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.