![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Oscars...and well movies
Mar. 10th, 2024 08:02 pmI'm watching the Oscars. I'm a flim buff, always have been. Worked on the film committee in college, took cinema studies courses in undergrad, and discussed movies in depth with family, friends, and co-workers. Watching the Oscars was more of an event in our house than the Superbowl. (Although we all pretty much agree it's an impossible contest, comparing apples and oranges.)
I've seen almost all the films nominated for Best Movie - in regards to the Oscars, now. Just not seen four of them: Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, Past Lives, and Maestro. But I have seen: Oppenheimer, Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Holdovers, Poor Things, and American Fiction. And damn, we now have ten films nominated? I remember when it was just five.
Of the ones I've seen? I'd rank them as follows:
1. Oppenheimer
2. Poor Things
3. American Fiction (which are in a three way tie for first)
4. Barbie
5. Killers of the Flower Moon
6. Holdovers
I wouldn't have nominated The Holdovers - it's basically a run of the mill 1970s flick or Alexander Payne/Paul Giametti film that I feel I've seen before. Nice performances, a good character arc, but nothing stellar. I told the plot of it to mother, and she said - "I feel like I've already seen this?" Exactly.
Barbie and Killers are deeply flawed films that run too long, and are a wee bit too gimmicky for their own good - and kind of fail in their attempt at satire - falling a touch too much towards self-parody for their own good. Also both are incredibly preachy and get on their soap boxes at the end. A bit more subtly would have a gone a long way. The audience isn't stupid.
However, points for being innovative and providing interesting and new film techniques, and taking chances.
Oppenheimer, Poor Things and American Fiction all blew me away. Two are deft and at times biting satires, without getting overtly preachy (hard to do). And the third is a thought-provoking bio-pic and socio-political commentary on the arms race. All three use interesting film techniques, while at the same time never losing sight of their characters or their arcs. And the performances are riveting and among the best of the actors involved.
Oppenheimer and Poor Things deserve all the nominations they've gotten - they blew me away and still haunt. And dealt with controversial and difficult topics at the same time.
Predictions? This is an impossible contest.
But so far it's going as expected. No surprises. And for the most part I agree with the awards.
Poor Things - is a visual feast for the eyes. He does things with film I've not seen since maybe David Lynch. And the director reminds me a great deal of Lynch.
However, it is not an easy subject matter. Lots of sex, but the sex is from a "female perspective" and more female gaze than male gaze (which I found interesting considering the film is written and directed by a man).
The set-up? ( spoilers )
It's an existential visual tour de force with graphic sex. And the satire is rather biting in places.
Don't read reviews - see it for yourself. It's kind of like watching Sartre by way of Mary Shelly and David Lynch and Virginia Woolf.
American Fiction - this is also a brilliantly scripted satire - this time tackling the American Publishing Industry. Kind of reminds of Yellowface in places.
The setup? ( spoilers )
There's some clever bits, and the satire is sharp in places. It also does a good job of underlining the unintentional and unself-aware racism in our society.
The Holdovers - I was kind of disappointed in it. Felt it was overly long, and drug in places. It's mainly a character piece that follows a trite and true 1970s or 20th Century film trope. If you've seen films with Paul Giametti - you've seen it before. Enjoyable in places, stale in others.
Stand out performance by Devine Randolph - who plays Mary, a grieving mother of a boy killed in Vietnam.
The set up? ( spoilers )
It is considered subversive, but I didn't find it that subversive? And kind of long. It does however have a good character arc for Human's character or Paul Giametti. Not sure about anyone else though?
I wouldn't have nominated this film. It's enjoyable but not all that?
I've reviewed the others separately.
ETA: I'm happy with the outcome. Killers of the Flower Moon and Maestro were shut out. And in a big upset, Emma Stone won Best Actress (Poor Things) over Lily Gladstone (Killers).
If you wanted Gladstone - you need to read the book and get back to me. I really didn't like Killers, and was underwhelmed by Gladstone's performance. While Emma Stone's blew me away. (Both are problematic films, but Killers bugged me more - since the point of view is the bad guys, not Gladstone's. She's more of a supporting role in Scorsese's film. In the book, she isn't.)
