PROGNOSTICATION TIME: My Predictions for the 2025 Oscar Nominations

A new year means that movie award season is officially in full swing, however things have stalled a bit due to the truly tragic and horrific wildfires that are causing absolute devastation to the LA area. 

Award shows like the Critics' Choice Awards are postponed until February while guilds such as the Producers Guild of America have not announced when they will release their list of 10 Best Picture nominees. 

Truthfully, I think it would be in the industry's best interest to reconsider how to proceed with this. As it stands, the Oscar nomination announcement was supposed to occur Friday January 17th but got pushed by two days. So far, no other announcement has been made about postponing it further. 

 The Award Season process is one that I frequently talk about and find a bizarre fascination with even though I truthfully find the whole thing to be a political scam most of the time. This year, the tragedy of the wildfire along with the fact that I find the film output to be less exciting is a dire combo to say the least. I also find the fact that one particular contender is getting a lot of acclaim is another factor that leaves me feeling cold and disgusted.

So here we go...my final predictions for the Big 8 categories for the 2025 Academy Awards.

_______________________________________

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

#1 - Conclave

#2 - Emilia Perez

#3 - Sing Sing 

#4 - A Complete Unknown

#5 - The Nickel Boys

This is an award that Conclave has seemingly had in the bag for months, and while I would say it is certainly a very solid script from a very solid film, I think the honest truth is that the category lacks strong contenders. The only other film that even seems to have the potential to slip in here is Dune: Part Two...and I get the sense that the exposure of that film is slipping. 

Truthfully, I would love to see Sing Sing win this because that film was a clear labor of love, and it told such a bittersweet story so beautifully. The film could've fallen into maudlin/preachy/sappy territory, but it stuck the landing. 

Then we have the elephant in the room: Emilia Perez.

I will go more into that film later, but if you read my review, you will know where I stand on that discourse.

The last slot seems to be a battle between A Complete Unknown and The Nickel Boys which conveniently happen to be the two biggest contenders I have not seen yet. 

Sight unseen, I sort of suspect based on the acclaim that the latter might be more deserving of such an honor than a boilerplate biopic...but I truthfully can't say. 

I do think Wicked has a chance to slip in here as well. I certainly wish it were here over Emilia FUCKING Perez....

_____________________

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

#1 - Anora

#2 - The Substance

#3 - A Real Pain

#4 - The Brutalist

#5 - All We Imagine as Light

Right off the bat, I will state that I have not seen All We Imagine as Light, but I am choosing to go for it as it seems to be the other International film this year (aside from Emilia Perez) that is getting a lot of attention...and some years, that does translate to Screenplay noms (a film like The Worst Person in the World comes to mind). 

I do think we could see a film like Challengers or September 5 slip in here, as well. If I were to predict one of those, I would go with the former.

I feel pretty confident that the other four are locked in. I could even see a path for the top 3 films here to actually WIN, but I do think this will go to Anora and deservingly so.

I do think that The Substance would be a very cool win, and it is a film I have warmed up to more in the months since I have seen it. A Real Pain would make for a solid winner too, but I do think it would be more on the brink since there is a chance it may not even make the Best Picture lineup.

The Brutalist seems to be coasting by on the fact that it is one of the major Best Picture/Director frontrunners right now, but even those who really love the movie don't seem to be factoring in a vote for its Screenplay. I certainly wouldn't support it as I, to plug my review, found the film to greatly suffer once we returned from Intermission. 

Even beyond that, I just don't think the Screenplay is the film's strongest asset, even if it kept up the strength of its first half.

______________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

#1 - Kieran Culkin, A Real Pain

#2 - Guy Pearce, The Brutalist

#3 - Edward Norton, A Complete Unknown

#4 - Yura Borisov, Anora

#5 - Jeremy Strong, The Apprentice

This category makes me a little sad because I would love to see Clarence Maclin get a nod here for Sing Sing. The fact he did get the BAFTA nod gives me some hope, but I am choosing to predict he sadly gets left off. 

Kieran Culkin has been sweeping for A Real Pain and it's a wonderful performance, but...I am not sure he is THAT undeniable. It also feels like it is residual goodwill coming off his truly stellar work on the final season of Succession. On top of that, IT IS NOT A SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE.

Now, if you want to take Succession goodwill into account, that is where Jeremy Strong should come into play...and it's actually a Supporting performance! As I just stated yesterday when I posted my review of The Apprentice, Strong absolutely shines as Roy Cohn. As of right now, he is my personal favorite, but I could still see him get left off if the Academy simply refuses to watch the film.

I feel pretty confident in Pearce, Norton, and Borisov. I can't comment on Norton's work, but Pearce didn't wow me as much as he did for others. Borisov is even more tricky, because his role is far more passive, and he doesn't have his best moments until the final 20 minutes of the film...but he is surrounded by far more flashy performances in Anora and yet he sticks with you. 

So yeah...right Culkin winning this feels like the most solid Acting prediction we can make.

_______________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

#1 - Zoe Saldana, Emilia Perez

#2 - Ariana Grande-Butera, Wicked

#3 - Isabella Rossellini, Conclave

#4 - Felicity Jones, The Brutalist

#5 - Danielle Deadwyler, The Piano Lesson

I will admit that as difficult as it can be to make predictions when nominations from precursors have been all over the place, that is also what makes the whole process rather exciting. 

Aside from Saldana and Grande...and I guess Rossellini as well...I feel less confident about the final two slots.

I am going with Jones mainly because of the power of The Brutalist even though she mostly underperformed with precursors all season. Also, I do feel like she deserves recognition as she was the strongest aspect of that film once it returned from Intermission.

I decided to stick with Danielle Deadwyler for the last slot over recent surging candidate Jamie Lee Curtis, but truthfully, the reason I am not predicting JLC is because I just don't know if I see her costar Pamela Anderson making it into Lead (more on that when I get to that category) and I just feel so weird about predicting Curtis and not Anderson...even if Anderson got left off the BAFTA list too.

The one major BAFTA (and SAG) snub that makes me really sad is Margaret Qualley as I really thought she would make it in. I suppose she still could, but it seems like too much of a longshot.

I could see a world where Grande wins CC and SAG, but then Saldana wins the BAFTA and the Oscar...or maybe Saldana will just sweep.

Both of these ladies are great, but they are both also co-leads of their respective films. In fact, Saldana is, in my opinion, THE LEAD of her film even more so than Karla Sofia Gascon. Despite my hatred for Emilia Perez, I cannot deny that Saldana gives a wonderful performance...but this is blatant category fraud. It is actually kind of hilarious and unfair that a performance like Saldana's would be competing against that of Rossellini's in Conclave in which she has less than 10 minutes of screentime. 

The thing about Rossellini is that she has such presence for such a small role, and she's been so overlooked for years that it seems as though I, and many others apparently, are willing to give her this moment. Plus - I can't help but support it since her performance also happens to be category appropriate!

While I would say Cynthia Erivo is the clear lead of Wicked, there is no denying that Grande's role of Glinda isn't much less of a lead than Elphaba. 

_______________________

BEST ACTOR:

#1 - Adrien Brody, The Brutalist

#2 - Timothee Chalamet, A Complete Unknown

#3 - Colman Domingo, Sing Sing

#4 - Ralph Fiennes, Conclave

#5 - Sebastian Stan, The Apprentice

When Daniel Craig couldn't even get nominated on his home turf at BAFTA, I decided to remove him and take a chance on Sebastian Stan...even if I still wonder if people are willing to vote for him despite the fact he is playing Trump. 

