Author Topic: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.  (Read 8846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« on: February 08, 2020, 03:07:55 PM »
I was hoping to launch this thing earlier in the week but kept putting it off because there is one Best Picture nominee I haven't seen yet and was hoping to see it before the show but that may or may not happen. The movie is Marriage Story but the only significant award it seems poised to take is Best Supporting Actress for Laura Dern and there's been nothing from other award shows to indicate it might be a serious contender for the Best Picture win or other Oscar wins. Maybe if Netflix was so anti-theater, I'd have seen it already but since I don't subscribe to Netflix, it makes it a pain to check out their stuff. Keep fighting against Netflix and their current model, Spielberg. I'm one of the people on your side there. I still haven't gotten around to seeing half the films nominated for Best Picture last year but one of the four that I did see was Roma because a local independent theater played it so I went to see it on the big screen there. Did see The Irishman but I'll discuss more about the films later.

Normally, the Oscar ceremony has often been taking place in another two weeks near the end of February but it was pushed up this year. Perhaps if it was the usual later time then I'd have easily been able to check out everything nominated and post this thread in a more timely manner. Still, at least it is better than last year when I threw up my predictions just minutes before the show and never even bothered talking much about the films nominated.

The last couple threads, I often opened them by talking a bit about my feelings on movies for the year. You may have noticed a pattern of discontent as I was less and less impressed by what was coming out and my enthusiasm for movies was cooling to the point that I really barely cared about the 2019 Oscars (for 2018 movies) and checking out the films nominated. Well, the past year of 2019, I seem to have started rekindling that enjoyment of them. The amount of movies I watched has still dipped down a bit from what it used to be in the first half of the 2010's. Part of that is because I've been doing more gaming and watching through various TV shows as well. There's only so much time one can spend with all the entertainment options out there.

However, I feel like the quality of movies I've seen has started to increase again somewhat this year. It does seem like movies go through waves where you get these peaks of great years and then you dip into valleys of years with very few worthwhile movies and then it starts to pick up again. Usually that dip seems to correspond to years ending in 8. Having hit that low in 2018, I guess I'm hopeful about what lies ahead and am starting to see that improvement last year. At the same time, I've also been watching some older films that I'd yet to see and enjoying those to which help keep me going when I do watch a couple stinkers in a row. Getting back into the quest to try and check out all the Best Picture nominees before the ceremony also felt a bit more fun this year than in the last couple years too. For whatever reason, my moods improved again about what Hollywood has been churning out recently and may be putting out in the future.

With a few series I've been watching all wrapping up last year or into January a bit this year (so long The Good Place and Arrow), I haven't been jumping into or starting other series in their place but have taken the time to watch a movie instead. I've got like over 100 movies on my PVR/DVR that I've got some interest in seeing and watching but my enthusiasm hasn't quite hit the levels it was where I used to keep up with all the movies I wanted to see or would record to watch later. In any case, I seem to be getting over whatever funk I was in the last couple years with movies and maybe even in life and hopefully I can translate that into more movie discussion like I always think to myself about wanting to do on here. At the very least, my better mood has got me posting my Oscar thread a bit earlier again.  8) :D
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2020, 07:25:08 PM »
1917 - From what I've been seeing, this seems to be considered the front runner for Best Picture this year with possibly Parasite or Once Upon A Time In Hollywood as the other major contenders against it. When I first saw the trailer for this movie, from the footage being shown, I was all-in and it was the Best Picture nominee I most anticipating to see released. Yet, after finally seeing it, I wasn't the blown away by it. Maybe I was too hyped but I think it is a bit more than that. The story is pretty basic and is pretty much shown in the trailer. Couple soldiers are given a mission to get through dangerous territory to deliver vital war intelligence. After that beginning, it is pretty much a World War 1 rollercoaster of different set-pieces and difficulties. I've got nothing against that as there are a lot of great movies that have a simple story to frame the action across it. However, in this case, something a bit more was needed. I'm going to quote an excerpt from Peter Sobczynski's review of the film:

Quote
But the film is so obsessed with its particular technique that it doesn’t leave room for the other things we also go to the movies for—little things like a strong story, interesting characters, or a reason for existing other than as a feat of technical derring-do. Sitting through it is like watching someone else playing a video game for two solid hours, and not an especially compelling one at that.

I'd actually been typing a lot of that before going back to check his review because I thought he was the one who talked about how the single take trick distracts from the film and works against it. But I'd written about how there was a reason no one was nominated for an acting award from this film. There's just not much character development or interesting dialogue. I was even going to make the video game comparison. However, I think there is another more apt comparison and a recent one as well. The Revenant. The Revenant also had a pretty simple story about a man coming back from near death to get revenge and overcoming the obstacles and situations on his journey to accomplish that. It had great cinematography and set pieces but it didn't necessarily have much for character development. It did have Tom Hardy at least growling away with all his musings and beliefs. So, there was someone sort of memorable. Even though DiCaprio's character didn't say much, he was still a bit more memorable with his reactions to a lot of the situations he faced and came off as a hero the audience could relate to and hope to see succeed. I didn't have that connection with 1917 and the main characters or side characters it encounters along the way.

And as a quick aside, I happened to be scrolling through TV channels a couple months ago and saw a channel playing The Revenant. Hadn't watched it since I saw it in theatres back at the end of 2015 or start of 2016 and discussed it for the Oscar thread that year. I clicked on it but had just missed the bear attack which I was kind of hoping to see again but then darned if it didn't suck me in and I kept on watching all the ways to the end. I don't know if 1917 will end up with that same power of drawing one in again if they watch it a second time but I'd put The Revenant ahead of 1917 when ranking the two and I'm not sure it is fair to The Revenant to compare 1917 to it at the moment. The big thing that struck me when watching The Revenant the second time around is how much I saw and could make Breath of the Wild comparisons to it. If Nintendo hadn't already been making BotW at the time, I'd have theorized that movie might have influenced the Zelda team with the direction they choose for the game. Sort of like how I feel and theorize that the Lord of the Rings trilogy impacted the design of Twilight Princess. But I digress and will get back to 1917.

But much like how one controls the camera in Breath of the Wild (to tie that digression back to this film), there were times I wanted to control the camera in this film to swing it behind the characters to see what was ahead for them and what they were walking towards. I get the reason was to show their faces and reactions rather than just have the camera shooting them from behind constantly like Link or Mario in a 3D game. When the position of the camera is what an audience member is thinking about then I feel the movie has a problem. Instead of sucking you in, it is pulling you out and ruining that suspension of disbelief. Moreover, I don't think the long take really accomplished anything special that a few cuts couldn't have done in between some of these setpieces. The movie is supposed to take place over a period of maybe 16 - 20 hours. You go through a day into night and then the early dawn through a couple hours. Mentally, you can tell or just feel that the timing isn't real because of how fast it sort of moves along in the film. Just for that, I think some cuts would have been beneficial to the film because everyone can mentally accept some time has passed when a movie normally makes a cut between scenes and is just moving the action along.

