2023 was an atypical year, as far as which type of movies got nominated for best picture Oscars, as well as for my thoughts about those movies. My opinions are a little contradictory this year; features I enjoyed in one movie might be the same feature I didn't like in another. For example, I loved how silly "Poor Things" was and yet didn't like "Barbie" as much because it was too "silly". I believe this is also the first year in which three foreign language films got nominated in the Best Picture category. My top three films this year were easily placed. After that, it could have been just about any order, and I rearranged it several times. As usual, there were also several movies that I really enjoyed and felt should have gotten more attention. "The Iron Claw" was shockingly good. I was expecting a formulaic wrestling movie but got a well-crafted and deeply emotional family drama. Hats off to Zach Effron, for delivering an Oscar worthy performance. "The Boys in the Boat" did deliver a formulaic film, but the formula exists because the formula tends to work. "Air" was another very entertaining movie, with a great soundtrack, and safe for the entire family. "Society of the Snow" is an intense recounting of the Uruguayan Rugby team that crashes in the Andes. If you're looking for a little more action, I enjoyed "The Covenant", starring Jake Gyllenhaal and directed by Guy Richie. As always, I welcome all comments, if they agree with my opinions or not. Tell me what movies you liked, or didn't, and maybe what you think got overlooked......
1) OPPENHEIMER: For me, this is the best movie of the past 5 years, or perhaps longer. Christopher Nolan is rapidly making a run at "best living Director". He never fails to deliver visually gorgeous images, heart pounding action, smart writing, complex plots, and A-list performances. I suspect everyone knows this movie is about the development of the Atomic Bomb which was eventually dropped on Japan. Personally, I'm partial to actor driven movies, with the good writing being the second most pivotal feature I'm drawn to. Although, even great acting can't always rescue bad writing. Cillian Murphy delivers a deep, complex, powerful yet nuanced performance. His range of expression is awe inspiring. He's seemingly able to portray several conflicting emotions at once. Robert Downey Jr. is his amazing self as Lewis Strauss. I expect, and hope, both will win best acting Oscars. Emily Blunt and the rest of the supporting cast are equally amazing, in lesser but important roles. The music, the cinematography, the pace, the direction, all just add to the power and beauty of this film. There's a reason this movie got the most nominations (13) of any film this year. I particularly enjoyed the scenes in which the various scientists debate the science of various obstacle to be overcome. Each scientist is passionate about their own opinion and are eloquent in defense of it. However, as it should be in science, facts and math win out in the end. You can argue opinion, but not facts. Math doesn't lie. The scene in which the bomb is first tested is one of the most memorable scenes in recent memory. The silence during the anticipation of the countdown, followed by the KaBoom, and its chaotic aftermath, was simply breath taking. I loved just about everything about film. Of course, I'm still of the opinion that no movie needs to be 3 hours long, but "Oppenheimer" may be an exception. My only minor criticism would be about the ending. The testing scene was so powerful, I'd have liked that be the end. However, it was followed by a fairly lengthy "trial" sequence, in which efforts are made to discredit Oppenheimer. While understandably necessary, I felt those scenes were far less dramatic and lessened the impact of the explosion. That being said, I'll be rooting for Oppenheimer to win every award it was nominated for!
2) POOR THINGS: Talk about original! Yorgos Lanthimos has directed some of the strangest movies. "The Lobster" and "The Killing of a Scared Deer" are far too odd to easily explain. Weird doesn't even begin to describe them. I think his most popular film, "The Favourite", was his first mainstream film, it garnered 10 Oscar nominations, and was his first collaboration with Emma Stone. The plot chronicles the physical and emotional development of Bella Baxter, played by Stone. Bella has an adult body when she's reborn with an infant's brain. We share in her journey of physical, emotional and intellectual transformation. Her acting, particularly her physical performance, is hard to describe, and impossible to praise too highly. Willem Dafoe plays a physically disfigured physician, in the mold of Dr. Frankenstein, while Mark Ruffalo plays Bella's first love interest. He teaches her about the ways of the world, social norms, and carnal pleasures. All three actors are at the top of their game. Every word, action and mannerism seems genuine. Every set, backdrop, costume, sound and spoken word has been clearly and carefully considered, artfully crafted, perfectly performed and brilliantly directed, with genuine passion, even love. Ordinarily I'm put off by silly or nonsensical scenes or movies. Having a medical background, I find myself overly critical of medical scenes that aren't accurate or authentic. Just like my military background makes me more critical of inaccurate military scenarios. That being said, this entire movie is so outlandish and over the top, that all the silly, crazy and impossible situations just somehow work and further the plot. Want to take someone's brain out and pop it in to another head? Why not! This movie may be just too odd for some: so, as much as I enjoyed this masterpiece, I'm not sure I'd blanket recommend it to everyone.
3) KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: I believe Martin Scorsese is currently the best living director. I'm also of the debatable opinion that Leonardo DiCaprio is the best working male actor and that Robert DeNiro once also held that distinction. This film is set in the 1920s Oklahoma, home of the oil rich indigenous people of the Osage Nation. There are conspiracies, murders, and other crimes, committed in an effort to rob the Osage of their oil rights. I loved just about every part of this movie. The direction and acting were what you'd expect from this A-list. I particularly enjoyed watching Leo play a somewhat dimwitted rube, who is easily manipulated. The cinematography and depictions of the Osage people was simply breathtaking. Scorsese fingerprints are all over this movie. So, typically there are a number of things that make me like a movie less. In this one, I liked every individual part, but still didn't love the movie as a whole. With a 3 hour 26-minute run time it was simply too long. Much of the action and beauty simply didn't move the story forward and the plot wasn't that complex to require so much time. I likened it to a long stroll through a beautiful forest. It may be gorgeous and invigorating, but after some time, it just becomes a long walk in the woods. In the end, he plot didn't support the length or hold my attention long enough.
4) THE HOLDOVERS: If asked to name a great character actor, Paul Giamatti would certainly be a name that would instantly pop into my mind. His ability to fully inhabit a character is unmatched. In this movie he plays Paul Hunham, a history teacher at a boy's prep school in a snowy New England. He is a cranky, pompous, lazy eyed professor, equally despised by students and staff for his rigid ways. During the Christmas breaks, when most students depart, a few are "holdovers", unable to go home. Paul is tasked with watching over them until the term resumes. During the break he develops a special relationship with a troubled student, Angus, played beautifully by newcomer Dominic Sessa. Rounding out the key players is Da'Vine Joy Randolph, Oscar nominated for best supporting actress. She plays Mary Lamb, the school's cook, and a grieving mother. There is nothing specifically wrong with this movie that I can put my finger on. There are great performances and touching scenes with Giamatti and Sessa. However, I didn't think the secondary plots added much to the film, a number or scenes seemed to meander, and not all the acting performances matched those of the leading men. Overall, a very nice film that didn't need to be 2 hours and 13 minutes long.
5) AMERICAN FICTION: There is a lot to like about this movie. Jeffrey Wright plays Monk, a serious but stalled novelist and literature professor. As a failing African American writer, he becomes even more discouraged by the success of another writer, gaining notoriety, having written a "Black" novel. Her book exploits negative racial stereotypes and relies on Ebonics to sell books. As a goof, using a pseudonym, Monk writes a novel, exaggerating the same stereotypes he's enraged and repulsed by. Lo and behold his book becomes a huge success. Monk, his sister, his agent and his love interest give deep and poignant performances. They are all characters I'd enjoy learning more about. All the "real" characters in his life defy the negative stereotypes he exploits in his novel. As I walked out of the theater, I remarked that I was disappointed by the character played by the typically excellent Sterling K. Brown. He plays Monk's brother, Cliff, a newly out of the closet homosexual, cocaine snorting, self-absorbed, overcompensating, plastic surgeon. I just felt the character, and his portrayal of him, didn't fit in with the more genuine, measured, and thoughtfulness of the other characters. That being said, he was nominated for best supporting actor, so what do I know?!?! Finally, I'm not a huge fan of the open ending, leaving the conclusion for the audience to decide. Sadly, the haphazard ending didn't do the beauty of the rest of the film justice. Still, this movie is clearly worth watching, with wonderful performances and more than a few laughs. I was entertained!
6) ANATOMY OF A FALL: My favorite of the three international films. Sandra, a successful German novelist, is living in a beautiful French mountain home, with her less successful husband, and severely visually handicapped son, Daniel. After returning home from a walk, Daniel finds the body of his father, lying dead in the snow, under a balcony of the remote chalet. There are suspicious circumstances and Sandra is eventually charged with his murder. Sandra Hueller, who plays Sandra, gives a masterful performance and deservedly earned an Oscar nomination for her work. It's no coincidence that acting performances soar when the writing is as good as it is in this film. While I'm generally not a huge fan of child actors, I did enjoy the performance of Milo Machado-Graner, who portrayed Daniel. This movie reminded me of another movie I loved, "Doubt", with Meryl Streep. Did she, or didn't she? I particularly enjoyed the courtroom scenes; unlike any I've seen before. I also found the scenes depicting a marital fight particularly powerful. I suspect the fight will feel familiar to many. I'm not proud to say that I recognized myself in several of the exchanges. I also didn't object to the open ending in this film, as the not knowing is sort of the point. As usual, this movie was just a little too long, but still very much worth seeing.
