I think Poor Things was my favorite film of the year - but then I'm a Tony McNamara head and was constantly evangelizing for The Great. I know there were a lot of mixed reviews about it but it was so damn funny and in your face and feminist IMO. And I thought the production design was as good as Barbie's.
Emma was god-level but Lily was outstanding so I'm pulling for her cuz I know Emma will continue to get so many amazing roles and scripts and will almost certainly win another Oscar in her career - I can't say I'm sure Lily will get another opportunity. I liked Killers more than you did - and that ending was stupendous - but I haven't rewatched.
As for The Holdovers - I find myself a bit more lukewarm than most on this film. It's lovely, but not an Oscar winner IMO. It just didn't feel as fresh as something like Poor Things or even Barbie does. Great performances tho - Divine is wonderful (and I love her in High Fidelity!) but I also thought Cessa was a revelation.
By the way, does anyone think Sandra Huller might pull an upset and beat both Emma and Lily?
I'm honestly baffled at how relatively little that ambiguity in Poor Things is being talked about. Many folks who love the movie just refuse to see it as ambiguity to begin with and insist that having any concern about it is a bad faith reading of the movie. There is obviously a lot to admire and enjoy about the film (I sure did), but by the end of the movie I was stunned that it clearly wasn't going to actually address or flesh out the tensions it had set up. It's not even a matter of resolving the ambiguity, but at the very least taking it seriously -- which it didn't. Either it tried and failed to create a robust conversation around abuse and consent, or it didn't try at all and just thoughtlessly reproduced the "born sexy yesterday" trope under the guise of a very male gazey conception of feminist empowerment.
The Zone of Interest is not gruesome or violent so much as its just unsettling. Glazer foregrounds the Nazi's mundane, horrible day-to-day while the horror is happening out of frame, but there are also constant reminders of it. It's exceptionally effective.
The way Glazer filmed the scenes in the house as almost a "fly on the wall" documentary, just made it hit so hard for me. That these were people living normal lives, while at the same time having a view point that is beyond sickening
I've seen all but American Fiction, and I put Anatomy of a Fall first, just above Oppenheimer. It's excellent, and I found the discussions and situations regarding language very thought provoking.
FWIW, Oscars are starting at 7pm this year (in part, because there's a new ABBOTT ELEMENTARY as a lead-out), plus it's the start of DST so it'll feel like 6pm, so ... you have a chance to make it this year!
Honestly, I don't care that much. Four years ago, I was taking care of a sick family member on Oscar night, and realized I didn't miss watching. The overwhelming weight of the precursor awards has taken almost all the fun out of watching the actual ceremony.
If I watch anything long that night, it'll be another movie,
Yeah, there's certainly no surprise left in the major categories other than Best Actress, and the speech I most want to see (RDJ) will be relatively early in the evening. That and the "I'm Just Ken" performance are really the only two things I'm eager about.
It's just so weird that every precursor electorate is voting chalk.
Because a few of the precursors split comedy and drama, there was at least briefly a sense of a two-man race between Giamatti and Murphy. But that's long gone. Stone vs Gladstone is really the only one of the big six awards that isn't 100% locked down, and it seems as if Gladstone is around 80%, if not higher. So the next most prominent awards that *might* be surprising are in screenplay.
And, again, watching an actual movie — whether one of the nominees or something else on my list — just feels like a better use of my time. If I wasn't professionally obligated, I also wouldn't watch the Emmys again, even when the ceremony is a good one like this year's.
This is a good point. If you've followed the myriad awards that have come before this one then you know what will win the major categories and that takes some of the fun away from the show. I want Paul Giamatti to win but he won't.
Yes, and then I saw further coverage that suggested the similarities are very superficial, with someone suggesting that both films are basically structured like Scent of a Woman, among many others.
We haven’t started the second season of Extraordinary yet here at Casa Arben but greatly enjoyed the first. Máiréad Tyers would honestly be enough to keep us watching, even absent other clever stuff and despite our not being great fans of British cringe humor (didn’t make it through Such Brave Girls despite it being very good at what it does) or, really, cringe humor in general. Jen at her worst pushes sympathy but that’s obviously, well, super human.
Second one first, most of the great BP fields that instantly come to mind are either from before I was born (1962) or when I was too young to notice or care (1975, 1982). And, much like everyone's favorite SNL cast is from when they were in high school, my favorite ceremonies were the Billy Crystal hosted ones in the 90s, which was my formative Oscar-viewing era.
The AMPAS and SAG keep showing their collective asses when they can't award or nominate films like Barbie for top awards. They're ultimately still old, conservative, mostly white and male-focused in their thinking, which is why Scorsese was nominated for Best Director and Gerwig was not. I love Scorsese but he didn't deserve it this year. Gerwig absolutely did.
