Wonder Woman 1984 Is A Fever Dream Of Neon & Spandex That Never Figures Itself Out

 

The original Wonder Woman was a triumph of a motion picture.  It was the first superhero movie to feature a woman in the lead and it felt special.  It was the antithesis to the slate of DC Universe films that had come out.  Whereas Man Of Steel and Batman V. Superman were dark and dreary, Wonder Woman was filled with life and wonderment.  Gal Gadot shined as the titular character in a bit of a fish out of water story set during the first World War.  Chris Pine was fantastic as her love interest.  The film didn't cut any corners in terms of storytelling for the sake of special effects.  It's for these reasons that I was so excited for the follow-up, now set in the 1980s (because when in doubt, set it in the 80s).  After setting through the 150-minute retro trip and having the evening to think it over, I can say that I'm mostly disappointed.  With few exceptions WW84 doesn't capture any of the original film's magic.  It seems to exist only because the first film made eleventy-billion dollars and a sequel was necessary.  That's not to say that it's an outright terrible movie.  I actually enjoyed the wacky nature of the film.  But overall, it was a letdown.

Through the first half of the film, I kept asking myself why they bothered to call it "Wonder Woman 1984" since it's relatively Wonder Woman free.  It was an odd choice, for sure.  Gadot's character is apparently miserable living on her own, having lost Pine's character in World War I.  She works for the Smithsonian Institution (NOT Institute like it was listed in the credits... My sister works for them and wanted me to point this out) as an investigator of supernatural relics from the past.  Kristin Wiig, who appears as a dorky assistant who everyone looks over, comes across a mysterious stone that appears to grant wishes.  Not soon after this discovery does she not so surprisingly turn into an 80s vixen.  Her transformation seems a little disappointing as she basically loses her glasses and starts wearing high heels.  This transformation feels like it was written by a man, so it's a little disappointing to realize that the director, Patty Jenkins, had a hand in crafting this story.  She also gets a bit of Wonder Woman's strength, which confusingly leads her down a path towards becoming the "Cheetah," one of the villains in the film.  She was wasted in this role.  Her comedic talents weren't used enough and her heel turn wasn't strong enough to live on its own.  She seemed to be going through the motions too much in this one. The other villain in this film is played in sweaty glory by The Mandalorian's Pedro Pascal, complete with Donald Trump haircut.  He's a wannabe oil tycoon who uses the stone to take grant wishes and gain power (confused?  Yeah, me too).  What results from this is a somewhat disjointed story around the globe as Wonder Woman (though mostly in her civilian clothes) is trying to chase down the stone to overturn its powers.    It's a 2 and a half hour story that probably could have been 90 minutes and one villain less.

That's not to say that the movie was a complete wash.  I rather enjoyed the inarguable chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine (who is inexplicably brought back from the dead for this one).  There's a couple fun scenes where Pine is getting used to being in the 80s (though Marvel did it better with Captain America), and an almost too long montage of him trying on 80s clothing.  There's also a beautiful scene where they fly through fireworks in an invisible plane.  There's also a couple excellent action sequences, but those are too few and far between.

I'm not quite sure why this film was set in the 1980s other than to cash in on the Stranger Things nostalgia train.  We've already seen Wonder Woman in the present day with the other DC Universe films and I found her more convincing in those.  If they were using this to give her more back story then I guess it worked.  Overall, Wonder Woman 1984 seemed far too close to the other DC Universe films instead of a positive follow-up to the stellar original film.  It wasn't zany enough for it to work that way (Aquaman did WTF better than this one) and it wasn't serious enough to work that way either.  It was a well-intentioned swing and miss.

On The Rocks Doesn't Know What It Wants To Be

 

Last night I had the opportunity to view the latest straight to streaming movie of 2020, On The Rocks, directed by Sofia Coppola.  On its face, it had a lot going for it.  A talented director.  A stellar cast (featuring the first collaboration between Bill Murray and Coppola since Lost In Translation).  And, a decently interesting trailer.  Going in my hopes were high with this one. Not only was I getting to watch a new movie in a time where we every movie is socially distancing itself into 2021 or later, but it was a movie from a director I highly admire.  Say what you will about Coppola, but she has a certain style that I enjoy, and her movies are always interesting because of it.  However, I have to admit that On The Rocks doesn't live up to its billing.  It's a rather lifeless wannabe rom-com devoid of style or substance.  It's filled with things and scenes I feel like I've seen a million times before.

On The Rocks stars Rashida Jones and Marlon Waynes as a couple in a rut.  They've been married for awhile, have a couple (very cute) daughters, and like any couple of that status, can't seem to keep the romantic spark alive.  Jones' character is troubled by her husband's growing distance as his business is expanding, forcing him to travel a lot with his attractive coworker.  She is worried he might be cheating on her, and so she calls in her (quirky) father for analysis, played by Bill Murray.

Like most Murray performances, he's both cool and funny... and not really a great father.  He comes up with countless zany situations to track his son-in-law.  Before you know it, the film is entering cliched rom-com territory.  I feel like I've seen this a hundred times before with a Kate Hudson or Sarah Jessica Parker.  Jones is secretly trailing her husband, hoping to catch him in the act.  She's running off to Mexico to spy on her husband at a work retreat.  Murray is along for the ride egging her on.  The problem I have with this movie is that there's nothing new or anything with style in it.  Murray isn't doing anything new.  Coppola isn't applying any of her signature style.  And, worst of all, the film doesn't know if it wants to be an all-out rom-com or a more serious dramedy.  It toes the line of each genre without ever committing to either.  Lost In Translation was so refreshing because it presented Murray in a light that we had never really seen him in before.  It was new and exciting for him to go against type.  The chemistry between him and Scarlett Johansen was off the chart in that film.  In On The Rocks, he's still charming, but in a "been there, done that" kind of way.  Coppola doesn't really allow Jones and Waynes' characters to develop much on screen chemistry either.  Most of the time is devoted to the father/daughter dynamic.

Overall, On The Rocks is not a terrible movie.  Because of its pedigree, I was expecting more.  It's the one "straight to streaming" movie that I've seen this year where I didn't feel like it needed the cinematic experience. 

Can Tenet Save The Film Industry?

 

I know I'm not going out on a limb when I say that 2020 has been unlike anything the world has ever seen.  The pandemic has wreaked havoc on every fabric of our daily lives.  The film industry is no different.  Theaters across the nation have been shuttered since March, and almost every major release has been rescheduled to 2021... with one exception.  Christopher Nolan's Tenet has been the lone holdout.  Yes, it has been pushed back a few times, but it was hellbent on being released in 2020.  Major (and minor) movie chains across the country have had Tenet as the one glimmer of hope to hold on to in a year that will forever change how we view movies.  From Onward and Hamilton to last week's release of Bill & Ted Face The Music, movies have chosen to go direct to streaming and Video-On-Demand instead of delaying their releases for a year or more.  Netflix has continued to gobble up would-be theatrical films (like Spike Lee's masterpiece Da 5 Bloods).  So will we ever have a traditional film industry again?  Christopher Nolan seems to think so.  It is doing really well in foreign markets where they are lucky enough to have leadership that has been able to handle the pandemic, unlike the United States.  It's only open in about 65% of the movie markets in this country.  Luckily, I had the unbelievable fortune of going to a movie theater again for the first time since January to see his latest event film.  Tenet, while not quite up to the high watermark of his career (Dunkirk), is a mind-melding treat, and a must-see theatrical experience.

