Absolutely.
Jojo is her kind of playing against type, which is why I liked her a lot in it.
Printable View
I have seen Once Upon a Time... in America (it was alright). I want to see Pain and Glory and Parasite before they leave theatres (I'm planning to see the former tomorrow), although I'm not the biggest fan of either Almódovar or Bong, may see Les Misérables when it opens here, and I'll check out Marriage Story eventually. The rest are films I have little to no interest in seeing.
I don't really like ScarJo in Jojo Rabbit. Her accent is pretty bad and I think she's miscast. She's good in Marriage Story. Not Adam Driver good, but I won't gripe about her nomination good.
Anyway ... I think OUATIH will get BP and 1917 will get BD. May as well engrave Roger Deakins' name on his Oscar at this point. Renee Zelwixncvjfhdjkfherweryger (sp?) will win best actress and Joaquin will win actor. Predictable. OUATIH will most likely win original screenplay, but this is a category where Parasite might have a shot. The Irishman will get best adapted. Thelma will win a well deserved Oscar for her editing on The Irishman. Tech awards will most likely go to 1917 but maybe a few bones will be thrown to Endgame? Animated will prolly be Toy Story 4 (well deserved ... I love it) but they could go against the mouse and Pixar with Missing Link. Brad and Laura Dern will win supporting, two actors I like in general but I'm perplexed by the love for these specific performances. I guess it's their time?
Regardless of whether it has a chance of winning, does anybody else find the idea of giving an award to Once Upon a Time... for screenwriting utterly baffling? I can almost understand the mentality of Oscar voters who consider impersonations of famous dead people to be great acting and who think great editing means lots of cutting, but this Tarantino movie? For screenwriting? What's up with that? Did people look at this film, which is agreeably rambling but nonetheless a ramble, and think to themselves, "Any movie with this many words in it has to be well written"?
I think it's better directed than written but I rather like the structure. It's pretty weird to create a slack, rambling movie for at least 90 minutes that then culminates into the showdown that happens. The dialogue is mostly tasty ("We love Pussy." "Yes we do.") but this is the definition of specific, almost fetishistic (and sometimes literally fetishistic w/ all the feet shots) auteurism and that is everything to do with a detail driven director having his hand in every facet of production.
That's a fair point, especially when you have a script like Parasite which is so incredibly tight and every scene matters...
I could have it wrong, maybe Bong wins Screenplay and Tarantino wins Direction.
Basically it'll be between 1917 and OUATIH for whatever categories they go head to head in. The actors are all pretty much chosen. The rest is whatever.
It's weird alright, but is it good? Or more precisely, is it good writing? Tarantino's script struck me as rather uneven, and when it's good it's hard to know who to give credit to: I thought Bruce Dern and Dakota Fanning managed to create a believably odd romantic couple in only a few minutes of screen time, but should the credit for that go to Tarantino's screenwriting or the resourcefulness of the actors in bringing the characters to life? Ultimately, it doesn't really matter (the result is what counts), but in the case of Margot Robbie's underwhelming performance as Sharon Tate, clearly the fault is entirely Tarantino's since the character as written is so thinly conceived Robbie can't do anything with it.
As for Tarantino's obsession for period detail, it seems to me that the film's major structural weaknesses as storytelling is that the glut of arcane pop culture references tends to overwhelm any sense of narrative momentum.
For the record, my picks for the best written US commercial releases of 2019 are Hong Sangsoo's Hotel by the River and Jafar Panahi's 3 Faces.
So no avengers end game but black panther last year? Would have been fine if end game got a best pic nom instead of Joker. Which I really liked too.
Bummer about Sandman and the Uncut Gems score. I also think the editing was fantastic in that film, but yeah The Academy is a fucking bore.
There was no way in hell The Lighthouse was going to be nominated for any major awards. I am a bit surprised that neither Murphy nor Sandler was nominated, though.
I will be rooting for the unlikely but not impossible Parasite BP win.
It's been a while.
the screenplay debate is moot, as Greta Gerwig is virtually guaranteed that award.
edit: oops nevermind, different categories
what
what whatQuote:
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter (the result is what counts), but in the case of Margot Robbie's underwhelming performance as Sharon Tate, clearly the fault is entirely Tarantino's since the character as written is so thinly conceived Robbie can't do anything with it.
what what whatQuote:
As for Tarantino's obsession for period detail, it seems to me that the film's major structural weaknesses as storytelling is that the glut of arcane pop culture references tends to overwhelm any sense of narrative momentum.
Joker is this year's Green Book/Vice. Artless stories dressed up by comedy directors who play pretend auteurs with studio resources. This is not visionary work; it's painting by numbers. Phillips just happened to use edgier material as his template, but it's derivative and trying too hard to be "prestige" all the same.
Ehh. I get what point you're putting out there, but I don't think Joker is quite paint by numbers.