Lead (Perhaps I'm being too hopeful but I always want all fives reviewed every year) Howerton Yoo Sessa Fassbender Sarsgaard Melton Cage Efron Scott Nagayama Kurokawa Mikkelsen Yakusho Friedel Bernal (Cassandro)
1. Perfect Days 2. Society of the Snow 3. The Teacher's Lounge 4. Io Capitano
Looking forward to The Zone of Interest. Fallen Leaves is missed.
Sound:
1. Oppenheimer 2. Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning 3. The Creator 4. Maestro
Oppenheimer is where I think Nolan finally figured out the level of intensity with his sound design again, after losing the control of it since Interstellar, where now the balance is actually in the right place for the dialogue to be heard, while still creating the sense of intensity desired through the music and other aspects of the sound design. And you have great individual work within the visions of Oppenheimer, of course the big blast in itself which is a tremendous work in really all the different aspects from each different group watching the explosion, and of course the work in the town hall scene is just amazing work for both editing and mixing.
Cool that they finally recognized Mission Impossible, though they might have started earlier as the sound design is always strong with these films. And essentially what it is, is pristine action blockbuster sound design across the board, and just work where you never question because you are simply in it. Immersive, but also great individual sounds across the board, an inspired nod, particularly over BRMMM BRMMM BRRMM I mean Ferrari.
And as much as I hated the Creator, the sound design is entirely strong as well. That isn't the problem with the film. The different sounds for the robots, explosions, gun shots, the Death Star, what have you all entirely solid work. I guess I would say that none of them quite stands out in any particular way, but the sound is not the problem with this film.
Maestro is a terrible choice because I'm pretty sure the choice every time was let's just play Bernstein's music and his conducted music as LOUDLY as possible. It doesn't do anything with different parts of the music nor does it play around it in a clever way. They just kind of blast it.
Makeup & Hairstyling:
1. Poor Things 2. Society of Snow 3. Maestro 4. Oppenheimer 5. Golda
A no brainer, pun intended, sure why not. As there are so many creative choices on both ends of this one. The look of Dafoe alone should've guaranteed this a spot if not a win, as it is such a memorable man basically put together like a puzzle with the makeup for him. Outstanding work there. But you also have every hairstyle of each of the characters which are all wonderfully creative in their own ways, and one where you can actually praise both aspects of this mixed together category.
Society of the Snow is 100% convincing work in doing realistic makeup of basically injury or slow decay, and there isn't a moment where you don't believe this at any point. It is subtle, but exceptional work that does its job without a fuss.
Speaking of a fuss, I actually do think the old makeup more or less is convincing for the characters here, though young Bernstein's prosthetic is a bit much even for Bernstein who did have a prominent nose. But for the most part, I do think the old Bernstein makeup wise is the big swing and it's not the problem with the film.
Oppeneheimer's makeup I'd say is the weakest aspect of a film that I love, as I think the final makeup is a mix between decent enough (Blunt, Hartnett), iffy (Murphy) and off (Safdie), the work beforehand that is more subtle is all good, but really this does feel for one scene of work, and in that particular scene the makeup is not great.
Golda's makeup is terrible. Mirren looks like she's wearing a ghoul face instead of an actual person's face. And that's all there really is to the film, and so the big centerpiece work is not good, the work is not good.
Happy for Perfect Days in International Film, a few other noms here and there and uh...that's about it, really. Disappointed for Greta Lee and Charles Melton. Infuriated at Joe Hisaishi and Daniel Pemberton missing out to that Indy 5 score.
These predictions are too mixed. The only thing I see consistent is Brown at the bottom. Personally, I kind of struggled a bit with Ruffalo’s accent. He sounded more like an American trying to sound British, but maybe that was the point, considering the phoniness of the character.
1. Poor Things 2. Napoleon 3. Barbie 4. Killers of the Flower Moon 5. Oppenheimer
I mean no constant whatsoever for me. As just Stone's costumes alone should guarantee this the win. As every one of them is memorably mad and completely stunning all the same. Such vibrant colors and choices and wonderful in kind of choice in character centric work in making her costumes more specifically fitting and less childish as they go on, though amazing looking every step of the way. But it's not just Stone every costume looks great, Abbott's uniform, Carmichael's glasses or robe, Hunter's "funeral" attire, even the more subtle work for Dafoe, Youssef and Ruffalo is extremely eye catching blend of this extreme style, with period that is just altogether fantastic.
Napoleon is typical of Scott's work, which whether or not the film works on the whole, what does work is the technical aspects of the film and that is once again the case. And the work is striking as basically just nearly accurate but with flourishes. As Napoleon's uniforms are almost the fighting game version with alternate costumes for that whole point, Kirby's various more extravagant dresses all eye catching in their way, and while less focused upon is the work of everyone else, it all is still effective work that helps to realize the period, though again slightly amplified.
Barbie's work, as much as I'd prefer it not to win in this category and production design do to the level of preference for my favorite, this is fun work to be sure as just basically playing with the sheer extravagance of Barbie style clothing, which is all about ridiculously bright colors and just a little silly. And it is all good work in that regard and successfully realizes the toy costumes in live action in an entertaining way.
Killers of the Flower Moon is completely solid work, in just appropriate period work across the board with it being a mix between the classes of clothing and slight mixes based on American and Osage culture, the highlight of this being everything that Gladstone wears in the early scenes of the film especially her parade outfit that is something special.
Oppenheimer completely does its job costumes wise, but I don't think it needed to be nominated here. And not to dismiss it, fine low key period work that feels appropriate per the tone of the film, where it is just being straightforward. And there are bits of nice little character centric work, even if not really the focus too much within the film. But completely solid work, even if maybe a nomination the film didn't need
Production Design: 1. Poor Things 2. Killers of the Flower Moon 3. Barbie 4. Napoleon 5. Oppenheimer
Excellent lineup.
Poor Things though stands above and beyond the rest, and I've said it before, but I think the work is an all-timer. Every set, every setting, every room, crafts such a unique eye-catching design that is absolutely gorgeous to behold as this mix between period and science fiction. Every set is so filled with so much detail and character and feels each its own world. I have a particular affection for the winterly blue of Paris, also love the ship, also love the Egyptian broken stairs, the madness of Godwin's house and honestly I just love every single detail that is just incredible. Brings so much character to every moment, creating such a tangible if also fantastical world, just amazing work that will lose to pink.
Killers of the Flower Moon is the pairing of Jack Fisk and Scorsese. You'd expect it to be in the sheer level of detail and expansiveness of the world. You'd think you could just travel back in time with the setting, though also filled with such a specific sense of detail to the period that is filled with character.
Now I probably shouldn't be too mean because as much as I don't want it to win, Barbie's work is very strong, the Barbie world well crafted as the fantastical realization of this crazy toyland. And my favorite bits honestly were the transition worlds between Barbie and the real world. As each of those were memorable bits of fun design. I will say the interior of the Mattel headquarters speaks to my dislike of that whole section tonally as the sets are also of a fantasy world rather than reality, but I'd say that is more so a directing/writing thing. As designs they're good, I just wish they weren't there.
Napoleon's work is excellent period work filled with detail in each different place we see Napoleon in, and not for a moment do you not feel established within each particular setting of the Napoleonic wars. The exterior and interior work is both impressive in terms of detail, and again with just a slight slant towards a more expressive style without overdoing it.
Oppenheimer, like its costumes, is very straightforward, though I think this nomination is more deserving in fact very well deserved, because everything simply is as it should be, as being completely convincing to the time it is created. In the intent of being history it absolutely delivers in that regard.
Honestly if I were to have ranked the shortlist only the Barbie songs would've made my top ten, forget top five, so many better choices could've been made particularly those from Flora and Son, "Quiet Eyes" from Past Lives and "Am I Dreaming" from Spider-verse.
1. "I'm Just Ken" - Barbie 2. "What Was I Made For" - Barbie 3. "It Never Went Away" - American Symphony 4. "The Fire Inside" - Flamin' Hot 5. “Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)” - “Killers of the Flower Moon
Well I do love "I'm Just Ken" the sequence and the song. Just a wonderfully done comical ballad that also works as a ballad. And love the build from Ken's lonely words of his state of seeming perfect while being set aside. With the wonderfully simple instrumental support that builds with the electric guitar and more support as it segues brilliantly into Ken's more upbeat desires, before segueing again to Kenergy that is just great in its simple chorus, before segueing once again, as though it is Bohemian Rhapsody, brilliantly back to Ken's solo ballad before being joined by the rest of the Ken's in a glorious unified at its finish.
"What Was I Made For" does suspiciously seem similar to "When She Loved Me" both thematically and musically. Regardless, I guess I prefer Eilish over McLachlan. Similar though in its somber ballad of a toy, that unlike Ken, is played 100% straight as this quiet realization of distress. And do love the simple subdued instrumentation and the simple melody within it. And the Eilish equally subdued delivery of the lyrics though that works rather well in creating this sense of reflection in the song. Though my favorite part is when it seems like it is going somewhere else in the instrumentation in the "I don't know how I feel", but never quite does. But even it doesn't, wholly works as such.
Ahh there's the ever over nominated Diane Warren showing up again with another mediocre song. And this one I like slightly more than last year's, but not much. Find it pretty repetitive and generic as just a bit too repetition of how many times it needs to tell me "You got the Fire Inside" with any alteration being brief and not memorable with a very generalized pop sound typical for Warren.
Wahzhazhe is well used in the film I'll say as a representation of the continued strength of the people even after all the hell of the story. But I do wonder how many tried to listen to this chant for the full six minutes as I did yesterday in preparing for the song nominees. To say it is repetitive is an understatement, and perhaps I should get to know more chants of the ilk, but from what I have heard I'm not quite sure what stands out about this one. And for one minute it works most definitely as the communal song it is, but for six minutes, it does test your patience a bit to be completely honest.
I haven't seen Poor Things and American Fiction yet (Poor Things opens this weekend here), between the other 3, my ranking would be: 1. Robert De Niro 2. Ryan Gosling 3. Robert Downey Jr.
That said, here are my predictions: 1. Robert Downey Jr. 2. Mark Ruffalo 3. Robert De Niro 4. Sterling K. Brown 5. Ryan Gosling
Luke: You might be onto something. 1. Ruffalo 2. De Niro(I might think about switching the first two down the line.) 3. Downey Jr 4. Gosling 5. Brown(I don't know what to make of this surprise lol.)
I thought the Oscar noms this year, were..just ok I think, I think I was expecting more of a huge bombshell surprise because of how good the build up to the nominations were.
1. Godzilla Minus One 2. The Creator 3. Napoleon 4. Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One 5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
A very strong lineup actually.
Godzilla's minus one does have a few wonky shots where Godzilla does look a little odd but in terms of the impact of the visual effects, with how they are implemented within scenes, there is no stronger work in this lineup in terms of that. The visual effects have weight, particularly the realization of certain Godzilla moments whether that be the animation of his back fins before the radiation breath, the nuclear explosion that comes with that or the moments of complete destruction.
