I think without the competition of Brie Larson last year Cate would have surely won. I have made a compilation of the be
-
jdiego00 — 9 years ago(June 07, 2016 11:22 PM)
Cate's performance in Carol is rewatchable and gets even better by rewatching it.
Brie in Room is mesmerizing the very first time but after one watch it becomes predictable due to the fact that it's mostly a suspense thriller
Cate has been robbed at the oscars three times now. But she'll eventually win her third Oscar in the near future -
fireandloosechange — 9 years ago(December 01, 2016 07:54 PM)
I read many of your posts and you and I share our appreciation of this lady with the same fervor. Because of my bias, I can never see another nominee out-perform Cate-the-Great for any award they may be competing. It just doesn't happen. She gives 110% all of the time. So the hell with all of the politics involved with winning an Academy Award. If she's nominated, she should win, hands down. It's all B.S. Paltrow was a joke up against "Elizabeth", for example. Really? How in the effin g.d. sh*t did that happen? Sorry, rhetorical question.
-
Artanis_Finarfiniel — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 12:33 PM)
I will forever maintain that Gwyneth Paltrow winning Best Actress for 'Shakespeare in Love' over Cate in 'Elizabeth' in 1999 is pretty much the biggest Oscar travesty of all time, and I don't really have anything against Paltrow.
The two performances aren't even
remotely
comparable. Paltrow was decent in SiL, but Cate gave an absolute career making powerhouse of a performance in Elizabeth. It's insanity that anyone could watch those two films and think that Paltrow was more deserving of the win. Oscar politics at their worst. -
Artanis_Finarfiniel — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 12:32 PM)
I would have loved to see Cate win for
Carol
because I think she was thoroughly deserving, but I ultimately have no objection to Brie Larson's win because she was fantastic in
Room
.
I have no doubt at all that Cate will win at least one more oscar in her career. I also predict she will one day be up there with Streep and Hepburn for amount of nominations and wins. -
JoanTheVampireSlayer — 9 years ago(June 16, 2016 02:45 AM)
If Brie hadn't been nominated Soairse would have won. She just had more advantages this year than Cate did. She hasn't won an Oscar yet and the plot of her movie was about a young immigrant moving to America, something a lot of people working in the movie business have experienced. Her movie was also nominated for best picture and Cate's wasn't.
It will probably be a while before Cate wins another Oscar. I think it took like 20 years for Meryl Streep to win her third.
I know I'm a vampire, Snookie. -
MladenVuk — 9 years ago(June 17, 2016 08:24 AM)
Oscars are all about narratives and Cate was the only nominee without it. She was perfect, subtle, emotionally profound and with such incredible mannerism that the role is a perfect combo of the theatrical and naturalistic acting. However, as said, there was no narrative. And narrative rules. Look at Leo. Internet 5b4couldn't stop whining and he finally won. So, whether she should have won is something that only time will tell. And that is the only judgement. Paltrow can have her Oscar, but that still doesn't change the fact that basically everyone in the industry, and wider, considers that the worst win ever. Same goes with Jennifer Hudson, whose masterful voice won (God, she should never, ever consider acting as some sort of career). So, time will tell.
Carol is shaping up to be one of those "true moviegoers" kind of gem. Artistically, it is impeccable piece of movie magic with each scene being meticulously arranged. So, will Carol in 10, 15, 20 years be the movie we will talk about? Probably. In comparison, The Martian, Room, Brooklyn, The Danish Girl are all inevitably fail as there is so few unique things about them. That said, people may see her as the real winner in 20 years from now, but that doesn't change the fact that she was never supposed to be a winner.
