Julianne Moore deserves the OSCAR!

[AngelinaJolieLover]

I am so angry with this years best actress catagory. Julianne Moore has won over 17 pre-cursor critics awards (compared to the under 5 total for Renee and Nicole). She has been praised up and down, with reviews that state get the Oscar out for Julianne, however when it comes around for the televised *BIG* awards ceremonies, she loses. (Golden Globes and now SAG). I just don't understand. If you have seen FAR FROM HEAVEN, then you would know that Julianne Moore far surpasses any of those nominated, and any of those not nominated this year. It truely is a remarkable performance. And for those of you saying that Nicole should win, I ask you: Have you seen Far From Heaven? If not, you are unfairly judging the competition. I am not saying Nicole is not good in the Hours, she is great. However I feel her role to be supporting, and for her to be getting a majority of her praise from how un-Nicole she looks (what with the Prosthetic nose and the unfashionable hair and clothing). Simply put, if Kidman were in the supporting race, where I think she belongs, then she should win. And to Renee Zelwegger, who I am currently annoyed with, when she won the SAG I thought: what a disgrace. Chicago is a wonderful movie, but I think we all know Renee is not the strongest thing about it. That would be Catherine Zeta Jones, hell even Queen Latifah was more fun for me to watch than Zelwegger. And to award her the award over Kidman and especially Moore was an insult.

I was just wondering if there is anyone else out there is still rallying for Julianne Moore. We are all allowed differences of opinion, but I find it hard for someone to find me a better performance by a female this year than Julianne's in Far From Heaven.

I still believe she can win the Oscar, but I believe it's an uphill battle. In the end if Moore doesn't get it (first I will be mad and call it the biggest Oscar upset in a long time), I hope to God Kidman does get it over Zelwegger who is the least deserving of all of the nominees.

But Julianne deserves it, hands down.

[Asokan]

Yeah, Julianne deserves it, but then I was more impressed and emotionally involved with Diane Lane's towering performance in the lesser flick UNFAITHFUL.

[ColinM]

I agree that Julianne Moore definitely gave the best lead actress performance of the year and definitely deserves to win. Nicole Kidman, Renee Zellweger and Diane Lane gave excellent performances as well, but Julianne was the best.

[Buck Turgidson]

I agree completely. I've been beating this drum for months now.

The Other and I had a joint prediction that Julianne was going to win the Supporting Actress Category and Nicole Kidman would win Best Actress (the difference being that I was unhappy at this prospect.) It now seems clear that all of Douglas/Jones's shrimp stuffing has won the day, and she's going to be waddling up there first off a week from Sunday. Nicole's date a few hours later w/ the Best Actress award still seems certain.

It took these dildoes years and years to get around to giving Susan Sarandon an award. Julianne seems to be in the same boat.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by AngelinaJolieLover
And for those of you saying that Nicole should win, I ask you: Have you seen Far From Heaven?

Yes, I saw Far From Heaven. Personally, I was not impressed with the movie that much and I don't think it was Julianne's best performance. She was good in it, as always, but she is one of my favorite actresses and her performance in that particular movie doesn't stand out in my mind compared to some of her other ones.

I am rooting for Nicole Kidman to win for The Hours, because I think it's been the strongest performance of her entire career, and she completely transformed herself into the character. There was not a trace of Nicole anywhere in sight when I was watching that performance. I would like it if Julianne Moore won for Best Supporting Actress in The Hours and she deserves to win many more throughout her career.

[flowrchild]

P.S. I agree that Renee Zellwegger winning would be a disgrace. I thought she was by far the weakest part of Chicago and I am pretty perplexed as to why she gets so much praise.

[Tommy Doyle]

Damn rights she does!!! I'll be slightly disappointed if Nicole Kidman wins, but I won't throw myself out a window. (It wouldn't help anyway, my bedroom window is actually at ground level as I sleep in the basement. It would just be a pain in the ass to crawl out of...)

I, for one though, do believe Kidman to be a lead actress for The Hours, just as I believe Moore to be a lead actress for The Hours. Saying she didn't have enough screen time, when she was obviously a leading character doesn't make sense to me. Anthony Hopkins was by far a lead actor, and his role in Silence of the Lambs is one of the smallest to ever take home the Best Actor Trophy. Did he not deserve it because he didn't have as much screen time as Warren Beatty or Nick Nolte or Robin Williams? Hell no.

Nicole was a leading actress no question about it... none... zilch... zip... DON'T ARGUE WITH ME!!!:D;)

However, we're talking about who did a better job, and it's definitely Moore. She deserves it, hands down.

