« Hypocritical Patronizing Piece of Garbage Keepin It Simple for Boston PD »

Feb 01 2007

Is winning an Oscar a jinx?

Posted at 8:29 am under Shut Up & Sing

Apparently…

Paltrow won for her leading role in “Shakespeare in Love” and has said she was unequipped to cope with the pressure, leading her to make several bad choices.

“I think part of the downside about being so successful and winning the Oscar at the age of 26 is that I sort of became insouciant about the things that I chose. I thought ‘Oh, I’ll just try this, it’ll be fun or I’ll do that for the money’. Things like that now I would absolutely never do,” Paltrow was quoted as saying by the Internet Move Database.

Became what? What the hell word did you just use you pompous idiot? Insouciant?

From Dictionary.com:

insouciant \in-SOO-see-uhnt\, adjective: Marked by lighthearted unconcern or indifference; carefree; nonchalant.

Okay, Gwyneth, seriously… Using words people don’t know doesn’t make you look smarter. Nor does bagging on your country in another country make you look enlightened. You’re a bore that no one cares about who’s been in some of the most boring movies ever in creation with very few exceptions.

Face it. You’re a shit actress who struck it big with a great script and supporting cast. Gary Coleman could’ve won an Oscar in your role.

It isn’t about you and your mad acting skills.

Just continue your retirement from acting as a baby incubator for Chris Martin and shut up. No one cares about you.

Technorati Tags:

5 Responses to “Is winning an Oscar a jinx?”

  1. Timmay Says:
    February 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    The best thing Puketrow ever did was leave America and stop making movies.
    Everybody knows that Harvey Weinstein bought the Oscar for her that year because Cate Blanchett’s performance blew her away in Queen Elizabeth.
    Good riddance to bad trash like gweneth puketrow.

  2. RKB Says:
    February 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    I read this essay a week or so ago, chronicling the ten worst best actresses of all time. You’ll be happy to know that Gweneth clocked in at #2.

    If Paltrow is unconvincing in the scenes when her character is called upon to masquerade as a man, nor is she particularly credible as a woman. Making quivery-lipped puppy-dog faces to indicate emotion while droning through her nose like Lisa Kudrow’s annoying little sister, it’s a debacle of a performance, enough to capsize what ought by rights to have been a very good film. Paltrow has made a point in recent years of saying that acting is no longer important to her, and that, in her own words, she’s already done everything (she) ever set out to do. I suspect this is less a true reflection of her current priorities than the product of the fact that Shakespeare in Love is, to date, the only film of hers that has realized a profit — audiences know a fake when they see one, and for the time being, no amount of Weinstein marketing muscle can put over this counterfeit princess.

    Here’s the source.

  3. Vinny Says:
    February 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    I think the funniest part of the whole thing is that she basically admitted that she took crap roles. We know, Gwyneth, that’s why no one cares about you.

    I will say she was awesome (with a capital A) in Sliding Doors, which is one of my favorite movies of all time. She was pretty damned good in A Perfect Murder. Aside from that… Highly overrated.

  4. Scott Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    My, slamming someone for having a good vocabulary?

    Tsk, tsk, Vinny. I use words like that regularly. Not everything I say makes me sound like a dockworker… ;)

  5. Vinny Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    I’m not “slamming” her for having a good vocabulary. I’m slamming her for her continued pretentiousness, her above-it-all attitude, her “I was above those roles but I took them to relax” attitude, and her overall snotiness.

    I hate that kinda shit.

    I would have rather had her stand up and go, “Yep, I made some bad choices. That’s life.” Instead, she took an attitude that even though she was above those roles, she took ‘em to just kinda have fun.

    Please.

    There’s a reason people think she’s an overrated actress, and her body of work is reason number 1. Her mock high-mindedness, while fine with other Hollywood douchebags who hate the plebes, is not going to change any minds about her being a snooty “better than you” bitch either.

Leave a comment