|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 24, 2023 21:02:22 GMT -8
I'm not really sure what the "first 15 minutes" thing is with Jeremy w/r/t to All Quiet On The Western Front, as the film is pretty consistent, story-, production-, and especially cinematography-wise for the film's duration. Yeah, like most war films, it doesn't have anything particularly new to say about war (it does emphasize how fellow soldiers can often be more heartless towards one another than towards rival soldiers, though), but it's certainly a well-made picture, and definitely deserving of the Cinematography Oscar (it's just one artfully-composed image after another). The Batman had a far more memorable dramatic score, though, as did The Banshees of Inisherin.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 25, 2023 17:47:06 GMT -8
I meant that the first 15 minutes - that is, the introductory portion of the film - do a clever, concise job of outlining the movie's message with skillful pacing and a minimum of dialogue, and the remaining two hours don't really add much thematically. It was fine and well-crafted, but really wore down after a while. The score was definitely memorable, but the central theme - much like the movie's central theme! - eventually grew repetitive (a problem The Batman score also had).
I did not do a post-Oscars writeup because there wasn't a ton to write (or more specifically, complain) about. Overall, it was above-average by the show's usual standards. Was happy about EEAaO's sweep - I still think Cate Blanchett's performance in Tar was the best of the year, but Michelle Yeoh has been doing great work for decades and I'm glad she finally got recognized. (Ditto Curtis and Fraser, and Quan's acceptance speech was particularly moving.) The Women Talking victory was a bit irksome, but then again the Adapted Screenplay category was kind of weak this year.
Not much objectionable beyond that, and also nobody mixed up envelopes or got assaulted onstage or sang with Snow White, so it was fine.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 25, 2023 18:19:14 GMT -8
I get that (re: "15 minutes"), but I checked the clock, and the introductory portion of the film was more like 30 minutes, not 15.
At any rate, I'm not talking about the four-note signature in The Batman, but rather the overall sweeping hero theme, Catwoman's femme-fatale theme, and even Riddler's theme based off of Ava Maria, which were all very effective and/or poignant. Whereas all I remember about the AQotWF theme is the three-or-four-note signature, and only because it felt like Trent Reznor doing a synth riff on Inception or Tenet's overbearing score. I'm sure the music, in general, was fine, but it didn't draw me in enough, in and of itself, to warrant an award, IMO.
Blanchett is very good in Tar, but that performance is so within her wheelhouse -- she'll probably give another five just like it in the next decade -- that I'm glad someone else won Best Actress this year. I honestly feel like Yeoh had more plates to balance, in holding the frenetic EEAaO together, whereas Blanchett had the advantage of a very tidy screenplay and visual presentation.
I'm fine with most of the winners, though I'm about to find out how much Women Talking didn't deserve Adapted Screenplay, as it's sitting on my shelf, borrowed from the public library. Top Gun being up for Screenplay, even more than Picture, is pretty laughable to me, but my feelings about that film are well-documented.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 25, 2023 22:37:41 GMT -8
My biggest takeaway from Women Talking is that...damn, Daydream Believer is such a great pop song! Anyways, that aside, yeah, it's pretty heavy-handed, but the very talented cast of women manages to breath some life and humility into it. I don't really think it's about "Violently abusive men are bad, duuuuurrr!", so much as "What's the solution, other than to try to influence them, over time, to be more caring and empathetic?" And I would've thought this was adapted from a stage play rather than a novel, as the former medium often tends to spell things out more overtly via dialogue. Regardless, I knock a half-star off the film for trying to TRICK us into thinking this was a more upbeat film than it was, by using the aforementioned Monkees song in the end credits. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 26, 2023 5:54:12 GMT -8
The problem with Women Talking, apart from the aforementioned heavy-handedness of the script and blandness of the visuals, is that it's structured in a baffling manner that drains virtually any tension out of the story. It wants to work as a three-act play, but the first two acts are basically crammed into the first five minutes of the movie (and mostly summed up a quick introductory monologue) while the remaining 90 minutes function as an overstretched third act in which virtually no character or story is developed. I disagree with most of the Adapted Screenplay nominees (even Glass Onion didn't quite hold up on rewatch), and am surprised that none of the animated films ( Puss in Boots, Marcel, GDT's Pinocchio) got nominated there instead. I also think it's weird that the Academy dictates that sequels are automatically put in the "Adapted Screenplay" category, but that's a whole other discussion. Blanchett is very good in Tar, but that performance is so within her wheelhouse -- she'll probably give another five just like it in the next decade -- that I'm glad someone else won Best Actress this year. I honestly feel like Yeoh had more plates to balance, in holding the frenetic EEAaO together, whereas Blanchett had the advantage of a very tidy screenplay and visual presentation. Blanchett's performance in Tar was striking because of how natural and convincing it felt from the word go - i.e. it's a masterful performance because she so completely immerses the audience in the character, even moreso than some of her previous work. (Compare this to something like The Aviator - which she did win the Oscar for - where she is very good but also obviously "acting" in her role.) And for all the strengths of the screenplay and direction, the entire crux of Tar rests on fully buying into Lydia Tar as a character. Yeoh is great in a film that is great from a lot of angles, and I have no qualms about her winning. I'd just say that the success of Tar relies more on Blanchett's performance than EEAaO does on Yeoh's.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 26, 2024 13:36:12 GMT -8
