Why isn't she getting more Oscar Buzz! Why! She's earned it after Mulholland and King Kong!!! Those newbies Chastain and Lawrence are too fresh for Best Actress...they need to ripen
It's because The Impossible hasn't started screening yet. It's a big mistake that other films have made before. Get the buzz going from industry screenings by Dec 1, or it's going to be three times as hard.
Wasn't there a Clint Eastwood movie about the same topic withmMatt Damon?
Even more upsetting is the fact that a 6 year old child is being taken seriously as a potential Best Actress nominee. Ahead of Naomi Watts, Rachel Weisz, Helen Mirren, Michelle Williams and many others. That's just repulsive.
We've been waiting for Naomi to happen for decades now. She's 44. She's worked steadily but never, ever connected with audiences in any significant way. She's pretty. She's not a terrible actress. But she will never be a star.
That "6 year old child" gave one of the best performances of the year.
She's playing Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe in different movies. Seems kind of desperate.
[quote]We've been waiting for Naomi to happen for decades now. She's 44. She's worked steadily but never, ever connected with audiences in any significant way. She's pretty. She's not a terrible actress. But she will never be a star.
Well, its an acting award not a star award r4....if it was Kim Kardashian would win it.
a 6 year old can't give a performance....they just do what you tell them to
Watts did well in Mullholand Dr. That`s about it
[quote]a 6 year old can't give a performance....they just do what you tell them to
Some of them just won't listen.
at least she is thin....not like fat ass Jennifer Lawrence
I thought it was a boy that gives the best performance
She was good in Mulholland and The Painted Veil.
She was also fantastic in 21 Grams.
Naomi is a superb actress, and gorgeous to boot. I saw her out with Liev Schreiber at Shakespeare in the Park this past summer and she was stunning. (They look like a comedy routine together because she's so tiny and he's so tall (6'3") and strapping.)
She's the worst actress on the planet. It should be illegal for her to be cast in anything. Always forced, stiff and phony. And those rabbit teeth. Yuck.
You'd think she would have enough self-esteem to send her boyfriend's cheating add out to the curb.
The Ring was possibly the best horror movie of the late 90s, certainly in the top 5. The sequel, which Naomi also starred in, was mediocre but not terrible.
Correction, The Ring was 2002. Ok so it was one of the best of the early 00s.
Mulholland Drive, The Painted Veil, 21 Grams, Fair Game, You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger (one of the best performances in a Woody Allen film ever, and that's saying something).
She's a very good actress.
And of course she's a star. That's why we're discussing her.
The problem is for likely oscar contention a movie almost has to be screened in a two week period,not earlier, not later.
which is crazy.
If you think that 6 year old child gave one of the best performances of the year, there's something seriously wrong with you. She was playing herself -- the writer/director admitted that he re-wrote the script to make it fit her personality after seeing her audition. How, exactly, is that acting? It's not. It's playing in front of a camera.
I saw a screening of 'The Impossible.'
I don't know... it's a disaster movie. She's mostly looking terrified or in pain. Amazing special effects for the tsunami. But really can't imagine it for Best Actress.
Time magazine put Wallis on the list of best performances of the year, second only to the couple in Amour. She is also featured on the NYT website in one of those videos they make every year with the actors who gave the best acting performances of the year. Tons of critics have praised Wallis and the director. She got and Independent Spirit nomination. Is there something wrong with all of them?
Who cares if she was 6 years? The end result was wonderful and effective, that's what matters.
Victoire Thivisol was five years old when she won the Volpi Cup for best actress at the Venice film festival for Ponette, a performance that ranks higher than a pretty large number of recent oscar winners, and much better than iconic performances by Naomi Watts like Le Divorce, King Kong, Ned Kelly and of course, Tank Girl.
r23, yes there is something wrong with all of them for placing that amatuerish performance so high. Hell, even Lindsay Lohan gave a better, more nuanced performance as Elizabeth Taylor.
