‘Brutally honest’ Oscar voter: Leonardo DiCaprio gave ‘a ridiculous performance’


One of my now-favorite annual traditions of the Oscar season is The Hollywood Reporter’s “Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot” series. They’ve been doing this for several years now, and the conversations are always interesting/infuriating/hilarious. The conceit of the series is that THR speaks to people within various branches of the Academy and, under the condition of anonymity, the Oscar voter goes through their reasoning for why they’re voting certain ways or for certain people. Because of the anonymity, the Oscar voters can really let loose and unleash their bitchiness. The first Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot is a thing of beauty – the voter is a member of the executives branch “who is not associated with any of this year’s nominees.” This voter LOATHES The Revenant. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

On #OscarsSoWhite: “I thought Idris Elba was brilliant in Beasts of No Nation. But whom would I have knocked off to make room for him, if I could even vote [to nominate] in the acting categories? I liked all of the performances that were nominated. Maybe we need to expand the size of the acting categories — who knows? What I do know is that the Academy mishandled the response. They should not have responded defensively. They’ve got to accept the vote of the people they approved as members. I’m sorry, but you cannot change the rules after the game has already begun just because you’re unhappy with the results. That’s what children do.”

The voter despised The Revenant: “ I dislike The Revenant intensely — it’s a beautifully shot Road Runner movie, in the sense that Leonardo DiCaprio keeps falling down and getting up, and who cares? I don’t.”

Thoughts on Best Picture: “Spotlight I liked very much, even though it also deals with terribly upsetting subject matter, because it shows how authority figures often fail to live up to their responsibilities — and because it features wonderful performances. But my No. 1 vote goes to The Big Short, which is the most courageous film of the year. It deals with a subject that most people don’t understand in a highly creative and entertaining way without using sentimentality as a crutch. MY VOTE (1) The Big Short (2) Spotlight (3) Room (4) The Martian (5) I abstain.”

Best Actor, Leo DiCaprio: “I rule out Leonardo immediately because it’s a ridiculous performance. They are running his campaign based on how hard it was to make the movie, right? I’m tired of hearing about it — that’s what he gets paid for! I mean, this was not Nanook of the North [a 1922 docudrama shot in the Arctic], for Christ’s sake. Give me a break. He got millions of dollars, and I would assume they had heaters. The fact that he’s never won before? He’s a young man, he still has time. [Steve Jobs'] Michael Fassbender is also out because he’s in a dopey movie. [Trumbo's] Bryan Cranston was nominated because of whom he played, not how he played him. I liked [The Martian's] Matt [Damon] and [The Danish Girl's] Eddie [Redmayne] very much, but Eddie broke my heart with the way he showed how painful it must have been to know something about himself that no one else seemed able to understand. MY VOTE Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl)

Best Actress: “Forget Cate Blanchett — her film [Carol] is more about decor and what everyone wears than anything of substance. [Joy's] Jennifer Lawrence goes next — the film is not good. Then there’s [45 Years'] Charlotte Rampling, who is a brilliant actress, but I didn’t believe the conceit at the center of the drama. [Brooklyn's] Saoirse Ronan is a very sweet actress, but [Room's] Brie Larson had to play the hardest part imaginable — you can’t even compare them. It wasn’t close at all. MY VOTE Brie Larson (Room)

[From THR]

I love the shade for The Revenant. I mean, I’m still positive that Leo is going to win Best Actor, but it definitely feels like Oscar voters have been looking for a reason to NOT give Best Picture or Best Director to Boy Drama in the Woods.

He also voted for Sylvester Stallone for Best Supporting Actor because of sentimentality and because Stallone won’t have another chance at another nomination and because Creed was a “quality sequel.” Then the voter went for Alicia Vikander which… I finally got around to watching The Danish Girl, and I just don’t get it. I get why Eddie Redmayne was nominated for everything, because he’s the heart and soul of the film and the work he did was incredibly subtle and moving. But Vikander’s performance could have been done better by like a dozen different actresses.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

121 Responses to “‘Brutally honest’ Oscar voter: Leonardo DiCaprio gave ‘a ridiculous performance’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Pixi says:

    I really wish Eddie Redmayne would pull off another upset like last year when Michael Keaton was everyone’s front runner. It would be very boring though with him and Alejandro both winning twice in a row, it would feel like watching a repeat of last year’s ceremony.

