It's been a rough year in terms of trying to see them all, but almost there. It's a little easier because I started using Letterboxd and wrote reviews there (some of them are not very good, my apologies). For now I am just cutting and pasting them and maybe adding some light edits. Feel free to follow me there, and I would love to follow you as well.
Conclave
A couple years ago, Women Talking was the surprise Best Picture nomination that almost everyone knew wasn't going to win. Now, we have Conclave, which could just as well be Men Talking.
It is based on a novel and it is not about the passing of John Paul II, as I initially and erroneously assumed. I also do not think it is meant to be a glimpse into the future, but an exploration of our present moment.
Some may take issue with the plot, or the pacing of the film, and that would be fair. Frankly it would seem that Conclave, part two, might be the much more interesting movie.
But this is a meditative film, more interested in exploring characters fulfilling their duties while tending to their own private crises of faith. It is anchored by two very strong performances by Ralph Fiennes and Stanley Tucci. John Lithgow is also good (though not given quite enough to do) in a supporting role.
The scenery and art direction and production design of the Vatican is flawless. The movie will probably make you want to go to Rome. And you should. When they reform the Catholic church the next time and decide to take a cue from from their counterparts in synagogues, all confirmed Catholics should get a birthright trip there. And the film will be screened in seminary schools everywhere.
Like Women Talking, it would also make an excellent play. I think it all turns out fine in the end, but there must be those that feel differently, and hearing why would likely be as illuminating as the film itself. One of its virtues is that it can lead to such conversations.
Emilia Perez
This is Best Picture nominee this year that is getting the most hate. It does not deserve it, for the reasons it is getting it, but it is just O.K. I liked it better than I thought I would. But not that much.
Some people have no idea what it is about but hate it just because it's a story about gender transitioning. It's not based off a true story, as far as I know, and there are definitely some moments that truly strain credulity. (The whole idea of not being open and honest with wife and kids is essentially the tragedy of the story.)
Basically, it is "Transparent" the movie, the musical, transplanted to Mexico, with a hint of "Breaking Bad." The person that wants to be a woman is a cartel boss. He (she? There is some degree of dead-naming, and the movie is not so overly precious about trans foibles in ways that give the deplorables of our society ammunition for mockery--a good thing in my honest opinion because realistic--but probably a bad thing, too, according to activists, or at least my idea of some of them) achieves it and becomes Emilia Perez.
The woman that helps find the doctor to do the surgery is Zoe Saldana, and her performance is rightfully lauded. She is the best part of the movie, unquestionably. I sort of hated the musical element of the movie, but of all the actors forced into semi-singing their lines, she does the best, keeping it both light and heavy at the appropriate times. Maybe it's just because she plays a lawyer, but I found her the most "lovable" and I think everyone else will feel the same (I didn't think it was that funny, except when she sang the pseudo-song---because that is what they are---that has the line about why she won't open her own firm).
Selena Gomez is secondarily good, but she is tasked with the unenviable role of the abandoned wife and mother and the villainess (the part of the film that is totally misbegotten and icky). It's a shame because she shows she does appear to have "acting chops." Regardless it seems like a breakout film role (I hadn't really seen her in anything since her outrageous "adult debut" in Spring Breakers, a superior film in nearly every aspect) and she should rightfully get better roles.
She does the best she can, and I think this movie is interesting and engaging and could be compelling, but has a few missteps that made me care a bit less about the characters--except Zoe who holds the entire movie together, lending it the credibility to make it the record-breaking (or tying, with Titanic?) Oscar nominee it is. The fact that it did that is frankly ridiculous and so the Academy is to be blamed for unintentionally rolling back progress by elevating it, if that makes sense.
If it wins, it will be the worst winner since Crash, and actually, even more worse. Note that this isn't really a "woke" film and that people should actually watch it before assuming it is. Ironically the trans haters should love this movie, since it clearly depicts how terrible of an idea it was for Emilia. But they probably won't give it the time of day.
It deserves 2, and I'm giving it 2.5 to be charitable to Zoe, and the boldness of the conceit. If not a musical, and if not a narcotics industry story, and if more realistic about the process of transitioning, it would be closer to best picture territory, or at least 4 stars on Letterboxd territory. This is not the film trans people deserve, and unfortunately comes at a time when they need the best representation they can get, because of all the idiots in our country saying horrible things that make me want to throw up. Kudos to Zoe and this performance should put her (and Gomez to an extent) into a higher category of projects, but I will be surprised if there is a lesser best picture nominee this year, on the whole.