She's not getting more oscar buzz because the film is a latecomer (even though it's only 12/10, which is ridiculous) and though many insist otherwise, the field is actually not that small with Chastain, Lawrence, and Riva all but guaranteed nods and with several others potential nominees.
I like Watts and thought she was quite good in KING KONG but her performance got lost in the hype.
And it sounds like she's going to have the same problem with this new film that happened with THE PAINTED VEIL. She was great in that but it came out too late in the year and there was no time to push it for awards. Edward Norton was sexy in that too. Earlier Oscars mean more shut-outs.
Let's face it, it's being released by Summit - and the only films they can promote are those shitastic "Twilight" movies.
Summit released The Hurt Locker and that won BP.
Wallis was playing herself?
first of all, this "she was playing herself" meme is ridiculous. It is not easy for an actor to play him or herself. The best actors know how to use themselves. Some of the greatest screen performers of all time continually played a version of themself.
Wallis, if she is playing a form of herself, certainly has never experienced the situations or committed to the actions she does in Beasts. If she does so creditably - as almost everyone agrees - it is an achievement for an actor of any age, all the moreso for a small child, not less so.
Has anybody seen this movie?
Becuase she played the exact same spunky, woman-in-jeopardy role in King Kong and she was annoying in that and non Oscar-nominated.
Watts is an Oscar contender!
Watts is most likely going to get nominated. She's with Marion Cotillard in the space behind Lawrence and Chastain, but in front of Wallis and Riva.
[quote]Has anybody seen this movie?
I just got home from it and looked for a thread. It was terrific- exciting, gripping, sad, thrilling and heart-warming. It will get some Oscars definitely for technical achievement. Maybe score.
She was good but the kid who lay her oldest son, Tom Holland, is great.
Watts is not a great actress in anything I've ever seen.
The mixed opinions on Watts are fascinating. I just saw The Impossible and thought she was very good but perhaps should have been nominated as supporting actress, since she was out of the picture for quite a bit. The oldest son was excellent. I wish they had a 'junior' oscar category for children. I'm sure there would be at least five worthy performances each year.
She spends almost half the film lying in bed with an oxygen mask over her face. Great acting that is not.
r38, and she was expressing immense emotion at the same time. Great acting that certainly is.
There's some controversy surrounding this film because the real-life family that it's based on is actually Spanish and not British and the film focuses on the plight of a white family to survive the Tsunami when over 200,000 Asians were killed in the disaster.
r40, it's worth noting that The Impossible is actually a Spanish production -- Spanish director, cinematographer, editor, etc., etc. They made a conscious decision to cast Northern European-ethnic actors because: a) they wanted stars that could sell the film in the United States and b) I suspect that they're making a commentary about the haves and have-nots, and, true or not, people tend to perceive white folks as the haves and darker-skinned people as the have-nots. The movie is already critical of itself in this regard.
Thanks for that info #41. I didn't know that.
She's earned it after King Kong??? WTF???
She earned it with Mulholland Dr. King Kong was a largely negligible film, but Watts was excellent, really the best thing aside from the f/x.
[quote]She's earned it after King Kong??? WTF???
At the time the critical response was that Watts was the saving grace of a majorly disappointing film. She was credited with giving a genuinely moving performance and having more chemistry with the mechanical ape than she did with the distracted looking Adrian Brody.
She was asked to present on the telecast that year along with other people who'd been overlooked for the award.
read up on it r43.
Ripen? How nasty.
Riva should win. Period. These others are parvenu.
She spends most of the film immobile under a gas mask and 10 lbs of makeup that cause her to resemble a wedge of cheese that has been left to mould for a good 6 months.
Any gossip about her and Liev Schriebner? He cheats on her constantly?
Just got back from seeing this. Ewan McGregor has aged nicely. I think he's much better-looking now that his face has filled out a bit.
On a less shallow note: I enjoyed the movie for the most part, although I thought the music was somewhat overbearing in parts. The sound was incredible, and the young actor (Tom Holland) who plays the eldest son was outstanding. But the best part was the re-creation of the tsunami and its aftereffects. As someone mentioned upthread, this is a Spanish production, and I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the effects, the overall production design, etc.