    • Truthful says:

      Ohhhh! I am soooooo with you on this one! I would love that! Plus his performance is far way more superior to di caprios

    • pwal says:

      I hope Redmayne doesn’t win. I thought Alicia’s performance was better, although it wasn’t Oscar-worthy. The Danish Girl is a prime example of the problem with the Academy. As soon as the still with Eddie done up as ‘Lily’ came out, they wanted to hand him a nomination. The movie wasn’t great and thankfully, it didn’t get any nominations for writing and directing.

    • CornyBlue says:

      Only Micheal Fasssbender has a minuscule chance of doing that. Eddie has won no where no critic awards even .

    • K says:

      What I would give for this to happen. Honestly I will take anyone pulling the upset really. But I do not want LEO to win.

    • Diana B says:

      Oh, he is by far the more deserving actor. He was superb on The Danish Girl. And I disagree with Kaiser about Vikander. She was really good as well and the only thing I would complain about is her being in the supporting category, but I guess they want her to win and facing Brie Larson was not going to be wise since she has that cat in the bag even more so than whiny Leo.

  2. LA says:

    Ok well s/he literally says Leo’s performance is ridiculous but then says “who would we have kicked out for Irdis”? Sounds like you think Leo could go! Totally contradicts his/herself right there.

    • stara says:

      I was just about to say that. S/he basically dismissed 3/5 of the category’s nominees.

    • lilacflowers says:

      Idris and Leo would not have been in the same category. Abraham Atta was the lead in Beasts of No Nation; Idris played a supporting role. Leo was the lead in Revenant.

    • Louise1977 says:

      No contradition sincr Leo is up for Best Actor and Irdis would be for Supporting. I like these anonymous ballots. It’s interesting what people really think.

    • GlimmerBunny says:

      Idris ran in Supporting Actor, Leo in Lead Actor.

    • LA says:

      Lol oh

      I’m an idiot

      • Amy Tennant says:

        Don’t feel bad. I squinted at that one for a while too until it dawned on me that it would have been best supporting instead of lead.

    • K says:

      Idris is supporting Leo is lead different categories. But Stallone should go in supporting but he/she wants him to get it for the be nice Oscar. But Idris should have the nomination instead of Stallone.

      However, Idris and Leo aren’t part of the same conversation because of categories.

      • Sarah(too) says:

        I disagree. Stallone deserves that nomination and if he wins, I’ll be fine with it. He was great in Creed. That was a very, very good movie and one of the few sequels that I think may have been better than the original. (Godfather 2 comes to mind, as well as Empire Strikes Back). I think the truth of Idris’s lack of nomination is that the voters just did not want to watch a movie with that subject matter. Frankly, I think the Academy could fix a lot of things by mandating that the voters have to watch the movies.

      • Kco says:

        Yes. I saw a special screening of Creed, and Stallone was the worst, most frozen faced part of that film. Honestly, his nom broke my heart.

      • Emma - The JP Lover says:

        @Sarah(too), who wrote: “Frankly, I think the Academy could fix a lot of things by mandating that the voters have to watch the movies.”

        I SO agree with this! How can someone honestly vote for the Best in any nominated category if they just don’t bother to watch every relevant film or performance nominated?

        I think they should have a rule where each Voting Group of the Academy would have to attend group viewings of the nominated films in order to retain their voting rights. They could sign in for relevant screenings, watch the films, and are thereby able to submit an ‘informed’ vote at home in private rather than simply voting for their favorite Actor, Cinematographer, Costume Designer, Director, Film Editor, Music Score, etc.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        K says “But Idris should have the nomination instead of Stallone”. Completely, utterly disagree. Stallone gave one of the best performances of year. His nomination is fully deserved. If he wins he will deserve it. There is a reason he has won over a dozen critics awards. If they had to kick someone out to make room for Idris Elba, I would choose Mark Ruffalo. He is not any better than any of the other cast in Spotlight. To single him out was odd, particularly when there were performances in the film (Schreiber, Tucci, Keaton) that were just as good, if not better than his.

    • Lindsay says:

      Oops, a million others already said it, don’t want to pile on :)

    • Carol says:

      @LA That’s what I thought! He highlights the problem with the academy his answer.

    • Sooboringheis says:

      exactly –um yes, who could go??

