@@kidmclainunfortunately, she would have never gotten it. Gone girl put off a lot of Oscar voters (who probably saw themselves as Nick). They didn’t acknowledge its screenplay and I wouldn’t be surprised if she was like the 3rd choice because of it
You obviously forgot Judi Dench who won for a cameo performance in a worst best picture winner instead for her masterful performance in either Notes on A Scandal or Philomena. It's beyond criminal that her only Oscar win to date is for that performance.
Personally, I thought Judi Dench was excellent in Shakespeare in Love, worthy of her nomination. I would have picked Kathy Bates for the win, but also the quality of the movie she was in is not what it's about. It's not "Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Good Film" (whatever the hell that last part means), but it's about the performance itself in any given year. So, if Judi Dench won for the wrong film, you mentioned two other nominated performance of hers. Would you then agree to say that in 2006, Helen Mirren should not have won for The Queen in favor of Judi and Cate Blanchett not win for Blue Jasmine in favor of Judi? This is where I find the "won for the wrong film" argument problematic. Someone can thought of as a better actor than another, but it's not about if they're the best actor, but rather the performance BY an actor. And those two things can in fact, be different. With that all said, I would to this day, say sorry to the great Helen Mirren and give that Oscar to Judi in Notes on a Scandal, which is my favorite performance of hers. I would leave Cate Blanchett's Oscar for Blue Jasmine well and alone. BUT, I would were an Oscar voter, I'd have voted for Judi in 1997 for Best Actress in Mrs. Brown over Helen Hunt. So, if I had a choice, Judi would have 2 Oscars.
"The blind Side" is such a weak movie, undeserving of any award. Sandra is a great actress but that one-dimensional role was nothing she could work with.
I think Dustin Hoffman also won for the wrong movies, he’s fantastic in The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, and Lenny, and then wins for Kramer vs. Kramer, the more safe family drama. I’d also have preferred if he won for Tootsie instead of Rain Man.
I really liked him in Kramer vs. Kramer. Haven’t seen the other movies of nominees he beat out. I also enjoyed him in Rain Man although I think Tom Hanks is a little more deserving in winning for Big that year. I think he should’ve won for Tootsie as well considering it’s my favorite performance from him. Sucks he was up against a biopic performance that year.
Even a win for 'Far from Heaven' would've made more sense for Julianne Moore. 'Still Alice' is not a bad win, it's just that she's been better in other films. Honorable Mention: Jessica Chastain should've gotten her Oscar for 'Zero Dark Thirty'?
Jullian moore must win for ( the hours) Her win in leading role was good becase she make good supject...but the film boring. And the dress was bad for oscar ✖
Omfg yes, Kate in Revolutionary Road is a performance that should be studied in film schools. Kate brought out every human emotion in her performance of April. The big kitchen fight scene with her Leo and the bedroom scene about the abortion are two of the best acted scenes in cinema. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. And honestly Leo could’ve won his Oscar for revolutionary road too. Sean in great in Milk, but it’s not a “omg did u see Sean Penn in Milk” type of role. Mickie Rourke really deserved, but Leo been nominated, he should’ve won. Hell, I’d put his performance in The Departed in that category too as roles he could’ve won for before The Revenant. And Paul and Liz should’ve both won for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and still should’ve won for Virginia Woolf and The Verdict (not Color of Money lol).
Cate was soooo fantastic. I loooove scene when she dance in nightclub after she know she be bregnant..and say i cant stay i cant go...we share same dream😍😍😍😍😭😭😭😭😍😍😍😍👏👏👏👏👏👏 oscar performance. I agree with you..the best film of cate..she realese it whith the reader...and academy give her oscar for the reader becase natzy..( jews hoolywood🕵
@@marrmart7690 The Reader was also a great performance but we’ve seen it before. She was better in Little Children, Finding Neverland (severely underrated role), Eternal Sunshine and Labor Day than The Reader. But other than Meryl in Doubt, no one was really her competition that year for Lead Actress. She was gonna win regardless.
Well, I don't know if Leo should've won for Revolutionary Road, as I preferred his performance in The Aviator MUCH more. The real Best Actor winner at the 81st Oscars was Richard Jenkins in The Visitor, which somehow NO ONE talks about that STUPENDOUS performance. It is a true masterclass in understated performance, and sure, Sean Penn was terrific, but since Richard Jenkins has only been nominated ONCE (!!!) since then and hasn't won, that would've been the performance to win the gold statuette that year.
agree about Leo in The Revolutionary Road - in fact, for me, The Revenant and Wolf of Wall Street are very overrated movies, and neither of these performances deserved an Oscar. I may be in the minority here, but in my eyes, Di Caprio's best performances came in the 90s and the early 2000s, not after. Including the Revolutionary Road.
I'm surprised you didn't mention that Bette Davis' win for Dangerous was the first of the "payback" Oscars. The Academy was feeling guilty that they didn't give her even a proper nomination for Of Human Bondage.
When you are talking Bette, you have so many to choose from, though she was marvelous in the two she won for, but 'Bondage', 'The Letter', 'Dark Victory', 'Now,Voyager', 'Eve', 'Baby Jane', 'Whales of August'- pick any of those, you're good! Love ya, Bette!!
Good topic, Brian! But I think Whoopi deserved Oscar wins for The Color Purple AND Ghost! That's just me. She played a big part in the success of Ghost and was funny as hell!
Al Pacino really should've won for The Godfather Part II and it was so baffling who he lost to. But I have no problem with him winning for Scent of A Woman, he played a blind man so convincingly well and that courtroom monologue scene is one of the best acting ever done. Whoopi winning for Ghost was a fine win, she was the literal scene stealer of that movie and it was amazing at the time that they rewarded a comedic performance in a fantasy movie no less. The year Paul Newman won, he notably beat Bob Hoskins who swept nearly every award and was the presumed frontrunner so there was competition there. As for Kate Winslet, yeah she should've won for Titanic or Eternal Sunshine. I don't mind the legacy or overdue wins because these are veterans who have been working for a long time and it is good to see them win an Oscar even though it wasn't for their best performances. If there's any actor who should've won Oscars when they were alive, it should've been Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole. And I'm gonna say it, Edward Norton should've won for American History X instead of one trick pony Benigni.
Finally someone else who doesn't like Benigni's performance! I don't understand how that movie is so loved when it feels so tone deaf and childish for such a serious subject.
