The marriage of Princess Diana and Prince Charles has long since grown cold. Though rumors of affairs and a divorce abound, peace is ordained for the Christmas festivities at the Queen’s Sandringham Estate. There’s eating and drinking, shooting and hunting. Diana knows the game. But this year, things will be profoundly different. SPENCER is an imagining of what might have happened during those few fateful days.
Directed by Pablo Larraín
Written by Steven Knight
Starring Kristen Stewart, Jack Farthing, Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall, Sean Harris
Cool to see AD quoted in the trailer!
Since it seemed Jessica Chastain was the main competition and the reviews for Tammy Faye are not as good as Spencer’s. Stewart is looking very strong
Spencer is probably the only “biopic” film I’m gonna watch this year. I’m gonna pass the rest. I’m tired of formulaic biopic honestly, but at least Larrain tries something a bit different. I enjoyed Jackie and I never watch The Crown, so hopefully I will enjoy this Diana’s tale.
I’ll just be the lone person who thinks she won’t be nominated in the end…..I don’t see it, again, just my hunch. Critics darling for sure. If she happens to be nominated, I 100% don’t see her winning.
Agree, especially when you consider Elizabeth Debicki’s upcoming performance.
Television. We’re talking cinema here.
Television or cinema it’s the same story all over again (free-spirited, modern Diana vs out-of-touch-with-the-world frigid royal monsters) . How you people are not already fed up with it I’ll never understand.
Debicki’s performance will be seen 7-8 months after the Oscar ceremony so I don’t expect it to be a distraction for the Spencer campaign at all. And Corrin’s awards season has just ended, as well, rather successfully, too (Critics Choice + Golden Globe + nominations from SAG and Emmy voters) so she won’t overlap with the Oscar season in any way, either.
True, but The Crown is already promoting her performance. I know it’s only through photographs, but for me, those pictures of Elizabeth are so much more powerful than anything I’ve seen from Kristen as Diana. Yes; they’re two different mediums, but the line that separates film and television is very blurred at the moment(In my opinion, there are currently more Oscar worthy performances on “television”). I think we also have to consider Diana fatigue: Emma was brilliant as Diana, so Kristen is going to have to compete with that performance whether it’s appropriate or not. And what if The Crown releases a trailer showcasing Elizabeth as Diana? She already looks the part AND has the height requirement. All she has to do is sound like Diana and Kristen is cooked. In my opinion lol.
It’s not really a Diana lookalike or even imitation contest, is it? I haven’t watched Corrin’s performance because I find The Crown to be an unbearable bore, but I think there’s a pretty good chance that a Diana in a Larrain film will be a substantially different experience.
I think she’ll be nominated 100% and she is in good position to win. Because she has no real competition – Chastain seems to be in bad movie, McDormand winning 4th in such short time period is highly unlikely, Colman is also not winning her 2nd for that movie, Blanchett will likely go supporting (and she already won two times), Hudson is likely out.
Penelope Cruz maybe? Nomination yes but I’m just not seeing her winning (she is this season’s Antonio Banderas).
And that’s pretty much that for this season. I’d bet on Stewart at this point. That said, I’m not especially enthusiastic about her win and movie. Nor do I understand her popularity.
Very good assessment.
I think there is an early consensus quintet in Best Actress (Stewart, Chastain, Hudson, Cruz, Colman) but based on precedent, clearly not all five will actually make the cut with Chastain and Stewart looking safest for now. Stewart probably has the edge simply because her film will be most likely a bigger deal on Nominations Morning than Chastain’s BUT if the televised awards shows decide to give the long overdue Chastain a sweep, then she could just go all the way even with a film that is perceived to be weaker.
Question is who else will pop between now and December ? There is a trio of leading ladies in high-profile star vehicles who could still make a big impression on voters even as late entries : Kidman, Gaga, Zegler.
McDormand is of course also an obvious pick but what if she goes supporting ? She did make a comment about the role being supporting (whether she was being sarcastic or not, I don’t know, it was in print so context was not clear). And speaking of category confusion what about Balfe, Comer, Bennett, Blanchett ? Who knows.
And what’s with the whole Passing situation ? People assume Thompson will go lead and Negga will go supporting but they seem like co-leads to me with Negga getting a bit more attention so what if they will switch categories ? I remember a few years ago when everyone assumed Blanchett would go supporting for Carol and Mara would go lead after winning Best Actress in Cannes, but in the end surprisingly enough they ended up in different categories. That could happen to the Passing duo, I think.
As for proper dark horses of the season, Netflix does have a trio of previous winners (Bullock, Berry, Lawrence) who are currently very much under the radar but that could change fast if their films pop last minute.
So I think we are down to 18 in Best Actress, with the asterisk being that a lot of the 18 will most likely compete in supporting.
My early af blind guess for the winners and the final quintets ?
LEAD – 1. Stewart 2. Chastain 3. Kidman 4. McDormand 5. Zegler
SUPPORTING – 1. Balfe 2. Dunst 3. Negga 4. DeBose 5. Bennett
Yeah, most intriguing to me will be the placements for Balfe, Comer, Thompson and Negga. 3 of them feel like such Lead contenders in any other year, and yet, 3 of them could just go Supporting to optimize the nom haul for their film, and of course their own potential for a nom and/or win. Several other contenders for either category will be affected by where those 4 names fall. Interesteeeng.
Oh I forgot about Gaga! I think only she and Cruz can challenge Stewart win this year but the chances Ridley will make critically acclaimed, great instant classic movie these days are simply smaller than me winning a lottery so…
About Lead and Supporting confusion – it’s really started long time ago. When you think about it it really isn’t always about screen time. Lead roles – especially the ones based on book – are more like undisputed center of a movie (or to say more figuratively – Sun to other planets – even if planets have equal or even more screen time sometimes) . Obvious examples are of course Marlon Brando-Al Pacino in The Godfather, Tom Hulce-F. Murray Abraham in Amadeus, Cate Blanchett-Rooney Mara in Carol and many more.
To be fair I can’t blame Weinstein much for obvious category fraud in 2015. Remember what happened with New York critics that year. They gone full 100% for Carol but Cate and Rooney split the vote and Saoirse won Best Actress. So I can understand why Weinstein went with it placing Mara in Supporting in the end. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like category frauds at all, just saying it’s not always simple. Sometimes you must play safe (and in the process you’ll probably screw someone. It’s brutal game and not rare).
When it comes to Negga and Thompson in The Passing the likely outcome might be that who has the higher profile as an actress right now of the two will end in lead campaign and the other in supporting. That would be logical after all but it doesn’t mean it will happen that way, of course.
Yeah but here is what no one is saying, she may be popular with audiences….but she is NOT popular in the industry nor is she respected. Out side of her twilight films she has only really done small films no one but critics care about. I think the Academy will turn their nose up to her, BUT if she happens to get nominated that will be her prize. She does not have the love or admiration that Jennifer Lawrence or Brie Larson or Emma Stone got.
I just don’t see it happening.
People said the same thing about Bullock when she won for The Blind Side. She literally won a Razzie the same year. If Stewart is campaigned right (and I don’t see why she won’t be), she will be nominated. She is playing Princess Diana in a movie that is acclaimed and artsy, yet I think accessible enough to be seen by enough of the industry. I don’t think this category has any 100% Certified locks at this stage, but she’s the closest this category has to one.
While I don’t think those critics awards (primarily for Clouds of Sils Maria, Personal Shopper, and Certain Women) have radically changed the industry perception of her acting ability, I think that people in the industry are aware of them and, as a result, will probably have a less negative perception of Stewart’s ability.
Basically, Stewart will have the support of critics and the industry members who salivate at the kind of powerhouse biopic performances that Stewart’s work in Spencer seems to fall under.
I don’t think that’s accurate. First off, she is the only American actress who has ever won a Cesar, that automatically gives her street cred in the prestige department, so do a bunch of well-received films of hers, some that debuted at the most prestigious film festivals, not to mention the high-profile critics groups embracing her, as well, at one point (NYFCC, NSFC, BSFCA) and of course that SAG Ensemble nod doesn’t hurt, either. Do these guarantee her an Oscar nomination ? Of course not. But they do prove that Spencer is not just some miraculous “OMG she has never been good before!” career moment for her this season.
She has been also working steadily in this industry for 20 years and was directed by the likes of David Fincher, Jon Favreau, Sean Penn, Barry Levinson, Bill Condon, Olivier Assayas (2x), Kelly Reichardt, Ang Lee, David Cronenberg.