I don't have a ton to say about the Oscar nominations at the moment (apart from Maestro beating May December for the Netflix slot in the BP category - not shocking, considering that the latter is a scathing critique of Hollywood navel-gazing, but still). I do, however, find myself a little baffled by this year's big controversy, that being Barbie being left out of the Best Actress and Best Director categories. Like, I get that there's an irony to Ken being nominated for the movie and not Barbie, and that makes for some fun viral tweets, or X-posts, or whatever. But it's not like the film was entirely shut out beyond that (it was nominated for Best Picture, Screenplay, and Supporting Actress). Nor does it seem particularly reflective of ingrained sexism, what with Justine Triet getting an Oscar nom for directing Anatomy of a Fall (a much better movie than Barbie, but I digress). I am actually glad the Academy is nominating big-budget blockbusters for Best Picture again, even ones that feel like feature-length toy commercials. I guess I just find it a little funny that Greta Gerwig appears to have become the sole measurement for female directors in Hollywood? And that the film getting eight Oscar noms (more than Past Lives and The Holdovers combined, I might add) is somehow problematic because they missed a couple of categories? I dunno, this seems markedly sillier than some of the other Oscar controversies in recent years. But at least people are talking about the Academy Awards again.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 26, 2024 22:22:24 GMT -8
There's always a "snub" story with regards to the Oscars. This is just the one they've chosen to fill fluff articles with this year. Amongst the Academy voters, obviously Barbie was one of the ten most-liked films, but not amongst the five most-liked, thus Gerwig not making the cut this year. And they generally nominate supporting actors/actresses in comedy movies more than the leads, so Robbie's "snub" shouldn't be much of a surprise. Anyways, that movie (which I liked, I might add) got more than enough love from voters. And I'm sure Robbie and Gerwig will survive, somehow. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 27, 2024 19:20:57 GMT -8
I know, half the fun about Oscar discussion is talking about this or that snub. This one just seems to have ignited more of a firestorm and clickbait-onslaught than usual (with Ryan Gosling even quasi-apologizing for being nominated when his female costar and director weren't). It's even sparked some backlash to the backlash, with some people complaining about how the controversy over Gerwig and Robbie (two white women) has overshadowed the fact that America Ferrera (a Latina woman) was nominated for the movie. I love the Internet! In any event, it's prudent to remind people that the movie isn't even the greatest Best Picture nominee to feature Barbie as a main character.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 9, 2024 20:03:18 GMT -8
Time to rank all the Best Picture nominees (except Zone of Interest, which I haven't yet seen).
Overall, I was not too impressed with this year's BP crop, being underwhelmed by most of the nominees (and frankly surprised that most of them have received rave reviews), Nevertheless...
9. Maestro - Netflix's generic Oscar-bait entry is basically par for the course at this point, but this one feels particularly flat. Carey Mulligan gives a strong performance, but everything else feels pedestrian and by-the-numbers, never exploring Leonard Bernstein or his music below the surface level, or giving us much of a story to invest in.
8. Poor Things - A preachy, heavy-handed, overlong fable filled with uneven humor and overbearing music. The set and costume design are the main highlight, and some of the actors do better than others (with Ruffalo a standout if only for how absurd his performance is), but none can do enough to salvage this mess of a script.
7. Barbie - A solid comedy in its first act, then a confused, rambling attempt at satire for the remainder of its run. Brightened by the performances of Robbie and Gosling and some terrific sets in Barbieland. Still above-average on the scale of toy commercials disguised as live-action movies.
6. Killers of the Flower Moon - A fascinating and horrifying American story, adapted in a detached and at times uninteresting fashion. It's well-shot and well-acted (especially by the underused Lily Gladstone), but hurt by poor pacing and confused narrative focus, plus the fact that it never seems to end.
5. Anatomy of a Fall - Handsome courtroom drama, with a solid script and a commendable Sandra Hüller in the lead. Interesting exploration of cultural differences, plus a more intriguing feminist allegory than Barbie or Poor Things. It does drag on a while and lose some narrative momentum by the end, though. Hats off to the dog.