      Eta – oh didn’t realize that they are in different categories

  3. Kiki says:

    It will be a repeat when no one is watching the Oscars like last year. Unless Chris Rock gave “all those people hell”. Then I wouldn’t be surprise when the ratings went up.

    • LadyMTL says:

      Honestly, I watch almost every year but not the whole show. Generally what I do is watch the opening, to see the host and etc, then maybe 30-40 minutes after that I tune out. I can’t remember the last time I actually saw the entire thing, it’s just too long and gets sooooo very dull.

      In any case, the next day the highlights / lowlights are plastered everywhere online, so it’s not like I really miss anything.

      • Hautie says:

        I TIVO the Oscars. Then watch immediately following, when it ends. And it takes me around an hour to watch the whole thing. It is packed full of so much non-sense, I just don’t want to watch. I fast forward through most of it.

        I love watching the Golden Globes, live. Where it moves along quickly. The jokes are there. And there is always a chance that something very off color will happen and crack me up.

        The Oscars are just boring as hell. But occasionally something interesting will happen. Once every decade.

      • lucy2 says:

        I do the same, Hautie, though I DVR all the award shows and speed through. I can always back it up if I missed something. I can’t even stand the interminable wait of watching people make their way to the stage.

  4. NewWester says:

    The thing with winning the Oscar is that ” where do you go from there?” How many actors and actresses win an Oscar and then their next projects are just crap ? I am always interested in the films Oscar winners are in after a win. Some winners seem to have a rather lacklustre approach, where as others may be in a crap movie but give a great performance. Meryl Streep comes to mind when it comes to an actor who gives her all in a film.

    • Pinky says:

      After the Oscars, it’s the rise in pay that matters much more to some actors than the quality of the projects now offered. Because these days projects for stars are just crap superhero movies.

      And this Odcar voter has a hate-on for Leo. Pointless, but hilarious. Played Leo’s Red Carpet Rampage more than once, I’m sure!


      • Emma - The JP Lover says:

        @TheRealPinky, who wrote: “And this Odcar voter has a hate-on for Leo. Pointless, but hilarious.”

        I don’t know, it sounded more to me like he had a hate-on for Leo’s Oscar campaign and that soured him on Leo’s nomination.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Hilary Swank comes to mind. I do not understand what is going on with her career. She won TWO frickin’ Oscars. And then … I mean looking at her IMDB page just makes you want to cry. I absolutely love her but it seems she never really found her niche? I have no idea what’s going on there but it’s almost like she didn’t know what to do with any of it.

      • Bridget says:

        Hey niche was playing working class/hard scrabble women, and is really really great at that but doesn’t really work that well in anything else.

      • CK says:

        To be fair, Hillary Swank is in her 40s and probably isn’t getting the amount of calls that she used to. There’s always a winnowing of the great young actresses around that age and few (Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet) have lasting power. I think she may make a comeback, but it will probably have to happen in an indie film. There’s always a great actress that gets slept on for a decade or two after they hit it big before coming back. I fear that Jessica Chastain may be that person this generation.

      • Bridget says:

        Swank actually almost had another Academy Award nominated performance (didn’t happen, but she was in the race) a couple of years ago with The Homesman. But again, it was in that unglamorous niche.

      • lucy2 says:

        I think Bridget is right – she’s great in certain roles, but not someone who can play anything.
        I think she also had a few bad choices/bad deals after her Oscars and as a result had a few box office flops, and hasn’t been given many chances since then.

      • marymoon says:

        I read an old interview recently where she said that after Boys Don’t Cry, all the offers and scripts came rolling in but she didn’t realize that would all dry up after six months. She missed her first window and never recovered, it seems.

      • Pepper says:

        She has a niche, and she’s very good at playing characters within it. She’s terrible in anything else. She’s also awful at capitalising on her big moments, she should have been lining up projects when the buzz began to build, instead she basically took a break each time and then when she came back, everyone was over her.

        A lot of Best Actress winners make lousy choices, partly because quite a few of them win the first time they do something remotely Oscar-worthy. So sometimes it’s a fluke, whether of acting or project choosing, and they can’t recreate it. For every Adrien Brody there’s like five Hilary Swanks.

  5. Birdie says:

    Alicia’s performance is just like Keira Knightley’s performance in The Imitation Game. Absolutely boring and not worthy of a nomination. Looking worried is not acting.

    • Kiki says:

      Finally someone agrees with me i just don’t understand why Alicia is still a thing. Her acting is boring and bland.