The Creator's visuals design wise are pretty dull but technical wise they are good in being convincing within scenes. The robots look part of the scenes, the Death Star is convincing in the sky, everything is convincing, even if kind of dull. But technically it is good work.
Looking at Napoleon's featurette work it is very impressive with just how much the environmental work naturally beefed up every battle scenes in ways that also looked convincing in terms of these particular touch ups. Very impressive work in terms of making the scale just that much grander.
I've actually given my thoughts on Impossible's effects before.
Marvel's effects have gone down hill most recently with a lot frankly bad work finding its way into the films. Guardians though is an improvement over many, though occasionally there's just a little bit of the sense of rushing that perhaps made the effects slightly worse, but it is overall impressive. What helps though is that the majority of it is mean to be fake in a pretty extravagant way, so it helps getting away with it, and overall it is impressive sci-fi work that is above the current Marvel standard.
DiCaprio snubbed, now he can dedicate himself better to making the next PTA film. And what's more, he's going to surprise you all. Believe. If PTA could get Cooper to be on top with limited screen time, why not, right?
1. Oppenheimer 2. Poor Things 3. The Holdovers 4. The Killers of the Flower Moon 5. Anatomy of a Fall
Easy choice for #1 with Oppenheimer which evokes JFK in terms of the forward momentum created within a 3 hour film that for me never loses pace and for me the film flys by. While also helping to orchestrate the complicated structure of the piece in a way that feels both natural, while also building off of each other in a way that feels completely cohesive. Exceptional work that is doing a lot constantly while also just flowing naturally.
Poor Things's approach in editing is very different in that it purposefully is accentuating strange choices to almost mess with the viewer a bit in the rhythm is frequently shifting in ways, which I all loved. When, like Bella's "birth" it shifts to swiffer, or times it sits with moments longer, I loved the choices pretty much almost throughout. The one thing I do understand criticism wise is the ending before the ending has a purposeful crescendo as the film seems to be about to end perfectly then Abbott shows up, however I do think this is purposeful in creating the false expectation so we too are wondering what Abbott is doing here. And while I understand this might make the film drag for some, I love the choice, and how it is implemented as such in the editing, as like one more thing Bella has to take care of to fully achieve her independence.
The Holdovers has very much a very subdued 70's style drama editing in its choices where the montages are more relaxed, the scenes very much focus on performance and it does take its time. I think though it smartly differs in achieving the style without falling to the weaknesses, where occasionally a 70's drama can be too slow. Holdovers rather evokes but ends up being ideal 70's drama editing in style and helps to achieve that style without being forced.
The Killers of the Flower Moon is a little complicated for me in that Schoonmaker always knows what she's doing, and he and Scorsese are purposefully making you feel "Stuck" in the murders to be a bit overwhelmed by them. BUT I do think it could've been cut down more regardless, and there's a bit too often it cuts back to a moment for something we already know. And you do feel the length, and I do think that is intentional but even as such you could've felt it less even with the length. But there are still some great moments, such as the opening montage for example, which is exceptional work, but for me it is not one of her best works with Scorsese.
Anatomy of a Fall's editing too I think occasionally feels a little languid, I particularly dislike the ending where it feels almost like it is leading to some final clue to make the story more ambiguous, but no. And I think there's a bit of a struggle within the legal thriller versus relationship drama that is imperfect. I think the editing style is better for the latter and occasionally loses the momentum with the former not to the point where it is truly detrimental, but it could definitely be tighter. Not that I think the film is poorly edited mind you, but wouldn't be in my top ten.
Exactly, Louis. I was watching Oppenheimer like, “It’s giving JFK.” For me, Jason Clarke’s character in Oppenheimer was like Donald Sutherland’s in JFK.
Well, I'm a little late to this party since I was working when the nominations were announced. And as per usual for me, I'm going into these line ups blind, having seen virtually none of them and only having their receptions here/at large to go off of.
So for supporting actor, I'm going a bit bold.
1) De Niro 2) Downey Jr 3) Brown 4) Gosling 5) Ruffalo
Again, I haven't personally seen Ruffalo, but I know Louis hasn't liked his overtly mannered/"try hard" performances, and I'm unsure how well he fit the film's general tone (from the trailer anyways).
Gross lineup for the wild card spots. These bottom 2 would've also been the bottom 2 out of the shortlist, would've taken every other choice over them, especially The Boy and the Heron and Society of the Snow.
1. Oppenheimer 2. Killers of the Flower Moon 3. Poor Things 4. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny 5. American Fiction
Oppenheimer's score is one the more I love the more I listen to it, and for me is easily Goransson's best score for me. And part of the score is just beautiful, particularly its use of the violin, but how rich it is in the overall work with how much there is in every single piece in terms of the different ideas going on. Like "Can You Hear the Music" where there's just the beautiful melody that slowly builds together with more techno synth as kind of these building intense collider in musical form, and somehow feels cohesive in its build and realization. And it's fascinating how many times Goransson pulls this off in not just doing one idea combining, but constantly many that are fantastic just to listen to but also create the right intensity and also kind of ingenuity as a representation for Oppenheimer. And so many different moods though still and like to single out "Colonel Pash" which is simpler in kind of dissonant sounds yet so effective almost this kind sound of cold steel that not only represents the character brilliantly represents the sudden state of paranoia. I just love this score because there are so many risky choices in terms of this mix between traditional orchestra with the synth, and every single choice blends to one unique and striking track after another.
Listening back to Robertson's score for Killers actually was probably the biggest surprise joy related to the film, as I liked the score when watching the film but love it when listening to it separately. Robertson score has this fantastic combination that is most unexpected of kind of a western sound partially, partially kind of traditional indigenous instrumentation, while also being rock, things that shouldn't all combine probably work here. Love the opening piece especially because it brings such a vibrant energy that is modern but doesn't feel broken from the period. And there's some beautiful melodies in here, but also just the way he plays around with kind of the same set of instrumentation we first hear in the vibrant "Osage Oil Boom" yet then from there we get the variation within that. Some more joyful like "The Wedding" where it is lighter and high pitched, then like the "Tulsa Massacre Newsreel" there is lower register and almost guttural in kind of the evil hiding within the vibrancy.
Poor things's score is utter madness, and enjoyable utter madness. The instrumentation is so unusual, as are the choices in even rhythm where the exact temp constantly changes and the direction of every musical choice goes the opposite of what you'd expect. It's a score that feels kind of cobbled together out of different parts, much like our protagonist. And it will come out of nowhere with another idea of like a deep reverbing bass like in "Mother of God" or just the complete insanity of something like "Reanimation" where it is pulling in every random instrumentation and a vocal performance you wouldn't usually expect. And it's parts horror, part comedy, partly just pure dada. It's all madness, and I love it.
Lazy as hell nomination for Williams for this Indiana Jones, where every track that doesn't sound reused, sounds just like a different worse idea than from something we heard in a previous film. There are no new tracks that are at all memorable, no motifs can name one, and while it isn't actively bad, it isn't actively anything special at any point. It feels like recycled Williams.
American Fiction's score I honestly think is the weakest aspect of the film both in terms of implementation but also just the score itself. But I just don't like the sound of the score, it just feels to me like a random merging of some random ideas with way too much non-melodic piano and just a lot of different ideas that don't blend. I find it particularly kind of disjointed and perhaps part of the problem with the transitions with the film as it doesn't "sell" either the drama or the satire all that well. Rather it feels very vague in its musical choices and in turn to me feels like just a whole lot of noise without exact purpose. And in the end feels a bit like a failed attempt to try what Terence Blanchard does a whole lot better. It feels heavy handed at times, it feels out of place at times, I honestly just don't like it, and is one of my least favorite surprise nominations.
Ruffalo gives a career-best in Poor Things, easy 5, and is the type of comedic performance that Louis especially loves. If it wasn't for how much he loved Oppenheimer, I'd predict him for the overall win too.
1. Poor Things 2. Oppenheimer 3. Killers of the Flower of the Moon 4. El Conde 5. Maestro
Ryan's cinematography in Poor Things, with Lanthimos, is of course making a lot of oddball choices in terms of the lenses and in this instance again I love every choice no matter how insane. And those costumes, and production design are in particularly great hands with Ryan only amplifying every color, except when going Black and White which I also loved. But Loved most just the unique crafted images by catching every element with in itself its own wild vibrancy, which at times is about these demented angles or other times in capturing a wonderful grandeur as well. It is cinematography with frequent surreal intention and loved the surreal madness that is always beautiful if also frequently very weird.
I have actually seen a little sniffy dismissal towards van Hoytema's work for often being "people talking", which in itself is dumb. But the work of "people talking" is in itself always dynamic, always clear, and always basically as pristine as it can be in terms of the black and white and color shots. It's not showy but every group shot still looks good, and more than that never looks crowded or awkward. But that of course is forgetting the more intense shots of scale which are also fantastic framing and composition that create this sense of intense grandeur, while also with individual moments of brilliant lighting especially everything with the trinity test.
Prieto's work is interesting in that it is largely an "ugly" western in a genre that is always about the scenic locations; this one rather seems to wish to emphasize the dread and death. This one rather frequently emphasizes just bits of light coming through in certain scenes, and even most of the scenes that are set in the daytime are grey. But it is beautiful as such in working with the purposefully muted palette that manages to be "ugly" without being ugly, granting the idea while still being eye catching, and helps by like Oppenheimer extremely dynamic shots of those interiors, here creating a frequently penetrating isolating mood, even when there are many in one shot. Beautiful work though not in a traditional sense, except for a few Osage centric moments which are moments of grand beauty, like the oil discovery which is just incredible work.
El Conde is an inspired choice, and one that I loved sometimes, though didn't always love. The most stylized shots are pure gothic horror, such as any of the flying scenes, the interior moments with the most intense contrast of black and whites, and anything that goes for the grandiose is just fantastic. Some of the interior work I do think is less interesting where sometimes the grey is well just a bit grey and less interesting, though I would never say poorly shot as Lachman's compositions are always on point if of less interesting subjects sometimes.
Maestro is absolutely brilliantly shot, according to itself, and of the things I don't love about the film, this actually isn't the focus. I do think there are some striking shots in here in terms of the most extreme style, if often feeling just for the sake of it, which I don't think creates a logical purpose overall, even in terms of time, and the camera movement is sometimes a little wonky. I think though much I'd put more on Cooper in taking some realized ideas by Libatique and not using them properly, such as the On the Town scene, where the camera seemingly has no idea where it should be. But even as such there are moments where the extremely specific framing and composition, with very specific lighting in black and white or color, where it does work and is good, even if this is a definite number 5 for me.
