Greetings. It has been 1,348 days since we last blogged. (When we first started it more than 9 years ago, Peter had just turned 11.)
In the time since, Peter has gained a high school diploma, one and a half years so far of a college education, a quality goatee, and elite-level insight into the ins and outs of the Academy Awards. Dad has gained 2 chins, elite-level understanding of hot sauces, and the capacity to drench a shirt with sweat merely by the act of putting it on.
We both agreed that the fact of 2023 being the strongest movie year in a while presented a perfect opportunity to resume the blog. For the first time ever for both of us, we have seen all 10 films nominated for Best Picture in advance of the March 10th ceremony. So we thought we’d have a conversation about how we each rate the films from 10 to 1 (not how we think the Academy will rate them, so don’t use this for betting purposes).
In the next post we will discuss our combined #10 movie and then we’ll advance, post by post, all the way up to our combined top movie of the year.
Warning: Some of these posts may contain spoilers. Read with caution.
Combined Rating: 6.45 (Peter 6.6, Dad 6.3) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #10 (Peter 10, Dad 10)
Peter:The sensation of the summer (or at least one half of it) and also the weakest film in this line-up. It’s impressive that this perfectly serviceable film ranks at #10, as many years the bottom spot(s) will go to a film that’s downright awful. Last year, I only saw half the nominees but one of the few I did see was Elvis. Traumatic experience. Thankfully, there’s no Elvis this year. There is a Barbie and it’s alright.
Dad:Yes, Elvis was a hallucinogenic torture session. Tom Hanks’s performance as Col. Tom Parker might be the worst performance ever put on film by a top-tier actor in 100 years. Trying to think of a comparable disaster…maybe Sean Connery in Zardoz? (Do NOT google-image that unless you want to spend the next few days in a confused stupor.) Anyway, I align very closely with Peter’s friendly, but mostly unenthused reaction to Barbie. I have virtually no hostility toward it. Watching it was like eating a bag of Skittles…enjoyable but very little nourishment.
Peter:I’ve heard criticism (from some female Clifford family members even) that it’s shallow in its entry-level feminist messaging. Well, obviously. This is a film meant to appeal to every demographic, and it wouldn’t be 1/100th as much of the box office juggernaut it became if it said anything more radical than that eye-rolling America Ferrera monologue.
Dad: Okay, so the first actor we mention is Ferrera? All right, I’m ready for this shit show!
Peter: Really, none of my problems with Barbie lie within the messaging because I don’t think Greta Gerwig sincerely thinks she’s breaking any new ground. I respect Gerwig’s vision but it just doesn’t come together for me.
Joe: I disagree a bit here. I do think she and Baumbach think they’re breaking new ground – not in the messaging in and of itself but in the Trojan Horse way that they smuggle the messaging into our consciousness.
Peter: Some stuff really works. Ryan Gosling. That’s what works. There’s been tons of discourse (which has gotten particularly heated after the nominations) on how much praise we should be giving Gosling for this very female-centric production. I’ll get to those “snubs” later but let me just say this: it would be a lie to say RG does not carry. He eats this role up and had me in stitches at points. I was not a fan of the monstrously popular soundtrack (because it mostly sounded like those “corporate playlists” consisting entirely of identical-sounding soulless pop music) but there were two musical moments I adored: the ridiculously fun “I’m Just Ken” sequence (which SHOULD win Best Original Song but will probably lose to that Billie Eilish snooze) and the campfire serenade of Matchbox Twenty’s “Push”. That scene had me howling in the theaters (Ryan should win Supporting Actor for that Rob Thomas impression alone) and brings the score up several decimals.
Dad: That scene was by far the hardest I laughed during a movie this year.
Peter:It’s also one of the best directed scenes, enhanced by the slow zoom to reveal all the other Kens singing to their Barbies. Just perfect. Sounds like a lot of praise, right? Well, it’s pretty much all I’ve got. Oh wait, there’s also Michael Cera. Michael Cera is always awesome but he could’ve been utilized more.
Dad: Cera is carving out a Woody Allen-like acting career – always playing himself no matter what the role is, yet it almost always works. I totally agree that he should have been used more. Couldn’t we have subtracted all of Simi Liu’s screen time and given it to MC? Liu and the craft of acting are strangers to each other. I have a theory he singlehandedly started Marvel’s demise.
Peter:Anyways, on to what doesn’t work. Margot Robbie is doing solid work but carries the burden of being the emotional core in a film that doesn’t have great emotional depth (Ryan got to be more tongue-in-cheek in his “emotional” scenes). I know I said I didn’t have a problem with the messaging but I might have some annoyance with the delivery.
Dad: Nope, I’m on a different page here. I think Margot absolutely deserved a Best Actress nomination. I think people underestimate how insanely hard it is to strike the right balance with that performance – to make it fun, but not cartoonish; to make it adorable, but also meaningful; to make it just earnest enough, but not awkward. I’m going to make a wild reach and compare her performance to one of my favorites from the ’90s: Johnny Depp in Ed Wood.
Peter: Let’s talk about that America Ferrera speech.
Dad: This is what I came for. I am deliriously excited for this.
Peter:It’s bad. Maybe a little more subtlety wouldn’t have hurt. Maybe also America Ferrera just isn’t that strong of an actress and her nomination was utterly ludicrous.
Dad: And he delivers. Brilliant summation. In my memory, that speech was 41 minutes long. Super painful. And so derivative…it felt like outtakes from Sex and the City.
Peter:The Mattel stuff is the biggest miss, though. It’s just all played so safe and somehow they made Will Ferrell so unfunny. None of the un-Goslingized (or Ceraized) humor landed. Also, the ending goes on forever (“yeah, yeah, yeah, you’ve driven the point home by now”).
Dad: Yeah, the Mattel stuff was such a weird aspect of the movie, dragging it into the land of mediocrity. Also it felt bizarre to take potshots at Mattel, without which this iconic doll would not even exist. It was like, okay we can’t continue the motif of making “men” the enemy, so we need to shift it to this cartoon depiction of a male-driven corporate environment. It’s such a low-slung target – even if you do hit it successfully, who even gives a shit?
Peter:Now for those “snubs”: everyone from Ryan Gosling himself to Hillary Clinton has commented and I just want to say I know the feeling. It really does sting when your film makes a billion dollars at the Box Office and only receives 8 Oscar nominations. We can all relate to that.
Dad: I have learned that if you’re going to come at Peter with Oscar bitching, don’t come without legitimate ammunition.