On a different note, it does feel weird to talk about a WW1 rollercoaster because World War 1 was really not a rollercoaster of any kind. It was a large stalemate for most of the time it occurred because both sides were quite evenly matched thanks to the technology at that point and it basically took time for technology to advance some more past what everyone currently had to finally start making some progress and actual change in the military power that the armies could use to fight with. It was mainly trench warfare so everyone was great at defense but had nothing to surpass it in offense. Both sides sent out thousands of men to try and advance on an enemy line only for those men to be mostly killed in a few minutes and retreat with no real gains. I always felt that Civilization 3 got that right. In Civ 3, as you go through the tech tree in the Industrial age (which is sort of like 1790 - 1945), there is a point where you can gain access to infantry men and upgrade all your old defenders like spearman, pikemen or riflemen into them. Infantry men have great defense but no real offense. They're something like attack 4, defense 8, movement 1. When you get them, you basically render more military units up to that point as obsolete. Cavalry are probably the most powerful attackers at that point but they'll get mowed down in most attacks against an infantry man. You basically need a lot of artillery cannons to bombard and lower the HP of the infantry units and then hope that the RNG will grant you a victory at some point as you throw a few cavalry units against the weakened defender. Likewise, infantry units suck at attack. They can't attack other infantry units and going against a cavalry unit is likely to result in their defeat because their attack is barely higher than a cavalry units defense. Thus, getting infantry sort of results in a stalemate situation with other nations. There is no point in them attacking you when you get those units and vice versa. It isn't until later on in the tech tree when you can get access to planes and tanks that one can really start advancing again in fighting another civilization. In my mind, I've always thought of World War 1 that way and have always though Civ sort of got it right with how they made the tech tree work in that regard.

The end result is that World War 1 became known as the war to end all wars since the cost of life was so great and technology had been so evenly matched. It was a war of attrition and no one or nation wanted to go through that again or could see any point in declaring war because of how awful it had been to make any progress in WW1 and the cost of life that seemed to be required to win. That's why nations tried to avoid war and appease Hitler so much in the 30s. Most nations were still had the trauma of the first WW1 and did not want to go through it again. However, technology had changed by then so that the devastating defensive tactics of WW1 couldn't really apply that much to WW2 situations. This long meandering history lesson is simply to say that seeing a WW1 movie where there is sort of a lot of action, I guess added a bit more to my disconnect at times with the film. Sometimes I almost started to think of it as a WW2 picture instead of a WW1 film. It just seems highly unusual for the time and yet it there were some scenes where I thought it did portray moments of what WW1 was like. I'll be rooting for it to win cinematography but I feel like this movie that could have been really, really, good or great and instead fell short because of trying to be too fancy and impressive technically.

At this moment in time, I give it 2.5 / 5 stars. Would have liked to have seen more with Andrew Scott's character or Cumberbatch even. Sherlock and Moriarty are back! This is the second time Mendes seems to have underutilized Scott with Spectre being the first.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2020, 09:26:49 PM »
Are all my movie reviews going to be that long? I sure hope not and there are probably a bunch of users who will tl;dr such a review anyways. The funny thing is that movies which one really likes or might think of as great don't often inspire as much discussion or critique as the flawed movies or the ones you might hate. You just don't dig into them as much. 1917 is probably the movie I've felt like dissecting the most because of the mixed feelings it stirs in me when thinking about it. But now I've been writing about Ford vs Ferrari and that turned into a big wall of text so who knows.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2020, 09:57:32 PM »
If Once Upon A Time In Hollywood doesn't win big I would be very disappointed. This is the Oscars so that will be a given.

Haven't watched 1917 however I can easily understand the roller coaster issue*. It's this year's Gravity. I have seen Gravity which is at it's heart a roller coaster and the cart you are riding is Bullock. Visually stunning in a way it isn't just the director throwing money at some over worked CGI house, the director cares every step of the way. You can see it in the trailer. It isn't more pew pew, bigger, MAKE NUMBERS BIG. That isn't remotely impressive, that is just a function of money + time. It's lazy, carelessness, boring, lacks creativity, passion, it's product, less than videogame cut scenes.

Gravity doesn't stand up to a rewatch (Other than the opening) as there is nothing more to be gained. One of the best things to get when rewatching is picking up new details of which there are none. It's hollow, you have seen everything the first time around. I suspect 1917 is the same.

*The roller coaster isn't WW1.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is visually impressive beyond something like Gravity. You are completely transported to that world, that era. It's not a edifice nor a museum piece. Taratino does not impose our sensibilities, judgement, he presents it as is. It's a living, breathing world where care has been taken on every single level. A world you live in briefly as if the theatre was a time machine. 1969 is outside with it's leaded gasoline, it's joys, it's lows, failure and successes. If only you could open the door.

There is no higher praise.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2020, 10:17:05 PM »
Ford vs Ferrari - Steve McQueen is one of my all-time favorite actors. I bring it up because during the double-0 decade of the 2000s, I made an effort to try and see all the films he starred in. One of the movies I saw because of this was Le Mans made in 1971. It was a passion project for McQueen but it was full of production issues. What he wanted to make was "the ultimate auto-racing movie" and yet do so with a "stripped-to-essentials, filmed-on-location, documentary-style view" approach. Neile Adams McQueen, Steve McQueen's first wife has said, “He wanted to leave his scratch marks on the history of film making" with the film. He...... did not succeed. Or at least, he didn't succeed in some of the ambitions he had when making the move. And yet, for how much Le Mans failed as being a narrative movie and in character work, I do think the more documentary type approach worked in at least giving the viewer a very good idea of what the event is like and what it would be if you were competing in it. For some people it worked. IMDB is full of 10 star reviews by people (most likely auto-racing fans) who think McQueen accomplished the job of making the best, most realistic auto-racing movie.

Of some of the "lesser" McQueen works that I've seen, Le Mans, for all its flaws, has stuck with me through the years and it made an impression on me. I'm no auto-racing fan or enthusiast. I prefer my racing Mario Kart style. I hadn't really known about Le Mans until I watched that movie and I left it as a sort of fan of that race. I just don't see myself ever being able to watch a full Nascar or F1 race either in person or on TV. Nor do I think I could put up with viewing Le Mans in real time either. However, I do respect the idea behind the race. An endurance race testing the limits of the autos and drivers by going 24 hours straight, is to me, the ultimate auto-racing competition and just makes those other auto racing events seem even more uninspiring. Le Mans is the only auto race that ever captured my imagination in making me fantasize about participating in it and McQueen's Le Mans is what opened me up to that event.