7) MAESTRO: No doubt Bradely Coooper is a force to be reckoned with. His body of work as an actor and director is truly impressive. Carey Mulligan, who plays his wife Felicia, is also at the top of her game and a top character actor working today. I'm a huge fan of both leads. This movie was clearly a passion project of Cooper's, and his admiration of Leonard Bernstein is evident in every frame. The movie is lovingly crafted and directed. This biopic primarily focuses on Bernstein's family relationships, particularly his marriage. He's openly bisexual, which is a fact Felicia accepted prior to marriage. I try to rate a movie on what it is, rather than what I wish it was. However, I really wished the movie would have been more about his artistry than his family life. Ultimately, I felt the movie was just too artsy for its own good; maybe trying too hard. The film just moved too slowly and didn't consistently hold my interest..... didn't pass my watch test, in that a looked at my watch several times to see how much longer.
8) BARBIE: I don't think I'm the demographic this movie was targeting. Although I'm a huge fan of both Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie, this movie just didn't resonate with me. I found the entire movie a bit too campy and the kind of silly I don't particularly enjoy. Seldom do non-musicals, with dance numbers in the middle, appeal to me. While the leads were their usual spectacular selves, I thought some of the other actors were sub-par, and not consistent with "best". Sadly, I have to say I found the performances by Will Ferrell and Kate McKinnon to be particularly poor and distracting. While I understand why so many people really enjoyed this movie, it just wasn't for me.
9) PAST LIVES: This film chronicles the lives and relationships of two South Korean childhood friends, Hae Sung and Nora. They are shown walking home together from school and playing together on a chaperoned playground date. At around 13 years of age Nora's family moves to Canada, and eventually, as an adult, she moves to NYC. The two remain intermittently in contact, primarily through the internet. There are long intervals during which they totally lose touch, although neither has forgotten or gotten over the other. Once in their 30's Hae travels to NYC in hopes of rekindling. Nora, played by Greta Lee, gives a performance worthy of the praise she's received. However, I thought Hae, played by Teo Yoo, showed very little real emotion and even less range. He had the same lost expression throughout, regardless of circumstance. I also didn't feel like the first third of the film adequately laid the groundwork, or demonstrated, the deep connection that fuels the remainder of the movie. I didn't feel the crackle of passion and chemistry between them. The movie seemed to be about the choices we make, and how different choices may lead to vastly different paths and outcomes. It explores the "what might have been" of it all. I did particularly enjoy a conversation during which Hae tells Nora, and I'll paraphrase, "in my life you're someone who leaves, but in his (her husband) life you're someone who stays." My son, Dylan, who usually shares my sensibilities about movies, loved "Past Lives". In fact, he went so far as to claim it might have been better than "Oppenheimer". I'm in the process of removing him from my will!
10) THE ZONE OF INTEREST: This was a tough movie to watch, in part because of my own personal history. Rudolf Hoess, played by Christian Friedel, is commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He lives with his wife Hedwig, played by Sandra Hueller, and their children, in a gorgeous home, next to the camp, separated only by a high wall. The home is lavish with modern amenities, a full refrigerator, a beautiful garden, and even a pool. They want for nothing. There are servants toiling in the home and others working in the garden, clearly cheating death while on work release from the camp. Rudolf has a very busy work schedule, in part finding more efficient ways to operate the ovens. His work portrayed as important but rather mundane. Behind the wall you intermittently hear the pop of distant gunfire, you occasionally see glimpses of the camp, you get clear views of a large chimney spewing smoke and flame. The camp is never in your face, but constantly smolders in the background. The family members go about living their lives, able to treat the atrocities being committed only a few feet away as commonplace; background noise. The only positive images in the film are those of a girl placing apples, under cover of night, where prisoners might find them in the daylight. Those scenes are filmed in a photo-negative way, as to appear otherworldly. While powerful and well-constructed, the movie simply doesn't have much depth or arc. The point that humans are capable of inhumane and monstrous acts is demonstrated over and over. There didn't seem to be much more of a point to it than that....