If Zellwegger won... well, I may be in the minority, but I think she did great in Chicago. Yes, she was the weakest link in the chain, but she still did a great job. Not as good as Moore or Kidman...

And my thoughts on Renee winning at the SAGS???? It only goes to help Moore. All the attention has been shifted from Kidman now, and her winning doesn't seem to be such a lock all of the sudden. It only helped Moore's case... not as much as a win might have helped, but still.

[The Other]

Yes, Julianne Moore should win at least one of her Oscars, but she keeps on losing to those Chicago bitches.

And if I have to listen to another one of Renee's acceptance speeches, I'll go insane. At each show (Globes and SAGs) when they call her name she friggin screams at the top of her lungs and then gets up and reads a loooong list of EVERY friggin person who worked on the film. Shut this bitch up already. I just don't like Renee anymore. Yea, be excited, but let's try to contain ourselves and not act like a goddamn fool here!

Even if I don't agree with everyone voting for Zeta-Jones, at least her speeches are nice, reserved and she's humble, not like the Julia Roberts-esque speech by Renee. Honey, you ain't Julia Roberts, so don't act like it! UGH!

[idealdiscountdude]

Julianne Moore sure does deserve the Best Actress Oscar this year for her phenomenal performance in the superb Far From Heaven.

Of her competition in the category, the only actress who comes close (and quite close mind you) to her is Diane Lane for her amazing performance in Unfaithful.

Sadly, the two best female leading performances this year look to be shut out. I'm rooting for Julianne, however I wouldn't mind if Diane won.

It's a shame that Nicole Kidman may take home the Oscar this year for her performance as Virginia Woolf in The HOurs. Don;t get me wrong, I loved the film and she was very good in it however her performance doesn't hold a candle to Julianne or Diane's. I would rather Renee Zellweger win over Nicole. I loved Chicago (Best Film IMO of 2002) and Renee gave a great performance (Zeta-Jones, Latifah, and John C. were far better in Chicago than her though) , better than Nicole IMO, but like Nicole her performance has nothing on those of Julianne and Diane.

I really hope that Oscar voters wake up and smell where the two great leading actress performances lie....in Julianne Moore and to a marginally lesser extent Diane Lane....here's hoping one fo the two can have a surprise win come the 23rd!

[SAI]

Frankly I think Julianne should win BOTH the Oscars she's up for.
She's wonderful in both roles (Far From Heaven in particular and better than all the nominated performances I've seen). That said I won't be too pissed off if Kidman gets best actress she was robbed last year and gave a great performance in The Hours

[Hannibal21]

In my opinion, I thought Julianne Moore and Nicole Kidman in their movies both did EXCELLENT, I can't pick which is better because they were both great. But I must admit that Julianne deserves it this year, as much as I LOVE Nicole Kidman (she's my favorite actress), Julianne needs the oscar. Nicole still has a bright future ahead of her but Julianne has been nominated a couple of times now and if she doesn't win now, who knows when she'll win. :(

I'd be happy if Nicole wins but I will still be disappointed, Julianne should AT LEAST win in the best supporting actress category.

Why does everyone consider Renee Zellweger to be the 'weakest link' in Chicago? I thought she was the best thing in the movie, she deserves the oscar less than Nicole and Julianne but she wasn't bad herself.

[happy OUT here]

Originally posted by flowrchild
P.S. I agree that Renee Zellwegger winning would be a disgrace. I thought she was by far the weakest part of Chicago and I am pretty perplexed as to why she gets so much praise.


I felt it was her film - she walked all over it.



I have never had as tough a time with an Oscar pick.....until this year female lead AND support roles.

[ColinM]

Originally posted by Hannibal21
Why does everyone consider Renee Zellweger to be the 'weakest link' in Chicago? I thought she was the best thing in the movie, she deserves the oscar less than Nicole and Julianne but she wasn't bad herself.