Peter: Seriously though, the Director lineup is stacked and there would have been no room for Gerwig (though I wouldn’t have been upset if she got in). As for Actress, Bening is laughable but Margot would not be my replacement pick. Greta and Margot will be fine, especially as they were still nominated (for writing and producing). It’s also hilarious that some people think Margot Robbie is the kind of person to face obstacles in getting a Best Actress nomination. That’s all I’ll say about that.
Dad:Amen to Peter’s Bening point. It’s an insult to this terrific year of movies. I would put Robbie in that slot, just ahead of a performance that we will talk about in the Top 3 of this list.
Combined Rating: 7.0 (Peter 6.9, Dad 7.1) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #9 (Peter 9, Dad 7)
Peter: We all know Bradley Cooper wants that Oscar. He wants it bad. Maestro…will not get him that Oscar.
Dad: Shit, I hope Bradley’s not googling his own name today. This post will crush him.
Peter: I know that I ranked this above Barbie but I actually think it’s the most undeserving and disappointing nominee. Barbie, like it or not, was a cultural phenomenon that was better than a Barbie movie really had any right to be. Leonard Bernstein, though, is one of the most fascinating artistic figures of the 20th century and this film really should’ve been able to deliver the goods.
Dad: I was sooooo looking forward to this release for this very reason, and for the fact that Bernstein’s creative peak was during my favorite stretch of American pop culture.
Peter: Yes, it has far more merit than other recent biopics like Elvis (sorry for bringing this monstrosity up again) or Rocketman or Bohemian Rhapsody but it still fails to answer the question that those movies failed to answer: Why is this specific human’s life important? In fact, it never really answers why it needs to be about Leonard Bernstein at all.
Dad: Quick interruption to expand on Peter’s allergy to music biopics. My personal rankings (of the ones I can remember right now) is: 1) Amadeus…by 100 miles, 2) Buddy Holly Story, 3) 8 Mile, 4) Walk the Line, 5) Coal Miner’s Daughter, 6) Rocketman, 7) Ray, 8) La Bamba, 9) Elvis, and 117) Bohemian Rhapsody. And based on the 48 different times I’ve seen the trailer of the just-released Bob Marley pic, it looks like it will slip nicely into 116th place. God save us when the Amy Winehouse one comes out later this year.
Peter: Maestro isn’t one of those “Wikipedia page” movies but it goes too far in the opposite direction. It barely tells us anything new about Bernstein as an artist. We’re told he’s a genius but is that claim ever proven? Yes, there’s that conducting scene Bradley Cooper spent 6 years (what? how?) perfecting but it would be more insightful if we could see more of how Bernstein operates when the pressure is off. Instead, those “behind the curtain” moments focus on his straining relationship with his wife. Cooper is obsessed with Bernstein’s bisexuality. He clearly thinks it’s the most interesting thing about him. There’s one brief mention of West Side Story and one incidental musical cue that reminds us this is the guy who wrote the music for the greatest musical of all time. It’s easy to forget that he’s a notable figure who’s in the public eye at all. Cooper made the film with the Bernstein families’ consultation. The problem with this common biopic consultation process is that we only see the figure in the light their children or their spouses’ or whoever else being consulted saw them.
Joe: Perfection. I enjoy watching Peter cook. Yup, this movie locked in its middling destiny with its script decision. If this movie had focused strictly on the behind-the-scenes creation of West Side Story – the artistic give and take between Bernstein, Robbins, Laurent, and Sondheim – I would have watched it 8 times already.
Peter: On a technical level, the craftsmanship here is admirable. It’s the main reason this ranks ahead of Barbie despite my enjoyment honestly being higher with that one.
Dad: Good point – the technical level might receive my highest marks for Maestro, too. I think Matthew Libatique richly deserved his cinematography nomination. The movie has a really fine, warm look and captures a time (or various times, actually) quite nicely.
Peter: Cooper and Mulligan are objectively giving laudable performances (yes, the make-up is a little overboard).
Dad: Wait, they were in makeup?
Peter: Cooper’s directing and cinematography are objectively quite impressive. It’s just… perhaps the term “Oscar-bait” is a little overused (it’s used in one of the other Best Picture nominees, which might be a first time), but it feels very fitting here. With every aspect of this film, somebody thought about how it could be more suited to the Oscars. Throughout the film, Bradley Cooper is thinking about how he can direct himself to an Oscar-worthy performance. Bradley is a talented actor, and a talented director. Is he a talented director of himself as an actor? I’m not quite sure he’s Orson Welles (and if he made a film about Orson Welles, it would mention Citizen Kane once and instead focus on all his failed marriages).
Dad: This is a devastating takedown. Well done. I disagree with only 3 words of your comment: “not quite sure”. He is definitively not Orson Welles. OW was 26 when he wrote, directed, and starred in the greatest film of all time – the touchstone for generations of future American and foreign directors. When Bradley was 26, he had a bit part as Ben in Wet Hot American Summer. When Orson was 43, grizzled way beyond what was normal for his age, he created the genre masterpiece Touch of Evil, with filmmaking touches, including the king of long takes, that remain beyond compare to this day. Bradley at that age made a remake of a remake, the most memorable aspect of which was the creepiest behavior ever witnessed in a duet during an Oscars ceremony.
Peter: I respect you, Bradley, and I respect Maestro. It just left me pretty cold, though, and, online, it is the consensus least favorite of the nominees. My biggest gripe with this film’s place in the awards conversation is how it sucked up all of Netflix’s campaign money and attention at the expense of one of the true best films of the year – May December. The May December snubs (I wasn’t expecting it in Picture but I was holding out hope for Charles Melton and Julianne Moore) were easily the biggest disappointment of Oscar nominations morning and I just needed to highlight them somewhere. C’mon, Netflix. Get it together. This was one of only two nominees I didn’t see in theaters and maybe that would’ve enhanced my enjoyment.
Dad: Best parts of the movie: visual aesthetic, Mulligan’s performance, the Snoopy scene, and the Mahler’s “Resurrection” scene. Worst parts of the movie: the ludicrous “It’s The End of the World As We Know It” needle drop, the 986 scenes with cigarettes blazing away….we get it, and the fact that the Mahler’s “Resurrection” scene climaxes with a phony contrivance to resurrect his floundering marriage to Felicia…all part and parcel of the critiques Peter makes above. Also, mark your calendars. We WILL be doing a May December post.
Combined Rating: 7.55 (Peter 8.1, Dad 7.0) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #8 (Peter #7, Dad #8)
Peter: This was the one film where Dad and I had separate viewing experiences. For being my first solo trip to the theaters, this will always be an important movie to me. When I was younger, I always thought the true mark of adulthood was being able to see an R-rated movie in the theaters without a guardian. I guess I can finally say I’ve reached that, and the most amazing thing is that they didn’t even ID me. Anyways, I do think Poor Things benefits from a theater viewing.
