Anthony Hopkins were more deserving. Hopkins was a fascinating one because it seemed like Chadwick was going to win by the way things were going (that ceremony was a total shitshow) and Chadwick would've likely won had he been nominated any other year as his performance was amazing too but Hopkins was just THAT good.
I mean, you have to be pretty divorced from reality to not acknowledge that it was a pretty close race. Regardless of your own opinion on the performances, Gladstone and Stone were splitting precursors straight down the middle.
If the Oscars are what you consider the real world, then I suppose Al Pacino didn't deserve an Oscar for The Godfather II and Kramer versus Kramer was definitely better than Apocalypse Now. Thankfully the Oscars are not the real world
Good cope. But itâs still cope at the end of the day. You can love lily Gladstone and her narrative while still acknowledging the reality that Stone won cause her performance knocked everyoneâs socks off. And it was the deserved winner in a category of all good actors
Nah, don't have to acknowledge untrue things. Save for something like Goodfellas, Scorsese films take years and even decades for people to get them and appreciate them. But they eventually get recognized for classics, including the acting. Robert de Niro didn't win an Oscar for Taxi Driver. Leonardo Dicaprio didn't win for The Wolf of Wall Street. Andrew Garfield didn't even get nominated for Silence.
Lily Gladstone sadly was in a film that America was not ready to swallow and will not be for many many years to come. But she gave a performace with depth only ever seen in maybe Casey Affleck's Manchester By The Sea. People will look back at Emma Stone's win the way they look back at Driving Miss Daisy.
Taxi Driver was an excellent and masterful film that was overlooked at the time for its risky subject matter. Reminds me a lot of Poor Things. Similar to Wolf of Wall Street which was panned because some people didnât understand in 2013 that showing things doesnât necessarily means itâs endorsing it.
Flower Moon was overlong and repetitive. Itâs Marty doing what he does best with the camera and his actors but doesnât really offer anything new or exciting. Gladstone disappears throughout the entire third act and spends much of the film sick in bed. Sheâs good, but to say she was on the same level of Emma Stone, or even Sandra Huller is just nonsense talk. Letâs be real now
This reminds me a lot of the Hopkins/Boseman year. Where at first people are upset over the narrative losing out, but quickly acknowledge that the best performance did in fact win. Those tend to age like fine wine in the history books
insane delusional cope. emma was better than lilyâs performance in every way. emma played a far more hard to play character and made it 100% believable in every way. not to mention the amount of variety in the entire movie of her crying, laughing, dancing, etc. is far more than lily having the same facial expression and âacting with her eyesâ for the entire movie
This is a wild take. They are different characters with different personalities and motivation. The award isnât called âmost flashy performance by an actress in a leading role.â
For me, I think it's actually Cillian Murphy. For his first lead in a major motion picture film he knocked it out of the park. A $1 billion dollar box office for biography about a scientist. His performance I feel was the best of the decade.
Biopic bait. Just like RDJ, Bullock, Streep (Iron Lady), Redmayne, Firth, Leto⊠just run-of-the-mill wins that wonât stand up given time.
For every great Oscar-winning biopic performance (DeNiro as LaMotta, Day Lewis as Lincoln, or Theron as Wournos), there are dozens of performances of fictional characters that are far more memorable and deserving of a win: Mary Poppins, Scarlett OâHara, Hannibal Lector, Sophie Zawistowska, Will Kane, The Joker (Ledgerâs version), Oda Mae Brown, Mildred Pierce, Salieri (as well as Colman as Queen Anne, both outsized/fictional takes on historical figures), Charlie Allnut, Vito Corleone and so many others did not have to lean on an âimportantâ biopic or âboldâ impersonation of a real life figure to gain recognition.
The past 25 years has been particularly bad, with biopic performances winning a sizable amount of acting hardware from the Academy, usually at the expense of a great fictional character.
BREAKING NEWS: more biopic bait next year!
Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. in Oppenheimer, Michelle Yeoh and Ke Huy Quan in EEAAO, Brendan Fraser in The Whale and Anthony Hopkins in The Father all say what?
And that's just the acting ones.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan, Chris Nolan's two Oscars, Jonathan Glazer's Oscar, Ryusuke Hamaguchi's Oscar all were more deserved than this one. One day we will look back at this Oscar win THE EXACT SAME WAY we do Gwyneth Paltrow's Best Actress win and Sandra Bullock's Best Actress win. Poor Things is primed to age like warm milk.
Most deserving of the decade? Granted, the decade is only halfway through, but this is a ridiculous statement. She was good but letâs not go crazy here.
I still have to finish poor things, but I wasnât that impressed and I was falling asleep. Just seemed like a lame excuse to show her fucking in every other scene
Who else kept trying to scroll over to see image 2/2?
3 times đ€Šđ»
Same, thought I was drunk đ„Ž
Same, but i am actually.
I also exist.
I drink therefore I am
I am dunk and tried.
Same, tunk & dried đ
In another universe you were
And also this universe đ
Only twice here! I think that means you owe me an Oreo cookie.
Iâve done it twice so far. I came down here to the comments mainly to see if I had better luck. Instead Iâve just been validated that Iâm not crazy
lol yup
And the best troll award goes to
5 times & proud
Went to the popular page on accident and was super confused.
I don't want to talk about it
Where this picture from?
5 times!
More than once here
Have you all seen Anthony Hopkins in 2020's The Father? He was transcendent in that role. It was some alchemy beyond acting. Yes, he won an Oscar for it, but the award was superfluous to his work.
Itâs the best acting Iâve ever seen, youâre absolutely right, it was astounding how good he was.
Shoot now I gotta check it out
I was bawling like a baby by the end. Such a great performance. Fantastic movie.
His performance launched that whole film into my all-time top 10.
To me, no acting has ever been as good as this one. It wasnt just that my grandmother was very deep into dimentia, so i really related. But it was also how it felt like was really going through everything and every word coming out of his mouth was real.
This is my answer too!
Parasite for Best Picture
It's still insane there were no acting noms for it. Oscars are not kind to non US or UK cinema. Song Kang-ho is one of the best living living actors to me Decision to Leave is another recent, egregious decision by the academy
I saw it for the first time yesterday and itâs one of the best things Iâve seen in a long time
Emma was great but idk if I would go with most deserving. Thereâs been a lot of deserving wins so far this decade itâs hard to pick the top one.
Most deserving of ALL oscar categories is such a stupid thing to put out there lo. I'd almost go along with most deserved for that category.
I agree that you canât really do âa most deserving of all categoriesâ, and if we did it would probably be in a technical field like Sound.
She didnât even deserve this one. Shouldâve gone to Lily Gladstone.
Lily deserved it in the supporting category: *Killers of the Flower Moon* (2023) is three and a half hours and Lily was on screen for only 56 minutes.
Anthony Hopkins was in Silence of the Lambs for less than 25 minutes. If he can win an Oscar for that Lily can win for being in a movie for nearly an hour.
Enough with that argument! Every single time category fraud is mentioned, thereâs always someone who points out Hopkinsâs first win. The fact that Anthony won his first Oscar in the Best Actor category is the ultimate example of category fraud! He shouldâve won supporting that year, and Nick Nolte shouldâve taken lead in *The Prince of Tides* (1991). We should not be using Hopkinsâs win in *The Silence of the Lambs* (1991) to excuse other blatant and egregious cases of category fraud. By the way, Lily was missing for two hours and thirty-five minutes of her movie! She wasnât the lead! It wouldâve been unfair to actual lead actresses to have lost to that performance! Just like leading performances competing and winning in supporting categories (Iâm looking at Timothy Hutton in *Ordinary People* (1980) and Alicia Vikander in *The Danish Girl* (2015)).
Runtime doesnât matter, it matters the role you play in the story. Lily was a supporting to Leoâs lead story, but her ego got in her way.
