In my humble opinion 2022 was not a very good year for great movies. As a result, I have spent more time than usual considering my ranking of the movies, in large part because none of them really stood out as "best" and many didn't seem Oscar-worthy at all. I know it's a commonly held opinion that the Academy nominates "art" or "independent" movies, that often go unseen, and excludes the more popular, summer blockbuster type movies. The majority of movie goers don't see and don't enjoy or appreciate the films that are more typically nominated. Crowd pleasers, like comic book movies, rom-coms, horror, action, and comedies are seldom nominated. If the Oscar was awarded to the most popular movie, we wouldn't need a nominating committee at all, but could just give the awards based on box office data. In that case we'd probably have several from "The Fast and Furious" franchise winning Best Picture. Personally, probably because I'm old, I appreciate the way the Academy nominates movies. To me, "best" should mean a lot more than popular. While I typically also see the blockbusters, and enjoy them, I don't expect them to be, or want them to be, nominated in this category by the Academy. Let those other movies win Golden Globes, or People's Choice awards. So, this year, my rank order could have gone any number of ways. My top and bottom 3 or 4 changed several times and are essentially interchangeable. Didn't love any of them nor hate any of them, so my reviews and opinions will be brief.
Actually, my favorite movie this year was "The Whale", which wasn't even nominated in this category. Other movies that I enjoyed, that weren't, and probably shouldn't have been, nominated, include "Bullet Train", "The Batman", "Hustle", "Vengeance" and "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent".
As always, I welcome all comments and opinions, especially if they disagree.
1) TAR: Reluctantly ranking this first, based largely on another amazing performance from Cate Blanchett, who I suspect will win her third Oscar, on her eighth nomination. It's the tale of a fictional classical music conductor who struggles with her personal and professional demons, in a rather compelling way. Talent, power, and sexuality aren't always what they seem to be. Admittedly, it's far too long at 2h 38min, but her performance is simply spellbinding, and I'm a sucker for good acting and actor driven films. The movie is expertly crafted by Director Todd Field who also directed two of my favorites: "Little Children" and "In the Bedroom". It was too long, inconsistently paced, and didn't stick the landing. Still, a very good movie and very much an "Oscar-type", art film.
2) ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT: This World War 1 epic, based on the book by the same name, is intensely beautiful. There is no sugar coating or glorifying war in this film. It begins with schoolboys clamoring to join the military, to be patriots, eager to fight for country. Of course, once bullets fly, and bodies drop, they quickly realize that war really is hell on earth. Start to finish this movie unflinchingly shows just how dark, oppressive, cruel, and relentless war can be. The movie features stunning cinematography, gripping performances, and a compelling plot. Not quite as good as "1917" but still worth a watch, if you don't mind sub-titles.
3) ELVIS: A very entertaining studio movie, but still worthy of a "best" nomination. Obviously, this biopic follows the career or Elvis Presley, from humble beginnings to worldwide stardom. The film focuses largely on Elvis's complicated relationship with Col. Tom Parker, his manager. Austin Butler does an amazing job mimicking Elvis, both in sound and style. He's the front runner for "best actor"; although, I'll be rooting for Brendan Fraser's performance in "The Whale". My only criticism of his portrayal of the King, is that he often seemed like he was posing more than acting. The musical sequences were spot on and engrossing. His physical performance was dynamic and authentic. However, off stage scenes, involving dialogue, were typically brief and consisting more of static posed facial expressions rather than dynamic interactions, lacking the appeal of the musical sequences. Another distraction to me was Tom Hanks. As much as I like him as a person and as an actor, I don't think his accent, his look, or his acting choices hit the mark. Easy movie to recommend, even at 2 hours and 39 minutes.
4) THE FABELMANS: Typical Spielberg. A well written, well told, entertaining, reality based, story. Ultimately, that's what he is, a storyteller. Hard to argue that many have done it better. This clearly auto biographical movie follows the life of Sammy (read Steven) and chronicles the events that shape his development. Sammy begins his love affair with film, at a very young age, after his parents take him to a matinee at the local cinema. He beings making his own movies, before he even gets to high school. Moving across country, being bullied for being the rare Jewish kid in a California high school, and the family turmoil surrounding his work obsessed, by the book, father, and his artsy self-indulgent, free spirit, mother, are among the critical events that shape his future. At times the performances seem a bit staged and stiff but overall, it's an interesting story, well told. Not Spielberg's best work, but not his worst either.
5) THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN: I don't have many criticisms about this movie. On the contrary, the plot was interesting and original, the performances were outstanding and Oscar worthy, the cinematography was beautiful, and the direction was professional. So, despite virtually everything about this film being technically good, I simply found it boring. Clearly there were many things to like about this film, but in the end, I just checked my watch too many times, wondering "how much longer".