She also co-starred with an eclectic mix of Oscar winners and nominees / movie stars / TV stars like Jodie Foster, Forest Whitaker, Jared Leto, Glenn Close, Diane Lane, Donald Sutherland, Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan, Bruce Dern,Robert De Niro, Catherine Keener, Stanley Tucci, Jesse Eisenberg, Ryan Reynolds, Kristen Wiig, Melissa Leo, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Amy Adams, Kirsten Dunst, Juliette Binoche, Chloe Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, Alec Baldwin, Glenn Close, Michelle Williams, Laura Dern, Steve Carrell, Blake Lively, Corey Stoll, Steve Martin, Chloe Sevigny, Anthony Mackie, Elizabeth Banks, Dan Levy, Viggo Mortensen.
Not only has nobody from this illustrious and extensive list, said anything bad about her, if you google it, most of them praise her on-set conduct, some even years after they had worked together. Just to put this in perspective, Jodie Foster has been in this industry for 50+ years, she has worked with anyone who has ever been anyone in this industry, yet who did she choose to introduce her at her Walk of Fame ceremony ? Kristen Stewart. 15 years after they had worked together.
And if Jodie Foster keeps her in such high regard, you can bet she makes sure her extensive high-profile industry friends know about her love and appreciation for Stewart, as well.
Not to mention the familial connections in this list : as a kid Stewart was directed by Julianne Moore’s husband then years later she was cast in Julianne Moore’s Oscar movie and they talked about their shared history and how they have known and loved each other for ages by the time they had actually worked together.
Stewart also worked with Bruce Dern when she was very young, then years later she worked with his daughter, Laura Dern on several films so clearly Laura Dern is a fan, as well. And if she has Laura Dern, she has her crowd, as well, as in Witherspoon, Kidman etc.
Long story short, there is absolutely nothing that supports the claim that she is not popular or respected in this industry. Actually quite the opposite seems to be true based on her filmography and all the comments her previous directors and co-stars have made about her over the years.
Does this mean she is winning ? No. Not necessarily. But if she won’t, it definitely won’t be due to lack of industry support.
P.S. At the times when Lawrence, Larson and Stone won their Oscars, they had considerably fewer years and considerably fewer big name directors and co-stars on their resumes than what Stewart has on hers right now.
If she is as popular as you say, then how come she hasn’t done anything major? Just because she has worked with those people and because they haven’t said anything bad, doesn’t translate to the Academy members, who have “finer tastes”, liking her. I don’t think she is thought of by her peers as a good actress. If she was as popular and respected as you say, she’d be in more high profile things long before Emma Stone and Jennifer Lawrence or Brie Larson—but she’s not. She comes across as cold and uncaring—and I think people within the industry see that and that is why I don’t see her gaining ground to be an Oscar winner—you either gotta be charismatic and everyone loves you, or you gotta have a highly undeniable performance—and she might have an acclaimed performance but that could easily translate to just being a critics darling or just a nomination. I don’t see her going the distance. And I really don’t think she is respected like you seem to think, and I feel it will be her downfall for a win, if she even gets nominated.
She was on a Cannes jury for god’s sake. If that’s not high praise from the filmmaking community, I don’t know what is. In the past 5 years, she has worked with Pablo Larrain, Ang Lee, Olivier Assayas, Woody Allen and Kelly Reichhardt. Just because she didn’t work in “Oscar films” much doesn’t make her work minor.
Being loved by audiences in other countries doesn’t make her respected and popular in Hollywood. I mean Reichhardt, Larrain, Assayas works are almost all small film critics darlings—that doesn’t trigger respect or popularity, like at all. The Ang Lee movie was a bomb. Woody means nothing to the film community right now, and most of his movies go nowhere. It has given her indie street cred, but again that doesn’t mean she is some beloved actress in the world who garners praise and adoration to the point that everyone pays any attention to her films she does outside of critics and movie buffs….being loved in small markets over seas, doesnt translate so much in terms of being popular in Hollywood and industry Oscar voters. That is a mountain she has never been able to climb, and I don’t think Spencer will do that for her….I am willing to be proved wrong, but it’s my hunch and I’m sticking to it until I am proved wrong.
Do you think Cannes is just a matter of other countries and holds no relevance to Hollywood? I think being on a Cannes jury is explicit confirmation that you’re part of the global filmmaking elite. Not many American actors (or indeed actors from anywhere) get to do that.
I genuinely don’t see what your point is other than she hasn’t been in Oscar films – which is true, but a reflection of her choice of projects more than her prestige among peers.
I do not think being chosen by Cannes equals respect/love/popularity in Hollywood…like at all.
My point is, I do not think she is Academy taste, and that they will turn their nose up to her in Oscar conversations. I don’t think they will have that much respect for her or her performance. This is by no means a dis on her, but more of what I think the Academy’s taste might be/are. Like I have said, IF they give her a nomination, that will be her consolation prize—I think she is not even a lock for a nomination. I’m willing to be wrong, but those are my thoughts and feelings.
She was on a Cannes jury for god’s sake. If that’s not high praise from the filmmaking community, I don’t know what is. In the past 5 years, she has worked with Pablo Larrain, Ang Lee, Olivier Assayas, Woody Allen and Kelly Reichhardt. Just because she didn’t work in “Oscar films” much doesn’t make her work minor.
That part of your argument is just problematic. I am not in the business of making snap judgments about the presumed character of young women I have never met.
I am in the business of facts. And the facts are she had worked with a lot of high-profile, brilliant people who have only ever praised her. The main reason why a “she seems cold and uncaring, the industry doesn’t like her” kind of argument is not something I can get into.
As for the “why this why that” section and all those Stone / Lawrence / Larson comparisons, how many established auteurs have they worked with throughout their respective careers ? Stone worked with 3 (Inarritu, Lanthimos, Chazelle), Lawrence worked with 2 (Granik, Aronofsky), Larson worked with 1 (Baumbach).
Stewart worked with 5 (Fincher, Assayas, Reichardt, Lee, Cronenberg). The reason why I don’t get your “those other three are getting so much more prestige work” argument, either.
For the record I am also not a fan of pitting them against each other. Not in what you clearly established to be a likeability contest that I simply have to call bs on. This industry should be past that by now.
Hhmmm I think it’s important to note those things because there are bigger things at play than what we want to think or realize.
By my judgement of her coming across as cold and uncaring—people see those types of situations and make judgements on them as a reason to vote or not vote for someone. It happens all the time. She very well may be the exact opposite of those things, but perception is reality to people. It could be what earns someone lots of votes or hardly any.
By judging her vs the other women….if you believe she is as popular and respected as you say….where are her high profile films that those other women are getting? It’s relevant to see because to me that shows the amount of respect a person has within the industry. Just because Stewart has worked with” MAJOR” people in the past that isn’t something currently happening for her, you hardly hear her name anymore—she’s doing small indie films with hardly any attention outside of critics praising her—she got a Caesar award, but I don’t think that means anything in Hollywood.
The Oscars are a popularity contest, like it or not. It shouldn’t be, but it is….and because of those reasons I wouldn’t be surprised to see her name left off on nomination morning, or her just getting a consolation nomination. You are completely right in your assessment that we should be passed these petty judgments, but the industry isn’t. I am willing to be wrong and look like a fool if I am, but this is just my feelings of the current situation.
We will see soon enough how this race will turn out to be.
For the record Frances McDormand is getting career-best reviews at the moment for a film that is quickly shaping up to be a major threat in BP / BD, so if she ends up in lead (she recently referred to the role as supporting), there will be definitely a proper race there.
This is why this early on we really don’t know anything. This same thing could still happen to the films of Kidman, Zegler, Gaga, Lawrence and even Blanchett or Balfe who could still end up in lead.
We won’t know anything until at least the SAG nominations had been announced in December.
Well that’s exciting to hear!!!! So much can happen and change so quickly in the race, and with long seasons it is all about running the marathon—not the sprint.
I just wish the category placements would be confirmed already. It is very tricky figuring out what to expect in the Actress categories when half the top contenders could still go either way category-wise.
I hate the whole category situation—just feels unfair. I wish there were some sort of way to rule who should and shouldn’t be able to be in lead or supporting. It shouldn’t be that people get to choose based off of likely chance to get in because lead is too crowded. Just frustrating. But yeah, not knowing, makes predicting much harder.
I also have doubts about Stewart being respected enough among Academy voters (especially older ones) to get Oscar on her first ever nomination. But as I stated above – who else? Almost every one of her direct competitors have some weak point (not acting but the other).
Phantom pretty well summed it up about the late breakers who could be ones to watch for….And yet with another long season, the winner will have to face a marathon and not a sprint—much harder to sustain momentum. It’s still anyone’s game and no one seems like a for sure lock….unlock the Best Actor race.