I have been very fortunate during the pandemic and I am fully aware of my privilege when I say that losing the theatrical movie experience was one of the hardest aspects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for me.  It's the one thing (outside of my family) that I truly love in life, and it's been hard losing that experience.  I am very privileged to work for a great company and to be able to work through this horrible event.  Needless to say I was downright giddy walking into the theater to watch this film.  It was like reacquainting myself with a long lost friend.  

As far as the film goes, I don't want to spoil much in this review as much of the plot is shrouded in mystery.  I will say this, Tenet starts at a fever pace and doesn't really let up for two and a half hours.  It's like a James Bond film with time travel.  All the calling cards of a Christopher Nolan film are here.  Gorgeous imagery, a pulse-pounding Hans Zimmer score, and spectacular practical effects.  John David Washington continues his ascendancy to the top of the Hollywood A-List as a secret agent who is drawn into a world of mystery and intrigue.  Without spoiling anything, he's tasked with preventing villains from the future hellbent on destroying the past.  If that sounds confusing, I have to say that it's not as hard to follow as some reviews have said.  Sure, a lot of the dialogue is needlessly stuffy, but on the surface, it's really no different than an international espionage thriller.  I think that if you try to think about it as you're watching it, you'll get more lost than if you just sit back and enjoy it.  Like Inception, it's not as confusing as you think it is.  Washington isn't the only star in this one.  Robert Pattinson continues his recent hot streak in a supporting role and Kenneth Branagh chews up scenery left and right as a Russian arms dealer.  They are all pieces that add up to a genuine thrill ride of a film.

Back to the special effects for a minute.  Christopher Nolan has outdone himself once again.  There are scenes that happen in real-time and reverse simultaneously.  The action in this film is eye-opening, and hard to explain.  I'll just say that it's some of the best effect work that I've seen in a film.  I can't wait to watch the making of this movie to find out how Nolan did it.

If you're lucky enough to get to a theater, you must-see Tenet.  It's well-worth the wait, and a bright spot in the dark cloud that is 2020.  Hopefully it's the film that reboots the film industry.

Bill & Ted Face The Music Is A Fitting Albeit Imperfect Conclusion

 

I've been on record about the failings of comedy sequels.  They mostly repackage the jokes from the first film in a slightly different setting, and they're often times completely unnecessary.  Successful comedy is largely catching lightning in a bottle.  I could go on and on with a list of failed comedy sequel titles (don't get me started on Anchorman 2), but I'll focus on a couple since they're relevant to this post.  The first being Ghostbusters 2 and the second being Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey.  Neither movie are terrible, but neither are great.  They both "expand" a story that didn't necessarily need to be expanded.  They have also (to this point) never had a third movie in the franchise.  Both Ghostbusters 3 and B&T 3 have been rumored upon with different directors/writers/producers attached at various points in their life cycles.  Ghostbusters tried to reboot the series with a largely ineffective and lifeless all-female version a couple years ago, and it's trying another reboot next year.  We'll never get an official Ghostbusters 3 with the original cast because of the untimely death of writer/star Harold Ramis.  And I'm OK with that.  The original Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all-time.  It's perfect and endlessly rewatchable.  I have a love/hate relationship with the second movie.  It's not a bad movie, but it's not a great movie either.  It largely just exists.  I don't often choose to revisit it, and I'm OK with that.  The other comedy franchise to have a much-delayed third film is the Bill & Ted franchise.  Again, the first movie is perfect.  It's infinitely rewatchable and quotable.  Bogus Journey is just fine.  It expands a world that doesn't necessarily need to be expanded.  I don't often revisit it and I'm OK with that.  BUT, like any film nerd and Bill & Ted fan, I was timidly hopeful when they announced the third entry.  The initial trailer had some potential, and when the reviews started pouring in for Face The Music, I have to admit I began to be excited for it.  After watching it, I can admit that Bill & Ted Face The Music is a fitting send-off for our favorite San Dimas California boneheads.

Face The Music takes place 25 years after Bogus Journey.  The Wyld Stallyns haven't written the song that will unite the world.  In fact, after initial success as a band, they totally fell apart VH1 Behind The Music style.  Bill & Ted are still trying to write their destiny song, but their lives have pretty much fallen apart (playing bingo halls on $2 taco nights).  Just as things are about to hit rock bottom, their past (or is it their future) catches up with them.  Rufus' daughter tells them that "time as we know it" will end at exactly 7:17pm if they don't write their song.  Luckily for Bill & Ted, the time-traveling phone booth is always at the ready.  They embark on a trip through time to steal the song from their future "us-es."  Along the way, their daughters Billie and Theodora also jump through time to try to build a band out of history's greatest musicians.   Face The Music is a cute, heart worming journey to find their meaning.  I enjoyed it because I, too, am a 40-something struggling with not living up to my potential.

The film doesn't deliver a homerun by any means, but it's a solid double.  I wish that it could have seen a wide theatrical release (F-COVID), because this franchise deserves it.  I have to say that Alex Winter gives a better performance than Keanu Reeves, who seems a little wooden in his return to playing Ted Theodore Logan.  There's a couple other characters who steal the show.  Anthony Carrigan (of HBO's Barry fame) is hilarious as a time-traveling robot hellbent on killing Bill and Ted.  William Sadler's return to playing Death is also a highlight of the film.  If you're a fan of the series, it's definitely worth a view.  If not, I'd steer clear.

Greyhound - Tom Hanks Returns To The WWII Film Genre With Diminishing Returns

I make no qualms about this statement:  Saving Private Ryan is one of the best movies ever made.  It's definitely in my top 5 list, and might even be in my top 2-3 movies of all-time.  It's the best World War II movie ever made (in my humble opinion), and a high water mark in the legendary careers of both Tom Hanks and director Steven Spielberg.  Its loss to Shakespeare In Love for Best Picture is certainly one of the all-time upsets in Oscars history.  So my expectations for Greyhound were certainly high after viewing its first trailer.  Then... COVID hit and made this film a "straight to streaming" casualty.  Luckily, I have a free one-year trail to Apple TV+ and was able to watch it this weekend.  The results are a mixed bag.  It's filled with exciting action sequences, but lacks the depth of characters and storytelling I was expecting.

Put simply, Greyhound is essentially the third act of a war film.  It's only 90 minutes in length (actually about 1 hour 20 minutes when you take out the opening/closing credits).  It handles the backstory through a pre-movie credit sequence and gives us one scene with Tom Hanks character before throwing us directly into the mission.  Hanks plays a sea captain in charge of leading a battleship that is protecting allied ships as they cross the Atlantic Ocean on their way to re-supply the troops in Europe.  It's his first run as captain of a ship, and its his job to seek out and destroy German U-Boats as they try to down allied ships.

Like I said earlier, this movie is one long battle... and not much else.  We get a glimpse of the other sailors on the ships, and we hear voices from other ships in the armada, but we never get anything more than that.  Elizabeth Shue also appears in a brief scene to give Hanks' character a little bit of depth, but it's largely a forgettable scene.  I really wanted to like this one, but it was hard to care about anyone besides Hanks' character.  His charm and acting ability is one of the only saving graces of this film.  Hanks is credited as the screenwriter of this one (his fist screenplay credit, ever), and while he does a good job of keeping the pace moving forward, I just wish more was committed to building the backstory.  Imagine if Saving Private Ryan skipped straight to the final battle and only introduced us to characters and story via some titles at the beginning of the film.  That's what we get here.

