Review of Oscar Nominees 2019: Best Picture, Part II

Green Book

Nominated Producer(s): Jim Burke, Charles B. Wessler, Brian Currie, Peter Farrelly, and Nick Vallelonga

Director: Peter Farrelly
Writer: Nick Vallelonga, Brian Currie, Peter Farrelly

Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Mahershala Ali, Linda Cardellini, Frank Vallelonga, Nick Vallelonga, Ninja Devoe, and others.

Plot:

In the early 1960s, night club bouncer Tony “Lip” Vallelonga finds himself in need of temporary employment as New York City’s Copacabana undergoes renovations. Though he prides himself on fast talking, equivocating, not-really-stealing, and general chicanery, Tony turns down an offer to do “things” for the Mafia. Still he must find a way to provide for his wife and two young sons, so he reluctantly accepts an offer from Dr. Don Shirley, a renowned pianist who lives above Carnegie Hall and is about to embark on an eight week concert tour that will take him through the Deep South. Dr. Shirley needs a driver who can double as protection if things get rough. Even though Tony is problematically racist and alarmingly uncouth and Dr. Shirley is battling hidden demons of his own, the two set off on a road trip together and eventually strike up a friendship based on mutual trust and respect, a friendship which continues until their deaths many decades later. Green Book is based on a true story and written by Nick Vallelonga, son of the real life Tony Lip.

Why It Should Win:
Mahershala Ali gives such a powerful performance as gifted concert pianist, Dr. Don Shirley. Part of me has been hoping that Richard E. Grant can pull off an upset in Best Supporting Actor because I love Grant and his delightful turn in Can You Ever Forgive Me?. But then I watched Green Book again, and I find it extremely difficult to root against Mahershala Ali doing such powerful, moving, nuanced work. Who cares if he’s committing category fraud (and he’s not, by Tony Lip’s standards). Ali is outstanding in Green Book. No one would ever regret giving him an Oscar for work like that. Is he good enough to win a second Oscar even though he just won Best Supporting Actor in 2017? In a word, yes.

Viggo Mortensen gives a memorable performance, too, as a guy who is definitely not easy to play. I’ve read some dismissals of Tony Lip as a caricature, but the thing is, Tony must be so much more than that in order for the story to work. We have to become emotionally invested in a guy who throws drinking glasses in the trash simply because they have touched the lips of African American workmen. We have to laugh along with him in funny moments when some of his other jokes are unfunny and (occasionally) disturbing. Also Mortensen gained a massive amount of weight for the role. (He may lose the Best Actor Oscar to Rami Malek’s mischievous eyes and false teeth, but the real showdown will come later in the evening when Mortensen challenges Christian Bale to a hot dog eating contest!) (I’ve never been to an Oscars after party, you see, so I have a very dim grasp of what goes on there.)

Linda Cardellini, who was “the heart and soul of the movie” and looked just like Nick Vallelonga’s mother (as he told us at every televised event) is also good in her role as Tony’s loving wife who seems so pleased to see him grow as a person. They tried so hard to get her a nomination, and I would have been happy enough to see her swept along with the film into a Best Supporting Actress nod even though her part is tiny because who doesn’t love Linda Cardellini? (And I’m sure Nick Vallelonga’s praise of her is sincere. He actually appears in the film playing a relative, and most of his scenes are with Cardellini, who must have reminded him uncannily of his mother when she was dressed like her and copying her mannerisms.)

Kris Bowers also gives a fantastic performance in Green Book, both scoring the film and serving as Mahershala Ali’s piano double, playing the most difficult pieces of music. Obviously, Ali could not learn to play piano like a prodigy virtuoso in a number of weeks, and he was very smart and gracious to acknowledge Bowers’s contribution on stage at the Critics Choice Awards (where he literally called Bowers up to stand beside him at the microphone, a very good move).

Also, I personally enjoyed the movie’s use of color (as in its rich aesthetic palette). I suppose that’s part of production design. Green Book is aesthetically pleasing even at moments when the subject matter is difficult.

Why It Shouldn’t Win:

Green Book has been plagued with scandal for weeks, but that happens to movies with Best Picture hopes near the finish line (or, in the case of First Man, right out of the gate. That film was utterly destroyed before it even opened by a complete fabrication which, honestly, has enraged me for months).