Beyond that slot, the other 4 contenders have pretty much been locked in place since last Autumn...even with Chalamet being sight-unseen by most. 

Considering the recent uptick in support for A Complete Unknown and the fact that industry tends to love its biopics, I sort of agree with those who are saying there is a strong chance Chalamet may upset Brody at SAG...but even if that is the case, I suspect Brody will rebound at BAFTA and take his second Oscar. 

Truthfully, I wish Domingo were more of a factor here as I think he is just as worthy to win as Brody...maybe even more so. He leads that ensemble so beautifully and I wish this was a performance that would be winning awards left and right.

Fiennes is incredibly overdue for an Oscar, but I do think this nomination will remain the award. It can be hard for subdued performances to win major awards, and this year, the tide just doesn't seem to be going in his direction. 

I won't be surprised if Daniel Craig takes the last slot in the end, because there is the possibility Stan splits votes between The Apprentice and A Different Man. 

Oh and then we have the random inclusion of Hugh Grant for Heretic in the mix as he managed to slip into the GG, CC, and BAFTA lineups. Who would've thought that such a small horror film could potentially get him close to his first Oscar nomination?

________________________

BEST ACTRESS:

#1 - Demi Moore, The Substance

#2 - Mikey Madison, Anora

#3 - Karla Sofia Gascon, Emilia Perez

#4 - Fernanda Torres, I'm Still Here

#5 - Cynthia Erivo, Wicked

I do love when a category can leave me in suspense and that is certainly where I am at with Lead Actress. Moore and Madison seem like the only locks, although Gascon seems highly likely as well considering how much she has popped up in the precursors and the undeniable amount of love the film has received. 

Gascon would be the first openly trans nominee, and yes, that is a record I would love to see happen...BUT...I want to make this abundantly clear...that isn't the only reason we should nominate someone. She is good in the film, but not great...and she is negatively affected by the script she is handed. I just don't want to see this film get any attention, but it seems like the idea of Gascon missing is "hopedicting".

There are other contenders who many felt would play a stronger role in this season who mostly floundered like Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, and Saoirse Ronan....and I would frankly be floored if any of them made a random Oscar comeback. I suspect if any of them do, MAYBE Jolie could do it since Maria had been on some Oscar shortlists in a couple of tech categories and, it must be said, she does do a lovely job in the film. 

But those last two slots are a bloodbath...and I am choosing to go with Fernanda Torres based on the recent surge of passion she has gotten after her Drama Globe win. Also - the stat of only two people in the last 40 years to lose out on an Oscar nomination after winning this award is very telling...especially when of those two wins, Shirley MacLaine won as part of a three-way tie (with the eventual Oscar winner that year) and Kate Winslet, who ended up winning in Lead for a different film. 

I decided to go with Erivo for the last spot which isn't exactly a crazy choice in theory. She has managed to hit all the precursors, and she is part of a highly successful and widely seen film and has the performance to back it up. However, we do see people lose out on an Oscar nomination after making it in everywhere.

Just last year, a lot of people (me included) originally thought Margot Robbie would get snubbed for Barbie due to how competitive the Lead Actress category was...but then she kept getting nominated everywhere and I followed the trend that maybe I was wrong and decided to predict her...only for her to get snubbed for the Oscar nom in the end.

A lot of people have been predicting a similar fate for Erivo...and even when I first typed out my 5 selections, I originally had Marianne Jean-Baptiste in my 5th slot. Part of me still wants to slot her in as she seems like could ride the coattails of British voting bloc plus, she got a lot of exposure as winning the Trifecta of major film critics awards (NY, LA, National Society)...but you know who else won those awards plus a Golden Globe and then got snubbed for an Oscar nomination? Sally Hawkins for Happy-Go-Lucky which also happened to be another Mike Leigh film. To add to that, I would argue Happy-Go-Lucky was a bit more embraced as a film than Hard Truths is. 

So, I won't be shocked if Jean-Baptiste is nominated...but I decided to go with Erivo in the end. 

________________________

BEST DIRECTOR:

#1 - Brady Corbet, The Brutalist

#2 - Sean Baker, Anora

#3 - Jacques Audiard, Emilia Perez

#4 - Coralie Fargeat, The Substance

#5 - Edward Berger, Conclave

Even before I saw Emilia Perez, I kept having this feeling that Audiard would get snubbed...but now that I see the overwhelming response to the film by the industry, I feel like his nomination here is practically inevitable. 

I do think Fargeat will slip in here as that edgy kind of nomination that the Academy loves to do that isn't often done at other award shows, sort of like how fellow French director Justine Triet slipped in last year for Anatomy of a Fall, a nomination I did predict by the way.

Berger seems to be on track to get in as well, even though I had him pegged as being another potential snubbed candidate. I think it is still possible, but I do think he does very sterling work and I would support a nomination for him more so than Audiard. 

Could we see critic favorite RaMell Ross get in here for The Nickel Boys? I will admit that it is one of the only remaining films I still haven't seen, but the response to his work has been pretty rapturous though not widespread.

I could also see Payal Kapadia slip in for All We Imagine as Light. 

In the end though, it really seems to be coming down to Sean Baker and Brady Corbet...but the tide seems to be going more in Corbet's direction. 

I do have a lot of issues with The Brutalist but most of that comes from Corbet & Mona Fastvold's script. I can't deny that what Corbet accomplished on such a small budget is nothing short of astounding. I don't know if the final product would make me vote for him personally in the end, but I also cannot argue with the possibility of a win.

I do want to shoutout Sean Baker though as I think he's been doing such good work for many years, and I really admired how he handled the different genre shifts in Anora. While that film has seemingly dipped in its precarious frontrunner position (which it could return to), I am still firmly in its corner right now.

________________________

BEST PICTURE:

#1 - The Brutalist

#2 - Anora

#3 - Emilia Perez

#4 - Conclave

#5 - The Substance

#6 - Wicked

#7 - Dune: Part II

#8 - A Complete Unknown

#9 - A Real Pain

#10 - Sing Sing

RUNNER-UP: The Nickel Boys

LONGSHOTS: All We Imagine as Light

The firm increase to 10 slots does make it seem like we may have to strain to find a contender or two for certain years. I also feel like we have the majority of the 10 all locked up with only one, MAYBE two films that I could see being swapped out. 

The top 8 films here are in. There is no way around that, and I would be floored if any of them miss. The final two slots seem to be a battle between three films although I COULD see All We Imagine As Light squeaking in. 

I think with the Screenplay and Culkin love, A Real Pain will eek out the nomination, but I am really torn between The Nickel Boys and Sing Sing for the last slot...and it also isn't lost on me how much of a shame it is that two films with predominant casts of color are duking it out for that spot.

To reiterate, I have only seen the latter of those two. 

It is hard to really express anything on the matter without having seen it, but even if I had seen it and loved it, that isn't going to mean it'll translate to awards success. If that were the case, about 80-85 of the Best Picture winners would be different. I am going with Sing Sing since I do expect it to have Actor and Screenplay nods, plus a possible sneak into Supporting for Maclin.

I actually see a path that four of these films could win right now...and unfortunately, Emilia Perez is one of those four.

Please go check out my review for it HERE if you haven't yet.

In short, Emilia Perez is an offensive and trashy film that doesn't work as a musical and is an insult to the trans experience and Mexican culture. The fact it is being embraced at the level it is has me completely and utterly appalled. What is going to win?