I'm glad I had the free trial to Apple TV+, however I wouldn't go seeking out this movie if I had to pay for it.  It was a 90 minute movie that needed to be an hour longer.

Enough Said And The Quarantine Movie Lull

It's been months since I've posted on this blog.  A huge part of it is that I, like the rest of the world, have been feeling the quarantine blues.  I've really only done reviews and posts on movies that I see in the theaters.  However, COVID-19 has killed that experience for us, so I didn't really think of this blog or doing reviews.  I've watched some of the "direct to VOD" movies such as The King Of Staten Island (liked it), The Invisible Man (enjoyed it), and Da 5 Bloods (loved it!), but never got around to reviewing them.  As it's becoming more and more clear that movie theaters aren't re-opening anytime soon (Christopher Nolan's Tenet is holding out hope, but its release keeps getting pushed further back and back.), I'm starting to realize that home video will be our only way of consuming movies for the foreseeable future.  This brings me to my next point... we've essentially reached the finish line for new movie releases.  This has forced me to go through my Netflix DVD list (more on that in a moment) to movies I've always planned on watching, but would always put on hold as new movies were released.

Let me start this section with a little story.  Once upon a time, Netflix was a company where you rented DVDs by mail.  It still has this function, but the number of people who pay for this service goes down every year.  But like dial-up AOL, there are still some people who enjoy this service.  I, for one, am a proud member of this club.  It's really the only way to watch new movies on a cheap, consistent basis at home.  I will be a member of the Netflix DVD club until they board up shop on their last service center.  This brings me to Enough Said, a movie I've always wanted to watch, but one that I've skipped over for years.  With COVID killing off the new releases, I'm finally getting to these "I'll get to them eventually" films.  Last night, I had the pleasure of watching Enough Said, a warm and enjoyable romantic comedy, featuring dynamic performances by its two leads, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and the late great James Gandolfini (In one of his final performances.).  I really wish that we got to see more performances like this from Gandolfini before he passed.  He's a natural leading man and is more than able to play characters with heart and flaws.  This film doesn't break any grounds in terms of storytelling, but it's a real treat because of their performances.

Gandolfini and Louis-Dreyfus are both divorced, single-parents getting back in the dating scene.  They're the quintessential "opposites attract" characters.  Like I said, we're not breaking the mold with this film.  These two characters are lived-in and both feel like they could be people you know in real life.  Gandolfini is very charming going against the Tony Soprano character that he was known for.  This film portrays their ups and downs as they form their new relationship.  What I like about this film is that there are plenty of moments that could derail this story and drive the film into slapstick territory, but it never goes that route.  I appreciated that, because it made the story more believable.  I'm not sure if Enough Said is available on streaming platforms, but it's worth a view if you haven't seen it yet.

I'm also not sure when, or if I'll revisit this blog, but I hope to do more posts going forward.

The 7th Annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza Featuring Adam Howard

It's that time of year again!  Movie blogger extraordinaire Adam Howard joins me to pick all of the major categories in the 2020 Oscars.  2019 was a great year for films, but the #OscarSoWhite controversy doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.  There's some MAJOR snubs in this year's set of nominees, which we'll get to more in depth in just a moment.  So sit back, relax and enjoy our picks for the 2020 Oscars.  It's the 7th annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza!

AH:

Let's get started because I am so fucking furious over this morning's Oscar nominations. I was preparing myself to be disappointed but I am shocked at just how many of my hoped for nominees got snubbed. I think after last year's debacle -- where Sam Rockwell got in for a George W. Bush impression whereas Michael B. Jordan didn't for a career-defining performance in Black Panther AND where Green Book ultimately triumphed over infinitely superior competition -- this year is the nail in the coffin for me. 

I'll always be curious who gets what and who wins but I am turned off of watching, turned off of caring and generally convinced that until something fundamental changes the Academy is and will remain a stodgy, old, white, pretty racist institution that by and large ignores the best and most interesting films so they can reward what makes them feel comfortable.

Every once a while, something different like Mad Max Fury Road, Get Out or Moonlight slips in there and sometimes they even win and we're all given a little false hope, but at the end of the day there always seems to be a step back in the wrong direction.

I need to take solace in the fact that this was an excellent year for movies/performances -- that the slate of Best Picture nominees is strong and at the end of the day these awards have far less influence now than they ever did before. Like off the top of my head I can't tell you how won Best Actor or Best Actress last year. I genuinely don't remember. I think the critics' groups (who overwhelmingly favored Lupita Nyong'o's Us performance for example) are far more spot on and as I always say time will be kinder to the better films here.

Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing was not a box office hit and was almost completely shut out at the Oscars, and yet its cultural legacy has lived on far beyond the film that won that year, Driving Miss Daisy. 

But yeah, this year's results were trash. No Uncut Gems. No Greta Gerwig. No Eddie Murphy. No J-Lo. No Lupita. No The Farewell (p.s. Notice a trend here, most of these films have minorities or women at their center). It's hard to take this thing seriously when they so egregiously screw up.

BW:

Oh man, you beat me to it. Getting our hopes up for the correct Oscar nominations must be what being a Cleveland Browns fan is like.  Year after year after year, we hope that this is finally the year that everything comes together.  This is the year they will actually reward the best performances and films.  But before you can blink, we're looking at a 3-13 season and they've fired their coach.  I gave up on watching The Oscars years ago and I'm perfectly at peace with it.  I'll check out the winner's list the next day, but I'm not staying up for something that will most likely disappoint me.  Green Book's wet fart of a win last year only sealed the deal for me.  It summed up the Oscars in a nutshell... a culturally tone def, faux woke of a movie.  It's everything that people complain about Hollywood (pretending to be liberal while not-so-secretly being a horrible place for women, people of color, etc.).  I think I'm numb to the shock after all these years.  However, I am dumbfounded by today's nominations.  No Uncut Gems (my personal favorite of the year).  I get that Adam Sandler made Jack & Jill, but that shouldn't matter.  I get that Eddie Murphy made numerous critical flops, but that shouldn't matter.  Reward the performance.  Don't punish for past career choices.  And don't get me started on Lupita's historical snub.  I was secretly hoping that she would get nominated for Best Actress and Supporting Actress for her generational performance in Us.  Like you said, the Oscar winners (especially when they're wrong) are usually forgotten.  Is anyone still talking about Green Book?  Or are we clamoring for another Black Panther?  Does anyone rank Ordinary People with some of the best movies of all-time?  Or has Raging Bull cemented its legacy?  Same goes for Dances With Wolves, Shakespeare In Love, and on and on and on.  

There is one thing that I do love about Oscar season, though.  It's our traditional back and forth predicting the wins, losses and snubs.  If there's one bright side to today's nominations, it's that we'll have plenty of red meat to chew through.  Let's get started with our 7th annual (where has the time gone?) Oscar pick-a-palooza.

