"DID SOMEONE HURT YOU?" - Talking About BABY REINDEER

*THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS*

With so much content out there these days, it can be a bit surprising when something just falls into your lap that you had heard nothing about.

On April 11, 2024, Netflix dropped a Limited Series called Baby Reindeer that was created, written by, and starring Scottish actor/writer/comedian Richard Gadd. I had no prior knowledge of Gadd, but when the series began with a caption implying that it was based on a true story, I had to wonder. I mean...how true is "true". I always think back to the Coen Brothers and how Fargo begins. 

It just so happens that Gadd did have a stalker, and the creation of this series came from the one-man stage show he had developed/performed in London.

Many of the elements from beyond this point were fictionalized, but Gadd does take certain incidents from his life to inform his fictional counterpart...and it takes the series into some darker directions that I certainly wasn't expecting at first.

Gadd's fictional counterpart is a 25-year-old Donny Dunn, the age Gadd was when this incident occurred. We first meet him at a police precinct in which he wants to report that he is being stalked...but when he is asked why it has taken him six months to make a report, he doesn't have an answer.

We then flashback to where Donny meets his stalker, the middle-aged Martha (Jessica Gunning). Martha comes into the pub where Donny is working and seems lonely and distraught. He does take pity on her and asks what she would like to order. She claims that she "can't afford anything", but he offers to get her a cup of tea on the house.

From there, Martha goes on and on about how she is very prolific lawyer who had worked with some of the "great, political minds" of the country, which apparently includes former British Prime Ministers David Cameron and Tony Blair. This begs the question: how can a lawyer not afford a cup of tea...or any drink for that matter?

The signs were pointing to Baby Reindeer being a very dark comedy...perhaps like some kind of strange Beef/Fleabag hybrid...but instead it takes a few darker turns. My final opinion of the show is actually quite positive, but I do struggle with some of these tonal shifts. I found myself wondering if certain events played out in such a way or if Gadd was writing the storyline in order to justify it as in many cases, I found myself wanting to yell at the screen for him to do more to try to stop Martha.

Donny looks onto Martha with pity, but it does seem as if on some subconscious level he sees someone else who needs help just like him. 

My first response to Donny was that he was just some noob who was not handling having an admirer and instead of taking the appropriate steps to stop her, he seemed to almost milk her obsession. It makes you question what is exactly is up with this guy; is he simply a noob or is there something deeper within the service?

Early on, we get a scene where we see him joining a Trans dating site. No explanation is given, but you are left to wonder if he is perhaps fetishizing trans people...and it is made even more questionable when he creates an alias and acts as though he is in construction and not a struggling comedian who is working as a bartender.

Eventually we discover that right out of college, Donny was sexually assaulted repeatedly by a writer named Darien O'Connor that he greatly admired, and he had hoped would give him a jumpstart to his career. The experience led him to questioning his own sexuality and he would find himself sleeping around and taking drugs to try to cope. The self-loathing and self-destructive tendencies make a little more sense after this...not to say it excuses how he treats others. It is that old saying "HURT people hurt people."

Donny's desire to be wanted and sought after plays right into Martha's obsession. He may not see her as a sexual being, but he does love knowing someone views him as the best thing ever. She takes to calling him her "baby reindeer" which we assume has something to do with his facial structure and the fact he is roughly 20 years younger than her. 

However, Donny's carelessness to the situation at first does become a bit more bracing when he realizes that Martha is indeed a former lawyer but one who has been charged for stalking and assault on multiple occasions. 

Martha's obsession becomes Donny's own obsession as if he can't seem to live without being Martha's object. She will send him emails (because he does, at first, make sure she doesn't get his phone number) and the only reason she is able to email is due to its inclusion on his website. The emails keep pouring in but none of them are enough to incriminate here even though she is a former felon for the exact crime she is now committing. 

I do want to take time to discuss the acting as I feel like our two leads are definitely worth praising. It is no surprise that due to the fact this is his story, Gadd throws himself into the role with abandon. He manages to walk that fine line between being a sympathetic anti-hero with great confidence...and a lot of that confidence comes from how vulnerable he is. He is not afraid to put himself out there and to make a fool of himself...but I would be remiss to not discuss Jessica Gunning's work as Martha.

I had some slight knowledge of Gunning prior to this, but not really familiar with her work. I had only seen her name pop up in various theatre productions or on the BBC show The Outlaws she did with, of all people, Christopher Walken. 

Gunning has a difficult task here and in some ways, you can relate a role like this to something like Glenn Close's Alex from Fatal Attraction. This is a whole different kind of woman scorned, though. It isn't so much that she is a woman scorned, but she is a woman who is clearly suffering from a mental illness and not receiving the proper care. 

Fatal Attraction, as entertaining as it is, didn't really try to analyze Alex as a character which makes her seem like just a straight up villain. The reason the role worked was that Glenn Close, being the stellar actor that she is, put in the work to understand the psychological backstory and even though the script may not tell us any of this, SHE does.

Gadd is able to show us that Donny contributes to egging on Martha, but he also shows that deep down, Martha is actually a person who simply needs help and perhaps has a method to her madness.

Nearing the climax of the series, Donny is able to incriminate Martha when she finally sends him a voicemail (once he slips and gives her a way to contact him via cell) that is violently threatening to him and his parents (which, by the way, the actor playing Donny's father is hilarious with his thick Scottish brogue telling off Martha over the phone)...but in the courtroom scene in which she pleads guilty to all of the charges against Donny and his family, Gunning is glorious.

I am not saying I condone what Martha does, but there is no way for me to not feel sympathy for her in that moment. Jessica Gunning was a marvel in this role, because she was able to dig deep into finding the humanity in Martha that truly makes you realize that this woman needed serious help.

And who else needs help? Donny. 

In fact, even after Martha is sent to prison for 9 months which will then be followed by a restraining order, Donny still listens to all of the voicemails she left him...which he went so far as to categorize by her moods when she sent them. 

If he is feeling down, he will listen to voicemails he finds in the "complimentary" section...and even earlier on, the whole ordeal actually turns him on to the point where he starts masturbating to her even though he admits to himself that he is totally not attracted to her.

The final scene is him at a pub listening to a voicemail that finally reveals as to why she calls him "baby reindeer". You could argue that it falls into a similar territory as Citizen Kane in that as a child, Martha had a small plushy reindeer toy that she loved and she still has it. She felt that Donny represented the "spit image" of this stuffed reindeer: "same nose, same eyes, same cute wee bum..."

In a recent interview, Gunning said she had already recorded this monologue prior to filming the courtroom sentencing and that she "clung" to it. She stated as follows:

"So in the courtroom scene, in the scene when she’s on her own at the bar, that’s actually the voicemail I read just to get me into that – I find it so emotional, that final voicemail. That’s the thing that I clung to in terms of her past. That voicemail is absolutely the thing I clung to for sure because I just found that so emotional."

In the end, both Donny and Martha are lost in various ways. Even though Donny is technically free of Martha, he never truly will be as he can't seem to let go of her obsession.

Martha probably got what she deserved, but I was left hoping she could get the help she needed. Donny feels like maybe he is on some kind of right path, but he still seems to be showing signs of potential self-destruction...even as far as him going back to the man that sexually assaulted him in hopes that he could somehow get another chance even if it may mean putting himself in danger again.

For some of its more erratic and indulgent moments, Baby Reindeer ends up leaving you feeling a bit breathless and uncomfortable. It is kind of hard to deny the appeal of a project when it manages to work so well at bringing those kinds of emotions out of you.

Check this one out. Just be forewarned that you will see depictions of sexual assault and also violence towards someone who is trans. 

THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT THAT BOMB: Reacting to the 96th Oscars

When I did my predictions post, I made a comment that a lot of the winners were set in stone...which would certainly make for a rather boring ceremony.

In truth, there were a lot of tech categories that could've gone in 2-3 different directions so those ended up being some of the bigger nail biters of the night. I will make sure to go into the tech categories more, but I do think that this is one of those ceremonies where you would likely be bored if you really hated the films that were winning. 

Then again, you could argue that it was boring even if you DID like the films.

As a whole, I was mostly pleased with the ceremony. It moved at a fairly swift pace most of the time, and even if I do find Jimmy Kimmel to be erratic as a comedian, he does do a solid job in this role. His bit involving Trump's Tweet was certainly borderline "clapter" but it was humorous nonetheless...and I do enjoy how the clapback likely infuriated that prick.

There was a certain elegance to the ceremony that felt a little more "classic" and yet it still felt a little modern too. I have seen both sides of the argument that the Acting Presentations were either great or frustrating. There is a reverence to doing these tributes by previous winners and it is obvious how much these can mean to the nominees...just look at how moved Carey Mulligan was to get praised by Jessica Lange (although perhaps a lot of that was scripted...to be honest, I am not sure how personal these speeches are). 

One comment I heard was that "we've already seen the films, we don't need to see clips". For me, I feel like the clips could be a possible gateway to get someone interested in seeing a film if they were potentially impressed by the clip. Like, Sandra Huller in Anatomy of a Fall for example...imagine if they showed a clip from her fight scene with her husband. To be fair, we saw a small clip of that during the Original Screenplay category presentation, but the clips can be potentially helpful to gaining more attention for someone who hasn't seen some of these films.

This may be in hindsight, but I remember when Marion Cotillard was nominated at SAG for La Vie en Rose and they showed the clip where she realizes that (spoiler alert) Marcel is dead. During that award season, Cotillard was sort of behind in terms of precursor wins. Due to the 2007-08 Writers Strike affecting the Golden Globe ceremony, she didn't get to give a speech there when she won. She did eventually win at BAFTA but I can still remember when they showed the "Marcel!!" clip at SAG and when it cut back to Cotillard in the audience, it just seemed like there was this energy of "Ummmm....that looked impressive".

At any rate, that could just be hindsight bias as I was a huge champion of Cotillard that season. 

I did love the set and how much the lighting helped make it pop. It was that great mix of modern and classy, and I particularly loved when they put it in the violet hue...which just so happened to match presenter Zendaya perfectly when she came out for Best Cinematography. 

I do have to comment on Best Song, as some people have said they feel that "I'm Just Ken" was more worthy to win over "What Was I Made For?". Frankly, I am not sure that a song that was a lot of fun and just happened to be staged at chaotic spectacle means it should automatically win. 

It does come down to taste preference, but I do think Eilish/O'Connell warranted this win, maybe even a little more than their first one. It is such a haunting little number, and certainly worthy to win. I do think the Academy needs to stop nominating Diane Warren though. At this point, you almost get the sense that a small faction is desperate to give her an Oscar but she just isn't giving us anything more than bland filler year after year. 

I also loved that we ended up getting Messi the dog from Anatomy of a Fall in attendance (although some suspect it was actually a lookalike) after reports claimed that some Hollywood insiders were actually jealous of how much promotion the dog got at the Nominee Luncheon. He even got his own seat! 

I also want to discuss the tech categories, because this year was actually quite exciting with the results.

Oppenheimer more or less won what was expected of it: Cinematography, Editing, Score...but there were many that expected it would take Sound. It made sense as it certainly has a very dynamic and exciting sound design...but I am truly impressed and thrilled that they opted for The Zone of Interest.

If you did not see my review of that film (here) or know very little about it, The Zone of Interest is about the family of Nazi Commandant Rudolf Hoss who lived in a house right next door to Auschwitz. Putting it simply, the proximity to the camp leads to some truly...unsettling sounds: gunshots, screaming, the humming of the ovens burning up the bodies....

So yeah...it was a very intricate and disturbing soundscape, but also incredibly effective. I think it was an inspired choice...and the right choice, even if there was no denying the power of Oppenheimer's design.

Considering it is the 70th Anniversary of the first Godzilla film, it felt very sweet and exciting to see Godzilla Minus One take the Visual Effects prize...and it was a category that had a lot of people divided over what might win.

I think the real showdown was often between Poor Things and Barbie in a few categories, but a lot of people suspected Barbie would likely carry the day only for Poor Things to not only take both Production Design and Costumes, but it managed to overtake Maestro in Makeup/Hairstyling. 

I will say that Barbie would've been a worthy winner in the categories it lost to Poor Things but I absolutely fell in love with those designs and found that film to be truly glorious to look at...when it wasn't trying to be TOO weird at least.

I am now going to go into my thoughts on the Big Eight categories:

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

American Fiction - Cord Jefferson

I was kind of noticing a shift in predictions where people expected Oppenheimer would somehow pull off the win here despite the fact it basically won nothing in terms of major Screenplay precursors. 

There was also some speculation that maybe Gerwig and Baumbach could sneak in and take it for Barbie being in a brand-new category after competing in Original basically everywhere else all season.

While I would've voted for Tony McNamara's work on Poor Things, there is no denying how witty and entertaining American Fiction was...if not maybe a tad toothless and not as brash as it could've been. I think he is still a worthy winner at least.

__________________________

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Anatomy of a Fall - Justine Triet & Arthur Harari

The award season began with people expecting this category would likely go to The Holdovers with Past Lives as the dark horse (and now there is a claim that The Holdovers may have been plagiarized so we will see how that story unfolds...), but then at the Golden Globes, Anatomy of a Fall managed to win Screenplay in the combined Original/Adapted category and that set off the path to it being the near inevitable victor.

I feel like Past Lives would've been a worthy winner here. A lot of it may have seemed moodier and sparse, but it did have a certain whimsical and poetic beauty about it. I did also have stronger feelings towards Past Lives over Anatomy of a Fall...but I do support this win as many of the film's scenes that either involved the courtroom or the amazing fight scene that was Sandra Huller's defining moment were rich with amazing dialogue.

I also have to add that I LOVE the fact that they played the PIMP cover when they announced the winner as the use of the song is so crucial and unexpected in the film...not to mention, the Bacao Rhythm & Steel Band arrangement is insanely catchy.

_________________________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Robert Downey Jr., Oppenheimer

Considered pretty much a foregone conclusion, I do feel like it was nice to see RDJ have this moment and that he won for a performance that was very good. Some have bemoaned that this falls under the career win category, and perhaps that is partly true.

If I am being honest, I would've voted for Mark Ruffalo...but I do think that RDJ does very commendable work as Lewis Strauss and provides the film with a great antagonistic energy. I keep hearing people say that he gave the role more than it needed. I don't know if I would necessarily put it that same way, but I would say that he manages to give the role a life/energy that I am not sure he has really given a role in quite some time...unless you want to count more of his earlier Tony Stark efforts.

RDJ's journey is pretty well documented and known, so to see him still soaring at a career high after his addictions nearly consumed him in the 90s is a wonderful sight to see.

_________________________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

DaVine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

Even more of a foregone conclusion that RDJ is that of DJR...funny how that intial thing works out.

When it comes to award sweeps, the amount of awards that DJR won amount to the biggest ever given to a performer. At first glance, I do have to wonder if this performance was actually THAT undeniable...but if we are going off of the performances here and the long-lasting effect she has after seeing the film, this was an incredibly worthy win.

This is a mostly subtle performance that only has one real breakdown scene...and even that is mainly done with a lot of restraint...but this is also a performance that relies a lot on command and screen presence. 

I have been familiar with DJR for years due to her history in the musical theatre world and if there is one thing I can say about her, she is an actress of great power...and to see her be able to command the screen with, at times, very little dialogue is a true joy to witness.

She gave such a beautiful speech as well and it was a wonderful way to kick off the evening.

_____________________________________

BEST ACTOR:

Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer

On his first nomination, Cillian Murphy manages to ride the wave of being the face of 2023's most epic film to win the award...but make no mistake, this is a very deserving win.

Murphy's work is compelling. Considering this is also a very subtle performance, it is truly remarkable how much he can achieve with his eyes. One thing I can truly say about Murphy as an actor after this performance is how well he would've worked in the silent movie era and that all comes back to those expressive eyes of his.

Considering how much he has been working for over 2 decades and always a solid strong supporting player in most films...including many of Nolan's...I found myself truly happy to see Murphy have his moment here.

Kudos to the other nominees: Giamatti, Domingo, and Wright.

As for Bradley Cooper...I think he needs a nap.

_________________________________

BEST ACTRESS:

Emma Stone, Poor Things

This was the only acting category that had some suspense behind it, because you could truly make the case of either Emma Stone or Lily Gladstone winning. 

I did fall into the Lily Gladstone camp as it seemed like there was a lot of passion for her and her SAG win seemed very unexpected as they often don't go for more passive performances. 

However, the passion for Poor Things by what seems to be many of the international voters and tech voters may have possibly swayed everything into Stone's favor. Killers of the Flower Moon was not winning anything else, so once Poor Things started beating Barbie in the tech showdown, I think many of us suspected that Stone was very likely to take it.

The truth is that while I was not exactly a fan of Killers, there is no denying that Lily Gladstone is an actress of great power. Much like DaVine Joy Randolph, Gladstone was able to do so much with so little...but I think the real issue is that Gladstone was more of a supporting player. 

I do have to wonder how this season would've played out had Gladstone chosen to stay in the supporting category, but I do commend her for being able to get the recognition in lead. I just hope that people will actually keep casting her as it is obvious she will help make any film better.

It also didn't help Gladstone that Stone was the true star/face of her film, and her work falls more into the "showboat" category. This isn't meant to be a knock at her though, because this is a performance that deserves such recognition.

I do think I may have been inclined to vote for Sandra Huller here as I feel her performance, while mostly subtle, does have a nice tightrope to walk so that we don't quite know at first if she is innocent or guilty...not to mention that glorious fight scene where she gets to do some fantastic yelling. 

As it stands, I can't fault this win. Stone was my other real favorite in the category, but I do want to mention Carey Mulligan as well considering she was the only true saving grace about Maestro. I am anxiously awaiting for her to finally get an Oscar...because at this point, she honestly deserved two (if we are basing it just off of the actual nominees).

_____________________________________

BEST DIRECTOR:

Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

Nothing to really add that hasn't already been said.

I will reiterate mainly what I said about Nolan when I reviewed the film. I can't say that he is a filmmaker that I have ever had much passion for. I am one of those film people who has been saying Memento was still his best work for the past 20 years now. 

Oppenheimer definitely took that spot, and that is what I find so remarkable.

Nolan achieved greatness here. 

I will say that Lanthimos and Glazer both deserve mentions for sure as their work is so strong that I suspect both of them could win in a lot of other years.

Triet's nomination was also richly deserved here, and I wish that she got more attention rather than be overshadowed by the snub of Greta Gerwig.

Scorsese is definitely a legend and it is obvious that he still can direct with great authority, but I also don't think it was enough to stand out this year. If anything, I still think Killers was mainly a disappointment that was too long and didn't focus enough on Mollie (Lily Gladstone).

Nolan outdid himself and this is a very worthy effort for him to win on.

________________________________

BEST PICTURE:

Oppenheimer

Going into award season, there was a lot of talk about whether or not Oppenheimer would win Best Picture. I certainly thought it COULD, but I did feel like there was a case where Nolan would easily win Director but that something else could manage to slip in and win this category thanks to the ranking ballot system. 

However, unlike films like The Power of the Dog, it is easy to see that Oppenheimer was one of those rare films that managed to ignite widespread audience interest and equal adoration from critics. I feel like we may have to go back to LOTR and Titanic to have films of peak phenomenon level and manage to get such strong award attention at the same time.

If I am being honest, I think any of you that have been reading my posts over the last few years will know that I tend to lean more towards indie & foreign films. I often like what they bring to the table, especially if they fall under the category of what may not be typical Oscar fare.

There are always exceptions to the rule, and Oppenheimer is CLEARLY one of those exceptions.

I already said that Nolan outdid himself, and it bears repeating.

For a 3 hour film, I found that Oppenheimer flew by (well deserved Editing win for Jennifer Lame right there!!) and while I would argue that Nolan is still rather bad at giving a lot of material to women (Blunt and Pugh were wasted despite owning all of their moments onscreen), everything else was easily his finest moments as a filmmaker in quite some time...if not, his finest ever.

I was not expecting to actually love this film as much as I did, and it does feel rather crazy to think of this as my favorite film of 2023.

Actually, that kind of mentality isn't unusual. I have seen so many YouTubers make the comment about how boring of a choice it is of them to name Oppenheimer as their #1 film of 2023 and yet...I will likely end up doing the same once I get around to finally making my top 10-20 list.

It is nice to be able to enjoy the results of these wins despite how a lot of them were predictable...something that I truly didn't get with either 2021 or 2022.

So there is that at least...

A SCREWBALL ON ACID: My Quick Review of Yorgos Lanthimos’ POOR THINGS

**SOME SLIGHT SPOILERS THROUGHOUT**

I’ve talked a lot about the kinds of films that tend to fall under the typical “Oscar Bait” platform. This year, you have something like Maestro as a very prime example of that trope…and done to such a laborious level.

Like a beacon of hope though, we’ve been seeing more unlikely films slip through the cracks whether they be foreign films (Parasite), sci-fi/fantasy/romances like The Shape of Water, or everything that was Everything Everywhere All at Once.

When I look at a film like Poor Things, I can’t help but think back to earlier last year when online film pundits weren’t quite sure how a film like this would be received by the industry.

 I can’t say that I or anyone can be right every time, but I sort of had a strange feeling that this one would break through.

Even looking at the film now, I do have to wonder how well it would’ve done with the Academy had it come out 30 or 20 or as recently as 10 years ago. 

Due to many personal setbacks over the last two months such as work and having COVID and the death of my beloved grandmother, I’ve been a little less engaged and available to watch new films…and it is due to that reason that I will be holding off on doing my Best of 2023 for a little while longer.

Here’s a spoiler for you: Poor Things is going to be firmly on that list. As the last of the Best Picture nominees that I got to see, I felt like I was watching a true visionary at work.

Set in a very abstract and colorful Victorian London (and partly in Paris and Lisbon), Poor Things begins with a medical student named Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) who attends a class led by the eccentric and disfigured Dr. Godwin Baxter (Wilem Dafoe). When Max defends Godwin to a trio of cruel classmates, he takes him under his wing as an assistant and introduces him to Bella (Emma Stone). It is revealed that Bella is actually a woman who committed suicide by jumping off a bridge and happens to be discovered by Baxter shortly after she drowned. 

Upon pulling her out of the water, he discovers she is pregnant and in order to experiment on bringing her back to life, uses the brain of her unborn fetus to implant into her...which therefore gives her an infant's mind and temperament.

Max does take a strange liking to Bella, which Godwin (whom Bella calls God) notices and he says he should marry Bella on the condition that he move into his home. In order to solidify all the rules, he hires a lawyer named Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) to oversee the process, but Duncan sees an opportunity to insert himself....which...umm...you can take that in multiple ways as you will soon learn....and he asks to take the curious Bella, whose intelligence is increasing rapidly, with him to Lisbon on a trip.

Bella's curiosity for the world seems to be as infectious as it is infuriating for those around her...but perhaps the greatest asset to Duncan is the fact that Bella has discovered masturbation, and he is happy to supply the sex. 

I will leave the plot synopsis at that, and try to explain why this rather dark and ridiculous concept actually became a film that I very much enjoyed.

When a film explores subject matter such as suicide, child abuse, and body mutilation through a lens that can often be as uncomfortable as it is wacky, it comes as no surprise that it would have its fair share of detractors...but even with these detractors, I am amazed at how well this film has been widely received; it is a truly pleasant surprise that I am very happy to see!

Yorgos Lanthimos films are becoming such a distinct subgenre of their own in terms of the style and approach. His visual aesthetic seems as recognizable to me now as that of someone like Wes Anderson or Stanley Kubrick. With this film and his previous effort, The Favourite, Lanthimos did not write the scripts. Both films were written by Tony McNamara (with Deborah Davis co-writing The Favourite), and his writing style works so well with Lanthimos' touch. The film is FUNNY and has such a sharp wit that is practically frothing at the mouth. Lanthimos' early work such as Dogtooth and The Killing of a Sacred Deer had darker psychological elements mixed with absurdity...and both led to fairly polarizing results. For example, I was fond of Dogtooth but mainly disappointed in Killing of a Sacred Deer. I do think he is a good writer for the most part, but I do think McNamara proves to be an amazing asset to him.

Watching Poor Things was, as I stated earlier, being able to see a visionary at work...and the tech team deserves to be highly commended as well. The set design, costumes, lighting, and cinematography are all luscious and first rate. For the alternate reality they are trying to create, the film simply pops with glorious colors and sumptuous visuals as if it were like a new example from something out of the world of Terry Gilliam.

The film would also likely suffer to an unbearable level if it didn't have the right Bella Baxter, but this is easily the best performance of Emma Stone's career to date. This is a very brave and bold performance and it shows a lot of great physical commitment...and not surprisingly, her comic timing is down pat.

I do have to commend both Wilem Dafoe and Ramy Youssef for their supporting work as well, along with Margaret Qualley's hilarious cameo as Felicity and Kathryn Hunter as a French madam named  Swiney.

The whole film works marvelously well, although perhaps it could've been trimmed a little more tightly here and there...but a lot of the film's best scenes involve Stone and Mark Ruffalo. 

I think most of us know that Mark Ruffalo is a solid and commendable actor who has been doing wonderful work for decades now, but this might be my favorite performance of his.

Not only is Duncan Wedderburn such a departure for him, it really just goes to show you how much some actors never truly get to stray from their usual comfort zone. Even in interviews, Stone would comment how much Ruffalo would feel so upset by how ridiculous rude he was being and then just easily switch it on without any issue. 

I mean...yeah...good actors can do it that kind of thing and Ruffalo is a good actor! In my opinion, Ruffalo should've been far more competitive for the Supporting Actor Oscar and he would also get my vote out of the nominees. His chemistry with Stone is so wonderful that it almost feels like some kind of screwball comedy pairing but in an acid-high of a world.

I would also fully support Emma Stone winning as well, even though she already has an undeserved first Oscar for La La Land...but her work here is pitch perfect. 

Her and Ruffalo are both involved in some fairly explicit sex scenes which we all know tends to be the MPAA's Public Enemy #1 as opposed to violence and bloodshed. If anything, I feel like had the film focused on it a little more, they may have ended up flirting with an NC-17 rating but I am glad that didn't end up happening as that rating can be quite the death knell.

Like I said earlier, Poor Things will most certainly make an appearance on my top 10 list for 2023 once it is made. Among the Best Picture nominees, it easily makes my top 5.

For such a wacky and somewhat disturbing and profound and hilarious film, Poor Things tread a fine line the entire time and I honestly feel like it never really faltered.

Bravo to all involved here!

                   My rating for POOR THINGS is:

9.5/10

IT'S TIME TO PROGNOSTICATE! - My Final Predictions for the 96th Academy Awards

I feel like the way 2023 ended and the way 2024 began has been a bit erratic for me.

I certainly fell behind on all of my movie watching and even when it came to the Oscars, it took until a week before for me to officially see my final Best Picture nominees and a couple of stray contenders.

A lot of this was due to work, me having COVID in mid-January, and ending that month with the death of my beloved grandmother. 

On top of that, this award season has been a bit dull...which I will go more into at the end.

Despite of that, there is no denying that there has been an uptick in quality amongst the films in 2023. Maybe I wouldn't have nominated all of the films in Best Picture, but the majority of them are very solid or quite strong which makes this one of the best Best Picture lineups in recent years.

Since I have had a delay on seeing some films, I will be postponing my Top 10-20 List for 2023 for a little while longer as I still have a list of roughly two dozen films I still want to watch before making my final decisions. I normally try to post it the same weekend as the Oscars (which is coming on Sunday March 10th), but I doubt I will get to see a lot of the remaining ones during over the next two weeks.

However, I have officially seen all of the major contenders in the categories I am about to discuss so I can at least express my opinions freely in that regard.

Here are my final thoughts and predictions on the Big Eight categories at this year's Oscars:
___________________________________

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

#1 - American Fiction

#2 - Barbie

#3 - Oppenheimer

#4 - Poor Things

#5 - The Zone of Interest 

Starting off with Adapted, I just have to say that poor Tony McNamara can't catch a break. I had suspected that he would be a prime candidate to win for Poor Things early in the season and even after seeing the film, he would easily get my vote. The lack of attention is almost as infuriating as when he and Deborah Davis lost out for The Favourite to....ugh...Green Book back in 2019.

As it stands, American Fiction is the expected victor here and I have to stress that it is A LOT better than Green Book, so the loss doesn't feel too egregious in this scenario.

The satire may be a bit to heavy handed at times, but the film is incredibly witty and entertaining.

There has been a lot of talk about Barbie's placement here since it is considered "Adapted" simply because it is based on an existing IP rather than a book or a play. However, the story is completely original so I can see an argument for both.

I did think that there was a chance that the popularity and the outpouring of support once Gerwig got snubbed for Director could propel her and Baumbach to a win here but it doesn't seem like the tide is turning that way.

Even American Fiction won this category at BAFTA despite the fact it received no other nominations.

Oppenheimer is in an interesting position here. Some feel like it could be caught up in an upset win here due to the film's pending sweep and the fact it showed strong results in the Secret Ballots that have been released...and despite the fact that those have forecasted changing tides in other races (Colman/Hokins), it can also mislead us (Grant/Cruz)

.

_______________________

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

#1 - Anatomy of a Fall

#2 - The Holdovers

#3 - Past Lives

#4 - Maestro

#5 - May December

While most film fanatics out there are thrilled with it, I don't exactly get the critical acclaim that May December has gotten...especially in terms of its script...but alas, it is still better than the script for Maestro which I can't exactly say a lot of good about.

The film that is expected to win here is Anatomy of a Fall and I can gladly go along with that. As a film, I do think perhaps its ambiguity at times can be a tad frustrating as it leaves the film with sort of an "Is that it?" feeling...but it manages to be a very fascinating look at the French court system and also has some of the best dialogue of the year...particularly with the big fight scene that is Sandra Huller's finest moment. 

I think The Holdovers is in second place, but I do think it is kind of a surprise how little this Screenplay has been awarded this season. I feel like going into the award cycle back in December, it seemed like it was a very likely candidate to win...and then it got surprisingly snubbed for a Golden Globe nod. 

I feel like Past Lives is my favorite here, but a lot of what makes that film work so effectively is how its story has elements that can deeply touch you in various ways. A lot of it stems from that old chestnut of a storyline of: "What if?" and lord knows there are times where I have often wondered what would happen if something panned out differently in life and how it would be affected if someone hadn't left my life. 

While it might be a bit deceptive and sparse, there is a certain poetic beauty to Past Lives and I wish that it had more traction in this category and ceremony as a whole.

________________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

#1 - Robert Downey, Jr, Oppenheimer

#2 - Ryan Gosling, Barbie

#3 - Robert DeNiro, Killers of the Flower Moon

#4 - Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things 

#5 - Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction

People are bemoaning the fact that Charles Melton basically showed signs of going all the way with a nod following the Golden Globes only to quickly drop off following his exclusion from the BAFTA shortlist and the SAG nominees. Despite my relative distaste for the film, he did do a nice job in it.

As a whole, I don't mind these nominees...even those who wouldn't make my lineup in the end. 

RDJ is going all the way here, and it seems to be a perfect storm of good performance meets BP winner meets career award...and I can live with that. 

However, my personal vote would go to Mark Ruffalo, who is truly such a vile but delicious and hilarious cad in Poor Things. The role is such a departure for him and he truly excelled in it. A lot of the best scenes of the film involve him with Emma Stone.

I think DeNiro does his best work in Killers that he has done in years, but that isn't to say that it is necessarily anything that makes me go "wow" either. I am fine with the nomination overall, but I can see why he never took off as an alternate contender. 

Gosling seemed like someone who would play as a dark-horse contender considering his involvement with the other pop culture icon film of the moment...also being quite fun as Ken, it must be said...but once RDJ won the Globe, I feel like that was the moment the ship sailed.

I LOVE seeing Sterling K. Brown get an Oscar nomination, even though I am not sure if he would've been on my radar for American Fiction in the end. I am more happy to see him get the recognition rather than the performance.

_________________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

#1 - DaVine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

#2 - Emily Blunt, Oppenheimer

#3 - Jodie Foster, Nyad

#4 - America Ferrera, Barbie

#5 - Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple

In what might be the weakest of the acting categories this year, Supporting Actress is going to go to DaVine Joy Randolph, who pulled off what has been called the biggest sweep of acting precursors ever....and honestly, I am cool with that.

I still don't think her performance is necessarily undeniable, but with the performances that had been gaining traction in this category, I am sort of content to hand her this easy win and call it a day.

Early on in the season, the buzz seemed to be lurking around Danielle Brooks as a potential spoiler, but with the buzz/acclaim for The Color Purple dying down, she now seems more like a filler nod in this race.

Seeing Foster here is nice though because she hasn't been nominated in nearly 30 years and she was easily my favorite part of Nyad. Her Bonnie is the best example of someone we'd want as a best friend/cheerleader in life.

It took over 15 years, but Emily Blunt finally got her first Oscar nomination...which is something that should've happened way back in 2007 for The Devil Wears Prada. It does seem crazy that it took a relatively small role for Blunt to pull it off...and I do think one of the biggest issues I can take with Oppenheimer is that Nolan wastes both Blunt and Pugh in their roles...but what I can say of Blunt is that when she is onscreen, she makes the most of it. Not sure she would make my personal lineup in the end, but I think this is a great example of an actress who made the most of such a small role.

Then we get America Ferrera...

I do think Ferrera is a lovely actress, but I do feel this nomination is not warranted. She does a very solid job, but I also think that the moment that has gotten her the most attention (the big monologue) is actually the weakest part about her performance because it feels very performative.

It is sort of like how Laura Dern (coincidentally in a film written/directed by Barbie co-writer and Gerwig's life partner Noah Baumbach) had a monologue about the plight of women in Marriage Story that was considered the centerpiece of her performance and yet it came off as too disingenuous...and that performance ended up WINNING despite being pretty much inconsequential.

I wouldn't say Ferrera is inconsequential in Barbie, but I still don't think she should've made this lineup.

Even though I was not a big fan of May December, I would've loved to see Julianne Moore on this list...but I will just be happy to see someone like Randolph come in and take it with ease. 

_________________________

BEST ACTOR:

 #1 - Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer

#2 - Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers

#3 - Jeffrey Wright, American Fiction

#4 - Bradley Cooper, Maestro

#5 - Colman Domingo, Rustin

I was part of the group of people who viewed Bradley Cooper as a potential late-in-the-game spoiler for this award early on in the season. He seemed very prime to be the kind of winner who would start dominating during the televised awards, but not exactly be a hit with the critics. 

There was certainly a hint of suspense during the Golden Globes they could've easily went for Cooper, and it didn't seem like an unusual prospect as they even gave him a Best Director nod.

Murphy and Giamatti winning there changed the trajectory, but it became far more interesting when Giamatti won the CC.

At the point, the average consensus was that Murphy would take BAFTA and Giamatti would take SAG...which would then lead to more of a race at the Oscars. However, Murphy winning at SAG does make sense considering how they do tend to run populist a lot of the time and considering he was the lead of one of the two biggest films of the year, it makes sense.

It also doesn't hurt that Murphy is a stellar actor who carries that 3 hour film on his back with ease. It is a subtle performance but it is also a performance where he uses his eyes to such great compelling effect.

Cooper aside, I do like all of these performances a lot.

Domingo does very well in a more traditional boilerplate biopic role (which, then again, Murphy falls under the biopic umbrella too but Oppenheimer feels as if its in a class by itself) while Wright does such a great job with his slow-burn deadpan comedy.

_________________________

BEST ACTRESS:

#1 - Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon

#2 - Emma Stone, Poor Things

#3 - Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall

#4 - Carey Mulligan, Maestro

#5 - Annette Bening, Nyad

This seems to be the only category where we have some semblance of suspense...unless you may want to count Adapted Screenplay. 

After a couple of awards seasons where we have had a lot of suspense in certain acting categories and even Best Picture, we now have another season where everything is pretty much totally predictable. On one hand, a lot of these frontrunners are worthy so that doesn't make it too bad...but it certainly makes me miss that exciting "on the edge" feeling I got to experience on Oscar night in various ways since the 2021 ceremony. 

At the moment, the Gladstone/Stone race sort of mirrors that of the Yeoh/Blanchett race from last year in that the former won Globe/SAG while the latter won Globe/CC/BAFTA.

The major difference in this case is that Gladstone is not in the film that is going to be an Oscar juggernaut. In fact, she is the film's only hope for a win...but she does have a narrative and passion and, it must be said, historical importance behind her win.

Stone is hurt by the fact that she already won an Oscar (which also likely hurt Blanchett as well since she had TWO)...and it isn't like she is older and a legend like Frances McDormand who managed to win a 3rd without campaigning even though Carey Mulligan was RIGHT THERE. 

In the end though, I don't think most Oscar voters think that way. In my opinion, Stone never should've won for La La Land but in this case, Stone is worthy to win...and if she does, I think she has the strong performance to back it up.

Gladstone suffers more from the fact that she is truly a supporting performance and a lot of her work is more subtle/passive...and this isn't to say that subtle performances aren't great. If anything, I still would be fine with her winning because whenever she did have a chance to command the screen, she was far and away the best thing about that film.

I do need to bring up Sandra Huller though, because in my mind, she should be win competitive here. Most of her work is also pretty subtle aside from one truly stellar fight scene which is easily one of my favorite moments of the year acting wise. I had hoped that Huller would upset at BAFTA just to make the race a bit more exciting, but it didn't happen. 

As much as I have been bashing Maestro, I am also something of what I like to call a Carey Mulli-hooligan. Like a beacon of light, she steals the whole movie and becomes the main reason to see it. Considering she has been win-worthy on her last two nominations prior and she has been snubbed for nominations on at least two other occasions (including yet another win worthy performance in Shame), I am dying for her to get the right vehicle to put her on top.

Lastly, we have Annette Bening...an actress who is also highly overdue but can never seem to catch a break. I had hoped Nyad would be that vehicle, but it was simply not that great a film, and I would argue I came away from it being more intrigued by Jodie Foster's character than Bening.

I am predicting Gladstone based on the obvious passion for her and her recent SAG win, but I think Stone might have an easier chance to slip through than Blanchett did last year. In truth, Stone carries a lot of her film whereas Gladstone gets (unfortunately) sidelined way too often in hers.

__________________________

BEST DIRECTOR:

#1 - Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

#2 - Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall

#3 - Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest

#4 - Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things

#5 -Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon

I feel like one could argue ranking #2-5 in every order imaginable. This is how much of an arbitrary task it is with the kind of sweep than Nolan has had. It is very similar to Chloe Zhao in that way.

Nolan is winning this in a cakewalk and it is richly deserved.

As for the others, Triet's work is more subtle but done with such intricate care. 

Scorsese is obviously a legendary director and he deserves more than just the one Oscar he has on his mantle for The Departed, but I don't feel like this is his best work. I do think he still has it in him to win another Oscar though.

Honestly, Glazer and Lanthimos are pretty much just as worthy as Nolan in my eyes but in differing ways. 

Glazer is definitely the "art house auteur" nomination who, perhaps, made a film that is ice cold in its approach but it was totally effective...at least to me.

Lanthimos has such a clear distinct vision that makes him stand out as one of the most recognizable filmmakers working today, almost in a way that one could call out the work of Wes Anderson or even how one could recognize the work of Stanley Kubrick. 

I fully support Nolan's forthcoming win, but I do think Glazer and Lanthimos would be worthy winners as well...but it is a clear apples to oranges to peaches comparison.

__________________________

BEST PICTURE:

#1 - Oppenheimer

#2 - American Fiction

#3 - Anatomy of a Fall

#4 - The Holdovers

#5 - Poor Things

#6 - Barbie

#7 - Killers of the Flower Moon

#8 - The Zone of Interest

#9 - Past Lives

#10 - Maestro

Just like Director, ranking this list of films seems very "at random".

 Aside from the year of La La Land/Moonlight, if a film tends to steamroll a season, it is pretty likely going to win with no true clear alternative. Last year, Everything Everywhere All at Once did seem like a pretty strong foregone conclusion, but it did bomb at the Globes and especially at BAFTA. Early in the season, it looked like The Banshees of Inisherin would play a bigger role and then on Oscar night, it was clear that All Quiet on the Western Front was likely the runner-up.

In the case, Oppenheimer feels more like a Nomadland...only even stronger as it also managed to net a SAG Ensemble win, a plum that I thought was possible could go to something like American Fiction or even Barbie.

After EEAAO's sweep of 7 wins last year, Oppenheimer seems on track to win the same amount of Oscars...and some are predicting even one or two more. It does seem very likely to win Sound but I wouldn't be shocked to see The Zone of Interest upset in that category as it has such an intricate design that is truly effective. I am expecting it to win Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Cinematography, Editing, and Score. 

If it does take Sound as well, that'll give it 8 wins...the most a film has won since...ugh...Slumdog Millionaire in 2009....which was the last year that the Oscars operated on a 5-slot Best Picture system.

With American Fiction looking poised to take Adapted, I am ranking it as my #2 since Screenplay wins often signal strong support towards potential Best Picture upsets...plus it does seem to have strong actor support too...but that is sort of me grasping at straws.

This is also why I have Anatomy of a Fall ranked 3rd as it seems pretty assured at winning Original and the film certainly has key support. I might've felt more confident in its chances of an upset here had it performed a little better at BAFTA.

The Holdovers is in an interesting position because early in the season, I think many of us felt that it would be the most likely to be the spoiler. It makes sense on paper: one, if not, two acting wins, a possible Screenplay win...definitely the makings of sleeper pick.

But The Holdovers never seemed to take flight in terms of Screenplay wins...or even with Best Picture wins. It just hasn't won anything major aside from acting wins...so in that case, without a Screenplay win, I don't think the film will be able to overcome it to win Best Picture with just a Supporting Actress win...or even if Giamatti somehow pulled it off, too.

There was a period early in the season where many thought Poor Things could act as a spoiler, but it never seemed to take off aside from wins for Emma Stone and various techs. In many ways, it is probably TOO abstract for voters in that it is far more explicit than a film like Everything Everywhere All at Once was. 

__________________________

OVERALL FINAL THOUGHTS:

I feel like we've gotten very spoiled over the last couple of years. 