1. Oppenheimer 2. Poor Things 3. American Fiction 4. Barbie
Oppenheimer and Poor Things I'll admit are tough top two to decide from this category as I think you have two separate brilliant achievements in different aspects of screenwriting. Oppenheimer's achievement is in structural greatness in adapting a complicated life story and touches upon so much from the source material. And doing so in a way that is cinematic, cohesive and compelling. And the structure is not for the sake of it rather informs the narrative each time in leading up to frankly an all-time great ending where the structure is essential to pulling to by managing to go around the past, future and even the perspective of the present to create that moment. But the whole thing is put together as such where instead of undercutting each other, the jumps amplify one another in granting perspective to Oppenheimer's past and future colliding and the contrasts with Strauss. And even the use of Strauss as the seeming secondary protagonist that becomes a villain is masterful to me, in characterization of the sort of who eventually controlled Oppenheimer's ambition but also where his ambition clashed with the ambition of others. And the two both having an unexpected grilling in different symbolic circumstances that reveal the character of both is just amazing. And I'll give it credit for quickly realizing characters in a moment, while being central focused in unraveling one man who defined by his ambition above all else, and where I understand the criticism of the writing of the women, though there isn't really much more of them featured overall in American Prometheus to begin with, to me each is portrayed effectively as partial casualties of the personal ambition that all else suffers for. But also the ambition itself and the unraveling of what that means, particularly in the Truman scene, which altogether a brilliant subversion of expectation for the audience and Oppenheimer. And as much as Poor Things has the best dialogue of the year, I do think Nolan delivers some of his best here as it does reveal character, is there the occasional iffy line, sure, but the fact that Nolan of all people was able to make a great and captivating film with wall to wall talking, speaks much to this screenplay which oddly I think has been slightly underappreciated in a certain sense.
Poor Things is the greatest challenger for me because this is where it thrives in its dialogue entirely, which is absolutely hilarious, and just so many lines are so memorable. It is a masterclass as such. Structurally however it isn't as amazing as Oppenheimer is, and is purposefully more episodic. Though episodic with purpose in each phase showing the maturation and discovery of Bella Baxter of the world, and coming up with her own philosophy while also discovering more about herself. It works as such, though more so thrives on just who we meet in each setting and the interactions within them is where it thrives. Because it is the way we see the different strange characters bouncing off of Bella that truly makes the film sing. And singing it is, I think, a fascinating combination between kind of uncovering much muck within the soul of humanity, however also a warm embrace of it for all its weirdness at the same time. And we see that through the different characters and how each one influences Bella, but really with each they are also just fun in each of their own oddities as even the briefest character as some trait that is quite memorable. Love it, and maybe I could switch this to my #1 as well, as again both it and Oppenheimer thrive but in different, though just as remarkable ways.
American Fiction's main criticism is that it is two films, and here's the thing, you can have two main storylines and not feel like two films. Part of the problem is the writing and directing don't quite make them cohere completely though there is an attempt to do so. That is you have the experience of the African American family and their different relationships with their parents which are complicated and tricky as they're trying to figure it out while going through their grief, and then you have the satire of the purposefully pandering book which is handled in a broadly comic way with broadly comic characters for the most part. And the two sides don't quite cohere despite the one liners that are throughout but sometimes the one liners seem out of place so it's an odd dichotomy. As you have the broad over the top characters in the satire, which kind of gets lost a little bit story wise as well anyways, and then you have the down to earth family, where in both our main character philosophizes in his place in his family in his culture. And I think in the writing it doesn't cultivate exactly the right tone. But even so there are some moving interactions within the family and dissecting the sense of a man who doesn't know his place exactly despite believing himself to be the smartest man in the room. And then there is definitely fun to be had with the satire, though I do think it progressively less amusing, though not intentionally. And I don't think any of it is bad, it's just not cohesive nor does its lack of cohesion work fully as such.
Barbie's screenplay does feel like is working on different drafts of different versions of the film because there are a lot of storylines and they're a little all over the place. Barbie world for example makes no sense, and not in itself but its relationship with the real world. That is never adequately explained nor do I think it quite works as just being silly because it wants to have a dramatic element with Ferrera's character. And speaking of her character with her daughter, that is very weakly realized, it has potential but doesn't really find it at any point for me. And the real world also doesn't make sense, as part of it is playing on the contrast and then the Mattel corporation is completely goofy and unrealistic so kind of ruins that contrast. Although I feel that plot might've existed pre-Gerwig. And I'll say the film is a little too fond of speeches to outline everything for our characters and not even the big one, but rather the ending where everyone seems to have to say their piece just feels a little messy in the execution of it. HAVING SAID THAT, a lot of the fun with the Barbie world and its later infection by toxic masculinity is very funny in largely being just fairly ridiculous as such. And the characters of stereotypical Ken and Barbie, their journeys more or less work, especially the former's that feels the most complete in the film, where again I think with Barbie the exact combination between her and Ferrera gets occasionally a little lost. And I do kind of think it's a little all over the place at times, but when it works it does work, with it working more than not, despite again some elements not working at all for me.
Yes, I felt he was lead a bit like Haing S. Ngor in the Killing Fields in that he's supporting for the first act but then becomes lead for the majority of the film. And I felt that when watching the film the first time, but the screen-time only further convinced me of that.
I still find myself refusing to believe Nyad exists as a film. Amazing how with such an abundance of great performances and films to recognize, the Academy will always eat up mediocre biopics if they're pushed enough.
In complete fairness, Nyad is only nominated for the performances, not the movie itself, and I haven't heard anything bad about either of those performances.
Is it weird that I'm more interested in Louis' thoughts on DiCaprio than any of the actually nominated performances? I was mixed on LDC (TM Brad Pitt) myself, but it's the kind of strange performance where it's interesting to pick apart what both works and doesn't work about it.
The reviews I'm personally interested in the most (outside of the nominees) are Melton, Yakusho, Yoo and Howerton's. Lead Actor is an embarrassment of riches this year.
Luke: I know what you mean, but a mixed review can be just as interesting to read as a rave, e.g. Carell in Foxcatcher.
Tahmeed: Of the other saved performances I'm the most interested in a review of Sessa. Though I'll take this opportunity to say that Howerton is likely a dark horse contender for LM's win.
1. The Holdovers 2. Past Lives 3. Anatomy of a Fall 4. May December 5. Maestro
Funny thing is both top Original Screenplay is there one scene I don't love, but thankfully I love everything else in both cases. The Holdovers is the best Payne movie, that Payne didn't write himself, but is taking off his ideas, but better. The one exception is the easily erasable waitress scene that is about belittling and simplifying a conflict in a way the rest of the film avoided, where the jokes had been on our lead curmudgeon rather than on the people he was interacting with. Anyway where most Payne films are too dependent on one character, here the screenplay actually creates two great characters and one very good one. And while the other characters are simpler I did like the balance of giving a moment of humanity mixed in, except for in two cases (the Dean and the classmate), however I think with the others actually getting to have a little more I could accept two plain old jerks, particularly as implemented. And while the storyline can be expected in terms of the three grumps finding family during the Christmas time, it is the way in which it happens that can make it feel fresh regardless. Which this does, by kind of looking at what this time means for those who don't have anyone or are essentially the rejects. And while the progression of this is expected as we see our grumpy teacher and rebellious student grow to get to know each other, it is through some sharp funny dialogue but also just some honest interactions. And the cook Mary provides the catalyst essentially as the voice of genuine warmth even as while going through the most immediate hardship, but in turn speaks the truth to compel action in the set in his ways teacher. And while I understand every story choice isn't everyone's favorite, they all worked for me, and I especially did like the particularly surprising choices in Hunham's potential romance being so bluntly crushed or the truth behind Angus's dad. But most of all I just loved spending time with the character which the screenplay does so well in just letting us be with them in a way.
Past Lives's one scene actually is the Magaro/Lee scene where they discuss the relationship and I don't know just gets a little too Woody Allenish there for me. Beyond that though this is just wonderful in its kind of three phases of the children just having their moments with each other as little kids do, to the skype calls that says a lot even while always clouded in their separate choices, to then when the two do meet. And every interaction between them is low key, wonderful in the way the dialogue manages to dance around what is unsaid yet never does it feel unsaid. It makes the sense of what could be romance really resonate, while also just being in the moment of conversation that always again feels very honest, other than again the one moment I didn't love. And it has to be said the opening, which is stylistically disparate from the rest of the film, I just love as written this great sort of sense of intrigue as we wonder what the relationship between the three is and we slowly uncover that through the different segments of the life the screenplay then shows us.
Anatomy of a Fall is a screenplay I like, mostly though some reservations have grown a bit more. What definitely works is the screenplay dissecting the relationship in each scene we get of Sandra disclosing it, or when we actually get to see within flashback, and the other half sort of progressing seeing Daniel's perspective of his relationship with his parents. All of that works in the way it gives us one piece after another that eventually forms a whole, and it works best when the characters are literally just telling us that. Where it impressively realises sort of the relationship defined initially by love slowly rotting away. The focusing more so on sort of the crime aspect is where I think the film is less successful particularly as written and for two different reasons. I won't question the French legal system, though from what I've read it's smudged a little bit but not entirely and some of the more absurd elements are allowed in a French court, but what I will is the screenplay fails to build its case of guilt. There never feels genuine doubt at any point and there seems to be a lack of real clues other than just not getting along, and it is there where I feel the film could've made something greyer and more complex. And the details of those moments are less interesting as is the ridiculous case of the prosecution. The prosecution just frankly needed something more. Not that I think it is terrible though even if it's just less than it could be, and again the revelations on the personal level are great, so I overall do like the screenplay quite a bit even if imperfect.
May December chooses an interesting structure in getting into the world of this case of a pedophilic teacher but from the actor in a lifetime movie. And successfully has "fun" in the satirical nonsensical exploration of that actor going about copying life and getting the information as though she's some expert, and even really going a step beyond just for the story. My only problem with this is I feel this aspect does trail off to nothing by the end, other than I guess the movie obviously is going to be terrible, but I feel that was already obvious. One can argue that's the point, and fair enough, but I feel there was perhaps a way to tie things together a little more. Where the film works best is exploring the relationship itself which we open as the status quo then slowly dissect that by first giving clues to just how psychopathic the woman is as we see each manipulation that becomes more overt, and we see the man really dealing with his life suddenly. This aspect being the strongest in going from the man who just went along to suddenly having reflection on his life and the screenplay realization of that is powerful particularly as it is attached to seeing the world beyond the one that was crafted by his abuser for him.