4. American Fiction - Genuinely funny satire, somewhat marred by baggy family drama and an ending that awkwardly paints the film into a corner. The cast does fine work, with Jeffrey Wright giving one of the most understated leading performances of the year.
3. Oppenheimer - Long, yes, with at least one emotional climax too many. But it's terrific filmmaking, scoring high marks in all technical areas and featuring some of the most impactful visual sequences of Nolan's career, as well as top-notch performances from Murphy, Downey, Blunt, and the rest of the ensemble. Would probably be my #1 if it was a half-hour shorter.
2. The Holdovers - Funny and emotionally effective character drama, featuring Alexander Payne's signature blend of warmth and cynicism. The three leads are perfect, and the story serves them well, with several standout sequences that carry the film and make each scene feel vivid and lived-in.
1. Past Lives - Debated which of the top two was my favorite between Holdovers and Past Lives. Both films have fairly straightforward stories that are mined for full emotional impact, and both feature a trio of terrific lead performances that work perfectly with one another and with the story. Ultimately, I'll give Past Lives the edge for the potent, complex romantic and cultural drama at its center. And also because - unlike most of the other films on this list - it manages to tell a complete and concise and resonant story in under two hours. (Feel free to make a note of this going forward, Oscars.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 10, 2024 9:02:38 GMT -8
Time to rank all the Best Picture nominees (except Zone of Interest, which I haven't yet seen). Overall, I was not too impressed with this year's BP crop, being underwhelmed by most of the nominees (and frankly surprised that most of them have received rave reviews), Nevertheless... 9. Maestro - Netflix's generic Oscar-bait entry is basically par for the course at this point, but this one feels particularly flat. Carey Mulligan gives a strong performance, but everything else feels pedestrian and by-the-numbers, never exploring Leonard Bernstein or his music below the surface level, or giving us much of a story to invest in. 8. Poor Things - A preachy, heavy-handed, overlong fable filled with uneven humor and overbearing music. The set and costume design are the main highlight, and some of the actors do better than others (with Ruffalo a standout if only for how absurd his performance is), but none can do enough to salvage this mess of a script. 7. Barbie - A solid comedy in its first act, then a confused, rambling attempt at satire for the remainder of its run. Brightened by the performances of Robbie and Gosling and some terrific sets in Barbieland. Still above-average on the scale of toy commercials disguised as live-action movies. 6. Killers of the Flower Moon - A fascinating and horrifying American story, adapted in a detached and at times uninteresting fashion. It's well-shot and well-acted (especially by the underused Lily Gladstone), but hurt by poor pacing and confused narrative focus, plus the fact that it never seems to end. 5. Anatomy of a Fall - Handsome courtroom drama, with a solid script and a commendable Sandra Hüller in the lead. Interesting exploration of cultural differences, plus a more intriguing feminist allegory than Barbie or Poor Things. It does drag on a while and lose some narrative momentum by the end, though. Hats off to the dog. 4. American Fiction - Genuinely funny satire, somewhat marred by baggy family drama and an ending that awkwardly paints the film into a corner. The cast does fine work, with Jeffrey Wright giving one of the most understated leading performances of the year. 3. Oppenheimer - Long, yes, with at least one emotional climax too many. But it's terrific filmmaking, scoring high marks in all technical areas and featuring some of the most impactful visual sequences of Nolan's career, as well as top-notch performances from Murphy, Downey, Blunt, and the rest of the ensemble. Would probably be my #1 if it was a half-hour shorter. 2. The Holdovers - Funny and emotionally effective character drama, featuring Alexander Payne's signature blend of warmth and cynicism. The three leads are perfect, and the story serves them well, with several standout sequences that carry the film and make each scene feel vivid and lived-in. 1. Past Lives - Debated which of the top two was my favorite between Holdovers and Past Lives. Both films have fairly straightforward stories that are mined for full emotional impact, and both feature a trio of terrific lead performances that work perfectly with one another and with the story. Ultimately, I'll give Past Lives the edge for the potent, complex romantic and cultural drama at its center. And also because - unlike most of the other films on this list - it manages to tell a complete and concise and resonant story in under two hours. (Feel free to make a note of this going forward, Oscars.) I've actually really liked the crop of Best Picture nominees...that I've seen. Maestro seems like Oscar-bait at its most blatant, and Yorgos Lanthimos' style just doesn't do it for me, so I haven't seen Poor Things either. I don't have a problem with long runtimes as long as they're earned. The best of them (and the best film of 2023) is easily Oppenheimer--In which Christopher Nolan proves that it's possible to make a 3-hour historical epic into an almost billion-dollar smash hit, and that's it's possible to make a great biopic. Top-tier Nolan that competes with Memento and The Prestige for me, and it seems like it won over a great deal of Nolan-skeptics too. (I didn't have a problem with the pacing--people made fun of the rush of famous scientists in the first half, but that whirlwind pace is necessary in a 3-hour film). The rest are pretty solid too. Anatomy of a Fall is an engrossing and unique courtroom drama with a very good dog in it. Past Lives is very effective for what it is--I think the problem for me is that I enjoy the conversational aspect of romance as seen in the Before trilogy, which Past Lives mostly skips over.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 10, 2024 10:22:36 GMT -8