@@ClassicalMusic2002 Yeah meanwhile American History X continues to stand the test of time and remains in conversations and studies. I don't see anyone mentioning Life is Beautiful these days. Benigni just proved that it was really all he had then he embarrassed himself with playing Pinocchio and it ruined his Hollywood career.
@@tmatuga don't understand the Cuba win anyway. But it's not like it helped his career, look at him now. Edward was terrifying in Primal Fear and to think it was his film debut too.
Gotta disagree with Pacino here. Downey Jr for Chaplin or Denzel for Malcolm X were not just better performances, but better by miles. Pacino won a 'career achievement' award that night.
Fair to say, Ingrid Bergman was by far the best thing in that movie that bored me to tears and has the worst Poirot ever with Albert Finney's unpleasant performance.
The former I agree with, another example of probably genre bias. Film was one of the rare ones that got through to Best Picture but ultimately it was always going to be too much of a genre film to be considered 'worthy' enough for the big awards. Close should have won for that certainly. But facsimile biopic performances should never win. There's no exception. Enough of the damn things are doled out for impressions as there is. Oscar's biggest disease.
The academy dont love gleen glose...no one can beleave cheer win the oscar for moonstruck...the academy in purpse let her win over glen glose. And the academy but olivia colman in same category with glen glose...when we all know..glen in the wife was leading acctross..and olivia in the favirute was supporting actross.. Emma stone was leading role...if the academy make her contender in leading not olivia...of course glen glose will win for the wife..but the academy in purpse try to make her chance less. That night must glen and olivia take oscars for leading and supporting... Academy want to make wild commpition...but against glen glose sooo sad
Here's another one, Jessica Chastain. Look, it's amazing to see her being an Oscar winner, it really is however I don't think Tammy Faye was really her best movie. Yeah her performance was good but honestly Kristen Stewart should've won it that year for Spencer. As for Jessica, it's crystal clear that she should've won in 2013 for Zero Dark Thirty, a better movie and better performance from her instead of Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook 🤷
@@SS4Luxray Yeah, Winter's Bone would've been a way better option but still I acknowledge that she couldn't beat Natalie Portman in Black Swan, there's just no absolute way
I would add Julia Roberts in the list. Firstly, because i believe that she had better performances and movies, than Erin Brockovich, that she could win. But most importantly because still i cant believe that Academy considered better this performance than Ellen Burstyn's on the Requiem for a Dream. Burstyn's performance is, for me, a masterpiece and a masterclass on acting!
More one of the biggest Oscar grievances than Wrong performance. I don't think it's Roberts' best performance, and it's one of the most egregious examples of giving a "quick, make this famous person valid" Oscar to the American Golden Girl Du Jour (see also Reece Witherspoon, Jennifer Lawrence, Gwynneth Paltrow and all the way back to Mary Pickford) but honestly I don't think there are any Oscar winning performances in Roberts' resume. Nomination for Pretty Woman, sure, but like Will Smith, Roberts should have been accepted as someone who is Hollywood royalty but without really being considered as having acting chops at the level of an Oscar...and that's okay.
@@fromomelastocarcosa3575 But Julia was perfect for that role .I don't think it's a bad win at all.Ellen also had a great win for Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore.
@@fromomelastocarcosa3575 i agree with you..julia roberts and sandra bulluk...not oscarian actross..but the academy by force want to make them winer...they are light actross even in oscar wining
Alicia Vikander had such a brief HW career. Her work in Ex Machina is her best, reminds me of Jeff Bridges in Starman (the nomination that Jeff should have received his Oscar for). Revolutionary Road is just such a heartbreaking film. My favorite performance of Kate, and my favorite performance of Leo.
Denzel Washington definitely won for the wrong film. He shouldn't have won for Training Day. The films he should've won for should've been: Malcolm X, Philadelphia, Hurricane, Flight & Fences.
5 wins?! Malcolm X, The Hurricane and Fences I can understand, but no way was he deserving for Flight - Day-Lewis and Phoenix were better that year. And Philadelphia, I think you'll find Hanks was the lead actor there and a very deserving winner. Washington was nominated nowhere.
@dominicjoy7116 I didn't see Lincoln, but all I know is if you do a white savior film, of course you're going to win. Tired of yt medicore ruling award shows. Even if Denzel wasn't going to win he should've at least been nominated for Philadelphia.
Nope. Denzel is one of the few times they got it right. Training Day is his best performance and in hindsight that Oscar ages like a vintage wine. Hurricane to be fair would have been a reasonable shout too, but that's an as well rather than an instead of. Fences is basically a filmed play and I'd rather watch him in the play version than the film, so even though he gets that character inside out the medium is simply not optimum. Malcolm X is one of the very few facsimile biopic performances ever that I think should have been nominated as he does find a lot in there, but the rule should simply be that facsimile biopics shouldn't win Oscars: Impressions have no business winning awards.
I think Julianne Moore was great in Still Alice, IMO the only one that was better than her that year was Marion Cotillard. The problem is: Moore was great in every single nomination she had before - even in The Hours - and she deserved nominations for Safe and Magnolia. However, I'd place her in the list because she also had another movie with a better performance that year: Maps to the Stars.
Al Pacino for "The Godfather Part Ⅱ"(1974) instead of "Scent of a woman"(1992)→Denzel Washington for "Malcom X"(1992) instead of "Training Day"(2001)→Russell Crowe for "A Beautiful Mind"(2001) instead of "Gladiator"(2000)→Tom Hanks for "Cast Away"(2000) istead of "Philadelphia"(1993)→Liam Neeson for "Schindler's List"(1993), then everybody is happy, except for Art Carney, who totally does not deserve an Oscar.
Pacino was definitely best but do think Carney was still pretty deserving. Don't get love for Washington in Malcolm X or Hanks in Cast Away, good but not spectacular.
@@suarezguy Cast Away relies entirely on Tom Hanks, who physically underwent a lot for the role. He's just riveting the entire time and he's almost completely alone on screen. It's an incredible performance
Some would argue Denzel could and should have both Malcom X and Training Day, I haven't seen his performance for Malcom X but he was absolutely deserving in Training Day.
All your picks are great, but I do wonder if Sandra Bullock would have even had the opportunity to star in Gravity if it weren't for her Oscar win. She might have, but she was transitioning out of the romcom phase of career (The Proposal notwithstanding), and without that win, her trajectory could easily have floundered. That said, The Blind Side was a big hit, and maybe the nomination alone would have guaranteed her continued success.
Geraldine Page deserved her win for Trip to Bountiful, she was wonderful in that role. But one of the best and most mesmerizing perfomance ever, is her neurotic perfomance in Interiors. Her perfomance in that movie was transformative.