At the exact moment, I am going with The Brutalist which I think could take Picture, Director, Actor, Cinematography, and even Score rather easily...but I do get the sense that it may not be as liked enough. Its poor showing at SAG didn't help and while I don't bemoan the film for its length, I think some of us do agree the film greatly suffered in the final half due to it biting off more than it could chew in terms of plotting.

Anora could still pull it off, but I think it would need to win at PGA, and I think it would also greatly help if Mikey Madison can win at CC/SAG or BAFTA to go along with that package. I do think there could be a world where Anora could win Best Picture with just a screenplay win a la Spotlight...which speaking of that, maybe there is a world where Conclave can do that as well this year. 

While I wouldn't predict it, unless the film manages to bounce back with SAG and PGA wins, there is a classic feel to Conclave that makes it seems like a film that more traditional Oscar voters would embrace. It just doesn't seem like the tide is going that way though.

If The Brutalist had stuck the landing in its final hour or so, I likely would be more ecstatic about the idea of it winning...but I do hope Anora can pull this off. 

______________________________________________

Stan & Strong Stand Strong: My Review of Ali Abbasi's THE APPRENTICE

When Sebastian Stan made a comment that he could not get an actor to participate in one of Variety's Actors on Actors with him as they didn't want to discuss The Apprentice or the fact that he was playing Donald Trump, I found it both understandable and frustrating.

On one hand, nothing would please me more than to never have to see or think about or speak about Trump again but as I write this, we are less than a week away from him beginning his second term. However, if a film is going to present him and his life in a relatively honest manner (as much as a film typically succeeds in), I don't see a reason to necessarily knock it. Now, if the film wanted to try to glorify him in a manner that Golda did with Golda Mier, that would be a different story. 

The Apprentice doesn't glorify Trump. It also doesn't present him as a cartoon. Instead, we do get to see glimpses of an inner humanity at times. I wouldn't say it makes us sympathize with him per se, but I found that the film was pretty successful at balancing a time in Trump's life where he wasn't quite as evil as he is today, and I felt very engaged with the story.

I do think a lot of this has to do with the fact we get the diabolical Roy Cohn in the film considering he was a major figure in Trump's life during the 70s and 80s.

That is the time period we are focused on here, which is when Trump managed to supersede his father's status and became a bit of NY celebrity, and eventually, a worldwide celebrity. 

We begin in 1973, which is the year that Fred Trump was being investigated by the Federal Government for the discrimination of African American tenants being able to rent in his buildings. Trump manages to catch the attention of the rather volatile lawyer Roy Cohn, who was most known at this time as being the man who actively sought to prosecute the Rosenbergs during the Communist Blacklist era. 

Cohn offers to help on the case as he has photographic evidence that the prosecutor was seen with a younger cabana boy which causes the case to be settled for a minimal fee, despite the clear discrimination at hand.

With that, Trump and Cohn are now hand-in-hand; a duo that is at once iconic and vile. The next task at hand is Trump seeking to acquire the derelict Commodore Hotel near Grand Central Station, at a time when this area was considered crime-ridden and crumbling (i.e. The 42nd Street/NYC of an era pre-Guiliani). Cohn helps Trump get a $160 tax abatement which becomes a point of outrage for activists, and it all comes from blackmail towards the officials. 

The film also depicts Trump meeting his first wife, Ivana Zelnickova, and how he is obsessed with her at first until the marriage sours only a few years in. We see the gradual descent from Trump to TRUMP as the film progresses, but as I stated before, what Stan accomplishes with his portrayal is rather remarkable. 

Under the hand of Iranian/Danish writer/director Ali Abbasi, Sebastian Stan's Trump is perfect example of performance pitching and pacing. We can see the signs early on that he is playing Trump, but he never attempts to do an impression vocally. What is particularly marvelous here is what he achieves in terms of the mannerisms and tics. By the end of the film, he is clearly talking more like we are used to Trump talking but it doesn't feel like a caricature. 

We always talk about the success of biopic performances based on how much someone looks or sounds like the person they are portraying, but I think Stan's work deserves far more credit than it has been getting. Not that I speak for everyone who has seen it, but I do get the sense that those who have given the film a chance has acknowledged the merits he brings to this complicated role.

Perhaps even more impressive is that of Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn, fresh off his Emmy winning stint on Succession and Tony winning work in An Enemy of the People. Cohn is one of those people who is widely hated by most people with a pulse and a conscience. A lot of his legacy was put under a larger magnifying glass when legendary playwright Tony Kushner made him a character in his seminal opus Angels in America...a role that has since become a goldmine for actors ranging from Ron Liebman, Al Pacino, and Nathan Lane.  

Roger Stone, the infamous Trump political consultant who happens to be portrayed in the film by Mark Rendall, commented on the film that Strong's work as Cohn was "uncanny" & "accurate". Based on all of the videos/interviews that are available of Cohn, it is clear that Strong has him nailed. It also helps that Strong has those deep eyes that can almost disappear in the sense of losing one's soul. In fact, it was that element that made his Succession character Kendall all the more compelling once he hits rock bottom going into the second season. 

Strong has gotten a lot of flak in the press and from his Succession costars Brian Cox and Kieran Culkin for being a bit too method in his approach, and I am honestly not going to go into that debate here...but I think his work as Cohn is worthy of an Oscar. Ironically enough, he is still on the brink of even being nominated and even if he does get in, he is seemingly going to lose to Culkin for what is truthfully a lead performance. 

We also have Maria Bakalova as Ivana. While I would argue her performance doesn't get the same amount of attention or care, she does do a lovely job. Considering she first came on our radar as Borat's daughter back in 2020, I love seeing her take on a more dramatic role. She deserves to have a bigger career, for sure. 

I am not saying the film itself is close to perfect. Aside from the fact that Bakalova doesn't get much to sink her teeth into, I would still argue the film flirts with that ever cheeky and often annoying trope where the script acknowledges things that we today know all too well, but the characters comment on without that knowledge. Then again, people were talking about Trump running for president as early as the 1980s.

As it stands, I think the film flowed well and managed to be entertaining despite the horrendous subject matter at the helm. I think if you are willing to sidestep your (fully justified) hatred for Trump, you could find a lot to be intrigued with this effort...at least from an acting standpoint.

--------

THE APPRENTICE

Rating: 8/10 

A MONUMENTAL DISCONNECT : My Review of Jacques Audiard's EMILIA PEREZ

When I was a kid, I developed a rather strong fascination with the 1970s sitcom Soap, which was the brainchild of writer Susan Harris who would go on to create the legendary sitcom The Golden Girls. Harris' goal was to write a sitcom that would parody that of daytime soap operas. One of the most memorable aspects of this show was that a young Billy Crystal played one of the first prominent gay characters on network TV. 

His Jody begins the series as a gay man with very effeminate touches but as the series progresses, they keep forcing him into a path of him having relationships with women and losing those surface level effeminate elements (something that would also occur with the gay character of Steven Carrington on Dynasty). 

However, I bring the character up in particular because in the second episode of the series, Jody announces to his mother Mary (while wearing one of her dresses) that he intends to get a sex change because he always felt like a woman. We soon find out after that one of the reasons he is hopeful for this surgery is that he wants to please his secret lover, Dennis, who is a married Quarterback in the closet.