Joe: I had to buy the film on Prime so as to be able to review in time for Oscars Night. Of the 3 movies I have now purchased digitally — two due to Covid cabin fever and one due to this blog — I rate them in this order: Knives Out, Poor Things, Cats. Yes, I bought Cats. No apologies, it was a dark and confusing time on our planet.
Peter: It is a complete and utter visual feast that really immersed me in its unique and inventive world. I love everything about the look and style of this one. Just the opening shot is so spectacular.
Joe: Yeah sure, but I’m more stingy in my praise of the visual aesthetic. In a vacuum, it was extremely impressive. I suppose it just felt a wee bit show-offy instead of feeling essential to the story being told. For example, a movie like Lynch’s The Elephant Man (which Poor Things nods to in the scenes of Dafoe’s Dr. Baxter teaching surgery in an amphitheater) or Eggers’ The Lighthouse (Dafoe again!) weds its look intensely to its themes. The concept Poor Things seems to embrace the most is artificial extravagance. To what point though? A fair amount of this movie overall just seems gratuitous.
Peter: That’s not to say the film lacks substance, though. With its themes of feminist liberation and a story of a faux-human woman going on a journey to gain control over her autonomy and discover the purpose of her creation, it’s begging for comparisons to a certain other Best Picture nominee.
Joe: And we, your resident experts, compare it to be two notches higher than that other Best Picture Nominee.
Peter: This one doesn’t feel the need to filter itself, and has some genuinely thought-provoking ideas. The relationship that Bella has with the Dr. Frankenstein-like Dafoe character is the most interesting, even if the majority of the film doesn’t really focus on it.
Joe: I actually preferred Dafoe’s performance to Ruffalo’s — it was deeper, more multifaceted. Ruffalo plays just two notes in the movie — lush lothario and grieving cuckold — both in the same key. Though to be fair, he plays those limited notes very well.
Peter: There is a bit of a lull between Mark Ruffalo’s character’s exit near the end of the second act and Bella returning home in the third act. In general, this film’s biggest flaw is its pacing (which I’m sure Dad will agree with). This only REALLY wore on me during the whole whorehouse section. Maybe also when Bella returns to her former self’s husband in the third act. I have very mixed feelings about that plot point.
Joe: I concur with Peter’s feelings about pacing. The middle third (roughly) of the movie — on the cruise ship and at the Paris bordello sections — were endless and repetitive. I liked the 3rd act when Bella returns home to London.
Peter: Performances are very enjoyable all around. Everything Stone is putting into this very physically demanding performance is admirable. It’s arguably an even flashier role than Cooper in Maestro. Really strong “top 3” performances in the Actress category this year (Mulligan’s outside the top 3).
Joe: I have no argument whatsoever with Emma’s performance. It was absolutely amazing. But I do have mixed feelings about the way the role was written. First of all, it is a classic Oscar bait role. In fact, true to Yorgos’ penchant for excess, it is 3 Oscar bait roles smooshed into one character. 1) Simpleton Who’s More Complex Than She/He Seems (Being There, Rain Man, Gilbert Grape, etc.). 2) Coming of Age/SexualAwakening (Last Picture Show, Carrie, Moonlight), 3) Independent-Minded Woman Throwing Off the Shackles of the Patriarchy (Little Women, 9 to 5, Barbie). It’s the first cliche (imbecile becomes wisest person in the movie) that continually annoyed me. To be clear, there are many times that the schtick works in the movie. The “I’m going to punch that baby” line just works — even after you’ve seen it dozens of times in the trailer. But per usual, the script goes to the well too often. The first time Bella refers to “furious jumping” to name the activity that earned this movie its R rating, you grin. Haha, what a funny way to refer to sex! However, after the 10th time she uses that same phrase — with Yorgos always “subtly” pausing the action in a “wink at us” kind of way, I wanted to imitate the first scene of the movie and jump off a very tall bridge. One other really sour note in the movie for me. The big payoff laugh of the movie is in the last scene when we suddenly realize that the vile ex-husband now has… get this, viewers!! …the brain of a goat. It was such a dud joke completely at odds with the rest of the movie’s vibe. Gratuitous. Especially when contrasted with Barbie’s last line with Margo in the gynecologist’s office. Perfectly executed, perfectly in tune with the arc of the story.
Peter: Ruffalo is chewing the scenery, and his character lacks depth, but he’s a lot of fun to watch and the film suffers once he’s gone. Other things to admire: the score, the humor, the wonderful absurdity, and once again the many beautiful shots. Things to not admire: Jerrod Carmichael’s performance. What was going on there? He’s wildly awkward and out of place. Dad, can we agree on who’s winning the Worst Performance in a Best Picture Nominee award?
Joe: Right??? On Jerrod’s first take, how was every fiber of Yorgos’ body not screaming, “Okay, okay, Jerrod. That is certainly one to play it. But now could you play it in the diametrically opposite way so that it doesn’t look like you just Ubered in from a Housewives of Atlanta episode? Great! Take two!” I’ll bet as soon as Christopher Nolan saw one of Jerrod’s scenes while watching Poor Things in the theater, he started officially clearing off room on his mantel for the Best Director trophy.
Combined Rating: 7.85 (Peter 7.7, Dad 8.0) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #7 (Peter #8, Dad #6)
Peter: Very solid 7/10 movie. It accomplishes the tightrope act of balancing a satire with a heartfelt drama, which should feel clumsy and unfocused, but the satire and the drama complement each other nicely. Sure, the family drama is a bit schmaltzy and not particularly fresh but I guess that’s the point –- that the grounded drama of American Fiction is a counter to the insincerely outrageous drama of the stereotypical stories it satirizes. I get it, but I could predict every turn.
Dad:I liked this one a little bit more than Peter. What I loved most of all was the screenplay, it takes a really good screenwriter to write the parts of two very different brothers in a way that positions both performers for acting nominations.
Peter: Plenty of good laughs to make up for predictability, though. This is a strong year for genuinely funny films in Best Picture. Jeffrey Wright’s performance is one I’m glad to see gaining recognition. It’s sophisticated and internal and not overly flashy. We aren’t forced to like his character but we understand the place he’s coming from. I appreciated the scene where he argues with Issa Rae’s character about her exploitative novel, which is done in a nuanced, mature and unbiased manner.
Dad:I thought Wright was terrific. His performance was so real and recognizable — such an “I know a guy just like that” performance.
Peter: Sterling K. Brown may not give a performance layered enough to merit a nomination (especially over Charles Melton, the performance of the year), but he’s still solid.