Okay and trash...I mean Maestro. What I mean by that is it is trash. What do you learn about Bernstein? NOTHING. Okay so much of the material that is remotely anything character wise is literally lifted from interviews or similar material, but I mean "lifted" not written into a scene. Take the first scene between Bernstein and Felicia, where he basically recites her wikipedia page as though that makes her interesting or their relationship dynamic in any way, it doesn't. But worse we don't uncover that through conversation of natural revelation we just hear Bernstein recite it. In fact what is focused upon as their relationship is never dynamic. What do we learn, they like to play a guessing game, what else? They love each other because they smile, then they hate each other because Bernstein has affairs, which is also dealt with perfunctory statements. In their big fight we don't get to real vulnerabilities because we haven't learned any, it is all the most basic platitudes. The late scenes are just basic cancer diagnosis scenes, there's no conversation that reveals more, there's nothing that tells us more. It's all nothing. The film proposes that Felicia was even the true Maestro, but where do we see that, nowhere. But we also don't learn about who either are. Do we see her performances or what makes her passionate as an actress? Nah. Do we see anything about why Bernstein could be the first great American conductor? No. We are just told that, without clarity or basis, also not in conversation other than people just saying a thing. When we see him perform we don't get details, we just see him say perfunctory introductions and at most some stolen interview lines. And I wouldn't say stolen if they were filtered into something natural in conversation, they're. Nothing has baffled me more than people loving the Mahler scene, because it's copied from the real footage and....? We didn't see the build up, we learned more about what meaning it might have from Lydia Tar, what's the achievement if it just happens? There's none. What's the point of the epilogue scene with Bernstein, doesn't give us context with his wife, shows us nothing but perfunctory action. This film is empty, truly empty. You learn nothing about Leonard or Felicia, little about their relationship and even less about the world we inhabit. I mean tell me what's going on with one supporting character? Nothing, they're just there to facilitate more basic statements about their relationship, This is a terrible screenplay.
But you don't understand Louis, Maestro is brilliant because it doesn't show you everything about Bernstein and his life... which it subverts by having nothing to say about not just him, but also his wife.
I know some of the backlash Cooper has gotten for being a try-hard could be seen as a little harsh... but it's not enough. No point in all that effort when the result is terrible.
1. Brooks (maybe not technically the best, but I enjoyed her the most. She brought so much range in her supporting role. ) 2. Randolph (she brings a believable humanity and elevates what could’ve easily been passed over as another Mammy performance.) 3. Blunt (she’ gives a solid reactionary performance in the role as the suffering wife with one explosive scene. The scene comes at the end, when a lot of people are tired from being there nearly three hours.) 4. Farerra (well, her speech has become iconic and it works. She was the right actress for the role, being a pioneer for women)
Haven’t seen Foster yet. The other acting categories are hard to rank this year, and judging by the most mixed bag I’ve seen on this blog, I’m not alone.
Matt: That's a fair enough perspective. But what does it really say when he spent 6 years learning how to conduct music for one scene, and still manages to not be convincing in said scene?
Admittedly I'm harsher on him because having rewatched Nightmare Alley recently, it frustrates me because you just know he's capable of much, much better
1. Christopher Nolan - Oppenheimer/Yorgos Lanthimos - Poor Things 3. Martin Scorsese - Killers of the Flower Moon 4. Justine Triet - Anatomy of a Fall
I'll figure it out at some point as this is not a tie, but I do adore the efforts of both Nolan and Lanthimos and they are both very different. Nolan's direction here is an example of clearly someone using everything they learned up until this point to craft his dynamic and captivating film that is a lot of people talking. And his crafting of that is through urgency, where Nolan places us essentially trapped in the pull of history as we see ambition, the weight of it, even the beauty of it, but also dangers of it. And part of this is he makes it a race, a heist almost in moving towards the completion of the bomb in recruiting the scientists, leading up to the trinity scene which is amazing singular work by crafting the multiple perspectives of the moment, and also just visually realizing the moment in all its nightmarish glory. The hearing is used brilliantly as this uncovering of the personal life and connections of Oppenheimer, as I love the intro of Strauss as presented as kind of a man in awe of Oppenheimer, which Nolan will slowly subvert until the two's stress combines together. Each piece of it is dictated by Nolan by amplifying the tension as we go along and essentially combining that stress. And speaking of certain moments of sort of tension and kind of haunting guilt being just realized as some of the best directing from Nolan. Particularly the town hall where we go from heroic celebration, to a slow unraveling as we enter into the mind and suddenly sense the horrors of what was unleashed. Or the cross examine where we are presented with the factual horrors, with the personal dismay, and amplified by again his visual and sound choices in making us see Oppenheimer's experience as beyond a conversation in his mind. I was consistently impressed by Nolan, who of course had technical mastery as per usual, but now here weaponized to make history, and history that is talky, alive in a way few films have achieved. And again the ending, is maybe what will push my vote to Nolan, because what Nolan does with that moment is so tremendous and just peak powers in making a single line then the imagery, and a single expression into such a truly haunting moment of cinema.
Lanthimos though no slouch because all the technical praise from before can only be repeated and it must be a mad genius behind the madness to somehow make it all cohesive despite being all mad. Lanthimos is the mad genius who orchestrates every choice into crafting this world, but even more so this singular experience that is Poor Things. Every technical aspect working in tandem, while also being so strange, yet made entirely fitting within the world, yet never just style, but rather style that crafts worlds and brings into the strange journey of Bella Baxter. Lanthimos again balances, helped again by not writing the screenplay I think, but uses it to craft Bella's journey of self-discovery which is emotional, debauched, insane while also being very funny. And Lanthimos's comedic direction here is just fantastic with actually having proper timing as such. And of course because it's Lanthimos individual moments are just outstanding, the dance sequence madness in particular, but especially the birth of Bella that is just why I love film quite frankly as every visual choice, every sound choice, just is a glorious display of filmmaking genius. Second though, maybe Lanthimos would get my vote based on that....I'll have to think about it.
Okay Scorsese, a filmmaker who needs no introduction in fact it would be hard to name flaws as a filmmaker, except, and this is the one thing that does plague him occasionally, is telling some actors to TONE IT DOWN Jack Nicholson in The Departed. And direction wise that is the main flaw, the other ones are screenplay centric which crafted the story from a certain point and I think there is a fundamental choice there that weakens the film a bit, which I would've gotten into if it had been nominated for screenplay. But forgetting that it is still a master, and when you take the opening sequence of seeing first the dance around the oil, to the progression of wealth to the parasites, all set gloriously to music, edited brilliantly, with such a refined specific aesthetic, there is a great filmmaker. And really it is those big moments but it is also small ones with some of the character actors, where it gives such a vibrancy to this world, and also the underlying rot behind it all. Although again one can argue over pace, and I do think too long is the case here, the story as told visually has moments of genius throughout, even when as written it spends too much time with a character who has very little to say or to think, but is the main character.
Triet's direction I'd actually say is the weaker aspect of her work with Anatomy, as I think she's best when just focusing on people speaking as she captures performance well to be sure, and I'll say the direction around the dog and the kid, also good work, as is the creation of the cold space of the area which grants you a sense place. By choosing to show the breath, see the constant snowy landscape and make you feel the cold. And some key moments, such as having the final testimony in the flashback of the image against the separate voice, great work there. BUT I do think there's just some random odd visual angles chosen a few times, that don't amplify, they just distract, and the worst of it being those zoom-ins that frankly felt amateurish in their execution. Not that it's poorly directed on the whole but definitely some odd choices there.
1. Da'Vine Joy Randolph - The Holdovers 2. Jodie Foster - Nyad 3. Danielle Brooks - The Color Purple 4. Emily Blunt - Oppenheimer (When I had rewatched I will say the criticism of her drunk scenes were WAY overblown, it's like 10 second scene, ONE scene.) 5. America Ferrera - Barbie
Actress:
1. Emma Stone - Poor Things (Big surprise I know) 2. Sandra Huller - Anatomy of a Fall 3. Lily Gladstone - Killers of the Flower Moon 4. Annette Bening - Nyad 5. Carey Mulligan - Maestro
And for the Record:
1. Oppenheimer 2. Poor Things 3. The Holdovers 4. Past Lives 5. Killers of the Flower Moon 6. Anatomy of a Fall 7. American Fiction 8. Barbie 9. Maestro
98 comments:
1. Downey Jr.
2. De Niro
3. Gosling
4. Ruffalo
5. Brown
1. Ruffalo
2. De Niro
3. Downey Jr.
4. Gosling
5. Brown
1. De Niro
2. Ruffalo
3. Downey Jr.
4. Gosling
5. Brown
1) Ruffalo
2) De Niro
3) Gosling
4) Downey
5) Brown
1. Downey Jr.
2. De Niro
3. Gosling
4. Ruffalo
5. Brown
1. Downey Jr.
2. Ruffalo
3. De Niro
4. Gosling
5. Brown
1. Ruffalo
2. De Niro
3. Gosling
4. Downey Jr.
5. Brown
1. Ruffalo
2. Downey
3. Gosling
4. De Niro
5. Brown
Brown's good but he potentially ruined an alltimer lineup.
Indiana Jones? Really?
Can we please have a 15 Lineup for Alternate Lead this year.
Especially now if Friedel is as great as the others have said.
Louis: Rating and thoughts on any saves you're willing to get rid of.
I'm gutted that Scott got snubbed.
Luke, what are your Alternate Lineup predictions.
1. Downey Jr.
2. De Niro
3. Ruffalo
4. Gosling
5. Brown
The only positive I have is that Lead Actor is gonna be straight forward prediction-wise.
Supporting
Dafoe
McCallany
Mescal/Bell
Machado-Graner
Magaro/Whishaw
Bonus: Oppenheimer Ensemble
Lead (Perhaps I'm being too hopeful but I always want all fives reviewed every year)
Howerton
Yoo
Sessa
Fassbender
Sarsgaard
Melton
Cage
Efron
Scott
Nagayama
Kurokawa
Mikkelsen
Yakusho
Friedel
Bernal (Cassandro)
I had thought about putting Phoenix in here but if he was to possibly get a write-up, I'd much rather wait for the extended cut.
1. De Niro
2. Ruffalo
3. Downey Jr.
4. Gosling
5. Brown
Okay let's get started:
1. Perfect Days
2. Society of the Snow
3. The Teacher's Lounge
4. Io Capitano
Looking forward to The Zone of Interest. Fallen Leaves is missed.
Sound:
1. Oppenheimer
2. Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning
3. The Creator
4. Maestro
Oppenheimer is where I think Nolan finally figured out the level of intensity with his sound design again, after losing the control of it since Interstellar, where now the balance is actually in the right place for the dialogue to be heard, while still creating the sense of intensity desired through the music and other aspects of the sound design. And you have great individual work within the visions of Oppenheimer, of course the big blast in itself which is a tremendous work in really all the different aspects from each different group watching the explosion, and of course the work in the town hall scene is just amazing work for both editing and mixing.
Cool that they finally recognized Mission Impossible, though they might have started earlier as the sound design is always strong with these films. And essentially what it is, is pristine action blockbuster sound design across the board, and just work where you never question because you are simply in it. Immersive, but also great individual sounds across the board, an inspired nod, particularly over BRMMM BRMMM BRRMM I mean Ferrari.
And as much as I hated the Creator, the sound design is entirely strong as well. That isn't the problem with the film. The different sounds for the robots, explosions, gun shots, the Death Star, what have you all entirely solid work. I guess I would say that none of them quite stands out in any particular way, but the sound is not the problem with this film.
