Best Picture Rundown

        To begin, I think one of the worst things the Academy ever did was expanding the Best Picture category to include up to 10 films. It was perfectly fine at 5, and they just added the other five to fatten everyone's wallets at the expense of art. Since this expansion in 2010, there has been an average of 9 Best Picture nominees per year. That's still way too many.

        Adding these extra films to the mix has resulted in some awful movies being nominated (Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Irishman) and the inclusion of decent, but not Best Picture worthy movies like American Hustle, Boyhood, and Licorice Pizza. The Academy sucks for doing that, and they will never be forgiven.

        That being said, there are 10 nominees once again this year, and I will get over it and deal with it. 

        I've never claimed to know any more than anyone else when it comes to movies. I just watch a lot of them because that's what I like to do. I like what I like, and that's about it. You are more than free to like what you like, of course. It's all good.

        Keeping that in mind, here are the 10 movies nominated for Best Picture this year ranked in order by my enjoyment only. 

        This is, by no means, a prediction. I gave up on predicting the Oscars decades ago because they often have their collective heads straight up their collective arses, as they'd say in Inisherin. 

        This order, this ranking, is solely based on my enjoyment of the films. For each film I have added what I liked and what I disliked about them.

        My advice for you, as always, is to watch them all yourself and make up your own mind. Be warned that watching all 10 of these movies will cost you an entire day of your life. 1,442 minutes in total which is just a tad (two minutes) over 24 hours. There aren't many cinematic stories that need more than 2 1/2 hours to tell. I'm not sure you're making "accessible" films when it takes you that long to tell the story. 

        As always, what follows is, well, you know, like my opinion, man. 

#10) Avatar: The Way of Water (4 total nominations)

        The second of, yawn, five planned Avatar movies picks up where the first left off. Doesn't it? I don't know. The first one was a snoozer and I forgot it as soon as it was over. This story, per IMDb's synopsis, "Jake Sully must work with Neytiri and the army of the Na'vi race to protect their home." Wasn't that the plot of the first one? Zzzzzz...

        What I Liked: Almost 10 minutes of it. Maybe 8. That's how long I was "dazzled" by the unique look of it, and isn't that what people rave about? I don't get it.

        What I Disliked: Everything else, especially the 3 hour 12 minute runtime! As I've said before, if you're going to make a movie that's 95% CGI, just make a damn cartoon, and call it a day. James Cameron is totally overrated, yet he's still treated like a golden boy in Hollywood. He's two steps up from Michael Bay. This is nothing more than a cartoon war movie. And an uninteresting one at that. To think that there are THREE more of these coming makes me sick to my stomach because I know they'll be nominated for something and I'll have to suffer through them because of my self-imposed rules. Dammit!

#9) Top Gun: Maverick (6 total nominations)

        According to IMDb, "Thirty years later, Maverick is still pushing the envelope." That envelope apparently contains 80% of the original script, so if you saw the first one, you've pretty much seen this one. I read that they shot over 800 hours of film for this noise. I wonder if that includes the 109 minutes of the original.  

        What I Liked: Some excellent action sequences, and I'll admit that it's pretty cool that Cruise does all those crazy stunts himself, including flying this jet. I absolutely hated the original and didn't hate this, so I guess that's something positive. 

        What I Disliked: There was no need for this sequel, reboot, whatever. Some of the callbacks to the original were unintentionally comical. Bringing back an actor who is currently in poor health and having him die in the movie is questionable at best. 

#8) Tar (6 total nominations)

        IMDb: "Set in the international world of Western classical music, the film centers on Lydia Tar, widely considered one of the greatest living composer-conductors and the very first female director of a major German orchestra." She's all of that, and she's also really hard to root for. 

        What I Liked: Cate Blanchett is amazing in everything. She is top notch. Lots of people, myself included, thought this was about a real person. Lydia Tar is a fictional character, but this seems like a total biopic. Blanchett makes Tar seem like an actual person with her performance.

        What I Disliked: The entire enterprise comes off as smug and pretentious at times. I don't like movies whose goal is to make me feel stupid. Tar is not really likable at any point in the film, and I've made it clear how I feel about that. There's an extremely long scene done in one take that is, on one hand impressive, and on the other, very boring to sit through. I thought I was done sitting through boring classes. 

#7) Elvis (8 total nominations)

        Making Elvis Presley the subject of a biopic seems close to impossible to get right. Elvis is iconic, legendary, flawed, and complicated. An extremely difficult life to put on film. Director Baz Luhrmann does a very good job attempting to piece it all together. 

        What I Liked: Austin Butler's performance is very very good. There were some points where I was convinced he was Elvis. Baz Luhrmann's movies are always visually satisfying. I loved some of what he did with on screen graphics and cuts. 

        What I Disliked: Tom Hanks in the fat suit with the ambiguous accent as Colonel Tom Parker. This came close to ruining the entire movie for me. It's really the only reason it came in at #7. It was distracting to me in a totally negative way. No need to get Hanks for this at all. And, pick an accent and stick to it for God's sake. He was terrible. 

#6) Everything Everywhere All At Once (11 total nominations)

        This is the most accurate title of these 10 films since at times you feel like you are watching EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE! It's chaotic, phrenetic, disorienting and very confusing at times. Fun to look at, though. 

        What I Liked: The film's originality and off the wall lunacy at times. A universe where everyone has "hot dog fingers?!" Also fun was an almost unrecognizable Jamie Lee Curtis (who I have worshiped forever) in a very non-Jamie Lee role. 

        What I Disliked: At times it's just too much chaos. I realize that's part of the point, but it was a little too much. I really have to watch it again because I think I missed some important parts of the story. 

#5) The Fabelmans (7 total nominations)

        I understand that Steven Spielberg's parents bugged him for a long time to put the family story on screen. I'm still not sure how much of a story it is, though. It's certainly nothing new as far as family dynamics and family secrets go. 

        What I Liked: Its sweetness. The fact that it's very much a love letter to cinema itself. The final shot was one of the best things I have ever seen. I read that this movie recreates the films made by Spielberg as a young man pretty accurately. He does admit that he improved them a little, which is very Spielberg. 

        What I Disliked: If almost everything is based on true facts, and it's close to 95% autobiographical, why not call it The Spielbergs? Just make it a biopic. I'd be more than fine with that. The bullying storyline was overdone. I get it, he wasn't popular at his new school, but a lot of screen time was dedicated to it, and nothing really comes out of it. And we've seen that storyline in a thousand movies. Added stuff like that is why we get 151 minute long movies. 

#4) Women Talking (2 total nominations)

        This is an off the charts winner of the Bechdel test awards, and it's about time we get to watch women talking. Featuring an almost all-female cast, this film tells the story of a group of women facing an extremely difficult decision. From IMDb: "Do nothing. Stay and fight. Or leave. In 2010, the women of an isolated religious community grapple with reconciling a brutal reality with their faith."

        What I Liked: Sarah Polley. She's unbelievably talented, and I'm so happy that she's finally being recognized for the filmmaker she is.  The fact that it teeters on the line between color and black & white made for a unique filmgoing experience. This was a great decision by Polley and shows how the women live in a world that is present day, but still very much part of the past. 

        What I Disliked: I'm not sure where the men were. I didn't want them in the movie, but I was kind of confused that the women were able to do what they did in broad daylight without interference. Good for them, in any case. I was totally rooting for them. Men are terrible. 

#3) All Quiet on the Western Front (9 total nominations)

        IMDb: "A young German soldier's terrifying experiences and distress on the western front during World War I." 

        What I Liked: Even though this is the third version (at least) of this story, it gave it a fresh look. War is absolutely brutal, and this film hammers that point home. Being an American and "rooting" against the Germans in pretty much every war in history, it was amazing to not even consider the countries involved in the carnage I was watching on the screen. They weren't German soldiers, they were human beings put in a horrible situation that hundreds of millions of young men have been put in since the advent of war. I think the source material does a great job getting this point across which may explain why filmmakers continue to explore it. 

        What I Disliked: Nothing really. I could pick on it being a remake, but it's too good to do that. 

#2) Triangle of Sadness (3 total nominations)

        You know how much I love to quote IMDb and their synopses. Sometimes they do a wonderful job summing up what you're in store for if you decide to watch the film. At other times, they are purposely vague since it's almost impossible to sum up some films. Here's what they say about Triangle of Sadness: "A fashion model celebrity couple join an eventful cruise for the super-rich." That's it! And that doesn't even come close to describing what you're about to witness in this ferociously wicked movie. 

        What I Liked: Never seen anything like this before. Ruben Ostlund is a director to keep your eye on. He never makes "regular" movies. If you don't believe me, watch this and The Square. He's also the guy who directed Force Majeure, which deserves a post on its own! Dark comedies are sometimes difficult to navigate, and they aren't everyone's cup of tea because of that. This is savagely funny at times, and, well...insane at other times. 

        What I Disliked: The vomit. Seriously. It was difficult to watch, and I've read that it lasted 15 minutes, but I understand why it was there. There's more vomit here than Mr. Creosote in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life! There's more vomit here than in the pie eating contest in Stand By Me! I had to look away at times because I'm so vomit squeamish, but I did find it pretty funny. Ostlund made his point. Those poor actors and actresses. That scene must have been absolute hell to shoot. I wonder if anyone actually did throw up. I know I would have if I was on set. 

#1) The Banshees of Inisherin (9 total nominations)

        The IMDb synopsis is simple, the film is anything but. "Two lifelong friends find themselves at an impasse when one abruptly ends their relationship, with alarming consequences for both of them." Another dark comedy that will have you wondering if it's okay to laugh at some of the darkness. 

        What I Liked: Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson (real life friends) are absolutely tremendous. The setting is lovely and inviting and desolate and alienating at the same time. Kerry Condon is wonderful as Farrell's sister who is caught in the middle of what seems to be just a quarrel between friends. If you like this, you must see 2008's In Bruges. Same director, Martin Mcdonagh, along with Farrell and Gleeson. The chemistry with these three is very strong, and I look forward to more from them. And remember that it's okay to laugh at the darkness. 

        What I Disliked: I'm not quite sure I totally understood it. That's never been a problem for me, though. You can still like a movie if you don't totally get it. I've explained my interpretation to others who have seen it, and they told me, "Yeah, that's it. You got it." If you like it, you like it, and that's all that matters. Nobody's going to ask you to teach a class on it and explain it. Hopefully...

        Well, that's a wrap. That's my two cents (or more) about this year's 10 Best Picture nominees.  There's more Oscar stuff coming at you next month when I go through each category and let you know who I'd like to see take home the statue. Again, no predictions. That's crazy. No way you can accurately predict this lunacy. Amazingly, you can BET on it! I was on a sportsbook site and you can actually wager on the Academy Awards! Talk about a fool's errand!

        Join us next week for WWW3! Our 3rd Which Was Worse? episode. This one features two garbage movies attempting to take advantage of the latest installments of popular movie franchises. I give you Jurassic Domination vs. Top Gunner: Danger Zone. 

        I have a funny feeling I'm going to enjoy those more than Jurassic World: Dominion and Top Gun: Maverick. It's quite possible. 

        I hope you'll join me as I sort that out next week. Until then...take care. 

    Coming Next Wednesday, February 22nd:

WWW3: Which Was Worse?

Jurassic Domination vs. Top Gunner: Danger Zone

🦎WWW?🛦