This is one of the worst years of nominees in this category EVER, imo... I'd call three of the nominees 'terrible' - Stuart, Basinger and Cusack - and only one was worthy of a nomination - Driver. Moore's nomination was a reaction to the character she played. In any case, Basinger was the worst there and should NOT have won.

These are the nominees:
KIM BASINGER in L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
JOAN CUSACK in IN & OUT
MINNIE DRIVER in GOOD WILL HUNTING
JULIANNE MOORE in BOOGIE NIGHTS
GLORIA STUART in TITANIC

What do you think of this group? Who should have won?

number one Cusack was hilarious and brilliant she was a comedic actress who hit every funny note, and rarely are performances like hers rewarded even with nominations.

My winner would be Moore she was sexy, and sultry but also heartbreaking she did so much in that role. She truly is a great actress.

Joan Cusack deserved her nomination..and she was excellent in In And Out.

My pick to win was her or Gloria Stuart.

I don't agree with her win, but I didn't mind her nominations, Basinger was alright in her movie.

Personally, I loved this group of nominees, I would have been happy with any of them except Basinger winning.

Moore was heartbreaking and tragic.
Stewart was Marvelous
Driver was a breakthrough performance.
Cusack was hilarious and a perfect comic performance.

Gloria Stuart was terrific in Titanic.

You seem to be living in some parallel universe with alternative versions of those movies.

Dont you have to actually watch a movie to have an alternative version of it in your mind?
Oh maybe not.

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
Dont you have to actually watch a movie to have an alternative version of it in your mind?
Oh maybe not.

Isn't that the point, people like to talk crap about movies that they have never seen, it happens everyday on these boards

I give it to Cusack, one of the funniest performances I have ever seen:
"Was there...oh...ANY OTHER TIME YOU MIGHT HAVE TOLD ME THIS???"
"Is EVERYBODY GAY???"

Second choice for me would be Kim. At first, I hated her performance but after reviewing the movie, I started to fall in love with her.

Then comes Moore, then Driver, then Stuart.

For me, they were all very good and deserving nominees

Haha! I was actually just thinking about this exact category while watching L.A. Confidential the other night, and I could not remember who Basinger was nominated against.

I definitely did not, after seeing Confidential for the first time, consider that Basinger who both be nominated AND win. It's a great film, and were it not for Titanic, it would've won Best Picture in my book. But she simply was nothing more than mediocre to me, if even that.

Joan Cusack's performance is the only one I haven't seen. While I liked Julianne Moore's, it didn't seem like a "winning" role to me. That, of course, leaves Gloria Stuart and Minnie Driver for me...

Gloria Stuart worked very well as the first-person narrator, I felt. Her eyes really told a story during particular segments of the film. Magical? Nah. Worthy of the nomination? Sure.

For me, I personally would have voted for Driver at the end of the night. She had touches of realism, and inhabited all emotions -- from dryly witty to pained and upset -- with grace and ease. She, to me, seemed like a true supporting role stand-out.

But no, in the end, Basinger would have been my last choice for the win that year.

Sorry, Kim.

This is how I see this year; and they are, generalizations since there have been exceptions:

Joan Cusack was in a comedy with a co-star who miraculously won for a brilliant comedic performance in A Fish Called Wanda (reward by association). Plus, there were gay characters in it. So, she's out.

Julianne Moore has her first nomination after critical acclaim in Short Cuts, and also The Hand That Rocks The Cradle; but, she is in a film about the porn industry. Big no-no. She's out. And, Burt Reynolds didnt exactly support that film the way he could have.

Gloria Stuart is in a Block Buster epic film which may get acting nominations, but generally take a back seat to the film itself. (and that film had a really really big boat).The director can win; the screenplay can win (and Vivien Leigh can win). There is also her age; something which really shouldnt be a factor, but is. So Gloria, is out.

This leaves Minnie Driver, a relatively fresh face who was also fabulous in her role; nuanced and poignant (both on and off the screen, imo).
But, Robin Williams gets BSA and that screenplay takes home OS. So, Minnie is out.

So then we have Kim Basinger, a hard-working, veteran actor who had toiled away in all kinds of films, some big box office; some, risky roles, gorgeous and talented. She is in a film, which, imo, could have won BP in ANY other year than a Titanic one. That adapted screenplay stands to me as one of the best, ever. It is star- studded, with terrific performances, but she is the lone Oscar nominee.
She also projects, a very likeable, and sweet-natured character, who wasnt overwhelmed by either Guy Pierce or Russell Crowe, which is a feat in itself.
Bingo. She wins.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: babypook,

Joan Cusack was in a film that, while genteelly superficial to begin with, has aged TERRIBLY in ten years. Her performance was shrill and unsympathetic.

Gloria Stuart's myopic navel gazing really grated my nerves in 'Titanic'. Her 'Old Rose' didn't reflect Winslet's version of the character AT ALL, but it is the Cameron/Howard/Spielberg way to assume that a character loses all traces of personality once they hit 60.

Kim Basinger made her character a ghost. What did she do? What did she say? What was the point of that stupid, stupid romantic subplot? The answer, to all three, is "nothing".