I don't have a problem with long runtimes as long as they're earned. Same here, generally. I thought Oppenheimer was well-paced until the third hour, which is where it started to drag. Killers of the Flower Moon didn't justify its runtime at all, not even to the extent that earlier Scorsese works like The Irishman did. I tend to hold longer films to a slightly higher standard, insofar as they take more time to watch and thus need to more greatly justify the time spent watching them. At the other extreme is something like BlackBerry, one of my favorite films of 2023, which is the rare film that actually suffered from being too short - it's a two-hour movie that felt rushed in spots and probably needed a bit more breathing room to fully hit home. (I'm curious to check the extended edition that aired on AMC.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 10, 2024 10:46:32 GMT -8
I don't have a problem with long runtimes as long as they're earned. Same here, generally. I thought Oppenheimer was well-paced until the third hour, which is where it started to drag. Killers of the Flower Moon didn't justify its runtime at all, not even to the extent that earlier Scorsese works like The Irishman did. I tend to hold longer films to a slightly higher standard, insofar as they take more time to watch and thus need to more greatly justify the time spent watching them. At the other extreme is something like BlackBerry, one of my favorite films of 2023, which is the rare film that actually suffered from being too short - it's a two-hour movie that felt rushed in spots and probably needed a bit more breathing room to fully hit home. (I'm curious to check the extended edition that aired on AMC.) That I agree with. If you're going to pull out a 3-and-a-half-hour runtime, it better be for one hell of a story. I will note though that I have seen 90-120 minute films that also feel like an eternity. It really depends on the context/story/genre, even if I agree with you that cutting out the fluff for efficiency's sake usually leads to a better viewing experience.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 10, 2024 12:14:31 GMT -8
I can settle into longer films rather easily these days. It really just comes down to my level of interest in the subject matter, but even more so the style of presentation. As Incandescence noted, some rather short films can feel like an eternity. Heck, I've watched some ten-minute shorts in the past few months which felt like 30 minutes long.
I'm pretty confident that Nolan's gonna get his flowers from the Academy tonight, as well he should. I very much enjoyed Past Lives and The Holdovers, but to me, the level of difficulty in pulling those off is much lower, with solid casting handling much of the workload.
Poor Things isn't as willfully unpleasant as most of Lanthimos' other work: it's rather weird, but there's definitely more over-the-top entertainment and production value to be had. I found it highly amusing, and dug the offbeat score. But some members of the audience would be put off purely by the amount of overt sexual content. At any rate, while Lily Gladstone is solid in the Scorsese pic, it's really a supporting performance, so I'd be fine with Emma Stone taking home the trophy, as her role required more range. (I think Gladstone is going to win, though, as it would make for a more notable headline, for the Academy.)
I'll probably speed through most of the show on my DVR tomorrow morning, as I've got to work tonight, and forgot that the time went ahead an hour.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 10, 2024 13:58:40 GMT -8
Oh yeah, it certainly depends on the film. A three-hour film that's interesting and well-presented for most of that runtime will likely feel shorter to me than a boring two-hour film. It's all relative.
I assume Lanthimos isn't really my jam (though I enjoyed The Lobster for roughly half its runtime). I thought Emma Stone was good in Poor Things - liked the details she put into the character's walk and mannerisms - but it's not a performance that really stands out to me as one of the year's best. I think Gladstone has the edge going into tonight, though it's a coin flip.
Speaking of which, my predictions, in case anyone has money they want to flush away tonight:
Best Picture: Oppenheimer
Actor: Cillian Murphy Actress: Lily Gladstone Supporting Actor: Robert Downey Jr. Supporting Actress: Da'Vine Joy Randolph
Director: Christopher Nolan
Original Screenplay: Anatomy of a Fall Adapted Screenplay: Oppenheimer
Animated Feature: The Boy and the Heron International Feature: The Zone of Interest Documentary: 20 Days in Mauripol
Score: Killers of the Flower Moon Song: Barbie, "What Was I Made For?"
Sound: Oppenheimer Production Design: Oppenheimer Cinematography: Oppenheimer Makeup/Hairstyling: Poor Things Costume Design: Barbie Editing: Oppenheimer Visual Effects: Godzilla Minus One
Documentary Short: The ABCs of Book Banning Live Action Short: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar Animated Short: War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John and Yoko
We will know soon whether my precognitive powers have enhanced or diminished since last year.
|
|