Dad:Solid’s a good word, but it’s willfully blind for Academy voters to think that Brown’s 16 minutes of screen time, showy as they were, had more of an impact on the film, and the viewer, than Melton’s 46-minute acting clinic. Speaking of supporting performances, I’ll make two other points. #1) Man, they killed off the sister, played by Tracee Elliss Ross, quickly with one of the funnier (though I’m pretty sure it was not intended) clutch-your-chest-and-grimace-in-sudden-agony movie heart attacks I’ve ever seen. #2) I really liked the agent/friend character played so well by John Ortiz, who was a close friend of the greatest actor since the DeNiro/Pacino/Nicholson/Hoffman heyday: Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Peter: I also, of course, need to shout-out Adam Brody. O.C. fans, you will be happy to hear he devours his 3 minutes of screen time. At times, this reminded me of another movie we watched over the past year, The Player (especially with the sequence where all the fake movie endings are pitched).
Dad:Peter is the only reviewer on the planet to single out Brody for praise in this movie. I respect the boldness. (See also the photo he picked to represent this movie below.)
Peter: My biggest criticism with both is that they don’t feel risky enough. I want to once again bring up May December (swear it will be the last time) because I think it’s the perfect entertainment industry satire that doesn’t pull any punches (and also manages to balance that with a genuinely moving drama in contrast). Also, compared to most of the other nominees, this one just kind of lacks an interesting aesthetic identity (compare it once again with May December, which fuses its satire into its aesthetic identity).
Dad:I’m just going to predict right now that there’s no way this will be Peter’s last mention of May December in this piece. For me, I think the script decision which kind of defanged American Fiction’s impact was the multiple endings schtick. It’s just kind of a tired trick at this point and the hyper-meta nature of it disconnected me from the movie somewhat.
Peter: Still, I enjoyed it all the way through. One more note: this got a Best Original Score nomination? I can not recall a second of this score, and thought two of the films in my top 3 had outstanding scores that weren’t recognized.
Dad:Peter has 7 movies better than this and I have 5. That’s the sign of a damn good movie year.
Combined Rating: 7.95 (Peter 9, Dad 6.9) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #6 (Peter #3, Dad #9)
Peter: The most contentious disagreement between the two of us. I was disappointed to hear his lukewarm reaction to this stellar film. The brilliant trick of Anatomy of a Fall is not that it’s a whodunit that’s never definitively solved, which, yes, is obvious from the opening website link. That’s a banal detail compared to the powerful and devastatingly human story that’s being told here. “Devastatingly human” is a term I’d use to describe all of my top 3 entries.
Joe: Over time, I’ve grown to appreciate this movie more than when we originally walked out of the theater. Without question, this one suffered for me by being sandwiched between the viewing of a far more powerful movie the night before and a more emotionally satisfying movie the night after (what will end up being the top 2 movies in our combined ratings).
Peter: There’s also a dog in this ensemble, and he’s as excellent as the human cast.
Joe: So true. Might be a Top 3 dog performance of all time for me. Old Yeller? Nope, dead. Marley? Annoying. Also dead. I’d probably have to go with Toto at #1 — pound for pound, the most badass dog in cinema. I’d put Snoop next — unlike Marley and Yeller, death comes for him but he drinks some salt water and says, Not Today! And then at #3, I’m going with Snots from Christmas Vacation. One of a kind performer who makes the most of his limited screen time.
Peter: Sandra Hüller holds this film on her shoulders with a powerhouse performance. My favorite of all the acting nominees this year, without question. If she pulls an upset, I’d be ecstatic. It’s the kind of performance that feels very lived-in and nuanced, but also just explodes off the screen.
Joe: Somewhere, brow furrowed, Julianne Moore is saying WTF? Hüller is superb; she acts without a shred of phoniness. Her character is an egomaniac who I found to be both unlikeable and unlovable, yet somehow I ended up rooting for her to escape the clutches of the court system.
Peter: Milo Machado Graner, a newcomer who is not, in fact, actually blind, also really impressed me with his soulful performance. I maintain that he and Sandra are kind of like co-leads in what I would consider to be more of a coming-of-age story than a courtroom drama.
Joe: Here is exactly where Peter’s movie-watching depth leaves me still paddling in the shallow end. I will freely admit it — I wanted the damned murder to be solved. I was praying for the last scene to be Sandra coming home from the acquittal, going up to the attic, and then pulling a bloody aluminum bat out of the floorboard while her lips curl into a thin, sinister smile. Spoiler: that did not happen.
Peter: It’s a story, first and foremost, about the destructive power of change. The key moment of the entire film is when, after Sandra is acquitted, her son tells her “I was worried about you coming home.” Sandra responds saying that she was worried about coming home. Daniel deals with the irreparable damage of understanding, while Sandra deals with the irreparable damage of being understood or “seen.”
Joe: Once again, Peter’s maturity runs laps around mine. I would have been giddy if, instead, Daniel had said to his mother, “I see you’ve been swinging your bat…” Fade to credits.
Peter: Those courtroom scenes, where all of this couple’s secrets are unleashed, are fascinating and do make one wonder what’s going on in the French courts… but the most interesting part is when they cut to Daniel’s reaction as his innocence is stripped away. The last 15 or so minutes really make the movie for me. There’s so much poignancy in the crushing reality of all of it. Sandra talking about feeling completely empty after the acquittal really connected with me, as did the part about not wanting to be “seen” crying on the subway. Man, what a great character! I love that the core mystery is never solved. The complexity and gray areas are so much more interesting. As I said before, the courtroom stuff is solid. Perhaps one criticism could be that the prosecutor is cartoonishly exaggerated, but I have to admit he adds a lot of fun. The fight between Sandra and her husband is the most praised scene, deservedly so. Absolute edge-of-your-seat stuff. If the Oscar winners were based solely on the acting clips submitted, Huller would easily win assuming that was her submission.
Joe: I agree. I think this is the scene that has won the movie a couple of major screenplay wins already. She kind of kicks his ass in the argument with a shocking lack of compassion “You’re coldhearted. You have no pity,” he says near the end of the exchange. She replies, “Yes, and you have way too much for yourself.” Whoo that’s a tough one.
Peter: The quieter moments of these phenomenally well-rounded characters’ layers being subtly revealed have really stuck with me as well. We’ve also got what is, for my money, the best opening scene of the year. I didn’t know that particular 50 Cent song going in, but there’s something very provocative about it on full volume. Great choice, Justine.
Joe: That was some of the most unpleasant and extended use of diegetic music — a concept I learned from Peter — that I’ve experienced, perhaps ever. I’ve never been a fan of steel drums in the first place but now I truly hate them. Triet is an extremely manipulative director. Yes, the nonstop cacophony was shorthand for a power play between a married couple on the edge, but I also imagine it was meant to unsettle us in the audience. It succeeded — it put me in a foul mood that I never quite shook off for the rest of the movie.