First up is Best Supporting Actress.  I'm not going to lie... I've only seen one of the nominated performances... Laura Dern in Marriage Story.  Luckily, it seems to be the performance that will win.  I, however, was not feeling Dern's performance.  I really liked Marriage Story, but her performance wasn't anything special.  She was essentially reprising her role in Big Little Lies.  Obviously the biggest snug in this category was J-Lo in Hustlers.  She was a force of nature and owned every minute of that film.  But hey, who needs J-Lo when you can nominate Kathy Bates for the millionth time (sarcasm heavy)?  Also, is Margot Robbie becoming the next Meryl Streep?  It seems like she gets nominated for every dramatic role she's in... good or average.  Sadly, this may be the weakest category in the entire show.

Here's the nominees:

Laura Dern, “Marriage Story”
Margot Robbie, “Bombshell”
Florence Pugh, “Little Women”
Scarlett Johansson, “Jojo Rabbit”
Kathy Bates, “Richard Jewell”

Who Should Win:  Ummm, I have no idea.  I'll say Forence Pugh for Little Women just to throw a wrench in Dern's coronation.

Who Will Win:  Laura Dern.  This one seems like a certain lock, and nothing in these nominations tells me otherwise.

Snub:  J-Lo.  From the first trailer, her performance seemed destined for recognition.  Like I said earlier, she owned every minute of this movie in a way that only she could.  I could spend more time typing out my disappointment, but honestly, I'm too tired.  Another snub on my list would have to go to Shuzhen Zhao for her heartwarming turn in The Farewell.  While that movie was not my cup of tea, she was really good as a woman blissfully ignorant of her terminal cancer diagnosis.

Who you got?

AH:

That's funny -- I assumed you watched the show. I guess I am right where you -- and I'm beginning to suspect -- most people are. I no longer feel this pull to watch the show which is always trying to pander. Like yes, on some level it's crazy that a superhero adjacent blockbuster like Joker is leading all the nominations, but on the same day they serve up Scarlett Johansson in not one but two movies. But ya know there's only room for one woman of color in the whole bunch. I too love doing this prognostication but it's beginning to make me a bitter person about the movies. Which I'd hope to never become.

Luckily, I've seen all of the nominated performances except for Margot Robbie's in Bombshell. I've heard nothing but bad things about that movie and went from being interested in seeing it to waiting for Netflix. I think its the turning problematic Fox News hosts into heroes aspect of it that has never sat well with me. That being said, I really like Margot Robbie. I think she's making some cool interesting choices, even if she has bogged herself in the DC comics movie world (with Harley Quinn). So she may be totally worthy here, I just don't know.

And then there's the J-Lo of it all. Her snubbing was the most shocking to me of any of them since this category hasn't been viewed as that competitive and most people had her pegged as the one person who might unseat favorite Laura Dern. At the end of the day I don't know if it was her larger persona and track record of mostly misses that screwed her here. She can take solace in the fact that Hustlers was an enormous hit and completely revitalized her movie career. Here's hoping the back half of her career is more Out of Sight than Monster-In-Law.

I think Scar-Jo is lovely in JoJo Rabbitt, but one nomination was more than enough. Kathy Bates is probably one of the more unassailable things about Richard Jewell, but I don't think this is a nomination that HAD to happen. So...

Who will win: It's going to be the Laura Dern show and you're so right about her performance in Marriage Story, it's her character from Big Little Lies on the big screen. She's great, she's always great. And she should have won an Oscar many times before. She's due and she's beloved in the industry so she will win, and that's precisely why these awards are BS because its all about a narrative surrounding a film, director or performance, never the work itself.

Snub: I totally agree with you besides J-Lo I had been pulling for Shuzen Zhao, who was the heart and soul of The Farewell. I think Julia Fox was great in Uncut Gems in a Marisa Tomei-like breakout performance, but like the movie itself, her work never seemed to get serious consideration from Oscar voters.

Who should win: With J Lo gone, I too and going with Florence Pugh. She had an amazing year, with Midsommar and Little Women (as well as Fighting with My Family, which I've yet to see but have heard great things about). She is the MVP of Little Women in my opinion, which is no small thing because that film is full of wonderful performances. She's one of the more exciting new actresses on the scene and I hope she doesn't go the way of Jennifer Lawrence. Sometimes these female phenoms get the backlash treatment for no good reason very fast and then are rarely heard from again.

BW:

I still "watch" the show... just not the entire thing.  I try to watch the opening act and the first few awards, but I just can't commit to staying up so late to watch something that will probably disappoint me.  Before moving on, I want to circle back to Bombshell for a minute.  I definitely want to watch it because I (sadly) worked there around that time, and it'll be interesting to see how they depict that time period.  While there were rumors and innuendo, the truth didn't get down to worker bees like myself.  I don't know if it's necessarily exonerating Fox News for its horrid views, but rather showing that it can happen to any woman, anywhere, at any time.  I'll reserve judgment until I see it, I guess.  Still, it seems like Charlize Theron got the acting nod because of how closely she looks like Megyn Kelly in her makeup.

On to the next category, Best Supporting Actor.  To me, this is the least "controversial" category in terms of snubs or surprises.  It also seems like one of the most safest bets in the show.  It's Brad Pitt's award to lose, and I don't think there's much of a doubt about that. He's great in Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, and I see no reason why he won't be up on stage.  Is it his best performance?  I'm not ready to declare that at this time, but it seems like this will be the one that finally gets him an Oscar (much like his co-star DiCaprio finally winning for The Revenant and countless other "it's their time" winners).

As far as the other nominees, my favorite is probably Joe Pesci in The Irishman.  I kept waiting for him to explode in burst of classic Pesci intensity, but it never happened.  His completely against the grain performance might just be my favorite in-screen performance of the year.

Here's the nominees:

Tom Hanks, “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”
Anthony Hopkins, “The Two Popes”
Al Pacino, “The Irishman”
Joe Pesci, “The Irishman”
Brad Pitt, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”  

Who will win:  Brad Pitt.  Like a fine wine, Brad Pitt only gets better with age.  And I LOVE that he's not trying to run away from aging... similar to someone like Robert Redford.  Granted, he still looks 35, so that helps, but I'm really excited to see where this chapter of his career takes him.

Who should win:  If anyone deserves it more than Pitt, it's Pesci.  He gives the performance of his career here as a man who can turn tides (and take lives) simply by looking at someone.  I can't say enough about his performance in The Irishman.

Snub:  Off the top of my head, I can't really think of anyone who was snubbed per say, but I'll give you a couple of long shot performances that I absolutely adored.  First up is LaKeith Stanfield in Uncut Gems.  Adam Sandler had the meatier role, but Stanfield was the perfect "devil on the shoulder" to keep Sandler's madness at an 11.  But like you said, that movie was criminally left out of the show.  Another role that I loved was Daniel Craig in Knives Out... in particular his Foghorn Leghorn accent.  He was the perfect blend of quick wit and self-deprecation that served as the backbone for the "whodunit" story.  Who would I take out to put one of these guys in?  Probably Al Pacino.  I don't think he really stepped out of his comfort zone with his portrayal of Jimmy Hoffa.  It was a little too "Scent Of A Woman" for me.  Still enjoyable, but nothing new.

Who takes home your statue?

AH:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the Pacino performance in The Irishman. I thought he was more brilliant than he's been in a decade, and probably sold the more youthful scenes a little better than his counterparts. I was also totally bowled over by Pesci's work. I think this is one of those categories where it is very hard to compare performances. There's no question that what Pesci, Pacino and Hanks for that matter are doing is technically more demanding than what Brad Pitt is doing. But Pitt inhabits his Cliff Booth character so fully that I think he's undeniable. It's one of the great movie star performances and it sort of feels like a culmination of all the laconic cool guys he's played over the years. I'm excited to see him win for this one because it isn't a stereotypical big, scene-stealing supporting performance. He is the mellow yang to DiCaprio's combustible ying and controversy aside the Bruce Lee scene was a hoot

For me the person who's not doing anything new is Anthony Hopkins, a terrific actor by any measure, but he's playing a not very nuanced portrait of a arguably more complicated man. I'd like to have seen the great Willem Dafoe here for The Lighthouse, which he was phenomenal in.

Who will win: Brad Pitt. He's been reliably good for so long that he's often overlooked (I thought he deserved to win for Moneyball). To answer your question, I think this might be his best performance because it just feels like the pinnacle of what he does. I think he's great in Seven, Twelve Monkeys, the Ocean's movies and especially Burn After Reading, but yeah it's his time and his year and I'm not mad about it.

Who should win: I think Pitt, but I too have a soft spot for Pesci, who I wish was still interesting in making movies on the regular. He apparently did this as a favor for Scorsese, and thank God he did. There is something so majestic about his work in the movie and how against type he is. But yeah Pitt deserves this one.

Snub: I've already sang Dafoe's praises here. I love Craig in Knives Out, but I think of that as more of a lead performance albeit as part of an ensemble. So i'll throw a wild one out there that never ever could have happened. But Jonah Hill's completely batshit performance in The Beach Bum is one of the funniest I saw all year. It's a totally 'not for all tastes' movie and Hill's role is almost more of a cameo. But I just think he was marvelous.

BW:

After reading what I wrote earlier, you're absolutely right about Al Pacino in The Irishman.  Honestly, I was just looking at it as who I would replace in the nominations, and I chose Pacino... while completely glossing over Anthony Hopkins.  I was totally wrong.  Not sure why I felt the need to berate his performance when I actually really liked it.  Chalk it up to a brain fart.  Anyway, I'll have to check out The Beach Bum.  I've avoided it because it's from the director of Spring Breakers, which is one of my least favorite movies of all-time.  I'm generally in to the "not for all tastes" movies, but I've been apprehensive about this one.

On to the next category... Best Actress.  I know you were Lupita or bust with this category.  I'm in agreement with you.  Like i said earlier, her performance(s) were not just the best of the year, but they were generational. Something that I think will be talked about and studied for a long long time.  It's clear that the Academy has no intention of changing its ways, despite modest efforts to diversify ranks. Lupita's performance had everything you could possibly ask for, and yet she wasn't even given a chance to compete on the biggest stage of them all.  Heaven forbid if the Academy would dare to nominate two people of color.  Would the world implode?  So here we are... honestly, I feel like skipping this category, but tradition is tradition.  To me, it's one of the weaker categories in the whole show.  Nothing against these performances, but nothing from these performances really screams cream of the crop to me.

Here are the nominees:

Cynthia Erivo, “Harriet”
Scarlett Johansson, “Marriage Story”
Saoirse Ronan, “Little Women”
Charlize Theron, “Bombshell”
Renee Zellweger, “Judy” 

Who will win:  If I had to guess, I would say Renee Zellweger.  Honestly, I'm tired of singing biopics and the almost automatic nomination for someone who looks and sounds like the person they are portraying.  To answer your question from earlier, Rami Malek won for his color-by-numbers portrayal of Freddie Mercury (I had to look it up).  That movie terrible and while Malek did an admirable job of playing the part, I didn't feel like he was anything special.  I have not seen Judy, but it's being heralded as Zellweger's big comeback vehicle.  Great.  Awesome.  Next.

Who should win:  Of the women nominated, I'd go with Scar-Jo for Marriage Story.  I feel like Adam Driver is getting most of the love (in for his performance in that movie, but Johansson was equally admirable in her role.

Snub:  I'm sure you have much more to add about Lupita's historic snub, so I will go with Awkwafina in The Farewell.  Confession:  I didn't love The Farewell, but it had nothing to do with the sum of its parts.  It was just too damn sad for me.  Maybe I watched it in the wrong mood, but I felt like if I wanted to see people cry for 2 hours, I'd go to an actual funeral.  That's not to say I hated it... I'm actually wanting to give it another viewing because I don't think I was fair to it in my initial viewing.  That being said, Awkwafina deserves to be in that group of 5.  Her character felt lived-in and real in a way that these nominees didn't.  But, you know, can't break the one woman of color rule.

AH:  

Oh man, I loved Spring Breakers -- which i admit is not for everyone's tastes and if you hated it you should definitely steer clear of The Beach Bum because in that movie writer-director Harmony Korine doubles down on that aesthetic and goes even further. 

Ok so this category is easily the most infuriating to me and I'm not even sure where to begin. For some reason, Renee Zellweger has been sort of crowned since the beginning of the season, even though the film she's in has been roundly greeted with only so-so reviews. I haven't seen it and I actually quite like her as an actress (especially her wonderful performance in Nurse Betty) but I have never understood this comeback narrative around her. First of all, she already has an Oscar, so shouldn't the nomination be enough of a welcome back? And it's not like Mickey Rourke situation where they had literally not starred in almost any legit movies in decades, she simply had a string of flops recently and had fallen off the A-list. 

I love how for white actresses that's the bar you have to hit. Oh you slightly altered your appearance (Charlize Theron in Bombshell) here's a nomination. Meanwhile, Lupita Nyong'o gives the performance of a lifetime (and again, the performance that has by far won the most critics' awards) in a hugely successful, influential, culturally significant film but somehow she can't make it in, because the Academy deemed four spots for white actresses only (seemingly), while leaves actors like Nyong'o, Awkwafina and eventual nominee Cynthia Erivo to battle it out for the final spot.

It's worth noting, that two women of color have never been nominated for Best Actress in the same year since 1972 and I believe that was the only time this has happened. And only ONCE has a black woman ever won best actress. In fact, no other woman of color has EVER won this award. If you're looking for proof that these awards still, despite attempts to diversify, still represent the tastes of old white men, look no further than this category, where Erivo gets in for playing a slave (albeit a triumphant one) in a movie that also got mediocre reviews.

In fact the only performances here in movies that were well received are Scar Jo's and Saoirse Ronan's. Speaking of whom, she is only 25 years and already has her FOURTH Oscar nomination. Alfre Woodard, a beloved and acclaimed black character actress who is said to have given a career best performance in the little seen drama Clemency, has only been nominated once in her career -- back in 1983. I rest my case.

Who will win: Renee Zellweger. I need to see this film to understand why she's been viewed as such an inevitable sure thing. I suppose she gets a lot of kudos here for performing the Judy Garland numbers herself, which is no small feat. But I can't help but feel this is in keeping with the Oscars' self-congratulatory preoccupation with rewarding movies about the movies. Now, in the case of a nuanced take like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, this might be the right choice, but consider me dubious and it's hard to get past the feeling that what Lupita pulled off in Us is so much more impressive.

Who should win: This is tough for me since I am so turned off of this category. I thought Scar Jo was very good in Marriage Story but I am just not as blown away by that movie as so many other people are. I just couldn't get as emotionally invested as I think I was supposed to be. I guess of this group I was most impressed by Ronan. I know I just threw shade at the fact that she has been so lauded at such a young age, but she is a consistently terrific presence and she is the engine that makes Little Women run. 