I agree, I thought Renee gave the best performance in Chicago, and that's quite a compliment. I usually agree with The Other, but I couldn't agree less with the acceptance speech problem. I love Renee's genuine excitement, and I don't mind so much her thanking everybody. If I were up there, I'd thank everyone I know, including every single schmoe. ;)

[Trinity]

Julianne’s the only nominee in the Lead Actress Race I haven’t seen yet, and the one I most want to win. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – what in heaven’s name must this woman do to win a major award? All those amazing performances and noms over the years and still no Golden Globe, no Sag, and, of course, no Oscar. The whole thing is getting ridiculous. Actually, wait a minute – it’s already past that point. So nothing could make me happier on Oscar night than a win (or two) for Julianne.
That said, I thought Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger gave amazing performances and are deserving of a win. Zellweger’s been a favorite of mine since Jerry Maguire, and she’s just so damn lovable I don’t see how anyone could be honestly upset if she won.
At the end of the day, I am certain that each of these ladies will have an Oscar within the next three years, it’s only a matter of order they get it in. If Kidman loses this year, she WILL be unstoppable next year (and by that I don’t just mean she will be the heavy favorite, I’m mean the race will be as good as done and you might as well hand her the Oscar for Cold Mountain or Dogville then and there). But I am still predicting her even after the SAG upset, I think it will be Renee and Julianne who’ll have to wait it out for another year (or in Julianne’s case two since she doesn’t seem to have a movie coming out in 2003).
Even though I don’t want Hayek or Lane to win, I think they deserved their nomination spots and a win for either wouldn’t be an outrage (but this is just hypothetical, because it is NOT going to happen).
In the supporting actress category, I liked all of the nominated performances but I’m rooting for either Catherine or Julianne. Of all the fine performances in The Hours, it was Julianne who moved me the most, she was just heartbreaking (than again, Laura Brown was the character I identified with the most when reading the book) and Catherine Zeta Jones not only danced up a storm in Chicago (“I Can’t Do It Alone” is nom worthy in itself), but she had that rare and indefinable “spark” that makes you fall in love with a performance.
So in conclusion, even though I would have no problem with most of these actresses winning, I would have a HUGE problem with Julianne losing twice. Give her something for God’s sake!

[Trinity]

Originally posted by ColinM
I agree, I thought Renee gave the best performance in Chicago, and that's quite a compliment. I usually agree with The Other, but I couldn't agree less with the acceptance speech problem. I love Renee's genuine excitement, and I don't mind so much her thanking everybody. If I were up there, I'd thank everyone I know, including every single schmoe. ;)
The first time I saw Chicago it was definitely Zeta Jones that impressed me the most. And honestly, I wasn’t exactly head over heels with Renee’s performance. There was just something that didn’t feel right there. But having seen it three times now, I have definitely changed my mind. On repeat viewings, when all that razzle dazzle around her settles down, it is she who immerges as the quiet (well, compared to the rest of them) force at the center that really holds that film together. I think it was only my larger than life of expectations form the movie and from Renee herself (since I believe her to be a brilliant actress) that prevented me from seeing this the first time around. Now, Roxie may not be the most “complex” character, but that does not mean she any easier to play than the more realistic or dramatic roles. There was a lot Zellweger had to do there, and I’m not just talking about the singing and the dancing either. She had to play an unscrupulous spotlight-craving murderess and make her lovable. She did it. She had to play the whole range from naïve (first scenes in jail) to manipulating (first “fainting”) to sultry seductress (first part of “Funny Honey”, “Roxie”), from desperation (the shooting scene) to exhilaration (when Billy explains the “strategy” and asks her about her background). And in doing it she had to walk a very fine line – Roxie had to be believable, i.e. not turn into a caricature, but still NOT be entirely realistic – we had to care for her, sympathize with her, but most of all be entertained by her. Imo, she did it all to perfection.

As far her acceptance speeches go, I really couldn't say, since i've seen neither the SAGs or the Globes, but since I'm be one of the very few who actually loved that whole Julia Roberts "I love the world" thing, that many are comparing her reactions to, and since I cannot fathom being even remotely annoyed by anything Renee raleted - I hope she does it again if she wins the Oscar.

[Mad Maggot]

Originally posted by Asokan
Yeah, Julianne deserves it, but then I was more impressed and emotionally involved with Diane Lane's towering performance in the lesser flick UNFAITHFUL.

Same here! Julianne deserves it, but Diane deserves it more!!! :P

[Nate6]

God, all of this Chicago-bashing is making me love the movie even more! I almost hope it wins Best Picture just to hear you guys bitch, whine, and complain about it.

I'm going to agree with Trinity, you guys aren't giving Renee enough credit for her amazing work. It's not easy to star in a big musical, trust me. Just because her character wasn't conflicted and depressed doesn't mean that she didn't do a terrific job. She developed and owned her character, and had the balls to do all the dancing and singing herself. You try and do that, it's harder than it looks...

