At the MTV Movie Awards, Kristen Stewart won for "Best Female Performance" for her role in New Moon. Due to the popularity of the Twilight films among the MTV audience, we all knew she's win. But did she really deserve it for her performance?
Here's whom Kristen Stewart was up against:
- Zoe Saldana, Avatar - Zoe just used her voice. There was no body language to judge on. I don't even think she deserved to be nominated
- Emma Watson, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Emma does such a good job playing the wise yet annoying Hermione
- Sandra Bullock, The Blindside - I haven't seen this film, but I hear it won some sort of award. I'm pretty sure MTV's 15-year-old audience could care about Oscars though
- Amanda Seyfriend - Dear John - Ehhh. Lame movie. Haven't seen it, but the trailer looks terrible. This girl doesn't deserve it.
For me, Kristen's only real competition was Emma Watson. As mature as Emma appears in real life, she did such a good job playing the wise yet annoying Hermione. And as annoying I think K-Stew is in real life, I think she plays angst ridden Bella so well! It's a toss up between the two. But when it comes to MTV, it's all a popularity contest. Congrats to Kristen Stewart for her MTV Movie Award. I'll admit...she deserved it! Now if only she could write an acceptance speak.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 6
I would have thought Sandra Bullock would have won, but I would have voted for Emma Watson.
Firstly, Zoe Saldana DID act. It wasn't just her voice. It was her facial movements, her speech, her body movements. All while acting as another species. What more is there to acting?
Try watching movies that aren't made from poorly written books.
Secondly, if you haven't seen Blindside, how can you judge any of these films, let alone weather or not a person deserves to win something when you only two candidates for the Best Actress of 2010 are Emma Watson and Kristen Stewart.