    • Anon says:

      The Danish Girl wasn’t a great movie it was a good classic oscar-bait movie. Vikander was better in Ex Machina and in Testament of Youth, it’s film that deserves to be seen.

    • Diana says:

      Exactly what I was about to post. Such a generic actress. I do think she was good in Ex machina

    • OriginallyBlue says:

      I watched the trailer for the movie she is in with Michael Fassbender that is coming out in September and she has the same look. Unless she is smiling. I think that worried, slightly confused/pained look is just her face.

    • Flora says:

      Couldn’t agree more. Her performance was nothing to write home about. Then again I wasn’t that impressed by Eddie Redmayne either. That whole film was about costumes and decors just like Carol was. Alicia should have been nominated for Ex-Machina.

    • sauvage says:

      Interesting, I loved Keira Knightley in “The Imitation Game”. I loved the ballsyness AND vulnerability she brought to the character. Absolute 3D character development in my mind.

      But then, that’s the thing with acting as an art form, its perception is highly subjective; it’s often very hard to agree on a performance because people perceive it so differently. There is no “right” or “wrong”, like in science, for example, since the criteria are completely subjective.

  6. arbelia says:

    Of all movies out this year , this Oscar voter likes …. the Danish Girl !! Which is just awful IMO, and really got a lukewarm reception at best ! And he would vote for Redmayne , who is easily the weakest in the category . Actually Vikander got better reviews than him, that’s why she’s the frontrunner in her category (although it’s a category fraud, because in no way she’s supporting). If anything , Fassbender should win this year :he’s mesmerizing in Steve Jobs. That’s the opinion of many commentators and Oscar pundits , but it’s not gonna happen. But Redmayne, Aw, just No. And i love Both Eddie And Leo as actors btw.

    • Truthful says:

      Yes Alicia Vikander got better reviews (that is called running a campaign no?) but she is in no way quite remotely in the same acting category than Redmayne. He is absolutely incredible, his work is so subtle yet powerful. He owns this movie and he is incredible in it.

      • arbelia says:

        I hated his performance in the movie, i found it downright laughable, and thought Vikander was muuuuch better than him. I wouldnt have nominated him at all.

      • Valois says:

        I didn’t think he was subtle in it. I can’t really explain it, but I had to cringe quite a few times because of him.

      • Truthful says:

        so very different strikes then… it shows that acting is indeed a versatile art as I found her atrociously bland

      • Cla says:

        Redmayne was awful. Vikander was miles better than him.

  7. lucy2 says:

    As this person said, why don’t they expand the acting categories in the way they did Best Picture? Between 5-10 nominees depending on how the votes tally.

    Boy Drama in the Woods, LOL. Every preview I saw it just looked cold, dirty, and gross. I’ve heard some people loved it, but it’s no my thing.

  8. Anon says:

    After seing The Danish Girl your comment just doesn’t make any sense to me, Eddie Reydman was ridiculous in some part and she carried the movie. Anyway I was overly disappointed by this picture. Alicia Vikander should have been nominated for Ex Machina she was stellar and it was one of the best movie of the year.

    PS. Vikander got better reviews than Redmayne.

    • tracking says:

      Yes, totally agree. Should have been the Ex Machina performance.

      • Anon says:

        You know movies like The Danish Girl are a typical problem of the Oscars. Before the movie had even a trailer they were already talking about The Oscars. They love theses kind of drama and for an obscure reason smart genre movies are always absent.

    • CornyBlue says:

      Vikander was wayy better than Redmayne. Her performance might not have been better in it than Ex Machina or Testament of Youth but I think it shone more due to how ridiculous Redmayne was.

    • Cla says:

      Vikander should have been nominated for Ex Machina or Testament of Youth. Terrific performances. She’s the sole saving grace of The Danish Girl.

  9. Soprana says:

    Did anyone else not really care for “The Big Short”? I found the celeb cameos rather condescending, and I’m tired of White Boys and Their Toys movies.