Peter: Justine is making a lot of provocative choices here, with the almost mockumentary-like filmmaking style being another example of what I was talking about previously with enhancing a message through aesthetics and form. Well-deserved Director nomination and I think she will be taking home the win for Original Screenplay. The case of why it wasn’t submitted as France’s International Feature has probably been cracked. Justine Triet made a very anti-French-government speech, which the French government did not appreciate. What I think is amazing is that after another film that clearly didn’t have as much passion as this one (The Taste of Things) was selected instead, Triet was a good sport about it and called The Taste of Things “boring and annoying.” A level of pettiness we should all aspire to.
Combined Rating: 8.65 (Peter 8.8, Dad 8.5) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #5 (Peter #4, Dad #5)
Peter: Alright, I did not expect this to win me over as much as it did. A more cynical version of myself might have derided this film for being “predictable” and “safe”, but in the spirit of… awards season (I guess), I wish nothing but the best upon this gem of a film. If The Holdovers is cliched, then it’s a win for cliches everywhere.
Joe: Peter and I are pretty closely aligned on this one. I think it’s fair to say, of the 10 nominees, this one was the least ambitious in story and scale (Past Lives at least spans 3 different eras). But although the film doesn’t necessarily take any home run swings, it succeeds almost perfectly in what it set out to do.
Peter: All this sentimentality, in the hands of lesser talent, would go unchecked. Payne knows how to balance all that sugar out with the just right amount of bite. The ending in particular strikes the tonal balance between sentimental and sardonic absolutely perfectly. The warm moments are 100% earned. Our characters don’t exactly win in the end, but they grow into people who can accept loss. How nice.
Joe: The movie, its performances, and Payne’s direction reminds me of Hal Ashby. Harold and Maude comes to mind — more quirky for sure, but very alike in the genuine bond that develops between an older adult and young man isolated from the rest of the world, and the same type of grounded, unforced authenticity in the performances. The wildcard in The Holdovers is the heartbreaking, ass-kicking performance by the actress who has been dominating this awards season: Da’Vine Joy Randolph, playing the school cook, Mary. She is the grieving mother who galvanizes every scene she’s in, and makes Giamatti’s Mr. Hunham and Sessa’s Angus better versions of themselves.
Peter: The ’70s atmosphere, my favorite atmosphere, is captured beautifully but not overdone (the soundtrack selections are immaculate but there aren’t too many of them).
Joe: Including a Cat Stevens song: see Harold and Maude comparison above.
Peter: There’s a trio of deeply felt performances in Giamatti, Randolph, and Sessa (a student at the private school they shot at! Amazing!). Giamatti gets a lot of “no range/just plays himself” accusations and I can’t attest to that because I haven’t seen him in much but, hey, the man’s got soul. I was moved by all of these characters and performances.
Joe: Sessa was an insane find by Payne — his petulant schoolboy performance starts out a little predictable but man, he really grows into the role as the movie progresses. And Giamatti also could have sleepwalked through a certain interpretation of the role written for him. But he bought in 100 percent and seems to be living the role, not acting it. The brief scene — without dialogue — where he discovers that his burgeoning crush, Miss Crane, has a boyfriend is absolutely gutting.
Peter: Now the question on everyone’s mind is if it will become a Christmas classic. Some people (not gonna name any names) don’t think melancholy and Christmas mix, but I hope The Holdovers overcomes their prejudice. This is a movie where a Christmastime trip to Boston is an important plot point. Huge representation!
Joe: Tough sell for a Christmas classic to emerge from a movie about 3 lonely people who are losing in life. (Oh wait…It’s a Wonderful Life.) But yes, I think it can happen — in large part because this movie will translate very naturally to television viewing (apart from cleanup work on 32 utterings of the f-word).
Peter: Sure, it’s not the riskiest film of the bunch, but Holdovers is a winner. Joe: This movie fits like a warm coat. Even though I only rank it 5th on my list, I’ll bet it’s the movie I end up watching the most of these 10 over the years to come.
Combined Rating: 8.9 (Peter 8.7, Dad 9.1) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #4 (Peter #5, Dad #2)
Peter: There were two winners of the Barbenheimer phenomenon: Barbie, which made more money (and demanded itself to be taken seriously by demographics who would have otherwise ignored it), and Oppenheimer, which is preparing to sweep the Oscars on Sunday (I’m predicting it to win somewhere between 7-9 awards including Best Picture) and is, to put it frankly, the better movie by far. It’s the kind of movie that would win Best Picture in just about any year — an undeniable achievement (yes, it is only my #5… we’ll get to that) that has united audiences, critics, and the Hollywood industry in their overwhelming love for it (an increasingly rare occurrence these days).
Joe: I ranked this one higher than Peter — it was my second-favorite movie of the year (and also my second-favorite movie whose runtime starts with the number 3. We were lucky to see it in an iMAX theater (after having watched Barbie in the morning). Apart from the movie itself, the next most impressive achievement was the older dude one row in front of us who somehow slept through 80% of the movie. Nuclear fission is happening at 10 million decibels and the old fella, amazingly, did not wake up.
Peter: Now, I think some people are lying to themselves in believing that Oppenheimer’s success proves audiences want riskier, original cinema. I’m not so sure it proves any such thing for any filmmaker whose name is not Christopher Nolan. I hope they’re right, though.
Joe: This is an interesting question. Peter — when do you think was the last time that “riskier, original cinema” was happening with more noticeable frequency?
Peter: Every year nowadays when the Oscar nominations come out, there’s this crowd saying “why can’t the Oscars nominate movies everyone saw?” My simple answer would be: a time when they didn’t do that, so I’ll bring Christopher Nolan back into the conversation and say pre-2008. That was the year of The Dark Knight snub, which is probably the most consequential snub in Oscars history for several reasons (the line-up being extended has only complicated the issue). Why weren’t they complaining about the Synecdoche, New York snub instead? I know it’s odd to frame this conversation about original cinema around the Oscars, but I think they’ve always acted as the most mainstream and accessible force of encouragement for people to step outside of their comfort zone. Even they’ve been rejected, which shows no hope for audiences being open to bolder recommendations. So yes, it’s all Christopher Nolan’s fault and he’s not going to save us from this mess. And Marvel’s fault. Also Spielberg’s fault because he made Jaws almost 50 years ago and “set off a chain reaction that would destroy the world”, but even his movies are bombing these days. If only we could have lived in the New Hollywood Era forever.