Eventually, Dennis reveals that even with the goal of Jody having this operation, it isn't really enough, and he ends their relationship. Jody decides to commit suicide by taking pills, though is saved in time thanks to the wise words of his roommate in the hospital. 

After this...the trans element is never discussed again.

For the 1970s, this was certainly the kind of topic not often seen on TV...though more dramatic shows, like Medical Center, tackled the topic when Robert Reed (most famous as playing Mike Brady) played a man looking to transition into being a woman...but a lot of this content plays as dated by today's standards. 

I have had a history with the trans community having dated both trans women and trans men, including having a trans boyfriend now. I am not claiming to be an expert on every aspect of their lifestyles and struggles, but I am certainly an ally.

When I first heard of the film Emilia Perez back when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2024, all of it sounded very intriguing: Jacques Audiard, the rather blunt French filmmaker made a musical set in Mexico about a trans drug cartel leader featuring the likes actresses such as Zoe Saldana and Selena Gomez? 

And then the four leading ladies (Saldana/Gomez/Karla Sofia Gascon/Adriana Paz) all jointly won the Best Actress prize at the festival. Buzz was swirling rather intensely...seemingly on par with the American film that won the prestigious Palme D'or: Sean Baker's Anora. 

Netflix acquired Emilia Perez and it seemed like all was surging towards it being a beloved contender. Even now as I write this, the film has been pretty embraced by the industry and is expected to get several Oscar nominations...possibly entering the double digits. 

But then...something happened...

As more people began watching it, the response seemed far more vitriolic. As I write this, the film has a 76% on Rotten Tomatoes. To put that into perspective, some of the more hated Best Picture wins of the last 20 years: Crash and Green Book have 74 and 77% percent respectively. 

But if you were to look on the highly popular film app Letterboxd which has film fanatics rank films on a 5-star scale, Green Book has a rather respectful 3.8; Crash has a lesser 3.0

Emilia Perez? 

2.7!!!!

Having set up all this preamble, where do I stand on Emilia Perez?

Oh, it's trash. This movie is absolute TRASH. 

As a musical, it is trash. As a script, it is trash. As a means to try to create a dialogue around the trans experience, it is trash. 

The film's ONLY redeemable qualities would come from the performances, particularly that of Zoe Saldana, who is yet another egregious example of a performer being campaigned in Supporting when she is not only a lead in the film, but I would argue she is THE lead in the film. 

Saldana plays Rita, an overworked Mexico City lawyer who gets kidnapped and taken to meet Manitas (Karla Sofia Gascon), a very powerful drug cartel leader who is looking to fake his death, undergo gender-affirming surgery, and assume a new life...even though it would mean abandoning his wife Jessi (Selena Gomez) and two kids. 

We are then swept up in the plotting so quickly that it is hard to even comprehend or believe all of the story beats...not to mention the absolute disaster of a song "La vaginoplastia", that would be funny if it also weren't so crude and ill advised.

When the film advances 4 years into the future, Rita is in London and gets approached by Manitas, now going by the name Emilia Perez. She has a burning desire to return to see Jessi and the children, so Rita agrees to bring her home as a distant cousin of Manitas who agreed to help with the children. 

Jessi and the kids had relocated to Switzerland following the "death" of Manitas and objects to this arrangement but mostly accepts so she can return to Mexico to reunite with Gustavo, a former lover she had seen while married to Manitas/Emilia. 

As I stated, the performances are what help keep the film a tad bearable. I do feel Saldana is worthy of the praise she is receiving, but it is not a supporting performance. I do understand the value of honoring a trans actress with an Oscar nomination and I would love to see that happen, but I also feel like we have other stronger performances this year. I do think if Gascon gets in, it would be deserving but the Actress category is so strong, I would love to see some of the more "on the brink" contenders get in.

I do feel like a nomination for Selena Gomez would be too much. While she does show promise, I also feel like she is the greenest of the ensemble...and not to mention, her Spanish speaking doesn't come across as that believable. Not that I am some expert on the subject, but living in New York, I do hear the language spoken quite often.

There is a lot I can say about Emilia Perez. I feel like I kept distracting myself talking about past experiences, but the reason I brought those up is that I feel like the trans representation in this film is rather offensive. 

I appreciate giving Gascon this kind of platform, but as a character, Emilia is not exactly deep. We got one moment where we see her admiring herself post-surgery...but beyond that, we learn next-to-nothing but her existence as a woman. Everything about her is only through her past life under her now dead name. The whole thing has this permeating stench of transphobia told from the point of view of a white cis French man giving us a caricature campy looking Mexico drenched in stereotypes. The film even opens randomly on a mariachi band with glowing sombrero hats to show us "Hey! We are south of the border!".

The fact that this film even has a path to the Best Picture win is positively atrocious and shameful. This would easily become the worst Best Picture winner since Crash. It almost makes me want to go apologize to the people who made Green Book. It also makes me long for something banal and predictable like Coda. 

Nearly every aspect of Emilia Perez leaves me overwhelmed in the worst way. For a film getting this kind of vitriol, I expected to walk away hoping to find something to defend it beyond the performances, but I just can't. It is so far removed from the trans experience that even the basic concept of a trans woman smelling like a man is an egregious error as her taking HRT would prevent such a thing.

Emilia Perez is a prime example of a movie that wants to make us feel but only aims for the lowest common denominator. We watch scene by scene pass by and it is as if most of these characters are about as skin deep is a thin piece of wet paper.

--------------

EMILIA PEREZ

Rating: 3/10

They HAD a Good Thing Going: My Review of Brady Corbet's THE BRUTALIST

**Some spoilers throughout, and plot developments will be discussed. Consider this is a fair warning**

When I sit down to write a review for a film, I usually have a very strong idea of what I want to convey. I have had instances where I was left a bit bewildered by how I felt about a film when I would be preparing my review; recent examples of this feeling would be The Zone of Interest and The Substance. 

The Brutalist is something else entirely.

Before diving into this review, I want to talk about the setting in which I got to see the film. In order for the film to meet the requirements for Oscar consideration by the end of the 2024 calendar year, A24 released The Brutalist in 4 theaters: 2 in NY, 2 in LA.

I got a ticket for a matinee at Village East by Angelika. At the screening, we were also given a commemorative poster along with a pamphlet based on the center/monument that Adrien Brody's character Laszlo Toth designs in the film. 

As you can see from the poster, this screening was being projected from 70mm film, a process that was known as VistaVision. 

VistaVision has been relatively obsolete for the past 60 years. It had been popular during the 1950s when had been used by directors like Cecil B. DeMille for The Ten Commandments and Alfred Hitchcock for some of his most seminal works: North by Northwest and notably Vertigo, which is actually the only film until The Brutalist that I managed to see a 70mm screening of.

There is something that feels inherently grand and nostalgic about The Brutalist. Perhaps it is strange to say "nostalgic" because it would be nostalgia for a time of cinema that I was not even alive for. A great deal has been said about how The Brutalist is a 3.5 hour epic with a 15 minute intermission built in. The concept of film intermissions went out of vogue during the 1970s and never returned. Frankly, several films of recent years really could've benefitted from an intermission like Oppenheimer (though I got through that one pretty easily) and Killers of the Flower Moon (which desperately needed one), come to mind. 

I certainly had reservations going into it. A 3+ hour film is a hard ask for anyone, but when done well, these longer films shouldn't feel like a slog to sit through.

The fact of the matter is that The Brutalist was actually fairly easy to sit through. I would even go as far as to say that when the film hit intermission, the first half had flown by and I was eager to proceed with the film rather than feeling uneasy about the next 1.5 hours ahead of me.

