"Killers of the Flower Moon"

Marty, Marty, Marty.  Yes, it's a fascinating story.  One we haven't heard.  And, by adding the Osage people and traditions, there is some beauty among the horrors.  But let's face it.  That's window dressing.  Once again, this is a mobster movie.  Another one.  Really, if it weren't for "Hugo" I'd really think this is all you know how to do.  You find stories of corrupt men in power who manipulate others to do terrible things.  Loyalty is a thing and when it falters, retribution is a *itch.  Robert De Niro plays the cappo, Leonardo DiCaprio the chump.  If not for Lily Gladstone and Tantoo Cardinal, there would not be a person of interest for me in this film.  It's a bleak, gory tale of manipulation and murder.  It lingers.  At three and a half hours, we see it all, in bloody detail, until it lumbers to an inevitable end.  I talked about the other historical films in award contention this year and how they brought something new to the history we know.  This doesn't bring anything fresh, per se, it just wallows.  By the end I wasn't emotional, just ancy and ready for the credits.  And I'm sorry, Marty, but you are an 81-year-old man.  Don't you know that the great majority of people can't sit through three and a half hours.  Can you?  Did some editor piss you off once upon a time?  Did you decide to never edit a film ever again?  I get it.  The point of the movie.  I got it in the first hour and a half.  Didn't really need another two hours to understand that people can be depraved.  

"PainKiller"

First off, love Uzo Aduba.  And Matthew Broderick is shockingly transformed into someone almost unrecognizable.  Second, this take on the opioid crisis isn't bad.  It gives voice to the anger and fury of the callous behavior by the Sacklers -- who clearly didn't give a flying one about the massive body count they created, the lives they destroyed, in their quest for riches.  But it's not a subtle show.  It hits you over the head.  There are MTV style edits, with random images cut in.  It's fast-paced and doesn't hold back on the disdain.  In contrast to "Dopesick", which was emotionally draining, this just skims the surface.  Mitigating the outrage with some grief, actual people who lost family members open every episode with a short take on the people they loved and lost.  But it's not enough.  Their pain only makes the following scenes feel less real.  This limited series is a good stab at a massive problem.  And, if you haven't seen "Dopesick" ... well, you should (it's better than "PainKiller").  This series just adds to the fact that the Sacklers haven't suffered one bit for what they did.  They are still billionaires living in mansions.  Not one of them is facing jail.  And hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead as a result.  Disagree?  Think about this ... in 1999 there were less than 20,000 overdose deaths in the US.  OxyCodone hit the markets, big time, in the early 2000s.  In 2021 alone, there were 106,699 overdose deaths.  That blood is on the Sackler's hands.

"The Holdovers"

It's fine.  Just fine.  Not brilliant, not lousy.  Fine.  No new territory here.  Exclusive boy's school somewhere in New England with stuffy professors and troubled rich kids.  Set in 1970.  At Christmas, a cranky prof, a difficult boy and a mother in mourning find themselves alone and drifting.  They break through the icy exteriors, make connections, learn a little about each other and themselves at the same time.  There is good acting.  But I feel like I've seen this movie a bunch of times.  I didn't walk away with anything fresh.  I didn't even think about it much afterwards.  And how it nabbed a best picture nom over "The Color Purple", I'll never know.  Lastly, one note -- if you are setting a film in 1970, please have a better soundtrack.  This was one of the most iconic time periods of rock music.  You couldn't create a better score?

"Oppenheimer"

I wanted to hate this film.  In the land of awards season I like to root for the underdog instead of the clear front-runners, as the "big movies" tend to suck up all the oxygen in the room, taking well-deserved attention away from otherwise brilliant films.  Such is the case with "Oppenheimer" which is walking away with truckloads of awards.  And, I have to say, the kudos are warranted.  The film, at three hours, is engaging, is powerful and it is good.  It rises above the challenges of presenting a history we know by giving us, the viewers, ways of seeing the edges of a thing.  The emotion and inner life of the people involved.  In the scientific vein, this film brings new dimensions and complexities to people and history which is very familiar.  When "the moment" comes (and you know what moment I'm talking about), I found myself wracked with tears.  I knew it was coming of course.  But the presentation was spot on.  This is good filmmaking.  It's not perfect.  Christopher Nolan makes "guy" films and this one fits the bill.  In a cast replete with men -- almost universally white men, hard men, emotionally closed-off men, women get the short shrift.  There is the quick nod to the fact that there were women scientists at Los Alamos.  There are the oversexualized scenes with Florence Pugh (who is young) and none with Emily Blunt (who is not young).  Pugh's character is an emotional, needy hot mess.  Blunt's character is a uptight, judgemental alcoholic.  Oppenheimer tells his lawyer that no one should try to understand his complicated marriage -- but this film doesn't let us understand it either.  So, from the feminism standpoint, this film drops the ball.  On all other fronts, it's very ... very ... strong.

"American Fiction"

Is this a Black film?  Yes.  And no.  And Yes.  It's complicated.  And very, very simple.  PhD literary professor and author Thelonious Ellison refuses to be defined by his race.  But he is, at every turn, defined by his race.  It is shown at very beginning, when a cabbie refuses to pick him up, and continues through to the end of the movie, when three white people override the votes of two Black people on a committee by telling them that "it's important to listen to the voices of Black people right now."  Yeah, the irony here is hip-deep.  It's a smart film, a clever film, and a sometimes uncomfortable film.  It's meant to be.  It's designed to challenge assumptions, to encourage the viewer to see that the African American experience cannot be reduced to stereotypes and caricatures.  That Ellison is Black impacts every aspect of his life is obvious.  But what we are also urged to see is that Ellison's life is simply his life.  He has family, struggles with intimacy, sibling rivalry, issues with an aging parent, you name it.  But all of this doesn't matter to the masses, to the publishers he deals with.  They only see his race.  It's reductive.  His life isn't just far more textured than peoply would assume, it's more than they want to hear about.  The people in his business want to lean into the stereotypes, thinking this is what will sell when we talk about a "Black" author.  The film is well done, funny at times, and, much like Jeffrey Wright (who I kind of adore), the story has a lot more going on than can be seen on the surface.

"The Color Purple" (2023)

Beautiful.  Powerful.  Sweet.  How this film got locked out of Oscar contention is baffling me.  It's a full hour shorter than "Killers of the Flower Moon" and much stronger, in my humble opinion.  It has a terrific cast.  Fantasia Barrino makes this role her own, which is not an easy thing to do, given, you know, Whoopi Goldberg.  Taraji P. Henson does her strong, empowering woman thing (which she is really good at).  Danielle Brooks brightens every single room she walks into, as always (she was my absolute fave on OITNB).  Chameleon Colman Domingo was terrifying and left no trace of the shy, cautious man he was in "Rustin".  H.E.R. stunned -- I spent about ten minutes going, "that can't be her.  That really can't be her." (It was, and the woman can ACT.)  It's a tale which sneaks up on you.  And yes, I was bawling by the end, needing "a moment" to collect myself as the credits rolled.  So much better than some of the other nominees.  Really, really don't get why Hollywood remains so biased against great films about the Black experience.  It's not alien.  It's "us" -- the need to be loved, to have a reason to wake up in the morning, to know that you can make a complete life for yourself, to understand that you are alive and have purpose.  These are things we can relate to.  Why can't the Oscar folks see this?

"Fargo"

Picked up on this anthology series last year, with season 4.  That took place in the 1920s.  This year's "completely true" story (they aren't true) takes place in 2019.  This season's twisted tale is about a woman trying to escape a really really really bad ex.  There is also a 500 year old man with a bizarre spin on the world and a few other mystical elements.  Part of me swears that some of the story was lifted from the original Rapunzel.  In any case, "Fargo", at least the two seasons I've seen, is quite good.  But it's problematic.  There is visceral violence throughout.  I tend to listen to the episodes more than watch them, distracting my eyes with something like online puzzles.  At least this series breaks the current trend of having a lot of characters I can't begin to care about.  The show has good guys.  And medium guys.  And really really really bad guys.  So, this is the thing.  You end up rooting for the good guys.  To bash in the heads of the really bad guys.  Is this a good thing?  That you end up, time and time again, wanting the good guys to utterly destroy the bad guys.  The show is structured that way.  To get you to hate.  To want retribution.  And it does this very well.  Very effectively.  Every once in a while there is a truly good character.  They usually end up dead.  The lesson here is clear.  To be the good guy, you have to fight back.  You have to be as bad as the people who are destroying your life.  Now I have to ask ... is there a danger in that?  "Fargo" is tight, and quirky, and occasionally very very funny.  But it touches a dark streak in humanity.  And I'm not sure if I want to keep going back to that well.

"Daisy Jones & the Six"

Plowed through this one in a day and a half.  A "fictional" rock band in the 1970s goes through what all rock bands seem to go through.  There is the sudden rise, the pressure, the drugs, the sex, the break-up.  But there is so much more here.  More subtlety, more nuances.  In this very well-produced pretend documentary there are a ton of things implied but not said.  It makes the viewer bring themselves into the picture, trying to better understand how to fill in the gaps.  The cast is terrific, and, with the exception of Sam Claflin, do a great job of aging up and down (Mr. Claflin is a terrific actor, but I'm sorry, don't buy him as a 20-something).  It's a tale where you think you know where it is going -- it is ~heavily~ influenced by Fleetwood Mac -- but in the end, there are twists you didn't see coming.  The music is terrific and well-performed by Riley Keough (yeah, she might have some genetic help with her rough yet sweet voice) but it also creates the dilemma.  Since the score of the show uses the biggest 70s hits (in delightful ways), you are hearing the actual hits with the ones written for this pretend band.  And, while the music "Daisy Jones & the Six" band plays is great, it just doesn't hold up to Led Zepplin, the Eagles, or, you know, the real Fleetwood Mac.  It is an absolutely terrific mini-series.  It just isn't perfect.

"May December"

Let's be clear -- the popularity of this film has less to do with the quality of the film and more to do with the sensational nature of the tale and the big-name actors attached to the project.  That being said, it comes off like a mash-up of "Twin Peaks" and any given Lifetime thriller.  Complete with a thundering score which imposes.  It's tension without tension.  Natalie Portman has been getting attention for her creepy performance but it left me a little cold.  Lots of lingering stares, whispy and detached conversation.  And yes, the character goes exactly where I knew she would right from the beginning.  I think the creators of the film missed the point.  The weird actor isn't the issue.  The woman who slept with a 13 year-old boy is the problem.  The emphasis is just wrong.  And the film is a ~lot~ like the Mary Kay Letourneau story ... but, as they emphasize, not the Mary Kay Letourneau story.  Which is just distracting.  I'll give props to the film style, which is good, and to Julianne Moore, who is playing the truly conflicted, damaged, complicated character.  Natalie Portman's character is simply the reflection.

"Rustin"

Terrific editing, a quick pace and upbeat jazz tunes make this different from so many of the biopics which come out at awards time each year.  There is the incomparable performance by Colman Domingo and the rest of the cast, and there is a tight, clean script which keeps the story moving.  Like haiku, the story here says exactly what it needs to, and no more.  The tale of this event is oft-told but never has it been told from this perspective.  The story of Bayard Rustin and the behind-the-scenes battles to get the March on Washington to happen can be difficult to watch at times.  We have been taught, in so many school lessons, about the love and peace and unity of the day.  But we need to know the rest of it.  How the Black community struggled to agree on methods to achieve equality.  How homosexuals and women were often left out of the equation.  How a gentle, passionate man of peace was sidelined time and time again but refused to be silenced.  This production, from Higher Ground, Barack and Michelle Obama's film company, continues to tread the path they have committed to:  letting ALL voices be heard.  It is a film of simple beauty which leaves an impact.

"Fellow Travelers"

Love Matt Bomer, agree that this is a an amazing performance from him, and a tale which can afford be told in this day and age, but ...it's challenging.  Maybe that's why Bomer liked it.  The character isn't clean.  He starts out abusive and manipulative with his lover.  The character is a survivor who will do what it takes to survive -- even if that means destroying a friend.  In other words, this is a character with layers.  But does it make you want to root for him?  It's well-done, I will give that to you.  Took a good long while but by the end I was in tears.  The entire cast is really strong.  There were a couple of things that rankled.  The sex is, initially, more performative than necessary (thanks Showtime).  The actors pull off the age transition, but the makeup doesn't.  And the actor playing Roy Cohn wears a noticeable nose prosthesis and no one has said a thing, unlike the grief Bradley Cooper has been getting for "Maestro" (ironically a film Bomer is also in).  But that's nit-picky.  It's good.  It drew me as it progressed.  And the tale ... of what gay men go through in a closed society, is a critical one for those who think they can legislate homosexuality out of existence.

"Nyad"

So, I thought the downgrading of this film during award season was like the downgrading of Nyad's actual amazing achievement.  Because no one wanted an egotistical old gay woman to create world records.  Add in Diane Nyad's penchant for tall tales and the questions ... a lot of questions ... about whether she actually swam from Cuba to Key West unassisted, and you have a film no one wants to touch.  I admit, the GPS data of the real swim does give one pause (for a few hours she was moving at 2-3 miles per hour instead of 1.5 miles per hour, which is more realistic), my bottom line is that there were 40 people, on four boats, around her.  If there was a "cheat", as many say, someone would have talked by now.  None have.  So I choose to believe what was said at the time.  That she caught, for a brief time, a strong current.  As a kayaker and swimmer, that's something I get.  In any case, this is a film, not a documentary.  The acting is great (given the leads, how could it not be?)  The production is terrific, doing some great work at showing the glory of open ocean swimming (been there, love it).  Where the film falters, a bit, is that they can't escape the inevitability of your average sports movie.  A dream, followed by determination, followed by failure, followed by despair -- wash, rinse, repeat until you get to success.  In other words, the story covers an event we are familiar with and doesn't make it particularly fresh.  Which is not to say it isn't good.  It just isn't something which holds your attention every minute.  Where it succeeded, for me, was in the message.  Never give up.  Never allow age hold you back.  With determination, you CAN do it.  And yes, if this was about a man (think "King Richard"), it would be getting a lot more attention than it is getting.

"Maestro"

Now this is an Oscar film.  Every scene, every moment, is crafted and beautiful and powerful.  I literally couldn't tear my eyes away from it.  But to backtrack -- I love Bradley Cooper.  For years I have recognized in Cooper's work something that the film community seems to be just coming to realize.  Bradley Cooper is a hyphenate genius who brings a lot, a LOT, to every project he works on.  "A Star is Born" was brilliant.  This film is even more so.  Forget the Leonard Bernstein that many of us knew from the Young People's Concerts.  This is the other Bernstein.  The one that almost none of us knew about at the time.  It is a love story but a complicated, layered one.  It is emotional and sad.  The tale is presented with gentle grace and in top-tier cast.  And, of course, there is music.  Cooper realized that Leonard Bernstein was, in many ways, an embodiment of music.  His soul was fused to it.  And so the film doesn't have a "background score" -- it has music as another character in the film.  It is loud.  It enhances but it also interrupts.  It makes a point.  And this is also an actors' film.  Cameras linger tightly on faces.  Actors take pauses -- really long pauses.  They look into the lens and think.  The camera stays on a figure from a distance, while they walk away.  Every shot is framed, every shot is a work of art.  It's brilliant.  Haven't watched the other big nominees yet, but I'm confident in saying that this one is a serious contender.  It's simply one of the best films I've seen in a long time.

"Saltburn"

And so, we arrive at awards season (delayed by the actors' strike).  Enter "Saltburn" -- a moody, veddy veddy British tale as old as time.  A welfare kid befriends a rich kid at Oxford (of course, Oxford), and the rich kid invites the welfare kid to his "summer home" -- a palacial estate filled with the kind of dysfunctional family the rich often try to cover up.  How could anything go wrong?  The direction and acting are great, of course ... however ... this isn't a new story.  I knew, from the opening title card, what was going to happen.  And it's one of those things where there is no one, absolutely not one character, to root for.  And that's not to my personal taste.  This is the conflict of these kinds of films.  I would never watch them if not for the nominations they gather.  And, if I personally dislike them -- a lot -- is that a reflection of how good or bad they are as a film?  No, generally not.  The fact that I don't gravitate towards westerns or horror movies doesn't mean that all westerns and horror movies are bad.  They just aren't my thing.  This film was very well made.  But it is totally not my thing.  And, as brilliant as Barry Keoghan is as an actor, I really didn't buy him as an 18 year old Freshman.  Sorry.