    • CornyBlue says:

      I did not care for it at all. They out and out removed one of the central characters from the book who was a woman, I couldn’t believe it is getting awards attention. To be fair i hate the book too so i was negatively biased.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      I thought about that for a second while watching the movie (I did love it though) yes, it was a tad condescending but wasn’t it warranted? Because people – and I include myself here – still have only a very vague understanding of what happened in 2007/ 2008 and to be fair, it is incredibly complicated, sometimes even for people with a background in finance. But most never cared enough to actually find out because, yes, it’s difficult. And we’d rather do something else. Honestly, that movie was perfect for people like me and I still don’t think I could explain any of this to someone else. Yes, maybe they were trying to rub it in our faces that we don’t know sh*t. But don’t they have a point?

      I understand why someone might not care for the movie in general but the tone of those cameos kinda hit the nail on the head.

      • Sooboringheis says:

        same – i thought is it condescending? but at the same time i understood why the movie did that. i am fairly educated and read about the financial crisis and even saw the other movie about it – The Inside Job – but it was still good to have it broken down. and yeah it assumes the worst about us that our attention spans can only be kept by celebs in bubble baths and famous chefs chopping up food so that we understand. but in a society where kids look up to the Kardashians, i say, ok treat us like idiots and explain what happened.

    • anon33 says:

      Didn’t care for it for the same reasons. my husband loved it bc of their use of metal on the soundtrack but that was about all we found admirable lol.

    • pwal says:

      I care about The Big Short and I hope it wins Best Picture.

      Personally, I loved the breaking the 4th wall, especially since, for me, it was a swipe at how the Academy voters pick and choose when creative license is justified and when it’s a dealbreaker. Argo, American Hustle, The Revenant, etc. got cut a lot of slack, whereas 12TAS and Selma were scrutinized mercilessly.

      Personally, I find it ‘interesting’ how the media covered this movie. If you depended on them, you’d think it was about men with bizarre hair. No real in-depth pieces, at least, not on entertainment shows. No loud buzz about Adam McKay for tackling a complicated topic and yet, bringing the funny.

      I have a couple of theories for why-Brad Pitt/Plan B- who continues to not promote the movies he had cameos in, but instead, encourage the people who wrote, direct and dominate the screen time, discuss and promote them.

      My other theory- it hits too close to home-not the losing homes/pensions/jobs bit, but the whole hyping the value of something, whether it’s the stories they cover or the people they speak to, for the sake of Sweeps or to placate talent agencies/managers or their parent companies.

    • msd says:

      Condescending is a good word to describe The Big Short. The filmmakers didn’t trust the audience to have a brain. I also couldn’t stand the way it was directed and edited – that ‘chaos style’ has been done to death, it’s just lazy filmmaking now. It’s a pity because somewhere in there a good film was dying to come out.

  10. Cassieeee says:

    Even though I hate the revenant, I do think leo is a great actor and has given us tons of important performances. I truly think it is insulting to say leo will have his time and then vote for Eddie. He won last year and really doesn’t deserve it this year imho.

    • isabelle says:

      Actors should be rewarded for their performance in what they are nominated for in the first place. Not for their overall acting or career. There are special rewards for career acting. It is honestly fair for someone to win because hey there a good actor in previous movies, so why not just let them win. It’s not fair to the other actors competing with them for the actual year they’re nominated.

  11. AmyB says:

    I saw The Revenant and thought it was a moving film, albeit quite violent at times. IMO Leo definitely deserves the Oscar; I don’t get the hate he receives sometimes. However, I think some of his other performances were better: In What’s Eating Gilbert Grape he was amazing (I know this was his first nomination and I read some viewers did not realize he was actually playing a mentally retarded person — they thought he was actually mentally slow!) and I loved his performance in The Departed. He has paid his dues — give him the Oscar already lol! Reminds me of Al Pacino finally winning for Scent of a Woman, when he SHOULD have won for playing the role of his career: Michael Corleone of the Godfather films.

  12. Sisi says:

    Has anyone seen any of the Best Foreign Movie nominations? Usually that is where the interesting movies are imo, but this year I haven’t gotten around to watching anyof them yet.

    • CornyBlue says:

      Mustang and Son of Saul. Son of Saul will win the Oscar but i am insanely in love with Mustang and was my favourite movie of 2015.

      • Truthful says:

        Me too! Mustang is a masterpiece, a true one, a gem, that ‘s how movies should be! tremendous acting, incredible story, so when you walk out from the weather you are truly changed, really.For me it’s one of the best movies of this year

      • Sarah01 says:

        Mustang was truly a masterpiece. Agree with everything you said TRUTHFUL.
        I will now spend part of my weekend watching Son of Saul.