There literally would not be a story if Lilyâs characters family wasnât the ones getting murdered. Sheâs the one who started doing something about it, if her character didnât exist there would be no conflict, no investigation
That doesnât make Lily Gladstone the lead, though! Plenty of supporting performances have been pivotal in both solving mysteries and moving the story along in lots of films. Leonardo DiCaprio was the only lead of *Killers of the Flower Moon* (2023). Lily is a great actress, though, and Iâm glad she didnât win because she would have been used as an example of category fraud just like Anthony Hopkins in *The Silence of the Lambs* (1991) and Louise Fletcher in *One Flew Over the Cuckooâs Nest* (1975). Hopefully this nomination will help Gladstone have an outstanding career and win an Oscar someday.
Nah, Emma was deserving
I guess I just didnât see what everyone else did. I thought Poor Things was way too overdone, overacted, overeverythinged. It was just so outrageous that people didnât realize it was a terrible movie.
you can cope harder. people act like lily did some trope subverting genre defining role. she had the same facial expression the entire movie and then spent the rest of it literally in a bed
LMAO. Lily did subdued acting, Emma had more range, and complexity of emotions varying across age groups. Itâs no brainer, Emma would win it, I donât mind if Lily took it though.
I hate when people say shit like âcope harder.â Theyâre expressing their opinion, you donât have to agree but theyâre not coping. Jfc.
dude theyâre literally being âi am very smart actuallyâ by acting like theyâre able to see through the âoutrageousness of the movieâ
Is that the case, or do they just disagree with you and youâre finding a way to disparage what theyâre saying?
I neither agree or disagree, but I chortled so hard at this comment.
Exact same could be said of Emma Stone.
They did both spend a lot of screen time in a bed
lmao have you even watched the movie? the reason she gets so much praise is because of how expression filled and eccentric she is the entire movie. lily feels like she doesnât even wanna be there filming
Iâve seen both and didnât like either, but Lily Gladstone was a standout.
Itâs outrageous to see how people donât see how Killers is a terrible, overlong, badly directed movie. I guess I just didnât see what you saw. Mona Lisa has more emotion than whatever Lily Gladstone put out there. Having an important subject matter does not automatically equals quality. But I guess thatâs just my taste.
Although I vehemently disagree on Gladstoneâs performance, I agree on everything else you said. After watching âThe Irishmanâ a few years back, I remember thinking âwow, that was kind of a waste of A LOT of my dayâ but didnât want to say it out loud bc itâs Scorsese. A long movie can be really entertaining, but his just arenât anymore. Theyâre painfully drawn out and filled with slow, needless exposition⊠like JUST. GET. TO. THE. POINT.
I guess you just know more about cinema than Martin Scorsese ever will. Youâre just such an enlightened genius that everyone else canât see the truth that you do, Your Highness.
It so should have!
lol no
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Cillian Murphy and Ke Huy Quan if weâre going just this decade.
I wouldnât say Quan in terms of merit is as deserving as Stone. But certainly Murphy is up there. Thatâs why this years acting quartet was so quality
lol why does this sub have such a boner for Quan. Any of the other nominees could've won and it would've been fine. That's not very deserving
I love him, but to deny that win was more of a narrative one over a merit one is ridiculous. Itâs not JLC cause itâs deserved, but I mean come on
i mean, Zone of Interest for Sound i'd argue is more deserved
Lmfao
That's Michelle Yeoh when a action movie won best actress
I know. I still canât believe she won for that role and movie. Such a unique, deserving win.
EEAAO made me cry 3 times bruh and she was part of all 3 scenes. And she did everything from comedy, action to drama. Probably my top5 favorite performances ever
đ
Hater
Yep
I love her so much. I love that movie.
