Opinion: Gary Oldman doesn’t deserve the Best Actor Oscar for ‘The Darkest Hour’

EE British Academy Film Awards gala dinner held at Grosvenor House

Last November, I made a gossip-prediction about the Best Actor Oscar race. My prediction hasn’t come true. I’m sorry! To be fair, it felt like my gossip-prediction mojo was “off” all of 2017. I’ve regained my sense of prediction-equilibrium this year, especially when I called the Justin Theroux-Jennifer Aniston divorce. Anyway, my gossip prediction last November was that Gary Oldman would not have an easy-going Oscar campaign for The Darkest Hour. I was wrong: he’s had the easiest f–king ride throughout his campaign, picking up every major award thus far, and he’s 99.9999% guaranteed to win the Best Actor Oscar on Sunday. What happened? I think I forgot that Gary Oldman is an older white dude and they always get “passes,” plus I grossly overestimated how much people would care about the allegations that he brutalized his ex-wife, and how much people would not care that he gave that problematic AF interview in 2014.

So because Oldman is a shoo-in, I thought I should actually sit down and watch The Darkest Hour, even though the trailers made it look like a parody of “this is the dumb Hollywood movie which will win an Oscar because it’s about WWII and a historical figure.” Guess what? This movie is trash. If you haven’t seen it yet, don’t watch it. It’s AWFUL. It reminds me a lot of Meryl Streep winning an Oscar for The Iron Lady, another f–king awful movie about a “British historical figure.” Older Oscar voters love that sh-t – they love it when older actors wear a sh-t ton of prosthetics and act like a cartoon of the actual historical figure they’re supposed to be playing authentically. The Iron Lady was unwatchable to me, and The Darkest Hour was almost as bad.

I can’t decide what pissed me off more: the gross historical inaccuracies or the fact that Gary Oldman was, in fact, garbage in this role. They made such a big f–king deal about the makeup and Oldman’s “transformation” – leaving aside the fact that they should have simply hired an actor who looked more like Churchill from the start – that it was a bit disconcerting to realize that OH RIGHT you can’t slap makeup on a sh-tty performance and expect it to be good. Oldman’s prosthetic-heavy face looked weird and “off” throughout the film, and despite the fact that he wore body-bulking pillows/fat suits, he didn’t even bother to carry himself like a larger man. It was obvious throughout that he was a slender man wearing a fat suit and prosthetics on his face. As for all of the work Oldman supposedly did trying to get Churchill’s voice right – he did not. I’ve heard those Churchill speeches. Oldman didn’t get his voice at all. And he’s going to win an Oscar for this. People are going to be SO embarrassed about this in a year, just like Meryl’s win for The Iron Lady has not held up at all.

Also: the whole Oscar campaign is based on “he wore a lot of makeup and transformed himself” (see below) – but, AGAIN, the makeup and prosthetics were not good. Plus, we need to stop giving actors Oscars for wearing f–king makeup.

EE British Academy Film Awards gala dinner held at Grosvenor House

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

96 Responses to “Opinion: Gary Oldman doesn’t deserve the Best Actor Oscar for ‘The Darkest Hour’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lisa says:

    i thought he did then saw john lithgow do the part justice with more acting less makeup, now i dont think so

    • BengalCat2000 says:

      John Lithgow is amazing as hell in every role. Dude does not get enough love, imo.

      • lannisterforever says:

        Not enough love? He won an Emmy for his portrayal of Churchill in “The Crown”…

      • BengalCat2000 says:

        @lannisterforever, you’re right.

      • Sunny says:

        @BengalCat2000, Lithgow also won Critics’ Choice Television Awards and Screen Actors Guild Awards for that role. That’s plenty of love actually.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      Hell, I don’t in general particularly even like Lithgow and I thought he was brilliant as Churchill in The Crown. The Darkest Hour was poorly made, self-conscious (“Look at all this historicity — we’re being so profound!”), often boring, and you could see Oldman acting all the way through it. He is a talented actor (and apparently a shit human being), but in The Darkest Hour he was not acting, he was impersonating. One thumb down, the other thumb in his eye.