As for Julianne Moore, well, I haven't seen the movie so I don't know. I haven't seen The Hours either, and I'm quickly losing interest in it (Time Magazine called it extremely pretentious and the worst movie of the year, and several pundits have been complaining about all the awards it's been getting).

[AngelinaJolieLover]

I am not saying I hate the movie Chicago ... I love it! Out of the nominees for Best Picture, I hope it does win, because I like it. However, Renee Zelwegger does not deserve the Oscar. Acting is NOT dancing, acting is NOT singing. They can be additions to the bigger picture, but let's face it. Strip down the acting and the singing, what kind of performance is Zelwegger's in comparison to any of the other nominated women. It simply isn't good enough. Zelwegger is least deserving to win, in my book. Chicago is great, but Renee's whiny voice and overplaying drains on me, since I see it in every film she's in. And in the final scene of Chicago if you compare and contrast Zelwegger to Catherine Zeta Jones, Renee looks completely lost. She looks goofy dancing next to Zelwegger, she looks funny. Wrong. NO, this woman does not deserve the Oscar.

Julianne Moore on the other hand ... amazing.

[Nate6]

Originally posted by AngelinaJolieLover
Acting is NOT dancing, acting is NOT singing.

Actually, in a musical, acting is all of those things. That's the point to the musical, you act through dancing and singing. Now, if you don't think she did the best job, that's your opinion. But I think the terrific work she did deserves at least some notice...

[boo]

Originally posted by Mad Maggot
Same here! Julianne deserves it, but Diane deserves it more!!! :P

not really... Diane was great but its just that Julianne has deserved it SOOO many times but they always give it to someone else.. someone far lest talented than she is :( :mad:

If she loses i'd rather she lost to Diane or Renee cause at least they gave great performances. Nicoles performance in the hours did nothing for me.. she wore a fake nose.. big deal :mad: Julianne, Meryl and Ed Harris all gave much better performances in that film. Also Nicole didn't get any more screen time than Julianne so i have no idea why Nicole was nominated for lead performance in the first place when Julianne was nominated in the supporting category

Julianne>>Diane>Renee>>>>>>>Nicole

Haven't seen Frida yet so i can't really comment on Salma's performance.

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Nate6
Actually, in a musical, acting is all of those things. That's the point to the musical, you act through dancing and singing.

Exactly. Honestly, it's like some people think you can't do these thing all at once, but can only "turn on" the acting in between the song and dance numbers. You have to ACT the songs, it wouldn't work any other way. Otherwise it'd be just like you inserted five minute music numbers into the movie and put that all the rest of it on hold till they play out.

And what's with all this "Zellweger/Zeta-Jones was great in Chicago, but take away the dancing and the singing, and there's not much left there, hence they don't deserve to win the Oscar." Last time I checked, this category was called "Best PERFORMANCE by an actress". If the movie in question is a musical, as is the case here, than singing and dancing are an integral part of that performance. We think comedic performances have it bad come award time, but it seems there's an even bigger bias when it comes to musicals.

[ColinM]

Originally posted by Nate6
Actually, in a musical, acting is all of those things. That's the point to the musical, you act through dancing and singing.

Thank you Nate! I want to buy you a round now... :D

[Damned Martian]

1) Julianne deserves ALL the oscars she is/was/will be nominated for (and not nominated too)

2) Julianne deserves both nominations and deserves both oscars

3) Nicole must have been nominated for supporting, being the second best supporting acting of the year (behind Julianne's the hours)

4) Renee deserves her nomination, and she's not the weakest thing in Chicago (in case that chicago could have any weakness)

5) Julianne probably will win for best supporting OR best actress, because
*all those who vote Nicole will think "let's vote Julianne for supporting, as she has done it really well this year too"
*most of those who vote other than Julianne in supporting will think the same with the main category

6) This could drive to 4 possible solutions (from most probable to less):
a) Supporting Oscar
b) Main Oscar
c) No Oscar
d) 2 Oscar (fingers crossed) - which I really think is more probable than in other years due to what I've said before.

IMO, Academy owe her the oscar for Boogie Nights (that year they had to give it to a weaker performance - Kim Basinger in LA Confidential - due to her "resurrection", which they like a lot)

:rolleyes:

[Damned Martian]

And I honestly think that Chicago deserves all the oscars it would win (except those who must be for Julianne, but if she weren't nominated for them, then it would deserve them too)

[urbanlegend23]

I agree! I would love for Julianne to win and I hope she wins the Oscar! But Renee was also excellent and the second best actress of the year, so her winning would be awesome too! Diane Lane greatly deserves her nomination but will not win and doesn't deserve to (well - over Julianne/Renee competition, I don't think she does) but she was bloody fucking brilliant and I'm so happy she is getting the attention she deserves.

