Martin Scorsese deserves to win the Oscar for best director he did a magnificent job with Killers Of The Flower Moon you don't realize if Nolan winning is stolen
Lily is only winning because of narrative and she’s not a lead! It shouldn’t matter if someone has already an Oscar or not, Emma IS a lead, she IS Poor Things. it’s political vote. Hüller and stone were much better and actual Lead.
She should've gotten supporting but it's not like she wasn't very good. Oscars can be weird with that sort of thing and this isn't nearly as stupid as both Daniel Kaluuya and Lakeith Stanfield getting nominated for best supporting actor for "Judas and the Black Messiah".
I think she is deserving on merit grounds. Emma was frankly loud and theatrical, which while good was too showy for my taste (I think the best performance in POOR THINGS was Willem Dafoe, who sets the narrative in motion). Lily was understated and extremely effective, and the movie hinges on her performance. There are far shorter performances that have won lead actress. In fact, there are 3 best actress winners with shorter screen time than Anthony Hopkins in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (Patricia Neal in HUD; Louise Fletcher in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST; and Nicole Kidman in THE HOURS). Hopkins’s screen time was in fact 24 minutes and 52 seconds, and all these 3 performances (as well as David Niven in SEPARATE TABLES for Best Actor) were all shorter. Lily Gladstone’s screen time is around 57 minutes.
'Emma did very well in poor things, but more than the performance, she already have an oscar so lets give to lilly.' WOW!! What a convincing reason,perfect 🤮
On da money!
Cool
Martin Scorsese deserves to win the Oscar for best director he did a magnificent job with Killers Of The Flower Moon you don't realize if Nolan winning is stolen
Oppenheimer sweep
I think it's Nolan's "turn" this year.
But Oppenheimer really isn't my favourite in many categories.
I will be very disappointed if The Zone of Interest doesn’t win Best Sound.
Lily is only winning because of narrative and she’s not a lead! It shouldn’t matter if someone has already an Oscar or not, Emma IS a lead, she IS Poor Things. it’s political vote. Hüller and stone were much better and actual Lead.
She should've gotten supporting but it's not like she wasn't very good.
Oscars can be weird with that sort of thing and this isn't nearly as stupid as both Daniel Kaluuya and Lakeith Stanfield getting nominated for best supporting actor for "Judas and the Black Messiah".
I think she is deserving on merit grounds. Emma was frankly loud and theatrical, which while good was too showy for my taste (I think the best performance in POOR THINGS was Willem Dafoe, who sets the narrative in motion). Lily was understated and extremely effective, and the movie hinges on her performance.
There are far shorter performances that have won lead actress. In fact, there are 3 best actress winners with shorter screen time than Anthony Hopkins in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (Patricia Neal in HUD; Louise Fletcher in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST; and Nicole Kidman in THE HOURS). Hopkins’s screen time was in fact 24 minutes and 52 seconds, and all these 3 performances (as well as David Niven in SEPARATE TABLES for Best Actor) were all shorter. Lily Gladstone’s screen time is around 57 minutes.
Irrespective of screen time and narrative. Lilly performance is nice but she is 3rd in performance after sandra and emma.
'Emma did very well in poor things, but more than the performance, she already have an oscar so lets give to lilly.' WOW!! What a convincing reason,perfect 🤮