Rank best actress winner from 2000's

What a horrible list!

Didn't Nicole Kidman win for "The Hours" ?

R2 Sorry, you are right. I confused the film with the character she plays.

I still can't believe Hillary Swank has two Oscars.

Precious.

Is this person Chinese?

R1 Is chronollogicaly ordered, not by my preferences.

Roberts - probably her best performance but Burstyn definitely should've won

Berry - she got the Oscar because she showed her tits

Kidman - Horrible win. People felt sorry because Tom just dumped her.

Theron - Fantastic

Swank - Meh. Staunton or Winslet should've won. Also, She got bit by the Oscar curse.

Witherspoon - Horrible win. Felony Huffman should've won.

Mirren - Meh. Cruz or Dench should've won.

Cotillard - Fantastic

Winslet - Lazy, Oscar bait win. She's borderline supporting. Leo should've won.

Bullock - what a fucking joke. A mediocre southern accent is clearly all that's needed to get an Oscar. Every other nominee in the category was better than her.

Miss Julia threw her tits and ass around while Burstyn threw around the crazy. Tits and ass tend to win that fight in Hollywood.

Almost every performance on that list sucks. Burstyn definitely should have won over Julia. And I thought Kidman won for the hours just because she wore that fake nose.

Ugh, the 2000s were such an awful decade for movies. Just reading this list makes me glad they’re over.

Marian Cotillard gave one of the greatest performances in Oscar history. So she's definitely no. 1

10Bullock

9Roberts

8Witherspoon

7Swank

6Kidman

5Berry

4Winslet

3Mirren

2Cotillard

1Theron

Leo is NOT in the movie that Kate Winslet won her Oscar.

Cotillard, Winslet, Mirren and Theron were all excellent.

R14: I meant Melissa Leo. She was nominated for Frozen River that year.

I agree with r15, and I would rank them as follows:

1. Cotillard

2. Mirren

3. Winslet

4. Theron.

Swank was fine, but not very interesting (especially when compared to her work in "Boys Don;'t Cry").

Witherspoon was also fine, but it was a colorless role.

Kidman gave a good performance as an inttelligent person suffering from mental illness, excepting it was almost nothing like the real Virginia Woolf, and she was insanely miscast in the part (she later admitted she hadn't read a single work by Virginia Woolf, even for the part). She won the award almost entirely because she wore a putty nose. The only really great performance in that film was Julianne Moore's.

Roberts's and Bullock's Oscars are embarrassments. they won because their characters embodied virtues the Academy approves of and because they were once big box office stars and had yet to be honored. Their awards are the equivalents of Joan Crawford's for "Mildred Pierce" and Loretta Young's for "The Farmer's Daughter" in the 1940s.

Kidman made the right decision to not read any of Virginia Woolf's torturous writing. Ugh, that woman needed a fucking Prozac.

1) Cotillard - the others aren't even in the same league

2) Theron - a a very fine performance

3)Swank - I can't stand her and blown away she can have two Oscars but honestly she somehow managed to find the two parts she was absolutely meant to play. She's terrible in everything else.

4)Roberts - nasty cunt that she is it was a good performance. Burstyn should have won but it was a dazzling star turn.

5)Mirren - I thought the movie was incredibly low quality so she often seemed to be acting in a BBC TV movie. She was good. But I didn't buy a truly great performance.

6)Berry - at least she took a chance in what was an otherwise trashy wannabe performance by someone beautiful. This awards belongs to Sissy Spacek

7)Winslet - good deserving actress in a supporting performance not even close to her best. The movie was awful too so that didn't help. The young actor was wonderful and mopped the floor with Kate. Leo was devestating and deserved the award.

8)Kidman - another supporting performance I felt. And she did nothing interesting but plop on a nose and stare with a stern hard look in every scene.

9)Witherspoon - yet another I consider a supporting performance. The movie was not about her nor did she drive the story. A JLaw Silverlings type nonsense.

10)Bullock - this is not an Oscar performance in any way. A Disney Erin Brockovich knock off. The movie is absurdly awful for starters. But she was dreadful. The movie hit on all marks with audiences being football, Disney and a great white hope.

I mostly agree with you, r19, except about Winslet. I thought she was mesmerizing in that Nazi movie and played it exactly right. She was deserving.

I agree with R15 and R17 with the exception of Winslet. When she is good, she is great. When she is bad (think Titanic) - she is really dull to say the least. IMO, this was neither a great role or great performance from Kate.

Sorry - neither/nor..

I think we all agree that Cotillard was magnificent.

1. Mirren

2. Winslet

3. Cotillard

4. Theron

5. Berry

6. Kidman

7. Bullock

8. Witherspoon

9. Roberts

10. Swank

R8 if Kidman’s win were because “people felt sorry that Cruise just dumped her,” she would have won for Moulin Rouge!

Julianne Moore gave the outstanding performance in The Hours. She should have won for that movie, but the powers that be somehow decided that Kidman should win.

No way was Mirren better than Cotillard. Mirren was good, very good, but it is not one of the greatest Best Actress performances. Not one for the ages like Cotillard is.