It is of course unimportant in the scheme of things. And I'll most likely forget in a year or so. Also the performances aren't comparable. But alas, we do.
Happy about Oppenheimer - means Cillian will be in more films at least.
I've seen almost all the films nominated for Best Movie - in regards to the Oscars, now. Just not seen four of them: Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, Past Lives, and Maestro. But I have seen: Oppenheimer, Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Holdovers, Poor Things, and American Fiction. And damn, we now have ten films nominated? I remember when it was just five.
Of the ones I've seen? I'd rank them as follows:
1. Oppenheimer
2. Poor Things
3. American Fiction (which are in a three way tie for first)
4. Barbie
5. Killers of the Flower Moon
6. Holdovers
I wouldn't have nominated The Holdovers - it's basically a run of the mill 1970s flick or Alexander Payne/Paul Giametti film that I feel I've seen before. Nice performances, a good character arc, but nothing stellar. I told the plot of it to mother, and she said - "I feel like I've already seen this?" Exactly.
Barbie and Killers are deeply flawed films that run too long, and are a wee bit too gimmicky for their own good - and kind of fail in their attempt at satire - falling a touch too much towards self-parody for their own good. Also both are incredibly preachy and get on their soap boxes at the end. A bit more subtly would have a gone a long way. The audience isn't stupid.
However, points for being innovative and providing interesting and new film techniques, and taking chances.
Oppenheimer, Poor Things and American Fiction all blew me away. Two are deft and at times biting satires, without getting overtly preachy (hard to do). And the third is a thought-provoking bio-pic and socio-political commentary on the arms race. All three use interesting film techniques, while at the same time never losing sight of their characters or their arcs. And the performances are riveting and among the best of the actors involved.
Oppenheimer and Poor Things deserve all the nominations they've gotten - they blew me away and still haunt. And dealt with controversial and difficult topics at the same time.
Predictions? This is an impossible contest.
But so far it's going as expected. No surprises. And for the most part I agree with the awards.
Poor Things - is a visual feast for the eyes. He does things with film I've not seen since maybe David Lynch. And the director reminds me a great deal of Lynch.
However, it is not an easy subject matter. Lots of sex, but the sex is from a "female perspective" and more female gaze than male gaze (which I found interesting considering the film is written and directed by a man).
The set-up? ( spoilers )
It's an existential visual tour de force with graphic sex. And the satire is rather biting in places.
Don't read reviews - see it for yourself. It's kind of like watching Sartre by way of Mary Shelly and David Lynch and Virginia Woolf.
American Fiction - this is also a brilliantly scripted satire - this time tackling the American Publishing Industry. Kind of reminds of Yellowface in places.
The setup? ( spoilers )
There's some clever bits, and the satire is sharp in places. It also does a good job of underlining the unintentional and unself-aware racism in our society.
The Holdovers - I was kind of disappointed in it. Felt it was overly long, and drug in places. It's mainly a character piece that follows a trite and true 1970s or 20th Century film trope. If you've seen films with Paul Giametti - you've seen it before. Enjoyable in places, stale in others.
Stand out performance by Devine Randolph - who plays Mary, a grieving mother of a boy killed in Vietnam.
The set up? ( spoilers )
It is considered subversive, but I didn't find it that subversive? And kind of long. It does however have a good character arc for Human's character or Paul Giametti. Not sure about anyone else though?
I wouldn't have nominated this film. It's enjoyable but not all that?
I've reviewed the others separately.
ETA: I'm happy with the outcome. Killers of the Flower Moon and Maestro were shut out. And in a big upset, Emma Stone won Best Actress (Poor Things) over Lily Gladstone (Killers).
If you wanted Gladstone - you need to read the book and get back to me. I really didn't like Killers, and was underwhelmed by Gladstone's performance. While Emma Stone's blew me away. (Both are problematic films, but Killers bugged me more - since the point of view is the bad guys, not Gladstone's. She's more of a supporting role in Scorsese's film. In the book, she isn't.)
It is of course unimportant in the scheme of things. And I'll most likely forget in a year or so. Also the performances aren't comparable. But alas, we do.
Happy about Oppenheimer - means Cillian will be in more films at least.