Will A Norbit Hurt Natalie Portman's Oscar Odds?

[Flying Dagger]

I didn't even see Norbit and I won't ever forgive Eddie murphy for it.

 

[viranimus]

Uhm likening Portmans work to Murphys work is quite short sighted. Why would you compare apples to oranges?

Norbit was pretty much standard fare for Murphy. A romantic comedy is an anomaly for portman.

Why would you compare a portfolio of work filled with similar goofy chars for B list comedies with a few comedic gems sprinkled in to a portfolio filled with Indie films, Blockbuster films, etc that illustrate a wide range of acting styles and techniques?

You might as well compare someone like Kevin Spacey to Ana Faris. Just doesnt make sense, so the whole article seems to be a tad off kilter.

 

[Moeez]

Well, as long as SOCIAL NETWORK (not just overrated, it's melodramatic, unlikeable characters, no character development, bad pacing) wins no awards just like AVATAR at the Oscars, I'll be very happy!

 

[rda_Highlander]

Does someone have to say it? Nobody cares about oscar. It's pretentious, crappy and overestimated by celebrities and media alike piece of shit. The only reason it exists is for some pretentious dipshits (actors and critics) to show how freaking important they are and for other pretentious dipshits (mass consumers) - to show what movies are "important" to watch to show girls their keen intellectual abilities. Isn't it a reason everybody wants some actor or movie to win? To know that they've got a good taste?

 

[StriderShinryu]

Well, no, it shouldn't have an impact on Portman's odds for winning an Oscar... but someone as talented as her agreeing to work with Kutcher should be something of a black mark.

As an admitted Kutcher hater it is funny to see just being in a movie with him getting equated to the absolute train wreck that is Eddie Murphy's career.

 

[Flying-Emu]

If she doesn't win, I'm going to have to choke a *****.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

well. it sucks that critics are determined to hate the movie before it even comes out. so much for not judging a book by its cover :/

 

[Swaki]

i have yet to see black swan, but i got tickets for the opening week (the 23rd, i dont know why it took so long to come out in Denmark) but i understand why they wont give the oscar to her, they pride themself in being a respectable award, and putting their stamp of approval on a actress who appears to go down the road of "movies for stoners".

and i have never liked natalie anyway, black swan does seem to be a great movie but as of writing i have never found her to be believable in any of her roles, for me it seems like she peaked at age 9 (or about that age) in Leon, and even then it was nothing spectacular.

 

[Hiraeth]

As far as I see it, Bullock won last year as a sort of career achievement award, Judi Dench won Best Supporting Actress for Shakespeare in Love where she has like three lines of dialogue for the same reason.

I find this gallery pretty interesting, because it discusses some of the worst Oscar wins (in the mind of the blogger mind you) and because it looks at the reasons why people and movies won, and who/what they beat to do so:
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/oscars/oscars_worst_wins_ever.php
I mean Citizen Kane never won best picture, and it's Citizen Kane.

I think I pretty much always figured that the Oscars were based more on politics than objectivity. I mean no sci-fi film has ever won, and some of them have been pretty damn deserving, but the Academy won't reward a genre that they don't see as mature.

That said, I can't predict how Portman's performance in Black Swan will go come the Oscars. I haven't seen any of the films with best actresses nominated, so I'm just going to wildly speculate here. I think her biggest competition will be Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole, and maybe Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine. I think whoever wins the relevant Golden Globe and SAG Award will probably be a big clue.

In other categories my picks are Colin Firth, Best Actor for The Kings Speech (lifetime achievement award), and Christian Bale, Best Supporting Actor for The Fighter (because he's apparently amazing in it and for the most part he tends to stay away from fluffy films). I'd like to see Hailee Steinfeld get Best Supporting Actress for True Grit.

 

[CosmicSpiral]

If Norbit did hurt Murphy's chances, it was because it reminded voters that his Dreamgirls performance was a huge outlier at that point in his career.

Speaking about Oscars, I think Mila Kunis should be nominated for Best Supporting Actress (not necessarily the winner though). And here I thought That 70's Show benefited no one in the end.

 

[WhiteRat07]

Sometimes good performers have shitty roles. Robert de niro was in that live action rocky and bullwinkle movie. I don't think it will really hurt her chaces.

 

[duchaked]

ah whatever, it's apparent the Academy Awards don't mean crap anymore

 

[Cheesebob]

How else do you explain 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' winning for BOTH make-up AND special effects, over superior special effects packages like Transformers and Iron Man?

Because, unlike those walking CGI-fests, Benjamin button did the special effects and make up in an understated way, not saying "LOOK AT THIS COOL SHIT WE CAN PUT ON SCREEN"

Take Fight Club, that had CGI for the faces being mashed up and that got nominated for best effects.

 

[maninahat]

Heck, I still can't get over the fact that they awarded Jamie Foxx an oscar for best supporting actor in Collateral. Who the hell was he supporting? He was the protagonist. It's like they didn't even watch the movie.

 

[frans909]

Norbit is great. I laughed my ass off.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

Aye, Ewan Mcgregor is a good actor as well. It's just that...oh god, why did they have to be that bad?

What it all comes down to is really bad directing and writing. Think about the logic of half the lines of dialogue in those movies. It rarely makes sense when you think about it. On top of that, the characters are mismatched for their personalities. Obi-Wan was supposed to be brash and impatient in the first movie and Megregor tries to play that personality, but he's written with the dialogue of a worrier and a whiner. All he does through the first half of the movie is sit around doing nothing and complain to Qui-Gon about things, while Qui-Gon, who's supposed to be the wise Jedi master, is always doing the things that a brash and impatient younger Jedi would do, yet Neeson still is trying to play his character as wise and thoughtful because this is what Lucas told them their characters were. On the whole, the clash makes it difficult for good actors to pull off. They're trying to figure out their roles as they're acting them and you see that as the movie proceeds. It's not bad acting, it's bad directing.
Hayden Christensen gets a lot of blame for his portrayal of Anikan Skywalker, (I've never seen him in any other movies, so I don't know how good he can actually act), but really, you could have given his role to a finely tuned Shakespearean thespian and he couldn't have made that part any more believable. The writing and directing are just that bad.

Christiansen was in a movie about Stephen Glass, a journalist who fabricated all of his stories. He successfully played a neurotic pathological liar and manipulator, and the film immediately convinced me that yep, the prequels were all George's fault.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Christiansen was in a movie about Stephen Glass, a journalist who fabricated all of his stories. He successfully played a neurotic pathological liar and manipulator, and the film immediately convinced me that yep, the prequels were all George's fault.

That's what I thought would be the case.

 

[captain underpants]

This whole article seems to be based on the premise that a bunch of movie wankers patting each other on the back is somehow important. How curious.