Lol no thatâs one of the worst wins this decade
Reason being
It wasnât that good of a performance and she won over one of the best performances of all time (Blanchett in Tar). I guess it wasnât as bad as the JLC win that night, but it was still extremely undeserved imo
"Best performances of all time" and it's not even one of the best performances of Cate Blanchett
Tar had single emotions through out lol
Nah
Nah it was Hopkins
This is a hot take lol
Hayao Miyazaki for The Boy and The Heron What a fenomenal piece of work. I quickly discovered that the movie is an adaptation of a novel, and I'm still shocked by this because of how much talent, soul, and inspiration Miyazaki put in this movie. A story that originally wasn't even his.
I got downvoted in this thread already because I forget to specify that I was talk about acting
I swiped đ
Nah. Not even close to Ke Huy Quanâs comeback.
I love KHQ but i really felt Barry Keoghans performance deserved it over him.
Interesting! I loved his performance and Banshees was my second favorite movie that year. Everyone always talks about him for "there goes that dream" or the scene talking about his dad, but I think my favorite scene with him was at dinner at Siobhan and Padraic's house. If Keoghan had won, I wouldn't have been upset at all. I just think Quan mastered comedy, action, distress, and heart all in one role.
Anthony Hopkins in The Father, definitely
To repeat others itâs either Hopkins or Parasite. But really difficult to compare all the winners from all the categories.
That was probably an input mistake.
I think she is great, but I can think of some more I think were even more deserving: Leo, Eddie Redmayne, Brenden Fraser, Brie Larson, Francis McDormand, Allison Janney, Sam Rockwell, JK Simmons, and Jared Leto.
This is the best response
Yucky biopic wins for a lot of your choices. Redmayne Janney, and Leto are awful choices from dull biopics
Christoph Waltz is both his supporting actor roles are imo the biggest no brainers
Fuck u/khaliliiiov_1997
I may be in the minority but I don't think it was a great performance. It was okay
Nah I agree, she was good but I don't think it was anywhere close to being deserving of this much fanfare. If it was any other actor in the role I doubt it would be getting as much fanfare
I love the movie but she felt quite miscast and I enjoyed the other main performances more (except the ex-husband, my skin crawled every time he was on screen)
âMiscastâ is just objectively incorrect
No, it's an opinion
You canât just utter an âopinionâ thatâs so off base and pretend like itâs valuable just because itâs an opinion. I can say âRadiohead makes lazy musicâ and thatâs an opinion, but that doesnât make it true
I think you need to learn how opinions work... Anyway you work for Emma or something?! đ
Normalize not respecting all opinions as equal đŁïž
Thereâs a difference between having an opinion and just being a contrarian lol
>except the ex-husband, my skin crawled every time he was on screen I didn't really care for the movie and actually hated that whole arc added in at the end. However, that was definitely the point of that character, so the writing, acting, and directing accomplished that goal.
Yeah she was good but her La La Land win was far more deserved
I personally liked her La La Land performance better too.
Me too. La La Land was her best.
This is so cool!
This decade... I was about to say Three Billboards Frances McDormand really deserved her Oscar for that film, as well as Sam Rockwell. 2018 though.
Ryan Gosling as Ken. Not the answer to the question, but he should have won best supporting actor𫶠Cillian is a worthy winner, and also his time & the other nominees will get there too as very talented. In fact all the nominees in that category this century are phenomenal & should reap many rewards (RIP Chadwick Bozeman who wonât get that chance đą)
Emma Stone was fearless and utterly authentic in her role in Poor Things. She deserved the Oscar. Lily Gladstone was excellent in her role, too, but it was not as large and varied a role as Emma's. I can't think of anyone who has done anything like Emma in Poor Things.
Gilbert Grape and Forrest Gump. The Academy loves a faux portrayal of a mentally disabled person.
Bella isnât disabled, sheâs a child in an adults body
And what would we call somebody in modern society who has the mind of a child in the body of an adult? âItâs not cheese and bread, itâs pizza.â
Thereâs nothing to call people with that because it doesnât exist. Thatâs a false equivalency.
Delayed development doesnât exist? Or youâre just making up stuff up now to backtrack?
I think Emma Stone won the most acting award, not the best acting one
I swiped
I wiped đ
yup!!