In Green Book‘s case, some of the bad stuff is true, but most of it is not particularly damning (especially when you compare it to what’s going on with Bohemian Rhapsody director Bryan Singer, a true scandal, though one that may be helping Rami Malek’s Oscar chances more than hurting them).

Yes, Viggo Mortensen said the n-word during an interview, but, according to his co-star Mahershala Ali, he was making the point that although most people don’t say that word anymore, it’s important to go further to eradicate racism and hate, by changing people’s minds and hearts, not just their vocabularies. So the outrage there seems to have arisen primarily because some reporters deliberately misrepresented what was actually said in click-baity headlines. (And Mortensen has apologized for his lack of sensitivity and poor judgment in choosing to say the word.)

A somewhat bigger scandal concerns the complaints of some of Dr. Shirley’s relatives who say the movie mischaracterizes Don Shirley and misrepresents his relationship with his driver, turning a short working arrangement into a lifelong friendship. I, of course, don’t know any of the Vallelongas or the Shirleys personally. But I do know that there are taped interviews with both Tony Lip and Dr. Shirley in which they clearly describe several of the moments depicted in this film, which certainly helps Green Book‘s case.

Oh, and also in the past, director Peter Farrelly sometimes whipped out his penis at inappropriate moments as a joke. I don’t want to excuse bad behavior, but when you’re talking about a guy who directed films like Dumb and Dumber, Shallow Hal, There’s Something About Mary, and Stuck on You, is it more shocking that he exposed himself to get a laugh or that he made an Oscar nominated drama about race relations? If you want to talk about tasteless and offensive, forget about Farrelly’s anatomy and check out his filmography. (Now, in fairness, some of those Farrelly Brothers’ movies are funny, but maybe his penis is funny, too! I’ve seen the movies, but not his penis, so don’t look to me for enlightenment. Ask Cameron Diaz.) (She’s one of the people who mentions his behavior in an old interview.)

Probably what actually hurts the movie most is its dated feel. Green Book truly does feel like a movie about the 60s made in the late 80s or early 90s. This feels like a movie that my grandparents would have taken me to see when I was a child. (Seriously, my Grandma loved The Cotton Club, and my Grandpa loved to “go to the show,” or maybe he just knew how much I loved it.) Well, I’m missing my grandparents now, but the point is The Driving Miss Daisy comparisons are apt and unsurprising. (Of course, I personally feel that most people making these comparisons grossly exaggerate the weaknesses of Driving Miss Daisy which was a perfectly respectable film in its time, one that inspired me to rant daily about how much Morgan Freeman deserved to win an Oscar for the next fifteen years.)

On a second watch, the positive aspects of Green Book hold up, but the cringey parts don’t get any less cringey.

It’s still a good film. (Maybe there shouldn’t be a feel good film about racism, but there is, so…) Green Book won at the Producers Guild, and I could definitely see it stealing Best Picture since the current front runner is a foreign language Netflix film. But if you’re putting real money down, I beg you to reconsider. Roma is the safe bet, but just about any of these films could pull out a surprise victory.

Roma

Nominated Producer(s): Gabriela Rodriguez and Alfonso Cuarón
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Writer: Alfonso Cuarón

Cast: Yalitza Aparicio, Marina de Tavira, Verónica García, Jorge Antonio Guerrerro, Nancy García García, Fernando Grediaga, Zarela Lizbeth Chinolla Arellano, Clementina Guadarrama, Andy Cortés , José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza, Latin Lover, Kjartan Halvorsen, Carlos Peralta, Diego Cortina Autrey, Daniela Demesa, Marco Graf, and others.

Plot: In the Roma neighborhood of Meixco City in the 1970s, one family becomes closer, united by love after two life-altering ordeals. The maid, Cleo, discovers that she is pregnant. When she tells her lover, he abandons her. A very young, indigenous woman, Cleo has no idea how she’ll support herself if the family lets her go. She also has rising anxieties about her impending motherhood. As Cleo tries to process how her life is changing, another disturbance rocks the household. The family’s father abruptly leaves them. His wife, Sra. Sofía, struggles to keep her emotions in check and hide what’s really going on from the four children. Gradually, she realizes that her husband is never coming home. She and her mother-in-law must find a way to raise the family without his help. At least they don’t have to worry about keeping the house clean. Cleo always keeps the house clean.