Joe: Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I also love two other things about your answer. One, that it provided you with an off-ramp to talk about Synecdoche, New York. And two, that your chosen Time Machine era is basically a direct overlap of the Nixon presidency, so you must really love New Hollywood. Okay, back to Oppenheimer.
Peter: My relationship with Nolan has been… rocky. Can’t deny the guy has a vision but, man, is he flawed. Oppenheimer isn’t even free from many of the Nolan-isms I least appreciate. Yes, the female characters are underdeveloped. Yes, it reaches unhealthy levels of self-seriousness. Yes, there are snippets of dialogue that wouldn’t be out of place in a Marvel movie (the “some young senator from Massachusetts” line echoes a similar energy as when we hear “It’s the End of the World as We Know It” in Maestro). Yes, the sound mixing goes “BRRRRRR” and drowns out the dialogue (of the many awards that Oppenheimer is favored to win, the only one that would downright upset me is Best Sound. This isn’t to say the Sound work is horrible. The overpowering vibrations certainly work to create disorientation in this one, whereas it’s just annoying in other Nolan films, but there’s one other nominee that NEEDS to be recognized for its sound work). Yes, there are so many narrative gimmicks that aren’t any more original this time.
Joe: I’m neither a fanboy nor a critic of the Nolan oeuvre. I often end up linking him in my mind with James Cameron — perhaps in large part due to the self-seriousness phenomenon Peter mentions above. I have seen 7 Nolan movies and I like them all. I would rate them thusly: 1) Oppenheimer, 2) Dunkirk, 3) The Dark Knight, 4) Batman Begins, 5) The Prestige, 6) Inception, 7) The Dark Knight Rises. I don’t know I haven’t seen Memento yet — feels like it would be up my alley. Lastly, I’ve tried 3 different times to watch Tenet and each time I have thrown up the white flag 20 minutes in.
Peter: Yes, I’m probably too hard on the guy. But somehow, beyond my wildest belief, he made it all work. During a scene like the Trinity Test, where my heart was beating out of my chest, you’ve just got to give it up to Chris.
Joe: I think I’d have to call it the best scene of this movie year. Fassbender fighting the Brute in Fincher’s The Killer is a distant second.
Peter: My biggest criticism of most modern biopics (like Maestro) is that they fail to convince me that their subject is important. They fail to tell me WHY this story needs to be told. Oppenheimer is such an intense inversion of this, and it’s why Nolan’s self-importance serves him well. He’s convinced that Oppenheimer is the most important man who’s ever lived, and that’s why the movie works. The movie sells us this idea and the final moments (“I think we did”) wraps it up in a fine looking package. An odd criticism that I have is with the title. Oppenheimer isn’t your regular bland biopic, and it shouldn’t have to pretend like it is, but the blandest possible approach to the title is not doing it any justice. The book it’s adapted from is called American Prometheus. That’s about a billion times cooler and better, though it might not have sold as well.
Joe: I agree with most of Peter’s points here. The one point I’d quibble with is the effectiveness of Nolan’s self-importance. Ultimately, it’s not the directing or the acting that prevents Oppenheimer from rising to my Mt. Olympus level of movies. It’s Nolan’s stodgy writing. I’d contrast it with a biographically-driven ’80s movie that does sit on my Mt. Olympus: The Right Stuff. Probably because it was derived from a book by Tom Wolfe — who was allergic to stodgy — the movie just crackles from start to finish. Sometimes, it feels like Oppenheimer just…trudges.
Peter: This cast is wild. Cillian Murphy is magnificent. I recently read he will be the first Irish-born actor to win the Oscar for Best Actor when that inevitably happens and I think that’s pretty cool (though it should’ve been Colin Farrell in the exceptional Banshees of Inisherin last year).
Joe: I second the Farrell shout-out. My brain picks Murphy for Best Actor. My heart picks Paul Giamatti.
Peter: I also have no problem with Robert Downey Jr.’s inevitable win. Out of all the performances *nominated* in Supporting Actor, his feels the most complex. I find the Mozart-Salieri dynamic between Oppenheimer and Strauss fascinating. The women in the movie aren’t given much to do. Oh wow, Emily Blunt is… crossing her arms and frowning again. It’s Nolan. Some things never change.
Joe: Downey’s likely win is well deserved. He anchors what is actually my favorite part of the movie — the prolonged attack on Oppenheimer’s reputation after the Trinity test. Most people I’ve heard or read think less highly of that aspect of the movie. I totally disagree — I love that DC backroom shit. Regarding Blunt’s nomination, I think she’s America Ferrara on steroids. A mostly background, shoulder-shrugging role for most of the movie turns transcendent during an electric scene when she brings serious heat combatting the Atomic Energy Commission interrogators.
Peter: No, but what really makes this cast wild is not even the fact that it includes names like Josh Peck and Devon Bostick (shaping up to be the Olivier and Brando of their generation, I think) but the fact that every other day I hear someone praise some supporting performance from an actor I’ve never heard of and a character I don’t even vaguely recall. “John Shigelbom’s legendary character acting work has gone unrecognized for DECADES, and it’s about time we gave him his flowers for his explosive performance as Scientist 14. He’s the one who should’ve gotten the Supporting Actor nod”. Sure. Maybe it’s just me who’s seeing these comments everywhere. I’m not in the “3 hours is too long for a movie” camp – I love 3 hour movies – but I do believe that 3 hour movies are bound to have unspectacular moments and that’s okay. Most of these random suit-wearing scientist characters were unspectacular to me, but I love that so many people feel differently. Plenty of spectacular moments to make up for it.
Joe: This rant by Peter shows why he takes the lead role in these reviews. Also, I did feel compelled to Google “John Shigelbom” just in case.
Combined Rating: 8.9 (Peter 8.4, Dad 9.4) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #3 (Peter #6, Dad #1)
Joe: This will be the one movie for which I take the lead as it is my #1 movie of the year. Peter and I saw this at a cool theater in Pittsfield, Mass., a couple of towns away from where he goes to college. (Also the same theater he referenced in his Poor Things review.) From the moment that Robby Robertson’s mesmerizing score began, I could sense a masterpiece was coming. Let me start with the performances. I thought Leo got absolutely hosed in the Best Actor nominations. Colman Domingo is a wonderful actor, but the flat snooze-fest of a biopic he tried to shore up should be disqualifying in and of itself. He plays against type here as Ernest Burkhart, a man who might be one of the least swift boats in a pond that’s not exactly stocked with bright Caucasians.