Maestro is a terrible choice because I'm pretty sure the choice every time was let's just play Bernstein's music and his conducted music as LOUDLY as possible. It doesn't do anything with different parts of the music nor does it play around it in a clever way. They just kind of blast it.
Makeup & Hairstyling:
1. Poor Things
2. Society of Snow
3. Maestro
4. Oppenheimer
5. Golda
A no brainer, pun intended, sure why not. As there are so many creative choices on both ends of this one. The look of Dafoe alone should've guaranteed this a spot if not a win, as it is such a memorable man basically put together like a puzzle with the makeup for him. Outstanding work there. But you also have every hairstyle of each of the characters which are all wonderfully creative in their own ways, and one where you can actually praise both aspects of this mixed together category.
Society of the Snow is 100% convincing work in doing realistic makeup of basically injury or slow decay, and there isn't a moment where you don't believe this at any point. It is subtle, but exceptional work that does its job without a fuss.
Speaking of a fuss, I actually do think the old makeup more or less is convincing for the characters here, though young Bernstein's prosthetic is a bit much even for Bernstein who did have a prominent nose. But for the most part, I do think the old Bernstein makeup wise is the big swing and it's not the problem with the film.
Oppeneheimer's makeup I'd say is the weakest aspect of a film that I love, as I think the final makeup is a mix between decent enough (Blunt, Hartnett), iffy (Murphy) and off (Safdie), the work beforehand that is more subtle is all good, but really this does feel for one scene of work, and in that particular scene the makeup is not great.
Golda's makeup is terrible. Mirren looks like she's wearing a ghoul face instead of an actual person's face. And that's all there really is to the film, and so the big centerpiece work is not good, the work is not good.
Louis: will you still be saving DiCaprio for Killers?
Killers at #18 means absolutely not.
Happy for Perfect Days in International Film, a few other noms here and there and uh...that's about it, really. Disappointed for Greta Lee and Charles Melton. Infuriated at Joe Hisaishi and Daniel Pemberton missing out to that Indy 5 score.
These predictions are too mixed. The only thing I see consistent is Brown at the bottom. Personally, I kind of struggled a bit with Ruffalo’s accent. He sounded more like an American trying to sound British, but maybe that was the point, considering the phoniness of the character.
Costume Design:
1. Poor Things
2. Napoleon
3. Barbie
4. Killers of the Flower Moon
5. Oppenheimer
I mean no constant whatsoever for me. As just Stone's costumes alone should guarantee this the win. As every one of them is memorably mad and completely stunning all the same. Such vibrant colors and choices and wonderful in kind of choice in character centric work in making her costumes more specifically fitting and less childish as they go on, though amazing looking every step of the way. But it's not just Stone every costume looks great, Abbott's uniform, Carmichael's glasses or robe, Hunter's "funeral" attire, even the more subtle work for Dafoe, Youssef and Ruffalo is extremely eye catching blend of this extreme style, with period that is just altogether fantastic.
Napoleon is typical of Scott's work, which whether or not the film works on the whole, what does work is the technical aspects of the film and that is once again the case. And the work is striking as basically just nearly accurate but with flourishes. As Napoleon's uniforms are almost the fighting game version with alternate costumes for that whole point, Kirby's various more extravagant dresses all eye catching in their way, and while less focused upon is the work of everyone else, it all is still effective work that helps to realize the period, though again slightly amplified.
Barbie's work, as much as I'd prefer it not to win in this category and production design do to the level of preference for my favorite, this is fun work to be sure as just basically playing with the sheer extravagance of Barbie style clothing, which is all about ridiculously bright colors and just a little silly. And it is all good work in that regard and successfully realizes the toy costumes in live action in an entertaining way.
Killers of the Flower Moon is completely solid work, in just appropriate period work across the board with it being a mix between the classes of clothing and slight mixes based on American and Osage culture, the highlight of this being everything that Gladstone wears in the early scenes of the film especially her parade outfit that is something special.
Oppenheimer completely does its job costumes wise, but I don't think it needed to be nominated here. And not to dismiss it, fine low key period work that feels appropriate per the tone of the film, where it is just being straightforward. And there are bits of nice little character centric work, even if not really the focus too much within the film. But completely solid work, even if maybe a nomination the film didn't need
Louis: Along with The Zone Of Interest, could you check out Cassandro, One Life, Femme, Knock At The Cabin and The Burial before Alternate Best Actor.
Production Design:
1. Poor Things
2. Killers of the Flower Moon
3. Barbie
4. Napoleon
5. Oppenheimer
Excellent lineup.
Poor Things though stands above and beyond the rest, and I've said it before, but I think the work is an all-timer. Every set, every setting, every room, crafts such a unique eye-catching design that is absolutely gorgeous to behold as this mix between period and science fiction. Every set is so filled with so much detail and character and feels each its own world. I have a particular affection for the winterly blue of Paris, also love the ship, also love the Egyptian broken stairs, the madness of Godwin's house and honestly I just love every single detail that is just incredible. Brings so much character to every moment, creating such a tangible if also fantastical world, just amazing work that will lose to pink.
Killers of the Flower Moon is the pairing of Jack Fisk and Scorsese. You'd expect it to be in the sheer level of detail and expansiveness of the world. You'd think you could just travel back in time with the setting, though also filled with such a specific sense of detail to the period that is filled with character.
Now I probably shouldn't be too mean because as much as I don't want it to win, Barbie's work is very strong, the Barbie world well crafted as the fantastical realization of this crazy toyland. And my favorite bits honestly were the transition worlds between Barbie and the real world. As each of those were memorable bits of fun design. I will say the interior of the Mattel headquarters speaks to my dislike of that whole section tonally as the sets are also of a fantasy world rather than reality, but I'd say that is more so a directing/writing thing. As designs they're good, I just wish they weren't there.
Napoleon's work is excellent period work filled with detail in each different place we see Napoleon in, and not for a moment do you not feel established within each particular setting of the Napoleonic wars. The exterior and interior work is both impressive in terms of detail, and again with just a slight slant towards a more expressive style without overdoing it.
Oppenheimer, like its costumes, is very straightforward, though I think this nomination is more deserving in fact very well deserved, because everything simply is as it should be, as being completely convincing to the time it is created. In the intent of being history it absolutely delivers in that regard.
I wish “Am I Dreaming” from Across the Spiderverse had gotten more attention for best song this season.
Louis, how do you rank this season’s Leading and supporting Actress nominees both nominated and not?
J96: He's only giving the nominees for now, the overalls will come once the alternates are finished.
1. Robert De Niro
2. Robert Downey, Jr.
3. Ryan Gosling
4. Mark Ruffalo
5. Sterling K. Brown
Rest in Peace Norman Jewison.
1. Robert Downey Jr.
2. Mark Ruffalo
3. Robert De Niro
4. Ryan Gosling
5. Sterling K. Brown
Song:
Honestly if I were to have ranked the shortlist only the Barbie songs would've made my top ten, forget top five, so many better choices could've been made particularly those from Flora and Son, "Quiet Eyes" from Past Lives and "Am I Dreaming" from Spider-verse.
1. "I'm Just Ken" - Barbie
2. "What Was I Made For" - Barbie
3. "It Never Went Away" - American Symphony
4. "The Fire Inside" - Flamin' Hot
5. “Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)” - “Killers of the Flower Moon
Well I do love "I'm Just Ken" the sequence and the song. Just a wonderfully done comical ballad that also works as a ballad. And love the build from Ken's lonely words of his state of seeming perfect while being set aside. With the wonderfully simple instrumental support that builds with the electric guitar and more support as it segues brilliantly into Ken's more upbeat desires, before segueing again to Kenergy that is just great in its simple chorus, before segueing once again, as though it is Bohemian Rhapsody, brilliantly back to Ken's solo ballad before being joined by the rest of the Ken's in a glorious unified at its finish.
"What Was I Made For" does suspiciously seem similar to "When She Loved Me" both thematically and musically. Regardless, I guess I prefer Eilish over McLachlan. Similar though in its somber ballad of a toy, that unlike Ken, is played 100% straight as this quiet realization of distress. And do love the simple subdued instrumentation and the simple melody within it. And the Eilish equally subdued delivery of the lyrics though that works rather well in creating this sense of reflection in the song. Though my favorite part is when it seems like it is going somewhere else in the instrumentation in the "I don't know how I feel", but never quite does. But even it doesn't, wholly works as such.
Guess the song category didn't get the memo on ignoring American Symphony, by including this song and its intro that flagrantly rips off Gymnopédie No. 1 by Satie. Anyway this is the type of song beyond that I find pleasant enough in its repetition of relatively simple lyrics with a more the focus on the instrumentation that gets a little repetitive in its scales even. But I don't hate it, I just kind of instantly forget it.
Ahh there's the ever over nominated Diane Warren showing up again with another mediocre song. And this one I like slightly more than last year's, but not much. Find it pretty repetitive and generic as just a bit too repetition of how many times it needs to tell me "You got the Fire Inside" with any alteration being brief and not memorable with a very generalized pop sound typical for Warren.
Wahzhazhe is well used in the film I'll say as a representation of the continued strength of the people even after all the hell of the story. But I do wonder how many tried to listen to this chant for the full six minutes as I did yesterday in preparing for the song nominees. To say it is repetitive is an understatement, and perhaps I should get to know more chants of the ilk, but from what I have heard I'm not quite sure what stands out about this one. And for one minute it works most definitely as the communal song it is, but for six minutes, it does test your patience a bit to be completely honest.
I haven't seen Poor Things and American Fiction yet (Poor Things opens this weekend here), between the other 3, my ranking would be:
1. Robert De Niro
2. Ryan Gosling
3. Robert Downey Jr.
That said, here are my predictions:
1. Robert Downey Jr.
2. Mark Ruffalo
3. Robert De Niro
4. Sterling K. Brown
5. Ryan Gosling
John Smith:
This is a hard one.
1. Downey
2. De Niro
3. Gosling
4. Ruffalo
5. K.Browb
Luke: I like the idea of a 15 lineup if its justified which I suppose it is here. Anthony Hopkins in One Life should be added to the conversation.
I look forward to winning my first request which will be Bill Nighy in Dead Man's Chest.
I believe everybody is going with:
Murphy
Giamatti
Wright
Domingo
Cooper
In that order.
Luke: You might be onto something.
1. Ruffalo
2. De Niro(I might think about switching the first two down the line.)
3. Downey Jr
4. Gosling
5. Brown(I don't know what to make of this surprise lol.)
I know RatedRStar has spoke about this before but I'm happy there's no consensus pick this year.
1. De Niro
2. Ruffalo
3. Downey Jr.
4. Gosling
5. Brown
5º Sterling K. Brown
4º Ryan Gosling
3º Robert Downey Jr.
2º Mark Ruffalo
1º Robert De Niro
I thought the Oscar noms this year, were..just ok I think, I think I was expecting more of a huge bombshell surprise because of how good the build up to the nominations were.