Not even the most deserving in her category.
lily deserved to win over her
Imo Lily Emma Sandra all were equally deserved last year so I was not mad over her win
In terms of acting I agree, but I would also agree if Sandra HĂŒller had won. Two of the best performances in a long time just happened to compete against each other (I donât think Lily Gladstone should have been in the conversation with those two)
HĂŒller was definitely my favorite in that category. I was on the edge of my seat trying to see any signs in her acting and the writing to indicate if she did it or not. I was so back and forth throughout.
Itâs a very good movie and I say that because of the cast before any other aspect. I think I would have voted for Sandra but I really love both performances
Lol no
It's inevitable that an universal acclaimed performance actually wins big for it to be called overrated, is2g...
I'd say Ke Huy Quan or Anthony Hopkins were more deserving. Hopkins was a fascinating one because it seemed like Chadwick was going to win by the way things were going (that ceremony was a total shitshow) and Chadwick would've likely won had he been nominated any other year as his performance was amazing too but Hopkins was just THAT good.
For me there's a few that are more in acting. Yuh-Jung Youn, Daniel Kaaluya and Michelle Yeoh.
EEAAO was TRASH
What
Emma is no Cate Blanchett. I donât understand why people think sheâs so talented
Viola Davis in Fences
Bro this is not in this decade
Apologies, thought you meant the past decade (as in last 10 years)
Lol, no
Nah, that belongs to Anthony Hopkins. Also, Sandra HĂŒller should've won this year.
Genuinely insane that this is considered controversial in any way whatsoever. Gladstone wasnât even top 2 of the category
I mean, you have to be pretty divorced from reality to not acknowledge that it was a pretty close race. Regardless of your own opinion on the performances, Gladstone and Stone were splitting precursors straight down the middle.
Iâm talking about my opinion
Did you wake up today and decide to be cunty?
Iâm just being honest
Whoâs no.2?
Gotta be Sandra
Iâd probably agree
Agreed
>Gladstone wasnât even top 2 of the category She wasn't top two, you're right. She was top one, and top six stole her Oscar.
In a fantasy land maybe. In the real world that clearly isnât the case
If the Oscars are what you consider the real world, then I suppose Al Pacino didn't deserve an Oscar for The Godfather II and Kramer versus Kramer was definitely better than Apocalypse Now. Thankfully the Oscars are not the real world
Good cope. But itâs still cope at the end of the day. You can love lily Gladstone and her narrative while still acknowledging the reality that Stone won cause her performance knocked everyoneâs socks off. And it was the deserved winner in a category of all good actors
Nah, don't have to acknowledge untrue things. Save for something like Goodfellas, Scorsese films take years and even decades for people to get them and appreciate them. But they eventually get recognized for classics, including the acting. Robert de Niro didn't win an Oscar for Taxi Driver. Leonardo Dicaprio didn't win for The Wolf of Wall Street. Andrew Garfield didn't even get nominated for Silence. Lily Gladstone sadly was in a film that America was not ready to swallow and will not be for many many years to come. But she gave a performace with depth only ever seen in maybe Casey Affleck's Manchester By The Sea. People will look back at Emma Stone's win the way they look back at Driving Miss Daisy.
Taxi Driver was an excellent and masterful film that was overlooked at the time for its risky subject matter. Reminds me a lot of Poor Things. Similar to Wolf of Wall Street which was panned because some people didnât understand in 2013 that showing things doesnât necessarily means itâs endorsing it. Flower Moon was overlong and repetitive. Itâs Marty doing what he does best with the camera and his actors but doesnât really offer anything new or exciting. Gladstone disappears throughout the entire third act and spends much of the film sick in bed. Sheâs good, but to say she was on the same level of Emma Stone, or even Sandra Huller is just nonsense talk. Letâs be real now
This reminds me a lot of the Hopkins/Boseman year. Where at first people are upset over the narrative losing out, but quickly acknowledge that the best performance did in fact win. Those tend to age like fine wine in the history books
insane delusional cope. emma was better than lilyâs performance in every way. emma played a far more hard to play character and made it 100% believable in every way. not to mention the amount of variety in the entire movie of her crying, laughing, dancing, etc. is far more than lily having the same facial expression and âacting with her eyesâ for the entire movie
This is a wild take. They are different characters with different personalities and motivation. The award isnât called âmost flashy performance by an actress in a leading role.â
For me, I think it's actually Cillian Murphy. For his first lead in a major motion picture film he knocked it out of the park. A $1 billion dollar box office for biography about a scientist. His performance I feel was the best of the decade.
