Mirren won for playing Lizzie the Second, but who do you think should have won?
Poll didn't work
M, The Devil Wears Prada
Penelope Cruz, Volver
Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal
Kate Winslet, Little Children
Helen Mirren, The Queen.
The poll didn't work because this question has been asked and answered before, OP.
cruz in volver was the best from that list if you ask me. by something of a margin too. really not into those other nominated performances at all. some i like that year of course not nominated, maggie gyllenhaal-sherrybaby, sarah polly-the secret life of words, sook-yin lee in shortbus
Judi Dench was the best of the five nominees that year. Mirren was probably the weakest.
judi dench, that was some funny shit but why even try and bring oscars into that. meryl, supporting and as mannered/affected as ever. winslet, that movie was hella hard to like and i dont like her when she plays a bitch anyway. mirren sucked, so boring anyone could conceivably play a frigid old cunt if you ask me. penelope cruz it is. shitty year for actresses, only 98 is worse in recent years.. emily watson, blanchett, fuckin gwyeth?! gaggle of ugly cunts that year
Duh? Of course M is deserving, every single year!
I wanna say Kate Winslet, but getting fucked by Patrick Wilson was probably award enough.
I like Mirren, but am not fond of her Queen at all. That said, it would be difficult not to award her even if it did nothing for me. I can't believe she beat Marion at the European Film Awards though, but I suppose if they didn't award her they would be seen as rubbishing the Oscars.
Cruz probably is best but I'm one of the few who wasn't blown away by Volver.
M also could have gotten it here, one place to reward her after some last snubs.
Dench no, much as I'd love to see her get another and in lead. And while I love the film, Little Children is among the weaker Winslets.
[quote]The poll didn't work because this question has been asked and answered before, OP.
What were the results then? I wouldn't mind more of these.
That was a weak year to me, I thought he meant the La Vie year which was very strong but seems too easy.
Ones I find interesting include: 2002 actor (The Pianist), 2005 actor (Capote), 2004 actress (Million Dollar Baby).
Dench gave an incredible performance, unlike anything else she has done and had to deliver someof the most insane dialogue you've ever heard. The zeitgeist was with Dame Helen, particularly for a first time win.
She was getting every award that year and it still holds up nicely.
Dench though was magnificant in a very different role for her.
Of course Mirren should have won. It is a brilliant, nuanced performance, something that obviously went right over your head, OP.
Any of them would have been fine by me. That is an exceptional group.
Meryl Streep! Always.
She should have had at least five by now.
R13, wow you're awfully defensive. OP never even said he disagreed with Mirren's win.
[quote]She should have had at least five by now.
r17 I didn't say five, I said AT LEAST five. Because she's that good. Sandra Bullock... Was it a joke?
Mirren should have won and did. Her restraint and intelligence were amazing to watch.
I'd pay to watch Dench cross a street with no traffic, and give her an award just for picking up her newspaper in the morning. But I think Mirren deserved to win. The others, please. Streep was fun but it was a supporting role. Winslet was too messy and out-of-control. Cruz was completely outmatched and got the nomination because of politics.
I would've voted for Dame Judi. She was fabulous, and she had only won one rinky-dink supporting Oscar. The broad deserves more.
It should be mentioned that Mirren swept all major four critics awards. LA & NY, plus National Review and Society of Critics.
It was kinda boring as a year for that reason, Whitaker did much the same didn't he?
Penelope Cruz gave a fantastic, soulful performance and certainly deserved a nomination.