1. Downey Jr.
2. Ruffalo
3. De Niro
4. Gosling
5. Brown
Melton and Sessa's snubs were expected, but it still stings.
^^^^^^^^^
Luke: I suggest adding Filip to this list, as I kinda want to see Eryk Kulm getting reviewed for it.
And yeah, it sucks to see lack of nominations for Melton and Sessa, I personally prefer them over anyone in supporting lineup.
I warned y’all about America Ferrara, and…ok, yeah a couple of people did listen to me.
(A bit curious that she got in and Robbie/Gerwig didn’t)
Bryan: Yeah, honestly I wouldn’t consider Ferrera’s nomination a “surprise” if Robbie and Gerwig hadn’t both missed out.
VFX:
1. Godzilla Minus One
2. The Creator
3. Napoleon
4. Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
A very strong lineup actually.
Godzilla's minus one does have a few wonky shots where Godzilla does look a little odd but in terms of the impact of the visual effects, with how they are implemented within scenes, there is no stronger work in this lineup in terms of that. The visual effects have weight, particularly the realization of certain Godzilla moments whether that be the animation of his back fins before the radiation breath, the nuclear explosion that comes with that or the moments of complete destruction.
The Creator's visuals design wise are pretty dull but technical wise they are good in being convincing within scenes. The robots look part of the scenes, the Death Star is convincing in the sky, everything is convincing, even if kind of dull. But technically it is good work.
Looking at Napoleon's featurette work it is very impressive with just how much the environmental work naturally beefed up every battle scenes in ways that also looked convincing in terms of these particular touch ups. Very impressive work in terms of making the scale just that much grander.
I've actually given my thoughts on Impossible's effects before.
Marvel's effects have gone down hill most recently with a lot frankly bad work finding its way into the films. Guardians though is an improvement over many, though occasionally there's just a little bit of the sense of rushing that perhaps made the effects slightly worse, but it is overall impressive. What helps though is that the majority of it is mean to be fake in a pretty extravagant way, so it helps getting away with it, and overall it is impressive sci-fi work that is above the current Marvel standard.
1. Downey Jr.
2. Ruffalo
3. De Niro
4. Gosling
5. Brown
DiCaprio snubbed, now he can dedicate himself better to making the next PTA film.
And what's more, he's going to surprise you all. Believe. If PTA could get Cooper to be on top with limited screen time, why not, right?
1. RDJ
2. De Niro
3. Ruffalo
4. Gosling
5. Brown
1. Downey
2. Ruffalo
3. De Niro
4. Gosling
5. Brown
Editing:
1. Oppenheimer
2. Poor Things
3. The Holdovers
4. The Killers of the Flower Moon
5. Anatomy of a Fall
Easy choice for #1 with Oppenheimer which evokes JFK in terms of the forward momentum created within a 3 hour film that for me never loses pace and for me the film flys by. While also helping to orchestrate the complicated structure of the piece in a way that feels both natural, while also building off of each other in a way that feels completely cohesive. Exceptional work that is doing a lot constantly while also just flowing naturally.
Poor Things's approach in editing is very different in that it purposefully is accentuating strange choices to almost mess with the viewer a bit in the rhythm is frequently shifting in ways, which I all loved. When, like Bella's "birth" it shifts to swiffer, or times it sits with moments longer, I loved the choices pretty much almost throughout. The one thing I do understand criticism wise is the ending before the ending has a purposeful crescendo as the film seems to be about to end perfectly then Abbott shows up, however I do think this is purposeful in creating the false expectation so we too are wondering what Abbott is doing here. And while I understand this might make the film drag for some, I love the choice, and how it is implemented as such in the editing, as like one more thing Bella has to take care of to fully achieve her independence.
The Holdovers has very much a very subdued 70's style drama editing in its choices where the montages are more relaxed, the scenes very much focus on performance and it does take its time. I think though it smartly differs in achieving the style without falling to the weaknesses, where occasionally a 70's drama can be too slow. Holdovers rather evokes but ends up being ideal 70's drama editing in style and helps to achieve that style without being forced.
The Killers of the Flower Moon is a little complicated for me in that Schoonmaker always knows what she's doing, and he and Scorsese are purposefully making you feel "Stuck" in the murders to be a bit overwhelmed by them. BUT I do think it could've been cut down more regardless, and there's a bit too often it cuts back to a moment for something we already know. And you do feel the length, and I do think that is intentional but even as such you could've felt it less even with the length. But there are still some great moments, such as the opening montage for example, which is exceptional work, but for me it is not one of her best works with Scorsese.
Anatomy of a Fall's editing too I think occasionally feels a little languid, I particularly dislike the ending where it feels almost like it is leading to some final clue to make the story more ambiguous, but no. And I think there's a bit of a struggle within the legal thriller versus relationship drama that is imperfect. I think the editing style is better for the latter and occasionally loses the momentum with the former not to the point where it is truly detrimental, but it could definitely be tighter. Not that I think the film is poorly edited mind you, but wouldn't be in my top ten.
1. Downey Jr.
2. De Niro
3. Ruffalo
4. Gosling
5. Brown
Exactly, Louis. I was watching Oppenheimer like, “It’s giving JFK.” For me, Jason Clarke’s character in Oppenheimer was like Donald Sutherland’s in JFK.
1. Downey Jr.
2. Ruffalo
3. DeNiro
4. Gosling
5. Brown
Well, I'm a little late to this party since I was working when the nominations were announced. And as per usual for me, I'm going into these line ups blind, having seen virtually none of them and only having their receptions here/at large to go off of.
So for supporting actor, I'm going a bit bold.
1) De Niro
2) Downey Jr
3) Brown
4) Gosling
5) Ruffalo
Again, I haven't personally seen Ruffalo, but I know Louis hasn't liked his overtly mannered/"try hard" performances, and I'm unsure how well he fit the film's general tone (from the trailer anyways).
Mitchell if Louis loved Poor Things (and he did) he HAD to have loved Ruffalo.
Score:
Gross lineup for the wild card spots. These bottom 2 would've also been the bottom 2 out of the shortlist, would've taken every other choice over them, especially The Boy and the Heron and Society of the Snow.
1. Oppenheimer
2. Killers of the Flower Moon
3. Poor Things
4. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
5. American Fiction
Oppenheimer's score is one the more I love the more I listen to it, and for me is easily Goransson's best score for me. And part of the score is just beautiful, particularly its use of the violin, but how rich it is in the overall work with how much there is in every single piece in terms of the different ideas going on. Like "Can You Hear the Music" where there's just the beautiful melody that slowly builds together with more techno synth as kind of these building intense collider in musical form, and somehow feels cohesive in its build and realization. And it's fascinating how many times Goransson pulls this off in not just doing one idea combining, but constantly many that are fantastic just to listen to but also create the right intensity and also kind of ingenuity as a representation for Oppenheimer. And so many different moods though still and like to single out "Colonel Pash" which is simpler in kind of dissonant sounds yet so effective almost this kind sound of cold steel that not only represents the character brilliantly represents the sudden state of paranoia. I just love this score because there are so many risky choices in terms of this mix between traditional orchestra with the synth, and every single choice blends to one unique and striking track after another.
Listening back to Robertson's score for Killers actually was probably the biggest surprise joy related to the film, as I liked the score when watching the film but love it when listening to it separately. Robertson score has this fantastic combination that is most unexpected of kind of a western sound partially, partially kind of traditional indigenous instrumentation, while also being rock, things that shouldn't all combine probably work here. Love the opening piece especially because it brings such a vibrant energy that is modern but doesn't feel broken from the period. And there's some beautiful melodies in here, but also just the way he plays around with kind of the same set of instrumentation we first hear in the vibrant "Osage Oil Boom" yet then from there we get the variation within that. Some more joyful like "The Wedding" where it is lighter and high pitched, then like the "Tulsa Massacre Newsreel" there is lower register and almost guttural in kind of the evil hiding within the vibrancy.
Poor things's score is utter madness, and enjoyable utter madness. The instrumentation is so unusual, as are the choices in even rhythm where the exact temp constantly changes and the direction of every musical choice goes the opposite of what you'd expect. It's a score that feels kind of cobbled together out of different parts, much like our protagonist. And it will come out of nowhere with another idea of like a deep reverbing bass like in "Mother of God" or just the complete insanity of something like "Reanimation" where it is pulling in every random instrumentation and a vocal performance you wouldn't usually expect. And it's parts horror, part comedy, partly just pure dada. It's all madness, and I love it.
Lazy as hell nomination for Williams for this Indiana Jones, where every track that doesn't sound reused, sounds just like a different worse idea than from something we heard in a previous film. There are no new tracks that are at all memorable, no motifs can name one, and while it isn't actively bad, it isn't actively anything special at any point. It feels like recycled Williams.
American Fiction's score I honestly think is the weakest aspect of the film both in terms of implementation but also just the score itself. But I just don't like the sound of the score, it just feels to me like a random merging of some random ideas with way too much non-melodic piano and just a lot of different ideas that don't blend. I find it particularly kind of disjointed and perhaps part of the problem with the transitions with the film as it doesn't "sell" either the drama or the satire all that well. Rather it feels very vague in its musical choices and in turn to me feels like just a whole lot of noise without exact purpose. And in the end feels a bit like a failed attempt to try what Terence Blanchard does a whole lot better. It feels heavy handed at times, it feels out of place at times, I honestly just don't like it, and is one of my least favorite surprise nominations.
Yeah, I don't know how you can love Poor Things as much as he did and not love Ruffalo in it.
Matt and anonymous: If he's that vital for the film, then is he even supporting IE co-lead with Stone?
Oh, and while I'm at it....since I'm currently working in/know London decently...shout out to our fellow countryman in the lineup.
He's definitely supporting but his screentime is substantial.
Could you add Ruffalo and Brown to the labels.
Ruffalo gives a career-best in Poor Things, easy 5, and is the type of comedic performance that Louis especially loves. If it wasn't for how much he loved Oppenheimer, I'd predict him for the overall win too.
Cinematography:
1. Poor Things
2. Oppenheimer
3. Killers of the Flower of the Moon
4. El Conde
5. Maestro
Ryan's cinematography in Poor Things, with Lanthimos, is of course making a lot of oddball choices in terms of the lenses and in this instance again I love every choice no matter how insane. And those costumes, and production design are in particularly great hands with Ryan only amplifying every color, except when going Black and White which I also loved. But Loved most just the unique crafted images by catching every element with in itself its own wild vibrancy, which at times is about these demented angles or other times in capturing a wonderful grandeur as well. It is cinematography with frequent surreal intention and loved the surreal madness that is always beautiful if also frequently very weird.