The Substance
I don't think this deserves to win Best Picture, but I am glad it got nominated. It's a pretty inventive and original horror film, and probably the first distinct entry in the "body horror" genre to gain Academy recognition. I felt slightly underwhelmed, and maybe because it was overhyped. That said, I think it is better than Emilia Perez, but not quite as good as Conclave (I also gave Conclave 4 stars, however, and this was the most entertaining of the three, by far).
Demi Moore should win best actress, in part because she "goes for it" in a way that I haven't seen anyone else this year apart from Amy Adams in Nightbitch, and in part for career recognition. Without her, this movie wouldn't be as big a deal. Her performance is vulnerable and beautiful.
The issue I have is the satire and the one-dimensionality of the other characters. This is likely intentional but it made for a very unpleasant and disturbing narrative. There are not many roles apart from Moore, Qualley and Quaid. Quaid plays such a caricature, and while his manic energy and shamelessness are compelling, the hostility towards Moore is too extreme. This is a satire for sure but taking it a step or two closer to reality would have pushed it to 4.5 star territory. (Call it the Sorry to Bother You problem.)
It is regardless quite an achievement and Moore is justly lauded for her work. She has stepped away from the limelight over the past decade or two, and this is a stunning return. Perhaps the best thing is what it may inspire in the viewer: acceptance of our bodies. I think you will be very grateful that yours is "untouched" after watching. And maybe it will be an inspiration to feel more confident and take bigger swings, so to speak.
A Complete Unknown
Of the 4 nominees, I've seen so far, this was better than The Substance, Conclave and Emilia Perez. I almost want to give it 5 stars but stopping just short because (a) it's Oscar bait and (b) it's a bit cliched and while it definitely explains why "going electric" was so controversial, I just have a hard time believing the reaction was as harsh as it was (I don't doubt he had things thrown at him, but the audience really must have been a bunch of cranks not interested in change).
Without looking at the Best Actor nominees, Chalamet has to be a strong contender. For some reason I feel like The Brutalist has Adrien Brody in that category and think he may edge it out, but I have a hard time imagining the performance will actually be better. What Chalamet does is perhaps not as impressive as what Cate Blanchett did in Tár, but it is very close. Arguably more impressive because Bob Dylan is very real. Frankly, he's better than Austin Butler was as Elvis, or Rami Malek was as Freddy Mercury, and this is a better film than either (still haven't seen Rocketman but willing to bet this is better, too). He is about as good as Joaquin Phoenix was in Walk the Line.
Edward Norton is also great, as are the two female leads. Mostly, however, it is Chalamet playing and singing the songs that makes it really special. I've always liked him, but am now astounded by his talent. I've never really gotten into Dylan, but this also serves as a great primer into his catalog--it's like a collection of greatest hits, lovingly interpreted. Despite my limited knowledge of his song catalog, many of these were familiar.
In short, I was surprised by how much I liked it, and how moving I found it (the scenes with Woody Guthrie may have led to some involuntary tears).
Side note: the potential for a monologue joke about--I'm Still Here (Best Picture/Best International Feature nominee)/I'm Not There (previous Bob Dylan movie by Todd Haynes--where highlight was also Cate Blanchett)/I'm Still Here (Joaquin Phoenix movie)/Joker: Folie a Deux (no 2nd nomination for Phoenix)/Walk the Line (and Phoenix not appearing as Johnny Cash here, though the actor in this did a great job)/Phoenix leaving new Todd Haynes movie production--could be truly epic and wish I could submit something. But it's more of an oddly tangled web of movie titles and connections than a punchline.
Suffice to say, Chalamet does about as well as he can here, compared to Malek doing Mercury, Phoenix doing Cash, or Foxx doing Ray. If he doesn't win, it'll be because of Brody, but also because there wasn't an addiction subplot.
Dune: Part Two
Dune 2 is perfectly passable, and a great demonstration of technical effects. It's not groundbreaking like Star Wars or Jurassic Park or Forrest Gump or Avatar or Titanic or whatever, but it should win the category.
Beyond that, it's part of a trilogy (in a way--there is one more coming, I think) which gives it the Lord of the Rings problem or the Avatar problem. LOTR won for film #3, and I think Dune is totally on par with those (though not quite the first Stars Wars movies, on par with the best of the next 6--and I feel like when David Lynch adapted it, the "space opera" element could have made it feel like a ripoff cash grab--but we know that is far from the case now). I don't think Dune 2 will win, and I expect Dune: Messiah to be every bit as good as the first two (this one is just as good as the first, and probably better), but I don't think it will win best picture unless 2026 is a weak year for movies. Frankly, I'd be a bit shocked.
Nor should this win this year just because Chalamet's other film about Bob Dylan is a more obvious choice, which I also felt was better than this. In that film, he proved that he truly has a singular talent and dedication to the craft on the level of some of the other great actors of our time (Cate Blanchett, Joaquin Phoenix, etc.). Here, he proves he is fully capable of anchoring a movie as an action star. To be sure, he has plenty of help, and the cast seems even more star-studded than the first. But this was weirder (the water of life sequences) and a better development of the story.
However, I still don't quite understand what I saw, and would need to watch both films again to better assess. I also regret not seeing it on the big screen. Like the next Avatar, even though I am not that excited for either, I will make a point to see each in the theater. Whatever the case, it's a great achievment and, from what I'm told, an adaptation par excellence of the original books, a fitting tribute to the author Frank Herbert, and a true realization of his vision.
Anora
I want to give this 5 stars bad. But something holds me back. Maybe I'm just fishing for a criticism, and maybe it's out of jealousy. Because there's nothing terribly impossible about making a movie like this, even if Sean Baker's film budget has leveled up.
In short, he fully delivers on the promise that critics always saw in his work. This is a great movie from beginning to end, and my favorite so far of the nominees (6 down, 4 to go).
It's totally original despite being a familiar trope. It's hilarious and beautiful and sad. It's very *adult* and even though it only gets an R rating, it is the least family-friendly in the group (The Substance is right behind it). That's the only thing that makes me think it may not win, but it reminded me of an "edgy" film like Pulp Fiction getting nominated and though that did not win, it would not be surprising if this did. It's totally fun and entertaining, but has kind of a strange ending. A bit disturbing. Maybe that's the 1/2 star knock. It felt like it was part of a different movie. But I guess it makes sense, and ends on a rather melancholy and moving note. I do not think the right actor was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but the recognition is deserving as well. I watched it twice and while it didn't blow my mind as much the second time, there was a definite reason to revisit at least once. This film has a ton of heat and people are saying Sean Baker will edge out Brady Corbet. I have a hard time saying it will win Best Picture for sure (see next review), but I think if one is playing the odds and doesn't care about personal integrity of taste, money would be on it.
The Brutalist
It's hard to say whether The Brutalist is better than Anora or A Complete Unknown--I've given each of them 4.5 stars. Each of them flirted with 5 stars. It's fair to say that this is the most elegantly constructed of the three.
It's one of the longest movies I've ever seen, and that will likely be the case for many. Perhaps Killers of the Flower Moon was slightly longer. Seeing it in the theater with the "director-approved" intermission was a special experience and I am glad I did not opt for the convenience of streaming.
This is a beautiful film in nearly every respect. The acting is superb. The script is ambitious and tight--for such a long movie, there are few wasted words. The opening sequence is immediately iconic, with a voiceover of a letter, quoting Goethe, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” No epigraph could better represent the entire thrust of the picture. This serves as its thesis.
I loved basically everything about the movie and I only don't give it 5 stars because of something that would be a spoiler that I do not care to describe. It is undoubtedly the climax of the film and it's hard to explain but generally feels like something of a cop-out to me. After such a grand production of art on the highest level, it is reduced to a plot device to manufacture drama and resolution. This is probably the point, and even if I think it could have made a Bigger Statement, the epilogue redeems it to a degree, and further illuminates the depth of the film.
I am not confident that it will win Best Picture, at all. At least two of the others stretch towards its heights, but ultimately do not reach them. In good conscience, I should pick what I truly believe is the best, though I may lose the family ballot contest. There are still three left for me to see, and it will be a tall order for any of them to eclipse this.
Nickel Boys
jackknorps’s review published on Letterboxd:
This is a "searing drama" that was probably the slowest of the Best Picture nominees, which is saying something when The Brutalist is included in that group. That said, sometimes the best movies are those that put one in a somnambulant state, where sadness and melancholy feel comfortable, and drifting off does not feel unpleasant.
That's not to say Nickel Boys is boring--it just moves slowly and doesn't fully reveal itself until the end, and the way the twist is teased out is masterful. There are also numerous moments that stretch towards greater cinematic heights, and are extremely moving. I almost want to use the adjective "Terence Malickian."
This is a true story and definitely the hardest watch of the BP group. Of course, The Brutalist is about a Holocaust survivor. Yet the reformatory school depicted here is not dissimilar to a concentration camp in the Jim Crow era-South, particularly shocking since the main events take place in mid-1960s.
Point-of-View is emphasized in this movie in a way I haven't seen in many others. This works sometimes and other times feels limiting. It has a point. I think this is one of the nominees that would improve on subsequent viewings, but it is difficult to want to subject oneself to the misery of the proceedings.
Generally speaking, this is a film comprised of powerful moments and scenes (the grandmother is fantastic, and the friendship between Turner and Elwood is beautiful), but it feels very sketchy and vague, perhaps necessarily since it has a PG-13 rating and does not go for the graphic jugular, so to speak (most of the horrifying abuse is kept offscreen or hinted at). For example, I needed to look up on Wikipedia why the "climax" of the film has to happen, but I pretty much got it.
In the end, this could be another example of a Black Lives Matter story--though just saying that may trigger some people and want to dismiss it as propaganda. But after The Underground Railroad and this, it's quite clear that Colson Whitehead is responsible for some of the most powerful work over the last two decades. It's not propaganda, we just tend to forget about these stories (Whitehead became aware of the school in 2014, and it had been closed in 2011 after 110 years). There is probably going to be a movie about similar "schools" for indigenous children in Canada in the coming years. These horrifying stories are fortunately things of the past, but of course, in our present day and age, with a good portion of the population succumbing to DL bigotry, it sadly bears repeating. I'm not giving it 5 or even 4.5 stars, though it probably deserves that. I am just judging off how engaged I was, and maybe many others will want to look away too, but that doesn't make it any less powerful or important. The same cannot be said for many of the other nominees, which are trifling in comparison. Depictions of joy in this film are few and far between, which is to be expected. It is probably better than Sleepers, but it is probably not as good as The Shawshank Redemption, though it definitely has vibes of the latter. Some people still consider that one of the greatest films ever, and anyone that does should see this, too.
I'm Still Here
This is a good example of a movie that I wouldn't have seen if it was only lumped into the Best International Feature category. As such, it sits with Emilia Perez in both that category and Best Picture, and this is, in fact, the better picture of the two. I won't be totally surprised if EP wins Best International due to its number of nominations but I'm picking Zoe and look at Killers of the Flower Moon last year--even the best film can get totally shut out.
This is about Brazil in 1970. I dont know where the term "disappeared" emerged, but this would stand as the film par excellence that mines that concept and really shows the impact it can have on loved ones. Fernanda Torres puts on an unbelievable performance, again stacking the Best Actress category with at least 3 strongly deserving contenders. It's a beautiful film in so many ways and will probably make you cry. It's the hardest watch in the category besides Nickel Boys (The Substance is a tough watch for different reasons, and so is The Brutalist).
I went into it knowing as little as possible and recommend that if you also know almost nothing, that you keep it that way and see it. It's absolutely worth watching and a triumph not only for the filmmakers but the family at the center--this is just about the most beautiful tribute that could be made.
Wicked
Wicked is the origin story for the Wicked Witch of the West, whose name is apparently Elphaba. She is born with green skin and has a disabled younger sister in a wheelchair (Nessarose). They both end up at Shiz, which basically feels like Hogwarts, and she mets Galinda there. They have a goat for a professor. She also had a nanny named Dulcibear, who is a talking bear.
At first, this was my problem with the movie. It seemed fairly traditional and recognizable in comparison to the original, except for the talking animals. This is a prequel, however, and the yellow brick road has not even been laid yet. The Wizard of Oz was always kind of a dark movie in spite of being family-friendly. This definitely retains that element. There is a conspiracy to get rid of all of the talking animals. This actually has a rather complicated plot that I can't fully recall. But by the end we meet the Wizard and see how the monkeys at the Emerald Palace sprout wings and Elphaba gets her hat and broomstick. I won't spoil why she is summoned or what happens there.
I don't think this is a movie one watches for the story. This is a musical, and it is all about the songs and emotion behind them. Both Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande deserve their nominations. They probably could not have done a better job in casting. This is an adorable movie in a lot of places. Ariana basically takes pains to look as adorable as possible in every single shot.
I just don't really know what I saw. I know Galinda becomes Glinda, but I am wondering what happened to the Wicked Witch of the East. Perhaps she was referenced, but I may have missed it. If not, it is a missed opportunity. But this is a 2.5 hour Part One as it is. (Maybe in Part Two, Nessarose will become her?)
We only see hints at who Elphaba will become. She is essentially a good person, and various things happen to her that make her wicked. I would imagine Part Two would be a bit more fun as that develops.
Basically, I need to see it again to better assess, because I didn't understand what was happening most of the time. A few of the songs are great, and visually it is quite stunning. It felt somewhat hollow to me is all. But it made me think about the original and wonder why the Witch wanted those red slippers in the first place. Maybe I have just never been paying attention. I think the original does actually make sense, however, and this mostly confused me. Regardless, the entire closing sequence is fantastic and it justifies its many nominations on the basis of being a spectacle like there hasn't been in years. It's probably the most popular musical of all time now, and the movie will only deepen its legacy.