Peter: Perhaps even more so than Nolan, Leo is a popular figure I’ve been known to have my reservations about. Maybe I’m just being a contrarian at this point, because I’ve seen plenty of worthy performances from him (and one or two unworthy ones). Is it that the marks of capital “A” Acting are too obvious? I don’t know but he just fails to excite me. In his Killers of the Flower Moon role, he doesn’t need to be exciting but he does need to pull off making a loser like Ernest a convincing lead of a 3 and a half hour movie. He’s not evil in the fun way — just dull. He does a fine job but I still wasn’t blown away. It might not even be his performance but… well, I know this isn’t quite fair but I know that DiCaprio and De Niro are significantly older than the real men they’re playing. The real Ernest was several years younger than Molly. In my view, Ernest still behaves like a guy in his 20s, so it’s a bit jarring to see the pushing-50 Leo embodying him. I can get past 30-year-olds playing high schoolers in bad teen dramas, so I should be able to get past it in a finely crafted Scorsese movie.
Joe: Ernest does countless loathsome acts, not the least of which is wittingly or unwittingly (I think it’s the latter) poisoning his wife with spiked insulin. Yet, it also seems he does love Molly if not for the fact that he’s such a sheep among wolves, led by his uncle William Hale.
Peter: The relationship between Ernest and Molly is so interesting in its contradictions and intricacies. Everything about that relationship is done so believably in the movie, right from their first interaction.
Joe: Speaking of Hale, Scorsese coaxed what is unquestionably De Niro’s strongest performance of the 21st century — #2 The Irishman, #3 either The Joker or New Year’s Eve. Just fooling on that last one — but honestly, De Niro has appeared in so much dreck these past 24 years!
Peter: Oh boy, we have to do a post on New Year’s Eve. What a movie. The difference between De Niro and his buddy (I assume they’re buddies) Pacino is that De Niro WILL phone in a performance if the movie is bad. If the Best Supporting Actor race of 2011 somehow boiled down to De Niro in New Year’s Eve vs. Pacino in Jack and Jill (I guess this is a hypothetical world where no other movies came out that year), it would be a blow-out. If you’ve seen the Dunkaccino scene from Jack and Jill, you know it’s glorious. De Niro could never give that much to a movie that bad (I want to make it very clear that I’ve never subjected myself to the entirety of Jack and Jill, nor do I have any plans to, but I have seen every scene with Al Pacino). Anyways, yes, it is good to see him in a good movie again.
Joe: Around the edges, Scorsese made some really cool casting choices, using well known musicians (Jason Isbell, Sturgill Simpson, and the artist who had Laura as his #1 Spotify fan in 2022: Pete Yorn) to play three of the less savory characters. And Jack White plays one of the radio show actors in the masterful coda. Isbell in particular was extremely effective with his unsettling performance as Molly & Ernest’s brother-in-law Bill Smith. But of course, it is Lily Gladstone who carries the movie as Molly Burkhart. I’m still blown away by how she managed to be both restrained and majestic at the same time. I am so hopeful that she will win Best Actress — Emma Stone and her furious jumping can go home and polish the two statues already in her living room.
Peter: If the Hüller upset isn’t happening (it’s not happening), then I’m Team Lily all the way. What a nuanced and thoughtful performance she gives. She’s a star. I was going to say that you made a factual error in saying Emma Stone has “two statues” to polish off (just one for La La Land, unless you’re talking about other awards), but then I remembered that time when, for about 30 seconds, Emma Stone became the first and only actress to win Best Picture, due to the fine presenting work of Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.
Joe: Ha yes, that must have been the second win I was thinking of. Another masterful part of Scorsese’s film is how outrageously well he captures a sense of time and place. Much better than he did in Gangs of New York, which just reeks of studio set instead of 1862 Five Points, and somewhat better than The Irishman, which kind of shows its stretch marks in its depiction of New York, New Jersey, and Detroit between the ‘50s and ‘70s. It’s so bizarre in KotFM when you see Ernest driving his taxi around town, or Molly meeting with her bank guardian to get permission to withdraw $100 of her own money, that they’re in 1920s Pawhuska, the exact same downtown where today you can watch Ree Drummond, the Pioneer Woman, fleece some local rubes at one of her overpriced shops.
Peter: The Pioneer Woman connection is crazy. We can watch people who continue to profit off this nearly century-old tragedy flex their lifestyle on the Food Network every morning — and we do! The vibes have always been off with that family.
Joe: Unlike my critique of Nolan’s screenplay as having a drag effect on Oppenheimer, the KotFM screenplay adapted by Eric Roth and Marty transforms this movie in a way that David Grann’s excellent book hints at, but doesn’t center on. Grann’s book is essentially an FBI procedural with a strong moral core. The lead character is a white man, FBI agent Tom White. This helps explain the pre-shooting rumor that Leo was slated to play him (instead of Plemons, who ended up with the part).
Peter: I have not read the book but It’s interesting that you make this comparison to Nolan and the Oppenheimer screenplay, because I think this approach shows how much passion Scorsese and Roth hold for the humanity at the heart of the story (something a director like Nolan arguably wouldn’t gravitate towards). I think Plemons in the final product Ernest role would have still been very interesting.
Joe: Eric and Marty take a different tack — they center the movie around Molly Burkhart, and the foul-hearted white men who circle like vultures around her, her family, and her tribe and homeland. (Of course, Marty needed Ernest and William to complete his main character triangle — criminals, deadbeats, and reprobates make up the vast majority of his life’s work.) Tom White becomes almost more of a contrivance to move the plot along two-thirds of the way through the story. Long story short, I think it’s a brilliant and fairly transformative adaptation.
Peter: Yeah, in my Oppenheimer review, I talked about the importance of biopics (or, in this case, we can just say “nonfiction stories”) selling the audience on the idea of this being an important story to retell. I’m sure Marty and crew asked “what makes this an important story to tell in our present time?” and framed it accordingly.
Joe: The adaptation also sets Scorsese up to delicately thread a needle of which he is clearly very conscious: that of being a white man telling this story. This awareness hangs over the movie — you can sense that he knows if he fucks it up, a social media tsunami will ensue. The most jaw-dropping technique he uses is an unprecedented (I think?) extended cameo at the end of the movie, in which he steps up to the microphone to read Molly’s obituary to us. It’s a stunning way to frame the moral horrors (and the moral North Star) of what we’ve just been watching for 206 minutes.
Peter: I’ve always said the best adaptations shouldn’t just adapt the source material but respond to them in a transformative way. Kubrick was the master of this, but Scorsese comes pretty close. This unforgettable ending is such a bold approach, especially with the knowledge of how he reframed the story.
Joe: Lastly, I need to tip my cap to the fact that a resonant plot piece in the movie is a lifelong pal of mine: diabetes. In my Favorite Performance by Diabetes. I place it second among movies I’ve seen. 1) Dog Day Afternoon, 2) KotFM, 3) Con Air, 4) Panic Room, 5) Paul Blart: Mall Cop (type 2, so it sorta half qualifies), and 5) Steel Magnolias.