I have actually seen a little sniffy dismissal towards van Hoytema's work for often being "people talking", which in itself is dumb. But the work of "people talking" is in itself always dynamic, always clear, and always basically as pristine as it can be in terms of the black and white and color shots. It's not showy but every group shot still looks good, and more than that never looks crowded or awkward. But that of course is forgetting the more intense shots of scale which are also fantastic framing and composition that create this sense of intense grandeur, while also with individual moments of brilliant lighting especially everything with the trinity test.
Prieto's work is interesting in that it is largely an "ugly" western in a genre that is always about the scenic locations; this one rather seems to wish to emphasize the dread and death. This one rather frequently emphasizes just bits of light coming through in certain scenes, and even most of the scenes that are set in the daytime are grey. But it is beautiful as such in working with the purposefully muted palette that manages to be "ugly" without being ugly, granting the idea while still being eye catching, and helps by like Oppenheimer extremely dynamic shots of those interiors, here creating a frequently penetrating isolating mood, even when there are many in one shot. Beautiful work though not in a traditional sense, except for a few Osage centric moments which are moments of grand beauty, like the oil discovery which is just incredible work.
El Conde is an inspired choice, and one that I loved sometimes, though didn't always love. The most stylized shots are pure gothic horror, such as any of the flying scenes, the interior moments with the most intense contrast of black and whites, and anything that goes for the grandiose is just fantastic. Some of the interior work I do think is less interesting where sometimes the grey is well just a bit grey and less interesting, though I would never say poorly shot as Lachman's compositions are always on point if of less interesting subjects sometimes.
Maestro is absolutely brilliantly shot, according to itself, and of the things I don't love about the film, this actually isn't the focus. I do think there are some striking shots in here in terms of the most extreme style, if often feeling just for the sake of it, which I don't think creates a logical purpose overall, even in terms of time, and the camera movement is sometimes a little wonky. I think though much I'd put more on Cooper in taking some realized ideas by Libatique and not using them properly, such as the On the Town scene, where the camera seemingly has no idea where it should be. But even as such there are moments where the extremely specific framing and composition, with very specific lighting in black and white or color, where it does work and is good, even if this is a definite number 5 for me.
Luke: I suspect DiCaprio may be a case where LM find the performance interesting enough for a write-up despite not entirely loving it.
DiCaprio WILL NOT be taking anyone's spot in the alternate lineup, I'll give my thoughts on him, just wait for De Niro's review.
Just as I thought. :)
Louis: Is your category placement for Melton in May December final?
Adapted Screenplay:
1. Oppenheimer
2. Poor Things
3. American Fiction
4. Barbie
Oppenheimer and Poor Things I'll admit are tough top two to decide from this category as I think you have two separate brilliant achievements in different aspects of screenwriting. Oppenheimer's achievement is in structural greatness in adapting a complicated life story and touches upon so much from the source material. And doing so in a way that is cinematic, cohesive and compelling. And the structure is not for the sake of it rather informs the narrative each time in leading up to frankly an all-time great ending where the structure is essential to pulling to by managing to go around the past, future and even the perspective of the present to create that moment. But the whole thing is put together as such where instead of undercutting each other, the jumps amplify one another in granting perspective to Oppenheimer's past and future colliding and the contrasts with Strauss. And even the use of Strauss as the seeming secondary protagonist that becomes a villain is masterful to me, in characterization of the sort of who eventually controlled Oppenheimer's ambition but also where his ambition clashed with the ambition of others. And the two both having an unexpected grilling in different symbolic circumstances that reveal the character of both is just amazing. And I'll give it credit for quickly realizing characters in a moment, while being central focused in unraveling one man who defined by his ambition above all else, and where I understand the criticism of the writing of the women, though there isn't really much more of them featured overall in American Prometheus to begin with, to me each is portrayed effectively as partial casualties of the personal ambition that all else suffers for. But also the ambition itself and the unraveling of what that means, particularly in the Truman scene, which altogether a brilliant subversion of expectation for the audience and Oppenheimer. And as much as Poor Things has the best dialogue of the year, I do think Nolan delivers some of his best here as it does reveal character, is there the occasional iffy line, sure, but the fact that Nolan of all people was able to make a great and captivating film with wall to wall talking, speaks much to this screenplay which oddly I think has been slightly underappreciated in a certain sense.
Poor Things is the greatest challenger for me because this is where it thrives in its dialogue entirely, which is absolutely hilarious, and just so many lines are so memorable. It is a masterclass as such. Structurally however it isn't as amazing as Oppenheimer is, and is purposefully more episodic. Though episodic with purpose in each phase showing the maturation and discovery of Bella Baxter of the world, and coming up with her own philosophy while also discovering more about herself. It works as such, though more so thrives on just who we meet in each setting and the interactions within them is where it thrives. Because it is the way we see the different strange characters bouncing off of Bella that truly makes the film sing. And singing it is, I think, a fascinating combination between kind of uncovering much muck within the soul of humanity, however also a warm embrace of it for all its weirdness at the same time. And we see that through the different characters and how each one influences Bella, but really with each they are also just fun in each of their own oddities as even the briefest character as some trait that is quite memorable. Love it, and maybe I could switch this to my #1 as well, as again both it and Oppenheimer thrive but in different, though just as remarkable ways.
American Fiction's main criticism is that it is two films, and here's the thing, you can have two main storylines and not feel like two films. Part of the problem is the writing and directing don't quite make them cohere completely though there is an attempt to do so. That is you have the experience of the African American family and their different relationships with their parents which are complicated and tricky as they're trying to figure it out while going through their grief, and then you have the satire of the purposefully pandering book which is handled in a broadly comic way with broadly comic characters for the most part. And the two sides don't quite cohere despite the one liners that are throughout but sometimes the one liners seem out of place so it's an odd dichotomy. As you have the broad over the top characters in the satire, which kind of gets lost a little bit story wise as well anyways, and then you have the down to earth family, where in both our main character philosophizes in his place in his family in his culture. And I think in the writing it doesn't cultivate exactly the right tone. But even so there are some moving interactions within the family and dissecting the sense of a man who doesn't know his place exactly despite believing himself to be the smartest man in the room. And then there is definitely fun to be had with the satire, though I do think it progressively less amusing, though not intentionally. And I don't think any of it is bad, it's just not cohesive nor does its lack of cohesion work fully as such.
Barbie's screenplay does feel like is working on different drafts of different versions of the film because there are a lot of storylines and they're a little all over the place. Barbie world for example makes no sense, and not in itself but its relationship with the real world. That is never adequately explained nor do I think it quite works as just being silly because it wants to have a dramatic element with Ferrera's character. And speaking of her character with her daughter, that is very weakly realized, it has potential but doesn't really find it at any point for me. And the real world also doesn't make sense, as part of it is playing on the contrast and then the Mattel corporation is completely goofy and unrealistic so kind of ruins that contrast. Although I feel that plot might've existed pre-Gerwig. And I'll say the film is a little too fond of speeches to outline everything for our characters and not even the big one, but rather the ending where everyone seems to have to say their piece just feels a little messy in the execution of it. HAVING SAID THAT, a lot of the fun with the Barbie world and its later infection by toxic masculinity is very funny in largely being just fairly ridiculous as such. And the characters of stereotypical Ken and Barbie, their journeys more or less work, especially the former's that feels the most complete in the film, where again I think with Barbie the exact combination between her and Ferrera gets occasionally a little lost. And I do kind of think it's a little all over the place at times, but when it works it does work, with it working more than not, despite again some elements not working at all for me.
Well, I still think DiCaprio was great. Perhaps he shouldn't have been used as much as he was, but I still liked his performance a lot.
Tahmeed:
Yes, I felt he was lead a bit like Haing S. Ngor in the Killing Fields in that he's supporting for the first act but then becomes lead for the majority of the film. And I felt that when watching the film the first time, but the screen-time only further convinced me of that.
I still find myself refusing to believe Nyad exists as a film. Amazing how with such an abundance of great performances and films to recognize, the Academy will always eat up mediocre biopics if they're pushed enough.
In complete fairness, Nyad is only nominated for the performances, not the movie itself, and I haven't heard anything bad about either of those performances.
Is it weird that I'm more interested in Louis' thoughts on DiCaprio than any of the actually nominated performances? I was mixed on LDC (TM Brad Pitt) myself, but it's the kind of strange performance where it's interesting to pick apart what both works and doesn't work about it.
I'd rather get extensive thoughts on him in a comment post than an actual review. There's too many far greater turns this year.
The reviews I'm personally interested in the most (outside of the nominees) are Melton, Yakusho, Yoo and Howerton's. Lead Actor is an embarrassment of riches this year.
I feel like this year might come close to equalling the most fives record.
Luke: I know what you mean, but a mixed review can be just as interesting to read as a rave, e.g. Carell in Foxcatcher.
Tahmeed: Of the other saved performances I'm the most interested in a review of Sessa. Though I'll take this opportunity to say that Howerton is likely a dark horse contender for LM's win.
Original Screenplay:
1. The Holdovers
2. Past Lives
3. Anatomy of a Fall
4. May December
5. Maestro
Funny thing is both top Original Screenplay is there one scene I don't love, but thankfully I love everything else in both cases. The Holdovers is the best Payne movie, that Payne didn't write himself, but is taking off his ideas, but better. The one exception is the easily erasable waitress scene that is about belittling and simplifying a conflict in a way the rest of the film avoided, where the jokes had been on our lead curmudgeon rather than on the people he was interacting with. Anyway where most Payne films are too dependent on one character, here the screenplay actually creates two great characters and one very good one. And while the other characters are simpler I did like the balance of giving a moment of humanity mixed in, except for in two cases (the Dean and the classmate), however I think with the others actually getting to have a little more I could accept two plain old jerks, particularly as implemented. And while the storyline can be expected in terms of the three grumps finding family during the Christmas time, it is the way in which it happens that can make it feel fresh regardless. Which this does, by kind of looking at what this time means for those who don't have anyone or are essentially the rejects. And while the progression of this is expected as we see our grumpy teacher and rebellious student grow to get to know each other, it is through some sharp funny dialogue but also just some honest interactions. And the cook Mary provides the catalyst essentially as the voice of genuine warmth even as while going through the most immediate hardship, but in turn speaks the truth to compel action in the set in his ways teacher. And while I understand every story choice isn't everyone's favorite, they all worked for me, and I especially did like the particularly surprising choices in Hunham's potential romance being so bluntly crushed or the truth behind Angus's dad. But most of all I just loved spending time with the character which the screenplay does so well in just letting us be with them in a way.
Past Lives's one scene actually is the Magaro/Lee scene where they discuss the relationship and I don't know just gets a little too Woody Allenish there for me. Beyond that though this is just wonderful in its kind of three phases of the children just having their moments with each other as little kids do, to the skype calls that says a lot even while always clouded in their separate choices, to then when the two do meet. And every interaction between them is low key, wonderful in the way the dialogue manages to dance around what is unsaid yet never does it feel unsaid. It makes the sense of what could be romance really resonate, while also just being in the moment of conversation that always again feels very honest, other than again the one moment I didn't love. And it has to be said the opening, which is stylistically disparate from the rest of the film, I just love as written this great sort of sense of intrigue as we wonder what the relationship between the three is and we slowly uncover that through the different segments of the life the screenplay then shows us.