Why It Should Win:

Roma is not a movie you just drop into casually. It’s a film about the profundity of love, and if you want a meaningful relationship with the material, you have to commit. It demands your full attention, start-to-finish. What’s truly exceptional about the film is how completely Alfonso Cuarón immerses us in the remembered world of his childhood. Life is in the details. Love is in giving, sharing. The little things are everything. The opening sequence tells us exactly where we’re headed, not only literally but thematically. Washing the floor is as powerful as the chaos of the sea. In life, meaningful, loving relationships save us from desolation. Cuarón doesn’t just tell us these things. He shows us. He lets the ambiance wash over us. We hear. We see. We understand. We understand so deeply, in fact, that words become irrelevant. (I’m positive that this movie would make perfect sense to non-Spanish speakers without the captions.)

I so admire the deft economy of his character development. We see the father pulling slowly into the driveway, tapping ash from his cigarette in his irritation. Something isn’t right. The car doesn’t fit, and the driver no longer finds the effort worth it. We can tell.

I absolutely love the supporting performance of Marina de Tavira as Sra. Sofía, finding it increasingly difficult to shield her children from the stress of their father’s abandonment.

Around Yalitza Aparicio, Cuarón constructs dynamic, engaging scenes, pregnant with symbolic meaning and loaded with sensory evidence of the rich world of his childhood in Mexico City. The film is dedicated to Libo, Cleo’s real-life counterpart, Cuarón’s childhood nanny and maid who is still a member of his family. That he finds honoring her contribution to his life important shows that the film industry is not as morally defunct its detractors often claim.

Why It Shouldn’t Win:
Roma seems like the only clear front runner for Best Picture this year. But it has a couple of huge (and I mean huge) hurdles to clear if it’s going to claim the biggest prize of the night.

1) No foreign language film has ever won Best Picture. Like never ever. Ever. This will be the 91st annual Academy Awards, so…yeah.

2) No Netflix film has ever won best picture.

Maybe it doesn’t seem like it at a glance, but that second problem is just as big a deal as the first. In fact, in this particular year, I would expect the Netflix issue to be the bigger stumbling block.

Alfonso Cuarón has worked in Hollywood for a long time making high profile films (most of them in English) that everyone knows. So yeah, okay, his film is in Spanish, and it takes place in Mexico, but it’s still done by the guy who gave us Gravity, the prettiest Harry Potter movie, Children of Men, A Little Princess…The film may be foreign, but the filmmaker is extremely familiar.

Also, heaping praise on a movie that positively portrays Mexico as a place where loving, normal families live sounds very Hollywood, don’t you think? To be blunt, President Trump wants to build a wall, and the majority of Academy members disagree (or, at least, wish to appear to disagree). Nothing makes a strong statement like breaking a ninety-year trend to make a Mexican film the first foreign language Best Picture winner ever. With the Academy’s help, Roma could knock that No Foreign Language Winner wall down on stage on live TV on Sunday.

But giving a Netflix movie Best Picture? A vote for a Netflix film might feel too much like a vote to destabilize the industry. So many films nominated in 2018 made tons of money at the box office. Black Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody, A Star is Born, these movies opened in wide release, and lots of people paid to see them. Yes, Netflix did show Roma in theaters first, but most people didn’t have the option to see it that way (conveniently). Should the Best Picture of the year always be shown first on TV so people can just watch it at home any time? Why even have movie theaters? Just convert them all into Amazon warehouses and storage facilities for Netflix servers and bowling alleys for Jeff Bezos and Reed Hastings, and be done with it!

Even if Roma gets past these two enormous obstacles, there are other reasons it might not win.

It’s a powerful, beautiful film, but not without its weak points, making it vulnerable to attack. Imagine this. What if Roma were called Beverly Hills? Same basic set up. The father is a doctor. The mother is a chemistry professor. They sure do love their maid! Yeah, she’s pregnant now, but they won’t abandon her! They’ll still let her scrub the dog crap off the floor! The story seems less appealing that way (whether or not you change the race of the maid). It sounds more like The Help, which also got Oscar nominations but was received with much greater scrutiny.

Some people also find Roma extremely boring. (“Ah, Roma!” I love to joke. “The movie that made my mother love Black Panther!”) Apparently it loses something if you don’t see it in the theater. (That something might be truly interested viewers.) Roma never came to a theater near me, so I had to watch on Netflix. The first time, I watched it in an otherwise silent room with the TV sound low late at night. The second time, I invited the entire family to watch with me during dinner. I would never recommend viewing the film with a noisy family during dinner (or with my family at any time). Atmosphere created by sound as much as sight is what makes the film so impressive. To appreciate Roma, you have to give yourself to it, lose yourself in Cleo’s world entirely. It is not like most movies. It’s immersive and asks you to abandon yourself to total immersion.

I’m not sure the “boring” thing is that big of a problem when it comes to Oscar voters because there are no Oscar police making sure Academy members have actually finished watching the movie they’re voting for. If there’s no test, everybody’s read the book, right?

Do they want to give Alfonso Cuarón so many Oscars, though? (He’s already won two for directing and editing Gravity. If Roma wins Best Director, Best Foreign Film, and Best Picture, that’s already three more. And what if it also wins cinematography? I suppose this could come in handy when the Academy is desperate to produce some evidence of its diversity. “Look Mexican film makers have won 900 Oscars! Of course, we’re not saying how many of those went to Alfonso Cuarón…”)

I won’t lie, though. I love Roma, and I do honestly believe it’s one of the best films of the year. (People who are turned off by the twisted debasement of The Favourite or the harsh, brutal reality of BlacKkKlansman can always turn to this beautiful, warm film honoring family and promoting love.)

But even I (who loved the film and believe in its merit) am kind of rooting against Roma. My only reason is a selfish one, awards season fatigue. Roma has won a lot of precursor awards for Best Picture. I’d like something else to take the big prize on Oscar night just for the thrill of the surprise. But I won’t be unhappy if Roma wins Best Picture. It’s a truly excellent film, and 2018 didn’t have too many of those.

A Star is Born

Nominated Producer(s): Bill Gerber, Bradley Cooper, and Lynette Howell Taylor

Director: Bradley Cooper
Writers: Bradley Cooper, Eric Roth, Will Fetters

Cast: Lady Gaga, Bradley Cooper, Sam Elliott, Andrew Dice Clay, Dave Chappelle, Anthony Ramos, Rafi Gavron, Greg Grunberg, Eddie Griffin, D.J. Shangela Pierce, Drena De Niro, and others.

Plot:

Rock legend Jackson Maine knows his star is fading. He’s losing his hearing, losing his battle with substance abuse, and losing interest in life, but he has no one to die for until he meets Ally, a talented young woman with a big heart and a voice the world needs to hear. They fall in love and remain true to each other, even though Ally is on her way up, and Jack is on his way out.

Why It Should Win:

I certainly admire the work first time director Bradley Cooper put into this movie. Perhaps his smartest decision was convincing Lady Gaga to get involved. To say the two of them work well together is a massive understatement. Their on screen chemistry is so palpable and compelling that fans started spinning (false) rumors of an off screen romance. (When Gaga and Cooper elope in real life, feel free to make fun of me for dismissing the “crazy” rumors.)

With Cooper as a scene partner, Gaga seems natural, relaxed. (I keep wondering if he introduced food into so many scenes to help put her at ease and give her something to do, but maybe all the food is there to awaken sensuous stirrings in the audience.) The first time I saw the film, Gaga’s charm as an actress took me by surprise. Why has the world never seen her this way before? All of her “100 people in a room” speeches may be easy to mock, but Cooper does deserve credit for realizing what she could do and introducing the world to leading lady Gaga.

And Gaga deserves credit for co-writing a gazillion songs and convincing Cooper to perform them in front of real audiences as they filmed. As we already knew, Lady Gaga is an extremely talented performer. I didn’t know that Bradley Cooper could sing and play guitar, and perhaps that’s because he couldn’t before, at least not as well as he does here, because after Gaga suggested performing in front of live audiences, he took lessons and practiced. A lot. That’s one thing that makes Cooper’s performance stand apart from the others in the field. Unlike all the other male actors nominated for musical performances this year, Cooper is full singing (the music we are hearing) and actually playing the instruments. Plus, he’s doing it all while convincingly mimicking the gravelly voice and familiar cadence of Sam Elliott. (Why he needed to do this last part is not especially clear, but it does explain why he cast Elliott, whose acting is also good here (though it’s hard to see him as deserving of an Oscar, possibly because Bradley Cooper keeps stealing all his best moments).)