      • Plantpal says:

        @Lahdidahbaby LOL “One thumb down, the other thumb in his eye” You have my vote for funniest putdown of the day!!

  2. sunnydeereynolds says:

    Eh. A lot of Oscar winners didn’t deserve their Oscar win for the right movie role but got the win in the next nomination anyway because they’re ‘due’ for not getting it the last time. It’s not new. If you are loved by the Oscar voters, you’ll get nominations after nominations even if that celeb doesn’t deserve it in that role.

    • MVC says:

      Like Julianne Moore winning for “Still Alice” . Rosamund Pike was so robbed.

      • Slowsnow says:

        Please don’t come after my darling Julianne More in the wonderful Still Alice. I have often rewatched the film and it is incredibly good and so subtle. I read a critic replying to the question “which film did you underestimate in a review?” and the answer was Still Alice. Even the end it incredible and sophisticated. Even the title is quietly brilliant.
        Pike’s kind of acting is, for me, far more expected.

    • LilLil says:

      Yeah, it shoul be for that one particular role but it isn’t. He’s getting a career Oscar because of his incredible performances in the past.

    • Here or There says:

      Exhibit A: Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love

    • HeidiM says:

      Dicaprio for Bear Sex.

    • Ozogirl says:

      Yup….like Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock.

      • Victoria says:

        Julia stole it from Ellen Burstyn for a lifetime movie. I don’t get it… and the Blind side was so hokey!!! Was it for the awful blonde hair?!?

    • vespernite says:

      Halle for Monsters Ball…REALLY??? FFS She was better in Things They Lost in the Fire

  3. NorthernLala says:

    Timothee Chalamet should win. I thought he was amazing in Call Me By Your Name.

  4. Mia4s says:

    OK…*shrug*…but he’s going to win. It’s always cute when people try to make some case that Oscars should be about merit. They’re not. They never were.

    Plus he’s not winning for Darkest Hour. He’s winning for Sid and Nancy, and True Romance, and State of Grace, and Nil by Mouth, etc. It’s the classic Oscar career achievement award (See also: Al Pacino, Paul Newman etc.). Same old same old.

    • Jamie42 says:

      This^ And add to that Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, when it was said throughout the campaign that this was his first nomination. Oldman wants this very badly.
      And thanks for the movie review, but I wasn’t going to see it anyway.

      • An18 says:

        And for his role in The Professional.

      • wood dragon says:

        I have to admit he was really good in Tinker, Tailor. If he could have won for anything, it should have been that.

      • Victoria says:

        What about Bram Stoker’s Dracula?? I thought he was good in that and in The Professional. Haven’t seen his newer stuff because not interested

    • Bridget says:

      Personally, I don’t think his body of work is that strong to begin with. He’s never been one of my “how does he not have an Oscar?” picks. More like “why should he?”

      • Kelly says:

        Oldman’s body of work is interesting for lacking some of the awards baity performances that seem to be Oscar catnip. It’s a very broad and eclectic body of work that is very heavy on the genre films (Harry Potter, Fifth Element, the Nolan Batman films). He’s also taken some roles that were very much for the paycheck and allowed him to indulge in some scenery chewing villain roles.

        I liked John Lithgow’s Churchill in The Crown, because Lithgow has a passable resemblance to the older 1950s man and didn’t rely on makeup.

  5. Jussie says:

    It’s a crap film and not one of his better performances but it’s palatable to the Academy and he’s ‘owed’. That’s why half the acting winners win. They get looked over for years doing great, challenging work, then when they finally do some safe, boring, paint by numbers film they win as sort of a culmulative prize.

    It should be Timothée or DDL, but DDL isn’t ‘owed’ anymore and Timothée has years to work up to being ‘owed’.

    It’s a garbage system that rewards mediocrity at least half the time. Always has been.

    • Anname says:

      And that’s why Denzel got his nomination this time, for a movie that I would bet not many voters even watched.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        No that’s why Denzel won for Training Day. To make up for the fact that he didn’t win for Malcolm X – because Pacino won for Scent Of a Woman that year. To make up for all the films HE should have won for. The reason Denzel got nominated this year was to fill the spot that would have gone to James Franco had it not been for the allegations that came out against him right before the nominations.

      • Lightpurple says:

        Denzel has become the male Meryl as far as nominations go

  6. Una says:

    Gary Oldman is not winning the Oscar for “The Darkest Hour”. It is career achievement Oscar. Jullianne Moore got it for “Still Alice”. Would anybody say it was the best performance of Moore or of the year? It was for her career. If it was just based on the performances, Timothee Chalamet would take home an Oscar.

    • Kaiser says:

      I agree that Julianne Moore got the Oscar for the body of work, but I’d like to point out that her performance in ‘Still Alice’ was actually very good. She did amazing work in that film. Oldman did not do amazing work in ‘The Darkest Hour’.

      • Una says:

        I am not saying it was bad. There are many actors that won for good enough performances. I did not watch “The Darkest Hour” yet so I won’t comment on Oldman’s performance in this movie. I was just pointing out that it is very typical of The academy to award OK to good performances if actors have good body of work.( other examples Leonardo Dicaprio in “The Ravenent”, Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side” etc. ) I don’t think anybody can deny that Oldman had one hell of a career, portrayed many iconic characters and gave great performances.
        Aside from that, I just noticed Gary Oldman is the second actor that is going to win an award for portraying Churchill this year. Churchill is having a year and as an Indian descent woman I don’t know how to feel about that. LOL.

      • Kelly says:

        I liked Moore’s performance in Still Alice and am fine with her winning for that instead of the other roles she’s been nominated for. At least she won her Oscar for a good performance.

        My personal favorite role of hers is Sarah Palin in HBO’s film adaptation of the Game Change book. She won a very deserved Emmy for that, but that was also the year that Sandra Bullock won her Oscar for the Lifetime/Hallmark quality movie The Blind Side. Now that’s a win for a movie that hasn’t aged well.

      • Slowsnow says:

        Thanks Kaiser! I just wrote that above. Still Alice as a film and Moore’s acting in it are breath-taking. It was such an overlooked film.

    • Jayna says:

      I was blown away by Julianne’s performance in Still Alice. She never overacted. It was a beautifully nuanced performance.

  7. MVC says:

    Timothee Chalamet , Daniel Day-Lewis or Daniel Kaluuya are so much more deserving.

    They’re giving him the award because of his “body of work”.
    The case of Timothee makes me mad, I mean, I know his going to get a lot of work but he really should win for his perfomance, reminds of Leo with “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”, he should have won for that movie and then they gave him the Oscar for that movie that wasn’t his best work by any meanings.

    • Sunglasses Already says:

      He’s a good actor. But hoping he does not win. But this year, the Oscars needs a scandal free winner. The Oscars need to show the world that its embracing change. Chalamet and Kaluuya are young, so many years in front of them to showcase their talent. The award should go to Daniel Day Lewis or Denzel Washington.

      • A says:

        The thing is, if Oscars are in essence a life time achievement award, then why not change the way the system works and actually make it as such?

        If the most talented actor in a film in a particular year happens to be young and in their first movie, then that’s that. It sucks for the older established actors that their work that year wasn’t good enough, but that’s just how these things go if this is the measure for talent. It seems pointless to me to have an awards ceremony that’s contingent on awarding that year’s most talented actors/actresses/films, only to have it wind up rewarding people who deserve it based on longevity and not based on what’s actually being measured in this case.

    • Juls says:

      Leo really was phenomenal in his youth, WEGG and Basketball Diaries. It all went downhill after Titanic. The only decent role he’s done that I can think of is The Departed. I think he was so hungry for that Oscar that it affected his work.

      • Sunny says:

        @Juls, and I’m pretty sure that it will be Leo’s earlier roles or role in The Departed which are remembered first and foremost, while his role in Revenant will be simply “that role that gave him an Oscar and he also ate some liver or smh for it”. But that’s how industry often works.

  8. Margo S. says:

    John Lithgows portrayal of Winston was incredible. INCREDIBLE. I refuse to watch the darkest hour (looks like a pile of garbage). But honestly, are we really shocked that he’s going to win for this? Isn’t like 80% of the academy voters white guys over 70?

    The best performanceS this year were timothée and Daniel kaluuya. Hands down. But it’s not about who is best is it? I hate it! I want the Oscars to actually be about who’s the best!

    • Plantpal says:

      I thought Oscars was about the fashion…..you mean it’s not??? Because I don’t think it’s ever been about the best film of the year. That is one think I know for sure!

  9. Deanne says:

    The movie was bloody awful. His makeup wasn’t good either. It was so obvious he had on prosthetics and his acting was horrible too. Viola Davis was robbed in 2012 when Meryl Streep won for The Iron Lady and no doubt another actor will be robbed when Gary Oldman inevitably wins this year. He’s completely undeserving of the nomination, let alone winning.

    • Slowsnow says:

      Also, The Iron Lady was such a problematic film.

    • A says:

      I’d honestly love it if filmmakers would just set aside the whole notion of making biopics of famous yet fundamentally awful historical figures. I get that they’re trying to show “complexity” or whatever, but both Thatcher and Churchill left behind far more victims in their wake and their policies and ideas were genuinely bad for people. The way things are going, there’s going to be a biopic about Cecil Rhodes next year starring Michael Fassbender or something. Eurgh.

  10. Ally says:

    Omg, a thousand amens to your “Plus, we need to stop giving actors Oscars for wearing f–king makeup.” I know, right, wtf, Academy? These are people in the industry who are supposed to understand the challenges and artistry of ACTING and they keep issuing the acting prizes like they’re weight loss/gain and make-up awards.

    For me, giving it to Kidman in The Hours falls into this category, too. She’s been brilliant in a dozen other movies (loved her in The Others, especially, where she basically performs an emotional symphony over the full length of the film); but let’s reward her for being brave enough to put on a big rubber nose and not be 100% pretty in her scenes.

    • LadyT says:

      Another example- Johnny Depp in Black Mass, 2015, playing Whitey Bulgar got a lot of attention for putting on a bald cap and wearing blue contacts. Horrible movie made worse by the painful looking very fake blues eyes. It was distracting, not transformative.

    • Katie says:

      Kidman won for The Hours because she didn’t win for The Others or Moulin Rouge the previous year, or for To Die For years earlier.

  11. Neelyo says:

    The Oscars are like the Miss America pageant now. I couldn’t get on board the whole Oscars so White outrage last year because it’s like getting mad at the Lawrence Welk Show’s lack of diversity. They’re just not relevant anymore. People seem to talk about it out of obligation more so than anything else and who won what is forgotten within weeks.

    As people have said above, it’s rarely about quality. Sandra Bullock has an Oscar for THE BLIND SIDE. And that’s just the first one that came to mind, but the list of Oscars won for anything besides acting is endless.

  12. Grace says:

    Charlize Theron for Monster – whole lot of prosthetics to hide attractive she is.
    Nicole Kidman – huge incredibly fake nose as Virginia Woolf in The Hours.
    This is not like the first time make up gets someone an Oscar. Also, as others have pointed out, hardly the first time an actor gets one for previous roles that have been overlooked.

    • Jayna says:

      I always felt Julianne’s performance was far more compelling than Nicole’s in The Hours.

    • hogtowngooner says:

      Charlize was amazing in Monster, though.

      • ravynrobyn says:

        Yeah, she was!

      • Grace says:

        I agree. She was fantastic. But the make up issue is being raised here about Oldman OBVIOUSLY not looking like Churchill and OBVIOUSLY wearing prosthetics and not about his acting ability. He’s a great actor. I thought he was great in this movie – not a popular opinion, I know.

  13. Green Is Good says:

    He should have won for Tinker Taylor.

    What hack is responsible for thie horrid Churchill makeup?!

    • Lala says:

      Oldman has ALWAYS been one of my favorite actors…and I’ve seen him in EVERYTHING he’s ever created on screen…or heck even directed…however, I will ALWAYS say that he was ROBBED for “Tinker, Tailor…” so I’m not mad at him for getting one for his body of work…with this one…his body of work is IMPRESSIVE AH!

      • Jennifer Romans says:

        I agree, I know he is supposed to be a real shit in real life, but he is such an amazing actor when he fully commits. Wish he would go back to theater and really get his acting juices flowing.

    • Sunny says:

      “What hack is responsible for thie horrid Churchill makeup?!”

      Kazuhiro Tsuji, Japanese special make-up effects artist and visual artist.

      • MyLittlePony says:

        I so agree. He really should have won for Tinker Taylor. Despite his personal life he is an amazing actor. Yes, I know, I should not say this, but sometimes the fact that EVERYTHING is a political choice nowadays, and we should boycot this and that starting from, I don’t know, say apples coming from a certain country, and ending with Oscar nominations, is simply too much. Everyday life takes it toll as it is, and I do not always have the energy to “do the right thing” 24/7 and for everyone in every single thing I do or say. This is not to say that I do not support the cause(s), I do, but I feel there is no middle ground anymore but you are “either with us or against us” whatever the issue is (…quitely getting off the soapbox…)

  14. smcollins says:

    I think people put too much stock in these types of awards. It’s an Oscar (or GG, or SAG, or BAFTA, or…), not the friggin Nobel Peace Prize. They’re *entertainment* awards. I mean, yes, it’s an art form and filmmaking is an important & relevant art form, but at the end of day someone winning (or not winning) an Oscar is not going to have a major impact on society or the world at large. Debates and discussions do happen during the thick of it, but once awards season is over everyone pretty much moves on and that’s that. Most people really don’t give a sh*t about who or what is winning awards, or the social commentaries and controversies. And this is coming from a hardcore movie-lover who hasn’t missed an Oscar broadcast in over 20 years.

  15. Coz' says:

    I don,’t think Oldman’s performance was worthy of an Oscar (John Lithgow was so good there is no point to ever have another Churchill’s performance) but to say it was garbage is a bit much…

  16. SJF says:

    Churchill was a fascinating, complicated man and he’s been portrayed by many outstanding actors. Lithgow’s performance on THE CROWN was spectacular.

    Oldman’s performance was nothing special and the makeup was far too obvious.

    The movie was also nothing special. How Churchill navigated the victory in WWII is an amazing story. The movie didn’t get beyond the surface and came off very bloated and pleased with itself. Felt like a BBC documentary from the 1970s.

    As for his personal life, I too am genuinely surprised that there’s been so little discussion of his personal life and the many ugly stories about his abusive behavior.

    Ironically, his ex-wife is Lesley Manville who stole every frame of PHANTOM THREAD as the designer’s sister.

    • Kittylouise says:

      I totally agree SJF. The whole history of that time is facinating without having to invent a load of tiresome ‘heart tugging’ nonsense. I loathed the film and thought it was like a crappy British Sunday evening mini series shown on ITV, it looked cheap and the script was woeful. Lily Jame’s character was particularly annoying.

      Agree Gary Oldman is winning for his body of work, not this performance. I would be so delighted if Daniel Kaluuya won, that was such an amazing performance I think. Subtle and clever, not like this bloated Churchill tripe.

      • SJF says:

        Yes, Kaluuya played very real in an excellent movie that could’ve gone over the top. The new Best Picture voting algorithm could see GET OUT as a surprise winner.

        Oldman’s best performance was as playwright Joe Orton in the superb film, PRICK UP YOUR EARS. I highly recommend to anyone who hasn’t seen it. That said, even then was upstaged by the screen shattering performance of Alfred Molina as his lover, Kenneth Halliwell. It is the performance that kickstarted Molina’s magnificent career and it’s one of the most electric performances ever captured onscreen.

  17. Bridget says:

    The make up job for Darkest Hour looks SUPER creepy. I was legit shocked when I saw the first trailer that this was an Oscar buzz performance. His face looks weird and rubbery and half animated.

  18. Mina says:

    I thought he was absolutely brilliant in the role.

    • SMDH says:

      I thought he was fabulous too. We may be in the minority on here……but we aren’t alone in our assessment.

  19. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Oldman is a great actor – as well as a garbage human being. This is by no means his best work. Not even close. It’s so silly to me that the Oscars is always playing this stupid catch up game giving people awards for sub par performances or films to make up for years of their work either being completely ignored or passed over. Oldman should have won for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. He was amazing in that. And subtle. It was his best work and his least “showy” caricaturish performance (which he is so prone to – as Darkest Hour proves). But now he will win for this drivel.

    • greta says:

      Hear hear, I so agree with what you said! His Tinker Tailor’s performance was AMAZING.

  20. S says:

    This is basically a longer version of what I said yesterday on the Oldman post, so I obviously agree wholeheartedly. Darkest Hour is a bad, boring movie, with bad performances, most especially from Oldman, who is basically wearing a Churchill Halloween costume, and not all that well. It deserves zero awards. Just baffling.

    Into the Storm was a better Churchill movie in every possible way, including performance.

  21. KatieBo says:

    Meh- to each their own. Movies are subjective and that’s part of what makes them great. I don’t think Greta Gerwig deserves a nomination for directing Lady Bird, I think Armie Hammer was robbed of a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to label the entire performance as garbage, but that’s what’s great about art. There’s something for everyone and not everything is for everyone.

    I think it’s always interesting to see the “buck-the-system” backlash that happens to the projects and people that seem to be shoo-ins. It happens every time in a mass attempt to be subversive and resist the communal dialogue surrounding popular films. I’m excited to see how things turn out!

  22. Patty says:

    I enjoyed The Darkest Hour. Is it a great movie? No. But it’s a solid film and it’s cool to watch before or after Dunkirk. Truth is I didn’t think any of the performances by the men nominated for Best Actor were that spectacular. But if I did have to rank them I’d go: Chalamet, Oldman, Lewis, Washington, Kaluuya. I loved Get Out but I really didn’t think any of the individual performances were that amazing. My favs were actually Lakeith and the lady who played the housekeeper / cook (can’t think of her name right now).

    Here’s my biggest thing about The Oscars it’s become a thing to hate on them when you don’t like who is nominated or who wins. But when your favs win we like them again. LOL.

    Truth is the Oscars have never been about merit. They’ve always been about politicking, scandal, etc – nothing new to see here.

    • Sunny says:

      “Here’s my biggest thing about The Oscars it’s become a thing to hate on them when you don’t like who is nominated or who wins. But when your favs win we like them again. LOL.”


    • Gailly says:

      In ageeement with everything you just wrote @Patty!

  23. elle says:

    There’s an actor who looks EXACTLY like Oldman’s made-up face. I can’t remember his name at the moment, but they could have hired him!

  24. sadie77az says:

    Oldman creeps me out, like an older across the pond Casey Affleck. The accusations against him were poorly timed, but seem to have veracity nonetheless, at least in my gut. Timothée Chalamet all day.

    • Sunny says:

      Casey Affleck didn’t have such a strong legal or actual situation as Oldman does.

      • sadie77az says:

        Absolutely right. I’m very interested to see if the cameras catch any side-eye or non-applauders on Sun.

      • Sunny says:

        @sadie77az, you mean a la Brie Larson last year or Denzel Washington? Idk, isn’t Emma Stone supposed to present award to Best Actor this year since she won last year? Stone is very different from Larson afaik. And Washington doesn’t have problems with Oldman.

        BTW, by “not having such a strong legal or actual situation” I meant that Oldman had more things to his benefit in his case, which makes his case better, while Affleck didn’t have.

      • sadie77az says:

        Oh I completely misunderstood what you meant about Oldman’s situation vs Casey’s. My mistake. He still creeps me out. 😉 I don’t think he gets a pass, but I can’t quite see him getting cancelled either. Hmm.

        For side-eye and not applauding I meant in the audience because of exactly what you said. I should have been more clear.

      • Sunny says:

        No problemo. I probably needed to make myself more clear. As for getting a pass, I’m not sure what “getting a pass” includes in this particular situation. Cause for example he already got a bunch of awards this season (and got some nominations in the past), got a couple of standing ovations here and there- if this means getting a pass or not I don’t know.
        As for him “getting cancelled” by industry, I don’t exactly see it either atm, for many reasons. The circumstances of his case are one of the reasons and also, one of the reasons may be that he is not from young or even middle generation, he is literally old man (pun intended), so cancelling him may be pretty much useless for industry cause he would retire anyway in a couple of years. Why bother?

        “For side-eye and not applauding I meant in the audience because of exactly what you said.”

        Ah, ok, got it.

  25. Sunny says:

    “plus I grossly overestimated how much people would care about the allegations that he brutalized his ex-wife, ”

    I actually don’t get why so much estimation was placed in people’s reaction to it.

  26. Bridget says:

    This really exemplifies one of the things that I find the most frustrating about the Oscars. Some years, you can see films being considered simply based on the momentum of the campaign, and from the outside in you can tell what’s not going to age well. For example, last year with Casey Affleck. Or Shakespeare In love. It amazes me how susceptible to sales pitches these people really are.

  27. JosieH says:

    “Oldman didn’t get his voice at all.”

    That’s because he’s a great actor and he made the character his own. He’ll leave the mimicry to the hacks.

  28. ichsi says:

    James McAvoy should at least have been nominated and Jake Gyllenhaal too. They weren’t, so if it wasn’t clear that this a complete sham before, it should be now.

    • Sunny says:

      And Ralph Fiennes never won an Oscar, though he was nominated and deserved an award. And if you want to remember old school actors, Richard Burton never won Oscar despite his numerous nominations. So Oscars have always been, well, specific with how they deal with nominations or awarding. That’s why I’m surprised when people act as if Oscars have been anything different. As you put it they always were sort of a sham.

  29. ravynrobyn says:

    In 1980 Timothy Hutton, my favorite f*cking actor on this f*cking planet, won an Oscar for “Best Supporting Actor” for “Ordinary People”. He obviously was the lead performance, and I don’t recall who got screwed in his real (and faux) category.

    Back then, I didn’t really care that he was in the wrong category; I was all Tim, all the way!
    Now, it bothers me…BUT talk about the right actor for the right performance in the right film!! His performance both shattered my fragile heart into a million little pieces and inspired me to not kill myself and that MAYBE I could heal. Adult ravynrobyn knows it was wrong, but 20 yo physical Robin (and 8 yo emotional Robin) was so incredulous and grateful that his performance was acknowledged in this way.

    Adult ravynrobyn doesn’t pay much attention to what everyone else likes and what/whom ‘deserves’ to win….and back then it was as wrong as it would be today…but DAMN, I’M SO GLAD HE WON!!!

    • Sunny says:

      “Adult ravynrobyn doesn’t pay much attention to what everyone else likes and what/whom ‘deserves’ to win….but DAMN, I’M SO GLAD HE WON!!!”

      Maybe you have the most logical approach. Judging by this comment section alone quite many people here would be actually either glad or perfectly ok with Oldman winning, despite that some other people won’t be. As for paying attention to what somebody else likes and what/whom “deserves” to win – there will always be people who will be displeased with a movie or actor or actress or director winning something or think they “didn’t deserve it”. That’s hardly new.

  30. LILAG says:

    Couldn’t disagree more. The darkest hour is ‘my’ type of movie and I loved Oldman in it. I really liked how they didn’t go with that 100% hero perfect Churchill. Kind of like on The Crown. And the make-up and prosthetics were great too.

    Ps: I’m a 22 years old brazilian woman so not really ‘older oscars voter’ lol

  31. Putnam Princess says:

    If we were just going on performance it would be Timothée. He was amazing and it shouldn’t be held against him that he is young. It was the best performance in the best movie of the year.

  32. greta says:

    I 100% agree. Chalamet or Day Lewis’s performances are miles ahead of Oldman’s. If they want to reward his (very deserving) career, why not give him an Oscar for that?????

    • Sunny says:

      Well, if he wins this Sunday, you always could view this Oscar as a reward for his career.

  33. NeoCleo says:

    David Bamber made a MUCH better Churchill AND he didn’t have to be plastered with prosthetics to do his job.