Snubs: If anyone deserved to be a 'double-nominee' this year it should have been Florence Pugh, who blew me away in Midsommar in addition to Little Women. Clearly there is a horror bias at the Oscars, because Toni Collette should have been here for Hereditary the year before  -- ugh -- just thinking about all these snubs makes me furious. Like Awkwafina, who was so wonderful in The Farewell, giving a touching, funny performance that was both relatable and rewarding. I think you should give that one another chance -- it definitely is a sad movie -- but I found it more life affirming than depressing.

And last but not least I want to give a shoutout to Ana de Armas who steals Knives Out in an incredibly winning performance as the hero of that cool comedic thrill of a movie. I'm really excited to see what she does next and I'm glad she's getting to show she's more than the 'babe from Blade Runner 2049).

BW:

Moving on to our next category, Best Actor, where we have a couple pretty glaring snubs... perhaps not on the same level as ignoring Lupita Nyong'o, but still pretty frustrating.  Going back to sports for a minute, there's all these unsaid rules that govern the game.  Don't show up the pitcher.  If so, expect to get beaned during your next at bat.  The list goes on and on.  I bring this up, because it seems like The Academy operates similarly.  However, in this case, they seem to have an unwritten rule that states, "we will not nominate you or reward you with a win, no matter how good your performance is, if you've had a history of making "Razzy" worthy movies."  I'm looking directly at Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy here.  Both gave extremely worthy (I'd argue career rejuvenating) performances in Uncut Gems and Dolemite Is My Name, respectively.  While I have yet to see Dolemite, Adam Sandler was a force of nature in my favorite movie of the year, Uncut Gems.  I know he's given great performances in the past when given the chance, but I didn't know he had THAT performance in him.  He absolutely owns every frame of that movie.  Same, from what I've heard, with Murphy.  Hollywood loves a comeback, except if you've made Jack & Jill or Norbit in your past.  This refusal to nominate based on the merits of a singular performance vs the entirety of a person's career is extremely frustrating.

Looking at this category, there's 2 really strong performances in Phoenix and DiCaprio, a good to great performance from Adam Driver and then an OK (as you've written) performance from Jonathan Pryce in a "meh" movie.  I haven't seen Antonio Banderas in Pain And Glory, so I'll withhold judgment for now.  

Here are the nominees:

Antonio Banderas, “Pain and Glory”
Leonardo DiCaprio, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”
Adam Driver, “Marriage Story”
Joaquin Phoenix, “Joker”
Jonathan Pryce, “The Two Popes” 

 Who Will Win:  Phoenix.  How are we still getting all-time great interpretations of an iconic character after all these years?  From Nicholson to Ledger and now Phoenix, we've seen 3 wholly original takes on the classic Batman villain.  Could we have another instance of two different actors being awarded for playing the same character (after Brando and DeNiro winning for playing Vito Corleone)?  I sure think so.  Every time I see Joker, it grows in stature with me.  Phoenix stretched his body and mind to the limit in his portrayal of Arthur Fleck/Joker.  I think he takes home a much deserved Oscar for this one.

Who Should Win:  Of the people nominated, it should definitely be Phoenix.  A lot of people are giving love to Adam Driver in Marriage Story, but I wasn't as blown away by his performance as the critics.  Sure, the argument scene between the two leads will go down as a memorable one, but I don't know if it's enough for Driver to overtake Phoenix.  I enjoyed DiCaprio's "actor coming to grips with his life and career" performance much better, but he just won a couple years ago and Brad Pitt seems to be the one who will win for this movie.

Snubs:  Besides the two I mentioned earlier, a lot of people are mentioning Taron Egerton in Rocketman.  While I think it's extremely interesting that he re-recorded all of Elton John's music himself, and that the movie seems to be a non-traditional music biopic, do we really need ANOTHER person nominated for one of these movies?  I don't think so.

What are you thoughts?

AH:

I definitely think this category showed off a bias against actors who are deemed 'not serious'. Every once in a while a Steve Carrell or Melissa McCarthy breaks through, and she was even able to get a nomination -- God forbid -- for a comedic performance. Of course in Uncut Gems, Sandler was both funny AND tragic. I went in expected good things, but was just blown away. With Eddie Murphy, his greatness is less of a surprise for me. I always believed he had a role like Dolemite in him and was just frustrated that either he or filmmakers weren't willing to go there. It's absurd that they aren't in this group. Although it may have been too much of a stretch from both of them to make it.

I too haven't seen Pain and Glory, but I hear Banderas is incredible in it and he's someone who has sort of just needed the right part to show off what he can do. I honestly feel like I missed something when I watched The Two Popes. I'd heard Pryce's name bandied about for a while as a likely shoo-in and so I guess I was just expecting more from him and that movie. As far as the final three goes, they're hard to argue with. Like the movie itself, I think Phoenix's work is not for everyone's tastes but I think it's still undeniably effective. DiCaprio has never been funnier and more vulnerable than he is in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. In a way I think it's a far better performance than the one he finally won for in The Revenant, which mostly physical. And Adam Driver is emerging rapidly as one of the most interesting actors of his generation, equally at home in blockbusters, quirky comedies and serious drama. I think he is the best thing about Marriage Story, where he is probably aided tremendously by the fact that he is clearly a proxy for writer-director Noam Baumbach.

Who will win: Until very recently I would have said Driver, if only because he is so well liked and the performance/movie is far less polarizing than Joker. But now it seems like all the momentum is with Phoenix. It's wild think that we will now have two actors winning Oscars for playing this character (I think Don Corleone and Queen Elizabeth are the only two other characters to have this distinction). It's definitely an unforgettable turn and Phoenix, who has been amazing for years and never won, is arguably due.

Who should win: Although I probably enjoyed DiCaprio the most, it's Phoenix for me here. It's not just the physical transformation, although that is impressive. You just can't take your eyes off him in this movie, he is by turns pathetic, disturbed and scary -- this is not someone you necessarily root for and not someone you entirely pity. It's just someone doing through a kind of descent. I never thought someone could make the Joker character fresh again and he really did. 

Snubs: I thought Robert DeNiro was phenomenal in The Irishman. I get that he is often an audience surrogate and the observer of the action around him. And yes, the de-aging on him isn't quite as seamless as it is with Pacino and Pecsi -- but he is the broken heart of that movie. And he totally owns the last stretch of the movie which is its more powerful, profound element. He, like Sandler and Murphy, has had a very checkered record especially of late (remember Dirty Grandpa) and I think he's often taken for granted. He deserved a nomination. If it were a weaker year I'd have gone for Daniel Craig in Knives Out, I just thought he was a delight and brilliantly played against his suave persona. But again these awards are so risk averse I knew something like that would never happen.

BW:

I agree with your assessment of DeNiro's performance, and I think it will eventually get recognized for its greatness (at least in word of mouth).  The end scene, alone, was one of the more powerful scenes that Scorsese has ever put to film.  

