MovieChat Forums > Titanic (1997) Discussion > Leo wasn't nominated for Oscar but Kate ...

Leo wasn't nominated for Oscar but Kate was

posted 10 months ago by bozo_500 (13104)
9 replies | jump to latest

That is so 2024

[–] PaladinNJ (21509) 10 months ago

True. And he refused to attend the ceremony because of that.

[–] strntz (12224) 19 days ago

I can't believe he thought that was an Oscar worthy performance. Wow.

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 8 months ago

He didn't deserve a nomination. His performance was fine but nothing crazy good. Then again, this film should not have swept the way it did.

[–] BwozqkNegative (189) 19 days ago

lol! whuy?

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 19 days ago

Maybe because some of us prefer L.A Confidential, As Good as it gets, and Good Will Hunting.

[–] BwozqkNegative (189) 19 days ago

yeh, butt whuy izz it sooo 2024? dat wazz myy quezztion.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 19 days ago

I guess because feminism is popular now.

[–] BwozqkNegative (189) 19 days ago

okay. sorry 4 mai comment.

[–] fc31 (5364) 19 days ago

Being too good looking is its own curse, Katie Holmes's Rachel Dawes was heavily criticised, but Maggie Gyllenhaal's in the subsequent film was praised.

To be honest I don't think Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes was better, at all.

The OK looking actors did something good, it is because their acting abilities.

But the very good looking ones are of course because of the pretty faces and that is the only reason.

I don't think it is all that fair.