      • Tiny Dancer says:

        Me three on Mustang. Just saw it last Saturday and was spellbound. Funny, sad, thrilling. Wonderful film.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I loved Mustang.

      • Sisi says:

        thanks for the info everyone! I shall definitely check out Mustang & Son of Saul was indeed on my plan to watch list already

    • Saks says:

      “Embrace the Serpent” from Colombia is the best film of the year for me, it is awesome!! “son of saul” will win because is the WWII story that always wins (it is a good movie yet nothing extraordinary) “Mustang” is a way better film.

      If you have the chance also watch “El Club” from Chile (biggest snub for me) and “El Clan” from Argentina, both are great movies, sadly neither made it to the Oscars.

  13. perplexed says:

    Setting aside the fact that everybody likes the Rocky role, is there some reason Sylvester Stallone is so well-loved? I never thought of him as the type of actor the Academy likes to reward (i.e action star?).

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Maybe because he’s so low-key? He also seems like a really good guy who knows exactly who he is and what he does in Hollywood. He was nominated in two categories for the first Rocky movie though. So it’s not that big of a surprise.

    • tracking says:

      I think it’s in part because actors tend to get rewarded at the end of their careers. And he created a genuinely iconic character. His performance in Creed was the most nuanced since the first one and had a nostalgic, even elegiac tone. As much as I like Michael B. Jordan, I do believe Stallone’s performance was the standout (whereas Fruitvale Station was amazing).

    • Adele Dazeem says:

      I think its a number of reasons. He’s a writer/director/actor/producer so has employed a lot of people in Hollywood throughout the years. He also seems to have become genuinely humbled in his later years and I think people appreciate that kind of personal growth. Remember, a lot of people thought (and he himself has admitted it) that he became quite egotistical there for a while (eg. bit of a control freak on set, numerous accounts of cheating on his first wife). He has basically been a great guy for the last twenty years, no controversies, a long and happy (third) marriage. He has also created his own career (even if some people don’t like the characters he created): Rocky, Rambo (yes, I know the original film was based on a book but Stallone moulded the film character), Barney Ross from The Expendables. So, they might not admire the action genre, but they might admire that he has produced, written and acted in these himself. He didn’t wait around for others to do it for him.

      Of course, the other huge reason is that everyone loves a comeback. This guy has been ridiculed for decades for his acting (some of it definitely deserved) and, at the ripe old age of 69, has finally, finally proven that he is a gifted actor. He left his vanity behind and produced a performance he was always capable of but hadn’t had much opportunity to display of late. Every actor knows the feeling of being typecast, of being ridiculed, of being judged, of not being able to show their true talent (I think Stallone was his own worst enemy in terms of career choices). Maybe some members of the film industry can relate to that feeling of restriction and are celebrating that one of their own has been able to break out of the mould.

  14. Rhiley says:

    I have been waiting all week for this, and it did not disappoint.

  15. Lizzie McGuire says:

    Whoever this voter is s/he is amazing, s/he does have some good points on the Revenant & on how the Academy handled the #OscarsSoWhite

  16. Die Zicke says:

    I think a lot of people want Redmayne to win because he’s a nice guy, but in that movie Vikander gave the better performance. But I also think Vikander should have been nominated for Ex Machine over The Danish Girl. The Danish Girl got nominated for awards because it’s a biopic about an issue that’s been in the news a lot. But if they wanted to nominate a movie about the transgender experience, they should have nominated Tangerine, which was a great movie. With performances given by actual transgender actresses, not Eddie Redmayne in drag.

  17. Sarah01 says:

    Leo deserves an Oscar but not for the Revenant. The two best performances I saw in movies last year were both from children Abraham Atta ( beasts of no nation) and Jacob Tremblay (room). None of the other actors or actresses came close to those performances.
    Eddie gave a better performance than Leo. And Alicia has been robbed she gave a better performance in ex machina and Danish girl than winslet or anyone else in her category.
    Brie Larson was good but not great, but I think because the movie was so incredible that helped her.
    For me the best director should go to Lenny Abrahamson, the way he shot it from a child’s view was brilliant.

    • K says:

      I agree I would drop Leo and Eddie and put up both those wonderful children. They both had truly difficult roles to take on and did so masterfully and should have been recognized.

      I will say I think Beast was hurt by the Netflix thing, TV has evolved but film hasn’t.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Abraham, Jacob, and the two boys in the nominated short Shok

    • pwal says:

      I haven’t seen Beasts of No Nation yet (don’t do Netflix-yet), but Jacob Tremblay was wonderful in Room. He deserved a nomination, IMO and not in supporting either. Personally, I suspect that if he was in the race, Leo wouldn’t have been such a sure thing.

      Personally, I think that the Oscar voters justified the omission because a chunk of it was voiceover and they anticipate that Jacob will continue to work, which is another part of the problem-not judging the performances during that particular year, but instead, fixating on the ‘long game’/career, a conceit which isn’t necessarily afforded to all actors.

  18. kri says:

    Two things are engraved on my heart..”Leonardo keeps falling down and getting up again. Who cares? I don’t” and ” I assume they had heaters”. LOLOLLAHAHHAHAA!!!!!!!!!! Oh, yasssss. The shady truth. This is gold.

    • Granger says:

      Those comments were gold. I always roll my eyes when actors complain about how difficult it was to make a film. Sure, I get that weather can suck and spending two hours in make-up can suck and being away from your kids can suck, etc. etc. etc. But like this Academy member said, you’re getting paid millions to endure a few slight inconveniences — and for big stars, they might make one film a year, so they work for a few weeks and then, oh darn! Vacation for nine months. Suck it up.

  19. katie says:

    I personally think that all Oscar baity movies are ridiculous.

  20. Micki says:

    I must admit I like the roles Leo took after Titanic. I’ve always thought he delivered good performances and have no problem if /when he wins his Oscar this year. For sure his pursuit of it is beyond tiresome now, but I think that if he weren’t in the entertainmet, but say in the industry sector his tenacity would be more admired.

  21. Ally8 says:

    Have you featured this year’s “honest posters” yet? These always crack me up.


  22. Amaria says:

    Oh, imagine if he didn’t win – the stunts he’d be trying in his next movie, the headlines: “Leo does own stunts, gets shot for real”, “Leo breaks his legs for art” :>

  23. chelsea says:

    I love how Oscar voters are every bit as stupid as I thought they were.

  24. anon says:

    Leo deserves an Oscar but not for the Revenant. If there was a “Career Oscar” it would be his. Fassbender gave the best performance of 2015 and it’s such a shame he’s not going to win, after Steve Jobs I’m 100% sure that his acting skills are strong. I can’t believe some of the nominees though… Redmayne and Vikander? For real?? Their acting was so bad, funny even. The Danish Girl is a crap film but so were their performances. Close your eyes dramatically (Redmayne) and ugly-crying (Vikander) is NOT award worthy acting, sorry.

    • Zan says:

      I totally agree with you, he deserves one, but not for The Revenant.

      On another topic,, Spotlight was really good, no fuss, no romance just facts, on a very serious and important subject. I really hope it wil win best movie!

  25. Marianne says:

    I don’t get not choosing someone for best actor or actress because their movie was crap. Like, it is specifically about their performance. if you don’t like the movie as a whole, then fine. Don’t vote for it for Best Picture.

    But I kind of agree about The Revenant. It is a beautiful shot movie. But the story itself was not that captivating. And I thought Leo was quite good in it. But I don’t think its his best role/work to date.

  26. Micky says:

    I agree with her on Idris. I mean who should have been taken out in order to make room for him?
    The Oscars so white is a bit silly. The NAACP was 2 weeks ago and they did not nominate any other minorities other then black. That is more racist to me then the Oscars. For the host to say ” This is Diversity” while looking at the room full of blacks only, I was thinking this is not at all diversity. Giving award based on skin color is more racist.

    • anon33 says:

      OMG SO SICK OF THIS ARGUMENT. You don’t even understand what racism is so just please stop talking.

    • nn says:

      “The NAACP was 2 weeks ago and they did not nominate any other minorities other then black.”

      Wrong! They nominated white, latinos and asians and have done so prior as well.

    • K2 says:

      Yeah. I mean, anyone would think that society is set up in such a way white people have an advantage so accepted that mostly they don’t even notice it. It’s not that people assume competence in whites via unconscious prejudice and that’s why they get the job more easily and stopped and searched less than non-whites, no way! It’s that they are just more skilled, on average, than anyone else. And commit less crime – anyone would think the stats showed that whites are stopped and searched far less, despite those whites who are S&S being far more likely to be carrying illegal weaponry or drugs or stolen property than non-whites, or something. And that surveys showing that fact were reproduced across several US cities and states. How crazy would that be! Almost as crazy as the nonsensical suggestion that a white kid at Harvard smoking a blunt wouldn’t get into much trouble, while a black kid from the Brownsville projects would get the book thrown at them. And then there’s the daft little notion that white men are shown on screen 75% of the time, and that even when they are on screen, women and non-whites take only the supporting (and love interest or feisty best friend or criminal) roles much of the time while the protagonist is a white guy. It’s even like sex scenes always have the camera angle of the male in the set-up, or something, because onscreen sexuality is by default almost always represented as being white and male. I KNOW. IT’S JUST CRAZY TALK!

      I mean, with all the Black History Month and International Women’s Day, you’d think almost all the history anyone gets taught is about white men or something, and they didn’t need their own specific, dedicated time too! Won’t somebody think of the white man! Locked out of the courts, locked out of the media, locked out of positions of corporate governance and so grossly underrepresented in politics. I could cry at the injustice, really. Why, the Oscars are all they have left, and now they are trying to steal those from them too?!

      Anyway, the Oscars aren’t racist because there’s nothing saying they are aimed at white people. Why should the awards that laud the most popular and influential entertainment industry in the global West in any way be concerned if they focus so solidly on white men? If women and people of colour want to be recognised then they just need to be better. That’s all.

      • K2 says:

        Oh, and there is an awesome article in the NYT you might want to read. It discusses this very issue – not the Oscars; representation.

  27. Saks says:

    What I hate about this voters is that they get to vote when a lot of times they haven’t even seen some of the movies, that is just stupid and unfair!

    • msd says:

      The first thing this person says is that he didn’t get around to watching Mad Max, the film that got the second highest number nominations and is up for BP. Then he voted for it anyway in Makeup!

      AMPAS members blather on about merit and how important they are but most are lazy, catty and not too bright.

  28. Zaytabogota says:

    Nonsense, Leo was brilliant in the revenent and deserves to win. Most academy voters don’t even watch the movies and are swayed by the campaigning so I suppose the Oscars are irrelevant anyway.

  29. SM says:

    Do I understand correctly that this anonymous is a voter? He/she dislikes Leo but says that there is no one in that category that could be replaced by Idris? He/she thinks that the Revenant had no substance and was about nothing. Why not nominate Beasts of Nation then? The film that is not a decor and deals with a very difficult subject. A film that actually would benefit from all the attention the nomination brings. So as much as we all collectively like to hate on the Revenant I say this is not brutally honest and full of shit

  30. WOWOW soooo oscar academy trying to actively change the dynamic and demographic to allow for more diversity is childish……WOWOWOWOWO

    yeah Russell Simmons wea re ready for this new awards show….

    I have been saying this for years….. some of the moguls who are POCs need to create the an awards show or something…. or POCs need not relish and crave validation in sooowhiteoscars….

    if Jlaw can phone it in and get nominated for Joy….. then is that an awards show you really want to pinch yourself attending and winning.

    • msd says:

      I like how he criticises AMPAS for acting like a child and then goes on to make childish comments about the films and nominees.

  31. Camille says:

    I love reading these, they are often times the best part of the awards season hehe.

    I really would love it if Leo didn’t win, but I think it is a lock at this point :( .

    • K2 says:

      Me too! I don’t really care who wins this year, as long as Room does well. I just looked forward to these articles, because they are invariably delicious.

  32. Pepper says:

    I’m kind of hoping there’s an upset with Best Actor. I actually think Leo deserves it this year (and that he deserved it for Wolf of Wall Street, McConaughey was rewarded for extreme weight loss and for the other, far better work he’d done recently), but let’s face it, the Oscars are just another piece of entertainment, and after all this build up it would be amazing if he lost. As long as it’s not to Redmayne.

    I like to think Vikander is getting votes for the film she’s not nominated for, Ex-Machina. She absolutely deserved an Oscar for that, so if she has to get it for Danish Girl whatever. At least she’ll get it the right year.

  33. Michelle says:

    Embarrassing. Oscar voting is worse than 1990s Olympic Ice Dance judging. If you haven’t seen all the performances in a category, you shouldn’t vote in that category. Do they not even have that basic rule? I’m also not sure why they vote in categories where they have no expertise.