Okay, so enough of the Brokeback Mountain/Crash talk. Here's another one to think about. I found the acting wins this year rather weak (save for Best Actor, where I have not seen Hoffman's performance). Two of the winners, George Clooney and Rachel Weisz, I probably wouldn't have even nominated and while Reese Witherspoon was certainly pretty good, I thought Keira Knightley was better.

The least deserving win, in my opinion, would go to Rachel Weisz, where I felt that the character was awarded rather than the film itself. Clooney wasn't much better, but his category was overall relatively weak. I am baffled that Michelle Williams' powerful performance was not awarded and the Academy opted for Weisz.

What are your thoughts?

Weisz was becasue well her charcter was bascailly the soul of the film, Fiennes character is pretty boring and his journey in teh seocnd half of the film is anti-climatic. You feel the loss of Weisz, the film is definitely more interesting when she is one screen. Some of that is the character but she did give a good performance. Do I think Williams was better, yes, but Williams had a more subtle performance, and the Academy awards showy over subtle.

Witherspoon was good, but she was clearly a supporting actress, so here win irritates me.

I didn't see Capote so I can't comment.


Clooney won in a category where I honestly I wasn't crazy about any of the nominees, so I am indiffernt to his win though it felt like a consulation prize since every knew GDGL was going home with 0 Oscars.

I think I completely agree with what Cynthia said.

I did see Capote, however, and I got to say choosing between Ledger and Hoffman has been the toughest decision I could remember. If either won, it would have been fine.

Williams was much better, yes, but I think her performance was still more showy than say, Anne Hathaway's in the same movie. But Amy Adams was the marvel in that category.

True, Hathway was damn good, she basically had three scenes in the film, she hits on Jack, the scene at dinner where she smiles at Jack (and that smile says alot) and her conversation with Ledger. If Hurt can get a nom for 3 minutes of work, Hathway earned one too.

I also did not see Junebug yet, but I am finally going to see it next week.

In many ways the acting noms piss me off more then Best Picture, because I think we need rules as to what constitutes supporting versus lead. Remember when they tried to push Keisha Castle Hughes for Best Supporting Actress in the ad Campaign for Whale Rider, now really, if she was supporting who was the lead? The ocean? Thankfully that time the Academy
ignored them and nonimated her as a lead.

But honestly, Lecter and I were jsut talking over MSN, and there are so many bad examples of this.

These were all great performances, but nominated in the wrong category.
Daniel Day Lewis was not the lead in Gang of New York
Jaime Foxx was not supporting in Collateral
Sissy Spacek was not a lead in In the Bedroom
Reese Witherspoon was not a lead in Walk the Line
Nicole Kidman was not the lead in The Hours
-(I know some disagree with me, but if anyone was a lead I'd say it was Julianne Moore)

Am I the only one who thought George Clooney sleepwalked his was through Syriana? Any of the other Supporting Actor performances would have been far more deserving then him. As said, it was a consolation prize. It's just a shame that they chose to award him for the least deserving thing he did all year (Including his supporting work in Good Night, and Good Luck.)

I agree.

He got a pity, we liked GNGL award, but we are nto going to give it anything so here is BSA award.

Shahid Ahmed(kid), Alexander Siddig (go Dr. Bashir!),Chris Cooper, Christopher Plummer, and Matt Damon all impressed me more in Syriana. I didn't even know that was Chris Cooper. Though at least the didn't nominate Jeffrey Wright who was compltely wasted in a role that was either half written or had alot of it scenes cut (the whole storyline with his father was just a meandering mess, tits up there with Jamie Bell in KK as most pointless side plot of the year).

I actually think that Ledger, Straithairn, and Howard were all better than Hoffman, but that's more a tribute to them rather than a knock on him.

Haven't seen any of Witherspoon's competition, but she did damn good so I'm happy.

Haven't seen Syriana/Clooney.

Rachel Weisz was the least deserving. Williams, Adams, Keener, and Hathaway were all better.

Hathway was nominated, Frances McDorman was for North Country

Since she was a supporting actress, Rachel did what she was suppose to. Would said otherwise if she was lead.

Still not sure why everyone talks about Michelle W - she needed that confrontation scene after the kiss - otherwise she just looked sad, pouted and whinned.

and I disagree about Reese not being a lead - think people need to watch that movie again. IMO.

Cound't agree more! Syriana would have been a much tighter movie if the whole storyline with Jeffrey Wright didn't exist.

Yeah I know, but Hathaway was still better.

Yes she was, and hence she wasn't nominated



I think they needed the make his part stronger or jsut ditch the stuff with his father, because we got was a boring half assed back story.

also there is a reason that MW hardly won any awards.

can someone name how many she won - didn't she only win 1 or 2 times and those were in BBM landslides???

I believe she won 3 times, 2 of them ties with Amy Adams.

I actually rewatched it over the weekend when my family watched.

We see Johnny Cash from childhood on, we see him at home with his wife. We only see June Carter on tour with Cash, at Cash's home, at her only when Cash visits her home. Most of what we learn about her is from his point of view.

After two viewings, supporting.

A reason? What about bad judgement? Or do you want to say that the best are always awarded? That's ignorant.

Reese is more lead in Walk the Line than Brando is in The Godfather...

There is another good example,

In that case though I think a better comparison is The Hours, or Sryiana, with large ensembels its hard to have a lead.

But if you give one character backstory and way more screen time I don;t see hwo they are both leads.

George Clooney probably didn't deserve to win for Syriana (as much as I love him), but none of the other performances in that category were fantastic enough to really justify an "omg! How did Clooney beat them?", so I don't know.

I was fine with all the acting winners.

I think Reese had enough screentime to qualify for a lead, and I thought the torture scene with Clooney was excellent and felt his win was deserved.

But then again Jamie Foxx had more screentime in Collateral and Jennifer Connelly had just as much screentime in A Beautiful Mind.

Well, Jamie Foxx was just a campaign by the studio so he could get two nominations and not have to compete with himself. Obviously he was a lead in Collateral.

And, also, I'm pretty sure Reese probably had more screen time than Jennifer Connelly, although Connelly's performance probably could have been considered lead.

The year Connelly won she had more screen time Sissy Spacek who was in the lead category. If they thought Connelyy coudl ahve won lead, they would have pushed for that.

If screen is the sole determining factor, then there needs to be a number, because you're a lead or supporting bsaed upon what awards you can win.

On Jamie Foxx, Hopefully Libs answer will put that one to bed.

How is that any different then placing Connely in supporting because you don't think she can win lead and realizing the led field was lead and pushign Witherspoon for alead performance. Either way its about getting nominatiosn for your film, even if it means makign up the definitions of supporting/lead however you see fit.