Even if races like Best Picture/Director or certain acting races may have been pretty much locked, there was always a couple of categories that left us feeling on edge. Last year, for example, there was suspense going into Oscar night in the majority of the acting categories. While Supporting Actor was locked and it seemed like the tide was changing toward Michelle Yeoh in Actress, I would argue that Supporting Actress and Lead Actor were nail-biters.

This year, I would argue we only really have Best Actress that could feasibly go in different directions.

I think the ONLY real solace I have is that even if I don't necessarily think I'd vote for some of the predicted winners, they are pretty solid in their own right. It is hard to begrudge some of these films and performances in the end.

Oppenheimer is expected to win AT LEAST 7 Oscars, but could take 8. There is even a chance it could win Adapted Screenplay in an upset and take 9, but I am not predicting that. 

Even trying to draft out this predictions post was a bit of a chore, because it just felt like I was not having any fun with it. It is kind of ironic considering how much the film output is better this year compared to the last two years, but the "game" aspect is much less exciting.

Still though, even factoring in the fact I was disappointed in Killers of the Flower Moon and found Maestro to be as pretentious as bore as online forums suggest, this is a very strong Best Picture lineup strictly basing it off of all 8 nominees. As I mentioned in my intro, I still need to see some more films before I make a definitive top 10-20 list but as of now, I would say 5 of the Best Picture nominees have a solid-to-strong chance of staying on my top 10 this year...and that RARELY happens. 

I think the last time I had such a strong overlap was 2017 when I had Phantom Thread, Three Billboards, Ladybird, Get Out, and The Shape of Water all in my Top 10 of that year.

I do say a lot that awards don't matter...and they don't...but I do enjoy the prognostication aspect of it...so while I may not be having fun with it this year, I think the really important part is that I feel excited about so many films that came out even beyond the basic pop culture blast that was Barbenheimer.

I hope that by April, I will have an official "Best of" list out.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL: My Quick Review of Jonathan Glazer's THE ZONE OF INTEREST

It isn't very often that I sit down with a film and try to figure out what exactly I thought about it...and can be even rarer if I find myself thinking that I both hated and admired it all at the same time. You may find yourself understanding all the sides, whether they be people claiming the film is an auteur masterpiece while others claim its an obtuse bore.

I knew that a film like The Zone of Interest would be difficult to sit through, and I can't say that my reaction to it was that much of a surprise.

I don't think I could ever say that I loved The Zone of Interest. It seems like too nice of a word to use for such an outing...but I will say that I highly respect it for what it made me feel.

If we were to just describe this film at the most basic surface level, we are watching a family live their lives right behind the walls of Auschwitz. So yes, it is a family of Nazis who seemingly have no real shame or concern about living next door to a place where Jewish people are getting exterminated. This is because it is the home of Commandant Rudolf Hoss (Christian Friedel), a rather idyllic if not somewhat cold and stark home that he shares with his wife Hedwig (Sandra Huller) and their five children.

This is where the term "banality of evil" may perhaps get overused...and I have seen it used quite often in many of the reviews I have come across but I am honestly amazed at how effective this film is.

Filmmaker Jonathan Glazer, the man behind such heralded indies as Sexy Beast, Birth, and Under the Skin, has finally received more widespread recognition with his work here and I do have to commend him for what he has achieved.

Glazer's method for directing was setting up strategic hidden cameras around the Hoss compound and giving the actors very bare bones blocking. In interviews, Friedel and Huller both stated they could look 360 degrees around them and not see a single camera or crew member as they would be off watching the screens in a van nearby. When I first heard this, I wondered how much it would actually work and if perhaps it was too cold an approach...but the more I think about it, the more I think it works perfectly for this type of film and subject matter.

Huller has also said in interviews that she had zero interest in giving Hedwig any kind of internal life because she was a despicable human being...and at first glance, this sounds like it would lead to a performance that is rather hollow. However, this is Sandra Huller...she manages to find ways to bring out an energy from this total bitch of a human being because that is just how good of an actress Sandra Huller is. 

The film feels like it has no script for significant parts of the film's length. It feels very "in the moment" and, at times, even reminded me of Kubrick's work on films that relied more on atmosphere and themes...particularly something like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This is where I can see why some might take umbrage to the film, as they may say nothing happens and it is just film that sort of coasts on energy...but if anything, I find the film succeeds in ways that are very specific and highly successful. 

We are watching this family live their life with very little care in the world. We watch them swimming in a lake, we watch Hoss take a business meeting in which engineers casually explain to him how effective a new crematorium will be at killing a larger number of Jewish people, Hedwig tries on a new luxurious mink coat, the kids entertain other children in their new swimming pool while we see the smoke from another incoming train of people on path to be murdered.

There are also some sequences shot in night vision where we aren't entirely sure what is happening at first, involving a girl. Combined with Mica Levi's moody score, you feel very on edge yet again until you realize what she is doing and how for one brief moment, we see a glimpse of humanity.

We aren't being spoon-fed here; Glazer finds ways to sneak in. During moments where characters are having a casual conversation, we will hear gunshots faintly in the background or see smoke coming from the crematorium. The sound design here is so effective and it is no wonder that it may have a chance at overtaking Oppenheimer at the Oscars in that category. 

When the film was over, I found myself not really sure what I felt. I knew that the film succeeded in making me uncomfortable and feeling a sense of danger. I don't want to fully spoil anything, but I will say some of the choices made, even those that are quite small, lead to rather stark and powerful results in ways that do make you feel uneasy and unsafe. You really don't know what to expect. 

I can't say that I am going to revisit this film...unless if I am going to sit down and analyze certain scenes gradually, but for a film that mostly relies on "what you don't see" and perhaps what you can only hear, this results are truly remarkable.

It is hard to shake the film from my mind.

The final moments, which involve stark shadows and a time jump, feel rife for analyzation...and leave you wondering if perhaps Hoss had some ounce of empathy...but the whole film also makes you feel complicit too. We feel helpless watching it...and as uncomfortable as that may be, I can always respect a film that pulls that kind of emotion out of it.

With that in mind...

THE ZONE OF INTEREST will receive:

9/10