F**k Oscars finale (Pick-a-palooza): Best Picture predictions

Here is the last installment of an ongoing conversation that Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz and I have every year. You can read out takes on all the other categories on his blog here. 

Brian: The Safdie Brothers! I just snubbed them from my own snub section! And Uncut Gems was my favorite movie of the year! Gee, maybe this is harder than we're letting on. Haha.

Anyway, moving on to our final category, Best Picture. You and I have both said that, nomination snubs aside, 2019 was a great year for films. It seems like director's are finally getting some opportunities to take chances. 

Even in typical genre fare, we had something like Joker that never would have been made even 5 years or so ago. Jordan Peele is still crushing it and pushing boundaries, the Safdie Brothers (won't forget them again!) are fresh and exciting, and we got an all-time effort from perhaps the greatest American filmmaker of all-time, Martin Scorsese. And, like it or not, Netflix is filling the void for weightier films. It was a great year to be a film fan.

Looking at Best Picture, we're still stuck in a weird place where the Academy can nominate 10 films, but doesn't seem to ever do it. Would it kill them to put one more film in this category to make it an even 10? I don't think it would lessen any of the other films if, say, Us or Uncut Gems were included in this category. Why make a rule and then weirdly interpret it? Looking at just the 9 films that made the cut, it's looking like it's coming down to 2 or 3 possible winners. I was inclined to say that The Irishman had a serious chance at this category, but I don't think that the Netflix bias will be lifted here. I was also looking at Joker potentially having a big night, but I'm not getting those vibes anymore.

To me, it comes down to 1917 or Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Two really well-done films in typical Oscar bait genres (war movies and movies about the industry). I keep hearing buzz that 1917 has all the momentum, but will the Academy pass up an opportunity to reward a Quentin Tarantino film again?

Here's the nominees:

“Ford v Ferrari”
“The Irishman”
“Jojo Rabbit”
“Joker”
“Little Women”
“Marriage Story”
“1917”
“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”
“Parasite”

Who will win: 1917. I wouldn't be shocked by about half of these, but I'm going with the hot hand here. Parasite is another strong contender, but I think that the voters will think that the foreign film win will be enough for it.

Who should win: Of the films nominated, I'm going with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. It was Tarantino's most accessible and personal film, and it has all the pieces that Academy voters usually love. A strong case could be made for The Irishman here as well, but I don't think Hollywood is ready to recognize a "streaming" movie just yet.

Snubs: Uncut Gems! I can't explain the lack of love for this "gem" of a movie (Thank you! I'll be here all night. Try the veal). Two years in a row my favorite movies have failed to get a nomination for the big award (Annihilation last year). Maybe they were just too out there for the (clearly) traditional voters. Us is the other major snub in this category. I get that it's a horror movie, and that genre has typically been avoided like the plague, but come on!

That's it for me. I always had a blast, and if this is the last year we do this exchange, I just want to say how much I enjoy doing this with you. I hope that 2020 is another strong year for films and that you're primed and ready come this time next year. Who knows... maybe they'll get the nominations right next year and we'll have plenty of optimistic things to write about. JKLOLOL!

Adam: I agree that it was a great year for movies — which is part of why narrowing down Best Director to only five feels impossible. It was also yet another year where almost no one could agree about this years crop of films. With the exception of Parasite, which I’ve never heard an unkind word about, none of the Best Picture nominees is universally beloved.

Personally, I’m not sure why there is so much vitriol directed at Joker. It blew me away the first time I saw it and I’ll admit to downgrading it a bit the second time because the shock value was gone. But I still think it’s a provocative movie with lots of style and ambition — and even if you knock it for being derivative of King of Comedy/Taxi Driver (and it is). It still took balls to make a comic book inspired blockbuster influenced by decidedly dark, uncommercial films like those.

That being said, I’m shocked it’s leading every other movie, it clearly struck a chord. The same goes for 1917 — a film I think is very, very good but not as great as apparently the awards community does. I suppose the race is between these two and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with Parasite being a dark horse longshot.

Although it’s the best reviewed film of the bunch, it looks like The Irishman either peaked too early or never stood a chance.

The others while they have their virtues, don’t seem to have a real shot at a win.

Who will win: I’m worried it’ll be 1917, which feels like the flavor of the moment right now but I’m going to go with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood since an affectionate ode to the industry will almost always trump a technical marvel at the Oscars and the movie is widely accepted to be one of Tarantino’s best if not his best. This feels like a way to honor not just this movie but his whole career.

What should win: If Parasite or The Irishman won I wouldn’t shed a tear but I feel like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is simply fantastic and feels weirdly relevant even though it’s steeped in the past. I hate when they ticket split best picture and Director (cause I’m anal) so here’s hoping Tarantino goes two for two here.

Snubs: I conquer re: Uncut Gems and Us. Booksmart maybe could have had a shot if it hadn’t bombed so hard. There was some chatter that Knives Out could have made the cut as the a tenth pick (or id have no problem replacing the just ok Ford v. Ferrari. Oh well, Either way, probably for the first time in decades, I won’t be watching!

F**k Oscars (a.k.a. pick-a-palooza) Part V: Best Director

Here is another installment of an ongoing conversation that Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz and I have every year. You can read out takes on all the other categories on his blog here. But without further ado, here's our reaction to the Best Director race.

Brian:I agree with your assessment of DeNiro's performance, and I think it will eventually get recognized for its greatness (at least in word of mouth).  The end scene, alone, was one of the more powerful scenes that Scorsese has ever put to film.

Moving on to our next category, Best Director, there's once again a lack of female representation and, of course, we only have one person of color nominated.  With that being said, I think this is one of the stronger categories in this year's Oscars.  In a perfect world, Greta Gerwig or countless others would get the nod.  I know we have this discussion every year, but I really wish that directing would expand to reflect the same number of nominees as Best Picture, since the two really go hand in hand.  I get why they limit it to 5, but there's always some really glaring snubs.

Circling back to this year, I'm not really sure who I would take off to give one of the snubs a shot at the Oscar.  All 5 directors told uniquely compelling stories, and in my opinion, all deserve to be there.  I think there are definite snubs in this category, but I don't think they reach Lupita Nyong'o levels of WTF.

Here's the nominees:
Martin Scorsese, “The Irishman”
Todd Phillips, “Joker”
Sam Mendes, “1917”
Quentin Tarantino, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”
Bong Joon Ho, “Parasite”

Who will win:  Bong Joon Ho.  I think we'll have a split director/picture win this year. Parasite is a shoo-in to win Best Foreign film instead of Best Picture, similar to Roma from last year.  I have yet to see Parasite, but from what I've heard and read, it's a near perfect film.  It comes out on home video this Tuesday and I'm already chomping at the bit to see it.

Who should win:  Honestly, every director in this category can and should win.  I won't be mad if any of them take away the statue.  If I had to put a name above others on this list it would be Tarantino, who could go his entire career without a directing Oscar... especially if his 10 films and done rule turns out to be true.  He'll probably take home a screenplay win again, but I'm not sure there's enough movement to give him a directing Oscar as well.  It would be a shame if he misses out on being recognized as one of the all-time greats.  I also really liked Todd Phillips take on an iconic character, but his nomination is probably all he's going to get here... and I'm OK with it.