Love that someone else watched (and liked) Interiors! It’s an often under appreciated Woody Allen film. Judy Davis in Husbands And Wives is another great one that was just a nom.
The reason why Alicia Vikander's performance in Ex Machina was not nominated was due to the fact most of her body was replaced with carefully rotoscoped CGI. The Academy could not tell whose performance was actually manifested on screen, Vikander's or the effects artists'. Not surprising, this elimination opened the doors for the producers of The Danish Girl to list Vikander under the supporting actress category, despite said performance being a lead role. 😁
You have done it once again, Brian! Oh, you are an astute, inciteful critic with none of the ego or flamboyance that some critics have had. I agree with most of your choices, especially Paul Newman in "The Verdict." He was incredible in that movie! Keep up the excellent commentary -- much appreciated from this old-school movie lover.
Russell Crowe was going to win the Oscar for a Beautiful Mind. It was his guaranteed. No performer to this day has won Golden Globe, Critics Choice, Screen Actors Guild Award, and BAFTA and then went on to lose the Oscar. Crowe is the only kne and that because he assaulted a producer during the BAFTAs and that was during Oscar voting. Thats why Denzel won. Because they werent going to condone that action. If he literally didnt attack the man he wouldve Tom Hanks abd won Oscars back to back.
I may be in the minority here, but in my eyes, Di Caprio's best performances came in the 90s and the early 2000s, not after. Including, I agree, the Revolutionary Road. In my opinion, Leo should have won an Oscar actually for The Revolutionary Road, not The Wolf of Wall Street! Again - I may be very unorthodox here, but for me, both The Revenant and Wolf of Wall Street are very overrated movies, and neither of these performances deserved an Oscar. The Revenant is a typical survival movie we watched countless times before, and Di Caprio's role in it while very believable and raw, is nothing special. Yes, it is all done with a way bigger budget than a typical survival movie and in a more spectacular manner, but again: Leo's acting role is nothing mindblowing. The same is true with The Wolf of Wall Street - people and critics praised this movie so much, yet when I was watching it, I almost fell asleep towards the end. Yes, Belfort's life turned into a crazy, creepy rollercoaster, and it was fun to watch at first, but later it turned tedious, and like many of Martin Scorsese's last movies, it was too long. It was nothing groundbreaking, but rather a very familiar critique of the rotten Wall Street, Western wild consumerism, and rich, immoral people, and yes, it was done very well by Scorsese, as always, but it wasn't unique at all! In fact, when we talk about the movies that portrayed Wall Street in the most brilliant, interesting, and eye-opening way and gave us a truly sophisticated critique of this world, then we should immediately think about American Psycho! American Psycho achieved effortlessly, and decades earlier, what Wolf was hard going for, and failed - a multilayered, unsettling, and intelligent analysis of Wall Street, greed, capitalism, and pop culture, and all of this in the form of a brilliant satire. Wolf wanted to be a black comedy/satire very hard but it failed, it is mostly just a typical drama with elements of dark humor here and there, and is nowhere near the genius symbolisms and exceptional vision of Harron's American Psycho. The epicness of American Psycho, and also the fact this movie gets better and better with time, and it turned into one of the most timeless films ever made, is in huge part, thanks to the absolute masterpiece of an acting performance of Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman. I mean, Bale is so, so, so good in this, that is actually scary! He plays the drama, the comedy, the satire, the symbolism, the gore - all of these parts of this role to the point of pure perfection, and at the same time, is genuinely fascinating as Bateman: a real alien in a human form, on a human planet. Bale also, did smth completely remarkable as a lead actor in this movie: he played the role of Bateman and didn't try to be likable at all, in the slightest, while most actors even when playing total villains, always attempt to make their characters sympathetic to the audience, even if it is, like, 0,0001%, even through 'his/hers demons' excuse. Bale does nothing of the sort, and yet, his portrayal of Bateman became one of the most iconic and beloved roles of all time. It's actually amazing! And all of this embodies Wall Street brilliantly as well. Now, compare this to Di Caprio's antics and 'controversial' scenes in Wolf, like sex or drug scenes - they are really mid, nothing new or surprising in cinema, and Di Caprio not only does not play satire at all, but his attempts at playing humor fell mostly flat in the Wolf of Wall Street. The fact is that Di Caprio's role as Belfort is a very cliche portrayal of a typical Wall Street a-hole who only does drugs and has wild sex. Wolf is absolutely overrated because it was Scorsese, it had a giant budget and giant marketing campaign (especially compared to American Psycho), and the media ate it all up, but it is nowhere near as brilliant as American Psycho, and as so many critics said it is. Overall, it is simply true that Di Caprio's best acting performances were in the 90s and 2000s, like Titanic, The Departed, The Aviator, The Revolutionary Road, etc. The last decade of his career is overhyped in my opinion.
Meryl Streep is another one tbh, I love her in the iron lady but viola Davis and Michelle Williams were robbed that year, I find it disrespectful that the academy spent 30 years after Sophie’s choice to give Meryl another Oscar knowing damn well she gave amazing masterclass performances after that film literally a whole year after Sophie’s choice she had silkwood and then there was a cry in the dark which that same decade, the 2000s to me is ridiculously crazy that she didn’t win sooner, in addition to doubt there was a adaption (which I get her loss for Catherine zeta jones was iconic in Chicago) and I still will fight anyone who don’t agree that she should’ve won the devil wears Prada most specifically in the supporting category where Jennifer Hudson for dream girls should’ve been nominated and won in the leading category over Helen Morten. Meryl in contrary popular have been more snubbed than she been awarded
I like my week with marlen..for me the film it is the winner... merrel streep great but i dont love move. And mesheel wiliams make best biobic of marlen😍
when i saw the title, i was like Kate Winslet better be at #1 because I would probably prefer she win for any of her other nominations over The Reader.
As a big fan of Bette Davis (she is my fave actress ever in a top 3 that includes her, Liv Ullman and Isabelle Huppert; basically even with each other), I am so glad you inluded her. It baffles me that she has her two academy awards for two of her minus roles and films. Between Baby Jane, All about eve, the letter, Of Human Bondage, the little fozes, now voyager, etc....she gave muhc better perfromances in much better movie and she won her Oscar for two forgettable ones (Dangerous was quite bad). I know it is not popular, but I am 100% OK with Di Caprio Oscar. I consider it a masterful perfromance, really physical and meditative, so even hard to convey emotions and let the audience understand everything. Btw, sometimes I think it is also competition. Like for Freeman. Amazing in Shawshank Redeption, but also was Hanks in Philadelphia. Both would have been deserving winner.