Moore wasn't bad in "Boogie Nights", but I thought that the nomination was a reaction to the interesting way that the 'hussy with a heart of gold' stereotype was presented.

Driver was at least natural, and her fresh, guileless take on the 'girl' role was pleasing when the other four nominees were so stale.

The field in this category was weak enough this year that I could have easily seen the magnificent trifecta of Ricci/Allen/Weaver in 'The Ice Storm' being nominated. Sarah Polley in The Sweet Hereafter was another good one that was passed up.

Joan Cusack could have won had she just had a few more minutes of screen time in that movie.

She was the only return nominee in the bunch. It is too bad she lost. Sure, the movie wasn't great, but she was the only good thing about it and it was what supporting performances are all about, stealing scenes and making the best of the material you have.

Kim was the benefactor of:

A comeback role after a few years of being away.
A role she almost turned down.
A film that the academy wanted to reward the acting in and she was the sole nominee from an OUTSTANDING CAST.
Was gracious during the voting period, gave interviews, and conveyed the image of a new and improved Kim in a wonderful marriage and ready to take on more dramatic roles.
Her husband certainly helped get her votes.
She had won the Globe and tied for the SAG.
The other four didn't stand a chance based on that.

It is too bad Joan is Oscarless...

BTW, does anybody know more about that tie between Kim and Gloria at the SAG? don't they have like 20000 members who vote? Was it really a precise tie?

I personally wasn't a fan of Minnie Driver's performance in Good Will Hunting; I wouldn't have nominated her.

Kim Basinger was fine in L.A. Confidential but a nomination would've sufficed.

Gloria Stuart....well MAYBE she deserved a nomination but a win might've been too much.

Joan Cusack was great and hilarious in In & Out and she could've won and I wouldn't have minded.

Julianne Moore was my choice for the win that year.

Sigourney Weaver (The Ice Storm) and Debbie Morgan (Eve's Bayou) should've gotten nominations. Weaver was worthy to actually win IMO.

1. Cusack
2. Basinger
3. Driver
4. Moore
5. Stuart

Cusack was by far the best for me, but I wasn't crazy about any of the nominees, especially Stuart. I guess I'm ok with Basinger winning, considering what a weak field it was.

My personal picks from that year were:

1. Alison Elliott, The Wings of the Dove
2. Cameron Diaz, My Best Friend's Wedding
3. Heather Graham, Boogie Nights
4. Christina Ricci, The Ice Storm
5. Joan Allen, The Ice Storm

This message has been edited. Last edited by: markk,

Sigourney was ROBBED!

It was a poor overall group of nominees, but my choice would have been Julianne Moore for "Boogie Nights".

I wasn't over the moon about any of these performances, but I probably would have gone with Driver, who gave a very nuanced-while-"un-actressy" performance.

I think that Basinger, Stuart, and even Moore were pretty bad nominees, as they really didn't do much with what they were given.

Stuart was "cute" and all, but as mentioned, I just didn't buy that she was old Rose. I also can't help but to feel that it was a performance that any elderly lady could have done with the right prompting and direction. Stuart just didn't really seem to be that "into" it or interested in doing anything to make the role stand out.

Moore was good, but--I dunno--her performance lacked the one or two impressive scenes that are expected in an Oscar-winning performance. I know some will point to her "too many things too many things" scene with Graham, but I actually find her acting there to be borderline bad. She it as her best when she plays the sympathetic mother figure to Graham and Wahlberg, but those scenes are few and far between.

Basinger, for me, has to be one of the worst performances ever to win an Oscar. Not worst because she is bad, but because her role requires her to do NOTHING. Seriously...if I was unfamiliar with the Oscars and/or was interested in acting and someone showed me this performance as an example of an Oscar-Caliber/Winning performance, I would be....well...not the least bit impressed. There is no range, no emotion, and no real acting present. About the only thing that Basinger brings to the role is charisma, but you can't tell me there are dozens of other actresses that could have pulled that performance off easily.

The leaves Cusack and Driver.

I LOVE Minnie Driver and her performance was a revelation. She is quite good, has the "big scene" where she tells Damon that she would give the money back in a second, and is quite charming. However, with that all said...her performance is quite soap-opera-ish, but I really think that has to do with the script.

So, my vote would have went to Joan Cusack, who pulled off and extremely wonderful comedic performance. She starts out as the clueless, obedient fiancee to Kline who is really oblivious to all the clues around her, but it is her breakdown scene at the church that REALLY was a level of acting that was never achieved in the other four nominees. She is HILARIOUS. And to the person who said her performance is shrill and unsympathetic...uh...that is how it was SUPPOSED to be!! She just got dumped at the alter by her boyfriend who reveals who is GAY. I seriously can't think of any woman who would be like "oh...well that's OK. I want to be sympathetic and be here for you" (at least not initially. Plus, I think it was established early in the movie just HOW MUCH the wedding meant to her, which made her reaction all the more realistic.

My rankings:

1. Cusack
2. Driver
3. Moore
4. Stuart
5. Basinger

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Troy,

Only Julianne Moore (who's my pick of the nominees) and Joan Cusack are deserving of their nominations. Overall, the unnominated Debbi Morgan should have won for Eve's Bayou.