Showing posts with label Brad Pitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Pitt. Show all posts

Monday, March 30, 2026

Oscars 2026: Pluses and Minuses

Time Pegs Be Damned at this Blog! I'll React to the Oscars When I Want to React! In All Seriousness, Please Consider Raising Your Subscription From Free to Paid to Help Incentivize Me to Write In a More Timely Manner. It Takes a Decent Amount of Human Labor to Write This After All, and The Traditional Journalism Outlets to Publish These Pieces Are Dying.


Plus: A Great Year on the Whole

To people who aren’t film buffs, it seems like a blanket generality to say that one year was good and one year wasn’t, but it actually can be true. Certain trends — and especially the ripple waves of COVID — altered release dates to the point where some years were complete duds (looking at you, 2022!).

2024 only had four films I would unequivocally recommend — Here, Anora, Between the Temples, and Challengers. This past year? I’d classify somewhere between 15 and 20 films at that level of quality. So when it comes to Sinners and One Battle After Another, they are both extraordinary films in an extraordinary year.

Minus: The Back End of the Nominees

I found Frankenstein too gory and disturbing to be a positive experience. But I can accept that it’s not my cup of tea, and it fills a nice niche for a Best Picture slate.

What I wholeheartedly reject is the inclusion of F1 and Bugonia. Terrible movies must not be allowed to be nominated, troops! Just kidding — I know art is subjective — but I thought those were seriously unimpressive films. Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most imaginative filmmakers out there, but he’s been nominated for far better films before. This one was a flat horror film with a half-baked twist, not something on par with his usual level of world-building.

F1 was a clichéd sports film that saw Brad Pitt playing to the exact behavioral expectations I would have of a Hollywood star who has consistently been told he’s one of the sexiest men on the planet. Also, let’s be honest: Sentimental Value wasn’t that far off from the SNL sketch.

Plus: A Veteran Wins Supporting Actress

In the last few years, the Academy has been using the supporting categories to kowtow to groups that insist the Academy award a diverse set of winners. Everyone’s opinion will vary, but I found Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Zoë Saldaña, Lupita Nyong’o, Ariana DeBose, Ke Huy Quan, and Troy Kotsur all unworthy of the Oscar, and it’s difficult not to believe the race was altered to some degree because of the diversity narrative.

My friend told me, “Congratulations, you have the same view as Fox News,” and my hatred for the Republican Party is well documented, but that doesn’t mean I like seeing Oscar voting influenced by counterfactual pushes for diversity. Watching someone like Ariana DeBose campaign for the Oscar on the basis that she’s the more diverse choice — while ignoring that this benefits her in today’s socio-economic climate — and then hammering “the continued importance of diversity” in her speech the following year feels tone-deaf.

This year, I was impressed with Chaser Infiniti in One Battle After Another, and Regina King knocked it out of the park in the unnominated Darren Aronofsky film Caught Stealing, so I was pretty thrilled for Amy Madigan, although I should point out…

Minus: That veteran was Someone I Had Never Heard Of. Skarsgard Family Still Goes Unrewarded:

Although, I do have to ask: who the hell is Amy Madigan? Am I the only one who can’t remember her from Field of Dreams? Personally, I’ve only seen her in three films: Rules Don’t Apply, Pollock, and Field of Dreams. She’s also famous for Uncle Buck and the Oscar-nominated Places in the Heart. But that’s a pretty thin résumé.

It’s nice to see an older actor rewarded, but Stellan Skarsgård would have been a much nicer choice. Still, it’s the kind of bombastic supporting-character role that we don’t see too often.

Plus: Conan O’Brien Goes All In on Sketches

From 2002 to approximately the dawn of YouTube, I was a Conan obsessive. If you were up past midnight, this was the only game in town, and it was quite a game. His stand-up was pretty typical, and his Hollywood banter had a nice awareness that he was a small fish in a big pond, but he really shone brightest in sketch work.

With the aid of Brian Stack (who I am scheduled to interview this May), Brian McCann, Andy Blitz, Max Weinberg, Joel Goddard, a young Amy Poehler, and others, Conan presided over a gonzo theater of the absurd. He crammed in an especially high number of bits: imagining himself as an entitled Oscar winner being serenaded by Josh Groban; memeing Leonardo DiCaprio and duplicating Michael B. Jordan; a future Oscars overrun by product placement; a parody of Netflix’s habit of spelling out plot points mid-movie.

This is Conan at his best.

Minus: The Backlash to Sinners Losing

I’ve written plenty about how the Oscars continue to be a referendum on progressiveness by a bloc of critics, movie fans, and industry advocates who believe that lashing out at the minute shortcomings of one of the most progressive industries on the planet will make a ripple in fixing our messed-up society.

As Chris Rock once said, the Black community in the 1960s wasn’t protesting Sidney Poitier’s Oscar snubs because they were too busy getting lynched. In the past decade, I’ve witnessed mass calls for greater inclusiveness during Awards Season that are just plain intellectually insulting, and I’ve had to risk looking racist or sexist if I didn’t join that bandwagon.

On top of the slant toward people wanting to see Black nominees win, we have the additional backlash that inevitably comes from Sinners being such a highly nominated film. They are both incredible films but one has to be a winner. The problem is that both films will be defined forever in a debate that will go beyond the Oscars (expanded upon here)

Side note:

My biggest irritation here is that Ryan Coogler won an Oscar, but some people will claim it’s not the right Oscar. Try telling that to Ryan Coogler! You think he's not happy winning an Oscar or that an anti-Black Academy would really pick and choose which type of Oscar to give someone?

Plus: Writing Wins for One Battle After Another and Sinners

So much of what worked well with these movies happened at the writing level.

Sinners established great backstory for its characters without dragging (impressive for a 137‑minute movie) and pulled the wool over our eyes as it underwent a very smooth genre shift.

One Battle After Another walked the thin tightrope between being relevant but not preachy or specific. It built out an entire world that could be explored in sequels or spin-offs.

Minus: The Ceremony Started an Hour Early

Whose bright idea was this? Who exactly wants to start an Oscar party on the West Coast at 4 p.m.? It was a major schlep just to make it to my own party by 7 p.m., and I had the easiest time zone in the country.

There’s “starting early,” and then there’s “my Aunt Hilda insisting we eat at 4:30 because she doesn’t like driving in the dark.” The Oscars should not be taking scheduling cues from Aunt Hilda!

Plus: The Casting Oscar

The new casting award is a good start — a long‑overdue acknowledgment of a crucial part of filmmaking — but it remains to be seen whether the Academy will just copycat the Best Picture race (the way the SAG Ensemble award often does) or actually think creatively. Would a good ensemble film featuring risky choices like Bad Shabbos or  the Knives Out sequel have made it in under ordinary circumstances? How about a foreign crossover like Rental Family, with an entirely fresh cast of Japanese actors alongside Brendan Frasier?

It’s a promising category, but the Academy has a long history of defaulting to the familiar. Let’s see if they can resist that gravitational pull.

Plus: The Bridesmaids Reunion

Probably the funniest non-host bit of the night. The forced improv element with the most random selection of audience members was killer. I was disappointed to see Wendi McLendon-Covey (unfortunately, the least famous of the sextet) absent on stage, but fortunately that was explained as a scheduling difficulty.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

A plausible line-up on Oscar night

Pitcute: Slumdog Millionaire (I'd love to see a quasi-Bollywood film win)
Director: Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Actor: B Pitt, Benjamin Buttons (I think it could be anyone's game, who knows)
Actress: Winslet, Revolutionary Road (finally, let's see Winslet get it)
Supp. Actor: Ledger, The DK (posthumous award sounds interesting, also )
Supp. Actress: Cruz, VCB (It would give Woody Allen another supporting actor/actress win, and I like Penelope Cruz. I like seeing Latinos be rewarded and she's been paying her dues for a while. Certainly better then Selma Hayek, IMO)
O Screenplay: Rachel Getting Married (Milk? if Milk is original or adapted i don't remember, Rachel Getting Married screenplay wouldn't go to Johnothan Demme, but it would make him look good, so why not? Besides i don't want to see O Screenplay go to a dramedy/comedy AGAIN (i.e. Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, Sideways, Lost in Translation))
A Screenplay: Benjamin Buttons (I'd like to see Ben Buttons and Slumdog be the top 2 award getters of the night so throw Ben Buttons the screenplay, even though there's much to
Editing: Frost/Nixon (I wouldn't mind seeing Frost/Nixon walk away with a win, and it's a little better edited than Dark Knight, IMO)
Score: Slumdog Millionaire
Song: Wall-E (Wall-E was a unique film, i'd like to see it get more wins than just animated)
Cinematography: Dark Knight or Slumdog (I'm torn, I understand that Dark Knight had revolutionary new methods and innovations in cinematography, but Slumdog was amazing and traditionally the best picture gets at least 2 or 3 other wins for the night)
Art Direction: Benjamin Buttons (that makes 3)
Costumes: Australia (Australia deserves a technical, i don't want to see it go all Memoirs of a Geisha and sweep the technical awards when it clearly wasn't a deserving picture as a whole, but one technical award sounds right)
Make-Up: Dark Knight (2nd for Dark Knight. I would've liked to see it win cinematography but what can you do
Sound: Wall-E (I had no idea how to judge best sound until I heard Wall-E and knew that the film was great, in part, because of the sound)
Sound Editing: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (I'd like to see it get a technical award somewhere, maybe Lucas and Spielberg couldn't make a great story out of their efforts to revive the Indiana Jones
Animated: Wall-E
Documentary: Encounters at the End of the World, Warner Herzog (I don't even know if it's eligible, but it was my personal favorite)
Special Effects: Iron Man (when you think about it, Dark Knight has a lot of drama, and a small amount of explosions, but nothing in the way of Iron Man)
Foreign: Waltz with Bashir (catchy name for a film. reminds me of Dr. Bashir on Star Trek, so I'll go with that)

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Is it Ocean's 13 or Ocean's 4?

Ocean's 13 is coming to theaters this week and I'm already wishing this film was never made. It's not the actual film I'm wishing didn't exist. Despite the abysmal failure of Ocean's 12, it's very probable that, considering the potential of Stephen Sodebergh and the strength of Ocean's 11, this film will be good and I'm looking forward to seeing it.


But the question is whether it's worth having to see these self-indulgent fests of self-praise that occurs when Matt Damon, George Clooney, and Brad Pitt all over the press circuit this week? Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Matt Damon and while Brad Pitt can tend to get a little overly metaphysical/spiritual/philosophical when asked simple interview questions, he's OK with me as well. If George Clooney is far off in Africa or campaigning for his dad, I'm OK with him too. My problem isn't really with George Clooney as much as it is how his ability to make every (male and female) Hollywood reporter fall in love with him results in an over coverage of him with hard-hitting stories like "George Clooney: a great and selfless guy or the greatest, most handsomest, most selfless guy there is?." By selfless, do you mean "talks about himself less"? Because, I haven't seen much evidence of that. Also, did you omit actor with range in there? Well, that's cause he doesn't have much of it. I do think he deserved the Oscar for Syrianna (and some people don't), but that's about as far as his range stretches. "Oh, let's not bash George Clooney," you say, "He's doing great stuff for Darfur." Well, the George Clooney publicity machine is not doing it' s job very well because I challenge you all: How much do you know about Darfur because of George Clooney? The articles that have come out with regard to George Clooney are along the lines of "Clooney: Great guy because he went to Darfur" rather than "Here's what's going on in Darfur"

So as I was saying: Matt Damon by himself = Good, Brad Pitt by himself = Mostly good, George Clooney = Mildly Tolerable. However, when you get the three in the same room, it's a whole different monster. They start congratulating each other on winning People Magazine's sexiest man award, fooling around with reporters and giving humorous answers (except when the questions are about politics in which case, George never misses the opportunity to promote his cause*), and talking about how great each other are. Add Julia Roberts and see things get worse. so it might be a blessing in disguise that she's absent from this one.


These guys were so distracted by how much fun they were having on the set of Ocean's 12 that they forgot to double-check at the end of the film if they had made a coherent plot (Stephen Sodebergh has been guilty of this before: see Full Frontal). I remember on three separate (Letterman, Inside the Actor's Studio and Good Morning America) occasions, Matt Damon had felt a need to remind us in interviews that while he and the gang were having fun in Ocean's 12, that they were still professionals and were going to deliver us a professional product. That should have been our first clue as to how bad Ocean's 12 would be. When he was promoting The Legend of Bagger Vance, he wasn't bragging about how professional he and Will Smith were able to maintain their work. That's sort of implied.
Ocean's 11 was notable in 2001 for the fact that all these A-list selflessly took pay cuts so that the film could support such a large ensemble. It doesn't look like their egos took a pay cut, unfortunately. These guys have so much fun with each other that I think they forget there are other people in the cast. I seriously wonder if Brad Pitt could even name the other 11 members of his own cast? Don Cheadle pops up occasionally so at best, we should just call this film Ocean's 4 judging by the press releases. I never see Shaobo Qin, Eddie Jemison, Scott Caan, or Casey Affleck involved in any of the press interviews. Poor Casey has the unfortunate distinction of being Ben Affleck's brother and on top of that he doesn't even get any recognition for his own film.
Lastly, what about Elliot Gould and Carl Reiner? Carl Reiner is a comedic legend and Elliot Gould was one of the best actors in the '70s through a string of Rob Altman films. You would think they might have gotten some recognition as well.
*I don't have anything against Clooney's politics and agree with his viewpoints. In my opinion, the political views expressed in his pictures are that if nothing else, "we should be open and be allowed to criticize our government." At the same time, he babbles on non-stop about his politics to the point where it bores me to death and doesn't seem to have an off-switch. I felt it was slightly insensitive to use his Golden Globe acceptance speech to deliver a Jack Abramoff as if he was filling int for Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.
Footnote:
I'm slightly less upset over this matter, when I learned that Carl Reiner was on Late Night with Craig Furgeson tonight. In the film, he admits that Ocean's 12 wasn't good but Ocean's 13 is well-written and greatly enhanced by Al Pacino. We will wait and see. Reiner was also shilling out for the greatness of Cheadle, Clooney, and Pitt. Well, Carl, don't sell yourself short, you're a great actor yourself.