6) TOP GUN: MAVERICK: What can I say, this was a super fun movie?!?! Much like the original "Top Gun", the relationships were compelling, and the action was gripping. I'm an unapologetic Tom Cruise fan, and there was a lot of him, and he did not disappoint. I was a little shocked that he allowed himself to be shown as so short in a few scenes, especially opposite Miles Teller. I did have issues and difficulty suspending disbelief in a number of scenes. Particularly hard to accept as plausible was the sequence in which two jets are shot down over a snowy forest. The two ejecting pilots are able to parachute down and then jog to one another in minutes. Hard to believe. Because I enjoyed, and remember, the original so much, I felt like the sequel was a little bit "more of the same". While fun to watch, how many original or different ways can you feature jets flying around? I'd have liked to see more of the younger pilots and their stories, and a little less melodrama. No doubt you will be entertained if you see this movie, making it easy to recommend, but to me it's just not an Academy Award kind of film.
7) AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER: I agree with a review I read that described this movie as a 3-hour long screen saver. I saw this film in IMAX 3D, which no doubt greatly enhanced the experience, as it would most movies. In the end, the plot was predictable and not that compelling, the acting was mediocre at best and the pacing was slow and inconsistent. I couldn't help myself, wondering what they did all day in the jungle or at sea, when they weren't hunting. Where did the electronic gear come from? Do they have jobs? Do they have bathrooms or toilet paper? Are there stores in the trees? Do the adults just hang out and play with the kids all day? I know, not great reasons to dislike a movie. It was often visually beautiful, but the thin script and 3 hour run time, make it pale in comparison to the original. On the other hand, nearly 2.5 billion in ticket sales translates to people liking it!
8) EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE: More people told me I had to see this movie, than any movie I can remember in recent history. Even Dan, my brother, and Dylan, my oldest child, with whom I usually agree about movies, recommended this one to me. It's garnered the most Oscar nominations of any movie in 2022 and won several significant awards from other agencies. I just don't get it. In fact, I was certain that I'd seen it in a bad mood, or was tired, or something else, explaining why I alone didn't care for it. I actually watched it a second time, something I virtually never do. There have been movies about which I dramatically changed my mind, after a second viewing (e.g., "Minority Report"), and I was convinced this would be one of those. Alas, I disliked it just as much a second time, maybe more. I found the acting to be mediocre at best. Michelle Yeoh was good, Ke Huy Quan was okay, and Stephanie Hsu was less than, although they all got nominated. How Jamie Lee Curtis got a nomination is beyond me, likely a career popularity nomination. I didn't find the action to be all that original, including somewhat mundane fight sequences, lacking visual appeal. I found the plot to be uninspired, given all the potential in a multiverse. I found the main characters reactions, while shifting within the multiverse, to be unbelievable and inconsistent. I think what bothered me most was the pure silliness, while still trying to be profound. It's listed as a comedy, but I don't recall ever laughing. Hot dog fingers, super karate pinkies and talking/walking rocks were just too much for me to bear. I was completely unable to buy-in to the story and was supremely disappointed....... both times.
9) TRIANGLE OF SADNESS: Male model Carl and his gorgeous model girlfriend Yaya, get a free suite on a luxury yacht. This is a story about male-female relationship norms as well as class distinctions and shifting roles in modern society. The clever writing is likely what made the Academy consider this movie "best", and why it's not last on my list. When the yacht goes to ground, the ship's crew and guests find themselves marooned on an island. All social norms are abandoned, title and status, nor physical appearance and beauty carry much value, and mayhem ensues. For me, the overwrought, predictable, and often unbelievably "silly" situations along with sub-par acting performances, make this movie average at best, hard to watch at worst.
10) WOMEN TALKING: It's in the name.... a lot of talking and very little doing. Females of all ages, in a modern Amish-like religious community, have been sexually abused by the men in the community, for decades. Once the perpetrators come to light, the women must decide if they should do nothing, stay and fight, or pack up and leave. They have to weigh how each decision might change their own future, the future of their children, and their relationship with God. The leading women in the community get together and discuss the merits of each option, knowing the rest of the women will follow whichever path they choose. The women are often supportive of each other, but just as often are aggressive and combative with each other. Most of the film takes place in a hay loft, in the rafters of a poorly lit barn. The acting is reasonably good, but in addition to being dark in tone and lighting, the plot is inconsistent and just not very captivating. At times it feels preachy and often becomes repetitive. The positives in this film simply don't outweigh the negatives. Possibly a movie Dan would like.