Peter: No comments on the Top 5 Diabetes Movies conversation. This movie, while I like it a lot, isn’t quite top 5 Scorsese or top 5 movie of the year for me (one reason could be the lack of many super stand-out scenes for me) but it does further cement the man’s legacy as the greatest alive (and pretty far ahead of the pack). Still putting out films of this caliber into his 80s! Let’s see if another New Hollywood legend, Francis Ford Coppola, can give him a run for his money with my most anticipated movie of this year, Megalopolis. Probably not.
Combined Rating: 9.15 (Peter 9.3, Dad 9.0) Combined Best Picture Ranking: #2 (Peter #2, Dad #3)
Peter: Wow. I was so profoundly moved by this wonderful film, which I think is among the most impressive directorial debuts of the century so far. It may not have the visual or technical flair as some of the other films we’re reviewing (not to say that there isn’t intense detail given to the directorial work) but that modesty and restraint is part of its appeal.
Joe: An absolutely exquisite movie.
Peter: This “brand” of movie — those intensely personal, almost autobiographical indie movies that A24 has specialized in producing are a bit hit or miss. They often don’t have very much to say and feel like they’re reaching for authenticity in cheap ways. This is not the sense with Past Lives, and while it doesn’t take a detective to deduce that Celine Song is drawing from some personal experiences, she’s also reaching for something much more universal. She takes a very mature, gimmick-free approach to this story, both in how she treats the audience and the characters. It’s crucial that Greta Lee and Teo Yo’s characters never cross a line, that we never get some contrived Hollywood-ified affair plotline.
Joe: Though melancholy in its overall feel, it is a terrific date movie in the way it persuades you to think about which character you identify with most thoroughly. All three are valid choices. It’s a movie that proceeds quietly, almost stealthily across three eras — and when it ends, you’re almost baffled at how gutted it leaves you.
Peter: More devastating and impactful is the portrait of two souls on opposite paths coming into contact, for one heartbreaking fleeting moment, with their “could have been.” I could not have connected with this more. The whole movie pulled at my heartstrings, but that climax… my god. I keep thinking about that last moment with Nora, that comes after the most brilliantly staged “waiting for Uber” scene (one example of how Song displays directorial greatness without showing off). It hits like a freight train, even as the last act of the film is just devastating lines and moments being layered on top of each other. The entire scene in the bar is just relentless in its emotional brutality. Still, the film never comes off as manipulative. The husband character is given so much empathy and depth for a character who could’ve just come off as a caricature or a simple obstacle. There’s a shot that cuts to his isolated reaction to Nora and Hae Sung’s Korean conversation in the bar that utterly broke me but might not even rank in the top 10 hardest-hitting shots in the movie.
Joe: Another powerful moment in that part of the story is when Hae Sung tells Nora, “I didn’t know that liking your husband would hurt this much.” Celine Song doesn’t have Hae Sung deliver the line like it’s a jaw-dropper. Instead, it’s spoken softly, affectionately, and wistfully. For me, it was the most evocative line of the year in movies.
Peter: These characters are so beautifully realized, and beautifully performed. It’s just so deeply human through and through. Skype calls and Facebook friend requests hold so much weight. So much felt in just a longing stare.
Joe: I thought all of the three principal actors/actresses gave pitch-perfect performances. Greta Lee in particular was just as worthy as Margot Robbie to receive the 5th Best Actress nomination that disappointingly (for me anyway) went to Annette Bening. Also, a minor point, but Past Lives depicts online conversations happening on screen more effectively than any movie I’ve ever seen. Granted, most of those examples are Hallmark movies — 97% of which involve the main female character advancing the exposition as she uses a tablet sitting on the kitchen counter to talk with her mother.
Peter: Both cities are also wonderfully and artfully captured. I think 3 of the other nominees we talk about (Killers, Oppenheimer, and the one below this) end by zooming out of the narrative and positioning/reframing their story in a broader societal context. Past Lives instead does this in its opening scene, which has to be the most thought-provoking first minute of a movie in some time.
Joe: Couldn’t agree more. I think frequently about this scene and how brilliant a storytelling device it was. We the viewers are forced to be co-conspirators alongside unseen bar patrons who are commenting on our 3 main characters as they interact on the other side of the bar. (Later we will experience the same scene from the main characters’ perspective.) I thought it was an incredibly effective way to smuggle us into the essence of the story, while also disarming us as viewers by giving voice to the onlookers’ interpretations (which happen to be very Western) of what’s happening. Just a brilliant tactic.
Peter: Of all the aspects of this movie ignored by the Academy, I feel the most egregious was the absolutely stunning score. It is unfortunate that this is sure to go home empty-handed on Sunday, although Original Screenplay is a tough category. Four of those nominees (the 4 not written by Bradley Cooper) would make worthy winners.
Joe: One of my favorite aspects of the screenplay is how it traffics so convincingly in two languages I’m a stranger to — Korean and In-Yun, a sensibility in which the perceptions of Na Young (Nora) and Hae Sung aren’t just locked into the here and now, but could conceivably span 800 lives backward or forward. I was fascinated by the concept — it was conveyed in such a grounded way, as opposed to the metaverse scene vomit of Everything Everywhere All At Once or, even worse, the past 6 years of shitty metaverse-obsessed Marvel movies.
Peter: Yeah, I also thought about the EEAAO comparison. I didn’t hate that movie but I’m kind of still in disbelief over how much it cleaned up the Oscars last year (the JLC win is particularly baffling). What I liked about it was the strong emotional core (like Ke Huy Quan’s already iconic “laundry and taxes” line), and Past Lives gives me that genuinely moving “in another life” story without all that muddled genre-bending stuff. Might as well do my ranking of the BP nominees I saw from last year here. 1) The Banshees of Inisherin (absolutely outstanding) 2) Tar (great and there’s a sizable gap between this and the next one) 3) Everything Everywhere All At Once (mixed though I’ll maintain there are moments of greatness) 4) The Fabelmans (It’s alright. Dad will disagree with me putting this below EEAAO but that was at least doing something interesting. Brilliant cameo near the end is my favorite part) and far behind at 5) Elvis (terrible). Amazingly (and unfortunately), EEAAO was the only movie I saw from last year that won any Oscars. I’d recommend Past Lives to anyone, though if you’re someone who cries easily at movies (like a certain member of our family), it should come with a warning label. In most years, Past Lives would easily clench the top spot on my BP ranking. However, there was another film this year that demanded that distinction
Movies with Pete and Dad 