But now let's talk about Ford vs Ferrari. ;)

The reason I went into that recollection of Le Mans is because this movie centers around that competition and the real life story of what led to and what happened at the 1966 Le Mans event. Whenever I hear anyone talk about Le Mans, the first thing I go to in my mind is the McQueen movie. Is FvF more entertaining than Le Mans? Easily. It is laps ahead. Does it do a good job depicting what the event is like for those competing in it? Ummmmm, probably not. The racing in Le Mans here is mainly just action highlights with enough info to keep the viewer knowing what it all means to appreciate and understand the events that happen. I guess I'll always be glad I checked out Le Mans to help balance in my mind the action of movies like this with the endurance and mental focus the race is pretty much all about. Having that impression allowed me to add a bit more of a layer to the film than what was actually on screen.

The star of the show is Christian Bale and I'd have given him a Best Actor nomination for his role in this movie. However, he is not one of the nominees this year which is a shame. Thinking back to his other movies, Bale usually plays more cold or anti-social types so it feels different to see him in a role where he's a bit more lovable and easy to warm up to from an audience perspective. After watching the movie, it made me want to look up the details of the actual story being depicted here and check some of the facts on it. The person Bale portrays, Ken Miles, is a highly regarded racer among racing sports fans and this movie does seem to almost be a way to mythologize him to the average person who isn't a racing fan and give him his due. The movie works great in that regard. To further help put you on the side of Ken Miles is the villainous Ford executive Leo Beebe. It sets up a clash of wills between the highly talented but outspoken Ken versus the by-the-books and company required uniformity of Leo. Yet, Leo may have been given a bit of a smear job in this movie. When looking up info on it, there are some people still living who knew the man and disagreed with the portrayal given of him in the film or that he was anti-Ken. But then too, that isn't the only exaggeration made by the movie. Ultimately, like many films depicting a real life event, liberties will be taken in order to move things along and keep things entertaining. Its point of view is pro-Ken and this is part of how it achieves that. In the end, this isn't a documentary and although based on real life people they are, in essence, fictional characters much like how Shakespeare's depictions of historical figures and events. I bring it up since, to me, it sort of become part of the experience I had in viewing the film by then immediately getting more info about it and it might be of interest to any of you who also see the film.

In the end, it was the road of getting to Le Mans that I enjoyed most about the film. Like the struggles of NASA to compete with the Russians and all that happened in the space race, the setbacks and victories along the way that were behind the scenes of creating a race car to compete and win at the event was the most pleasurable part of the movie. The ending is a bit off but that is due to real-life events making it hard to wrap up things up in a satisfying manner. I talked a bit about Bale but I also highly enjoyed Matt Damon's Shelby who's moving at full speed to try and keep the whole endeavor in motion and viable. Likewise, Tracy Letts as Henry Ford II was also quite memorable with his desire to get revenge on Ferrari and equal or surpass the legacy of his grandfather and namesake. If it were up to me, I'd have probably thrown Letts a nomination for Best Supporting actor for his role here as well.

After just talking about 1917, Ford vs Ferrari shows how much value there can be in having engaging characters and appealing dialogue. Of course, it isn't the only movie nominated for Best Picture this year to have that but it is a big reason why I liked this movie a lot. That attribute is a big strength in its favor compared to McQueen's Le Mans and a big reason why most people would probably select Ford vs Ferrari over Le Mans if they had watched both and then had to vote on what they liked more. One scene that has stuck in my mind since watching the movie is when Ken takes his son to a race track he is scouting and mentally preparing for by making notes of when he wants to turn or needs to shift gears. He talks about how it feels to be racing at high speeds and the visual experience. Then he talks about how the race is just him trying to perform the perfect lap he has now outlined in his head and do so over and over. I totally get that. It's how I feel everyday on my route to work and trying to navigate the traffic lights and other motorists around me.

(And as a final aside, I would not consider Le Mans "the ultimate auto-racing movie" nor would I give that title to Ford vs Ferrari or Grand Prix or Ricky Bobby. For me, that goes to Rush directed by Ron Howard back in 2013. As much as Le Mans left an imprint in my head about the experience of racing in it, Rush left a bigger one about racing in general and is probably a better rivalry story than the Ford vs Ferrari. I've seen so many movies since I watched it the one time and yet there are still so many moments about it that I remember and that my mind will recall because something happens to trigger them. It's the best thing Ron Howard made this decade and at least since Cinderella Man. Also, if you were wondering about the quotes earlier when talking about McQueen's Le Mans movie, they came from this article on a recent behind the scenes documentary about the making of his movie.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.



Offline ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2020, 11:11:51 PM »
For as much as Once Upon of Time... In Hollywood transformed LA into 60s LA it was not awfully much on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQewVPF_B0

It was a great movie though. Top 2 for best picture. but I havent seen 1917

I watched Parasite today. While it was good. My imagination based on the trailer is more twisted than the actual twist.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2020, 11:15:32 PM by ThePerm »
NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2020, 11:12:04 PM »
Forgot to rate Ford vs Ferrari. I'm hovering between 3.5 or 4 stars. I can think of Windyman on Discord talking about his dislike of the .5 rating for a score when it comes to games but I do feel it is necessary here. So, 3.5 / 5 stars.

While this is a movie I give a big thumbs up to, I understand why it only has four Oscar nominations with most of them being technical: Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing and Best Picture. Not exactly a big embrace of enthusiasm by the Academy. Although I mentioned giving a couple performances a possible nod for acting, I didn't say they should win either. Ultimately, it is a good movie but I do forget that I've seen it sometimes. Last Monday, I was talking to some people about all the movies nominated for Best Picture this year and this was the only one I couldn't remember at the time. Had to finally look it up to see the what it was. I suppose I might compare it to something like American Hustle also with Bale. It's a movie I could see myself easily rewatching again yet I could then completely forget about it until I saw the name of it again. I wouldn't consider it exceptional film-making or unique in any way. Although I'll have rated 1917 lower than Ford vs Ferrari, that's just from the overall experience and emotional response I had. Yet, because of the cinematography that 1917 has, I'd consider it a greater film than Ford vs Ferrari or at least one that a person should still seek out and see because of its technical elements and to find out what sort of response they might have to it. 

Does this mean I should rate 1917 higher? It sort of gets into the debates people have about games and movies and tv reviews. How can something seemingly lesser be rated higher than something seemingly greater. The end result, as will often be stated, is that it is all subjective. It depends what your criteria for rating is and just maybe the way you are even feeling that day or at that time. It would be nice sometimes if things could be unarguably rated as good, great, best with a number of some kind attached to it so that we can easily sift through things we don't like but that's not the case. We all have different identities, ways of thinking and emotional responses leading to different reactions. It's why review scores don't matter in one regard and yet a lot of the time they can still help in leading us to find great materials we do like even if things we don't like are mixed in with those positives. While I rate Ford vs Ferrari as a more enjoyable movie to watch, I'd also put 1917 as a must see movie over Ford vs Ferrari if I was doing a list on movie's a film-lover should see of 2019 releases. In that case, the uniqueness of 1917 would win out over Ford vs Ferrari. But for this breakdown, I'm just rating these films based on what moved or engaged me the most.

Hope that makes sense for you and you understand what I'm trying to say there on the matter.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2020, 12:58:26 AM »
The Irishman - Right up front, I do not get the praise this movie has received. The AV Club named it their number one film for 2019. RogerEbert.com also did the same. Both of those came from compiling lists submitted by all their critics as to what they thought was the best of 2019. So, not every critic listed it as the best but it was high enough on all ballots for both sites to give it the number one spot. It sits at the number 6 spot on Rotten Tomatoes list for the best movies of 2019 with a 96% critic approval rating. I am so confused by this. I've read all sorts of reviews to try and figure out what these people are seeing that am I not and I still don't get it.

I went into The Irishman pretty blind. I knew that Scorcese had reteamed up with DeNiro and Pesci and that it was some kind of mobster flick. There was talk about the anti-aging technology needed to allow these characters to go through a few decades and that was about it. My cousin had seen Goodfellas for the first time at some point in 2019 and so he was wanted to see this and asked if I wanted to come over to his place and watch it on Netflix with him. I took him up on the offer since I knew it was getting a lot of high praise already and I wasn't sure how many other opportunities I'd have to see it in the next while with Netflix not putting movies in theaters. I didn't even know Pacino was in this film or that it was about the story of Jimmy Hoffa and what eventually made him a target for the mob. I'll admit that I really don't know too much about Hoffa and could probably only write a four-line paragraph about him. So, I had some interest in getting more details about his life but as I write this, I realize that I always meant to look into the actual history a bit more since I'm not sure how much might was fact and fiction in this film. Yet I never have probably since this movie left me quite unenthused after seeing it unlike Ford vs Ferrari which got me wanting to learn more.

Although I mentioned forgetting about Ford vs Ferrari when listing Best Picture nominations a few days ago, this is the nominee that I forget about the most out of all of them. I feel like this is a case of the Emperor has no clothes and I'm the only one to see that. I mentioned that the movies one really dislikes or finds flawed are the ones that will get the most discussion out of a person but I don't have that with this movie. It's basically indifference. I just can't even be bothered to work up a dislike for it to engage in any kind of discussion for it.

I'm trying to think of anything positive to say about it and the best I can do is this. Although the movie is long, I've got no problem with that. I've watched plenty of the long epics a few times over like Lawrence of Arabia or Ben-Hur. I wasn't checking my watch and counting down the minutes until it was over like with Moonlight. So, the movie does enough to keep you engaged in it and watch it unfold. Yet, when it was over, it just seemed to be a "that's it?!" moment of confusion. Like you were waiting for it to hit a big moment and wow you but it never came. I saw The Wolf of Wall Street when it came out in a packed theater. Along the way, people were laughing at some of the antics like the lemon quaaludes scene depicting how Leo's character fought through that high. Yet, at the end of the movie, as he faces the stress of his crimes catching up to him, he and Margot Robbie get in a fight and he punches her. I remember the feeling of the audience going silent in that scene. The fun was over and there was no question that he was a rotten guy. You knew that all along but you overlooked it, you forgave it because it was so easy to get wrapped up in the crazy antics and being on his side of getting away with the crimes as you watched it unfold. At the moment, it undid all that and the film made you recognize that he was not someone to be imitated or admired. Even the final ending with his seminar was a great sort of coda to the film. The Irishman feels like it is missing that ending. It's like if Henry Hill didn't turn informant at the end of Goodfellas. It might even be comparable to not having the Manson finale of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Going back to rogerebert.com and its list of the ten best films for 2019, part of the brief write-up for The Irishman states:

Quote
For years, Scorsese made films about violent men who faced authorities or death for their violence. But “The Irishman” tells the story of how such a person can dig himself into a hole, left alone and unforgiven. In fact, the whole movie can be distilled into the flashback in which Robert De Niro’s Frank Sheeran remembers making German soldiers dig their own graves, wondering aloud why they keep digging when they know they’re just going to die. We then watch as Frank Sheeran, like so many men, just keeps on digging his own grave for the rest of his violent life.

I guess. I felt that scene of the digging had to be significant for something but I thought maybe it applied to Pacino's Hoffa. Yet, I feel that summary could be applied to other past works like Goodfellas or Casino or Raging Bull. They've all got characters digging their own isolated lives or graves as it were by their actions who keep on digging. I saw nothing new in this movie. The AV Club stated, "One of the many ironies of the movie is that it uses distinctly modern means—from de-aging technology to streaming-platform resources—to eulogize a time-honored genre and the careers of the artists who shaped it." If this is supposed to be some sort of requiem for the Mobster movie genre then I think it failed. They also stated it as "his gangster opus to end all gangster opuses." If that was Scorcese's goal then I never got that or realized it from watching this movie.

Instead, I'll bring up a different example to highlight why I see this movie as a failure if that was its intention or goal. Back in 1993, the Oscar for the Best Picture of 1992 went to Unforgiven. In the years that passed, Roger Ebert still considered it a Great Movie and wrote about it 10 years later. His article is still highly worth reading if you've seen the movie and haven't read it before. One excerpt I want to highlight is this:

Quote
Eastwood chose this period for "Unforgiven," I suspect, because it mirrored his own stage in life. He began as a young gunslinger on TV and in the early Sergio Leone films "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More," and he matured in "Coogan's Bluff" and "Two Mules for Sister Sara," under the guidance of Don Siegel, the director he often cited as his mentor. Now Eastwood was in his 60s, and had long been a director himself. Leone had died in 1989 and Siegel in 1991; he dedicated "Unforgiven" to them. If the Western was not dead, it was dying; audiences preferred science fiction and special effects. It was time for an elegy.

The script had actually been written some 20 years ago and Eastwood acquired at some point but held onto it until he felt he had aged into the role some more. I guess I watched it at the right time to. By the time I finally saw it, I'd seen most of Eastwood's western films and even a lot of other western films from the 50s and 60s heyday when Westerns were big. Unforgiven felt different from those when watching it. It felt dismissive of the classic westerns that had come before and like it was here to set the record straight and tell the truth on how things really were. When it was over, it really did feel like there wasn't anything else to do with the western genre. I still enjoy a good western but I can't think of another western movie that wowed me or felt like such an important classic in the genre since I've seen Unforgiven. It really does work as a eulogy for the genre. When I think of that movie compared to The Irishman, again, I just don't get it. The Irishman doesn't come close to wowing me or making me think there's never going to be another mob movie to top this.

I like the Beach Boys. Primarily it is because of Brian Wilson but they're one of my top favorite bands of all-time and I like them way more than the Beatles. Back in 2013, Brian Wilson even rejoined them to release a new Beach Boys album which is so-so. Some good songs and some stinkers. Ultimately, him and the band just aren't the same as they were back in 60's. And even now, the Beach Boys without Brian Wilson keep on touring. Yet, despite still listening to a lot of their songs on occasion, I've got no desire to see a Beach Boys concert. The idea just sort of feels sad like watching these old guys whose talents have diminished a bit still stuck performing the same old stuff 50 years later. That's how I basically see The Irishman. Got the gang back together for one more kick at the can as they do the same old stuff from before. Early on, there is a scene when DeNiro's character is beating up and kicking a grocer. My cousin turned to me after and said that didn't seem like much of a beatdown. I reminded him that despite the "de-aging" technology it was still a 70 or 80 year old man trying to fight like a 30 year old. In the end, my cousin was in the same boat I was in. He was disappointed it didn't have the kinetic energy and feel of Goodfellas and he'd never even heard of Hoffa so a lot of the history was lost on him nor did he see any kind of "moral message" or as a "fascinating character piece". I haven't heard talk about the film once since then. I suspect he won't be alone in that regard.

I won't get into my feelings about Scorcese as a director. I've managed to write more about The Irishman than I initially thought I would. My main personal opinion is that I feel he's always been somewhat overrated as a director and I can think of more films I dislike by him than actually like or feel are worth watching. To me, this is just yet another example of one of his films being highly overrated and I think it serves as some of the best evidence of that opinion up there (or is down there?) with Gangs of New York. 1.5 stars / 5.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline ShyGuy

  • Fight Me!
  • *
  • Score: -9660
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2020, 02:16:42 AM »
I agree! this a better crop of nominees than we have seen in years.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2020, 02:29:24 AM »
Since I'm suddenly taking a lot longer to unload on the movies nominated this year, perhaps I better move along to all the awards and nominees for now and get ready to start making some predictions.

Not sure what order the awards will be presented as a lot get mixed around through the years but I'll go in order of last year's presentation.


ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

KATHY BATES (Richard Jewell), LAURA DERN (Marriage Story), SCARLETT JOHANSSON (Jojo Rabbit), FLORENCE PUGH (Little Women), MARGOT ROBBIE (Bombshell)


DOCUMENTARY (FEATURE)

AMERICAN FACTORY, THE CAVE, THE EDGE OF DEMOCRACY, FOR SAMA, HONEYLAND


MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

BOMBSHELL, JOKER, JUDY, MALEFICENT: MISTRESS OF EVIL, 1917


COSTUME DESIGN

THE IRISHMAN, JOJO RABBIT, JOKER, LITTLE WOMEN, ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD


PRODUCTION DESIGN

THE IRISHMAN, JOJO RABBIT, 1917, ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD, PARASITE


CINEMATOGRAPHY

THE IRISHMAN, JOKER, THE LIGHTHOUSE, 1917, ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD


SOUND EDITING

FORD V FERRARI, JOKER, 1917, ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD, STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER


SOUND MIXING

AD ASTRA, FORD V FERRARI, JOKER, 1917, ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD


INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM

CORPUS CHRISTI, HONEYLAND, LES MISÉRABLES, PAIN AND GLORY, PARASITE


FILM EDITING

FORD V FERRARI, THE IRISHMAN, JOJO RABBIT, JOKER, PARASITE


ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

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)


ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON: THE HIDDEN WORLD, I LOST MY BODY, KLAUS, MISSING LINK, TOY STORY 4


SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)

DCERA (DAUGHTER), HAIR LOVE, KITBULL, MEMORABLE, SISTER


DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT)

IN THE ABSENCE, LEARNING TO SKATEBOARD IN A WARZONE (IF YOU'RE A GIRL), LIFE OVERTAKES ME, ST. LOUIS SUPERMAN, WALK RUN CHA-CHA


VISUAL EFFECTS

AVENGERS: ENDGAME, THE IRISHMAN, THE LION KING, 1917, STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER


SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)

BROTHERHOOD, NEFTA FOOTBALL CLUB, THE NEIGHBORS' WINDOW, SARIA, A SISTER


WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

KNIVES OUT (Written by Rian Johnson), MARRIAGE STORY (Written by Noah Baumbach), 1917 (Written by Sam Mendes & Krysty Wilson-Cairns), ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD (Written by Quentin Tarantino), PARASITE (Screenplay by Bong Joon Ho, Han Jin Won; Story by Bong Joon Ho)


WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)

THE IRISHMAN (Screenplay by Steven Zaillian), JOJO RABBIT (Screenplay by Taika Waititi), JOKER (Written by Todd Phillips & Scott Silver), LITTLE WOMEN (Written for the screen by Greta Gerwig), THE TWO POPES (Written by Anthony McCarten)


MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)

JOKER (Hildur GuĂ°nadĂłttir), LITTLE WOMEN (Alexandre Desplat), MARRIAGE STORY (Randy Newman), 1917 (Thomas Newman), STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER (John Williams)


MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)

I CAN'T LET YOU THROW YOURSELF AWAY (from Toy Story 4), (I'M GONNA) LOVE ME AGAIN (from Rocketman), I'M STANDING WITH YOU (from Breakthrough), INTO THE UNKNOWN (from Frozen II), STAND UP (from Harriet)


ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

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)


ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

CYNTHIA ERIVO (Harriet), SCARLETT JOHANSSON (Marriage Story), SAOIRSE RONAN (Little Women), CHARLIZE THERON (Bombshell), RENÉE ZELLWEGER (Judy)


DIRECTING

THE IRISHMAN (Martin Scorsese), JOKER (Todd Phillips), 1917 (Sam Mendes), ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD (Quentin Tarantino), PARASITE (Bong Joon Ho)


BEST PICTURE

1917, FORD V FERRARI, THE IRISHMAN, JOJO RABBIT, JOKER, LITTLE WOMEN, MARRIAGE STORY, ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD, PARASITE



Sorry about the all caps for the listings. Was copy and pasting from another site and just didn't want to retype everything to make it less capitalized.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2020, 03:53:38 AM »
This is one of the few years where movies really brought it and I'm curious to see who wins.
NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline Order.RSS

  • Resident Evil 420
  • Score: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2020, 12:53:53 PM »
(And as a final aside, I would not consider Le Mans "the ultimate auto-racing movie" nor would I give that title to Ford vs Ferrari or Grand Prix or Ricky Bobby. For me, that goes to Rush directed by Ron Howard back in 2013.