Pass. There is nothing more pointless in existence than monarchy.
There is. A milion movies/TV shows based on the same subject/theme 🙂
LOL. It’s heresy to say this, but Diana was born into millions of dollars, married into billions, and got divorced to the tune of a $600 million dollar settlement and title privileges. The genre of angsty rich people I suppose is as old as time, but it’s ironic considering all of the heated discussions around here about the movies’ disconnect from the experiences of “real Americans”
600M divorce settlement ? Yet her estate, inherited by his sons after her death, was just 30M or so, no ?
I strongly disagree. Monarchy is an integral part of the UK constitution and, if done well, much more functional than a ceremonial president.
The idea of a ruling monarchy as opposed to a highly ceremonial one flies in the face of the Englightenment ideals that OUR COUNTRY is supposed based upon. Ruling Monarchies by their own nature are unaccountable entities, and history has shown that monarchs who overinternalize the unprovable and silly notion of the “mandate of heaven” take their countries over some pretty immense cliffs (like the English religious wars for instance).
How can we argue that meritocracy is even real while simultaneously celebrating the birth of a royal baby who has won the ultimate sperm lottery?
Sure, but our monarchy is a highly ceremonial one, right?
The UK one, sure, absolutely.
I guess I’m not that enamored with Diana who could be just as manipulative as the rest of that lot. I do find it comical that for all the vilification of Charles and the subsequent belief that William was going to make the crown hip again, William has turned out to be an even bigger stiff than his old man.
While I don’t really care about the intricacies of Meghan Markle palace intrigue, Harry did the right thing running away from all of those people and the stupidity of unearned aristocracy.
Monarchy is an undercover dictatorship, always. It’s used as un umbrella of power in which elites feel protected. We know that very well, in Spain. Our former King, Juan Carlos I is currently exiled in Abu Dhabi, paying an astronomical bill every day, as he fleed Spain (like most Borbons – the Royal Family – in the last 200 years) escaping from the requirements of Swiss Justice and the chance of being taken to Switzerland to be judged for corruption and money laundry.
Monarchy, per definition, is anti-democratic, it’s given a family privileges over the rest of the people, just by blood. You can’t be advocating for Democracy and at the same time, championing Monarchy. One or the other, you choose.
On a personal note… I personally met Sarah Ferguson some years ago. Nice, friendly woman. And I also walked the same soil that Princess Diana did, in Angola (metaphorically) the year after her death, and witnessed first hand, her legacy. Outstanding woman. No wonder Sarah and Diana rebelled against the Windsors. High respect for both of them.
I think a democratic monarchy can easily exist (and it does in the UK) as long as the Monarch is not using their powers in an unconstitutional way. We, the people (or our representatives in the House of Commons) are a safeguard against that and it would be perfectly reasonable to overthrow a Monarch that would try to do such a thing. However, the check goes both ways – the Monarch is also there to safeguard the constitution against possible unthinkably unconstitutional acts of the Commons. Some countries use supermajority requirements for that, but the UK constitution is much more complicated so that’s not possible.
well, aroncido, then you don’t understand how the system actually works, with all due respect. Democracy means NO ONE is over any other one. Monarchy is then, per sé, completely ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.
What you’re describing is a republic, in my view. Democracy just means that the people rule themselves, which I think is de facto true in a good constitutional monarchy. It’s the constitution’s job to guarantee that.
no, in a Democracy, ANYONE can be removed from their position. Also, to force a person since childhood to be a King (or part of a Royal Family) is completely against personal freedom. They are conditioned since infants, into being who they become, and only a few cases actually broke through that conditioning into being able to live a different life.
Problem is, History is taught in the way is in the interest of the elites. And media – including cinema – glamourizes it, with a purpouse… it sells, and it’s more comfortable to learn a lie, than to face the truth.
Yeah, I agree, it really sucks to be king. I’m not ironic, it truly does. That’s why we should value the people who sacrifice their life and freedom to do this for the country.
Also, why would you ever want to remove the British Monarch from their position? Their discretion is basically zero in every sense – all their moves are dictated by the constitutional principles and rules that they need to follow. In this sense, it’s more of an institution than a person, there’s just a person that actually needs to embody it. Replace one queen with another and there is no difference to anything, constitutionally speaking.
“sacrifice”. Lol. These guys are full of privileges, live a double life with the mainstream media (and security services) protecting their – real – privacy. The only thing they have to sacrifice – their “work” – is to keep a clean image of themselves, which anyways is constructed for them via marketing and media control. No better example than King Juan Carlos I, Spaniards were fooled during decades into believing he was a down-to-earth, family oriented King, and time has uncovered that he has been a playboy and greedy all along… and as result, the Spanish system has been put into jeopardy, by the way… and to make things even clearer about the “right to be king”, the Borbons are a FRENCH family, King Juan Carlos I was born in ROME (ITALY) and raised in LISBON (PORTUGAL), and imposed as King by a dictator who commited genocide. We’ve never been given the chance to vote to decide between Monarchy and Republic (and thanks to the Constitution, it’s almost impossible we will be ever given to choose)
Juan Carlos was ancestor of King Phillip V (who himself was grandson of Louis XIV of France). Phillip’s grandfather installed him as king of Spain which provoked the War of Spanish succession (1701-1714). Am I right Jesus?
I studied genealogy of European rulers since I was a kid (Greek gods too). It was more interesting – and more challenging – to do that when internet wasn’t around.
But tell me something. Why Franco installed young Juan Carlos as his successor? His father (don Juan, I think) was still alive at that point. So why not him?
Btw, Juan Carlos always looked like a decent dude to me (I’m speaking only from foreigner’s perspective) so it’s kind of surprising that he was actually different..
Because Franco took under his wing a young Juan Carlos, who could be trained and educated under his vision. His father, Juan, was already an adult and with his own ideas… Franco wanted a continuation of the regime after his death, and he was successful on that, because despite what it may look like, Spain’s fascist structure remained untouched underneath the 1978 “democratic” Constitution that makes it almost impossible to change anything of significance. Our first democratic President after Franco died, was also raised inside the fascist structure and labelled himself as “political centre”, and media unanimously hailed him as such… the name of some institutions changed but the people ruling them were not purged, and remained in their positions… so now in Spain, what politically could be considered anywhere in the world as “centre”, is called “dangerous communism and radicals”, and actual left is nowhere to be found in the Parlament or Senate (or media, unless linked with violent acts, and therefore depicted as “evil”). Spain had only a true democratic period, 1931-39 and soon was demolished from the inside and outside, for a simple reason… the left grew strong and there was risk that Spain would become a satellite of the USSR, and that simply couldn’t happen in a capitalist economy worldwide, as Spain is key in trade, communications as the bridge between Europe and Africa and Latin America, and the channel that connects (Gibraltar Strait), the sea communications and trade between Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea… there are more countries that suffer this condition and that have to be always under strong international control… Panama, Morocco, Egypt, etc…anyone key in trade and communications.
Yeah, she DOES look like her. Stewart v. Chastain v. Hudson.
How GREAT does this look holyy
P.S. Did anyone say already that Cinematography is packed?
How do you rank Top 5 cinematographies right now?
Based on trailers alone, I think The Tragedy of Macbeth, Spencer and The Power of the Dog really stand out, but The French Dispatch, Dune, Titane, Nightmare Alley all look excellent as well.
To take a different approach to Aroncido and Sammy, I tried to only consider the movies I’ve seen (also, favorites rather than predictions):
(The Underground Railroad would be above these and I consider it to be a movie but in terms of stuff the Oscars might consider movies it would of course be ineligible)
1. Labyrinth of Cinema
2. Memoria
3. Days
4. Annette
5. The Green Knight
Alt. Compartment No. 6
Stewart looks very good. Even better looking to me is the Cinematography, production design and costumes. This could have a big nom haul if it goes over well within AMPAS.
Cannot wait to see this! Her accent is spot-on! (Of course, I am not saying anything new here).
OT: early word from NYFF on MacBeth very positive
The trailer looks great, but nothing earth-shattering, to me.
With Chastain’s film underperforming, I am switching my guess for the final winner to…
Stewart, if the film gets a Best Picture nomination. If not…
Cruz, if she starts sweeping critics awards for her body of work with Official Competition and Parallel Mothers.
Chastain, probably yes, for a nom, but a win now seems less likely. Hudson seems safe for a nom, but I am beginning to think, her film will be mostly forgotten when the final hour comes… Respect hasn’t make a splash as big as Bohemian Rhapsody, not even like Rocketman. And a 2nd Oscar for Hudson? I’d say a 2nd Oscar for Cruz is way more likely.