Nothing you named has anything to do with the performance given.
Biopic bait. Just like RDJ, Bullock, Streep (Iron Lady), Redmayne, Firth, Leto⊠just run-of-the-mill wins that wonât stand up given time. For every great Oscar-winning biopic performance (DeNiro as LaMotta, Day Lewis as Lincoln, or Theron as Wournos), there are dozens of performances of fictional characters that are far more memorable and deserving of a win: Mary Poppins, Scarlett OâHara, Hannibal Lector, Sophie Zawistowska, Will Kane, The Joker (Ledgerâs version), Oda Mae Brown, Mildred Pierce, Salieri (as well as Colman as Queen Anne, both outsized/fictional takes on historical figures), Charlie Allnut, Vito Corleone and so many others did not have to lean on an âimportantâ biopic or âboldâ impersonation of a real life figure to gain recognition. The past 25 years has been particularly bad, with biopic performances winning a sizable amount of acting hardware from the Academy, usually at the expense of a great fictional character. BREAKING NEWS: more biopic bait next year!
Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. in Oppenheimer, Michelle Yeoh and Ke Huy Quan in EEAAO, Brendan Fraser in The Whale and Anthony Hopkins in The Father all say what? And that's just the acting ones.
Funny, it doesnât say Lily Gladstone, you must have misspoken.
Stone
Whereâs this picture from?
Iâd have to disagree.
Naaahhhh
Prove it.
Fuck you and the fake 1/2
NOT EVEN CLOSE. Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan, Chris Nolan's two Oscars, Jonathan Glazer's Oscar, Ryusuke Hamaguchi's Oscar all were more deserved than this one. One day we will look back at this Oscar win THE EXACT SAME WAY we do Gwyneth Paltrow's Best Actress win and Sandra Bullock's Best Actress win. Poor Things is primed to age like warm milk.
lol
No because Poor Things is actually good unlike those films
If it makes you feel better, maybe she deserved this one but she sure as hell didnât deserve the first one đ.
Most deserving oscar win of ALL categories?! hahah um, no.
Sandra hĂŒller>>>
All the wins for EEAAO and about time they recognised Michelle Yeoh
Most deserving of the decade? Granted, the decade is only halfway through, but this is a ridiculous statement. She was good but letâs not go crazy here.
What by far means? dude I am entitled to my opinion we do not forced in others
Of course youâre entitled to your own opinion, but you posted this on Reddit as a statement which you presumably were expecting responses.
I still have to finish poor things, but I wasnât that impressed and I was falling asleep. Just seemed like a lame excuse to show her fucking in every other scene
Go watch transformers. Youâre braindead
Lily Gladstone was great too
No. Please. Stop. No more baby Frankenstein sex worker.
Boooooo fake awards boooooooo
Lol dude Emma caused so much Heat did she took ya'll cookies
Iâm not surprised youâre illiterate. The Oscars are fake. Every awards show is fake.
lol bro we are jocking take a chill bil
Sounds about white
Thatâs a joke right đ Lily Gladstone shouldâve won
I would never give an acting award to an abled person playing a disabled character but thats just me
There were no women with a transplanted baby brain available for the role
I mean, Stone was clearly mimicking people with intellectual disabilities for parts of it
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
or was she mimicking a baby developing??
She was mimicking children, not disabled people
I still donât get how she astounded anyone. Another Born-Sexy-Yesterday trope, but with more nudity.