Bradley Cooper is a talented actor. (I believed the anguish of his Jack, and I love the way he chose to compassionately portray someone struggling with addiction. Jack is a good person. We never doubt it.) Meanwhile, Lady Gaga is a talented singer. (On the big screen, most of her performances make me want to jump up and applaud, and her Ally always treats her husband with love and respect.) In this movie, the actor sings, and the singer acts. Ta-da! (And the evil British talent agent is a one-note villain, but that’s Hollywood for you.)

This version of A Star Is Born is more the story of Jack than of Ally. (In fact, she remains a bit underdeveloped as his character increasingly takes over the entire thing.) But I did feel their love, and I appreciated the real humanity and lack of pettiness in both protagonists.

Why It Shouldn’t Win:
A Star Is Born is its own worst enemy.

First of all, everybody knows that it is a remake of a remake of a remake. Now, if we’re being honest, it’s frankly a little weird that this matters to anybody. It’s not like Bradley Cooper decided to remake The Godfather or Mary Poppins or some other movie that everybody knows and loves. A lot of people my age know only the Barbra Streisand version, and I’ll bet people younger than I am know only the Bradley Cooper version. (I’m talking about average people, not film aficionados who will, of course, recall instantly the almost tragic story of Judy Garland’s Oscar loss to Grace Kelly.)

The thing is, though, anybody who wants to dismiss A Star Is Born out of hand just has to trot out the old, “Well this is the third remake…” line.

Then there’s the matter of the film’s overzealous self-promotion. A Star Is Born spent most of the fall proclaiming itself the front runner for just about every Oscar. That’s not so unusual. Of course Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga are proud of their work. They should be. Plus, actors almost always promote their films. (They’re usually contractually obligated.) And big studios spend big money to back winners. That’s totally normal.

The slightly weird thing is how many Oscar pundits got caught up in the massive cyclone of hype swirling around this movie. For a while there, pretty much everybody was saying, “Oh yeah, A Star Is Born is winning Best Picture for sure, and probably also Best Director, Best Actor, Best Song, Best in Show, Miss Congeniality, and…what?…Glenn Close? She probably won’t even get nominated!”

But perhaps what hurts A Star Is Born the most is its own conspicuous excellence. The first third of this movie is so amazing that the last two thirds look pretty lousy by comparison. When I watched it the first time, I marveled in genuine surprise, “Wow! This may be one of my new favorite films ever!” Then a few more minutes ticked by, and I was like, “Just kidding!” Twenty minutes into the movie, I could imagine re-watching it infinitely. But as it hit the hour mark, I wasn’t even sure I wanted to sit through it a second time. (I did, though. I finally purchased it on Blu-ray, at great personal inconvenience since our shelves are full, and we’re now trying to build a digital library instead. For what it’s worth, I liked the film better the second time.)

A Star Is Born either peaked too early or had delusions of grandeur, loved by its own Oscar campaign more far more than by any voting body giving out actual awards.

Honestly, judged by its own merits, the film is a fairly weak contender for Best Picture (though both lead performances are deserving), but this is a pretty weak field, so maybe A Star Is Born will rally at the eleventh hour and shock everyone with a win. (Well, I mean, it is going to get one win. For Best Original Song. Barring a shocking upset, Gaga will be bringing home the gold in that category for sure!) I don’t expect any kind of sympathy win for Bradley Cooper, though, to make up for his Best Director “snub.” Still, he did just get three Oscar nominations for his directorial debut, so save your tears for Jackson Maine because Bradley Cooper’s doing just fine.

Vice

Nominated Producer(s): Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Adam McKay and Kevin Messick

Director: Adam McKay
Writer: Adam McKay

Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell, Sam Rockwell, Jesse Plemmons, Alison Pill, Lily Rabe, Tyler Perry, Eddie Marsan, Justin Kirk, LisaGay Hamilton, Naomi Watts and others.

Plot:

Dick Cheney wants to please his wife Lynne, a woman with vision, ambition, a bra, and a husband, all the tools a Conservative female needs to rule the world. Since most people in the United States don’t really care or pay attention, this focused, driven couple succeeds in implementing their agenda and begins a reign of terror and graft which never ends until the limit of Cheney’s term in office brings his Vice Presidency to a close. He then returns to being a (much richer) private citizen and wants to die, but Lynne won’t let him, so he has a heart transplant (and no regrets).

Why It Should Win:
So I’ve been thinking a lot about Vice, and I’ve come to absolutely no conclusions. This film baffles me. I don’t know what to say.

But Christian Bale is amazing as Dick Cheney. He’s my personal pick for Best Actor (though I wish he’d quit thanking Satan, and I’m almost sure he’s going to lose to Rami Malek). Stunning physical transformation aside (because let’s face it, he’s Christian Bale, he’s probably in the process of losing one-hundred pounds to play a skeleton at a Halloween party right now), Bale gives a strong, subtle, nuanced performance, one that would keep us watching anything, a kid’s show, a dog food commercial, an unfocused film struggling to find a clear message. And although she doesn’t vanish into the role like Bale, Amy Adams makes Lynne Cheney compelling and intriguing, something the woman herself has never managed to do (as far as I’m concerned). These two alone make the film worth watching. Their performances are gold. Oscars for both of them, if you ask me. (Of course, the Oscars I’m handing out are made of chocolate. Sorry guys!)

The supporting performances in Vice are really excellent, too. In a performance nominated for Best Supporting Actor, Sam Rockwell is charming. And Steve Carell’s Rumsfeld is something special. He does not take the same approach as Bale, Adams, and Rockwell. He doesn’t expect us to believe he truly is Rumsfeld. He gives us Steve Carell doing a Rumsfeld bit. But the character he creates has so many quirks and even a sort of pathos. It is not the same type of performance as the others give (which may be a strike against the movie), but it is the finest male supporting work in the film, nevertheless. Too bad the Academy never goes for Steve Carell.

The movie is funny (sometimes) and has lots of meta jokes that do not hit as often as they could. (The best of these is the running bit featuring Naomi Watts as the only Fox News anchor.)

For me, the most brilliant scene in the film is the faux Shakespearean scheming scene in which both Bale and Adams are so breathtakingly brilliant. (Those two need to do real Shakespeare together. Somebody make it happen!)

Why It Shouldn’t Win:

Look, I think the Cheneys (both their fictional and real incarnations) had a lot more vision and focus than Adam McKay did when making this movie. Perhaps he admires this fictive Lynne that he and Amy Adams have created because she knows who she is, and she knows what she wants to be. I don’t think that the same can be said of Vice.

Why did we need a movie about Dick Cheney right now? It would be one thing to make a film about a beloved politician and expose his dark secrets and feet of clay. But Cheney is not beloved (to say the least). Even to imagine it for the span of one sentence is absurd. Films about historical figures can also be used to rehabilitate their reputations, but McKay is no Cheney apologist. That much is clear. So what is this movie trying to do? What is it trying to say?

I’ll admit that I’ve only had the opportunity to see Vice once so far. Additional viewings might bring me greater insight and even change my mind. But what I see is a film that’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. The performances are stronger than the material. Bale and Adams are extremely powerful (and earnest) in their portrayals of Dick and Lynne. What is the movie trying to tell us about Dick and Lynne? We’re not sure. So we listen to Dick and Lynne instead because what they represent is clear.

Vice is an entertaining and thought-provoking movie, but its message is muddled. Perhaps it wants to show us that the U.S. presidency should be more than a mere cult of personality. The final scene of Cheney addressing the audience should perhaps remind us that we are the voters, that the government should be deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Maybe we need to take back the reins. We can’t simply elect people who entertain us and ignore politics when it bores us.

I liked the movie, but I think McKay’s previous Best Picture nominee The Big Short is a much stronger film overall. Looking back at the George W. Bush years, we sometimes think, “Wow! What happened?” and even, “How did we get here?” Instead of giving us answers, this movie’s like, “I know! It’s so confusing, right?”

Part of me wants to call Vice the weakest of the Best Picture nominees this year, but then I keep thinking, “Are you sure that’s not Bohemian Rhapsody? And Black Panther is a Marvel movie. Green Book has flashes of greatness, but that fried chicken conversation in the car…And the whole second half of A Star is Born…” There’s usually a conspicuously weak Best Picture nominee each year (or maybe I should just admit I don’t care for Stephen Daldry films). This year, the entire field is weak, which is particularly sad because the Best Picture line-up at the 2018 Oscars was amazing.

No matter which film takes Best Picture, the big winners at this year’s Oscars are the Academy members who signed a petition and successfully reversed that ridiculous decision to give out certain supposedly less significant awards during commercial breaks. (You know, cinematography, editing, insignificant stuff like that!) Because of their efforts, that exasperating plan has been scrapped at the eleventh hour. And for that, I’d like to thank (select members of) the Academy. Genuinely.

Share this: