Evaluating the nominees

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby ITALIANO » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:48 pm

BEST PICTURE
1. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Raw, intelligent, very well-written, populated with the kind of characters you'd never want to go out with in real life, yet feel so interesting and unpredictable as portrayed here. And there's clearly an "auteur" behind it. Plus, I’ve always liked “divisive” movies, and rhis one clearly is (on this board, too).
2. Phantom Thread. It's not - as many Americans, on this board and elsewhere have written - about how difficult life with an artist is. Fashion isn't an art (as, for example, cooking isn't). And this makes the movie even more interesting for me, as it is more about obsessions which, while certainly unhealthy, are much more ordinary than even the fans of this movie believe (hope?) they are.
3. Lady Bird. Its main themes may not be original, but the approach to them is sincere, and I'd say at times even unusually perceptive. (The mother-daughter relationship especially).
4. Call Me By Your Name. By far Luca Guadagnino's best movie - for once form seems to be, well, if not less important than substance, at least equal to it - and deep inside one can even find warmth.
5. The Shape of Water. A nice, enjoyable fairy tale, maybe not as poetic as some say it is (but definitely smart). Still, all these awards (Golden Lion at Venice?!) and nominations seem to be a bit too much.
6. Get Out. Entertaining and admittedly not stupid. But the metaphor can get obvious after a while, and we have been here before.
7. Dunkirk. There's alot to admire - but only in the technical department.
8. The Post. Probably the first Spielberg movie which you feel has been directed by an old man. Which isn't necessarily bad of course (one could say the same about Huston's The Dead). Still, a bit too bland for my tastes.
9. Darkest Hour. Two hours of yelling and fastidious, unnecessary history lessons.

BEST DIRECTOR
1. Paul Thomas Anderson. Of the nominees, the only truly great director, and, i guess, the only one who will be remembered fifty years from now.
2. Guillermo Del Toro. He knows how to direct a movie, and I must admit that he's - by today's standards - a sort of "visionary" talent. But he's been better before - and far from Hollywood.
3. Christopher Nolan. Not MY kind of director, but, let's say, "efficient".
4. Greta Gerwig. Better as a writer than as a director, but her work with actors is - unsurprisingly - solid and subtle.
5. Jordan Peele. He clearly has talent, but let's see what he does next.

BEST ACTOR
1. Daniel Day-Lewis. A great actor giving a great performance. If it's really his last (which I hope it won't be), a worthy ending to a wonderful career.
2. Timothee Chalamet. A natural, unembellished portrayal of teenage angst, exhaltation and pain.
3. Daniel Kaluuya. Maybe good, but certainly very lucky.
4. Gary Oldman. At least nobody will say that a bad actor has won an Oscar. Rather, a very bad performance has.
5. Denzel Washington. In the first part of the movie one hopes that - at least looks-wise - we'll get something new from him. But no, it's the same old performance, this time in a messier movie even. And eight nominations for such an acor are truly an American mystery.

BEST ACTRESS
1. Frances McDormand. Intense, and both tragic and humorous as only great actresses can be.
2. Saoirse Ronan. She’s becoming one of best actresses of her generation – even just her choice of roles reveals intelligence and commitment. And her unaffected acting (she’s not Jennifer Lawrence) will soon get her the kind of Oscar recognition she deserves.
3. Sally Hawkins. To her credit, she plays her (potentially histrionic) mute role in an unshowy way, and she’s clearly a very good actress. But she really doesn’t make much of an impact here.
4. Meryl Streep. Ok, you know it.
5. Margot Robbie. Miscast – and in such a role it especially counts. But I tend to appreciate beauties who tries to do more, so I hope this is just a first, though not completely successful, step towards better, and deeper, things.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
1. Sam Rockwell. A wonderful, quirky, offbeat talent is given a wonderful, quirky, offbeat role – and does wonders with it.
2. Woody Harrelson. An American treasure, an actor who can be both edgy and tender, sometimes at the same time. Oscar-caliber, even this time – and if it weren’t for his co-star…
3. Richard Jenkins. The best performance in the movie, which may not mean too much – but this is an expert actor making the best of the funny/sad and not too profound role he’s given.
4. Willem Dafoe. Another great American actor. His role is mostly reaction shots, but nuanced ones, and suggest an intriguing combination of sadness and empathy.
5. Christopher Plummer. Sadly, the only undeserving nominee is another great, and glorious, actor. But an acting race composed of such five performances is, undeniably, an unusually strong one.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
1. Laurie Metcalf. A performance without any vanity – and almost without make up. A real face, and one not necessarily camera-friendly, and a real person, tough, complicated, ultimately fragile. Impressive.
2. Lesley Manville. Those close ups..! She doesn’t need words – just a lifting of eyebrows. Surprisingly, she’s even able to suggest a human being behind the icy façade.
3. Allison Janney. A caricature, but a well-made one. An exercise in the grotesque style – maybe without too much substance, but the talent is still evident.
4. Octavia Spencer. A good actress, certainly. But like with Walter Brennan decades ago, one feels that she’s nominated a bit too often for not extremely varied turns.
5. Mary J. Blige. When the best moment in a performance is turning one’s back to the camera, it’s either a memorable one or a forgettable one. I’ll leave to you to decide which one it is this time.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15615
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:24 pm

Best Picture
1. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - I'm a big fan of British, Irish, Scottish, Australian and New Zealander murder mysteries with their sad, mournful characters, which is what this reminded me of in spades. On first viewing I was looking for a neatly tied-up ending, but on second viewing I understood what McDonough was going for - the actions of people in deep grief who see no resolution to their situation.
2. Call Me by Your Name and 3. Lady Bird - the year's two great coming-of-age films with stellar performances all around.
4. The Shape of Water - it may not make sense, but del Toro's unique world is truly magical.
5. Dunkirk - on a technical level, the year's finest achievement, but its arms-length treatment of its characters is extremely off-putting.
6. Phantom Thread - great acting, astute screenplay, but these are not people whose world I would want to spend a lot of time in.
7. Get Out - a fun watch, but not particularly award-worthy.
8. The Post - too little, too late.
9. Darkest Hour - between the mumbling and the shouting there isn't anything here that hasn't been done before, and done better.

Best Actor
1. Timothée Chalamet - superb star-making performance, far and away the year's best.
2. Daniel Day-Lewis - one of his most subtle performances and one of his best.
3. Denzel Washington - too often guilty of phoned-in performances, this may be his most healtfelt work.
4. Gary Oldman - strong performance, but nothing amazing.
5. Daniel Kaluuya - I'm happy for his success, but there's really nothing here that a dozen other actors couldn't have done as well.

Best Actress
1. Frances McDormand had her part written especially for her, but it was her idea to add the John Wayne walk and wear the Christopher Walken Deer Hunter bandana - aces all the way.
2. Saoirse Ronan - the best young actress around does it again.
3. Sally Hawkins - marvelous mute performance.
4. Meryl Streep - her most deserved latter day nomination, but not her greatest performance.
5. Margot Robbie - they say she worked so hard to learn the routines and the accent - so what?

Best Supporting Actor
1. Sam Rockwell - McDonough wrote the part specifically for Rockwell and it shows, playing to his best strengths in all aspects of his character's many changes in behavior.
2. Woody Harrelson - too often over-the-top in his characterizations, he is the model of restraint here, a perfectly modulated performance.
3. Willem Dafoe - great character, too bad it wasn't in a better film.
4. Richard Jenkins - good as usual, but pales in comparison to the competition.
5. Christopher Plummer - the nomination was the reward for his last-minute show of professionalism.

Best Supporting Actress
1. Laurie Metcalf - the epitome of the rule of less being more.
2. Lesley Manville - she's channeling Judith Anderson, what's not to like?
3. Octavia Spencer - another superb supporting performance, but when are they going to give her the starring role in one of her films?
4. Mary J. Blige - fine mother role, but limited screen time makes her an also-ran.
5. Allison Janney - not my cup of tea.

Best Director
1. Guillermo del Toro - makes his vision count.
2. Greta Gerwig - tells her own story beautifully.
3. Christopher Nolan - he gets an A for spectacle, a B for fully realized characters, but a C for not allowing them to express themselves particularly well.
4. Paul Thomas Anderson - a good show but not quite at the level of There Will Be Blood, which remains his best to date.
5. Jordan Peele - a good first effort.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby flipp525 » Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:09 pm

2- Lesley Manville (The fact that Phantom Thread never clearly announces what it is about, and keeps you guessing its entire run-time--and beyond--is due in large part to the performances, especially and including Manville's)

"Who is this delightful creature, making the house smell so nice?"
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby ITALIANO » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:15 am

Uri wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:Rules, rules, rules... And judgement. All the time.


One of my dearest, life long friends is right wing. She lives on the occupied territories. And she has a great sense of humor. When I texted her I was going to have my surgery, she asked me what was the hospital I was going to be in so she could visit me there. I told her and then added: "But you should know that my surgeon is Arab, you fascist". Her answer was: "Never mind, we'll come to the Shiva". The funniest joke I heard in a long time - poor judgmental calvinist leftist that I am.

My approach to Art - and Life - is that just like jokes, if it works it has the right to break whatever rule there is. If it doesn't - then yes, it's all about rules and judgment. Post mortems are for dead stuff.


Exactly :D

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby Uri » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:01 am

ITALIANO wrote:Rules, rules, rules... And judgement. All the time.


One of my dearest, life long friends is right wing. She lives on the occupied territories. And she has a great sense of humor. When I texted her I was going to have my surgery, she asked me what was the hospital I was going to be in so she could visit me there. I told her and then added: "But you should know that my surgeon is Arab, you fascist". Her answer was: "Never mind, we'll come to the Shiva". The funniest joke I heard in a long time - poor judgmental calvinist leftist that I am.

My approach to Art - and Life - is that just like jokes, if it works it has the right to break whatever rule there is. If it doesn't - then yes, it's all about rules and judgment. Post mortems are for dead stuff.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby ITALIANO » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:09 am

Uri wrote:The identity of the person whose point of view is there for us to experience has a significance. The fact that a director is not a native residence of a country his/her film describe is not necessarily wrong - having an alien eye can be a major artistic benefit. Not all films have to be like Lady Bird – a director is not obliged to explore only his backyard. But explore he or she must. But there is a difference between an explorer and a colonialist. An explorer is there to see what the subject has to offer, and we get to see it through this person perspective. A colonialist enforces his/her set of values on the subject – Ridley Scott and All the Money in the World come to mind. It’s the difference between reading an old novel with one’s own, modern sensitivities and rewriting it to suit these sensitivities.



Rules, rules, rules... And judgement. All the time. (Not about the movie - which would be right, but also in this case probably more complex - but about the filmmaker's approach, which is I think unfair and terribly calvinistic). My view of art - and movies - is completely different. I like to be surprised. Shocked, even, at times. I even like to see a movie whose content or philosophy I strongly disagree with - if it's done with intelligence and depth. A director can "reinforce" (and who says he's doing that by the way? do you know him personally?) "his or her set of values" and still make a great movie. Countless novelists have done that. It can work. I don't see the problem, really. This obsessive categorizing, Uri - and as we know you don't apply it only to films - is probably self-reassuring, but also, if I can say it, very limiting, and you weren't exactly like this till a few years ago.

You know what's sadly ironic (and I hope you won't take it badly)? Lately, in your approach to movies but also to real-life facts, YOU are more the colonialist than the explorer. And it's a pity, considering how intelligent you are and can be.

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby Uri » Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:38 am

The identity of the person whose point of view is there for us to experience has a significance. The fact that a director is not a native residence of a country his/her film describe is not necessarily wrong - having an alien eye can be a major artistic benefit. Not all films have to be like Lady Bird – a director is not obliged to explore only his backyard. But explore he or she must. But there is a difference between an explorer and a colonialist. An explorer is there to see what the subject has to offer, and we get to see it through this person perspective. A colonialist enforces his/her set of values on the subject – Ridley Scott and All the Money in the World come to mind. It’s the difference between reading an old novel with one’s own, modern sensitivities and rewriting it to suit these sensitivities.

For me, with 3BOE,M McDonagh leans too much to the colonialist side. Instead of searching for humanism in his characters, he equips them with his own. I don’t agree with people who claim Mildred Hayes is the same as Olive Kitteridge, but yes, there is something rather New Englandy about her. Her take on the church evokes a sensibility which feels at home more at Boston or Dublin rather than in Jefferson City. The foreign extraction of Chief Willoughby’s wife shed a kind of worldly light on him. And it all makes it more accessible to liberals and leftists on the West Coast, North East and indeed, Europe (and in a certain place in the Middle East which is self-deluded it’s part of Europe too, I might say). In Other words, Mildred voted for Trump, but one wouldn’t know it watching this film.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby ITALIANO » Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:03 pm

Uri wrote: it's not being aware of it and thinking you actually get it better than the natives,


Michelangelo Antonioni, Sergio Leone, so many others... It's an accusation often directed at foreign directors who dare to make movies about America. I always choose not to care about a director's (presumed) intentions or ambitions, but only to judge the final product, which in this case I find quite intelligent and entertaining.

But at least Uri, we can agree on Phantom Thread and Lady Bird :)

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby Uri » Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:29 pm

ITALIANO wrote:
Uri wrote:
dws1982 wrote:Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (At least Dogville's fundamental misunderstanding of America was played as parable)


I guess I needed an American to clearly verbalize to me my basic discomfort with this film - although it seems you were more antagonized by it than I was.


Well, one can misunderstand America and still make a very good movie. Plus, other Americans liked it alot, so... :wink:


It's not the misunderstanding per se which is the real problem - it's not being aware of it and thinking you actually get it better than the natives, which is - to me - seems to be what McDonagh feels. And again let me be apologetic - I didn't hate it, but I did feel it was "uber chuchem" - a great Yiddish phrase which basically mean too smart for its own good - exactly because he felt he truly got it.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby ITALIANO » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:44 pm

Uri wrote:
dws1982 wrote:Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (At least Dogville's fundamental misunderstanding of America was played as parable)


I guess I needed an American to clearly verbalize to me my basic discomfort with this film - although it seems you were more antagonized by it than I was.


Well, one can misunderstand America and still make a very good movie. Plus, other Americans liked it alot, so... :wink:

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby Uri » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:31 pm

dws1982 wrote:Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (At least Dogville's fundamental misunderstanding of America was played as parable)


I guess I needed an American to clearly verbalize to me my basic discomfort with this film - although it seems you were more antagonized by it than I was.

And thank you for keeping the memory of The Lost City of Z - a film which manages to evoke a long lost sense of cinematic exploration.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby dws1982 » Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:28 pm

Not making any claims that I can top anything Uri has done, but here are my thoughts on the top eight.

Best Picture
1- Dunkirk (The only nominee I've seen more than once, so I might expect some fluctuation on re-watches. But this compelled me from the start, and really deepened on re-watches, although I will admit to being a pushover for World War II narratives--my dad and I have bonded over World War II movies for year)
2- Phantom Thread (I didn't expect to like this, given that Anderson and I usually don't get along, but it was one of the most compelling, fascinating, and fun movies I've seen in awhile, although I will always argue this as a comedy)
3- Lady Bird (I was in high school the same time as Lady Bird, at a private Christian school--although not Catholic--and we weren't poor, but many of my friends were better-off; this is a movie that understands class, family dynamics, and friend dynamics; as so many others have said, it's a lovely movie)
4- Call Me By Your Name (Took me awhile to get on the wavelength of this movie, but it really does find a unique, interesting groove, and it really nails the ending)
5- Get Out (Saw it at an odd time--after it had been a startling hit, but before it became full-on cultural phenomenon--and appreciated its juggling of so many tones and ideas)
6- The Post (It felt like mid-tier Spielberg, like one of his movies that tries--unlike, say, Lincoln--to act like it has the solution to the problems in America, but it deserves another watch; In the interest of full-disclosure, for whatever reason, I had to pee about half an hour in, and then I really had to pee again at the 1:15 mark, so from that point on I was dying for it to be over, which was a hell of a distraction)
7- Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (At least Dogville's fundamental misunderstanding of America was played as parable)
8- The Shape of Water (I understand all of the positives--that it's unique, that it has interesting ideas, that it builds a singular world--but watching it, I felt absolutely nothing)
9- Darkest Hour (I liked this movie better when they did on HBO about ten years ago with Brendan Gleeson)
Should've been: The Lost City of Z; wouldn't have argued with Molly's Game or Good Time, although that one was never going to happen. Most of my other favorites have come from overseas.

Best Director:
1- Paul Thomas Anderson (A better world-builder than a Marvel director, better at juggling divergent tones than Martin McDonagh, and even better at keeping you guessing what the hell is going on than Jordan Peele)
2- Christopher Nolan (Much easier to take once he's freed from his big ideas about dreams, or going back in time to correct the past, or Batman)
3- Greta Gerwig (There's something almost fragmentary to the movie, which is composed almost of short episodes, but it coheres as a fully-formed piece--not an easy task, and Gerwig deserves credit)
4- Jordan Peele (A smart movie by a smart director who knows how to use actors and story effectively)
5- Guillermo del Toro (I wish he would just keep his dreams between himself and his therapist; he has a clear vision, but it's not one that appeals to me)
Should've been: James Gray, easily. The Safdie brothers as well. Also wouldn't have argued with Denis Villeneuve. And as far as Best Picture nominees go, I think Luca Guadagnino is more essential to the success of his film than the nominated screenplay.

Best Actor:
1- Timothee Chalamet (Don't know if any movie in 2017 demanded more of its Lead, but Chalamet is more than up to the task; Offers more, in the closing shot, than most other actors do in an entire film)
2- Daniel Day-Lewis (His techniques don't always work, but there's no denying that each character is very different; I may like his Lincoln work a little more, but this is easily his most fun and playful work)
3- Daniel Kaluuya (He's good, but I think it's more about an actor who is well-used by a savvy director, rather than great acting)
4- Gary Oldman (A professional job, but too busy, too actorly, and never really gets under Churchill's skin the way John Lithgow, of all people did, on The Crown)
5- Denzel Washington (Nothing about the movie makes sense, and Washington is partially responsible for that)
Should've been: Robert Pattinson (Good Time), James McAvoy, if we're looking for actors from winter horror movies, and James Franco if we're looking for touchingly-weird real-life characters.

Best Actress:
1- Saoirse Ronan (I cannot add to what Uri said; Lady Bird may not understand who she is, but Ronan clearly does)
2- Meryl Streep (Kind of boring casting, but she makes a solid anchor for the film, and makes you almost wish the movie had been more interested in her than the newspaper; One of her best recent nominations)
3- Frances McDormand (Always compelling, and no one does the grumpy hard-ass better, but she's shoe-horned by her film)
4- Sally Hawkins (She's a good actress, and it's a valiant effort, but Elisa remains an idea of a character rather than a fully-formed person)
5- Margot Robbie (Miscast and self-conscious, and I almost think that her star-power--which I do believe she has--works against the nature of the role)
Should've been: Jessica Chastain, definitely, and Vicky Krieps. Drawing a blank otherwise.

Best Supporting Actor:
1- Woody Harrelson (Many things concerning his character often don't make sense, but he sells it)
2- Willem Dafoe (Very solid, very lived-in supporting work)
3- Christopher Plummer (I get that this nomination is mostly for his last-minute step-in, but he's fun, and he definitely understands the upper-class asshole nature of J. Paul Getty)
4- Sam Rockwell (Many things concerning his character often don't make sense, and I don't think he quite sells it; like the movie itself, it feels successful in the moment, but less so when taken as a whole)
5- Richard Jenkins (Hate to be grumpy about a solid character actor getting nominated--I have loved him in the past--but I got absolutely nothing from him here)
Should've been: Everyone who wasn't. Garret Hedlund, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Idris Elba, Robert Pattinson (The Lost City of Z), Ben Safdie (Good Time).