Speaking of All About Eve, it’s absolutely embarrassing who she lost too. She lost to Judy Holliday in Born Yesterday. She’s really annoying in that movie. My personal pick to win that year would be Gloria Swanson from Sunset Boulevard because that’s one of my favorite performances captured on film. Bette Davis was great too in All About Eve. If she won for that, it won’t be a bad win. It would be a much better choice than Judy Holliday.
@@laurajones1773 Totally agree. I would be not mad at all if Swanson got it, that' a stellar performance on par with Davis in AAE. But Holliday wasn't the best choice for me too. I mean the film is okand she's good in it, a nomination was deserved but not the win. The only Ocsra the film should have won was for Costume design. Ironically that was won by All About Eve. Davis should have also won for Whatever happened to Baby Jane
I’d also throw Laura Dern in there. She was fine in Marriage Story but not Oscar worthy. There’s so many better performances within her career all deserving of Oscars.
I agree she’s only just fine in that movie. Nothing special. I think Zhao Schuzen from The Farewell should have won that year, but she wasn’t even nominated.
I thought Scarlett Johansson was overrated in Jojo Rabbit, just my opinion. I don’t think she should even be nominated. She is worthy of a nomination for Marriage Story but not Jojo Rabbit.
Here’s some more choices: Meryl Streep - I’m sorry but her performances in Adaptation, Doubt and August: Osage County were much more impressive than the Iron Lady Nicole Kidman - she’s fine in the hours but the others is sooo much better Julia Roberts - I love Erin brokovich but I just prefer steel magnolias I think that movie stood the test of time better Emma Thompson - Howard’s end is such a blah movie to me, I prefer her in sense & sensibility Susan Sarandon - this one is SO INFURIATING to me she gave us Thelma and Louise, lorenzos oil, stepmom, the client and we reward her for dead man walking are you joking?
Kate Winslet- Revolutionary Road over The Reader every single time. But the film she should have won for Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind. The woman should have more than one Oscar granted, I'm hoping she does a McDormand and has a late career resurgence to make up for it. Nicole Kidman, The Hours that was a supporting part and was making up for the fact she should have won for Moulin Rouge the year before, allowing Julianne Moore to take the trophy for The Hours, even though I enjoy Still Alice, that is a better performance. She should also have won for Boogie Nights in Supporting.. Also honourable mention Toni Collette absolutely deserved a nomination for Muriel's Wedding, everyone goes on about Hereditary, but that is the real injustice.
While I can agree that Winslet had some better performances, I wouldn't call Winslet's performance in The Reader by saying "it's fine". She was stunning in that movie, proving she is one of the finest actresses of her generation. Should she have beaten out Streep? Probably not.
Sandra had no chance to win for Gravity even if she hadn't won for The Blindside as they were bent on giving it to Blanchett .The Blindside win however was not good.
The only ones I agree with are Leonardo Di Caprio-'The Revenant', Alicia Vikander-'The Danish Girl', Whoopi Goldberg-'Ghost', Sandra Bullock-'The Blind Side', Paul Newman-'The Color of Money', Al Pacino-'Scent of a Woman', George Clooney-'Syriana', Julianne Moore-'Still Alice', Jeff Bridges-'Crazy Heart' and Kate Winslet-'The Reader'. I think Kate Winslet should've won an Oscar for Sense and Sensibility and Paul Newman should've won an Oscar for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in my opinion.
Great video and I agree with almost everything you said. When it comes to Kate Winslet I think she should have multiple Oscar wins at this point and I think her win for The Reader was a good one.
Joan Fontaine for Rebecca over Suspicion. Imagine how her sibling rivalry with Olivia de Havilland could have [not] played out if Joan had rightfully won the year prior. And maybe Barbara Stanwyck could have been an Oscar winner if the other nominees canceled each other out in 1942. My local theater shows old movies, and having watched Rebecca and Suspicion back to back, it's very clear that Rebecca is the superior movie with superior performances.
THANK YOU I was getting to the end of the video thinking where is Kate Winslet, come on, we have revolutionary road, titanic, little children, eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, really?
This video misses the point of this award. The Oscar is not for the best performance in the individual's career, it's about the best performance of the year. For instance, I would argue that RDJ's best performance was in Tropic Thunder but that year he would never have won against Heath Ledger. That doesn't mean he shouldn't win for Oppenheimer this year just because his performance isn't as good as in Tropic Thunder, Chaplin or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. It's still the best supporting performance this year (so far at least for me, probably someone will be better, but you get my point). It doesn't matter where the performance ranks in the individual's career but rather where it ranks against his competition that year. It always bothers me when people say for example that The Departed shouldn't have won Scorsese the Oscar because it's not as good as Goodfellas. It doesn't matter. It should have won the Oscar because it was the best movie of 2006 (arguably of course, as it is subjective, but again, you get the point). Now you can argue about whether Goodfellas should have won over Dances with Wolves in 1990 or whether say Babel should have won over The Departed in 2006 and those are valid arguments but they're completely different arguments than Goodfellas vs The Departed which makes no sense since the movies didn't compete against each other.
Agreed but really depends, like there’s so many instances where the best performance of the year doesn’t win due to an actor being over due sometimes this doesn’t always happen like Olivia Colman for the favuorite, but still because the revenant (a personal favorite of mine) won best actor because DiCaprio has been nominated so many times and just hasn’t won so they award that over micheal fassbender in Steve Jobs which is probably my favorite performance of the year
@@tbrown5836 sure and I agree but that's a different debate - who should have won each year. Of course it will be totally subjective as a lot of people would choose DiCaprio over Fassbender but myself, like you, prefered Michael's performance. Someone else might have prefered Damon in The Martian. Those are all valid choices based on one's preference, but the person's life's work shouldn't be taken into consideration - there is already an award for this - the Lifetime Achievement Award. Obviously the people within the Academy are just that, people, and they have their biases and if they have difficulty choosing between Fassbender and DiCaprio and think they were pretty much equal, it's perfectly reasonable to gravitate towards the person who has been snubbed in past years just to "make amends". But the main objective each year is to pick the best performance of the year.
I just mentioned that and it's a fact not many experts even mentioned cause it's a very small movie. But yeah Bob was sweeping and was the presumed frontrunner initially until Paul unexpectedly won cause it was decided he was overdue.
