Harvey is buying the Best Actress Oscar for Lawrence, isn't he? How depressing. It's an ok performance, but Emmanuelle Riva and Naomi Watts are superior, as are the un-nominated Marion Cotillard and Rachel Weisz.
Jennifer Lawrence is an amazingly talented actress who gave a brilliant performance in her first oscar nominated role and is now nominated for an oscar for a very good performance.
Gwyneth Paltrow is a decent enough actress capable of very good work who won an oscar for her first academy award nominated performance in a very good movie in which she gave a mediocre performance. She was nominated against a great actress, Cate Blanchett, giving one of the most exciting film performances of the last quarter century. Inexplicably, Paltrow won.
So, no, they are nothing alike.
There was something strange about Weinstein's reaction to both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence winning those awards on Sunday. He was very cold toward both of them and looked like he was going to catch cooties from Jennifer when she leaned in for the hug after her name was announced for SLP. Bradley also had an awkward hug with him. Anyone know what's up with that?
Ms. Lawrence comes across as a teenaged airhead in her Vanity Fair cover-interview.
A clueless twit who got incredibly lucky.
Jessica Chastain was posed and lovely. I bet she got a lot of votes.
Oh good, another thread about poisonous envy.
[quote]There was something strange about Weinstein's reaction to both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence winning those awards on Sunday
The first time they won (for ensemble cast) Harvey kind of wandered up to them from nowhere and stood there awkwardly hugging and delaying them from going to the stage. A couple of the other early winners took a long time to get to the stage also. Usually at award shows they start announcing in the commercials that winners need to not spend too much time hugging people and hurry up to the stage for time and also because it is boring for viewers when everyone just stands there receiving congratulations. They may have been following those rules (or Harvey had a few drinks.)
Okay, someone explain to me how Harvey Weinstein can "buy" Oscars, please? There are thousands of voters in the AMPAS, too many to bribe with favors or reasonable amounts of money. Bribing a majority of them could cost more than he'd ever gain by it, particularly as many of them are successful enough to sneer at small bribes.
Honestly, I think Weinstein got lucky years ago, and the rest of his reputation for buying Oscars is all spin and lies.
I agree r7. Weinstein just got that rep when Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. People said it was because of all the radio/tv ads and flyers and stuff he sent to people.
Warren Beatty actually somehow figured out that more money had been spent on SPR than Weinstein spent promoting Shakespeare. Spielberg was pretty angry at losing and he was the one who started saying Harvey buys the awards.
(BTW Spielberg is personally calling academy members this year asking for votes.)
What did she do to win all of this year's awards?
Spielberg seems to be a real sourpuss so R8's post wouldn't surprise me.
I haven't seen her in anything besides her X-MEN movie. She seems charming enough offscreen. I think she's got the Oscar at least for making a lot of money for Hollywood Then she shows up in something critically acclaimed, so she's given a 'gratitude' Oscar. Julia Roberts has one of those. They usually wait until the star has a few blockbusters under their belt though.
[quote]Ms. Lawrence comes across as a teenaged airhead in her Vanity Fair cover-interview.
[quote]A clueless twit who got incredibly lucky.
I know it's an unpopular opinion here on DataLounge, but I dislike Lawrence more than Hathaway. I've come to find Paltrow amusing.
I just saw Rachel Weisz in The Deep Blue Sea - mesmerizing performance. She was the whole movie. I am surprised she was not nominated. However, I thought Lawrence's Oscar was well-deserved as it would have been by either Riva or Watts. Lots of good actresses this year.
If anyone was ever set up for a too-much-too-soon fall, it's Lawrence.
I really hope she makes a decent long-lasting career for herself, but what are the odds.
Her performance in Winter's Bone is one of the best ever.
It turns my stomach that she has an Oscar
I am hoping Jennifer Lawrence takes acting seriously. Gwyneth has done Iron Man and seems more interested in developing her brand. Jessica Chastain is 36 and is probably pissed that she lost. Very hard to win an Oscar.
You do know that it is a producers job to promote his movie. HW is not "buying Jennifer anything. HE IS DOING HIS JOB. He is doing his job the same way Mayer, Warner, Cohn, Goldwyn, and Disney did their jobs.
17......"very hard to win an oscar"....seriously ?
How do you explain Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock and a few other recent winners ?
Im not saying the performances werent good, but they werent oscar worthy considering the women they were up against.
Reese Witherspoon shouldn't have been nominated, let alone win. (Felicity Huffman was robbed)
Sandra Bullock only won because people like her.
Jennifer Lawrence won because she gave a stellar performance and is. Great actress. (Was rooting for Riva, but JL was a worthy second)
It has been very hard for Glenn Close, Michelle Pfeiffer, Naomi Watts, Jessica Chastain or Sigourney Weaver to win an Oscar. It takes a lot of sucking up and campaigning.
[quote]How do you explain Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock and a few other recent winners ?
Their years and the competition at the time. Sometimes there isn't a clear cut knockout winner performance that they'd have no choice to go with (like Cotillard even though she was foreign language).
04 had a great field, but yet they went with the inferior MDB cause that was the only one that screamed Oscar and realistic winner. The same happened with Witheredpoon, an incredibly weak year so they just took the chance to award the Hollywood It girl and American sweetheart - also she had the snubbed Election under her belt.
Sandy Bullock was also awarded for her contributions and box office just like Julia Roberts, as she was in a split year with no realistic winners. Streep was the major competition but the film was a fluffy romcom, and way inferior to Prada where she really elevated it. If J&J had more dramatic moments and more of a straight biopic focused on Julia instead of that annoying bitch, Meryl would be far and away the winner. The Iron Lady had all the ingredients and even constant screentime for her to win.
Otherwise they weren't gonna give it to Gabby Sidibe who clearly was a one off but in a different way to Mo'Nique, despite perhaps being the best of all. Mulligan was great but that performance didn't scream Oscar.
The exception to this is Paltrow, the weakest link but lost to Blanchett which clearly was genuine winning material.
Jennifer Lawrence is the antithesis of the snooty, Spence educated, born with a silver spoon in her mouth, Paltrow.
R23 You forgot skinny
Completely agree with R11, R12, and R16. She's incredibly immature and not that great of an actress. I don't get the hype.
I thought she was perfectly adequate in Winter's Bone. In the X-Men film she barely registers.
Jennifer Lawrence was completely underwhelming. I have seen better acting in JuCo summer stock productions.
[quote]Jennifer Lawrence is the antithesis of the snooty, Spence educated, born with a silver spoon in her mouth, Paltrow.
I wouldn't care if Paltrow was snooty and pretentious and all else she is, if she was actually deserving of her Oscar win - but, she wasn't. Lawrence isn't deserving of hers either.
[quote] I don't get the hype.
That's just it, hype is all it is.