The Oscars still aren’t perfect, but far much better than a decade ago. Each guild’s members nominate in their own category so the directors preferred the international directors over Greta which follows recent trends.
The DGA has always been fairly conservative, very white, and very sexist, there are zero excuses for the DGA anymore. I'm not convinced the AMPAS as a whole is really progressing so much as just trying to placate their critics.
Curious. Haven't watched Oppenheimer. Know the story pretty well from what I recall of the PBS Sam Watterson-starring series from 1980, the Richard Rhodes book and various Feynman long reads. I understand the grand scale of the film-making is - as you note - one of the reasons to see it in a theater or better yet iMax. But is it worth seeing for the story it tells if it's familiar? Thanks for the discussion of Extraordinary. Sounds like it's worth checking out.
There's also the excellent Manhattan series, where Oppenheimer was a minor character while the focus was on fictionalized versions of supporting figures from the movie. (Christopher Denham even plays the same role in both projects!) I think the filmmaking and the performances would be the main reasons to watch it, which would necessitate a big screen viewing. (I didn't see it in IMAX, but at least saw it in a theater.) As alluded to, I'm not sure the structure of it worked for me, though. And if you care most about story, and you know this story well, then maybe not.
Thanks. And appreciate the reminder of Manhattan that I also enjoyed. And interestingly I wonder if 40 years is a magic number for resurrecting projects. There was a Brian Dennehy Manhattan Project TV movie in the 80s (with David Straithern as Oppenheimer). And Shogun remake is 40 years out. (As an aside is there a better role for thin good actors than Oppenheimer? Surprised David Clennon never got a shot (Miles Drentell and my favorite, the Geology professor in the From the Earth to the Moon episode, Galilleo Was Right).
I have described Poor Things as insane brilliance.
I think Poor Things was my favorite film of the year - but then I'm a Tony McNamara head and was constantly evangelizing for The Great. I know there were a lot of mixed reviews about it but it was so damn funny and in your face and feminist IMO. And I thought the production design was as good as Barbie's.
Emma was god-level but Lily was outstanding so I'm pulling for her cuz I know Emma will continue to get so many amazing roles and scripts and will almost certainly win another Oscar in her career - I can't say I'm sure Lily will get another opportunity. I liked Killers more than you did - and that ending was stupendous - but I haven't rewatched.
As for The Holdovers - I find myself a bit more lukewarm than most on this film. It's lovely, but not an Oscar winner IMO. It just didn't feel as fresh as something like Poor Things or even Barbie does. Great performances tho - Divine is wonderful (and I love her in High Fidelity!) but I also thought Cessa was a revelation.
By the way, does anyone think Sandra Huller might pull an upset and beat both Emma and Lily?
I'm honestly baffled at how relatively little that ambiguity in Poor Things is being talked about. Many folks who love the movie just refuse to see it as ambiguity to begin with and insist that having any concern about it is a bad faith reading of the movie. There is obviously a lot to admire and enjoy about the film (I sure did), but by the end of the movie I was stunned that it clearly wasn't going to actually address or flesh out the tensions it had set up. It's not even a matter of resolving the ambiguity, but at the very least taking it seriously -- which it didn't. Either it tried and failed to create a robust conversation around abuse and consent, or it didn't try at all and just thoughtlessly reproduced the "born sexy yesterday" trope under the guise of a very male gazey conception of feminist empowerment.
Many women critics have talked about the consent issues and the many problems with the movie, fwiw.
I would highly recommend the Zone of Interest and if you can put the sound up very loud. The sound is a character all by itself!
I'm not sure I have the emotional fortitude for that one at the moment. Anatomy of a Fall is definitely the more likely gap for me to fill in.
The Zone of Interest is not gruesome or violent so much as its just unsettling. Glazer foregrounds the Nazi's mundane, horrible day-to-day while the horror is happening out of frame, but there are also constant reminders of it. It's exceptionally effective.
The way Glazer filmed the scenes in the house as almost a "fly on the wall" documentary, just made it hit so hard for me. That these were people living normal lives, while at the same time having a view point that is beyond sickening
I've seen all but American Fiction, and I put Anatomy of a Fall first, just above Oppenheimer. It's excellent, and I found the discussions and situations regarding language very thought provoking.
Totally, totally understand, but even it you have to wait I while I would still watch.
I so wanted to watch it before the awards but the fact that it's not streaming yet has been a barrier IMO
FWIW, Oscars are starting at 7pm this year (in part, because there's a new ABBOTT ELEMENTARY as a lead-out), plus it's the start of DST so it'll feel like 6pm, so ... you have a chance to make it this year!
Honestly, I don't care that much. Four years ago, I was taking care of a sick family member on Oscar night, and realized I didn't miss watching. The overwhelming weight of the precursor awards has taken almost all the fun out of watching the actual ceremony.
If I watch anything long that night, it'll be another movie,
Yeah, there's certainly no surprise left in the major categories other than Best Actress, and the speech I most want to see (RDJ) will be relatively early in the evening. That and the "I'm Just Ken" performance are really the only two things I'm eager about.
It's just so weird that every precursor electorate is voting chalk.
Because a few of the precursors split comedy and drama, there was at least briefly a sense of a two-man race between Giamatti and Murphy. But that's long gone. Stone vs Gladstone is really the only one of the big six awards that isn't 100% locked down, and it seems as if Gladstone is around 80%, if not higher. So the next most prominent awards that *might* be surprising are in screenplay.
And, again, watching an actual movie — whether one of the nominees or something else on my list — just feels like a better use of my time. If I wasn't professionally obligated, I also wouldn't watch the Emmys again, even when the ceremony is a good one like this year's.
There are some quite knowledgeable folks who think Huller might pull an upset...
This is a good point. If you've followed the myriad awards that have come before this one then you know what will win the major categories and that takes some of the fun away from the show. I want Paul Giamatti to win but he won't.
Hi Alan, did you see the article in Variety about The Holdovers potentially being heavily plagiarized?
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/the-holdovers-accused-plagiarism-luca-writer-1235935605/
If so, it's very disappointing for such a good film :(
Yes, and then I saw further coverage that suggested the similarities are very superficial, with someone suggesting that both films are basically structured like Scent of a Woman, among many others.
That's great if so, I was worried as it's been on my bucket list to watch :)
We haven’t started the second season of Extraordinary yet here at Casa Arben but greatly enjoyed the first. Máiréad Tyers would honestly be enough to keep us watching, even absent other clever stuff and despite our not being great fans of British cringe humor (didn’t make it through Such Brave Girls despite it being very good at what it does) or, really, cringe humor in general. Jen at her worst pushes sympathy but that’s obviously, well, super human.
Alan, a couple Oscar questions -
1. What are your favorite Oscar ceremonies?
2. What are your favorite years of Best Picture nominees?
Second one first, most of the great BP fields that instantly come to mind are either from before I was born (1962) or when I was too young to notice or care (1975, 1982). And, much like everyone's favorite SNL cast is from when they were in high school, my favorite ceremonies were the Billy Crystal hosted ones in the 90s, which was my formative Oscar-viewing era.
The AMPAS and SAG keep showing their collective asses when they can't award or nominate films like Barbie for top awards. They're ultimately still old, conservative, mostly white and male-focused in their thinking, which is why Scorsese was nominated for Best Director and Gerwig was not. I love Scorsese but he didn't deserve it this year. Gerwig absolutely did.
The Oscars still aren’t perfect, but far much better than a decade ago. Each guild’s members nominate in their own category so the directors preferred the international directors over Greta which follows recent trends.
The DGA has always been fairly conservative, very white, and very sexist, there are zero excuses for the DGA anymore. I'm not convinced the AMPAS as a whole is really progressing so much as just trying to placate their critics.
I still want to watch Poor Things, but my current ranking of personal enjoyment of the Best Picture noms is:
Oppenheimer
American Fiction
Barbie
Killers of the Flower Moon
The Holdovers
Maestro
Curious. Haven't watched Oppenheimer. Know the story pretty well from what I recall of the PBS Sam Watterson-starring series from 1980, the Richard Rhodes book and various Feynman long reads. I understand the grand scale of the film-making is - as you note - one of the reasons to see it in a theater or better yet iMax. But is it worth seeing for the story it tells if it's familiar? Thanks for the discussion of Extraordinary. Sounds like it's worth checking out.
There's also the excellent Manhattan series, where Oppenheimer was a minor character while the focus was on fictionalized versions of supporting figures from the movie. (Christopher Denham even plays the same role in both projects!) I think the filmmaking and the performances would be the main reasons to watch it, which would necessitate a big screen viewing. (I didn't see it in IMAX, but at least saw it in a theater.) As alluded to, I'm not sure the structure of it worked for me, though. And if you care most about story, and you know this story well, then maybe not.
Thanks. And appreciate the reminder of Manhattan that I also enjoyed. And interestingly I wonder if 40 years is a magic number for resurrecting projects. There was a Brian Dennehy Manhattan Project TV movie in the 80s (with David Straithern as Oppenheimer). And Shogun remake is 40 years out. (As an aside is there a better role for thin good actors than Oppenheimer? Surprised David Clennon never got a shot (Miles Drentell and my favorite, the Geology professor in the From the Earth to the Moon episode, Galilleo Was Right).