This was Everything Everywhere All at Once's award to lose throughout the season, though there was a little bit of the ehhhhh, is it really going to win? Can something else get called on Oscar night? No, lol. But there was that intrigue. It's crazy because this film premiered at the SXSW film festival early in 2022 and created a crazy amount of buzz that just never really died down and kept accumulating and ultimately ended up with an Oscar win. Its staying power was so impressive because most films either can't survive that long or are released in the prime window of late in the year to stay relevant for voters. I am so excited to finally watch this film because it was so beloved and won so many awards. I'm also excited to watch all of the other films except the Avatar sequel if I'm being honest. Don't even care about impartiality. I hated the first one, can't imagine I'll enjoy watching another three hour garbage fest, but maybe I'll be surprised. So let's see what happens in between those two extremes with the other films.
2022 Best Picture
This would have never won in a previous year; I am convinced of that. I feel like the changes that the Academy has made in the past few years to diversify and make the Academy younger is directly responsible for a film like this actually winning. This is a fun film and that's undeniable. You can't watch this without a big smile on your face at times muttering what the fuck am I watching. These are the directors who made the Turn Down For What video which is ridiculous (Google it to see what I mean) and the Daniel Radcliffe film where he is a farting corpse (Swiss Army Man). The synopsis for this film isn't any less crazy since it is about a laundromat owner undergoing an IRS audit that defeats a multiverse villain that looks like her daughter with kindness. It's so hard to believe this won but I am happy it did. It's a supremely well made film that makes so much of small budget that you would think it cost way more than it really did. The special effects are so good, which is crazy because the budget was so small but this film made you believe the multiverse existed. The hotdog fingers, the dildos, the everything bagel; all of it looked great and added to how good the film was. The acting is amazing. The film is incredibly directed. It looks great. It sounds great. It's just a great film overall. I'm really happy that this film connected with people for such a long time that it endured and stayed on the Oscar radar. It's so fun and so crazy that I cannot think of another film on par with this one. This is unique in the Oscar pantheon and it feels like it belongs as a 2022 winner. Everyone should see this and see that Oscar isn't the stuffy costume dramas and shitty Oscar bait films anymore. They are truly finding the best films of the year and I hope it continues.
All Quiet on the Western Front
I was a bit hesitant when I became aware of this film because I'm not a fan of remakes and because the original film from 1930 won Best Picture and is an all time film that still holds up to this day with how powerfully affecting it is. But this is not a shot for shot remake. This is an adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque's seminal anti-war novel and differs in a lot of ways from the original which assuaged my fears of it being unnecessary and not at all up to the legacy of the original. This film won four Oscars, (Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Production Design, and Best Foreign Feature), which tied it with three other films (Fanny and Alexander, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Parasite) as the most ever by a foreign film. This was a well loved and well received film that absolutely lives up to the original's glory. Obviously, this one is in color, but it also has a side plot about the negotiation for an armistice, we never see the main charact Paul go back home, and some of his friends are different. While the changes are totally fine and lend itself to making the story even more interesting, it does change the perceived meaning of the story to one of brave men fighting and dying for detached leaders who don't view them as people, rather as a means to a possible end. In the book and the original film, Paul goes back home and finds it rather difficult to be there as the nationalism is rampant and people like to wave their flags and talk about their heroes who are fighting because it makes them feel good. The assimilating while being back and reconciling what is going on in the trenches versus the song and dance of being home is tough for all in the story. I think it was a good choice to not have Paul return home for this adaptation because it makes them feel more stuck and hopeless in their situation. We see the brutality, but we also see the randomness of what happens which is partially what Remarque wanted to emphasize. It has a lot of common themes and visuals with 1917, which I guess truly shows how insane WWI was. It's as visually stunning as that film was and it deserved its Oscar wins along with the pounding, haunting score that won. A strong contender for Best Picture this year, it may have won in a lesser year like it won BAFTA's Best Film. Worth watching, but please don't watch the dub version. Ugh, watch the subtitled version and hear the actors' voice, it makes the film so much better.
Avatar: The Way of Water
I am just going to be honest here, I don't care one bit about this film. I intensely disliked the first Avatar film and likened it a better looking Fern Gully, which a ton of people also did online. It somehow became a cultural thing for a little bit with the blue people and made a billion dollars and was supposedly the reason 3D was going to stick around. Well, here we are 13 years later and 3D was an awful fad to get more money out of you when going to theaters. There are no 3D TVs that I know of and it's certainly never become a thing like I remember James Cameron talking about. Yes, he has done some stunning things in regards to special effects and his team has won a lot of technical awards in the industry outside of the Oscars for pioneering new cameras and processes and techniques for making CGI look even better. But that's all Avatar is to me. It's got a basic and boring story where the stakes never seem to really rise to a level that matters. Characters that are of the stock variety and seem to just fill out a generic type expected for this type of story. And what is weird about this nomination to me, is that no one was talking about it. It had no buzz at all. But it did make over 2 billion dollars and I feel like this is something the Academy just won't ignore. I feel like it made that much because it came out after the pandemic was winding down and folks just wanted to get out to theaters and everyone saw the first one back in 2009, so why not spend over 3 hours watching this one. A lot of the same criticisms of the first one were said about this one: pedestrian story but aesthetically beautiful. And it does look great as a lot of the action moves to the water. But again, the film is overly long and meanders for a while until it's like they realize they have to wrap things up and usher in their ten more sequels. If you cut the run time down to about two and a half hours, it might actually make the film a bit better and the story much more focused. I dislike that they bring back two characters that died in the first film because of convoluted reasons which makes their deaths in the first one so pointless. This again makes the stakes not actually matter if people that die can just come back in various forms, so what are we actually investing into the story for? I need more than just stunning visuals to hook me in especially the second time around. I better not see Avatar 3 nominated if it's just more of the same, Academy.
The Banshees of Inisherin
This was a film I was really looking forward to seeing because Martin McDonagh, the writer and director, has made some really fine films in his career. In Bruges is fantastically funny in a dark way, Seven Psychopaths was a bit of goofy fun, and Three Billboards almost won Best Picture just a couple years earlier. The film was nominated for nine Oscars but won zero of them. McDonagh was triple nom'd for Picture, Directing, and Original Screenplay and the rest were mostly for acting. Which is certainly the main draw of the film. Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, and Barry Keoghan all were nominated for the first time, though it feels like Gleeson and Farrell would already have one, and all were very good in their roles. The directing and cinematography and production design are all great to look at, but it is hard to make a remote island off the coast of Ireland look bad in any way. The writing has some very dryly funny moments that I kinda feel like some people will miss or not appreciate. Not that you have to be super smart or anything, just that some of the off handed comments are really funny to me. The story is interesting in that it takes a look at the end of a friendship, or as Farrell put it in an interview, "the disintegration of joy." I think that sums it up nicely as Farrell's character starts off super happy but is quickly confused and frustrated that his longtime friend in Gleeson no longer wants anything to do with him. Gleeson finds Farrel to be dull and only interesting when drunk and wants to write music on his fiddle and be remembered for something. It devolves into something where Farrell starts to hate and look to violence, however unjustified as an answer. I like that it gives you a bit to ponder even though I read a few reviews from people that said they felt the message was muddled and weren't sure if they should take it seriously or as a dark comedy or what. There are some darkly comedic moments, but it is a look at the end of a friendship on a remote island and how mental health can play into that in my estimation. You could also probably go deeper and tie it into the conflicts of Ireland as it takes place during a Civil War, though that is all alluded to offscreen. It's a well made film by a guy the Academy clearly loves with great acting and great visuals. I don't think it was ever really contending for a win but was well liked by Hollywood. Only a matter of time for McDonagh to break through in the big awards (he has an Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film from 2006).
Elvis
Yep, this is definitely a Baz Luhrmann film. And Baz being the director will probably dictate for some folks just how they feel about the film overall. I personally love his bombastic style that you know from Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge, and The Great Gatsby. All have an indelible style, great music and showmanship, and modernize a non modern story. Though Elvis is absolutely the closest to modern he has done and is a figure that suits Luhrmann's flamboyant style. I love that Baz (I think I should just settle on using Baz instead of going back and forth with his names) used these stylistic graphics when needing to say the place or time and that they blended into the scene of the moment. One controversial thing about the film I remember from the awards season was that some people hated his use of some modern music in pivotal moments of the film like when Elvis goes down to Beale Street to unwind and let off steam. I didn't mind it at all and its true to what Baz does in all of his films, so expecting this to be some normal musical biopic is absurd. And that's another thing about his film is that is one of the most interesting musical biopics we've had since maybe Walk Hard (yeah, the parody film). Musical biopics are usually so by the numbers that you can set your watch to the beats of the story and get the same experience every time. Bohemian Rhapsody sucks. Others before that are just basic. Elvis really tries to set the genre on fire by being purely Baz. One of my favorite scenes is when Elvis gets to Vegas and he starts telling everyone how to play "That's Alright Mama" and he's so hyped up going around to the different sections getting them in tune. I think I would show that to anyone that might be not want to see the film and have them decide on that because it is brilliant acting and directing in one. Speaking of brilliant acting, Austin Butler is phenomenal. He is possessed and obsessed and just flat out magnificent. Dude embodies Elvis in a way I have never seen onscreen before and that has to count for something. He spent literal years in the role, speaking with the accent, in costume, and even with prosthetics to make him look more like Elvis in the later years with the cheeks and chin. But unlike some recent Best Actor winners, this is not a surface level performance. This is Butler pushing his chips all in and giving us an unparalleled version of Elvis. It makes the film and without him, it would probably not exist and if it did, it would be lesser. Playing Elvis is no small feat. Jacob Elordi did it in Priscilla in 2023 and was not at all right for the role. It's hard to get right and he did and I think Baz used that to his full extent. My one big gripe is that the film really zips through Elvis' history and spends a lot more time on his later years than in the more early and formative years which I thought was a bit more interesting because I am not as familiar with that. Also, the framing device of using Tom Hanks' Colonel Parker as a sort of narrator isn't as strong to me. I feel like just looking at Elvis with Parker as another character could work, but I do get that this film is kinda highlighting how much of a charlatan he was and badly he manipulated Elvis. So it works in that regard. But still, this is a very good musical biopic that of course stretches the truth but has a lead that is so compelling you don't really care. We just want to see Butler play Elvis and dance and sing.
The Fabelmans
Not going to lie, I was wary of this film because I was wondering just how interesting Steven Spielberg's childhood was to warrant a two and a half hour film about it. But of course it is Spielberg, so you know he's going to at least tell a good story with great visuals. Unfortunately, this isn't peak Spielberg, though I did enjoy the film overall. The acting is pretty great across the board, especially with the kids and especially the one who plays teenaged Spielberg, Gabriel LaBelle. Paul Dano probably deserved to be nominated for his performance. Spielberg obviously can make a film look great. The issue for me was that this film had some ups and downs when it came to consistency. A lot of the first part of the film with young Spielberg is somewhat dull and boring. It at times felt by the numbers and there wasn't a lot of interesting things going on. The tornado scene was okay, but out of nowhere. I think the film started to pick up once we get to teenage Spielberg as we see him shooting some movies with his friends, we get the wild Judd Hirsch scene, the dancing Michelle Williams at the camp site scene. But still some of it felt like filler to get to individual scenes like those. The film picks up more steam as we get towards the end because there is more tension and things coming to a conclusion and being resolved. And I really wasn't all that invested in the family drama of the mother wanting to be with the father's best friend. It just wasn't compelling enough to get me to care. I did enjoy the David Lynch as John Ford scene and the final shot of the film was so incredibly clever where the camera pans up after the horizon was in the middle of the screen. That was Spielberg filmmaking right there and I loved it. There just wasn't enough of that Spielberg magic in the rest of the film. Some parts really shine, some parts made me wish I could fast forward to something else. I am really hoping that Spielberg can come back with something amazing because the last two films have not been totally up to par or was an unnecessary remake of a classic.
Tar
I am a big fan of Todd Field's other two films, In the Bedroom and Little Children. Both were very adult, as in dramatic and straightforward about tough topics, not racy or anything. Both were incredible and this was Field's first film in 16 years, so I was very interested if I'd like it as much as his other work. The short answer is no, but not because this is a bad film or anything. It's actually probably a masterpiece for Field and is an incredibly well-made film with a highly intelligent and intense script with a career performance from Cate Blanchett. I think it's a rewarding experience for those that sit through the whole two and a half hours and can appreciate this kind of film. I say that because it starts off with credits and then goes into a long interview with Blanchett for an event and finally starts the story like thirty minutes in. But the interview sets up the rest of the film because we see she is this maestro who is at the top of her craft and establishes her power and esteem. The film is essentially about getting canceled for your behavior whether perceived or actual. And we see that a lesbian woman is not immune to the same power trips and abuses that men are. There is a lot to dive into from this film and smarter people than I have already written articles for and against Lydia. The main reason to watch this film aside from Field's directing effort is Blanchett's masterclass in acting. It is amazing to watch and she is in every scene. The film may be tough to get into if you're not a degenerate cinephile like I am, but I think most people would get something out of it. I wasn't a fan of the ending where she goes to the Philippines (I thought it was China until I went on wikipedia, oops) and does a concert for an anime cosplay thing. I get the message that she needs to be conducting and working and music is her life but I felt a stronger ending would have been ending it before that part. So no, I didn't like it as much as his other films, which sounds crazy to say given what I just wrote, but I did like those more. Overall, a great piece of filmmaking and even better acting that will probably be a favorite of those in the best of cinema and top 1000 lists ever in the future.
Top Gun: Maverick
I love that this film was nominated here. To start, let's go back to the 80s. Top Gun was a cultural touchstone that made a ton of money and spurred a nation's need for speed. I kid a little but that was a hugely popular film that was so quotable that people say phrases that they don't even realize came from the film. It had everything you could want in a blockbuster film with big-name, good-looking actors, a great soundtrack, a compelling story, intense visuals we had never really seen before, and just a coolness that it seemed to radiate. Maverick is essentially just a continuation of all of those points. This film hits all the same beats and has mostly the same kind of story. It doesn't matter that it's just Top Gun 2.0 because we like and enjoy all the notes it's playing already. That's what surprised me about this film was that it was very similar, but it still felt fresh and new while absolutely hitting that nostalgia point in our brain without relying solely on the nostalgia to be a good film. It is very much its own thing and viewed on its own terms, it becomes easy to see why everyone loved this one, too. Satisfying story, stunning visuals, well-acted by hot looking people, soundtrack is good and still has a song sung at a piano at a bar, and the coolness factor is still there. Tom Cruise knew what he was doing and wasn't going to give us a subpar sequel. And he didn't. This was a ton of fun to watch and get lost in and just enjoy that a sequel of Top Gun of all films worked as well as it did. There's not a whole lot to get into other than this is what Hollywood wants from its blockbusters and what the Oscars wants from blockbusters: to be highly entertaining and awards worthy to bring more eyeballs to the awards show. We have been getting that lately with this new and improved Academy and I am glad this film was able to be included. And I didn't even mention the shirtless football scene! A great inclusion for this group.
Triangle of Sadness
I love that with the changes to the Academy we are getting more foreign films in this category. Yes, this one is in English and even has Woody Harrelson in it, but it's from Ruben Ostlund who is a Swedish director, so this still has that foreign feel to it (it was his first English language film). It won the Palme d'Or at Cannes and is a very dark comedy about a celebrity fashion model couple who go on a yacht cruise for the super rich. From there, lots of wild things happen so it's best to go into it knowing as little as possible. The film has a lot of twists and turns and is so darkly funny that you kinda feel bad for laughing at some of the absurdity. Spoilers ahead, but the yacht goes through some very turbulent weather and waves and then is attacked by pirates and a couple of the rich and crew are stranded on an island. The power balance shifts to a woman (Dolly de Leon, who many had as a potential Supporting Actress nominee) who cleans bathrooms on the yacht now being in power because she can catch fish and make fire. At the end, we see the island is a resort island and they just happened to land on the side where nothing was. Obviously, it rags on the rich as being clueless and helpless and repulsive. It's very on the nose with what it is saying about the different classes but it never feels too broad or insulting to the audience. But it's also not saying anything too profound, it just likes to poke fun at the social aspects of society as a whole with some political leanings thrown in for good measure. It's fun to watch in a twisted way and some good acting performances. One of which was one of the models, Charlbi Dean, who unfortunately died shortly after it won at Cannes from sepsis from an infection. She was an up and coming actress who had been getting more work and had recently been in the CW comic book show Black Lightning as a very compelling villain. It would have been great to see what she could have done in the future and this film makes me intrigued to see what Ostlund does next.
Women Talking
This just kinda snuck into the Best Picture group without much fanfare and without any hope of actually winning. This is a film written and directed by Sarah Polley who was previously nominated for Away From Her and has been an actress in movies herself. She actually won the Oscar for Original Screenplay for this film. It's a film about a group of Mennonite women (though it is never expressly mentioned they are Mennonite or where they are located) who have been raped for years by the men in the colony who blame it on Satan or devils or whatever. It's based on an actual event that happened in Bolivia. The film is from the POV of all of the women as the men have been arrested and they are left to figure what to do to combat these men and stop getting raped. So then much of the film is the women of three families deciding for all the women whether to leave or stay and fight the men. It's got Frances McDormand in a very limited role, Rooney Mara, Claire Foy, and Ben Wishaw in the big name roles. It's interesting. It's based in 2010 yet the film is shot in this almost kind of sepia tone style that honestly doesn't work for me. It seemed like towards the end the look of the film eased up a bit and you saw some more colors which made no sense. I think that was a huge misstep by Polley to saturate the look. It doesn't give it any gravitas or prestige. Just makes it look like a shitty TV production. She should have known better and I think she does because it was ridiculed online and she still stuck with her praise for it and doubled down on it. Also, it feels a bit overly long even at one hour and 44 minutes. It feels like the women go over the same thing in the barn loft over and over and though it's meant to look like they are debating and challenging each other, it just ends up looking weak. Even the end is a bit disappointing. They decide to leave, spoilers, and it just has no cohesion. They leave but what happens? I feel like I invested a ton of time to only have no payoff. I get what Polley is doing and I respect it, but you need to deliver a compelling story and film and not just tell people to accept it as is. That sounds terrible to Polley, but I mean that the audience should do the least work and the ending should never be suggested unless the ending is cemented. I fully expect someone to call me out on that with multiple examples and I welcome that because I want to see those! It's an interesting film but it flounders in execution and just could be so much better with the talent involved. I won't even get in to why the hell is Wishaw's character still hanging around if he is a man of that colony and would seemingly know what's happening. Too many unanswered questions and I don't get why Polley won a Screenplay award for this.
I love that we are continuing to have a diverse group of nominees in this category. The change to a permanent 10 nominee group has done wonders for the ceremony. We get to celebrate the big blockbusters along with smaller, more quiet films. We get to see more foreign films finally being rewarded and also get to see a wild, out of nowhere film win Best Picture. EEAAO was clearly the winner all season long but it absolutely deserved the win. You will never find another film like this in Oscar history unless the Daniels do something even more crazy and get back to this stage. All Quiet on the Western Front is a great adaptation of a story that already won Best Picture almost a century ago now. I love war films like this and it really was a brutal depiction of what it can be and quite possibly could have won in a weaker year. Elvis was just a lot of fun lead by Austin Butler's terrific performance. I love hearing the songs and see the Baz Lurhmann visuals along with the King. Top Gun: Maverick is what sequels should be. It keeps the soul of the original and tries to recapture all of that with a modernized story. I could watch the fighter jet sequences all day and Tom Cruise knows that, and that is why this formula works so well. Tar is a really well made film that probably is the best work we have seen from Cate Blanchett, which is truly amazing considering all of her output. Todd Field makes elevated, adult themed work, as in more intellectual and pulling no punches, not racy. This is the film that could possibly creep up the list with more watches as it feels like it has more lasting power with the Sight and Sound type of folks. The Banshees of Inisherin was interesting to watch. I don't think this film grabbed me the way it seemed to grab other people who adored it. It's original and thought provoking with some great acting, but it just never fully quite pushed the spot in my brain to make me love it. Triangle of Sadness is a very wild ride that while it may not say anything too deep about its themes and critiques of society, it's fun to see them lampooned in a very dark way. The Fabelmans was so incredibly disappointing. Though I guess I should wonder why we got excited about a film based on Spielberg's childhood anyway. There's not a lot that's interesting about it or the characters. There are some fantastic moments sprinkled throughout the film, but not enough to make this more than a check the box viewing for completing Spielberg's filmography. Women Talking, ugh. The women say the same thing over and over again and there's not any satisfactory pay off. It's short and boring and doesn't feel like it belongs on this list at all. Avatar: The Way of Water, the less I say about this franchise, the better. Overall, a decent collection of different types of films. Probably a bit top heavy for this year compared to some others, but I'm sure everyone can find something they love here. I'm just finally ready to move on from this year.
Oscar Winner: Everything Everywhere All at Once
My Winner: Everything Everywhere All at Once
All Quiet on the Western Front
Elvis
Top Gun: Maverick
Tar
The Banshees of Inisherin
Triangle of Sadness
The Fabelmans
Women Talking
Avatar: The Way of Water
No comments:
Post a Comment