Moving on to our next category, Best Director, there's once again a lack of female representation and, of course, we only have one person of color nominated.  With that being said, I think this is one of the stronger categories in this year's Oscars.  In a perfect world, Greta Gerwig or countless others would get the nod.  I know we have this discussion every year, but I really wish that directing would expand to reflect the same number of nominees as Best Picture, since the two really go hand in hand.  I get why they limit it to 5, but there's always some really glaring snubs.  Circling back to this year, I'm not really sure who I would take off to give one of the snubs a shot at the Oscar.  All 5 directors told uniquely compelling stories, and in my opinion, all deserve to be there.  I think there are definite snubs in this category, but I don't think they reach Lupita Nyong'o levels of WTF.

Here's the nominees:

Martin Scorsese, “The Irishman”
Todd Phillips, “Joker”
Sam Mendes, “1917”
Quentin Tarantino, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”
Bong Joon Ho, “Parasite” 

Who will win:  Bong Joon Ho.  I think we'll have a split director/picture win this year.  Parasite is a shoo-in to win Best Foreign film instead of Best Picture, similar to Roma from last year.   I have yet to see Parasite, but from what I've heard and read, it's a near perfect film.  It comes out on home video this Tuesday and I'm already chomping at the bit to see it.

Who should win:  Honestly, every director in this category can and should win.  I won't be mad if any of them take away the statue.  If I had to put a name above others on this list it would be Tarantino, who could go his entire career without a directing Oscar... especially if his 10 films and done rule turns out to be true.  He'll probably take home a screenplay win again, but I'm not sure there's enough movement to give him a directing Oscar as well.  It would be a shame if he misses out on being recognized as one of the all-time greats.  I also really liked Todd Phillips take on an iconic character, but his nomination is probably all he's going to get here... and I'm OK with it.

Snubs:  I'll throw out some other names here.  Olivia Wilde for Booksmart, an historically overlooked gem of a movie.  Every inch of that film felt lived in and the characters had life to them in way that wasn't just "The female Superbad" marketing campaign the movie got.  My other name is Jordan Peele for Us, which was in my opinion, an improvement in storytelling and directing over Get Out.  For some reason, maybe the early release date, it's been pretty much ignored.

Who's your top director?

AH:

I agree this is one of those years where several directors stepped up and did career best work while putting a uniquely personal stamp on their productions. For instance, Tarantino and Scorsese, who made essentially the culmination of their entire filmographies. So I don't see how you keep them off. Bong Joon-ho made his bonafide masterpiece -- as great as all the performances in Parasite are -- it's his film from start to finish. He belongs here. And 1917, as a technical achievement alone, justifies Mendes being here -- although I don't think he deserves to win over the competition. Although, it would be so typical of the Oscars to gives Sam Mendes a second best director award (albeit for a superior film to his first winner) while preventing Tarantino from getting his first (for directing).

To me the weakest link here is Todd Phillips. I think there's no denying what a creative leap his Joker was for him. Phillips had previously been best known for broad comedies like Old School and The Hangover. But I feel like what Greta Gerwig did with Little Women was just much more impressive and daring. She took one a beloved book and completely revitalized the narrative with sophisticated nonlinear storytelling that only enhancing the story's emotional impact. And this is only her second film. There can be no doubt now that she is a major filmmaker and while her snub hurts, I think she'll be impossible to ignore as her career behind the camera continues.

Who will win: This is a really tough one. I can really see any of the directors besides Phillips winning (unless Joker has a VERY good night). I worry that all the momentum seems to be shifting to Mendes, who would be a 'safe' pick here. But I honestly have no idea. I think Scorsese and his film have been unjustly diminished by Netflix bias and griping about its length. So i think between the remaining three -- I'm gonna say Tarantino -- just because his film was very popular, it really is a career best for him and I think Academy voters will see this as potentially their last opportunity to reward him. The Oscars have famously failed to ever award (not counting career achievement trophies) some of the greatest directors of all time: Altman, Kubrick, Lumet, Hitchcock -- just to name a few. I suspect that they won't want to make that mistake again.

Who should win: I here you on Joon Ho and if he (or his film in the Best Picture category) won I would have zero issues with it, but I suspect he will be rewarded for Foreign Film as a consolation prize. I love The Departed but The Irishman is an even better film, but alas Scorsese has one and his legacy is secure. I like 1917, but I also think it's a notch below the others for me, and I've said my piece on Phillips. So for me, the sentimental choice is Tarantino. He's aged well, like a fine wine. And it's a thrill to see him maturing as a filmmaker if unfortunately at the end of his career. He'll always will be polarizing, as will his movie, but his impact on American cinema is important and undeniable.

Snubs: I totally agree about both Olivia Wilde and Jordan Peele, both suffered from early release dates and genre biases. I am sure Peele will be back someday and I hope Wilde continues down the path that she's on. I am probably the biggest Hustlers fan out there and so I will also sing the praises of Lorene Scafaria, who also wrote that film! I also thought James Gray's Ad Astra was fantastic and underrated. Lulu Wang did a fabulous job with The Farewell. Ari Aster showed he's a master with his second movie Midsommar. Then there's Rian Johnson's tour de force with Knives Out. And for the love of God the Safdie Brothers. Honestly the more I think about it the failure of Uncut Gems to get any recognition whatsoever is the best proof you need of this whole

Check out this piece on directors' favorite 2019 movies, it's a much better glimpse into what was truly great from last year.

BW: 

The Safdie Brothers!  I just snubbed them from my own snub section!  And Uncut Gems was my favorite movie of the year!  Gee, maybe this is harder than we're letting on.  Haha.

Anyway, moving on to our final category, Best Picture.  You and I have both said that, nomination snubs aside, 2019 was a great year for films.  It seems like director's are finally getting some opportunities to take chances.  Even in typical genre fare, we had something like Joker that never would have been made even 5 years or so ago.  Jordan Peele is still crushing it and pushing boundaries, the Safdie Brothers (won't forget them again!) are fresh and exciting, and we got an all-time effort from perhaps the greatest American filmmaker of all-time, Martin Scorsese.  And, like it or not, Netflix is filling the void for weightier films.  It was a great year to be a film fan.

Looking at Best Picture, we're still stuck in a weird place where the Academy can nominate 10 films, but doesn't seem to ever do it.  Would it kill them to put one more film in this category to make it an even 10?  I don't think it would lessen any of the other films if, say, Us or Uncut Gems were included in this category.  Why make a rule and then weirdly interpret it?  Looking at just the 9 films that made the cut, it's looking like it's coming down to 2 or 3 possible winners.  I was inclined to say that The Irishman had a serious chance at this category, but I don't think that the Netflix bias will be lifted here.  I was also looking at Joker potentially having a big night, but I'm not getting those vibes anymore.  To me, it comes down to 1917 or Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  Two really well-done films in typical Oscar bait genres (war movies and movies about the industry).  I keep hearing buzz that 1917 has all the momentum, but will the Academy pass up an opportunity to reward a Quentin Tarantino film again?

Here's the nominees:  

“Ford v Ferrari”
“The Irishman”
“Jojo Rabbit”
“Joker”
“Little Women”
“Marriage Story”
“1917”
“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”“Parasite” 

Who will win:  1917.  I wouldn't be shocked by about half of these, but I'm going with the hot hand here.  Parasite is another strong contender, but I think that the voters will think that the foreign film win will be enough for it.

Who should win:  Of the films nominated, I'm going with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  It was Tarantino's most accessible and personal film, and it has all the pieces that Academy voters usually love.  A strong case could be made for The Irishman here as well, but I don't think Hollywood is ready to recognize a "streaming" movie just yet.

