Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Premature Oscar Predictions: The 2015 Supporting Actor & Actress Contenders

Features
by Oliver Lyttelton
March 12, 2014 3:21 PM
110 Comments
  • |

The Next 5

Kristin Scott Thomas ("Suite Française")

Though the novel is a sprawling ensemble tale, it's no secret that "Suite Française" looks to be very much the Michelle Williams show. But that doesn't mean that it's all it has to offer the awards season, particularly it has a ton of top-notch actresses in support -- Eileen Atkins, Ruth Wilson, Margot Robbie and Alexandra Maria Lara (the latter two of whom both gave awards-worthy performances last year, in "The Wolf Of Wall Street" and "Rush" respectively) all feature. But we have a feeling that Kristin Scott Thomas is the one to watch here. Her part, as Williams' spiky mother-in-law, is more promising than some of the others, and the actress has been doing sterling work that's gone unrewarded for a while.  Her recent talk of retirement could help or hurt her case, but this is potentially her best chance at a nod in some time.

Carrie Coon ("Gone Girl")
We'll confess that we're also only faintly aware of actress Carrie Coon. But she'll be better known by the end of the year, with a key role in HBO's "The Leftovers" coming up. She is also a Tony nominee (for playing Honey in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf"), and maybe more importantly, she has a crucial role in David Fincher's "Gone Girl." The actress is playing Margo, the twin sister and confidante of Ben Affleck's character and, from the book anyway, there's more than enough color to the role to make it nominatable. This is a category that can be kind to undersung character actresses (Marcia Gay Harden, Melissa Leo, Amy Ryan), so Coon's definitely someone to keep an eye on.  

Brie Larson ("The Gambler")
Brie Larson's absence from this year's Oscar short-list for "Short Term 12" was nothing short of a disgrace. But with the strength of that performance, and of the others she's given, it's only a matter of time before she makes the cut, and the opportunity could arrive in the form of Rupert Wyatt's "The Gambler." A remake of Karel Reisz's 1974 picture (once mooted for Martin Scorsese), it sees Larson play the student of gambling-addict college professor Mark Wahlberg, with whom he's in love, and is probably the most high-profile studio gig yet for the rising actress. The film hasn't yet been dated by Paramount, so it's possible that it falls into next season (then again, the success of "The Wolf Of Wall Street" might see them push it into the awards race), and with Jessica Lange playing Wahlberg's mother, it might be that she supersedes Larson. But for now, we're team Brie.

Jane Fonda ("This Is Where I Leave You")
How divisive is Jane Fonda these days? The 76-year-old star hasn't been forgiven in some quarters for being Hanoi Jane, but that doesn't seem to have made much of a difference to the Academy—of her two Oscars and seven total nominations, one win and five nods came after the end of the Vietnam war, which suggests that AMPAS never really cared about her politics. It's more than 25 years since Fonda was last nominated, but she could have her best chance in a long time thanks to family drama "This Is Where I Leave You," in which she plays the matriarch of a Jewish clan (including Tina Fey, Jason Bateman, Adam Driver and Corey Stoll) gathered together to commemorate the passing of their father. It's the kind of movie that's been tried many times and often doesn't work ("The Family Stone" et al), and the presence of "Date Night" director Shawn Levy in the doesn't suggest this'll be the exception. But the caliber of the cast, Fonda included, might suggest otherwise, and the chance to give her another nomination might be too much for the Academy to resist.

Hailee Steinfeld ("The Homesman")
Four years back, Hailee Steinfeld landed an Oscar nomination, aged only 13, for her outstanding breakout performance in the Coens' "True Grit." So the news that she's literally back on the horse for another Western alone is promising. That she's doing so in one by Tommy Lee Jones, and playing a mentally ill woman being escorted by Jones and Hilary Swank's characters, makes this even more potent a possibility. The film is still under the radar enough that it could turn out that Steinfeld's part isn't "the one" for the project—and of course, the film could yet disappoint. It's also true that Steinfeld's post-'Grit' career choices have mostly disappointed. But between this and TIFF favorite "Can A Song Save Your Life?," she's likely to be more visible than she's been for a while, so this is one to keep an eye on.

Honorable Mentions: Also viable options, so far at least, are Jessica Chastain or Ellen Burstyn for "Interstellar," Keira Knightley for "The Imitation Game," Emma Stone or Naomi Watts for "Birdman," Jena Malone or Katherine Waterston for "Inherent Vice," Annette Bening for "The Search," Rooney Mara for "Trash" and Sarah Paulson for "Carol." Anyone we've forgotten? You know where the comments section is.

Read all our Premature Predictions pieces here.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

110 Comments

  • John | April 9, 2014 12:30 AMReply

    James franco? let me barf! he's such a bad actor.
    He should only get an oscar for being the celebrity with the biggest EGO issue in Hollywood.

  • Dede | April 9, 2014 1:27 PM

    lol...yup! You speak the truth my friend.