Snubs:  I'll throw out some other names here.  Olivia Wilde for Booksmart, an historically overlooked gem of a movie.  Every inch of that film felt lived in and the characters had life to them in way that wasn't just "The female Superbad" marketing campaign the movie got.

My other name is Jordan Peele for Us, which was in my opinion, an improvement in storytelling and directing over Get Out.  For some reason, maybe the early release date, it's been pretty much ignored.

Adam: I agree this is one of those years where several directors stepped up and did career best work while putting a uniquely personal stamp on their productions. For instance, Tarantino and Scorsese, who made essentially the culmination of their entire filmographies. So I don't see how you keep them off. Bong Joon-ho made his bonafide masterpiece -- as great as all the performances in Parasite are -- it's his film from start to finish. He belongs here.

And 1917, as a technical achievement alone, justifies Mendes being here -- although I don't think he deserves to win over the competition. Although, it would be so typical of the Oscars to gives Sam Mendes a second best director award (albeit for a superior film to his first winner) while preventing Tarantino from getting his first (for directing).

To me, the weakest link here is Todd Phillips. I think there's no denying what a creative leap his Joker was for him. Phillips had previously been best known for broad comedies like Old School and The Hangover. But I feel like what Greta Gerwig did with Little Women was just much more impressive and daring. She took one a beloved book and completely revitalized the narrative with sophisticated nonlinear storytelling that only enhancing the story's emotional impact. And this is only her second film. There can be no doubt now that she is a major filmmaker and while her snub hurts, I think she'll be impossible to ignore as her career behind the camera continues.

Who will win: This is a really tough one. I can really see any of the directors besides Phillips winning (unless Joker has a VERY good night). I worry that all the momentum seems to be shifting to Mendes, who would be a 'safe' pick here. But I honestly have no idea. I think Scorsese and his film have been unjustly diminished by Netflix bias and griping about its length.

So I think between the remaining three -- I'm gonna say Tarantino -- just because his film was very popular, it really is a career best for him and I think Academy voters will see this as potentially their last opportunity to reward him. The Oscars have famously failed to ever award (not counting career achievement trophies) some of the greatest directors of all time: Altman, Kubrick, Lumet, Hitchcock -- just to name a few. I suspect that they won't want to make that mistake again.

Who should win: I here you on Joon Ho and if he (or his film in the Best Picture category) won I would have zero issues with it, but I suspect he will be rewarded for Foreign Film as a consolation prize. I love The Departed but The Irishman is an even better film, but alas Scorsese has one and his legacy is secure. I like 1917, but I also think it's a notch below the others for me, and I've said my piece on Phillips. So for me, the sentimental choice is Tarantino. He's aged well, like a fine wine. And it's a thrill to see him maturing as a filmmaker if unfortunately at the end of his career. He'll always will be polarizing, as will his movie, but his impact on American cinema is important and undeniable.

Snubs: I totally agree about both Olivia Wilde and Jordan Peele, both suffered from early release dates and genre biases. I am sure Peele will be back someday and I hope Wilde continues down the path that she's on. I am probably the biggest Hustlers fan out there and so I will also sing the praises of Lorene Scafaria, who also wrote that film! I also thought James Gray's Ad Astra was fantastic and underrated. Lulu Wang did a fabulous job with The Farewell. Ari Aster showed he's a master with his second movie Midsommar. Then there's Rian Johnson's tour de force with Knives Out. And for the love of God the Safdie Brothers. Honestly the more I think about it the failure of Uncut Gems to get any recognition whatsoever is the best proof you need of this whole awards show is a joke.

Check out this piece on directors' favorite 2019 movies, it's a much better glimpse into what was truly great from last year.

Jamie Foxx elevates the well-meaning 'Just Mercy'

The new (wannabe Oscar bait) deep south drama Just Mercy is one of those movies where there really isn't a whole lot of suspense about how it's going to end.

The good guys and bad guys are clearly delineated without a lot of nuance.

It's a nice movie made by nice people will good intentions about a subject matter that is definitely worthy of elevating: exonerating wrongfully convicted black men on death row.

And the true story on which this movie is based is an outrageous, shocking one. An Alabama man nicknamed Johhny D (played soulfully by Jamie Foxx, in a performance that should have drawn Oscar attention0 is sentenced to death in the murder of a teenage white girl with virtually no evidence, based on coerced testimony, and the prosecutors willingness to ignore any and all information that clearly exonerated him.

An earnest young Harvard graduate attorney (played here by a somewhat neutered Michael B. Jordan) comes to his defense, and the rest is well, history. Johnny D's plight is incredibly sympathetic and easy to invest in, but the movie is shot and scripted in such a generic, by the numbers fashion that it lacks the kind of urgency it should have had.

Still, when the film reaches its conclusion -- and details the shocking fate of the real life characters on death row that movie has portrayed -- it's hard to deny the movie's power and worthiness.

Fortunately, it has an ace up its sleeve with a revitalized Jamie Foxx. Foxx is one of those actors who seems like he should be getting consistently great leading roles to play but whose career has unfortunately been a bit hit or miss. He's not starred in any outright disasters that I can think of, but I think he is simply underutilized as a performer.

Here he is incredibly effective, I think in part because he usually excels at playing confident, self possessed men and here he is playing that kind of person only with their freedom unjustly stripped away from them. His anger and pain is palpable in every scene he's in and I kept wanting more of him.

Jordan has been for some time now been one of the most interesting up-and-coming leading men in Hollywood, which is why it's a little disappointing to see him play such a vanilla hero. He is fine here, and his scenes opposite Foxx have a raw chemistry, but he is largely in neutral here and is ofter sidled with some very after school specialish dialogue.

The film feels like is frequently reaching for tear jerking moments rather than allowing them to happen organically and it's hard to take the antagonists too seriously when they are mostly Southern caricatures.

And yet, I am very happy this movie is out there in the marketplace. I have no idea what its commercial prospects are. It doesn't have that 'must see it in a theater' quality, but it's an important story that needs to be told.

According to the film's closing credits, 1 in 9 death row inmates are proven innocent of the crimes they commit. That's not just surprising, it's a tragedy.

F**k Oscars (a.k.a. Oscar pick-a-palooza) part IV: Best Actor

And we're back... here's the next/latest installment from an ongoing annual conversation with myself and Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz's about this year's lame Oscar nominations. Here we delve into the last of the major acting categories...

Brian: Moving on to our next category, Best Actor, where we have a couple pretty glaring snubs... perhaps not on the same level as ignoring Lupita Nyong'o, but still pretty frustrating.

Going back to sports for a minute, there's all these unsaid rules that govern the game. Don't show up the pitcher. If so, expect to get beaned during your next at bat. The list goes on and on. I bring this up, because it seems like The Academy operates similarly.

However, in this case, they seem to have an unwritten rule that states, "we will not nominate you or reward you with a win, no matter how good your performance is, if you've had a history of making "Razzie" worthy movies." I'm looking directly at Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy here. Both gave extremely worthy (I'd argue career rejuvenating) performances in Uncut Gems and Dolemite Is My Name, respectively.

 While I have yet to see Dolemite, Adam Sandler was a force of nature in my favorite movie of the year, Uncut Gems. I know he's given great performances in the past when given the chance, but I didn't know he had THAT performance in him. He absolutely owns every frame of that movie. Same, from what I've heard, with Murphy. Hollywood loves a comeback, except if you've made Jack & Jill or Norbit in your past.