However - before I proceed...allow me to utilize a rather potentially crude analogy...

Let's say you are laying in bed. You have a man approaching you who is handsome and confident...and he has a rather prominent tentpole effect happening in his shorts. 

You feel excited and eager and you are so ready for whatever comes next. After about an hour and half of passionate and glorious foreplay, you sort ease into a quiet sense of bliss before returning to finish the deed. 

But then, he feels very emboldened and just wants to try so many different things, new things, strange things. It feels messy and meandering and as if he is tripping over his own erection.

And that, my dear readers, is The Brutalist. 

Richard Lawson of Vanity Fair stated that the film was "half a masterpiece". I have to agree with that wholeheartedly. 

I cannot begin to tell you what a jarring experience this film was for me. It isn't that the second half is necessarily horrible per se, but the first half of the film is dripping with style and passion and confidence and beauty to a point where one is practically in awe. 

For a film that was over 3 hours long, I will say that it did fly by at an impressive rate What does shock me was that despite that lengthy running time...I felt the film was too rushed. You heard me right: I wanted The Brutalist to be even longer than its 215 minute running time. 

The Brutalist begins in 1947 and lasts up until 1960 (with an epilogue occurring at a later date). The first half is titled: 

PART 1: The Enigma of Arrival 

It follows Laszlo Toth (Adrien Brody), a Hungarian-Jewish architect who immigrates to the United States following WWII. During the war, he was separated from his wife Erszebet (Felicity Jones) and his niece Zsofia (Raffey Cassidy) when they were put into different concentration camps. He is uncertain if either of them are still alive. 

When he first arrives, he lives with his cousin who owns a furniture store outside of Philadelphia who offers him work at the store as well. 

He eventually crosses paths with a wealthy industrialist named Harrison Van Buren (Guy Pearce), when he is asked to help renovate his study as a surprise by his son Harry (Joe Alwyn). While this doesn't go well at first, Harrison eventually realizes that Laszlo was a highly respected architect...granted it took until a magazine gushed about the study in an article for him to take notice...but Harrison owns up to that ignorance and wants to find a way to help out Laszlo. 

He offers Laszlo a chance to stay in a guest house on his spacious Doylestown property and offers his lawyer to help with expediting the immigration of Erszebet and Zsofia to the states. Right near the end of Part 1, Harrison announces that he wants to build a huge community center to honor the death of his mother which would include a library, auditorium, gymnasium, and chapel. As if it were divine intervention, Harrison feels Laszlo was brought to him for the purpose of bringing this idea to life. And with that project beginning to form, it is announced that Erszebet and Zsofia are about to be en route to Pennsylvania when we reach...

PART 2: The Hard Core of Beauty

We finally get to meet Erszebet and Zsofia, the former is in a wheelchair after having developed osteoporosis in the concentration camp, the latter is now mute. 

Being thrust into this new world is clearly a massive shift for these two ladies, but it is clear right off the bat that Erszebet is a strong woman with an intense intellect; especially when we realize she is a graduate of Oxford. 

During construction of the center, László learns of changes to the design and materials made without his approval, and butts heads with the other developers. Though László intends to pay out of his pocket for the materials necessary to his intended vision, Harry warns him to stay in his place, saying he is merely "tolerated," and makes unsavory sexual allusions to Zsófia, whom László warns to stay away from Harry, though it seems heavily implied that he already assaulted her. Sometime later, the train carrying László’s materials derails and crashes, critically injuring two brakemen. With the expected legal fees and the increased cost it would take to transport the materials, Harrison abandons the construction and lays off all the workers, including László.

This is when I would argue the film begins to take its descent into being a bit all over the place. 

We then jump ahead a few years to find that Laszlo, Erszebet, and Zsofia are now living in NY where he works for a design firm, Erszebet found a gig with a women's magazine, and Zsofia, now overcoming being mute, has married and is looking to move to Jerusalem with him.

Harrison's lawyer comes to NY in search of Laszlo and lets him know that Harrison intends to forego the library as part of the center to cover the legal fees, which means that the project is back on. Erszebet is understandably frustrated with this development, but lets Laszlo go back to Doylestown. 

I am going to end the basic synopsis for Part 2 here, because I am going to get more into SPOILER TERRITORY here while discussing the rest. I will put an "end spoilers" statement once I am done with this section. 

There is a major shift in the plot that occurs when Harrison rapes Laszlo while they are on a trip to Italy to retrieve marble from a quarry. It is clearly meant to be a plot twist, but it also feels out of nowhere and I would argue that it seems to be there for shock value and doesn't add anything to the plot. In fact, something like this should have drastic ramifications and yet I feel the film glosses over all of them. We are even deprived the pay off of Laszlo confiding in Erszebet of the assault just so we can get a bit of a shock reveal that she is willing to confront Harrison about the rape in front of his family and dinner party guests. 

Once Erszebet leaves, we realize that Harrison disappeared and a search is on to find him. While left a bit ambiguous, it is implied that he may have committed suicide. 

It is with that scene that the film then cuts to its epilogue set in 1980. Laszlo is confined to a wheelchair and we learn that Erszebet had recently passed away. 

He is being honored at an event in Venice for his buildings. We learn that the community center was finally completed a decade after the events of part 2, and his work was heavily inspired by his experiences during the Holocaust. An adult Zsofia gives the speech and ends it with a line he once said to her: "No matter what others try and sell you, it is the destination, not the journey". 

In many ways, this quote feels very much in line with how I am responding to the film. The overall destination is rapturous and sweeping and it is hard to bash the film in many ways...and yet...I highly struggle with what Corbet/Fastvold did with Part 2. 

I did make a point earlier to call out how I wanted The Brutalist to be longer. I don't want to say that Corbet/Fastvold bit off more than they could chew, but the film does suffer a bit from being simultaneously stuffed with plot and neglecting of substance once we return from intermission.

One major aspect of the plot I have not even mentioned yet is that Laszlo becomes a heroin addict, and this is something he shares with his friend Gordon, played by the luminous (and wasted in this role) Issach de Bankole. Like me sidestep for a moment to just state that a lot of the side characters in this film do feel fairly underdeveloped and how it does seem a bit harsh to have the film's only main character of color to be the one who shares Laszlo's heroin addiction. 

The heroin addiction never really seems to be leading to anything until Laszlo decides to inject Erszebet with it when she runs out of her pain medication. Perhaps even more crazy is that despite being such a studious user of it, he gives her too much to the point that she nearly dies. 

And before we know it, she recovers and the film doesn't speak of it again. 

Storylines involving assault and drug addiction could lead to truly compelling and dramatic material, but it is almost as if Corbet/Fastvold wanted to fit all they could in the final hour to make it is crazy as possible. It makes the weight of such truly heinous acts as rape or the tragedy of nearly dying of an overdose feel a lot less heavy. 

END OF SPOILERS

Dare I ask: what is The Brutalist trying to tell us? If we were to be completely surface level, it is a take on the American Dream and the struggle that it takes to try to achieve your goals. The final line talking about destinations and journeys ties into this, but I also feel like this journey was likely a lot more easygoing than similar people that may have the trajectory of someone like Laszlo. 

The ending tries to tug at a sentimental string within us, but I am not so sure it lands as well as Corbet intended. It still feels like a lot of the emotions needed for it to land were sacrificed to go for the drastic plot shifts and dramatic tension that came with them. 

When it comes to the performances of our leads, I can't deny that the buzz and acclaim that Adrien Brody is receiving is richly deserved. I would agree that this may be the finest performance of his career and he may very well win a second Lead Oscar for it. Within his first minutes onscreen, he has a sobbing fit that is exquisitely done. After that scene, he totally had me compelled the entire time.

This is Felicity Jones' best work. Despite my qualms with Part 2, she comes in and dominates nearly as much as Brody does. She has such a strong presence and despite her being frail due to her condition, that strength shines through and you can't help but admire her conviction. The one-take scene in which she confronts Harrison over his actions towards Laszlo in the waning moments of Part 2 is magnificent and I would support any push for her to get the Supporting Actress win. She does face stiff competition from Zoe Saldana and Ariana Grande, who both have an advantage for basically being co-leads of their films. 

Guy Pearce is an interesting case for me.

I have always considered him a great actor and loved him in some of my favorite films from the early days of my film discovery: L.A. Confidential and Memento. He has to play a wealthy, pompous businessman at a time when the public attitude given to these figures were grandiose and presentational. I did find myself struggling with some of his choices (or likely the direction that Corbet took hm in), but I did warm up to him when I began to think of his performative style as being era appropriate, especially when looking at similar real-life figures from that era or in films that tapped into that kind of aesthetic, like many of the male figures in Douglas Sirk films. 

As a film script, I do admire the ambition of Brady Corbet and his partner (work & in life) Mona Fastvold. I just stress that they would've greatly benefitted from trying to focus on maybe one or two of the storyline threads throughout Part 2 rather than trying to fit in all of the shock value/salaciousness they hoped to achieve. *SPOILER* It also felt kind of unsettling for me in that it gave these truly horrendous acts of rape and drug use a quick pass over and didn't allow us time to truly sit with it or cope with it. *END SPOILER*

As a director, however, it is clear that Brady Corbet has what it takes to make a masterful film. What he accomplished with just a $10 million budget has been yet another talking point that has the industry buzzing, and I will gladly state that pretty much every directorial choice he made had me enthralled...and that his own script was what became the disservice. 

The film's cinematography, by Lol Crawley, is nothing short of stunning. I think this is a clear Oscar winner unless they want to opt for Dune: Part Two. A lot of the driving/traveling shots, particularly the one used for the opening credits, seems so simple and yet very unique at the same time. It pulled me in combined, especially combined with the film's score.

Speaking of the score, by Daniel Blumberg, it was getting a lot of high praise from a lot of reviewers I had read. What I heard of it prior to seeing the film didn't truly stick out to me, I must admit. This is a clear example of how much a film score can truly add something to a film, because hearing this score within the confines of the film made me realize how truly epic it actually is. I now find myself thinking about a lot of it. 

With that, I am going to wrap this review up...and I am left feeling enthralled and befuddled. 

If I were to take just Part 1 and rank it for what it accomplished, it would be a much higher rating for Part 2...and yet, I still feel almost sad to give the whole film a lower rating for that reason. 

I acknowledge when the film works, because its overall presentation is nothing short of stunning. It just suffers too much from the script, and I think that is where the problem truly lies...and it is hard to look past that when it comes to Part 2.

I am going to break down my final rating as follows:

The Brutalist

Part 1: The Enigma of Arrival

Rating 9.5/10

--

Part 2: The Hard Core of Beauty

Rating: 6/10

--

Overall Rating for The Brutalist: 7.5/10

____________________________________________

A QUICK POSTMORTEM:

The overall film experience is worth your time, and if any of you reading this haven't seen the film actually do feel compelled to see it, I highly recommend going to check it out.

If anything, I would love to hear from you. I think that the Part 2 discourse could be come fodder among film buffs and critics in the years to come, so that is something I would love to hear your take on.

SOMETHING WICKED EPIC THIS WAY COMES: My Quick Review of Jon M. Chu's WICKED

 I used to be one of the annoying Theatre Kids that are often made fun of as being a bit melodramatic and a bit full of themselves. Maybe I was a bit subdued but the signs of that were there.

I think what made me stand out compared to some is that I had more of a true pretentious vibe...which anybody who has known me for years or has read this blog knows I tend to be someone who flaunts films and other entertainment projects that are indie or foreign or simply a bit niche. 

I had just turned 15 when Wicked opened on Broadway in 2003...and eventually, I would see it a couple of years later with Eden Espinosa and Megan Hilty in the leading roles. My response to the musical at the time surprised me because I had actually LIKED it...although it was a tempered admiration. 

I would listen to the cast recording but for every song I really loved, there were other songs that left me feeling underwhelmed. Honestly, it is pretty on brand for a Stephen Schwartz score in that regard. 

As a whole show, I ended up not remembering specific plot details in the nearly 20 years since I had seen it done live, but what I did know is that as a piece of entertainment, it offered juicy roles for two women in that one gets to frequently belt her ass off while the other arguably gets an amazing character arc that is rather effective.

When I heard that Wicked was going to be split into two parts as a film, I was very skeptical of this. The actual Broadway production runs roughly 2 hours and 45 minutes including a 15-minute intermission.

Then it was announced that part one all by itself would be 2 hours and 40 minutes long. 

I was simply gob smacked by that. WHY drag it out more than it needs to be?! Is it even necessary?!

Once the reviews started coming out, the response seemed practically bursting with joy at what was achieved onscreen...and even more surprisingly, the running time was deemed perfectly justified and the effort made by Chu and his team was seen as a resounding success.

The film wasn't without its detractors, just like any piece of entertainment, but the vitriol thrown at those who didn't respond to the movie with anything less than swift praise became rather amusing to me. However, I did have to wonder...will the snob in me persist? Will I end up leaving the theatre wondering why this is being called by some of one of the greatest movie musicals ever made?

I ended up leaving the theatre with this statement in my head: 

Wicked is one of the greatest movie musicals ever made.

I am not saying it is perfect or even necessarily a masterpiece, but what John M. Chu achieved here is nothing short of a stunning effort. This was a movie that was clearly created with a lot of love and passion for the material and for the entire lore that is held for Oz as an artistic property. 

The long running time wasn't even that felt by me. In fact, it honestly helped strengthen a lot of the story beats and gave them time to breathe...particularly seeing the growth of Elphaba and Glinda's relationship. 

However...this is a movie that truly gives us a sweeping definitive take on the Land of Oz. From the very first moments when the "good news" that Elphaba is dead is spread throughout Oz and we hear the epic opening notes of "No One Mourns the Wicked", you are truly thrust into this world with absolute force.

In fact, the whole opening, complete with a stark relation to British Folk Horror films (you will know it when you see it), is marvelously done...but frankly a lot of the film can be described as that. It is simply in many ways the greatest film of this material we could possibly get. 

As our two leads, Cynthia Ervio and Ariana Grande do not disappoint. These two are on the top of their game and they manage to make an absolute meal out of these two roles which have been so indelibly linked to Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth. The rest of the ensemble is up to task, but I did especially love Bowen Yang and Bronwyn James as Pfannee and Shenshen, the two catty friends of Glinda who would give the girls from The Plastics a run for their money. 

But I think for me in the grand scheme, I kept focusing a lot on how the film was treating the material with its extended run time. I do think this practice, along with utilizing CGI in creating a realistic depiction of Peter Dinklage as Dr. Dillamond, helped give more weight to the Animal Rights aspect of the story which doesn't hit as strongly onstage seeing a man in prosthetics play the role and have it come across as awkward and mildly funny whereas it does pack more of a punch in the film. 

This is going to be a very short review, if I am being honest...but I did just want to express SOMETHING about the film. Beyond everything I said above, I will leave you with this.

"Defying Gravity" has become known as one of the all-time legendary act-one closers in musical theatre...and while it is certainly effective onstage, there are only so many things you can achieve while staging blocking at the Gershwin Theater. 

Film does allow for so much in terms of spectacle and while that may not always be what is needed to make a film work, I think a film like Wicked benefits from this...and the final moments with "Defying Gravity" were absolutely glorious.

I think I had chills for pretty much that entire sequence and even began to get misty eyed because I was so overwhelmed by how epically this song was being presented. Somehow, they managed to exceed my expectations and then some with a lot of the film...but then that ending came and I seriously thought it was one of the most thrilling things I had ever seen onscreen. 

With film, the possibilities are...say it with me...unlimited. 

Jon M. Chu and his creative team definitely got that memo.

WICKED RATING: 9/10 

I SING THE BODY HORROR: My Review of Coralie Fargeat's THE SUBSTANCE

*SPOILERS AND KEY PLOT POINTS WILL BE DISCUSSED*

There are times I sit down to write a review, and my thoughts are pretty easy to pin down. I would argue my recent review of SATURDAY NIGHT is a prime example of this. 

This is NOT one of those times.

I feel like The Substance just appeared out of nowhere earlier this year when it made quite the splash at the Cannes Film Festival where it netted a win for its writer/director Coralie Fargeat in the Screenplay competition.

When it made its eventual US premiere back in September, the response was simultaneously rapturous and revolting...which is about what one might expect for a body horror film. However, what made a lot of this buzz very interesting to follow was that it seemed to be the next entry in the "Can This Horror Film Get Nominated for Awards?" discussion that has seemed to happen every year since Toni Collette got unfairly shafted for her work in Ari Aster's brutal horror drama Hereditary during the 2019 award season.

While it is still early...at least in case from what I have seen so far...2024 is shaping up to be a rather meager year for film, and this isn't a surprise. I sort of feel like I expected a dip after the 2023 Writers Strike, but it also just feels especially jarring considering 2023 shaped up to be one of my favorite years for film of this century so far. 

While this question will age poorly depending on the outcome, one has to wonder: can The Substance actually break into the awards race in several major categories?

There seems to be a pretty obvious divide with this opinion with some thinking it'll actually slip into the Picture, Actress, Screenplay races along with a couple of tech categories while some think it'll be lucky to just get the Makeup/Hairstyling nomination.

If I were to make the prediction now, I think that it will actually score a couple of those major nominations based on enough of the passion the film has...but it'll be interesting to see how it pans out considering very, very, very, very few horror films get nominated for Best Picture...let alone one that is a rather graphic body horror film. 

Does that mean I love the film personally?

Honestly, I wouldn't say I loved it...but I am not sure if it is an easy movie to love. Although, I love the idea of it being embraced with nominations because this is a movie that took big, bold chances addressing issues that are clearly a huge problem for women not just in Hollywood, but in general...and I would argue that despite some quibbles, Fargeat created a truly vibrant, shocking, graphic experience here.

This is a film that lacks subtlety, and at times, that did pull me out of it in ways I wish it didn't...and while this may seem like a drastic comparison, it sort of reminded me of Don't Look Up.

Before some of you get very angry at that comment, I will say The Substance was certainly better than Don't Look Up, which I did like to some degree, but that was a film that opted for pushing its message forward with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face. Comedically though, it worked well a lot of the time in that film, and it made the final act all the more poignant. It also served to respond to how little people seemed to respond to the insanity of what was happening around them...and in that film's case, it was the clear end of the world that was upon them and the clear Trump team parallels that led the charge with their obtuseness.

Here, Fargeat takes the idea of a woman being pushed to the brink because she is being told she is too old and dated in style and presents in ways that are at times cartoonish and campy, but also horrific and tragic.

The protagonist is Elisabeth Sparkle, played by Demi Moore, who is a fading Hollywood movie star who...strangely...hosts a primetime fitness show because THAT would actually happen. She is fired by her producer Harvey (Dennis Quaid) over a lunch where he sloppily eats shrimp and has the inner depth of a sidewalk puddle. Being named Harvey is another clear blunt example of Fargeat going for the obvious, but hey...a shallow character may as well be treated with no real care. 

When Elisabeth leaves to go home, she notices a billboard of hers being promptly torn down and her distraction leads to a pretty brutal car accident. Miraculously, she seems to have survived it fairly unscathed but is clearly distraught. The young nurse in the room waits for the doctor to leave and he proceeds to check her spine. After cryptically telling her she would be a perfect candidate, he slips her a flash drive advertising a black-market serum called "The Substance", which promises a "younger, more beautiful, more perfect" version of oneself. 

This product has clear warnings/guidelines to follow, just as if one were caring for a Mogwai. Once you create the younger version of yourself, you must live your existence as both because in the end, you are one and the same. You will live one week as younger you and the next week as the original you, rinse and repeat. NO EXCEPTIONS! If you hold out longer than the allotted time, there will be consequences. You can also only create one "perfect" you, so the serum cannot be used again following the first input. 

Elisabeth injects the serum, collapses to the floor with convulsions, and essentially births her perfect younger self from a slit formed right at her spine. And thus, we get Sue, played by Margaret Qualley.

Her first assignment is to answer the casting call that from the paper that announced that the search for the new Elisabeth Sparkle is underway...with the caveat that she must be within the age range of 18-30.

As we expect, she singlehandedly impresses Harvey and his gaggle of sleazy cads to land the gig, proving that she was always the right one for the job, but now seemingly has the youth to seem worthy of the gig.

As expected though, the inner demons of Elisabeth cause her to battle herself but the message from the guy from "The Substance" is clear: this is all her own doing. Sue is Elisabeth/Elisabeth is Sue. And that is when the film begins to progress down its more abstract and darker path.

As a queer man, I do hear a lot about and have even felt a certain uneasiness with growing older...but at the same time, I also find myself wholly embracing it. This is why as a man, especially a cis white man, I know that I have no authority to speak on this experience because I can clearly see from the outside that what women are put through in pretty much every aspect, Hollywood or not, is atrocious.

We are a watching a woman being so desperate to hold onto everything she knows and her youth that she goes deep into an old warehouse to retrieve a serum that she truly knows nothing about and then injects it inside of her. 

This is where I think Demi Moore excels because she truly makes us believe this journey, even if it is clearly heightened to an almost cartoonish satirical level. 

Moore has never been nominated for an Oscar, and has only ever had a couple of nominations from organizations like the Golden Globes, but I would say she could very well find herself making the list this year. Considering the fine lines she has to stomp down, I love how much she embraced this role with complete abandon. In many ways, you could argue how this role progresses leads her into the "hagsplotation" area that was created by Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

Moore is tragic, angry, passionate, fiery, hilarious, and horrific...and I hope that she will get the attention she deserves. Also - she looks absolutely fantastic and it only further proves how asinine the treatment of women is in the Hollywood system.

Then we have Margaret Qualley and much like Moore, she has charisma that simply sparks off the screen and, I have to admit, she looks totally hot in this role. Fargeat clearly filmed a lot of Qualley's scenes as if it were she exploiting her in a "male gaze" manner and it is absolutely affective. You could even argue that her Sue is the film's "villain" but that is where the whole idea of this narrative is fascinating because she is still Elisabeth in the end.