  • Pat | April 2, 2014 8:26 PMReply

    I honestly think Chris O'Dowd could be a serious contender

  • B.S. | March 28, 2014 2:26 PMReply

    how about Donald Sutherland, Josh Hutcherson, and/or Phillip Seymor Hoffman in "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1". Jeff Bridges for "The Giver"
    and also Julianne Moore for "The Hunger Games: Mockinjay - Part 1" or even Taylor Swift for "The Giver"

  • JK1193 | April 8, 2014 10:29 PM

    Moore I can see possibly. President Coin is a pretty juicy role in the book.

  • ALLY | April 2, 2014 2:59 AM

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Steph | March 25, 2014 12:31 PMReply

    Logan Lerman is a self-hating Jew who has consistently white-washed his own grandfather's background as a Holocaust refugee, in interviews. He shouldn't be starring in a movie about fighting Nazis.

  • .. | May 4, 2014 2:43 PM

    just shutup

  • And | March 23, 2014 12:02 AMReply

    Supporting Actor (No special order):
    - Josh Brolin (Inherent Vice)
    - Owen Wilson (Inherent Vice)
    - Casey Affleck (Interstellar)
    - Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)
    - Joel Edgerton (Exodus)
    - Robert Duvall (The Judge)
    - Logan Lerman (Fury)
    - Johnny Depp (Into the Woods)
    - James Franco (True Story)
    - Philip Seymour Hoffman (A Most Wanted Man)

    Supporting Actress (Still no order):
    - Reese Witherspoon (Inherent Vice)
    - Jessica Chastain (Interstellar)
    - Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)
    - Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game)
    - Naomi Watts (Birdman)
    - Sigourney Weaver (Exodus)
    - Anna Kendrick (Into the Woods)
    - Nicole Kidman (The Railway Man)
    - Octavia Spencer (Get on Up)
    - Carrie Coon (Gone Girl)

  • Burt | March 19, 2014 7:06 PMReply

    In "The Homesman" Streep is playing a mentally ill woman. THAT should be interesting.

  • JK1193 | March 19, 2014 3:45 PMReply

    Top 10 Promising Contenders (Supporting Actor):

    Josh Brolin
    Bradley Cooper (rumored to be supporting in Serena)
    Benicio Del Toro
    Johnny Depp
    Joel Edgerton (Rameses in Exodus, huge part)
    Idris Elba
    Ewan McGregor
    Mark Ruffalo
    Liev Schreiber
    Christoph Waltz

    Top 10 (supporting actress):

    Jessica Chastain (Interstellar)
    Carrie Coon
    Viola Davis (Get On Up)
    Anna Kendrick
    Keira Knightley
    Andrea Riseborough (rumored to be a scene-stealer in Birdman)
    Octavia Spencer
    Meryl Streep
    Sigourney Weaver (Exodus, third teaming with Ridley Scott)
    Reese Witherspoon (Inherent Vice)

  • Duane | March 19, 2014 11:58 AMReply

    I'd just like to point out you can't really say Jennifer Hudson's part in Dreamgirls was a small part. She honestly should have been nominated for lead because she was the main character.

  • Brett | March 18, 2014 12:42 PMReply

    If the Academy decided to expand the other major categories like they did for Best Picture (which is unlikely) my 10 picks for these categories are:

    1. Robert Duvall
    2. Christoph Waltz
    3. Christopher Walken
    4. Joel Edgerton
    5. Channing Tatum
    6. Josh Brolin
    7. Johnny Depp
    8. James Franco
    9. Andy Serkis
    10. Gary Oldman

    1. Meryl Streep
    2. Keira Knightly
    3. Sigourney Weaver
    4. Anna Kendrick
    5. Jane Fonda
    6. Cameron Diaz
    7. Reese Witherspoon
    8. Laura Dern
    9. Melissa Leo
    10. Octavia Spencer

  • Brett | March 18, 2014 11:55 AMReply

    How come people get irritated when Meryl Streep gets nominated yet they're perfectly ok with Jack Nicholson? Hypocrites

  • Max | March 19, 2014 6:22 PM

    Well. Jack hasn't been nominated since 2002 and was nominated 12 times over a course of 34 years. Meryl has been nominated 18 times in 36 years. Do the math.

  • Brett | March 18, 2014 11:35 AMReply

    Bryan Cranston looks pretty damn good in Godzilla

  • criticalflop | March 17, 2014 12:35 PMReply

    I think The Playlist is sinking really fast. This site used to be about movies, now it's just about generatring hits. Nobody takes it seriously anymore outside crazy fangirls. Look at how hilarious are the comments...No crediblity at all.

  • GregEllwood | March 14, 2014 5:15 PMReply

    Since some of you seem confused: It’s been rocky at the box office for Robert Pattinson since he first broke through with the first “Twilight,” but he does have the hit drama “Water for Elephants” to his credit.

    He’s smartly focusing on his prestige credentials by reuniting with David Cronenberg on “Maps to the Stars” and will appear in James Gray’s “The Lost City of Z” opposite Benedict Cumberbatch for Paramount.