Dench should have at least two from among Notes on a Scandal, Mrs Brown and Philomena. Her win for SIL was a joke because her loss for Mrs Brown was so egregious that Helen Hunt was pretty overtly embarrassed about it even in her acceptance speech.
I think this is a really good list. Newman, Pacino, Davis and Winslet are all especially egregious and I think you make an excellent case for Colin Firth whose performance I'd shamefully forgotten. I think the other point is though that it's just....okay to think a good actor should never have won an Oscar. I like Sandra Bullock but in all honestly I don't think she ever gives a clear Oscar performance other than the year someone else was clearly better (Blanchett). that Meryl Streep has Oscars for the Iron Lady and Kramer V Kramer versus some of her other films is absolutely crazy. Iron Lady isn't even one of her top 25 performances probably. But that opens a biopic can of worms that I'd just bang on about all day: Oldman, Seymour Hoffman, Penn, Mirren, Foxx...the list goes on even before you get to the ones who never should have come near oscars (Redmayne, Malek, Witherspoon)
Glad you called out Reese Witherspoon, her best acting performance was def in Election and if she’d campaigned for Best Supporting Actress she may have won that year
Hey Brian, One of the things I always find troublesome about this topic of discussion is this. I mean yes, a lot of times actors win for not their finest performances. The thing is, and you did address this: is that it’s all about the given year in question. Taking Morgan Freeman and Sandra Bullock for example. If we say they won the wrong film then we must also say that the person who won shouldn’t have their Oscar. That can be contentious and debatable. In the two examples I gave, I agree that Gravity and Shawshank are better performances, but I’d still vote for Tom Hanks and Cate Blanchett to this day, so I don’t know if I can say “won for the wrong film” Alicia Vikander and Kate Winslet are different in that they had two eligible performances in the same year. That holds more weight to me The final tidbit I leave as food for thought is: There’s no way we can really know in the moment if a film is going to ‘stand the test of time’. The true responsibility of the voting is to select the personal favorite of a given performance in the given year. The internet or Father Time may eviscerate a film down the line, but we can’t know that nor should we live in the future. We may change our minds but I think you know what I mean. You’re one of the Oscar RU-vid greats! I could talk with you about this all freakin day. Rare is it that someone’s as passionate and knowledgeable as I am about this! Lito
See the point here, but come on - Tom Hanks Forrest Gump win is egregious and ridiculous. A generic 'simple person' performance with no actual pathology behind it. It's a well-executed but two dimensional grotesque at best, and I know Oscar has generally been kind to two dimensional performances if of sufficient "characterisation" (Hopkins as Lector, Hoffman in Rain Man, The parade of mediocre biopic dirge that has won) but add the factor of him having won the previous year on top and beating a performance as varied and nuanced as Freeman in Shawshank is not justifiable IMO.
@@fromomelastocarcosa3575 The last thing you wrote was the most salient to me, “IMO”. That’s the beauty of the vote. Multiple choices, multiple opinions.
For wrong move. Becase of time. Vikander must take leading role And cate winslet take supporting. Un faire but two in same category...long role with short supporting role
@Jadewizard True in final judgement, but the elements aren't. That Hanks didn't justify his win for FG is merely a subjective opinion, sure. That the performance lacks pathology and is merely an externally crafted 'simple person', however, isn't. Thats an objective observation. No actual people of low IQ, no actual neurodivergent people, and no actual people with childhood PTSD act even vaguely akin to Hanks' Forrest. The character is a fantasy concoction of a human being that doesn't behave like a human being. Again, sure, final judgment is subjective, but when you have other people playing genuinely credible characters, that's surely a seriously big stretch.
@@fromomelastocarcosa3575 Be your opinion as it may on the subject of Tom Hanks's portrayal of the character, which, no matter how you've algorithmed and dissected it to present at cold hard fact, it is still subject to discussion and rebuttal (which many could do... however, I won't bother to, because honestly, it's completely pointless and not really worth the time)-- Why do I care one iota whether someone agrees with how I feel about my choice to love Tom Hanks' performance? What do I gain from expending energy and time to attempt to make someone understand I'm right about an opinion on a performance? But let's, for argument's sake say that I completely bowed down to your analysis of the performance to call it almighty gospel truth.... the name of the game is "Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role"- there is no criteria that says that the performance has to create a "real person", or even meet certain character qualities and metrics that satisfy or even justify the win. The aforementioned analysis is not a requirement for anyone except yourself if so choose. What you consider good acting to the next person is not going to match, nor does it need to. Hence, this is a more long-winded to say again... "Well, that's just like, your opinion, man!"
Old old school with my choice Katharine Hepburn won in 1933 for 'Morning Glory' Should've been nominated and won in same year for 'Little Women' instead. Actually while I'm perfectly fine with her having four Oscars, the only one I agree with was 'The Lion In Winter'. (I wouldve also given her the award for 'Summertime', and 'Suddenly, Last Summer')
In a way Kate Winslet did win for Revolutionary Road since it can be assumed that that performance helped in her win for The Reader. The same could be said for Fatal Attraction helping Michael Douglas' win in Wall Street and Al Pacino's all-out performance in Glengarry Glen Ross helped his win. There are other examples but these will do for now.
Excuse you. Whoopi EARNED her Oscar for GHOST. Its one thing that she lost her Oscar for the Color Purple but Geraldine Page was glorious in Trip to Bountiful. So you can say she deserves two Oscars but do not say she should have TCP Oscar at the expense of Ghost
I like these kinds of videos because of the what if factor. I always think that because there have been many performers who won just because it was long deserved instead of the actual performance. The reality as we all know is that in some years it is stacked, others not as much or at all. One of those mentioned was Morgan Freeman but I don't think he could have won against Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump that year. As I mentioned in another video, I don't think Tom Hanks should have won in Philadelphia, I really think Liam Neeson should have won for Schnidler's List. I think that movie really holds up better than Philadelphia. If Hanks had lost then him winning for Gump makes even more sense. However as we know he won for both. I actually think Kate Winslett should have won for Titanic, I thought her performance was amazing and would have actually preferred Gloria Stuart winning over Kim Basinger. I liked Basinger's performance in the Usual Suspects but just think Stuart's performance was good too. I was happy Whoopi won for Ghost, absolutely loved her in that and was glad Ghost won at least that, it was shut out of a lot of the categories due to Dances With Wolves winning.