Anatomy of a Fall is a screenplay I like, mostly though some reservations have grown a bit more. What definitely works is the screenplay dissecting the relationship in each scene we get of Sandra disclosing it, or when we actually get to see within flashback, and the other half sort of progressing seeing Daniel's perspective of his relationship with his parents. All of that works in the way it gives us one piece after another that eventually forms a whole, and it works best when the characters are literally just telling us that. Where it impressively realises sort of the relationship defined initially by love slowly rotting away. The focusing more so on sort of the crime aspect is where I think the film is less successful particularly as written and for two different reasons. I won't question the French legal system, though from what I've read it's smudged a little bit but not entirely and some of the more absurd elements are allowed in a French court, but what I will is the screenplay fails to build its case of guilt. There never feels genuine doubt at any point and there seems to be a lack of real clues other than just not getting along, and it is there where I feel the film could've made something greyer and more complex. And the details of those moments are less interesting as is the ridiculous case of the prosecution. The prosecution just frankly needed something more. Not that I think it is terrible though even if it's just less than it could be, and again the revelations on the personal level are great, so I overall do like the screenplay quite a bit even if imperfect.
May December chooses an interesting structure in getting into the world of this case of a pedophilic teacher but from the actor in a lifetime movie. And successfully has "fun" in the satirical nonsensical exploration of that actor going about copying life and getting the information as though she's some expert, and even really going a step beyond just for the story. My only problem with this is I feel this aspect does trail off to nothing by the end, other than I guess the movie obviously is going to be terrible, but I feel that was already obvious. One can argue that's the point, and fair enough, but I feel there was perhaps a way to tie things together a little more. Where the film works best is exploring the relationship itself which we open as the status quo then slowly dissect that by first giving clues to just how psychopathic the woman is as we see each manipulation that becomes more overt, and we see the man really dealing with his life suddenly. This aspect being the strongest in going from the man who just went along to suddenly having reflection on his life and the screenplay realization of that is powerful particularly as it is attached to seeing the world beyond the one that was crafted by his abuser for him.
Okay and trash...I mean Maestro. What I mean by that is it is trash. What do you learn about Bernstein? NOTHING. Okay so much of the material that is remotely anything character wise is literally lifted from interviews or similar material, but I mean "lifted" not written into a scene. Take the first scene between Bernstein and Felicia, where he basically recites her wikipedia page as though that makes her interesting or their relationship dynamic in any way, it doesn't. But worse we don't uncover that through conversation of natural revelation we just hear Bernstein recite it. In fact what is focused upon as their relationship is never dynamic. What do we learn, they like to play a guessing game, what else? They love each other because they smile, then they hate each other because Bernstein has affairs, which is also dealt with perfunctory statements. In their big fight we don't get to real vulnerabilities because we haven't learned any, it is all the most basic platitudes. The late scenes are just basic cancer diagnosis scenes, there's no conversation that reveals more, there's nothing that tells us more. It's all nothing. The film proposes that Felicia was even the true Maestro, but where do we see that, nowhere. But we also don't learn about who either are. Do we see her performances or what makes her passionate as an actress? Nah. Do we see anything about why Bernstein could be the first great American conductor? No. We are just told that, without clarity or basis, also not in conversation other than people just saying a thing. When we see him perform we don't get details, we just see him say perfunctory introductions and at most some stolen interview lines. And I wouldn't say stolen if they were filtered into something natural in conversation, they're. Nothing has baffled me more than people loving the Mahler scene, because it's copied from the real footage and....? We didn't see the build up, we learned more about what meaning it might have from Lydia Tar, what's the achievement if it just happens? There's none. What's the point of the epilogue scene with Bernstein, doesn't give us context with his wife, shows us nothing but perfunctory action. This film is empty, truly empty. You learn nothing about Leonard or Felicia, little about their relationship and even less about the world we inhabit. I mean tell me what's going on with one supporting character? Nothing, they're just there to facilitate more basic statements about their relationship, This is a terrible screenplay.
But you don't understand Louis, Maestro is brilliant because it doesn't show you everything about Bernstein and his life... which it subverts by having nothing to say about not just him, but also his wife.
I know some of the backlash Cooper has gotten for being a try-hard could be seen as a little harsh... but it's not enough. No point in all that effort when the result is terrible.
My supporting actress nominee ranking
1. Brooks (maybe not technically the best, but I enjoyed her the most. She brought so much range in her supporting role. )
2. Randolph (she brings a believable humanity and elevates what could’ve easily been passed over as another Mammy performance.)
3. Blunt (she’ gives a solid reactionary performance in the role as the suffering wife with one explosive scene. The scene comes at the end, when a lot of people are tired from being there nearly three hours.)
4. Farerra (well, her speech has become iconic and it works. She was the right actress for the role, being a pioneer for women)
Haven’t seen Foster yet. The other acting categories are hard to rank this year, and judging by the most mixed bag I’ve seen on this blog, I’m not alone.
Tahmeed: OK, but I'd much rather someone work really hard on something I end up not liking than phone it in completely.
Matt: That's a fair enough perspective. But what does it really say when he spent 6 years learning how to conduct music for one scene, and still manages to not be convincing in said scene?
Admittedly I'm harsher on him because having rewatched Nightmare Alley recently, it frustrates me because you just know he's capable of much, much better
Man, me and awards bodies did not have the same taste for Supporting Actress this year.
Director:
1. Christopher Nolan - Oppenheimer/Yorgos Lanthimos - Poor Things
3. Martin Scorsese - Killers of the Flower Moon
4. Justine Triet - Anatomy of a Fall
I'll figure it out at some point as this is not a tie, but I do adore the efforts of both Nolan and Lanthimos and they are both very different. Nolan's direction here is an example of clearly someone using everything they learned up until this point to craft his dynamic and captivating film that is a lot of people talking. And his crafting of that is through urgency, where Nolan places us essentially trapped in the pull of history as we see ambition, the weight of it, even the beauty of it, but also dangers of it. And part of this is he makes it a race, a heist almost in moving towards the completion of the bomb in recruiting the scientists, leading up to the trinity scene which is amazing singular work by crafting the multiple perspectives of the moment, and also just visually realizing the moment in all its nightmarish glory. The hearing is used brilliantly as this uncovering of the personal life and connections of Oppenheimer, as I love the intro of Strauss as presented as kind of a man in awe of Oppenheimer, which Nolan will slowly subvert until the two's stress combines together. Each piece of it is dictated by Nolan by amplifying the tension as we go along and essentially combining that stress. And speaking of certain moments of sort of tension and kind of haunting guilt being just realized as some of the best directing from Nolan. Particularly the town hall where we go from heroic celebration, to a slow unraveling as we enter into the mind and suddenly sense the horrors of what was unleashed. Or the cross examine where we are presented with the factual horrors, with the personal dismay, and amplified by again his visual and sound choices in making us see Oppenheimer's experience as beyond a conversation in his mind. I was consistently impressed by Nolan, who of course had technical mastery as per usual, but now here weaponized to make history, and history that is talky, alive in a way few films have achieved. And again the ending, is maybe what will push my vote to Nolan, because what Nolan does with that moment is so tremendous and just peak powers in making a single line then the imagery, and a single expression into such a truly haunting moment of cinema.
Lanthimos though no slouch because all the technical praise from before can only be repeated and it must be a mad genius behind the madness to somehow make it all cohesive despite being all mad. Lanthimos is the mad genius who orchestrates every choice into crafting this world, but even more so this singular experience that is Poor Things. Every technical aspect working in tandem, while also being so strange, yet made entirely fitting within the world, yet never just style, but rather style that crafts worlds and brings into the strange journey of Bella Baxter. Lanthimos again balances, helped again by not writing the screenplay I think, but uses it to craft Bella's journey of self-discovery which is emotional, debauched, insane while also being very funny. And Lanthimos's comedic direction here is just fantastic with actually having proper timing as such. And of course because it's Lanthimos individual moments are just outstanding, the dance sequence madness in particular, but especially the birth of Bella that is just why I love film quite frankly as every visual choice, every sound choice, just is a glorious display of filmmaking genius. Second though, maybe Lanthimos would get my vote based on that....I'll have to think about it.
Okay Scorsese, a filmmaker who needs no introduction in fact it would be hard to name flaws as a filmmaker, except, and this is the one thing that does plague him occasionally, is telling some actors to TONE IT DOWN Jack Nicholson in The Departed. And direction wise that is the main flaw, the other ones are screenplay centric which crafted the story from a certain point and I think there is a fundamental choice there that weakens the film a bit, which I would've gotten into if it had been nominated for screenplay. But forgetting that it is still a master, and when you take the opening sequence of seeing first the dance around the oil, to the progression of wealth to the parasites, all set gloriously to music, edited brilliantly, with such a refined specific aesthetic, there is a great filmmaker. And really it is those big moments but it is also small ones with some of the character actors, where it gives such a vibrancy to this world, and also the underlying rot behind it all. Although again one can argue over pace, and I do think too long is the case here, the story as told visually has moments of genius throughout, even when as written it spends too much time with a character who has very little to say or to think, but is the main character.
Triet's direction I'd actually say is the weaker aspect of her work with Anatomy, as I think she's best when just focusing on people speaking as she captures performance well to be sure, and I'll say the direction around the dog and the kid, also good work, as is the creation of the cold space of the area which grants you a sense place. By choosing to show the breath, see the constant snowy landscape and make you feel the cold. And some key moments, such as having the final testimony in the flashback of the image against the separate voice, great work there. BUT I do think there's just some random odd visual angles chosen a few times, that don't amplify, they just distract, and the worst of it being those zoom-ins that frankly felt amateurish in their execution. Not that it's poorly directed on the whole but definitely some odd choices there.
Supporting Actress:
1. Da'Vine Joy Randolph - The Holdovers
2. Jodie Foster - Nyad
3. Danielle Brooks - The Color Purple
4. Emily Blunt - Oppenheimer (When I had rewatched I will say the criticism of her drunk scenes were WAY overblown, it's like 10 second scene, ONE scene.)
5. America Ferrera - Barbie
Actress:
1. Emma Stone - Poor Things (Big surprise I know)
2. Sandra Huller - Anatomy of a Fall
3. Lily Gladstone - Killers of the Flower Moon
4. Annette Bening - Nyad
5. Carey Mulligan - Maestro
And for the Record:
1. Oppenheimer
2. Poor Things
3. The Holdovers
4. Past Lives
5. Killers of the Flower Moon
6. Anatomy of a Fall
7. American Fiction
8. Barbie
9. Maestro
Only one true fly in the ointment here.
I’ve seen 1,2,3,5 and 8. Gotta get on the binge.
Where did you previously talk about MI Dead Reckoning?
Post a Comment