  • Time | March 14, 2014 4:17 PMReply

    LOL at this list. Shia Labeouf? Robert Pattinson? Has this site gone mad? In what world is Robert Pattinson even considered a good actor. Shia I can get behind but Edward Cullen? Hahahaha! If anyone will get an Oscar nod for that James Dean/Dennis Stock movie it'll be Dane Dehaan who has proven over and over again how much of a talent he is. Pattinson better be careful or he will be completely eclipsed. Aaron Paul in Exodus is a loooong shot. He has yet to really prove himself as an actor outside of Breaking Bad. He was outstanding in Hellion though. If he will be nominated for any movie, it should be that. Garrett Hedlund should also be on this list for Mojave and Unbroken.

  • CURZONSTREET | March 17, 2014 11:54 AM

    Exactly. RPatz is cast in those films as a money draw. He's got ZERO acting talent and screen presence. Don't insist on the obvious morons. lol

  • DebbieLeeza | March 14, 2014 5:18 PM

    I don't know how Garrett Hedlund gets cast in anything. He doesn't have any screen presence. He's had years to break out, they keep pushing him over and over, and he never does it. He has leading man good looks, but no spark inside him to deliver the goods. How many flops does he need to be in before people realize he just doesn't have what it takes?

  • Graham | March 14, 2014 12:33 PMReply

    It's going to be whoever has the best studio behind them and who schmoozes and kisses enough ass. It will be Meryl again (Zzzzzzzzzzzz) The Oscars are a joke.

  • RS | March 14, 2014 9:28 AMReply

    read the Fury script - It's Logan Lerman with a meatier role than Shia. In fact, the script reads: Lerman-Pitt as leads and all 3 remaining actors as supporting though because it's an ensemble, Sony can easily slide Lerman to supporting and Pitt to lead. LaBeouf's role is not that significant - Michael Pena's role as tank driver has more substance, actually. The film is essentially Pitt's and Lerman's. On paper at least their characters make for a compelling war character pairing.

  • kyle | March 15, 2014 7:25 PM

    How can i get a copy of it to read for my own enjoyment?

  • AJ | March 14, 2014 1:13 AMReply

    after reading the script, I'd say Logan Lerman is more like a possible nom for best supporting actor. tbh his character is a leading role, but he's too young so maybe he'll end up nominating for supporting role. Jon Bernthal's character is better than LaBeouf's imo, his character is very showy, and LaBeouf's is more quiet. Both good tho. It'll be a wonderful ensemble piece if they do it right. I'm really looking forward to their performances.

  • Polly | March 13, 2014 11:19 PMReply

    Besides Into The Woods, Anna Kendrick had 3 indies at Sundance this year. She really has become the new Queen of the Indies, and she already has Oscar cred from Up in the Air. I wouldn't mind seeing her get another nomination. She's smart, witty, and doesn't have a scandalous past, unlike her ex-Twilight female co-star. People like Anna deserve success.

  • Just keepin it real | March 14, 2014 4:56 PM

    IDK, let's ask Mel Gibson why a scandalous past matters, shall we? Or Lindsey Lohan or Amanda Bynes. Kristen Stewart isn't the only one who screwed up, but no one in the industry has forgotten the pics of her hooking up with Rupert Sanders in public. Of course her reputation matters, grow up. The Academy is made up primarily of old white men. Do you think they want to be reminded of her hooking up with her director? It just makes them all look bad. She won't get nominated for anything for a very long time, if ever.

  • Misogynist Chatter | March 14, 2014 12:16 PM

    What does a scandalous past matter? What a stupid thing to say, I smell Rpattz troll. The stench always rises no matter how hard they try to mask it ;)

  • Philomena | March 13, 2014 9:52 PMReply

    OMG!!! No love for Reese Witherspoon in Inherent Vice?

  • I believe I can fly | March 13, 2014 8:05 PMReply

    Logan Lerman for the win men!!! Hell Yeah

  • JAMES | March 13, 2014 9:00 PM

    He did an awesome job in The Perks of Being a Wallflower next to Emma Watson. I don't think he will win, but next to Brad Pitt in a war movie a think he's got a great chance getting his first oscar nod. He is a great actor, I hope he does get it

  • ANTHONY | March 13, 2014 8:08 PM

    Little young, but sure thing he has a huge chance, I think he will get it

  • LSU | March 13, 2014 8:06 PM

    Agree

  • patrick | March 13, 2014 5:53 PMReply

    just fyi regarding meryl streep & the homesman: she recently told me in an interview that she has but one scene in the film. but watch out for her daughter grace gummer in that same film...
    also: how about viola davis and especially isabelle huppert in "the disappearance of eleanor ribgy". or marcia gay harden and jackie weaver in "magic in the moonlight"?

  • E | March 13, 2014 5:44 PMReply

    Oscar Issac and Garrett Hedlund for Mojave. Michael Pena in Fury. Jake G. in Everest. This seems more like a list based off directors and not the actual actors.

  • Cosflopolis | March 17, 2014 11:57 AM

    I can totally see it happening, either for Garret or Oscar Isaac.

  • AJ | March 14, 2014 1:21 AM

    I think Pena's character is not baity at all?... more like Jon Bernthal and Logan Lerman.

  • Max | March 13, 2014 9:17 PM

    Everest is coming out next year.

  • Pan | March 13, 2014 7:01 PM

    The script of Mojave reads like 7 Psychopaths, but without the humor or sympathetic characters. So I don't think anyone will get nominated for that. And Hedlund just isn't happening, no matter how they keep repackaging him. He didn't have the leading man charisma needed to sell On The Road, and he's really never impressed as an actor. So far he's gotten where he is on his looks, not his acting ability.

  • Brett | March 13, 2014 5:30 PMReply

    What about Andy Serkis? He deserves to be nominated! He looks fantastic in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

  • sondheim is god | March 13, 2014 7:26 AMReply

    Since nobody in Hollywood has any clue how to take, or play, Sondheim (or musicals in general) seriously, Into the Woods is tragically going to suck, flop, and be nowhere near the Oscars.

  • Tunick | March 15, 2014 5:34 PM

    I admit, Into the Woods doesn't have my perfect cast, but it's one of the most accessible of Sondheim's works, so it has a better chance of being a hit than Assassins, for example. And Marshall was fine with Chicago, although he ruined Nine. But he's assembled a fantastic crew, and I'm willing to wait and see it before I declare that it sucks.

  • SONDHEIM IS GOD | March 15, 2014 9:49 AM

    My point was as stated. THIS one is going to suck and flop. I only gave you one piece of my reasoning and said not thing about financial success of other musicals...that was all you. Maybe it won't flop though because there seem to be enough people out there that will line up in droves for anything with a fantasy bent. They don't have to like it they just have to pay to see it. So fine, maybe it won't flop, but as we all know, that alone is not an indicator of quality.

  • Tunick | March 14, 2014 2:25 AM

    Your point was that all musicals either suck or flop. I showed you were wrong. They made money, got good reviews, and audiences loved them. Some got Oscar nominations. Don't be a bad sport. You were wrong, deal with it.

  • TOTUNICK | March 14, 2014 12:34 AM

    Every single movie you listed except for Grease was either a poor imitation of the musical or just outright sucked on the whole and you know it.

  • Tunick | March 13, 2014 2:09 PM

    Yeah, Sweeney Todd, Evita, Hairspray, Chicago, Grease, Dreamgirls, Les Miserables, and Mamma Mia prove that ALL movie musicals will flop. Next!

  • Jason | March 13, 2014 11:31 AM

    Get me Hal Prince on the phone!

  • David | March 13, 2014 6:35 AMReply

    What about Robert Pattinson for The Rover? It's got some good momentum, could be going to Cannes, and the teaser was blistering.

    I agree that Albert Brooks was robbed of a nomination for Drive. He was really menacing in that role. Maybe A Most Violent Year will bring him his due.

  • Amanda | March 13, 2014 12:34 AMReply

    Kristen Stewart has a great capacity for indication. This making great films and great praise.

  • Oh | March 17, 2014 2:11 PM

    Oh, you wanna bring out ALL the box offices for every movie they've done?? Okay let's see. Rob's shittastic movies before Twilight were crap like, The Bad Mothers Handbook (flop), The Haunted Airman (flop), he was cut from Vanity Fair, had a small role in one of the Harry Potter films, Little Ashes (flop). Curse of The Ring (??), How To Be (horrible). Then during Twi he had Remember Me ( flop, sorry Rpatz stans), Water for Elephants (even if this movie made any money it was because of Oscar winners Reese Witherspoon and Christoph Waltz, not him), Bel Ami (FLOP. Hilariously bad and even he knew it), Cosmopolis (FLOP).

    The argument you ignoramuses are trying to push is that her movies have flopped more than his. They've both had flops but in her entire 14 year career, she's had more "hits" than he has. You can deny it all you want, start bringing up useless internet memes to back up your point, but the fact still remains that outside of Twilight, your boy has yet to PROVE himself both critically and financially (movie-wise). You're proud because Cosmopolis was a flop but "not as much as her movie" (that she wasn't even the star in.. She literally had like 15 mins of screen time)?? Go ahead and be proud that your idol is mediocre. I'll be over here proud that Kristen, while admittedly having some flops, has ALSO has some hits to her name and that critics have mostly praised her non-Twi work. Most recent movie being Camp XRay. Call me when your idol takes some risks in his mediocre career. Call me when he stars in a micro budget indie by a first time director, gets the movie into a major film festival, has his performance praised, and gets the movie acquired because of his performance while a bunch of stupid old housewives clamor on and on about how it's gonna go direct to DVD. When he does that, when he takes a chance like that, when he stops being safe and attaching himself to established directors and actors to boost his own nonsensical semblance of "talent" then you shrews can talk.

    Everybody else but his fans are laughing and rolling their eyes at his name even being mentioned in the same sentence as "Oscar." But you go on believing that everyone loves him. You go on believing that Playlist didn't just include his name last because they wanted hits. Whatever helps you feel better. But Don't undermine Kristen Stewarts accomplishments to elevate his and don't be surprised when people retort.

  • Deranged Troll Alert | March 16, 2014 9:42 PM

    You are off your rocker. You know more about KS than her fans do. You know all about her movies. It kills you that she has fans. It kills you that she is doing well, despite all your lame assertions that her career is dead. It's amusing how you assign the blame for each "flop" to her, but refuse to credit her for fronting a blockbuster hit, and insist that it was only because of her co-stars. Wasn't the co-star in WFE Reese Witherspoon? People probably turned out just for her, using your weak thought process, and not Pattinson (for the record, I am a fan of both Pattinson and Stewart).

    Everyone can see you are the same pathetic poster switching up monikers. You are obsessed with Kristen Stewart. Completely consumed. Go ahead with your Razzie BS (which, by the way, numerous Oscar winners have "won," as well as Rob of course, for Worst Ensemble Cast). No one cares about Razzie other than you. No one cares about internet memes. The fact that this is all you have to show just proves how you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. She has received mostly critical acclaim for her non-Twilight movies. I say "mostly," because I know you will drag up lame third-rate blogs and critiques in your response. And of course you'll ignore the raves she got for CXR from THR, Variety, LA Times, etc., etc., etc., and dig up some stupid internet blogger's criticism. You spend more time worrying about her than being a fan of Pattinson or whoever. You are pathetic and everyone here can see that.

  • Numbers don't lie | March 16, 2014 5:23 PM

    Cosmopolis is fresh on RT and On The Road is Rotten. They made about the same amount of box office, even though OTR was in theaters for 5 months longer than Cosmopolis.

    This kills Kristen's fans, because she counted on OTR being a big hit and her key to awards. She made an embarrassing campaign, appearing at screenings of OTR from coast to coast, all to no avail. She and the film were snubbed by every single prestigious organization. Frankly, she was lucky to have avoided another Razzie. She already has 2 for Worst Actress (Twilight and SWATH. And for her fans who point out that Oscar winners have Razzies, too, I will just say that she's not in the league of an Oscar winner).

    When the films premiered at Cannes, the European critics ranked Cosmopolis at #5 and On The Road at #15 out of the 20 films in competition. After all the reviews were counted worldwide, 6 months later, Cosmopolis was a critical success and OTR was deemed a flop. These are facts, not up for dispute, no matter how many times her fans try to distort reality.

  • Just keepin it real | March 16, 2014 5:13 PM

    You know it's bad when Kristen Stewart's fans live in denial. They can't stand that fact that Pattinson has had 2 films that are fresh on RT and they showed a profit. Her indies ALL bomb. This is a fact. It's not someone's opinion. Who in their right mind wouldn't rather have 2 critical and financially successful movies than a string of flops?

    Only a Kristen fan. They just refuse to admit that Pattinson can attract and keep an audiences and she can't. But Box Office Mojo and RT don't lie. Stewart is the one with the string of flops, no matter how hard her fans try to deny it. On The Road, The Runaways, Welcome to the Rileys, The Yellow Handkerchief... one failure after the other. They didn't make money and they got bad reviews.

    And Pattinson isn't the one with internet meme's comparing him as an expressionless block of wood, or saying he has fewer expressions than Darth Vader. Again, that would be Kristen. She's famous for her scowling and her loose morals. Too bad her fans can't accept it and deal with it. And after the way she trashed her reputation, it's going to be a very long time, if ever, that the Academy gives her a nomination. She wasn't that popular before her scandal and she sure isn't popular now.

  • Meryl Streep | March 16, 2014 1:17 PM

    You know it's bad when fans try to point to films like Water for Elephants and Remember Me as 'successes' (who saw or remembers those films?) and a film with a barely fresh rating of 65% and a box office of under a million dollars as a critical triumph (Cosmopolis). If I wanted to watch a block of wood do nothing for 2 hours I'd go for a walk in a forest. Whoever is being paid to make Stewart and Pattinson happen outside of Twilight should find better work.

    Lets talk about people who have a chance of a good performance/nomination, shall we? Let's leave the bored housewives and teenagers to their Twilight talk.

  • David | March 16, 2014 11:08 AM

    This whole Stewart vs Pattinson arguement is boring as hell. But "Pattinson's massive string of flops"? I think Water for Elephants made money. So did Remember Me. Cosmopolis wasn't a blockbuster type film, it was only on 60 theaters. But it did get good reviews, and some really good reviews for Pattinson. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater trying to win a arguement. Both of these actors have potential. They just ended their horrible, embarrassing, but lucrative Twilight franchise, and seem to be trying to do good work. Let's see what happens.

  • Just the REAL facts | March 16, 2014 9:01 AM

    I can hardly believe there are people on this site trying to argue that Robert Pattinson's massive string of flops have somehow been less flop-like than Kristen Stewart's indie bombs (and no, Cosmopolis was both a critical and financial flop. Just look at the reviews and box office). Let's just say there are evenly matched in that regard. And both will never come near an Oscar nomination. In fact you can probably throw out 2/3rds of this ridiculous list right off the bat.

  • just the facts | March 16, 2014 3:29 AM

    I don't want to beat this into the ground, but no, Kristen Stewart has not starred in indies that were profitable. Adventureland did NOT make a profit. It cost $20 million and worldwide only brought in $17 million. Go look at Box Office Mojo. And she didn't "star" in Into The Wild, she was in it for about a total of 10 minutes. She had a very minor supporting role.

    And The Messengers did make a small profit, but it was a Sam Raimi horror movie, and had a good cast, she didn't exactly carry the film. Her flops have been massive -- On The Road, didn't even bring in one fifth of its production budget. Welcome to the Rileys and The Runaways, films that were released post-Twilight, couldn't attract an audience. So she had Twilight name recognition, and the films still bombed.

    She's never been able to attract an audience on her own. Her only profitable movies have been franchise fantasy films where she's surrounded by more popular stars such as Hemsworth, Theron and Pattinson.

  • Talia | March 15, 2014 6:25 PM

    @Just the facts -kristen has starred in indie's that have made a profit such as into the wild, the messengers, adventureland. She was gaining praise for her acting long before Rob even starred in his first film.

    In my honest opinion, both of them have long careers ahead of them and are both selecting film projects that are interesting since Twilight ended.

  • Harrison | March 14, 2014 6:56 PM

    I love when Kristen Stewart fans make fools of themselves trying to elevate her status. I guess they will argue with The Guardian, too:

    Judged on the bald plotline, the latest film from mercurial Olivier Assayas could be the shotgun wedding of Bergman's Persona and All About Eve. Juliette Binoche stars as Maria Enders, a fading actor thrown into crisis when a younger model (Chole Grace Moretz) stars in a remake of her most famous role. Kristen Stewart sits in the wings as Maria's supportive PA.

    Billing isn't everything. Stewart doesn't have a great part in the film, and even if Chloe is only in it for 10 minutes, she will be the one that gets the buzz. Hers is the flashier role.

  • Just the facts | March 14, 2014 5:03 PM

    I see the Rob haters and liars are out in full force today. Well he didn't dump you, he dumped the cheating Kristen Stewart, get over it. And she's the one who's never carried an indie that made a profit, while 2 of Rob's films made money. Water For Elephants and Remember Me both were profitable, and WFE and Cosmopolis are fresh on RottenTomatoes. On The Road on the other hand was a critical and financial failure. This isn't opinion, go check it out on RT and Box Office Mojo.

  • Jake Simmons | March 14, 2014 4:31 PM

    @LOL, why are you so against Kristen Stewart being nominated for an Oscar? If she ever is, there is absolutely nothing you can do about that. Twilight was a terrible film series. Even Robert Pattinson got nominated for Razzies so I'm not sure why you're singling out only Stewart. She has gotten mostly positive reviews for every single non-Twilight movie she has done. She's not the best actress and her range is a bit limited but she has a lot of potential. She's given good, sometimes great performances in the few non-Twilight movies I've seen her in. With the right script, the right director, and the right distributor, she can easily get nominated for and possibly win an Oscar or a Golden Globes. If the movie she's filming with Julianne Moore gets picked up by a good distributor, I could see this being her chance as well as Julianne's.

    As for Pattimson, he's turned in a number of good performances. In my opinion, he was snubbed for in his outstanding performance in Water for Elephants. Cosmopolis was dreadful but it got him much needed indie cred even though his performance was horrifying. He was also good in Remember Me. As for 'Life' he has some potential but it's much too early to tell. Last year, I was certain 'Kill Your Darlings' with Dane Dehaan and Daniel Radcliffe would get some Oscar love but no such luck. Two great performances were overlooked. I hope this isn't the case with 'Life.'

  • ER | March 14, 2014 1:20 PM

    No need to trash Pattinson to elevate Stewart. Make your point about her without stooping to the troll's level, because that makes you just as tedious.

  • @LOL | March 14, 2014 12:24 PM

    Oh I love when Rob Pattinson fans make fools of themselves over Kristen Stewart.

    Chloe was on set for about 4 days, Kristen was there THE WHOLE SHOOT! In Rob fan logic that translates to Kristen ahs a tiny role and Chloe has a huge role, even though Kristen has higher billing. You guys are idiots. You always scrape the bottom of the barrel. Kristen got terrific review for Camp XRay. Lets see Rpattz carry a tiny indie by a first time director into a film festival. He is taking no risks. He is trying to elevate his meagre talent by latching on to established people but he can't hide his limitations, which we have already seen in his previous roles. All of his films outside of Twilight have bombed hugely. Even Cosmopolis. Stop making up lies about Kristen to make yourselves feel better and we won't have to get real and cut to the chase about your idol!

  • @Matthew | March 14, 2014 11:57 AM

    Suuurrreeee you have....

  • Matthew | March 13, 2014 9:35 PM

    I don't need to look at the poster, I've read the script. You called it when you said Stewart plays Juliette's "confidante." She's merely a sounding board, she sits and listens while Juliette talks. Her character is a plot device, just there to give Juliette a launching point for her reminiscing. She has very little dialog, and it's not the juicy part that Chloe's character has. Twilight name recognition may have gotten Stewart good billing, but the part is not splashy or memorable in the least.