I do think the film does drag a bit and could've used an edit, especially during the final 45 minutes or so, but within that final act, the film pretty much goes HARD.  The practical effects used on Moore and Qualley are magnificent. I can't speak for the upcoming Nosferatu as I have not seen it and the early reviews say the makeup is exceptional in it...but if there is any justice, The Substance will win that category. 

I have battled with a lot of inner thoughts about this film, not certain if I loved it or found it to be too abrasive in the wrong ways. I won't say that I loved it necessarily or say that it is a masterpiece, but I do highly admire what Fargeat achieved here. 

It is gross, it is unnerving, it is campy, it is tragic...and it is also highly vibrant and stylish, and even reminiscent over classic horror films...particularly The Shining and a lot of the Kubrick style cinematography/aesthetics. 

Maybe I would've appreciated a little more digging into the characters, but alas, I think Fargeat deserves to be commended here and I am definitely curious to see what she comes up with next.

THE SUBSTANCE

RATING: 7.5/10

Written from New York, It's My Review of Jason Reitman's SATURDAY NIGHT!

 I have posted content about SNL on my blog over the last few years ranging from discussing my 20 Favorite Sketches (I need to re-edit that post, but feel free to look regardless!) to talking about the troubled history of original cast member Garrett Morris (which will come into play in this review), and my episode-by-episode reviews of the infamous 6th season which is still a work-in-progress.

Needless to say, I do have an interest in SNL but I find my love of it to also be highly tumultuous. This isn't exactly an uncommon opinion from those who have been avid watchers of the long running variety series which, as of this writing, is currently in the midst of its 50th season. 

In my childhood, I really enjoyed watching the old "Best Of" specials ranging from cast members like Eddie Murphy and Gilda Radner or sketch-based specials like SNL Goes Commercial. I began watching SNL first run in the mid-to-late 90s with the cast that included Will Ferrell and Molly Shannon. Since then, I have seen the show truly have some high peaks and low valleys in terms of quality. In fact, around my early years of high school, I sat through two of the worst seasons of the show's history: 29 and 30...and these were so bad that I actually stopped watching consistently ever since, even when the show did have an uptick in quality (which it did shortly thereafter). 

We all have our attachments to certain eras. I still think the best combo of stellar writing and cast members comes from the late 80s/early 90s era that included the likes of Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman, and Jan Hooks.

However, we can't ignore where it all began. The first era of SNL, which aired from 1975-1980 is legendary and truly iconic. While some of these episodes have a roughness to them that feels rather erratic at times, you can't help but marvel at them. This was a new property and considering the limitations that the show's imitable creator Lorne Michaels had to work with, he often turned dross into gold. 

So when I heard that a film was being made about the early days of SNL, I was truly thrilled. I actually would love to see more content like this about the history of SNL, but it should be made clear: I am actually not as enamored with the final product as I would've liked to be. 

Saturday Night is a film that manages to have some truly great qualities, but its concept and approach both strengthen and weaken the results by the time the credits roll. 

How accurate WAS Saturday Night? Honestly, a lot of the stuff that happened in the film did occur, but was either heightened for the moment or didn't happen on the night that was being depicted. This is, however, not the reason I am going to criticize the film because that kind of plotting happens all the time in films about true stories/events.

Saturday Night takes place on the night of the series premiere: October 11th, 1975...and despite the fact the show is going live in less than 2 hours, Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle from The Fabelmans) is trying his best to make sure his show will get on the air smoothly...but he is battling a network, NBC, who gave him a studio with equipment that is 20 years outdated and falling apart and a group of actors and writers whose insecurities or egos or both are adding to the chaos backstage. 

These days, I would argue SNL is the definition of a well-oiled machine...perhaps even too much so. I mentioned how the show in those early years would have a rough quality and a lot of that was due to Lorne Michaels trying to find the formula that would make for a successful variety show. I would argue that he found it in various forms of confidence throughout the first 3 seasons, but from the start, he wasn't sure exactly what the show would be. That uncertainty would prove to be a major hurdle for Michaels, whose smoke and mirrors act of trying to steer away the head honchos of the network nearly costs him going live on air at 11:30. 

The fast-paced nature of the film is what makes the film highly entertaining and watchable...but the unfortunate thing about this is that it lacks intimacy. I am not saying every film has to be a super long epic that will drain every drop of tears from your eyes, but it is hard to stay invested in the well being of these people.

In fact, I actually began to wonder how well this film would play to those who aren't familiar with the show's history. Knowing who, say, Dick Ebersol is (played here by Cooper Hoffman) certainly worked in my favor but I do have to wonder if this film could've played as even more slight to most other people without having knowledge of the deeper history of the show. 

The fact the film is so quickly paced doesn't allow us a chance to grow to care much about the characters, except for Lorne Michaels to an extent...and I think a lot of that is due to how LaBelle's natural boyish "aw shucks" demeanor translates onscreen. 

Although, there is one actor I want to single out in particular and that is Lamorne Morris, who most people would recognize as Winston from New Girl and his recent Emmy winning turn as Trooper Whit Farr on season 5 of Fargo. 

Here, he plays the fascinating man that is Garrett Morris, the show's first cast member of color and someone who was a bit of an outsider within the show. 

*Sidenote: Lamorne Morris has said in interviews that as a kid, he would claim that Garrett Morris was his actual father, a story he has since been able to tell Garrett, who is currently 87 years old as of this writing. Just wanted to add that as I find it utterly adorable.*

When watching Morris play his "father", I was actually very impressed with the absolute care he took to capturing his presence.

G. Morris came from a theatre background having worked with the likes of Harry Belafonte, got training at Julliard, became a published playwright, performed opera throughout the world, and was a key member of the Black Arts Repertory Theater in Harlem. 

Michaels had read a play of Morris' that he quite liked and hired him as a writer, despite the fact he had never written in short-form before. Some of the work he turned in, including a superhero sketch entitled "Colored Man" was received with apathy by the show's mercurial headwriter Michael O'Donoghue (who is played perfectly in the film by Tommy Dewey), but considering he had experience as an actor, Michaels decided to hire him as a cast member in hopes to bring people of color onto the roster of the show. 

Morris has a swagger about him, but the world of SNL clearly brought him a level of insecurity that nearly destroyed him. If you read my post about him, you will learn more but the movie does flirt with the fact that Morris would turn to drugs to cope with the fact that he just didn't seem to mesh with the world of the show as it was developing. Although - the movie does show us he would have the chops as he does get to sing one of the more famous bits that would happen later on in the first season: singing his "Kill All The Whiteys I See" number. 

All of the ensemble truly did a wonderful job at capturing what these people were/are, but Morris did Morris proud here. I sort of wish maybe he had gotten a little more screentime, because I think this performance would be worthy of an Oscar nomination if it had more meat on the bone. 

It was also rather fun to see Nicholas Braun, fresh off his stint as Cousin Greg on Succession, playing both Andy Kaufmann and Jim Henson...or see Matthew Rhys disappear into the brilliant facade of George Carlin. 

So yes, this isn't exactly a deep review, but I am not sure the film requires one. I found it to be highly enjoyable, but it was also a glossy and semi-cartoonish attempt at capturing a true legendary moment in time. The biggest problem is it just makes you wish there was a way they could dig deeper.

SATURDAY NIGHT

RATING: 6.5/10