Strange spelling of Speed Racer 2008 there Khush, must be a regional thing.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2020, 01:19:23 PM »
What the hell putting Brad Pitt in supporting role? Leo and Pitt were partners, twin leads.

LOL Skywalker getting nominated for anything. I guess Disney handed out enough money to slip it in somewhere. Endgame's Oscar promotion was laughable.The visual effects category is dire. Might as well list it as Animated Feature Film part 2.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2020, 02:18:54 PM »
What the hell putting Brad Pitt in supporting role? Leo and Pitt were partners, twin leads.

LOL Skywalker getting nominated for anything. I guess Disney handed out enough money to slip it in somewhere. Endgame's Oscar promotion was laughable.The visual effects category is dire. Might as well list it as Animated Feature Film part 2.

It's been a common complaint for years now where movies with a twin lead will separate and submit one role as lead and one as supporting to keep them from competing against each other and hopefully divide and conquer Oscards for both roles. Sometimes the Academy will say no and make the twin leads compete in the same category but often they'll accept it. I suspect because Pitt's character comes off as a supporting player to DiCaprio's character, it was easier for them to accept that designation.

People complain about the Emmy's always nominating and voting for the same old shows. Well, the Oscars can also be a bit static. They've been nominating a Marvel movie for Visual Effects almost yearly. Likewise, the Star Wars movies always seem to get a few technical considerations and John Williams a composing nod even if they probably don't deserve them. They've been sort of grandfathered in at this point. But lol at your Animated Film part 2 crack. There is some truth to that.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline ShyGuy

  • Fight Me!
  • *
  • Score: -9660
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2020, 02:19:41 PM »
He was put him up for a supporting role just because they thought he was more likely to get nominated and win. Oscars are a scam and scheme.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2020, 02:19:48 PM »
(And as a final aside, I would not consider Le Mans "the ultimate auto-racing movie" nor would I give that title to Ford vs Ferrari or Grand Prix or Ricky Bobby. For me, that goes to Rush directed by Ron Howard back in 2013.

Strange spelling of Speed Racer 2008 there Khush, must be a regional thing.

You know, someday I may finally see that film. But having not seen and not being able to compare it to the others listed, I stand by my ruling.  ;)
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2020, 02:49:14 PM »
What the hell putting Brad Pitt in supporting role? Leo and Pitt were partners, twin leads.

LOL Skywalker getting nominated for anything. I guess Disney handed out enough money to slip it in somewhere. Endgame's Oscar promotion was laughable.The visual effects category is dire. Might as well list it as Animated Feature Film part 2.

He's never won. They want him to win.

Also, the character Cliff supports Rick. So there's that. Even if in the movie they share the load and are interesting equal individuals themselves the character supports the other. Though you could say Rick pays Cliff.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 02:52:33 PM by ThePerm »
NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2020, 03:16:35 PM »
Alright. Let's talk about the almost sure things. These are the awards that seem to be pretty much accepted as happening although there could always be an upset.


Director: Sam Mendes (1917)

This is a category where an upset could definitely happen especially if 1917 is the Best Picture winner. Perhaps the academy will split the choice between picture and director which has happened more lately in this decade than previous decades. There's talk that the academy may give Tarantino is due since a lot of members are big fans of OUaTiH. There's also potential for Bong Joon Ho to possibly get it in recognition of his body of work and Parasite. Last year, Roma Director Alfonso Curaon won for Best Director and Best Foreign Film but Roma lost on Best Picture. Maybe history repeats. However, Mendes won the Golden Globe against these same directors, 1917 won at the Producer's Guild, he won the Director's Guild (which rarely differs from the eventual Oscar winner) and now at BAFTA. Sticking with Mendes.

Best Actor in a Leading Role: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker)

He's won all the precursor awards at the Golden Globes, Critics’ Choice, SAG and BAFTA. Hasn't won an Oscar before despite other nominations so it seems to be an award for his body of work and current performance. Only possible upset I see here would be Leo DiCaprio but it doesn't seem likely at this point.

Best Actress in a Leading Role: Renee Zellweger (Judy)

Same story as Joaquin. She's won at the Globes, Critics’ Choice, SAG  and BAFTA and just seems a lock to keep that streak going to the Oscars. That said, her film isn't nominated for Best Picture (though that hasn't stopped other actresses from winning for their role) but it is possible that it might have been seen by less members and so a different actress could win but it doesn't seem likely at this point. Heck of a year for ScarJo though. Nominated in both the Best and Supporting Actress, she seems likely to lose both which is why I worry that there could be an upset in this category with her winning instead. It always seems like on the acting categories has an upset/unexpected winner and this is the category I could see that happening in.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Brad Pitt (Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood)

Once again, Pitt like the others above Brad Pitt has already won at the Globes, Critics’ Choice, BAFTA and SAG awards on the way to the Oscars. He's the only one nominated in this category who hasn't won an Oscar for acting and it's another case where it seems like voters feel he's due for some recognition of his body of acting work.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Laura Dern (Marriage Story)

Once more for emphasis. Winner at the Globes, SAG, Critics’ Choice and BAFTA, Dern seems to be a lock for this category. Plus, there may also be further love for Dern and her performance in Little Women to further cement this lock.

Best International Feature: Parasite

There has never been a case where a foreign / international film nominated for Best Picture didn't win the foreign / international film category. With the director also getting a nod for best director, it seems pretty assured Parasite will win here like Roma did last year. However, in an odd rarity one other nominee in this category also was nominated else. Pain and Glory got a Best Actor nom for Bandaras. However, I think if Pain and Glory were to win this category, it might mean that Parasite would win Best Picture as I don't think the Academy would vote it to win both if there were to finally give the top prize to a foreign film. It will probably still be Parasite here to insure it wins something kind of top prize.

Cinematography: Roger Deakins (1917)

Having finally won a well-deserved Oscar for Blade Runner 2049, Deakins seems like a lock to get his second with 1917 and I just don't see the other nominees upsetting that.

That's about 7 that seem to be pretty sure locks. Normally there might be 8 or so but everything else here on it. Has a catch or two.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2020, 03:24:54 PM »
I think Parasite might get best Screenplay where it was nominated. Visually the movie is kinda meh for me, but it was an interesting plot, with some good writing.

It's also a shame Willem Defoe didn't get nominated for Best Supporting Actor for The Lighthouse
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 03:46:59 PM by ThePerm »
NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline nickmitch

  • You can edit these yourself now?!
  • Score: 82
    • View Profile
    • FACEBOOK!
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2020, 06:27:34 PM »
That's about 7 that seem to be pretty sure locks. Normally there might be 8 or so but everything else here on it. Has a catch or two.

My prediction: Khush goes 5  for 7 in his sure locks.
TVman is dead. I killed him and took his posts.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2020, 07:27:55 PM »
Other picks that are less certain:

Original Song: Rocketman [(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again]

There are cases to make for a few of the other nominees but it seems highly likely the Academy will give an Oscar to Elton John especially after his speech at the Globes last month so going with that.


Original Score: Joker (Hildur GuĂ°nadĂłttir)

This category seems to be a two horse race between Joker and 1917.  Some people think Thomas Newman could win for his 1917 score and the fact that he hasn't won yet despite being nominated so many times. (I'd say the reason for that is because T. Newman's scores just aren't as good as other composers. Hi-yooooooo.) But the score for Joker seems to have gotten much more buzz. People that didn't like Joker still seemed to appreciate the score and felt it was a big reason why the movie even came close to making the emotional impact it did. Personally, I quite enjoyed the score for Little Women. Of the movies nominated, it was the only score I really noticed while watching the movie and felt made an impact to what I was seeing. So, I'd be alright if that were to upset.

Makeup and Hairstyling: Bombshell

Also tricky. For the first time, this category has five nominees but I think it is between three films: Bombshell, Joker and Judy. Obviously, all the face paint on Joker is something that has to be kept up and made to look right. A lot of work there. Then there is Judy. With Renee expected to win, the make-up team may get carried along with her. The Iron Lady, Darkest Hour, Dallas Buyer's Club all won for best make-up and those movies had best actor/actress winners too. Then there's Bombshell which people praise for how they made Theron look like Megyn Kelly and other actors as their FOX counterparts. The difference is that Judy was one person and it seems to be their first nomination. The Joker team is two people but it also seems to be their first nomination. One of the people behind Bombshell has won an Oscar (for Darkest Hour) and has been in the industry almost two decades so probably has more connections. Plus, Make-up seems to award a lot of the same people. Going with Bombshell.

Animated Feature: Toy Story 4

This is also a tougher category than in recent years. First of, the academy rarely rewards sequels in Animated Feature. Frozen 2 wasn't even nominated this year. Toy Story 3 is the only sequel to ever win in this category. Therefore, I don't see How to Train Your Dragon 3 suddenly winning when it lost for the first two films. Then there are three lesser known animated works: I Lost My Body, Klaus, and Missing Link. Missing Link won at the Globes beating Toy Story 4. Klaus picked up a few awards at the Annie Awards where it won best feature over 4 of these nominees. The one it didn't beat was I Lost My Body which won in the Best Indie Feature category. Yet, there's doubt as to how much overlap the Annie Awards have to the voters. Moreover, in the past 14 or so years, there are only two non-Disney, Pixar or Dreamworks films to win in this category and those are Rango in 2011 and Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse last year. I wouldn't consider Spider-Man an indie darling. So, I think there will still be strong love for Toy Story 4 to let it win despite being another sequel and the more recognized name but very unsure here.

Costume Design: Little Women

There is also some doubt on this category. It was kind of known as the frilly dress category but that's changed in recent years. Black Panther won over The Favorite's costumes. Mad Max won over Cinderella and the Danish Girl. Also, all the nominees in the category are Best Picture nominees. That said, Sandy Powell has been nominated 15 times and won 3 times. One of those times was the only time a Scorcese film won Best Costume which was The Aviator. Can't count her out but I really don't think the costumes were that memorable in The Irishman. Likewise, Joker has the iconic red suit in the film and Mark Bridges has won twice this decade but aside from that red suit, is there anything else worth awarding? It's the first nomination for Mayes C. Rubeo with Jojo Rabbit but, there again, I don't see anything special with recreating German Nazi uniforms or 40's fashions. Thus, I think it is a two-horse race between Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood against Little Woman. Once Upon a Time might be too contemporary but the fashions and clothing do stand out a bit more. Arianne Phillips is the one behind the costumes for In Hollywood but this is only her 3rd nomination and those nominations seem to happen every 7 years. I'm going with the Little Women. At one point while watching the movie, I even thought this will probably win for Costume Design. I don't know why that occurred to me. I can't think of any other movie with that happening. Plus, Jacqueline Durran who made the costumes has won the Oscar once in this decade and been nominated 7 times. Maybe not the heavy hitter in the category but she seems to be on the rise. I guess I've talked myself into this choice.

Best Documentary Feature: American Factory

This is a tough category. For the first time, one of the nominees is also a Best International Nominee which is Honeyland. With Parasite poised to win that award, then Honeyland may win this, right? Not so fast. American Factory is the only USA made documentary up for nominations. It had funding from the Obamas (though they won't win an Oscar if this wins) which made more people aware of the movie and it was easily available on Netflix. There is also another dark horse in For Sama nominated that won the IDA (documentary award) best feature but those rarely match up with the actual Oscar winner. For now, I'm going with the film that has a chance to get more votes simply because voters may know Obamas had something to do with it. Tough call.

Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2020, 07:57:57 PM »
Much Tougher than Normal

Film Editing - Ford vs Ferrari

The two bigger frontrunners of 1917 and Once Upon a Time are not nominated here. What's significant about that is usually a best picture winner is nominated here although it doesn't have to win the award. Birdman is the only movie to not get a nomination and win in the past 20 some years. It had the single take trick that 1917 is also using. Usually, this goes to an action type movie yet Jojo Rabbit and Parasite both won top awards at the American Cinema Editors Awards. In the past ten years, the Dramatic winner of that award also won the Oscar 6 out 10 times. So Parasite could have a shot. But Ford vs Ferrari did win the BAFTA for editing and kept up that racing feel with their quick cuts. Going with Ford.

Production Design: 1917

A lot of pundits are saying this is the second hardest award to predict this year. Normally, the award goes to more fantastical movies and sets but none of the nominees are like that. A lot of people are going with Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood to win so you may want to choose it for your ballot. Plus, a lot of people talked about it being a place they'd like to hang out in. But it lost to 1917 at the BAFTAs which has a carryover to the Oscar voting pool. Moreover, after I saw 1917, I was talking about how they must have made these massive sets to pull off the long shots and create these places for the characters to go through. That said, there doesn't seem to be much historical precedent for movies largely set outdoors to win best Production Design. Taking a chance here.

Original Screenplay: Parasite

For a long time, Tarantino seemed to be the front runner of this category but with the chances that Parasite likely won't win Director or Picture, the talk has swung of Bong Hoon Ho possibly winning for Screenplay as a way of honoring his achievement more. Plus, Parasite was considered a very original and different story by most movie goers whereas I felt In Hollywood sometimes felt like things we'd seen from Tarantino before. You kind of knew where it was going and how it would end. Not so with Parasite.

Adapted Screenplay: Jojo Rabbit

This award also seems to be a close race between Little Women and Jojo Rabbit. Personally, I'd give it to Little Women for the great way it adapted the material into something new and basically has become the definitive edition of the story in my book. Plus, some might see this as a chance to award Greta Gerwig who wasn't nominated for Best Director. On the other hand, Jojo Rabbit has been highly popular as well and this could be a chance to award Taika Waititi who also missed out on Best Director. Right now, the momentum seems to be in Jojo's favor so I'm rolling the dice with it too.

Best Picture: Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood

I was going to go back and check but I don't think I've correctly chosen the Best Picture once since I've been doing these threads on this forum. So, that might be the kiss of death for Once Upon a Time. The smart choice seems to be 1917 as Once Upon a Time hasn't won't much in the way of picture status. Yet, actors make up the largest voting block of the Oscars and In Hollywood is about actors and them sort of saving the day and the 60s. Plus, it's a more american picture while 1917 is more British though plenty of British works have won Best Picture. But 1917 isn't noted for its acting or getting any acting noms. Will the actors still warm up to its technical achievement? Myself, I walked away appreciating its technical ability but found it lacking in other areas like story and character something Once Upon a Time has more of. With the preferential ballot system anything can happen. The biggest knock against In Hollywood is its ending as Hollywood typically doesn't award things with the level of violence it displays at the end. Maybe I'm deluding myself or talking myself out of a sure slam dunk by not voting 1917 but I can't seem to win however I try to choose these things so whatevs.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2020, 08:02:40 PM »
He's never won. They want him to win.

Also, the character Cliff supports Rick. So there's that. Even if in the movie they share the load and are interesting equal individuals themselves the character supports the other. Though you could say Rick pays Cliff.

Well, I suppose it's a thing. If Brad hasn't won yet this is definitely an excellent project for him to win on.

Taratino really messes with you switching between the leads like it's a videogame. On a surface level it does everything to say Cliff is subservient to Rick. Yet Rick needs Cliff emotionally, to take his load. We follow Cliff more(That's the impression). It's an interdependent relationship, throughout the movie they are constantly helping each other and finding ways, almost desperately, to stay together.

In the end you can pick either one as the lead depending on who you like more. Want someone kickass? Cliff. Emotional gravitas? Rick. Want both? hell yeah.

People complain about the Emmy's always nominating and voting for the same old shows. Well, the Oscars can also be a bit static. They've been nominating a Marvel movie for Visual Effects almost yearly. Likewise, the Star Wars movies always seem to get a few technical considerations and John Williams a composing nod even if they probably don't deserve them. They've been sort of grandfathered in at this point. But lol at your Animated Film part 2 crack. There is some truth to that.

Williams getting a nod, especially for Skywalker seems to be a running joke. All three films he hasn't even bothered to go back to the well, too much walking. Just opens the fridge to get Hungry Man and leftovers. Limply siding it into the microwave, sets the timer too short under cooking it.

Lion King is most egregious as it is straight up animated in a computer. Whatever real shots in there might as well be CGI.

When a character goes any faster than walking or has a suit in Marvel on we go into CGI at an exponential rate. iirc they would have Tony do whatever just for the animation cues when his head is shown but even his head gets composited back on. If he sat on a chair it wouldn't make a difference. They barely have a physical "Suit" with none of it showing up on film as it has degraded into a another reference point.

I hope the category goes back to actual visual effects that are novel, bend and blend reality. The Irishman is a odd case as de-aging isn't novel, but the method forgoing the dot system is. However they did nothing with their old af gait.

No idea American Factory had anything to do with Obama. The ending was garbage though both irl and on film. We needed to know why the vote failed and what the breakdown was. There was clearly some sort of shenanigans beyond the standard union busting not helped by the editing falling apart.

Then to salt the wound it segue into "Haha machines are going to take your jobs" giving the middle finger to every human which we really, really didn't need. Undermines itself almost completely.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2020, 08:05:38 PM »
The dreaded six categories. Not even going to break them down. Just guess the best you can.

Visual Effects: 1917 (wouldn't be surprised if Lion King gets it though)
Sound Editing: Ford vs Ferrai
Sound Mixing: Ford vs Ferrari
Animated Short: Kitbull
Live Action Short: The Neighbor's Window
Documentary Short: Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl)
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Khushrenada's Annual Oscar Thread. 2020 Edition.
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2020, 08:14:50 PM »
Hmmm.


Director: Sam Mendes (1917)
Best Actor in a Leading Role: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker)
Best Actress in a Leading Role: Renee Zellweger (Judy)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Brad Pitt (Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood)
Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Laura Dern (Marriage Story)
Best International Feature: Parasite
Cinematography: Roger Deakins (1917)
Original Song: Rocketman [(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again]
Original Score: Joker (Hildur GuĂ°nadĂłttir)
Makeup and Hairstyling: Bombshell
Animated Feature: Toy Story 4
Costume Design: Little Women
Best Documentary Feature: American Factory
Film Editing - Ford vs Ferrari
Production Design: 1917
Original Screenplay: Parasite
Adapted Screenplay: Jojo Rabbit
Best Picture: Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood
Visual Effects: 1917 (wouldn't be surprised if Lion King gets it though)
Sound Editing: 1917
Sound Mixing: 1917
Animated Short: Kitbull
Live Action Short: The Neighbor's Window
Documentary Short: Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl)

Here's my picks in one precise place. Last minute change on sound. Went with 1917 for both. I'm thinking it should sweep through technical awards like Gravity and Mad Max did years back. However, those technical triumphs lost on Best Picture so sticking with Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood. Only problem there is I should probably change Screenplay from Parasite to OUaTiH as a Best Picture winner usually gets a screenplay win. Last year, Green Book won best picture with Supporting Actor and Original Screenplay as the only other Oscars. Once Upon a Time might be poised to do the same.
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.