I haven't seen Nicole's performance yet but I'm sure it's excellent. I think she will win over the other 4 nominees.

[Sad man]

Fuck!...I can´t wait to see Far From Heaven.I have to wait until April to see it(Fucking Argentinian release dates!).
But, I think that Nicole Kidman have the best performance of the year and that she trully deserves the BEST ACTRESS award.
It´s like this:
1.Nicole
2.Julianne(I know she´s going to be great)
3.Renée
4.Diane
5.Salma(Why is she here?...I think that Jennifer Aniston was better...)

Julianne Moore deserves the BEST SUPPORTING ROLE awars without doubt.She was GREAT too.Even better than Meryl Streep in the also superb Adaptation.
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Queen Latifah were also nice, but Moore and Streep were better.

Hopefully Julianne will get at least one award.

[SAI]

I know that in the past Sigourney Weaver and Holly Hunter have been nominated twice on the same Oscar night. It would give us an insight into Julianne's chances come 23/3 if someone knows whether eiether of them walked off with one of the awards on the night (I'm afraid I can't remember).

As I've said before (and shall probably be screaming at the TV come the ceremony) Julianne deserves all the accolades coming her way this year and, particularly given the outrageous snub she suffered for Boogie Nights, it is high time the Academy rewarded her.

[Buck Turgidson]

Jessica Lange had a double nomination for 1982: Supporting for Tootsie, which she won, and Best Actress for Frances, (the best work of her brilliant career, but unfortunately for her, up against the best performance ever captured on film, Meryl's work in Sophie's Choice.)

So she went 1 for 2, which is the best I think Julianne can hope for, and since the Great Buffett, I think she's SOL for either.

This might be the year that really does it for me, the year I say "Fuck 'em" and mean it.

[The Other]

Julianne Moore is the 9th person in Oscar history to recieve double nominations. Only two times has a person gone home empty-handed.

The first was Sigourney Weaver who was nominated for Best Actress for 1988s Gorilla's in the Mist and Supporting Actress for 1988s Working Girl. She lost both, but I think it was because there was confusion over which film to vote for her. She had won both Golden Globes that year for both films. That only muddied the race. She was more favored to win for Working Girl, which was a scene-stealing perf. at its best. There is no justification for Weaver not winning one of those.

The second was Emma Thompson who was nominated for 1993's The Remains of the Day (Best Actress) and In the Name of the Father (Supporting Actress), however Thompson had just won Best Actress the year before for Howard's End, so there was no rush to award her again only one year later. So it's no big deal, only Weaver was screwed. It looks as though Julianne Moore will be as well.

[Damned Martian]

Originally posted by Sad man
Fuck!...I can´t wait to see Far From Heaven.I have to wait until April to see it(Fucking Argentinian release dates!).
But, I think that Nicole Kidman have the best performance of the year and that she trully deserves the BEST ACTRESS award.
It´s like this:
1.Nicole
2.Julianne(I know she´s going to be great)
3.Renée
4.Diane
5.Salma(Why is she here?...I think that Jennifer Aniston was better...)

Julianne Moore deserves the BEST SUPPORTING ROLE awars without doubt.She was GREAT too.Even better than Meryl Streep in the also superb Adaptation.
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Queen Latifah were also nice, but Moore and Streep were better.

Hopefully Julianne will get at least one award.

IMO Far From Heaven was far from a masterpiece, it was just an interesting film, but she's amazing. But I also think her best performance of the year was in The Hours (which I think is THE best performance of the year), so I wouldn't mind if she only gets that. Well, at least I don't mind MUCH.;)

[Damned Martian]

According to this page (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/features/2003oscarrace.html), Julianne has little chances to win in any category. Well, they can suck my balls (and Academy too if it finally is true!)

[Damned Martian]

As tonight is Oscar night, i consider that i have to bump this thread just to say:

JULIANNE FOR OSCAR!!!

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
The Other and I had a joint prediction that Julianne was going to win the Supporting Actress Category and Nicole Kidman would win Best Actress (the difference being that I was unhappy at this prospect.) It now seems clear that all of Douglas/Jones's shrimp stuffing has won the day, and she's going to be waddling up there first off a week from Sunday. Nicole's date a few hours later w/ the Best Actress award still seems certain.


I hate being right.