Watts is great in The Impossible but I was really disappointed that Marion Cotillard wasn't nominated as she gave the best female performance of the year.
I like Jennifer Lawrence but Silver Linings Playbook is overrated and Lawrence was better in Winters Bone.
R52 I agree. Her performance in Rust and Bone was excellent.
Was there CGI on Geraldine's face or are those her own wrinkles?
[quote] Why isn't she getting more Oscar Buzz! Why! She's earned it after Mulholland and King Kong!!! Those newbies Chastain and Lawrence are too fresh for Best Actress...they need to ripen
well, Naomi isn't playing the game. Lawrence and Chastain are everywhere. They constantly give interviews and go to lots of events. Naomi is a very private person. Liev would leave her if she pandered to the press
"Liev would leave her if she pandered to the press"
Tom Holland's performance was the only reason to see "The Impossible".
[quote]well, Naomi isn't playing the game. Lawrence and Chastain are everywhere. They constantly give interviews and go to lots of events. Naomi is a very private person. Liev would leave her if she pandered to the press
Her pictures have constantly been on JustJared. Both 'candids' with her, Liev and her kids and tons of her at different Hollywood events. She's not sitting home.
But her film received no buzz and hasn't been much of a moneymaker in the US.
For some reason, The Impossible played at a lot of art circuit theaters. What, they couldn't take the subtlety at the multiplex?
[quote]She spends almost half the film lying in bed with an oxygen mask over her face. Great acting that is not.
Riva spends most of her movie as a vegetable and everyone's praising her to high heaven. Even won the BAFTA over the weekend, in fact. Trintignant owned the movie and actually had something to do. But for some reason, men are judged tougher. A woman can give a mediocre performance and still get nominated, while a man really has to impress. Also, it's harder for young actors to be nominated.
In the past 10 years only Heath Ledger (26), Ryan Gosling (26), and Jesse Eisenberg (27) were nominated for Best Actor. As for Best Actress, since 2003 you have Quvenzhané Wallis (9), Jennifer Lawrence (twice, at 20 and 22), Natalie Portman (29), Gabourey Sidibe (26), Carey Mulligan (24), Anne Hathaway (26), Ellen Page (20), Keira Knightley (20), Reese Witherspoon (29), Kate Winslet (29), Catalina Sandino Moreno (23), Keisha Castle-Hughes (13), Charlize Theron (28), and Samantha Morton (26).
[quote]They made a conscious decision to cast Northern European-ethnic actors because: a) they wanted stars that could sell the film in the United States
That did a world of good. It's only grossed $16 million in the US, while its foreign gross is $138 million.
Can some tell me what was so good about Riva? She spent most of the film in a vegetative state. Really not that much different from Naomi Watts' performance. It was Riva's co-star Trintignant who carried the film, just like Tom HOlland carried his. If Holland had been female, he'd probably have gotten a nomination, no question, but it's almost near impossible for a young actor to get nominated. Male actors are held at a different standard. A woman/girl can give a mediocre performance and get nominated, while an actor really has to impress.
For instance, in the past 10 years only Heath Ledger (26), Ryan Gosling (26), and Jesse Eisenberg (27) were the only twentysomethings nominated for Best Actor. As for Best Actress, since 2003 you have Quvenzhané Wallis (9), Jennifer Lawrence (twice, at 20 and 22), Natalie Portman (29), Gabourey Sidibe (26), Carey Mulligan (24), Anne Hathaway (26), Ellen Page (20), Keira Knightley (20), Reese Witherspoon (29), Kate Winslet (29), Catalina Sandino Moreno (23), Keisha Castle-Hughes (13), Charlize Theron (28), and Samantha Morton (26). That's 12 twentysomething actors, one teen, and a tween (15 if you count Lawrence's second nomination.)
Wallis is okay. That's all.
I just realized I posted the same thing twice in this thread. :-/
r60 is correct. Tritignant MADE "Amour" the great film it is and is far more deserving of an Oscar nomination than Riva.