This refusal to nominate based on the merits of a singular performance vs the entirety of a person's career is extremely frustrating. Looking at this category, there's 2 really strong performances in Phoenix and DiCaprio, a good to great performance from Adam Driver and then an OK (as you've written) performance from Jonathan Pryce in a "meh" movie. I haven't seen Antonio Banderas in Pain and Glory, so I'll withhold judgment for now.

Here are the nominees:

Antonio Banderas, “Pain and Glory” 
Leonardo DiCaprio, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” 
Adam Driver, “Marriage Story” 
Joaquin Phoenix, “Joker” 
Jonathan Pryce, “The Two Popes”


Who Will Win: Phoenix. How are we still getting all-time great interpretations of an iconic character after all these years? From Nicholson to Ledger and now Phoenix, we've seen 3 wholly original takes on the classic Batman villain. Could we have another instance of two different actors being awarded for playing the same character (after Brando and DeNiro winning for playing Vito Corleone)? I sure think so. Every time I see Joker, it grows in stature with me. Phoenix stretched his body and mind to the limit in his portrayal of Arthur Fleck/Joker. I think he takes home a much deserved Oscar for this one.

Who Should Win: Of the people nominated, it should definitely be Phoenix. A lot of people are giving love to Adam Driver in Marriage Story, but I wasn't as blown away by his performance as the critics. Sure, the argument scene between the two leads will go down as a memorable one, but I don't know if it's enough for Driver to overtake Phoenix. I enjoyed DiCaprio's "actor coming to grips with his life and career" performance much better, but he just won a couple years ago and Brad Pitt seems to be the one who will win for this movie.

Snubs: Besides the two I mentioned earlier, a lot of people are mentioning Taron Egerton in Rocketman. While I think it's extremely interesting that he re-recorded all of Elton John's music himself, and that the movie seems to be a non-traditional music biopic, do we really need ANOTHER person nominated for one of these movies? I don't think so.

What are you thoughts?

Adam: I definitely think this category showed off a bias against actors who are deemed 'not serious'. Every once in a while a Steve Carrell or Melissa McCarthy breaks through, and she was even able to get a nomination -- God forbid -- for a comedic performance.

Of course in Uncut Gems, Sandler was both funny AND tragic. I went in expected good things, but was just blown away. With Eddie Murphy, his greatness is less of a surprise for me. I always believed he had a role like Dolemite in him and was just frustrated that either he or filmmakers weren't willing to go there. It's absurd that they aren't in this group. Although it may have been too much of a stretch from both of them to make it.

I too haven't seen Pain and Glory, but I hear Banderas is incredible in it and he's someone who has sort of just needed the right part to show off what he can do. I honestly feel like I missed something when I watched The Two Popes. I'd heard Pryce's name bandied about for a while as a likely shoo-in and so I guess I was just expecting more from him and that movie.

As far as the final three goes, they're hard to argue with them. Like the movie itself, I think Phoenix's work is not for everyone's tastes but I think it's still undeniably effective. DiCaprio has never been funnier and more vulnerable than he is in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. In a way I think it's a far better performance than the one he finally won for in The Revenant, which was mostly physical. And Adam Driver is emerging rapidly as one of the most interesting actors of his generation, equally at home in blockbusters, quirky comedies and serious drama. I think he is the best thing about Marriage Story, where he is probably aided tremendously by the fact that he is clearly a proxy for writer-director Noam Baumbach.

Who will win: Until very recently I would have said Driver, if only because he is so well liked and the performance/movie is far less polarizing than Joker. But now it seems like all the momentum is with Phoenix. It's wild to think that we will now have two actors winning Oscars for playing this character, It's definitely an unforgettable turn and Phoenix, who has been amazing for years and never won, is arguably due.

Who should win: Although I probably enjoyed DiCaprio the most, it's Phoenix for me here. It's not just the physical transformation, although that is impressive. You just can't take your eyes off him in this movie, he is by turns pathetic, disturbed and scary -- this is not someone you necessarily root for and not someone you entirely pity. It's just someone doing through a kind of descent. I never thought someone could make the Joker character fresh again and he really did.

Snubs: I thought Robert DeNiro was phenomenal in The Irishman. I get that he is often an audience surrogate and the observer of the action around him. And yes, the de-aging on him isn't quite as seamless as it is with Pacino and Pecsi -- but he is the broken heart of that movie. And he totally owns the last stretch of the movie which is its more powerful, profound element.

He, like Sandler and Murphy, has had a very checkered record especially of late (remember Dirty Grandpa?) and I think he's often taken for granted. He deserved a nomination. If it were a weaker year I'd have gone for Daniel Craig in Knives Out, I just thought he was a delight and brilliantly played against his suave persona. But again these awards are so risk averse I knew something like that would never happen.

F**k Oscars part III (a.k.a Oscar pick-a-palooza): Best Actress

And this is part three of an ongoing Oscar reaction-prognostication conversation I've been having with Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans blogger Brian Wezowicz. We've already discussed the two Supporting actor categories, and now we're onto the leads.

Brian: After reading what I wrote earlier, you're absolutely right about Al Pacino in The Irishman. Honestly, I was just looking at it as who I would replace in the nominations, and I chose Pacino... while completely glossing over Anthony Hopkins.  I was totally wrong. Not sure why I felt the need to berate his performance when I actually really liked it. Chalk it up to a brain fart.

Anyway, I'll have to check out The Beach Bum. I've avoided it because it's from the director of Spring Breakers, which is one of my least favorite movies of all-time. I'm generally in to the "not for all tastes" movies, but I've been apprehensive about this one. On to the next category... Best Actress.

I know you were Lupita or bust with this category. I'm in agreement with you. Like i said earlier, her performance(s) were not just the best of the year, but they were generational. Something that I think will be talked about and studied for a long long time. It's clear that the Academy has no intention of changing its ways, despite modest efforts to diversify ranks. Lupita's performance had everything you could possibly ask for, and yet she wasn't even given a chance to compete on the biggest stage of them all. Heaven forbid if the Academy would dare to nominate two people of color. Would the world implode?

So here we are... honestly, I feel like skipping this category, but tradition is tradition. To me, it's one of the weaker categories in the whole show. Nothing against these performances, but nothing from these performances really screams cream of the crop to me.

Here are the nominees:

Cynthia Erivo, “Harriet”
Scarlett Johansson, “Marriage Story”
Saoirse Ronan, “Little Women”
Charlize Theron, “Bombshell”
Renee Zellweger, “Judy”

Who will win: If I had to guess, I would say Renee Zellweger. Honestly, I'm tired of singing biopics and the almost automatic nomination for someone who looks and sounds like the person they are portraying. To answer your question from earlier, Rami Malek won for his color-by-numbers portrayal of Freddie Mercury (I had to look it up). That movie terrible and while Malek did an admirable job of playing the part, I didn't feel like he was anything special. I have not seen Judy, but it's being heralded as Zellweger's big comeback vehicle. Great. Awesome. Next.

Who should win: Of the women nominated, I'd go with Scar-Jo for Marriage Story. I feel like Adam Driver is getting most of the love (in for his performance in that movie, but Johansson was equally admirable in her role.

Snub: I'm sure you have much more to add about Lupita's historic snub, so I will go with Awkwafina in The Farewell. Confession: I didn't love The Farewell, but it had nothing to do with the sum of its parts. It was just too damn sad for me. Maybe I watched it in the wrong mood, but I felt like if I wanted to see people cry for 2 hours, I'd go to an actual funeral. That's not to say I hated it... I'm actually wanting to give it another viewing because I don't think I was fair to it in my initial viewing. That being said, Awkwafina deserves to be in that group of 5. Her character felt lived-in and real in a way that these nominees didn't. But, you know, can't break the one woman of color rule.

Adam: Oh man, I loved Spring Breakers which I admit is not for everyone's tastes and if you hated it you should definitely steer clear of The Beach Bum because in that movie writer-director Harmony Korine doubles down on that aesthetic and goes even further.

Ok so this category is easily the most infuriating to me and I'm not even sure where to begin. For some reason, Renee Zellweger has been sort of crowned since the beginning of the season, even though the film she's in has been roundly greeted with only so-so reviews. I haven't seen it and I actually quite like her as an actress (especially her wonderful performance in Nurse Betty) but I have never understood this comeback narrative around her.

First of all, she already has an Oscar, so shouldn't the nomination be enough of a welcome back? And it's not like Mickey Rourke situation where they had literally not starred in almost any legit movies in decades, she simply had a string of flops recently and had fallen off the A-list.

I love how for white actresses that's the bar you have to hit. Oh you slightly altered your appearance (Charlize Theron in Bombshell) here's a nomination. Meanwhile, Lupita Nyong'o gives the performance of a lifetime (and again, the performance that has by far won the most critics' awards) in a hugely successful, influential, culturally significant film but somehow she can't make it in, because the Academy deemed four spots for white actresses only (seemingly), while leaves actors like Nyong'o, Awkwafina and eventual nominee Cynthia Erivo to battle it out for the final spot.

It's worth noting, that two women of color have never been nominated for Best Actress in the same year since 1972 and I believe that was the only time this has happened. And only ONCE has a black woman ever won best actress. In fact, no other woman of color has EVER won this award. If you're looking for proof that these awards still, despite attempts to diversify, still represent the tastes of old white men, look no further than this category, where Erivo gets in for playing a slave (albeit a triumphant one) in a movie that also got mediocre reviews.

In fact the only performances here in movies that were well received are Scar Jo's and Saoirse Ronan's. Speaking of whom, she is only 25 years and already has her FOURTH Oscar nomination. Alfre Woodard, a beloved and acclaimed black character actress who is said to have given a career best performance in the little seen drama Clemency, has only been nominated once in her career -- back in 1983. I rest my case.

Who will win: Renee Zellweger. I need to see this film to understand why she's been viewed as such an inevitable sure thing. I suppose she gets a lot of kudos here for performing the Judy Garland numbers herself, which is no small feat. But I can't help but feel this is in keeping with the Oscars' self-congratulatory preoccupation with rewarding movies about the movies. Now, in the case of a nuanced take like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, this might be the right choice, but consider me dubious and it's hard to get past the feeling that what Lupita pulled off in Us is so much more impressive.

Who should win: This is tough for me since I am so turned off of this category. I thought Scar Jo was very good in Marriage Story but I am just not as blown away by that movie as so many other people are. I just couldn't get as emotionally invested as I think I was supposed to be. I guess of this group I was most impressed by Ronan. I know I just threw shade at the fact that she has been so lauded at such a young age, but she is a consistently terrific presence and she is the engine that makes Little Women run.

Snubs: If anyone deserved to be a 'double-nominee' this year it should have been Florence Pugh, who blew me away in Midsommar in addition to Little Women. Clearly there is a horror bias at the Oscars, because Toni Collette should have been here for Hereditary the year before -- ugh -- just thinking about all these snubs makes me furious. Like Awkwafina, who was so wonderful in The Farewell, giving a touching, funny performance that was both relatable and rewarding. I think you should give that one another chance -- it definitely is a sad movie -- but I found it more life affirming than depressing.

And last but not least I want to give a shoutout to Ana de Armas who steals Knives Out in an incredibly winning performance as the hero of that cool comedic thrill of a movie. I'm really excited to see what she does next and I'm glad she's getting to show she's more than the 'babe from Blade Runner 2049).

F**k Oscars (a.k.a. Oscar pick-a-palooza) Part II: Supporting Actor

And here is part two of my ongoing conversation about this year's Oscar nominations with Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans movie blogger and my friend Brian Wezowicz. In the last installment we looked at the all white Best Supporting Actress field and here's out take on the ALL WHITE Best Supporting Actor category...

Brian: I still "watch" the show... just not the entire thing. I try to watch the opening act and the first few awards, but I just can't commit to staying up so late to watch something that will probably disappoint me.

Before moving on, I want to circle back to Bombshell for a minute. I definitely want to watch it because I (sadly) worked there around that time, and it'll be interesting to see how they depict that time period. While there were rumors and innuendo, the truth didn't get down to worker bees like myself. I don't know if it's necessarily exonerating Fox News for its horrid views, but rather showing that it can happen to any woman, anywhere, at any time. I'll reserve judgment until I see it, I guess. Still, it seems like Charlize Theron got the acting nod because of how closely she looks like Megyn Kelly in her makeup.

 On to the next category, Best Supporting Actor. To me, this is the least "controversial" category in terms of snubs or surprises. It also seems like one of the most safest bets in the show. It's Brad Pitt's award to lose, and I don't think there's much of a doubt about that. He's great in Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, and I see no reason why he won't be up on stage. Is it his best performance? I'm not ready to declare that at this time, but it seems like this will be the one that finally gets him an Oscar (much like his co-star DiCaprio finally winning for The Revenant and countless other "it's their time" winners).

As far as the other nominees, my favorite is probably Joe Pesci in The Irishman. I kept waiting for him to explode in burst of classic Pesci intensity, but it never happened. His completely against the grain performance might just be my favorite in-screen performance of the year. 

Here's the nominees: 

Tom Hanks, “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” 
Anthony Hopkins, “The Two Popes” 
Al Pacino, “The Irishman” 
Joe Pesci, “The Irishman” 
Brad Pitt, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”

Who will win: Brad Pitt. Like a fine wine, Brad Pitt only gets better with age. And I LOVE that he's not trying to run away from aging... similar to someone like Robert Redford. Granted, he still looks 35, so that helps, but I'm really excited to see where this chapter of his career takes him.

Who should win: If anyone deserves it more than Pitt, it's Pesci. He gives the performance of his career here as a man who can turn tides (and take lives) simply by looking at someone. I can't say enough about his performance in The Irishman.

Snub: Off the top of my head, I can't really think of anyone who was snubbed per say, but I'll give you a couple of long shot performances that I absolutely adored. First up is LaKeith Stanfield in Uncut Gems. Adam Sandler had the meatier role, but Stanfield was the perfect "devil on the shoulder" to keep Sandler's madness at an 11. But like you said, that movie was criminally left out of the show. Another role that I loved was Daniel Craig in Knives Out... in particular his Foghorn Leghorn accent. He was the perfect blend of quick wit and self-deprecation that served as the backbone for the "whodunit" story.

Who would I take out to put one of these guys in? Probably Al Pacino. I don't think he really stepped out of his comfort zone with his portrayal of Jimmy Hoffa. It was a little too Scent Of A Woman for me. Still enjoyable, but nothing new.

 Who takes home your statue?

Adam: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the Pacino performance in The Irishman. I thought he was more brilliant than he's been in a decade, and probably sold the more youthful scenes a little better than his counterparts. I was also totally bowled over by Pesci's work. I think this is one of those categories where it is very hard to compare performances.

There's no question that what Pesci, Pacino and Hanks for that matter are doing is technically more demanding than what Brad Pitt is doing. But Pitt inhabits his Cliff Booth character so fully that I think he's undeniable. It's one of the great movie star performances and it sort of feels like a culmination of all the laconic cool guys he's played over the years. I'm excited to see him win for this one because it isn't a stereotypical big, scene-stealing supporting performance.

He is the mellow yang to DiCaprio's combustible ying and controversy aside the Bruce Lee scene was a hoot.  For me the person who's not doing anything new is Anthony Hopkins, a terrific actor by any measure, but he's playing a not very nuanced portrait of a arguably more complicated man. I'd like to have seen the great Willem Dafoe here for The Lighthouse, which he was phenomenal in.

Who will win: Brad Pitt. He's been reliably good for so long that he's often overlooked (I thought he deserved to win for Moneyball). To answer your question, I think this might be his best performance because it just feels like the pinnacle of what he does. I think he's great in Seven, Twelve Monkeys, the Ocean's movies and especially Burn After Reading, but yeah it's his time and his year and I'm not mad about it.

Who should win: I think Pitt, but I too have a soft spot for Pesci, who I wish was still interesting in making movies on the regular. He apparently did this as a favor for Scorsese, and thank God he did. There is something so majestic about his work in the movie and how against type he is. But yeah Pitt deserves this one.

Snub: I've already sang Dafoe's praises here. I love Craig in Knives Out, but I think of that as more of a lead performance albeit as part of an ensemble. So i'll throw a wild one out there that never ever could have happened. But Jonah Hill's completely batshit performance in The Beach Bum is one of the funniest I saw all year. It's a totally 'not for all tastes' movie and Hill's role is almost more of a cameo. But I just think he was marvelous.

F**k Oscars (a.k.a. Oscar pick-a-palooza) part I: Supporting actress

It's that time of year again (and it may be the last time, as long as these awards continue to be so terrible). Brian Wezowicz of the Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans movie blog and I are weighing in on top categories in this year's Academy Awards ceremony. This year's nominations came out this morning and understandably controversial.

Adam: Let's get started because I am so fucking furious over this morning's Oscar nominations. I was preparing myself to be disappointed but I am shocked at just how many of my hoped for nominees got snubbed.

I think after last year's debacle -- where Sam Rockwell got in for a George W. Bush impression whereas Michael B. Jordan didn't for a career-defining performance in Black Panther AND where Green Book ultimately triumphed over infinitely superior competition -- this year is the nail in the coffin for me.

I'll always be curious who gets what and who wins but I am turned off of watching, turned off of caring and generally convinced that until something fundamental changes the Academy is and will remain a stodgy, old, white, pretty racist institution that by and large ignores the best and most interesting films so they can reward what makes them feel comfortable.

Every once a while, something different like Mad Max Fury Road, Get Out or Moonlight slips in there and sometimes they even win and we're all given a little false hope, but at the end of the day there always seems to be a step back in the wrong direction. I need to take solace in the fact that this was an excellent year for movies/performances -- that the slate of Best Picture nominees is strong and at the end of the day these awards have far less influence now than they ever did before.

Like off the top of my head I can't tell you how won Best Actor or Best Actress last year. I genuinely don't remember. I think the critics' groups (who overwhelmingly favored Lupita Nyong'o's Us performance for example) are far more spot on and as I always say time will be kinder to the better films here.

Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing was not a box office hit and was almost completely shut out at the Oscars, and yet its cultural legacy has lived on far beyond the film that won that year, Driving Miss Daisy. But yeah, this year's results were trash.

No Uncut Gems. No Greta Gerwig. No Eddie Murphy. No J-Lo. No Lupita. No The Farewell (p.s. Notice a trend here, most of these films have minorities or women at their center). It's hard to take this thing seriously when they so egregiously screw up.

Brian: Oh man, you beat me to it. Getting our hopes up for the correct Oscar nominations must be what being a Cleveland Browns fan is like. Year after year after year, we hope that this is finally the year that everything comes together. This is the year they will actually reward the best performances and films. But before you can blink, we're looking at a 3-13 season and they've fired their coach. I gave up on watching The Oscars years ago and I'm perfectly at peace with it. I'll check out the winner's list the next day, but I'm not staying up for something that will most likely disappoint me. 

Green Book's wet fart of a win last year only sealed the deal for me. It summed up the Oscars in a nutshell... a culturally tone def, faux woke of a movie. It's everything that people complain about Hollywood (pretending to be liberal while not-so-secretly being a horrible place for women, people of color, etc.). I think I'm numb to the shock after all these years.

However, I am dumbfounded by today's nominations. No Uncut Gems (my personal favorite of the year. I get that Adam Sandler made Jack & Jill, but that shouldn't matter. I get that Eddie Murphy made numerous critical flops, but that shouldn't matter. Reward the performance. Don't punish for past career choices.

And don't get me started on Lupita's historical snub. I was secretly hoping that she would get nominated for Best Actress and Supporting Actress for her generational performance in Us. Like you said, the Oscar winners (especially when they're wrong) are usually forgotten. Is anyone still talking about Green Book? Or are we clamoring for another Black Panther? Does anyone rank Ordinary People with some of the best movies of all-time? Or has Raging Bull cemented its legacy? Same goes for Dances With Wolves, Shakespeare In Love, and on and on and on.

There is one thing that I do love about Oscar season, though. It's our traditional back and forth predicting the wins, losses and snubs. If there's one bright side to today's nominations, it's that we'll have plenty of red meat to chew through. Let's get started with our 7th annual (where has the time gone?) Oscar pick-a-palooza.

First up is Best Supporting Actress. I'm not going to lie... I've only seen one of the nominated performances... Laura Dern in Marriage Story. Luckily, it seems to be the performance that will win. I, however, was not feeling Dern's performance. I really liked Marriage Story, but her performance wasn't anything special. She was essentially reprising her role in Big Little Lies.

Obviously the biggest snug in this category was J-Lo in Hustlers. She was a force of nature and owned every minute of that film. But hey, who needs J-Lo when you can nominate Kathy Bates for the millionth time (sarcasm heavy)?

Also, is Margot Robbie becoming the next Meryl Streep? It seems like she gets nominated for every dramatic role she's in... good or average. Sadly, this may be the weakest category in the entire show.

Here's the nominees: 
Laura Dern, “Marriage Story”
Margot Robbie, “Bombshell”
Florence Pugh, “Little Women”
Scarlett Johansson, “Jojo Rabbit”
Kathy Bates, “Richard Jewell”

Who Should Win: Ummm, I have no idea. I'll say Florence Pugh for Little Women just to throw a wrench in Dern's coronation.

Who Will Win: Laura Dern. This one seems like a certain lock, and nothing in these nominations tells me otherwise.

Snub: J-Lo. From the first trailer, her performance seemed destined for recognition. Like I said earlier, she owned every minute of this movie in a way that only she could. I could spend more time typing out my disappointment, but honestly, I'm too tired. Another snub on my list would have to go to Shuzhen Zhao for her heartwarming turn in The Farewell. While that movie was not my cup of tea, she was really good as a woman blissfully ignorant of her terminal cancer diagnosis.

Who you got?

Adam: That's funny -- I assumed you watched the show. I guess I am right where you -- and I'm beginning to suspect -- most people are. I no longer feel this pull to watch the show which is always trying to pander. Like yes, on some level it's crazy that a superhero adjacent blockbuster like Joker is leading all the nominations, but on the same day they serve up Scarlett Johansson in not one but two movies. But ya know there's only room for one woman of color in the whole bunch. I too love doing this prognostication but it's beginning to make me a bitter person about the movies. Which I'd hope to never become.

Luckily, I've seen all of the nominated performances except for Margot Robbie's in Bombshell. I've heard nothing but bad things about that movie and went from being interested in seeing it to waiting for Netflix. I think its the turning problematic Fox News hosts into heroes aspect of it that has never sat well with me. That being said, I really like Margot Robbie. I think she's making some cool interesting choices, even if she has bogged herself in the DC comics movie world (with Harley Quinn). So she may be totally worthy here, I just don't know.

And then there's the J-Lo of it all. Her snubbing was the most shocking to me of any of them since this category hasn't been viewed as that competitive and most people had her pegged as the one person who might unseat favorite Laura Dern. At the end of the day I don't know if it was her larger persona and track record of mostly misses that screwed her here. She can take solace in the fact that Hustlers was an enormous hit and completely revitalized her movie career. Here's hoping the back half of her career is more Out of Sight than Monster-In-Law.

I think Scar-Jo is lovely in JoJo Rabbitt, but one nomination was more than enough. Kathy Bates is probably one of the more unassailable things about Richard Jewell, but I don't think this is a nomination that HAD to happen. So...

Who will win: It's going to be the Laura Dern show and you're so right about her performance in Marriage Story, it's her character from Big Little Lies on the big screen. She's great, she's always great. And she should have won an Oscar many times before. She's due and she's beloved in the industry so she will win, and that's precisely why these awards are BS because its all about a narrative surrounding a film, director or performance, never the work itself.

Snub: I totally agree with you besides J-Lo I had been pulling for Shuzen Zhao, who was the heart and soul of The Farewell. I think Julia Fox was great in Uncut Gems in a Marisa Tomei-like breakout performance, but like the movie itself, her work never seemed to get serious consideration from Oscar voters.

Who should win: With J Lo gone, I too and going with Florence Pugh. She had an amazing year, with Midsommar and Little Women (as well as Fighting with My Family, which I've yet to see but have heard great things about). She is the MVP of Little Women in my opinion, which is no small thing because that film is full of wonderful performances. She's one of the more exciting new actresses on the scene and I hope she doesn't go the way of Jennifer Lawrence.

Sometimes these female phenoms get the backlash treatment for no good reason very fast and then are rarely heard from again.

'1917' reinvigorates the war genre with technical feat

War movies are always a tricky thing -- they are almost all at least supposed to be anti-war but of course they tend to be so exciting that sometimes that message can be overshadowed by the razzle dazzle. Some have even argued that there's no such thing as anti-war film.

I would argue that director Sam Mendes' riveting World War I drama 1917 is a very effective antiwar movie. It certainly conveys what an unmitigated hell trench warfare was. I am not entirely sure why this particular story had to be told at this particular moment, but it's impossible to deny the visceral power of this movie, which was engineered to appear as a single take.

Of course it isn't, but that's beside the point -- the technique doesn't feel like a gimmick at all because it makes this one of the most immersive war movies ever made. If Birdman used the single take structure to revel in the abilities of its actors to sustain their performance, 1917 is awe inspiring it terms of its production design.

It's strange to find beauty in a movie littered with mud and decaying corpses -- but this is a remarkable film to look at. It's sound design is note perfect. And its score is a throbbing, intense compliment to the mostly relentless action of the film.

It's not without some genuine heart. Newcomer George MacKay gives a remarkably committed physical performance as our hero and even though this heart-pounding movie barely takes a breather, there are some genuinely moving human moments that are incredibly effective.

It is in some ways a rousing piece of old fashioned entertainment, but not unlike Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, Mendes' film manages to make a war that was over a 100 years ago, and which few Americans have a feel for (in the way they do WWII, Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan), feel very accessible and real.

It doesn't quite crack my top 10 of 2019 -- I still think some other works had more of a personal impact on me and felt more compellingly original, but I fully understand the kudos this remarkable film is getting.

And, I hope more filmmakers experiment with the 'single-take' structure. It's far more stimulating than the found footage fad from a few years back.

Five potentially unpopular opinions about this year's awards season

The Golden Globes are over -- didn't watch, but I can say I am genuinely surprised that 1917 (which I still need to see, triumphed in the Best Picture Drama race) and that The Irishman didn't.

Although the Globes aren't very predictive of the Oscars, I hope this isn't the beginning of some kind of backlash to the Martin Scorsese epic.

The nominations are coming out on the 13th, so all the speculation about nominations will soon come to an end and pivot to the winners, and this is a very competitive year.

There are plenty of movies that are virtually assured nominations, like The Irishman, Marriage Story, Parasite, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to name a few. But there is no no brainer frontrunner for Best Picture and there's at least a little suspense in the acting races, even though I think there should be more, because some of the so-called sure things have underwhelmed me.

As this long period of nerdy obsessiveness comes to a close here are some unpopular opinions I've had about what's transpired so far.

Laura Dern is going to be nominated for the wrong movie - The great Laura Dern is long overdue for recognition and she is heavily favored to win the Best Supporting Actress trophy for her colorful Marriage Story performance (personally, I think Jennifer Lopez ought to win for Hustlers). Having seen Marriage Story and her other supporting turn in Little Women, I actually think her performance in that film is more moving and effective. Every time she came on screen I was welling up with tears. She'll never get a nom for that movie, if anyone does it'll be the very deserving Florence Pugh and of course, I am happy to see Dern win full stop. I guess I am just not as blown away by Marriage Story as some people,

SNL bias is hurting Eddie Murphy and Adam Sandler - I can't believe this -- but no SNL performer has ever won an Oscar (Adam McKay, who wrote for the show, won Best Adapted Screenplay for The Big Short). Plenty ex-SNLers have been nominated, including Bill Murray and believe it or not Dan Aykroyd. This year two of the most legendary performers from the show's history gave career best performances that have landed them in the Best Actor conversation but most prognosticators don't have either actor making the cut despite universal raves for their work. Granted, the Best Actor race is more competitive than usual this year, but I have to think a disposition to dismiss the work of people with an SNL background is hurting these two, which is a real shame.

The Two Popes isn't Oscar worthy - Every year that's at least one Oscar movie that I don't connect with at all, and for me this year it was The Two Popes. It's a handsome production, with two perfectly ok performances from veterans Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce, but there are far more compelling offerings this year. Somehow Pryce is being favored to make the Best Actor cut, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me and the movie also has a shot at Best Picture too. There is something very King's Speech about this one. It feels old fashioned and self consciously prestige-y, but I don't think it's particularly interesting, unless you think two popes enjoying a soccer game is sublime.

Why isn't Lupita a shoo-in? - Ever since Us debuted last March critics have been hailing Lupita Nyong'o's lead performance as one of the year's best. And even though it's almost a year later, she's been cleaning up with awards from many of the critics' groups. In fact, a lot of people -- myself included -- would say she gave THE performance of last year regardless of gender. And, yet a nomination for her is anything but a certainty.  Experts seem to be convinced that Renee Zellweger will win easily for her comeback role in Judy -- I haven't seen that movie, so I can't speak to how deserving she is -- but it's curious that there only seems to be room for one woman of color (Cynthia Erivo for Harriet) while Lupita and Awkwafina (for The Farewell) are seen as on the outside looking in.

Greta Gerwig deserves to be in Best Director class - Only one woman -- one -- has ever won Best Director and I can count the number of women who have been nominated on one hand. This is a travesty. In the last two years especially there have been several very worthy women nominees who've been snubbed for no good reason other than sexism in the director's branch of the Academy. Gerwig could and should pull off the remarkable feat of being nominated for her first two features and being the first woman nominated for Best Director twice. This year it makes sense that Scorsese and Tarantino are locks, since both delivered their sort of magnum opus mission statements. Sam Mendes' 1917 is said to be a major technical achievement. And Bong Joon-Ho's Parasite is just too brilliant to be ignored. But that still leaves one spot. Some are giving it to Noam Bambauch, ironically Gerwig's partner, for his highly personal Marriage Story -- but her Little Women is such a more ambitious and expansive film, it has every quality of a major Best Picture movie. Hopefully she won't be snubbed again on the 13th.

Amiable 'The Two Popes' feels like a real missed opportunity

The trailer for The Two Popes promises an intense clash of religious philosophies between the dogmatic Pope Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) and his comparatively more moderate successor Pope Francis (Jonathan Pryce) and for a little of its running time it is.

In fact, the most interesting scenes in this mostly two-hander movie are the ones that investigate the rivalry between the two men, but the film never makes it mind up about what it wants to be about. It's too reverent to the church to delve too deeply into the scandals of the papacy but also wants to do due diligence by referencing them (often leaning on archival footage and news clips), which only serves to make them feel like an afterthought.

What makes the lack of conviction surprising is that this film comes from Fernando Meirelles, the director of the risky and compelling classic City of God. His The Two Popes lacks all of that film's storytelling pizazz and excitement. Granted, this is a film about two soft spoken pontiffs in their 80s, but it's far too cutesy considering the fact that the church very much still is a source of controversy.

The deck of the movie is stacked early on in Francis' favor, even with the casting of the genteel Pryce (whose fine here but I couldn't help wishing his role had been played by an actual Latin actor) opposite a hammier, more strident Hopkins.

Francis' moderateness is probably a bit overstated here, and while it's admirable that the film doesn't paper over the fact that he too holds problematic views on issues like gay marriage, but then the story moves on and a viewer like me is left to wonder why they ought to root for someone who's arguably a homophobe.

This all sounds a bit harsh but this doesn't discount the fact that The Two Popes is frequently charming and a more than adequately diverting Netflix film. The production values are first rate while Pryce and Hopkins have terrific chemistry together throughout.

Still, the film starts lacking in tension about halfway through -- we know Benedict will win abdicate his duties and we know Francis will take his place -- so there's not enough there there. Even an attempt to justify Francis' self doubt only serves to make him seem more noble and endearing.

This didn't need to be an expose -- Spotlight accomplished that five years ago. But I did want something that didn't feel quite so safe and sanitized. For instance, without spoiling anything, at a critical dramatic moment the film bars us from hearing what is said. This isn't an earned moment of intimacy like we got at the end of Lost In Translation, it's more of a cop-out.

In a year where there were so many movies willing to push the genre envelope or speak to issues of gender, race, class and sexuality, this one feels like a relic of an earlier decade, where an attractive production and some solid performances were just enough.

My top 20 favorite movies of the decade (in no particular order)

The fact that a decade just came to a close sort of crept up on me, as I suspect it did on a lot of people. It's hard to encapsulate the 2010's in a neat bow, especially since the transition from the Obama era to the Trump era has been so jarring, horrifying and disconcerting (at least, in my point of view).

I've been telling people that this has been the decade of disinformation, which certainly encompasses a lot. And from that disinformation came an uncertainty and polarization that I believe was reflected in the decade's films.

This may well be remembered as the last gasp of traditional cinema -- the superhero spectacle genre, which took off the decade before with the Spider-Man movies (the Tobey Maguire iteration) only grew more dominant in these last ten years, as did anything that was a reboot, remake or linked to some kind of already established intellectual property.

There were exceptions and the work of directors like Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan and P.T. Anderson consistently bucked the trends and instead created singular, narrative driven entertainment. Meanwhile, there were plenty of thrilling debuts from filmmakers who may very well go on to define the next decade of moviemaking, even if their work may be increasingly relegated to streaming services. I actually think, by and large, 2010-2019 may be on the whole stronger than 2001-2009.

Even the Academy Awards, which have been notoriously infuriating, had the guts to get behind a small, moody movie like Moonlight (more on that later) which would have been unthinkable a decade before. In a way, it's both the best of times and the worst of times. It's part of why I understand Martin Scorsese's cantankerous interviews of late. I wouldn't have an issue with all the blockbusters per se, if they weren't making it nearly impossible for anything more grounded to get through.

That being said, the movies always find a way to adapt. I am still convinced that nothing can fully top the experience of seeing a movie on the big screen with an audience. And as long as movies like Knives Out -- which are original and not effects driven -- can become solid hits, there should always be a space for real films at the cinema.

A lot of folks are making their lists of the decades' best and here are my personal favorites, in no particular order, I don't think I have the energy to rank them.

(*One caveat: Steve McQueen's masterful 12 Years a Slave did not make this list -- since after all these are 'faves' that I would and do revisit repeatedly -- but I don't in any way want to diminish what an accomplishment that movie is and was.)

****

Gravity - Although many adult-driven space-bound movies came in its wake Alfonso Cuaron's visually inventive two-hander (Sandra Bullock and George Clooney in peak star mode) is still my favorite. Riveting from start to finish with an earnest heart at its center, this felt like a real glimpse at where technical filmmaking was headed and Cuaron was right. What he managed to do was invest his 3-D opus with real heart, which is part of what gives this blockbuster its staying power.

It Follows - One of the most inventive and truly scary horror movies I've ever seen. It took a premise that was almost laughably simple and makes it feel existentially dreadful. A cast of unknowns populates this film, which feels lost in time with elements of the 1980s clashing with an undefined future. Everything viscerally works here -- the score, the pacing and the eerily ambiguous ending which leaves this one lingering in your thoughts long after it's over.

O.J. Made in America - Like most people I thought we had said all we needed to say and learned all we needed to learn about the infamous O.J. Simpson trial and then this epic, multi-hour documentary dropped and blew my mind. It's about the history of Los Angeles, it's about the toxicity of domestic violence and it's about how racial self-hatred can turn a person inside out. It took this long to truly understand that trial and its controversial verdict in the proper context. It's still a tragedy but this epic illuminates it.

Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse - The rare animated film that is both profoundly funny, moving and culturally relevant. The filmmakers took what is probably the most played-out superhero in movies and managed to make the character more exciting than it's ever been. Thanks to a complex narrative which involves multiple universes and versions of the webslinger, as well as eye-popping animation and a killer soundtrack, this is one of the most enjoyable movies of the decade, and a celebration of diversity to boot.

Creed - I loved the Rocky movies but also assumed, after Rocky Balboa back in 2006, that there was nothing left in the tank. Boy was I wrong. Director Ryan Coogler (one of the decades' MVPs) had the ingenious idea to center a new film on the son of the Apollo Creed character from the original series. He took the Creed narrative seriously (what would happen to the child of a superstar boxer killed in the ring) and provided an opportunity for Sylvester Stallone to give the best performance of his career by suppressing his vanity to play Balboa as a real person for the first time in years. It's a knockout.

Moonlight - One of the most beautifully shot and made movies of the decade. Barry Jenkins' languid triptych about the maturation of a young, gay black man is simply note perfect. The performances are subtle and striking, the music is rapturous and the sensitivity with which the story is told is breathtaking. A remarkably quiet and poetic movie -- it's a miracle it got made, especially considering the fact that it doesn't feature a single white character of consequence.

Blade Runner 2049 - Somewhat improbably -- over 20 years after its influential predecessor hit the screen -- director Denis Villenueve crafted a perfect companion sequel that was just as visually audacious but didn't abandon the original's darkly cynical tone. It was unfairly dismissed as a box office disappointment when it came out but it is a creative triumph with an arc for Harrison Ford's Deckard character that brings his complex history to a satisfying conclusion.

Skyfall - Just when 007 as a series appeared to be a bit on the ropes, this beauty arrived and became the biggest commercial and critical hit in the history of the series (without adjusting for inflation). It's probably my favorite 007 film -- it has a fantastic villain (a never creepier Javier Bardem), gorgeous set pieces (the opening train fight and booby trap filled finale are unforgettable) and Daniel Craig at his best as Bond. This one proved that the movies' best franchise is still very viable and very cool.

Under the Skin - A surreal, sophisticated sci-fi film that has only grown in stature since its initial release. In a performance unlike anything she's ever done before or since, Scarlett Johansson plays what appears to be an alien being sent to earth to essentially seduce men in order to use their bodies for food ... or something. One of the most symbolic, mercurial sci-fi films since Kubrick's 2001, with a message about bodily autonomy, possession and humanity. A real mind-blower.

The Favourite - A hilarious dark comedy that lampoons the artifice of period pictures better than any movie since Barry Lyndon. Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz and Olivia Coleman are all flawless as a trio of deeply flawed, funny women in a struggle for both romantic power and power in the broader sense of the word. As it barrels to its, perhaps inevitably, bleak conclusion, it's a sumptuous and deliberately kinky delight.

Django Unchained - Tarantino's controversial action-comedy slavery film became his biggest hit ever and for a good reason: it's a raucous good time at the movies. He has one of his best, most stacked casts yet and they're all reveling in one of his favorite genres, the spaghetti western. And Tarantino doesn't sidestep the horrors of slavery. He also spins his revenge saga into a creative bit of audience fulfillment, a theme he would return to in his latest film, which also makes this list.

Drive - A dreamy anti-Fast & Furious piece of kinetic filmmaking which pays homage to similarly stunning macho movies like The Driver and Thief. Ryan Gosling is terrific as the quiet but deadly hero and comic actor Albert Brooks is every part his equal in an against type role as a vicious gangster. For a certain kind of moviegoer --  me -- this movie was the definition of cool and while director Nicolas Winding Refn has made work I've admired since, he hasn't topped this scorcher.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - The most personal, moving Tarantino movie to date. Instead of revising the history of WWII or the Civil War, here he's adapting his own history -- the Hollywood of the late 1960s. His stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt offer a master class in midlife crisis male-hood amid a backdrop of the impending Manson murders. Except in Tarantino's vision, the fate of Sharon Tate is far more hopeful. A great masterwork from a filmmaker who's finally matured.

The Social Network - David Fincher's sleek retelling of the creation of Facebook may not have aged well with some audiences -- given the characters' toxicity and the evolution of that site into something far more insidious than it appeared to be in 2010. But a closer look at this acclaimed film shows that all of the dark side of the social media site was there in plain sight. Not only did this film help relaunch its director but it showed that brooding films like it could still be hits.

Black Panther - There are 'superhero' movies and there is Black Panther. A warm, incredibly detailed and well-acted piece of mass-appeal entertainment. It doesn't shy from weightier issues like geopolitics and black identity, and it also somehow manages to be funny, gender-balanced and action packed. Even though it's technically part of the Marvel Universe, it stands on it own as art. My only disappointment is that Michael B. Jordan missed out on a well-deserved Oscar nod for his villain role.

Get Out - Jordan Peele pulled off the high wire act of combining a racial satire with traditional horror and wound up with a massive hit and an unlikely Oscar contender. The premise is pretty irresistible -- a kind of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner in hell -- and considering its low budget and limited starpower (although Daniel Kaluuya would become one after this) the movie is incredibly assured and attractive. It was the rare antidote to the Trump election, a cathartic reminder that there was still a vibrant creative culture willing to speak up and talk back to the problematic portion of the county.

Good Time - With this crime thriller and Uncut Gems, the Safdie brothers have officially arrived as superstar filmmakers of the first order. Robert Pattison permanently put his Twilight past behind him with his electric performance here, where he credibly plays a Queens hood up against the clock trying to reunite with his developmentally disabled brother while trying to score as much as as he can in the process. Funny, crude and clearly coming from a place of authenticity.

Us - In his second film, Peele takes his vision of socially-charged horror even further, with a fascinating riff on class and dual identity. He finds a dream lead with Lupita Nyong'o in her best role yet as both the leader of a bunch of underworld dwelling 'tethers' and one of their doubles above ground. A good deal scarier than his first film and slightly more polarizing, but for people who (like me) love to pick apart and obsess over movies with multiple meanings, this one is a real cinematic feast.

The Irishman - Martin Scorsese rightly held out for total control to make this passion project and likely his final say on the gangster genre. Everyone is doing inspired work here -- including DeNiro, Pesci and Pacino who while all in their late 70s through technology and their performances credibly play men throughout several decades of their lives. A meditation on what it would mean to live a life of crime that is both dynamic and devastating. It deserves to be seen in a theater, but will hopefully earn a bigger audience who embrace it in the comfort of their own homes.

Mad Max: Fury Road - Simply put, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) action movies ever made, featuring some of the most incredible stunt work I've ever seen, with some of the most vibrant colors/visuals I've ever seen on film all in service of a 'story' that is deceptively straightforward, but in reality has a lot to say about gender, greed, dwindling resources and the potential hell that awaits us should the planet continue to deteriorate. That rare big budget entertainment that everyone seems to be able to appreciate on some level. It's easily the film of the past decade I've returned to the most and a film that seems to just get better with age. It's a masterpiece.