Talking about other of your lists, if Kate Winslet was nominated for The Reader as a supporting role she would have been nominated for Revolutionary Road as Lead as well. But maybe, She would have not won for either, but Meryl would have had third one earlier. BTW, to me her rightful Oscar was for Little Children (2006)
I totally agree about Colin Firth: he should have won for The Single Man, not The King's Speech. The Single Man is a multilayered, amazing performance, and brilliant movie, while The King's Speech is actually boring af and not an Oscar-worthy performance at all! Also, agree that Al Pacino's win should have been for The Godfather II not The Scent of a Woman. With Kate I have a problem because I think most of her performances that you mentioned here are Oscar-worthy, she is one amazing actress for sure!
@@dj71162 Lol you must have mistaken the meaning of range. She is so thoroughly one note throughout the entire movie. The first moment she appeared on screen, she was so eerily creepy and it is so obvious from the very first moment. No transition, no contrast and just thoroughly one note.
I really couldn't agree more. Honestly one of the greatest acting performances ever. I was floored for an entire week after seeing Still Alice for the first time. Her transition and how she peeled herself away little by little throughout the entire movie is just mind blowing and fascinating. And that's what we called range lol.
I recently read both of Bette Davis' autobiographies and even she thought her Academy Award for Dangerous was given to her the wrong year. She thought she should have won for Of Human Bondage the previous year and felt her win with Dangerous was to somewhat make up for that.
Meryl Streep (Doubt ) or Anne Hathaway (Rachel Geting Married)over Kate Winslet in The Reader of all things any of Kate's other nominations would have been a better choice .I still give the supporting actress award to Mira for Mighty Aphrodite . Kate was solid but her role in Sense and Sensibility was something many actresses could play. Selma Hayek (in Frida)over Nicole Kidman in The Hours the least interesting part of the film .They always overlook her most fun and interesting roles Debra Winger or Meryl Streep or Jane Alexander over Shirley MacLaine she should have on for the Apartment Shirley MacLaine (The Apartment) over Elizabeth Taylor(Butterfield*) Morgan Freeman(The Shawshank Redeemption ) instead of Million Dollar Baby over Tom Hanks(Forrest Gump) Denzel Washington (Malcolm X)over Al Pacino -lots to pick from for Pacino Kate Winslet (Ethernal Sunshine ) or Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake )over Hilary Swank Million Dollar Baby Jack Lemmon (The Apartment (over Burt Lancaster ( Elmer Gantry ) both however give solid performances for their wins however like Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe did . Russell Crowe( A Beautiful Mins over Denzel Washington (Training Day ) again I do think they both give solid performances in what they did win for so it's not so bad. I would probably go for Daniel Kaluuya in Get Out over Gary Oldman (The Darkest Hour ) Judas and the Black Messiah is good Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy over John Wayne(True Grit) over his win in Rainmain Flip the wins of Jeff Bridges and Colin Firth .Firth wins the year before for Single Man and the Bridges wins for True Grit I am sure there are others. I liked Still Alice and Juliannne gives one of my favorite Oscar winning performances .Some mentioned Chastain's in for The Eyes of Tammy Faye but she got to me and I totally didn't expect that .The only other one I would have given best actress to that year was Olivia Colman .
Some first rate takes here. Literally my only disagreement is Hayek for Frida as I have a hard no against awards for facsimile biopics, though that would have been one of the more acceptable ones. I'd have gone with Diane Lane, though of course the Academy would never had had the pills to give the award to an erotic film, it's the best performance - elevated the entire movie - and would have been the most worthy winner that year. Shirley MacLaine's non-win for Apartment and win for Terms are equally baffling as each other. Winger makes Terms of Endearment and any award should have gone to her as you say and Jane Alexander is probably on balance the best choice overall. Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8 is of course one of the most egregious Oscars in history and over MacLaine in the Apartment one of the biggest travesties.
Bette Davis: "Dark Victory." It was 1939, an extremely competitive year, so I can see why she didn't win. Jane Fonda: she deserved it for "Klute" (1971), but less so for the sappy anti-Vietnam War film "Coming Home" (1978), which is a largely unmemorable, by-the-numbers movie. But she DID deserve it for "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" (1969), a film that explored how the down-and-out and desperate are exploited to the max by rich capitalist grifters, even in the depths of the Great Depression.
No one was going to beat Vivien Leigh to the Oscar in 1939. But yes, Davis was amazing. I feel like Davis' more sympathetic performances get overlooked a little too often in favor of her scenery-chewing turns.
@@kelleyceccato7025 True. I love Vivien Leigh but I hate "Gone With the Wind," no matter its accomplishments as an esthetic achievement. But the message of that film is despicable. She also won, of course, for "Streetcar Named Desire." I found her performance in her next film after GWTW, the heartbreaker "Waterloo Bridge" (1940), even better. She got nominated but lost to Ginger Rogers (also very fine) for "Kitty Foyle." Damn, they knew how to make movies then. Now it's all CGI, cinematic comic-book and space-opera "universes," and pre-teen fantasy, not to mention crappy remakes and turning toys into movies.
@@kelleyceccato7025 I love the sequence where she learns her "prognosis" is "negative" by stumbling across her own medical file. She hurries from the office after the overworked secretary accidentally spills the beans about what that means, leaving the secretary with an "Oh f*ck, I just told her she's going to die" look on her face. Judith (Bette) then meets the doctor (George Brent) and her best friend (Geraldine Fitzgerald in her film debut) in a swanky restaurant, knowing that they already know her fate, then sarcastically orders a big order of "prognosis negative" from the menu before walking out on them.
Just seeing this now. I agree with all you said here including Sandra Bullock. Her role in Gravity crushed me to my soul. Yes about Julianne Moore, Jeff Bridges and Russel Crowe. I will slightly disagree about Al Pacino. He rocked that role in Scent of a Woman and I don't think it was a consolation prize. I also don't care for his work in Scarface. Way too over the top. All the Godfathers, yes - even Part 3. And yes yes yes about Kate Winslet. Spot on! Her work in Revolutionary Role is beyond words, despite the ending and movie being... meh. ( and Tom Hanks deserved his second - tough year though )
I'd also add: Emma Stone - I liked her performance in LA LA LAND, but that winning an Oscar feels like much in my opinion. I personally would've given it to her for BIRDMAN in 2014. Meanwhile, Best Actress in 2016 should've gone to Natalie Portman for JACKIE. Jessica Chastain - I'm not the biggest fan of hers. I liked her performance in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just fine, but not as an Oscar win at all. I still would've given Best Supporting Actress in 2011 to Octavia Spencer for THE HELP, but I definitely wouldn't have minded Chastain winning for that movie instead. Meanwhile, Best Actress in 2021 should've gone to Kristen Stewart for SPENCER. Although I think each of the other nominees (with the exception of Olivia Colman in THE LOST DAUGHTER) still would've been better choices than Chastain.
I’m shocked that you didn’t mention James Stewart in The Philadelphia Story. There’s nothing terribly special about that performance, he feels so secondary to both Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant. And it’s painfully obvious that the Academy felt bad for not rewarding him for Mr. Smith Goes To Washington the year prior.
I understand what you’re saying and maybe it was a makeup Oscar over his friend Henry Fonda ( who he said he voted for) . I think Fonda had at least three he could have won for ( personal opinion) . That said I have become a convert to the Hepburn/ Stewart pairing in The Philadelphia Story. I think it’s a good , solid win if not spectacular. He has more range of emotions than Grant or Hepburn for that matter.
Too bad the Academy didn't wait a few years and award Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life. George Bailey is such an iconic character. Haven't seen The Philadelphia Story though. Don't get me started that he wasn't even nominated for Vertigo.
Stewart was marvelous in The Philadelphia Story (bias here... it's one of my all time favourite films) and takes the usual Hepburn/Grant formula and takes it to places and levels it could otherwise never have gone.
I agree with you on some of these. I think Bette Davis should’ve won for Now, Voyager- that is a very overlooked classic. Meryl Streep in Doubt was also fantastic. Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side was a poor choice, she has had better performances. And I disagree with you on The Reader, I LOVE that movie and her performance. I also encourage you to watch her miniseries Mildred Pierce if you haven’t yet.
Another good one for this list would be Jack Lemmon, who won his second Oscar in 1973 for Save the Tiger instead of in 1959 for a far superior performance in Some Like It Hot.
My Top Ten Actors Who won Oscars for the WRONG Movie: 1. Paul Newman (The Color of Money) 2. Leonardo Di Caprio (The Revenant) 3. Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman) 4. Julianne Moore (Still Alice) 5. Russell Crowe (Gladiator) 6. Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) 7. Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) 8. Kate Winslet (The Reader) 9. George Clooney (Syriana) 10. Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) My Top Five Runners Up: 1. John Wayne (True Grit) 2. Whoopi Goldberg (Ghost) 3. James Stewart (The Philadelphia Story) 4. Renee Zellweger (Cold Mountain and Judy) 5. Jessica Chastain (The Eyes of Tammy Faye)
What should they have won for? Some of those picks are great, yes, but...I don't see what Zellweger and Wayne, for instance, should ever have won for. It's fine to just not have won an Oscar. Given Blue Jasmine comes out the same years as Gravity, think it's okay to say Bullock should simply not have an Oscar also. Clooney too (I like Up in the Air performance but it's not a cast iron winner)
10. DiCaprio was awesome in the Revenant, but it’s not his greatest work. Personally, I would say What’s Eating Gilbert Grape is his greatest. 08. I absolutely love Colin Firth in the King’s Speech, but I totally understand the opposite side here. 07. Spot on with Goldberg. Great in Ghost. Amazing in the Color Purple. 06. I would also say Shawshank is Freeman’s best performance. Wouldn’t say he was better than Hanks in Forrest Gump though. 05. I will die on a hill with this one. I absolutely love Bullock in the Blind Side, and I think she totally earned her Oscar for that. She is great in Gravity too for sure though. 04. There are tons of Newman performances to pick over the Color of Money. 02. Al Pacino gave an absolutely Oscar worthy performance in Scent of a Woman in my opinion, but, yeah, he totally should have won for one of the Godfather films. 01. Kate Winslet was very good in the Reader, but I do agree that she has done better work in quite a few other films. A couple I also feel are ones to consider are Christopher Plummer for Beginners. Very good actor, but I never understood the win for this one. Another is Jeremy Irons. I love him in Reversal of Fortune, but there’s definitely an argument that he won because he was not nominated for Dead Ringers. He’s even stated that before.
Whoopi won for being Comic relief, she was great in it...but her winning best supporting actress for GHOST when she could have won a best actress for THE COLOR PURPLE is a bit silly, to be fair though I am not familiar with Geraldine Page or what movie she won for...that movie might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, I don't know. If I do remember correctly THE COLOR PURPLE had multiple nominations that year and did'nt win 1.
Denzel Washington was AMAZING in "Malcolm X". So amazing that I cried at the end, and almost joined the Nation of Islam! But he got his Oscar for "Training Day", which was another powerful performance, but nothing as moving as his portrayal of Malcolm.
You missed a big Hollyweed movie Oscar. 1974 best actress Oscar should’ve went to Ellen Bursting for The Exorcist. Not a year later for the wrong movie Alice doesn’t live here anymore” Linda Blair should have won the Oscar for The Exorcist and not Tatum O’Neil for Paper Moon. The Academy decided to listen to Mercedes Mcambrige that Blair shouldn’t win the Oscar due she dubbed the devil’s voice. Linda Blair acting in The Exorcist kept everyone in the edge of the seat. Besides the Oscar is an award designed for Acting not dubbing and Mercedes Mcambridge won an Oscar before and because of her big mouth that Oscar went to Tatum O’neil. And in 2021 Glenn Glose should’ve won for The Wife, and not some actress famous only in Korea. The academy usually doesn’t give two Oscar to the same actor actually for playing the same role or a similar role. Jack Nicholson won in 1976 for One Flew Over… and again in 1998 for As good a it gets both movies he is crazy. It’s just like Joe Pesci wins bsa for Goodfellas and in Casino he double his performance as a heartless gangster who doesn’t get nominated again. 1998 the Academy had it all wrong, the show focus all night on Nicholson smiling and laughing, I knew it was his night. The b actor went to Jack Nicholson when it should have went to Leonardo DiCaprio for Titanic, best Actress should’ve went to Kate Winslet in Titanic and not to Hellen Hunt for As good as. Best support actress should’ve went to Gloria Stuart for Titanic and not Kim Bassinger for LA confidential.
Actors who Won for the wrong Movie are 2 categories: 1. Those who also deserved it for this one (like Al Pacino, Di Caprio, Morgan Freeman etc), but definitely they deserved it MORE for some other role. 2. Those who deserved it for some other Movie but NOT this one (like Sandra Bullock, Brad Pitt etc)
Oscars are not purely given out of artistic merit, and imo, that makes them more interesting. There are factors like legacy (Geraldine Page), current popularity of the film (Ghost) or the actor (Bullock), and politics as well. The Oscars are a show and want ratings like anyone else, and need to create “moments” to do that. Even if you were to look purely at merit, there are simply years with weaker and stronger performances. I guess everyone has their top “lost Oscar”. Mine is Winona Ryder in The Age Of Innocence who weirdly lost to Anna Paquin, though Goldberg in Purple does come close.
Seah Penn should also be on this list. _Dead Man Walking_ was the far superior performance to _Mystic River._ Ben Kingsley should have won that year for _House of Sand and Fog._ Then again, I also think that Mickey Rourke should have won for _The Wrestler_ over _Milk,_ so I have quite a few bones to pick with the Academy both ways for his wins and losses.
Al Pacino was amazing in Scent of a Woman. Great role and he nailed it. Very deserving of his Oscar. He deserved more of them but that one isn't in question to me. Loved him in Heat, especially, too.
Other actress that should have the awards attention by the 80’s was Glenn Close. Not try to give her an Oscar in 2019, but when she was having great role after role…
Others that won for the wrong performance are Humphrey Bogart(should've won for Casablanca & Treasure Of The Sierra Madre), Henry Fonda(should've won for Grapes Of Wrath & Once Upon A Time In The West), Dustin Hoffman(should've won for Midnight Cowboy), so many others.
Al Pacino should have been nominated for and won Best Actor for The Godfather since he’s the clear lead. Marlon Brando was only in a third of the film and was defiantly supporting in that film, but since Brando was an established star by that point, he was the de facto lead over everyone, screen time be damned. Pacino should have also won for Serpico and The Godfather: Part II as well as at least been nominated for Scarface. Leonardo DiCaprio should have won for What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. I’ve not seen him give a better performance than he gave in that film. Yes, he was very good in other films he was nominated and wasn’t nominated for, but Gilbert Grape should have gotten him the Oscar when he was nominated for the first time. Morgan Freeman should have won for The Shawshank Redemption a decade before winning for Million Dollar Baby. Million Dollar Baby is a really good film, but Freeman was just better in Shawshank and I think the fact the films are a decade a part is clear that the Academy realized their mistake and made sure to rectify Freeman not having an Oscar when they acknowledged him a decade later. I don’t mind Russell Crowe winning for Gladiator, but I do think he should have won for A Beautiful Mind and everything looked as if he’d win his second Oscar in a row, but due to his behavior at the BAFTAs after being cut off when he was in mid-speech as he was reading a poem, that really killed his momentum unfortunately and the decided to give Denzel Washington the Best Actor Oscar he didn’t get for either Malcolm X or The Hurricane. This is all my opinion of course. Thank you for the video Brian, keep up the great work, take care!
Screen time isn’t the single most important factor to determine what character is lead or supporting… The movie is about the Godfather and revolves around the Godfather, which is brilliantly played by Brando…
Pleased to see that I agree with so many of your points here. I guess it's obvious that Pacino and Newman are the poster children for "Right Award, Wrong Movie." I'd have given Newman Oscars for both The Verdict and Cool Hand Luke, which I think is going to be seen as the ultimate Newman movie. Pacino should have won for Godfather II and possibly also Dog Day Afternoon. The former is a massive oversight. And I agree with all your points regarding Winslet. Little Children remains an underrated movie, and she made Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind into an unmissable classic. A tough role playing next to Jim Carrey, who grabs so much attention every time he's on screen. He needed a costar who could hold her own, and Winslet did a wonderful job.
Bette Davis herself also believed that she should have won for All About Eve. I agree on that too. But I also think that her performance in Little Foxes is terrific. I love the concept she created for the character.
I guess that in some ocations it's complicated to say that a performer was recognized for the wrong movie since it would mean that another performance would've been snubbed, e.g. Sandra Bullock winning over Cate Blanchett would not sit well with most people, not because Sandra did not deserve that, but because Cate was in another level. I'm sure some will say that Cate Blanchett deserved the oscar for Tar (I'm one of those people) but Michelle Yeoh's win was as deserving as well. And there are other times were it's just nonsense, e.g. Kate Winslet, Al Pacino, Whoopi Goldberg, etc. I had never thought of the scenario where Morgan Freeman won over Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump, and now I will never not think that would have been the right thing to happen.
Cate Blanchett was brilliant in Blue Jasmine one of the greatest Oscar winning performances ever. She did deserve to win for Elizabeth and Tar as well.
Excellent choices for the entire top 10. I also wish Kate had won for Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Titanic, Little Children, Revolutionary Road, or even Sense & Sensibility. Ditto on Al Pacino & Paul Newman, especially when we include Cool Hand Luke, Hud, and Sweet Bird Of Youth. Whoopi still deserved to win, it's criminal she didn't in 1986. Meryl, like I've said before, deserved to win for Silkwood, Bridges Of Madison County, and Doubt over The Iron Lady. Ditto with Bette Davis, especially if we include Of Human Bondage, The Letter, Dark Victory, and The Little Foxes. Thanks for another cool video, Brian 😊
Not even a mention for Judi Dench? She won for a small part in Shakespeare in Love a year after being nominated for Mrs. Brown. Dench got a bunch of attention for her performance in Mrs. Brown (Siskel & Ebert both agreed it was the best performance by anyone, male or female, lead or supporting all year). Helen Hunt, in her award acceptance speech, began by talking about what an amazing job Dench did in Mrs. Brown. So the next year the Academy gave it to Dench for a nice performance - but she' s barely in the movie and it was really obviously a makeup award for not giving it to her the year before.
I'm so glad you included Russell Crowe. I would have put that one on the proper list, not merely a mention. He was brilliant in "A Beautiful Mind." ("Gladiator" was meh.)
@@tuckerplum8085 Yes he did deserve to win, both in self and much more, for A Beautiful Mind but OTOH there is something to that two in a row does seem a bit unfair.
Most of these choices hurt because a lot of them may not be the greatest or most beloved performance from particular performers but they aren’t throwaway performances. I would make the argument that Arkin and Rylance were given throw them a bone Oscars, with performances that were not at all Oscar worthy
Not impressed about Mark Rylance’s performance in Bridge of Spies. I thought Tom Hanks delivered a better performance in that film than Rylance, but Hanks wasn’t even nominated. I think Tom Hardy in The Revenant delivered a better performance than Mark Rylance.
Both of those Oscar wins are Oscar upsets. Alan Arkin defeated frontrunner Eddie Murphy from Dream Girls mostly because Norbit was released around the time of Oscar voting. Mark Rylance defeated the frontrunner Sylvester Stallone from Creed.