  • @Matthew | March 13, 2014 7:55 PM

    Moretz is pretty awesome, but look at the billing. Stewart is under Binoche. Stewart was there for the entire 6 week (or so) shoot. "Barely in the film, playing an assistant"? Assistant -- yes. Barely in it -- no. She is Binoche's confidante. Check out the poster (close the spaces)

    http://blogs. indiewire. com/theplaylist/sales-poster-official-synopsis-for-olivier-assayas-clouds-of-sils-maria-starring-kristen-stewart-20140210

  • Matthew | March 13, 2014 6:52 PM

    If anyone gets a nomination out of Juliette Binoche's film, it will be Juliette, or for supporting, Chloe Moritz. Chloe is the one with the major supporting role, Stewart is barely in the film, playing an assistant. Chloe has the juicy, All About Eve role. But to get any nominations, the film has to be at the very least a critical success, and he's never made a film that turned out to be profitable.

  • @Marcus | March 13, 2014 5:50 PM

    She is more than a bit nutty. The reference to Lionsgate is a reference to another one of Stewart's films that is set to shoot next month. Lionsgate paid a huge sum for distribution rights. This lunatic is a troll whose sole mission in life is to pathetically attempt to discredit Stewart at every turn, even though she seems to be doing just fine.

  • Marcus | March 13, 2014 5:37 PM

    @LOL

    I'm not a KStew fan, but the girl has given a few well received performances in indies and she's in the new Assayas film with Binoche. So it's not that insane to bring her up....and the Assayas film is not being distributed by Lionsgate but IFC so I have no idea what you are going on about. By the way, Lionsgate is distributing Child 44, Locke, and Glass Castle so they aren't a failure either–––even though they have nothing to do with this. And why am I responding to someone who seems a bit nutty, I do not know.

  • @LOL | March 13, 2014 2:53 PM

    The more appropriate question is why you are so obsessed with her? You know more about her than her fans. Anyone who speaks is such absolutes as yourself hasn't got a clue.

  • LOL | March 13, 2014 1:43 PM

    Lol forever at her fans clinging to Lionsgate like it means something. Lionsgate distributes more flops than it does hits:

    Enemies Closer, Grace Unplugged, Nurse 3D, Life of Crime, The Frozen Ground, Rapture-Palooza, Peeples, Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor, The Last Stand, Bigfoot County, Stand Up Guys, The Bay, and The Possession, all BOMBS.

    Outside of the The Hunger Games, they've got nothing to show that they can pick a hit. And all of Stewart's indies flop anyway. On The Road was a critical and box office failure. And she was snubbed by every single organization, no nominations for anything. Why are her fans in the comments section instead of buying tickets to see her films?

  • @LOL | March 13, 2014 11:59 AM

    You mad? You are her biggest fan and manage to post anywhere and everywhere about her. So of course you know she has a film likely heading for Cannes this year and many more down the pipeline. 15 minutes almost up? Of course you know about that huge Lionsgate deal for her action/comedy. Stay pressed. Oscar winners have won Razzies plenty of times. Not saying she will win one, but your argument about Razzies is invalid.

  • LOL | March 13, 2014 2:20 AM

    Kristen Stewart also has not one but TWO Razzies for Worst Actress, and no nominations for any Oscars or even Golden Globes. She had the same expression through all 5 Twilight films AND Snow White. Her latest micro budget indie is Rotten on RT, and she got the worst reviews of her life for SWATH. Her 15 minutes are thankfully almost up.

  • Andrew | March 12, 2014 10:34 PMReply

    I've read Inherent Vice and Josh Brolin is essentially the second lead so he probably has the best shot, although despite his role being relatively small, Owen Wilson has quite the material. Reese Witherspoon, not so much. Waterston or Malone probably have much better shots, particularly Malone who plays Wilson's wife.

  • melissa | March 12, 2014 10:28 PMReply

    In which world can Edward no expression Cullen can get any acting award?

  • Talia | March 14, 2014 5:28 AM

    @auteurs As a fan of Rob's, I can honestly say that while water for elephants was profitable, rob did not carry that film himself. Cosmoplis was an OK film and while his acting was praised,the film was a flop. The same goes for Bel Ami which is a terrible film so wasn't really surprised that it was a box office flop as well.

    With that said,rob has only really started doing more indie films since Twilight finished. I would say if he was to get nominated for a 2015 supporting actor Oscar then it would be for the Rover as his role in Life is a lead role(doubt Life will get released this year anyway)

  • Auteurs | March 13, 2014 8:37 PM

    Pattinson was able to sell both Water for Elephants and Remember Me, both were profitable. That isn't something you can say about his Twilight co-star's indies, is it? And Cosmopolis was a critical success, and more than proved that Pattinson can carry a film and make an impression.

    James Gray, Michod, Cronenberg and no less than Werner Herzog all work with him as well, and he's playing T.E. Lawrence. Drop the mic, Rob. You win.

  • Tiny Witch | March 13, 2014 7:53 PM

    Pattinson isn't happening no matter how much his withered, embittered fans try to make it so. They've tried every which way to have him 'prove' himself as an actor and he's shown time again that he's nothing more than an empty blank. He hasn't been able to sell a film and Cosmopolis was a major misfire for all involved. He's certainly not getting parts based on acting ability. A supposed pretty face well past his expiration date. Not leading man material.

  • Warren | March 13, 2014 1:47 PM

    Cosmopolis is fresh on RottenTomatoes, a majority of the critics gave it positive reviews, and yes, Pattinson got raves. Even in reviews where they didn't like the film, they pointed out that he gave a great performance. This is not opinion, the record speaks for itself. So no need to lie about it, Oogle Monster. And he's already proven himself. Just because you hated Twilight is no reason to live in the past. Try to catch up.

  • @Oogle monster | March 13, 2014 1:21 PM

    Still here to bash Robert pattinson?Grow up and stop spread the lies about his performance in Cosmopolis.Americans reviews are not only ones he got.There are also such a thing like Europe,if you don't know.

  • The RPatz Truth | March 13, 2014 11:59 AM

    Yeah, Pattinson was NOT terrible in Cosmopolis and this was a start. After that he started getting a lot of indie work, because ppl knew he could get a film green lit, but that doesn't mean he's totally proven himself yet. Cosmopolis was simply the beginning of a new phase in his career, the results of which we haven't seen yet. He's impressed by getting roles in films by Herzog, Corbijn, Michod, etc. but he's still got a long ways to go before he proves himself.

  • oogle monstser | March 13, 2014 10:09 AM

    I'm not sure what reviews you were reading but Pattinson did not get rave reviews for Cosmopolis. The film was DOA. Sure, some people might have been impressed but equating that to rave reviews is misleading and just flat out untrue. It's ok if your idol isn't a good actor... no need to spread false statements around this site.

  • Jealous much | March 12, 2014 10:50 PM

    Grow up, Melissa. That kind of dumb comment died in 2011, try to catch up. Pattinson got rave reviews for Cosmopolis, and he's working with Herzog, Michod and Cronenberg again. Directors like that don't hire people who can't act.

  • ASFan | March 12, 2014 9:17 PMReply

    With regards to Adam Sandler in Men, Women & Children, would that be considered Lead or Supporting? Considering it's a rather dense ensemble, it's conceivable that if he were to get nominated for that, it would be for Supporting. I remember George Clooney won Supporting for Syriana even though he was first billed.

  • Eddy Q | March 12, 2014 8:49 PMReply

    Paul Giamatti plays what might turn out to be a very baity supporting role in Love and Mercy - crazy psychotherapist Dr. Eugene Landy.

  • El Vaquero | March 12, 2014 7:38 PMReply

    Reese Witherspoon!!!!!!!!!!! for inherent vice

  • crizo | March 12, 2014 8:16 PM

    not her not her period not the drunk woman no

  • Mary Algorithm | March 12, 2014 6:53 PMReply

    Logan Lerman in Fury. Gary Oldman in Child 44. Ethan Hawke in Boyhood. Joel Edgerton in Exodus. Sigourney Weaver in Exodus. Vera Farmiga in The Judge. Nicole Kidman in The Railway Man

  • anon | March 14, 2014 9:31 AM

    Definitely Logan lerman as a contender for supporting in Fury. If he can bring his 3:10 to Yuma and Perks of Being a Wallflower A-games combined, he could be a potential nominee. The role is intense and has a clear and compelling arc. And Hawke in Boyhood

  • Taylor | March 12, 2014 6:35 PMReply

    I think you'll be surprised when LIFE comes out. Rob is playing the lead, not the supporting role. The film is told from Stock's point of view, not Dean's. Rob is playing the photographer who took the iconic pics of Dean, and we get Stock's backstory with his wife and kids, etc., he will be in every scene, not James Dean. It's the story of the LIFE magazine photographer, not the movie star. It's starring Pattinson with DeHaan supporting. Nice to see Pattinson mentioned at all though.

  • Andre | March 13, 2014 1:16 PM

    It would really nice to see DeHaan getting nominated for an Oscar, he's a awesome young actor.

  • Amy | March 12, 2014 6:08 PMReply

    I think Felicity Jones would be lead for Theory of Everything. The film is centered around their relationship and is (loosely?) based on Jane Hawking's memoir.

  • Film Runner | March 12, 2014 5:58 PMReply

    This is one of the most pointless lists I have ever seen.

  • Mi | March 12, 2014 5:35 PMReply

    R.Pattinson is lead in Life.

  • Mi | March 12, 2014 6:06 PM

    How smart you are.Life is a story of Dennis Stock Life magazine photographer who got asked to make a pics of new actor James Dean.They went to NYC,Fairmount and LA together.Dane DeHaan is co-lead.

  • LOL | March 12, 2014 5:43 PM

    LOL.

Email Updates