Snubs:  Uncut Gems!  I can't explain the lack of love for this "gem" of a movie (Thank you!  I'll be here all night.  Try the veal).  Two years in a row my favorite movies have failed to get a nomination for the big award (Annihilation last year).  Maybe they were just too out there for the (clearly) traditional voters.  Us is the other major snub in this category.  I get that it's a horror movie, and that genre has typically been avoided like the plague, but come on!  

That's it for me.  I always had a blast, and if this is the last year we do this exchange, I just want to say how much I enjoy doing this with you.  I hope that 2020 is another strong year for films and that you're primed and ready come this time next year.  Who knows... maybe they'll get the nominations right next year and we'll have plenty of optimistic things to write about.  JKLOLOL!

AH:

I agree that it was a great year for movies — which is part of why narrowing down Best Director to only five feels impossible. It was also yet another year where almost no one could agree about this years crop of films. With the exception of Parasite, which I’ve never heard an unkind word about, none of the Best Picture nominees is universally beloved. 

Personally, I’m not sure why there is so much vitriol directed at Joker. It blew me away the first time I saw it and I’ll admit to downgrading it a bit the second time because the shock value was gone. But I still think it’s a provocative movie with lots of style and ambition — and even if you knock it for being derivative of King of Comedy/Taxi Driver (and it is). It still took balls to make a comic book inspired blockbuster influenced by decidedly dark, uncommercial films like those.

That being said, I’m shocked it’s leading every other movie, it clearly struck a chord. The same goes for 1917 — a film I honk is very, very good but not as great as apparently the awards community does. I suppose the race is between these two and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with Parasite being a dark horse longshot.

Although it’s the best reviewed film of the bunch, it looks like The Irishman either peaked too early or never stood a chance. 

The others while they have their virtues, don’t seem to have a real shot at a win. 

Who will win: I’m worried it’ll be 1917, which feels like the flavor of the moment right now but I’m going to go with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood since an affectionate ode to the industry will almost always trump a technical marvel at the Oscars and the movie is widely accepted to be one of Tarantino’s best if not his best. This feels like a way to honor not just this movie but his whole career.

What should win: If Parasite or The Irishman won I wouldn’t shed a tear but I feel like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is simply fantastic and feels weirdly relevant even though it’s steeped in the past. I hate when they ticket split best picture and Director (cause I’m anal) so here’s hoping Tarantino goes two for two here.

Snubs: I conquer re: Uncut Gems and Us. Booksmart maybe could have had a shot if it hadn’t bombed so hard. There was some chatter that Knives Out could have made the cut as the a tenth pick (or id have no problem replacing the just ok Ford v. Ferrari. Oh well, Either way, probably for the first time in decades, I won’t be watching!

Happy New Year - Here's My Top 10 From 2019

It's the first day of 2020 and a lot of people are looking forward to the new year... setting goals... and trying to improve upon 2019.  I, for one, am still looking back... specifically to my favorite movies from 2019.  Overall, 2019 was an interesting year for movies.  The blockbusters were front loaded (with Endgame swallowing up its entire competition), with a rather weak summer season (I could count a handful of films that were good to great), and a strong finish to the year.  I thought the year was really great for "prestige" films with a wide open field for best picture.  Netflix is once again threatening to be a big player in the awards picture, perhaps even taking home the top prize.  Adam Sandler delivered the best performance of the year (Yes, that Adam Sandler), and the Skywalker saga closed out after over 40 years.  Without further adieu, here's my top 10 list for 2019.  I should mention that there are still a couple movies that I need to see, so this list could change before The Oscars.

Here's a couple that just missed the cut: The Peanut Butter Falcon, The Report, Hustlers, Spider-Man: Far From Home and Toy Story 4

10) Avengers: Endgame - Endgame closed out a 10+ year chapter of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in a glorious, emotionally satisfying way.  We will never see another series of films like this iteration of the MCU, and I'm not sure I even want to.  It was everything I could ask for and more.

9) Midsommar - The rare daytime horror film, this film was equal parts bleak and humorous.  Ari Aster follows up the incredible Hereditary with this tale of a Swedish cult like society and a group of tourists that get caught up in their ritualistic weekend.  Kudos to breakout star, Florence Pugh, for being the backbone of this picture.

8) Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker - Naysayers be damned!  I absolutely loved this movie (warts and all) as it closed out the 40+ year saga of the Skywalker clan.  Star Wars seems to be a cultural hot potato, but I'm not about to mix it up with the toxic fanboys.  Star Wars is not, nor has it ever been, Shakespeare.  I was thoroughly satisfied with this latest (and last) trilogy of films.  I just wish they had laid out a more cohesive vision throughout the 3 films.

7) Booksmart - So much more than just "The Female Superbad."  This criminally overlooked gem from first time director Olivia Wilde flips the high school sex comedy on its head.  It's full of LOL moments as two best friends navigate the end of their high school lives.  It's also a heartwarming tale of friendship, love, sexuality and much more.  I hope it will find a larger audience now that its available to stream.

6) Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood - Not the best Tarantino film, but definitely his most straight forward, and most well-rounded.  Tarantino's love letter to 1960s Hollywood is filled with love throughout every frame.  Brad Pitt shines in a never-better performance as a past-his-prime stunt man who makes a living chauffeuring his leading man (a self-deprecating delightful performance from Leonardo DiCaprio) around town.  The threat of the Manson Family pays off in a way only Tarantino can muster.

5) Knives Out - The most fun you'll have at the theater all year!  Rain Johnson's follow up to The Last Jedi brings back a forgotten genre, the murder mystery, in a big and beautiful way.  It's more of a how-dunit than a who-dunit, but that doesn't matter.  You can tell that every person involved in making this movie was having the time of their lives.

4) The Irishman - A career capping directorial effort from the greatest filmmaker of all-time, Martin Scorsese.  It flips the gangster film genre on its head by looking at the effect all that violence has on its characters.  It spends nearly 4 hours deconstructing the genre that Scorsese made famous.  It also features a never-better performance from Joe Pesci, by going against the grain.  He's subdued and heartbreaking in a way I've never seen from him.  Could this be the first streaming film to win best picture?

3) Us - Jordan Peele's spectacular follow-up to the groundbreaking Get Out was everything I wanted it to be and more.  I've seen it a couple times and I take something different away from it each time.  This film features the best overall performance of the year (Lupita Nyong'o in a dual role), and is equal parts thrilling and hilarious.

2) Joker - The most controversial movie of the year, and also the most misunderstood.  It's not a celebration of violence that a lot of people think it is.  It's actually about the loss of the social safety net and what happens when we talk about "mental health" being a problem without actually doing anything about it.  If it weren't for Sandler's magnetic performance in Uncut Gems, Jaoquin Phoenix's take on an iconic character would be my favorite performance of the year.  How is it that we've had 3 different all-time performances of the Joker?  I didn't think it could be pulled off, but Phoenix managed to squeeze some juice out of 60+ year old character.

1) Uncut Gems - I saw this film 5 days ago, and I still can't get it out of the head.  The Safdie brothers delivered the most intense movie of the year and squeezed an unlikely tremendous performance out of Adam Sandler.  The film starts with the intensity at an 11 and doesn't let up for 2 hours.  I can't wait to see what the Safdie brothers come up with next.