Best Supporting Actress:
1- Laurie Metcalf (I've been a fan for so long that I can't put her anywhere but number one, but I think she deserves it on merit, for embodying aspects of everyone's mother, but also creating a distinct person)
2- Lesley Manville (The fact that Phantom Thread never clearly announces what it is about, and keeps you guessing its entire run-time--and beyond--is due in large part to the performances, especially and including Manville's)
3- Octavia Spencer (A serviceable supporting performance that never would've been singled out except on the coattails of a Best Picture frontrunner)
4- Mary J. Blige (Why Blige and not Carey Mulligan? Or Garret Hedlund? Or Rob Morgan? Or Jason Mitchell? She's fine, but other than name recognition, I can't think of any reason why she should be singled out over the other actors)
5- Allison Janney (A bad freak-show performance, in my mind, although to her credit, it seems to be exactly what everyone making the film was going for)
Should've been: Not my favorite category this year, based on what I've seen, but Sienna Miller (Lost City of Z) and Carla Juri (Blade Runner 2049), and Elizabeth Marvel (The Meyerowitz Stories) are better than at least three of these.

Best Adapted Screenplay (Haven't read any of the source materials, not even any X-Men comics--when I've done comics, it's almost always DC rather than Marvel--so this is about the screenplays; I will say I liked all of these movies)
1- Molly's Game (Not great-great, but I'm a soft-touch for this subject matter, and it's a very fun, well-structured take on it)
2- Call Me By Your Name (I feel like the memory-piece nature of the film--the key to its success, in my opinion--is more a product of direction/acting, rather than writing)
3- The Disaster Artist (Kind of a gimmicky piece, but based around a truly unique character, with an interesting relationship at the center)
4- Mudbound (Several really good parts, but it's also too fragmented and feels cut down from what could've been a more successful miniseries)
5- Logan (Did this get nominated despite the comic-book origin, or because it works so hard at running away from those origins? An interesting genre deconstruction, but James Mangold is not Clint Eastwood)
Should've been- The Lost City of Z--maybe the only movie of 2017 where I read the book it was adapted from--and if we're going for an action film, Blade Runner 2049, although I wouldn't really consider it adapted.

Best Original Screenplay
1- Lady Bird (Entertains so many more perspectives and points-of-view than your average high school film; feels like a very thought-out and tightly-controlled piece of writing, but it plays out with a real feel of everyday life)
2- Get Out (It's hard to deal with racial issues in an openly commercial horror-comedy, but Peele's screenplay mostly pulls it off)
3- Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Has some good qualities, and does work a lot on the individual-scene level, but also has some mind-boggling plot-holes and shifts in tone)
4- The Big Sick (Mister Tee has said it before: Often a movie is overrated simply by virtue of being one of the only decent, adult-oriented films in release)
5- The Shape of Water (Thought the Cold War stuff was beyond bad, but sure, del Toro, I always watched Edward Scissorhands and wished it focused on more on Winona Ryder)
Should've been: Phantom Thread, for sure; Good Time, and if we're going for horror movies, It Comes At Night wouldn't be a bad choice.
Last edited by dws1982 on Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6394
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:09 pm

Sign me up as well for always enjoying this thread. I'm a softer grader than you, Uri, but your view of the general contours of the race is not dissimilar to mine.

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby flipp525 » Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:07 am

I wanted to piggyback on dws’s Praise of this annual treat. Always comprehensive, wise, and direct, Uri. I especially loved this year’s entry’s attention to Phantom Thread, one of the year’s most unexpected masterpieces. May Goddess Cyril prevail.

And, yes, where was Vicky Krieps this year? Sorely missed from the general conversation. And Cynthia Nixon. And Selma Hayek. And Carla Gugino. And...
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."



-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Evaluating the nominees

Postby Uri » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:18 am

Thank you - for what you've said and for actually saying it (now, that's a response that will make passive/aggressive Goddess Cyril Woodcock proud).


Return to “90th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest