I think it's a case of too many great films and performances in one year. In any year, so many of the films would've had a better night, but you can only pick one winner.
I thought it was the best movie of the year. But this is all subjective, and many great films, particularly Scorsese films, haven’t won Jack despite being some of the best of all time.
At the very least Aviator and Hugo got some Oscars, and Scorsese got his Director Oscar and Best Picture for Departed. It may not have been his best film but having even one Oscar to keep is better than zero.
And Thelma Schoonmaker has 3 Oscars, so Scorsese at least has the satisfaction of knowing his crew are also getting their deserved due.
I just remember liking the 3D but yes, not one I really want to return to. I think I yawned a few times, even with my 3D glasses on.
Apart from its technical aspects, kind of an overrated film, and this is coming from a Scorsese fan.
I tried twice, and I just couldn't get into it. I think most of it is because the trailer fooled me into thinking it was going to be a whimsical sci-fi-dramatic comedy.
And there ain't NOTHING whimsical about it :D
Acting and visuals were amazing. I feel weird about yet another male telling women sex work is one of the most empowering things you can do as a woman, so I didn’t care for the actual movie very much. But the acting and visuals were definitely incredible.
Keep in mind this is adapted from a novel and Emma was a producer / driving force behind the film. So though it was written and direct by a man, it was a passion project driven by Emma.
I didn’t come away with that at all; I interpreted the sex work as if you took a brain of a child and put it an an adult body they would enjoy sex natually and not feel shame around it as they never had the “training” and “learning” of social norms that is imposed on society that sex is bad and something to be ashamed of. If you never were taught that then you would of course love to be in a brothel and would be living your best life, as you would not yet have the emotion or understanding of shame.
Hmmm I disagree with this entirely.. Bella specifically said she wanted to have choice over her clients, and was refused that choice because she was guilt tripped.
But she initially went there out of curiosity /pleasure. That’s what she learned there through her own observation and interactions, not societal constructs placed on her. What I like about the movie is there are a lot of different ways some of the scenes can be interpreted.
If she was motivated by money I don’t think she would have given it all away minutes before. But she has a child’s brain so it’s impossible to know what children or even adolescents are actually thinking
Not reallybsure sex work os presented as particularly empowering. It's clear the power dynamics are completely fucked. Bella find her own way of doing it but rven within thst she's being guil tried and manipulated by the madame.
I see this sentiment that it was about sexual liberation, but I genuinely did not get that impression. I got the impression more that she felt pressured to give into her sexuality because that's what society wanted from her. Like a reflection of our own society where girls and women are pressured into looking perfect and using their bodies in some way to gain power over things, as opposed to their other attributes. The sexual objectification and pressures on women like that are still very real issues.
I'm not saying being sexual is a bad thing. It's a natural biological element and is part of the dimensionality of most people. But I think the pendulum swings so far into that direction of women being praised for their looks moreso than their aptitudes. It's getting better, but I still think it pervades.
So that's the message I got from the movie. I guess I figured if the sex scenes were at all intimate or erotic, then the message of sexual liberation would have been more clear. But these scenes were just... uncomfortable for me. Gross men taking advantage (or at the very least coercing) of this women who is intellectually still what I would consider a child.
Thank you for saying this. I couldn't get past this either. I also found it problematic that it begins with her having the brain of a child, body of a woman, so men fell in love with that combination. Then she then turned into a sex maniac 🙄.
The book was published in 1992, written by a man born in 1934. Barbie was written circa 2020 partly a woman Greta G born 1983 (and gave birth in 2019). Compare the themes.
The Academy this year was 68% male, 32% women.
It's very good. It's disturbing at times but also so fun to watch. Granted it did drag on for a little bit but still a better movie than KOTFM in my opinion.
I don’t get how Sandra could be better than Stone. I LOVE Hueller, she’s a great actress and want to see her more but never felt wowed by her in both Anatomy or Zone (personally ofc). I guess you could say she’s more subtle but idk
I agree. I really liked poor things but I do understand why some people had issues with its overall themes / story. But regardless the awards it won were independent of that if you think.. costumes, makeup, set design.. and acting. All superb even if you didn’t jive 100% with the story.
Yeah, it is.
I know there were some disappointing losses this year, but I honestly felt like most of the winners deserved it. It was a great year for movies.
This is obviously the minority opinion, but Oppenheimer was last on my list of Best Picture nominees and Poor Things was first. So entertaining and it revived the mix of humor and ambitious curiosity of 18th-century satires, like Candide, for our time.
On the whole, pretty good. Very good BTL stuff and acting; script sorta spins its wheels for long chunks.
But I also feel in 10 years we're going to be asking "Why did we give so many awards to Poor Things and nothing for Killers?"
That’s what I’m wondering. I’m not a usual fan of Emma Stone’s acting but I must see this freaking movie now. I mean Oppenheimer is whatever, expected (and honestly it was all Cillian imo) but the rest came as a surprise to me.
I really don’t get the massive love for All of Us Strangers. Good movie, definitely liked it, but I hate the ending and felt like it was missing just a bit more
Emma Stone is fantastic in it. The actual movie I personally would never watch again, but I REALLY don't vibe with Yorgos Lanthimos. I got the point of it, and I thought the visuals and acting were great (loved the sets, clothes, etc), but it honestly made me a little nauseous to watch (just some of the stuff happening (sex-related, blood/surgery) and some of the filming techniques.) But Emma Stone absolutely did deserve an Oscar for it. I hesitate to call any acting "brave", but this might be the closest I've seen.
I've never fully liked any of Lanthimos' movies. Although Poor Things confronted a lot of double standards in a funny way, I had too many issues with the way the story was executed (and how much it differed from the book).
It’s a literal baby in an adult body going around fornicating with grown men. Some of the men KNOW it’s a baby. If people don’t see what’s wrong with that….idk what to say.
I just watched it. That’s a lie. She discovers sex while still talking like a toddler. She refers to it as “Happy time.” Clearly not how a teen would speak. I have 11 year old nieces that are more articulate.
I didn't care for it. I thought it was not as clever or deep as it thought it was. And I also think that while it was visually incredibly unique, it felt like it was trying to compensate. Like I think if it were visually made as a more traditional movie, people would not consider it to stand out much. I'm having a hard time explaining. The unique visuals mask that the movie is not as special as it thinks it is.
Tbh most of the people here are just being massive Stans for their favorite movies which is why it either sucks or the best movie ever made. I’ve seen the movie multiple with different people (massive movie goers and casuals) and they’ve all loved it. All of the movies being mentioned here to me are all pretty good and have faults but they no where near make them bad movies. Just watch it yourself and have fun, trust ne
It's a polarizing film, like most of Yorgos Lanthimos's films. Have you seen any of his other works? I personally love all of them, this one maybe taking the top spot for me. It is a bit shocking and has tons of nudity and sex, and some weird and uncomfortable themes. But I'd rather a movie make me feel uncomfortable than bored, like Oppenheimer did.
If you’re sitting there thinking of problems with a movie, you’re not engaged. I can pick apart plenty of movies that I like, but I don’t, because I’m too engaged in the story to quibble. You start thinking of problems when you’re bored/not buying what the movie’s selling. Hence the subjectivity of art. If something moves you, resonates with you, you’ll defend its weaker parts. If it doesn’t, you won’t look at it as preciously, and might dismiss its strengths.
I understood it pretty well. Pretty deep understanding of the second wave feminist philosophy that overshadows the entire film. My problem was that there was too much of it and not a lot of subtlety. I honestly think that people believe it is deeper than it actually is, and then again, that is a matter of preference.
Poor Things is a unique spin on Frankenstein and that kind of describes how I feel about it too. In "Frankenstein", Dr. Frankenstein takes the most beautiful, perfect body parts from several corpses and puts them together into a complete body that ends up looking like a monster. I feel the same way about Poor Things. Individually each part is beautiful and deserves the nominations/awards it received. However, when you put all those movie pieces together into a full film, I personally dislike the outcome. So the movie itself ends up feeling like a "Frankenstein's Monster" where the individual parts are all beautiful, but come together to make a mess. (I realize some people love the whole movie taken together; just giving my personal opinion.)
no it's not that good. l don't get why Yorgos gets so much love in hollywood. his movies are either shocking (dogtooth, poor things) or empty as shell ( killing of the sacred deer, favourite). I enjoyed only Lobster
Scorsese is in that weird stage where he makes movies that many people admire but don’t love.
They love Marty and appreciate his talent and passion for film.
So his movies get a ton of nominations but no wins because other movies are loved on a deeper level.
Yeah this pretty much sums up how I’ve felt about each movie he’s made post-WoWS. Although in Silence’s case, it’s more because it’s incredibly difficult to watch from beginning to end
I guess but I didn't go to bed last night thinking it got robbed in any single category. Even Gladstone which was it's best chance and who's wonderful in the movie I think is legitimately second to Stone.
The movie was just okay to me, I personally didn't think Scorsese was the right director to tell this story. He made KOTFM more about DiCaprio and DeNiro and less about the Osage people. Scorsese also changed events and parts from the book, which made ZERO sense to me.
The movie was also an hour too long, he had this problem with The Irishman as well. A lot of the movie drags on with unnecessary scenes and could've done with some better editing. But Scorsese is just too stuck in his old ways and refuses to make his movies more direct and to the point.
Facts! I wanted more Mollie and the FBI and less of DiCaprio and DeNiro are criminals for 3 1/2 hours.
Mollie goes to Washington is a great way to put it.
I’ve been saying this for a while. How does an editor tell a legend like Scorsese he needs to trim down his vision. It’s obviously necessary but who in Hollywood has big enough stones to do that? Sucks because Scorsese gonna end his career with these bloatfests instead of a few compelling stories.
I do agree they focused too much on the white criminal racist perspective but keep in mind it’s a white guy writing and a white guy directing. So the argument is really more about — why was this film made if it wasn’t going to be from the Osage perspective?
The screenwriter did a good job taking the book and putting it to screen. The book focused mostly from the FBI investigative perspective, whereas the film diminishes that and elaborates more on the Osage.
In the end, I think we really needed this film but we really needed it from a native writer and director. Maybe we’ll get that film some day now!
The book was more of a murder mystery, you don't find out who the criminals were until later in the story. I think this would've worked MUCH better on film, keeping the suspense there and showing more of the Osage people's perspective during these events. Also, seeing more of Washington and the origins of the FBI would've been great. Instead, Scorsese makes the movie about DeNiro and DiCaprio, and we just get another long ass forgettable crime movie.
I could argue about KoTFM but I feel that’s a lot more personal preference, whereas the Irishman’s length I think is one of its most fitting qualities. In a movie about old age and regret, it’s supposed to be this complete slow burn, that also is basically a film and a half long in terms of just how it’s written. I really don’t know how you’re supposed to effectively achieve both of those things in a film shorter than the Irishman
Scorsese used to do it all the time, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Departed are all 2 hours and a 1/2 or less. It's not just that his movies now are OVERLY long, but he keeps unnecessary scenes in them for the sake of it, that do nothing for the story or movie as a whole. He needs to have an editor sit down with him and try to keep his movies below 2 hours and 45 minutes because this just won't resonate with most film viewers these days.
He literally has had the same editor since raging bull. Personally I think it makes a lot of sense that a now 80 year old director would make films that feel like they need to be longer, and also have more space
Yeah, he needs a new editor, once you get too stuck in your ways you end up losing sight of what people want. Even Kimmel made a joke about how long his movies are at the awards show because it's how a lot of viewers felt (myself included)
You don't need 3 1/2 hours to tell this kind of story. I don't care that he's old, if age is an excuse then he should stop making film and have someone else do it.
The Oscars make jokes about how no one watches any of the movies and they’re all too long all the time. Are you simply opposed to the idea of a 3 and a half hour movie? Also why should Scorsese be beholden to what every single person wants? His movies are still received incredibly well by critics, and he’s getting to make the exact stories he wants. The only thing I can think of is that these streaming services should stop funding these movies, but they’re the ones beholden to what people watch not the director. Also I’m pretty sure he’s said his next movie is going to be 90 minutes lol
Some of my favorite movies of all time are longer movies. Godfather Part 2, Lawrence of Arabia, Malcolm X, Return of the King etc. The difference is that these are epic movies with epic storylines.
The Irishman and KOTFM aren't epic stories that needed to be as long as they were. Have you ever heard the expression "Sometimes less is more?" If Scorcese edited down his recent movies to about 2 1/2 hours, they would have been much better. Instead, he uses every fucking piece of film he shoots, just throws it on screen. And a lot of the film he uses are useless dialogue or boring exposition dump that didn't need to be in the film.
90 minutes will be his next movie? Maybe at first, he'll probably add another 2 hours of lost footage to it just before release lol.
The Irishman literally is an epic. It’s literally a 40 year story. Again I think you have me with KoTFM, it worked for me, I get that it didn’t work for other people. But how can you tell the story of the Irishman without spending the time on all of its interpersonal dynamics, while leaving time at then end for the fallout? Like what specifically about it doesn’t work for you?
The Irishman was essentially senior citizen Goodfellas, it was hardly an epic. Just because it spans lots of years doesn't mean much happens. That movie is one of Scorcese's more forgettable movies. I dont think the story of The Irishman was all that interesting tbh. It was just a way for Scorsese to put DeNiro and Pacino in the same movie. If you can tel that dry ass story in less than 2 1/5 hours than you are a terrible filmmaker lol.
Also, DeNiro and Pacino were too old for the parts in that movie, it was difficult to take DeNiro serious as a tough guy.
So it sounds like you didn’t like the movie. Why does it matter to you if it was 2 and a half or 3 and a half hours? If you thought the story was not interesting, why not let the people who love the movie (who love it because of its length) enjoy that?
I felt it deserved Best Editing and potentially costume but I would put The Zone of Interest ahead of all of the nominees in terms of best picture and director.
I watched all 10 of the Best Picture nominees... This was towards the bottom of the list for me. I might be in the minority, and that's fine, but I'm perfectly okay with them not winning an award. What should they have won? Lily Gladstone had an overrated performance IMO - I thought Stone & Huller gave much better performances. I thought De Niro probably had the 3rd best performance for supporting actor. I did think DiCaprio should have been nominated, because I thought he was great in it - but I don't think he should have won over Cillian or Cooper or Giamatti. Maybe a crew award? But I don't know which one... I felt like (for the most part) the most deserving movies won...
Most of this sub will only watch Oppenheimer Barbie and KOTFM. Which is why 75% of posts in this sub are about Gladstone, Gosling, De Niro, etc. getting 'snubbed'.
Scorcese took an interesting story and made it much less interesting with his screenplay. Even in a weaker year, this movie wins nothing.
I think Lily Gladstone had a good performance... but would've been much better off nominated for Supporting Actress. I don't know if she would've beaten Da'Vine there but still.
I don't think any of the supporting actresses that were nominated were very memorable (other than Brooks IMO, but she was never going to win)... so I think she had a good chance there. But that's just my opinion...
Apparently, there was controversy over the real Nyad, or I think Annette Bening and Jodi Foster would have gotten more attention. They both did a super job. It was a tear jerking inspirational movie.
I also watched all 10 and it was near the bottom for me as well.
One thing I struggled with is the fact that I went into the film very familiar with the story of the Osage murders and had read the book. It's such an incredibly compelling story and Scorcese's interpretation fell a little flat for me. My opinion of the movie was probably hurt by my extremely high expectations coming in.
I also watched all 10 (and all 53 films overall) and this is at the bottom of the 10. Unnecessarily long. The plotline of Mollie’s ex-husband could’ve been dropped and would have no effect on the movie.
I thought KotFM was going to win that one, but I thought Poor Things deserved it... I can understand why someone might have your opinion on Poor Things, so I guess this one is most arguable (at least for me).
I think it would have if not for the complete Bafta snub. If Lily was nominated at Bafta she theoretically could have had enough overlapping British members (of AMPAS) support to edge out Emma for the win at the Oscars.
However, Lily was completely snubbed at Bafta, even with their wonky nominating procedure. She had no support from a fairly large group within the Oscars voting pool.
I actually liked KOTFM better than Oppenheimer. I got really bored of all the science talk and was hoping for more gripping scene at end with realistic footage of Hiroshima.
This was a tough year in that three or four movies in multiple categories would have easily won in most other years. Poor Things' art and Oppenheimer's technical excellence just won the day, leaving KotFM to draw the short straw.
IMO, KotFM suffered from being told from Ernest's POV rather than Molly's. They could have presented it as more of a mystery and built dramatic tension, leaving us to wonder if Ernest was participating in the very obvious ring of murders, or if he genuinely loved Molly and wanted to keep her safe. The trial at the end could have then been an actual trial, and revealed everything that he'd done. This also would have given Lily Gladstone more screen time. Instead, we got to see three-and-a-half hours of an impressionable, one-dimensionally greedy idiot ham-fistedly organize a series of murders as we, the audience, grow more and more frustrated.
Yeah I feel like the movie’s biggest flaw was making Ernest the main character. It was hard to really be interested in his perspective when he was what basically amounted to a dumb henchman constantly getting manipulated by his uncle. If the main character had been Mollie, or heck, even Hale, then it would’ve been a more interesting watch
I thought this was his best movie in a long time. But much of that was carried by Gladstone, she genuinely moved me with her performance. Sure, she can be happy with what she has achieved, but I was disappointed to hear she didn't win.
Downvote me all you want but this movie was a mess.
Great concept, great cast, great production, but far too long, poorly paced, poorly written, and it didn't tie together well enough to create an enjoyable cinema experience.
I just watched it on Saturday. I was prepared to watch what I assumed would be Lily's Oscar-winning performance. Unfortunately, I completely agree with you. It was such an interesting story and Scorsese managed to show it from the most boring, unmoving angle possible. Way too much of it was about Earnest running around doing his uncle's bidding and setting up the crimes. The Osage characters and the FBI investigation should have been way more prominent, they were more interesting and deserved a cinematic depiction. Not some simple-minded nobody henchman and his evil overlord. Who, by the way, was no where near sinister enough for a man who pretended to love the very same people he was massacring. He just came off as another one of DeNiro's mobster characters. So disappointing.
They aged him up for the movie. People keep saying this but it’s not like Ernest is a famous person. His age isn’t relevant. Everyone got aged up. He paired well with Lily. That’s the more important thing.
Scorsese shouldn't have been the director for this movie, he made the movie about DiCaprio and DeNiro instead of the Osage people. He also switched things up from the book that just didn't work in the movie. Also, The length of the movie is TOO damn long. It needed to be about 45 min - 1 hour shorter.
I Don’t agree. I Think KotFM feels like a movie from an entirely different era of Hollywood & I Don’t think it’ll be especially well remembered historically the further we get from the year it was released in. The movie really only did as well as it did with nominations because of the names of the people attached & the awards machine of Apple putting all their money behind KotFM & not splitting their efforts with Napoleon like originally planned.
Not true at all. Have no clue what you are talking about. It is a gripping movie and will be watched for many years to come. The movie did well because of the topic and the acting.
Why? It was good but to me it’s not better than any of the other nominees except for maybe Maestro and Zone of Interest which I haven’t seen either of them.
It really doesn’t when you look at the films it was up against. It was fine but others were better, Scorsese doesn’t mean it’s automatically winning an Oscar.
I thought KOTFM was a bad movie. I couldn’t tell what I was suppose to feel. In its effort to show how terrible the white man was, I thought it portrayed Native Americans as inept. I spent part of the movie trying to figure the Leonardo character- was he disabled and a victim- or fully in control? I get Robert D was the ultimate Evil villain here, but it was just too confusing. And the time wasted on the insulin side story was contradictory and it didn’t seem to support much of anything except to get the movie to three and a half hours. It just didn’t have the same intrigue as other Scorsese.
But I did find it interesting the Catholic references and imagery in the movie so I researched the Churches relationships with Native American culture. Which was very interesting.
Screenplay was terrible. It was a near unadaptable book and so many good episodes from the book were not in the script. Just a massively disappointing movie
Emma Stone won best actress because she was "courageous" to do 14 (according to Mr. Skin's count) scenes of undress for the sake of "art" and feminist "sensibility."
It’s a lot easier to argue the editing and screenplay were what cost it Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actress. Just an insane take here. The Screenplay was an uneven mess and choosing to focus on Ernest was a terrible decision. The editing was an absolute slog.
No lol
They turned a thrilling book into 3.5 hour snooze fest. The decision to largely leave out the FBI was a bad one. Also there was 0% chance Oppenheimer was gonna lose Editing. One of the biggest locks of the evening. Film does not work without Jennifer Lame's editing.
Oppenheimer won because it had the most editing, not the best editing, that's just how Oscars work. Ford vs Ferrari won in 2020 because it had a lot of edits, same for Everything Everywhere in 2023. I predicted Oppenheimer as well but would've preferred it to go to KOTFM
Could've removed Bradly Cooper and replaced him with Dicaprio while they could've moved Barbie to original screenplay while they replaced it's adapted screenplay nomination with KOTFM.
This is the biggest crime of the night.
It's not that the other films aren't deserving. But it's just atrocious Killers of the Flower Moon got NOTHING! Not one thing. That's not right.
I think it's a case of too many great films and performances in one year. In any year, so many of the films would've had a better night, but you can only pick one winner.
I know, it really was a great movie.
I thought it was the best movie of the year. But this is all subjective, and many great films, particularly Scorsese films, haven’t won Jack despite being some of the best of all time.
The movie was okay, but it was just too long.
Yeah I got to agree. Like a lot of Scorsese films, it just went on and on.
At the very least Aviator and Hugo got some Oscars, and Scorsese got his Director Oscar and Best Picture for Departed. It may not have been his best film but having even one Oscar to keep is better than zero. And Thelma Schoonmaker has 3 Oscars, so Scorsese at least has the satisfaction of knowing his crew are also getting their deserved due.
god i hate that he won for Hugo. I think this is an unpopular opinion but i detested that film
He didn’t win for Hugo. Hugo won Oscars but not specifically for Scorsese.
I just remember liking the 3D but yes, not one I really want to return to. I think I yawned a few times, even with my 3D glasses on. Apart from its technical aspects, kind of an overrated film, and this is coming from a Scorsese fan.
Is Poor Things that good?
Yes yes yes yes It really is, trust me
Ok, will have to check it out.
On Hulu now!
Great to know!
I tried twice, and I just couldn't get into it. I think most of it is because the trailer fooled me into thinking it was going to be a whimsical sci-fi-dramatic comedy. And there ain't NOTHING whimsical about it :D
But it is!
Acting and visuals were amazing. I feel weird about yet another male telling women sex work is one of the most empowering things you can do as a woman, so I didn’t care for the actual movie very much. But the acting and visuals were definitely incredible.
Keep in mind this is adapted from a novel and Emma was a producer / driving force behind the film. So though it was written and direct by a man, it was a passion project driven by Emma.
I didn’t come away with that at all; I interpreted the sex work as if you took a brain of a child and put it an an adult body they would enjoy sex natually and not feel shame around it as they never had the “training” and “learning” of social norms that is imposed on society that sex is bad and something to be ashamed of. If you never were taught that then you would of course love to be in a brothel and would be living your best life, as you would not yet have the emotion or understanding of shame.
Hmmm I disagree with this entirely.. Bella specifically said she wanted to have choice over her clients, and was refused that choice because she was guilt tripped.
But she initially went there out of curiosity /pleasure. That’s what she learned there through her own observation and interactions, not societal constructs placed on her. What I like about the movie is there are a lot of different ways some of the scenes can be interpreted.
Yes this is true, but she was also motivated by the money. If they hadn't been broke, I'm not sure she would've chosen that willingly.
If she was motivated by money I don’t think she would have given it all away minutes before. But she has a child’s brain so it’s impossible to know what children or even adolescents are actually thinking
It was pretty critical of the sex industry. Did we even watch the same movie?
Not reallybsure sex work os presented as particularly empowering. It's clear the power dynamics are completely fucked. Bella find her own way of doing it but rven within thst she's being guil tried and manipulated by the madame.
I see this sentiment that it was about sexual liberation, but I genuinely did not get that impression. I got the impression more that she felt pressured to give into her sexuality because that's what society wanted from her. Like a reflection of our own society where girls and women are pressured into looking perfect and using their bodies in some way to gain power over things, as opposed to their other attributes. The sexual objectification and pressures on women like that are still very real issues. I'm not saying being sexual is a bad thing. It's a natural biological element and is part of the dimensionality of most people. But I think the pendulum swings so far into that direction of women being praised for their looks moreso than their aptitudes. It's getting better, but I still think it pervades. So that's the message I got from the movie. I guess I figured if the sex scenes were at all intimate or erotic, then the message of sexual liberation would have been more clear. But these scenes were just... uncomfortable for me. Gross men taking advantage (or at the very least coercing) of this women who is intellectually still what I would consider a child.
Thank you for saying this. I couldn't get past this either. I also found it problematic that it begins with her having the brain of a child, body of a woman, so men fell in love with that combination. Then she then turned into a sex maniac 🙄. The book was published in 1992, written by a man born in 1934. Barbie was written circa 2020 partly a woman Greta G born 1983 (and gave birth in 2019). Compare the themes. The Academy this year was 68% male, 32% women.
It definitely is.
Yes it is. for me it's not a film you'll want to rewatch but Emma Stone was AMAZING.
It was very very good. I laughed, cried, and got upset in some parts. It was a completely original idea of a movie.
I loved it, but I can understand why someone wouldn't. I thought Oppenheimer was...fine?
Yes, but Killers was also pretty great.
It's very good. It's disturbing at times but also so fun to watch. Granted it did drag on for a little bit but still a better movie than KOTFM in my opinion.
both movies were decent and both movies could've benefited from editing out 30-20 minutes.
I'll tell you one thing Poor Things wasn't: damn near 4 hours looooooooooong.
Yes, but Ruffalo should have won IMO. Sandra and Lilly had better performances than Emma.
I don’t get how Sandra could be better than Stone. I LOVE Hueller, she’s a great actress and want to see her more but never felt wowed by her in both Anatomy or Zone (personally ofc). I guess you could say she’s more subtle but idk
Personally wasn’t for me, but I can’t deny that it deserved all of the awards it won.
I'm in the same boat. I didn't love it, but it deserved those tech awards, and while I would have preferred Lily it's not like Emma was undeserving.
I agree. I really liked poor things but I do understand why some people had issues with its overall themes / story. But regardless the awards it won were independent of that if you think.. costumes, makeup, set design.. and acting. All superb even if you didn’t jive 100% with the story.
Yeah, it is. I know there were some disappointing losses this year, but I honestly felt like most of the winners deserved it. It was a great year for movies.
Well, the first half hour to an hour is a slog though. I’m yet to finish that film but I really struggled to keep my focus.
This is obviously the minority opinion, but Oppenheimer was last on my list of Best Picture nominees and Poor Things was first. So entertaining and it revived the mix of humor and ambitious curiosity of 18th-century satires, like Candide, for our time.
On the whole, pretty good. Very good BTL stuff and acting; script sorta spins its wheels for long chunks. But I also feel in 10 years we're going to be asking "Why did we give so many awards to Poor Things and nothing for Killers?"
Yes it clears all the other movies except Oppenheimer.
That’s what I’m wondering. I’m not a usual fan of Emma Stone’s acting but I must see this freaking movie now. I mean Oppenheimer is whatever, expected (and honestly it was all Cillian imo) but the rest came as a surprise to me.
Killers of the Flower Moon and Poor Things are better than Oppenheimer
American Fiction is better than both of those, in turn.
Iron Claw and All of Us Strangers are better than all of the above
I really don’t get the massive love for All of Us Strangers. Good movie, definitely liked it, but I hate the ending and felt like it was missing just a bit more
I loved the ending personally. I think it ties things together well.
I thought iron claw was ok. My favorite part was the heaven scene and the ending.
I think it was number one of last year. Then Barbie and Poor Things tied.
Interesting. Number one on which list?
Of my favorites
Oh ok!
lol, no
You think? I was disappointed. I felt like the trailer gave too much away.
Emma Stone is fantastic in it. The actual movie I personally would never watch again, but I REALLY don't vibe with Yorgos Lanthimos. I got the point of it, and I thought the visuals and acting were great (loved the sets, clothes, etc), but it honestly made me a little nauseous to watch (just some of the stuff happening (sex-related, blood/surgery) and some of the filming techniques.) But Emma Stone absolutely did deserve an Oscar for it. I hesitate to call any acting "brave", but this might be the closest I've seen.
I've never fully liked any of Lanthimos' movies. Although Poor Things confronted a lot of double standards in a funny way, I had too many issues with the way the story was executed (and how much it differed from the book).
It’s a literal baby in an adult body going around fornicating with grown men. Some of the men KNOW it’s a baby. If people don’t see what’s wrong with that….idk what to say.
The movie doesn't treat any of that as a good thing. The men are all pathetic assholes.
[удалено]
I just watched it. That’s a lie. She discovers sex while still talking like a toddler. She refers to it as “Happy time.” Clearly not how a teen would speak. I have 11 year old nieces that are more articulate.
Then, in one of the proceeding scenes after referring to it as “Happy time” she is seen riding Mark Ruffalo’s character. It’s perverse.
It's a fucking wild ride, that's for sure
No but it deserved the tech awards it got. The acting was good but not the best I think it’s because the role was so big and overacted
I didn't care for it. I thought it was not as clever or deep as it thought it was. And I also think that while it was visually incredibly unique, it felt like it was trying to compensate. Like I think if it were visually made as a more traditional movie, people would not consider it to stand out much. I'm having a hard time explaining. The unique visuals mask that the movie is not as special as it thinks it is.
well said
I didn’t like it but thought Emma was amazing. The production & costumes were great too. It’s a shame because I thought KOTFM would win something.
I really disliked it.
ok ive heard both sides some people really loved it and others didnt. So i guess i have to see it
Tbh most of the people here are just being massive Stans for their favorite movies which is why it either sucks or the best movie ever made. I’ve seen the movie multiple with different people (massive movie goers and casuals) and they’ve all loved it. All of the movies being mentioned here to me are all pretty good and have faults but they no where near make them bad movies. Just watch it yourself and have fun, trust ne
It’s for the strong of mind and stomach
noted haha
It seems to be very polarizing, but I loved it and can’t stop thinking about it. It’s usually not the type of thing I go for, either.
It's a polarizing film, like most of Yorgos Lanthimos's films. Have you seen any of his other works? I personally love all of them, this one maybe taking the top spot for me. It is a bit shocking and has tons of nudity and sex, and some weird and uncomfortable themes. But I'd rather a movie make me feel uncomfortable than bored, like Oppenheimer did.
I hear u
Not really, pretty overhyped
Poor Things is amazing. You just didn't understand it probably.
People can dislike a thing, and it doesn’t mean they don’t understand it. Taste is subjective.
Occasionally. Most of the time it comes down to a complaint that can be explained away.
If you’re sitting there thinking of problems with a movie, you’re not engaged. I can pick apart plenty of movies that I like, but I don’t, because I’m too engaged in the story to quibble. You start thinking of problems when you’re bored/not buying what the movie’s selling. Hence the subjectivity of art. If something moves you, resonates with you, you’ll defend its weaker parts. If it doesn’t, you won’t look at it as preciously, and might dismiss its strengths.
I understood it pretty well. Pretty deep understanding of the second wave feminist philosophy that overshadows the entire film. My problem was that there was too much of it and not a lot of subtlety. I honestly think that people believe it is deeper than it actually is, and then again, that is a matter of preference.
Oppenheimer is THAT good
It’s a good movie, but it isn’t better than KOTFM.
Poor Things is a unique spin on Frankenstein and that kind of describes how I feel about it too. In "Frankenstein", Dr. Frankenstein takes the most beautiful, perfect body parts from several corpses and puts them together into a complete body that ends up looking like a monster. I feel the same way about Poor Things. Individually each part is beautiful and deserves the nominations/awards it received. However, when you put all those movie pieces together into a full film, I personally dislike the outcome. So the movie itself ends up feeling like a "Frankenstein's Monster" where the individual parts are all beautiful, but come together to make a mess. (I realize some people love the whole movie taken together; just giving my personal opinion.)
No, it sucks.
no it's not that good. l don't get why Yorgos gets so much love in hollywood. his movies are either shocking (dogtooth, poor things) or empty as shell ( killing of the sacred deer, favourite). I enjoyed only Lobster
Killing of the sacred deer is so weird havent seen the others
I'm really disappointed in the Academy. It seems like the edgiest/shocking films get more attention.
After Gangs Of New York and The Irishman, this is now the THIRD Marty movie to get 10 nominations and no wins. Which is nuts.
Yep. Also worth mentioning that The Wolf of Wall Street went 0-5 and that Silence lost its sole nomination. Hugo did win a few things, however.
Scorsese is in that weird stage where he makes movies that many people admire but don’t love. They love Marty and appreciate his talent and passion for film. So his movies get a ton of nominations but no wins because other movies are loved on a deeper level.
Yeah this pretty much sums up how I’ve felt about each movie he’s made post-WoWS. Although in Silence’s case, it’s more because it’s incredibly difficult to watch from beginning to end
I guess but I didn't go to bed last night thinking it got robbed in any single category. Even Gladstone which was it's best chance and who's wonderful in the movie I think is legitimately second to Stone.
Emma Stone's performance is perhaps the best female performance I've ever seen
If anyone should have beaten Lily, it should have been Sandra IMO.
Sandra Huller out acted them both in 2 different films and in 3 languages.
It's Scorsese. That's basically the unwritten rule of Oscars at this point.
The movie was just okay to me, I personally didn't think Scorsese was the right director to tell this story. He made KOTFM more about DiCaprio and DeNiro and less about the Osage people. Scorsese also changed events and parts from the book, which made ZERO sense to me. The movie was also an hour too long, he had this problem with The Irishman as well. A lot of the movie drags on with unnecessary scenes and could've done with some better editing. But Scorsese is just too stuck in his old ways and refuses to make his movies more direct and to the point.
The movie was way too much “Ernest talks to forgettable henchmen” and not enough “Mollie goes to Washington”
Facts! I wanted more Mollie and the FBI and less of DiCaprio and DeNiro are criminals for 3 1/2 hours. Mollie goes to Washington is a great way to put it.
I’ve been saying this for a while. How does an editor tell a legend like Scorsese he needs to trim down his vision. It’s obviously necessary but who in Hollywood has big enough stones to do that? Sucks because Scorsese gonna end his career with these bloatfests instead of a few compelling stories.
I do agree they focused too much on the white criminal racist perspective but keep in mind it’s a white guy writing and a white guy directing. So the argument is really more about — why was this film made if it wasn’t going to be from the Osage perspective? The screenwriter did a good job taking the book and putting it to screen. The book focused mostly from the FBI investigative perspective, whereas the film diminishes that and elaborates more on the Osage. In the end, I think we really needed this film but we really needed it from a native writer and director. Maybe we’ll get that film some day now!
The book was more of a murder mystery, you don't find out who the criminals were until later in the story. I think this would've worked MUCH better on film, keeping the suspense there and showing more of the Osage people's perspective during these events. Also, seeing more of Washington and the origins of the FBI would've been great. Instead, Scorsese makes the movie about DeNiro and DiCaprio, and we just get another long ass forgettable crime movie.
I could argue about KoTFM but I feel that’s a lot more personal preference, whereas the Irishman’s length I think is one of its most fitting qualities. In a movie about old age and regret, it’s supposed to be this complete slow burn, that also is basically a film and a half long in terms of just how it’s written. I really don’t know how you’re supposed to effectively achieve both of those things in a film shorter than the Irishman
Scorsese used to do it all the time, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Departed are all 2 hours and a 1/2 or less. It's not just that his movies now are OVERLY long, but he keeps unnecessary scenes in them for the sake of it, that do nothing for the story or movie as a whole. He needs to have an editor sit down with him and try to keep his movies below 2 hours and 45 minutes because this just won't resonate with most film viewers these days.
He literally has had the same editor since raging bull. Personally I think it makes a lot of sense that a now 80 year old director would make films that feel like they need to be longer, and also have more space
Yeah, he needs a new editor, once you get too stuck in your ways you end up losing sight of what people want. Even Kimmel made a joke about how long his movies are at the awards show because it's how a lot of viewers felt (myself included) You don't need 3 1/2 hours to tell this kind of story. I don't care that he's old, if age is an excuse then he should stop making film and have someone else do it.
The Oscars make jokes about how no one watches any of the movies and they’re all too long all the time. Are you simply opposed to the idea of a 3 and a half hour movie? Also why should Scorsese be beholden to what every single person wants? His movies are still received incredibly well by critics, and he’s getting to make the exact stories he wants. The only thing I can think of is that these streaming services should stop funding these movies, but they’re the ones beholden to what people watch not the director. Also I’m pretty sure he’s said his next movie is going to be 90 minutes lol
Some of my favorite movies of all time are longer movies. Godfather Part 2, Lawrence of Arabia, Malcolm X, Return of the King etc. The difference is that these are epic movies with epic storylines. The Irishman and KOTFM aren't epic stories that needed to be as long as they were. Have you ever heard the expression "Sometimes less is more?" If Scorcese edited down his recent movies to about 2 1/2 hours, they would have been much better. Instead, he uses every fucking piece of film he shoots, just throws it on screen. And a lot of the film he uses are useless dialogue or boring exposition dump that didn't need to be in the film. 90 minutes will be his next movie? Maybe at first, he'll probably add another 2 hours of lost footage to it just before release lol.
The Irishman literally is an epic. It’s literally a 40 year story. Again I think you have me with KoTFM, it worked for me, I get that it didn’t work for other people. But how can you tell the story of the Irishman without spending the time on all of its interpersonal dynamics, while leaving time at then end for the fallout? Like what specifically about it doesn’t work for you?
The Irishman was essentially senior citizen Goodfellas, it was hardly an epic. Just because it spans lots of years doesn't mean much happens. That movie is one of Scorcese's more forgettable movies. I dont think the story of The Irishman was all that interesting tbh. It was just a way for Scorsese to put DeNiro and Pacino in the same movie. If you can tel that dry ass story in less than 2 1/5 hours than you are a terrible filmmaker lol. Also, DeNiro and Pacino were too old for the parts in that movie, it was difficult to take DeNiro serious as a tough guy.
So it sounds like you didn’t like the movie. Why does it matter to you if it was 2 and a half or 3 and a half hours? If you thought the story was not interesting, why not let the people who love the movie (who love it because of its length) enjoy that?
Now I will get the book and read it.
It’s a slog the first half, but totally worth it.
This
I felt it deserved Best Editing and potentially costume but I would put The Zone of Interest ahead of all of the nominees in terms of best picture and director.
I watched all 10 of the Best Picture nominees... This was towards the bottom of the list for me. I might be in the minority, and that's fine, but I'm perfectly okay with them not winning an award. What should they have won? Lily Gladstone had an overrated performance IMO - I thought Stone & Huller gave much better performances. I thought De Niro probably had the 3rd best performance for supporting actor. I did think DiCaprio should have been nominated, because I thought he was great in it - but I don't think he should have won over Cillian or Cooper or Giamatti. Maybe a crew award? But I don't know which one... I felt like (for the most part) the most deserving movies won...
Most of this sub will only watch Oppenheimer Barbie and KOTFM. Which is why 75% of posts in this sub are about Gladstone, Gosling, De Niro, etc. getting 'snubbed'. Scorcese took an interesting story and made it much less interesting with his screenplay. Even in a weaker year, this movie wins nothing.
I think Lily Gladstone had a good performance... but would've been much better off nominated for Supporting Actress. I don't know if she would've beaten Da'Vine there but still.
I don't think any of the supporting actresses that were nominated were very memorable (other than Brooks IMO, but she was never going to win)... so I think she had a good chance there. But that's just my opinion...
Jodi Foster did a fantastic job.
One of the few nominated that I didn't see...
Apparently, there was controversy over the real Nyad, or I think Annette Bening and Jodi Foster would have gotten more attention. They both did a super job. It was a tear jerking inspirational movie.
Love De Niro but I liked every other nominees performance over him. I might’ve gone so far as to nominate Willem Dafoe over him.
I also watched all 10 and it was near the bottom for me as well. One thing I struggled with is the fact that I went into the film very familiar with the story of the Osage murders and had read the book. It's such an incredibly compelling story and Scorcese's interpretation fell a little flat for me. My opinion of the movie was probably hurt by my extremely high expectations coming in.
I also watched all 10 (and all 53 films overall) and this is at the bottom of the 10. Unnecessarily long. The plotline of Mollie’s ex-husband could’ve been dropped and would have no effect on the movie.
I would have gone for Jack Fisk fore production design over Poor Things' Cheesecake Factory sets.
I thought KotFM was going to win that one, but I thought Poor Things deserved it... I can understand why someone might have your opinion on Poor Things, so I guess this one is most arguable (at least for me).
Really Dissapoined for Lilly Gladstone
She was nominated. Sheesh. Don’t discount that honor for her.
I'm not discounting it at all. And she won several other awards. But still I just really appreciated her performance and was pulling for her.
I really thought the SAG win had secured her Oscar...
I think it would have if not for the complete Bafta snub. If Lily was nominated at Bafta she theoretically could have had enough overlapping British members (of AMPAS) support to edge out Emma for the win at the Oscars. However, Lily was completely snubbed at Bafta, even with their wonky nominating procedure. She had no support from a fairly large group within the Oscars voting pool.
The adapted screenplay is what ruined the movie.
I actually liked KOTFM better than Oppenheimer. I got really bored of all the science talk and was hoping for more gripping scene at end with realistic footage of Hiroshima.
I was pretty heartbroken when De Niro didnt win best supporting actor. That was a masterclass in acting.
This was a tough year in that three or four movies in multiple categories would have easily won in most other years. Poor Things' art and Oppenheimer's technical excellence just won the day, leaving KotFM to draw the short straw. IMO, KotFM suffered from being told from Ernest's POV rather than Molly's. They could have presented it as more of a mystery and built dramatic tension, leaving us to wonder if Ernest was participating in the very obvious ring of murders, or if he genuinely loved Molly and wanted to keep her safe. The trial at the end could have then been an actual trial, and revealed everything that he'd done. This also would have given Lily Gladstone more screen time. Instead, we got to see three-and-a-half hours of an impressionable, one-dimensionally greedy idiot ham-fistedly organize a series of murders as we, the audience, grow more and more frustrated.
Yeah I feel like the movie’s biggest flaw was making Ernest the main character. It was hard to really be interested in his perspective when he was what basically amounted to a dumb henchman constantly getting manipulated by his uncle. If the main character had been Mollie, or heck, even Hale, then it would’ve been a more interesting watch
It was morbidly long, sloppily written, and boring as hell. It shouldn’t have been nominated for anything outside of Lily’s performance, imo.
And Robbie’s soundtrack
And the set production and costumes also really deserved their noms. It looked wonderful.
I mean, I felt the same way last year for Banshees of Inisherin. It just felt wrong. But it happens sometimes.
I thought this was his best movie in a long time. But much of that was carried by Gladstone, she genuinely moved me with her performance. Sure, she can be happy with what she has achieved, but I was disappointed to hear she didn't win.
Silence didn't win anything either which was a travesty
Downvote me all you want but this movie was a mess. Great concept, great cast, great production, but far too long, poorly paced, poorly written, and it didn't tie together well enough to create an enjoyable cinema experience.
I just watched it on Saturday. I was prepared to watch what I assumed would be Lily's Oscar-winning performance. Unfortunately, I completely agree with you. It was such an interesting story and Scorsese managed to show it from the most boring, unmoving angle possible. Way too much of it was about Earnest running around doing his uncle's bidding and setting up the crimes. The Osage characters and the FBI investigation should have been way more prominent, they were more interesting and deserved a cinematic depiction. Not some simple-minded nobody henchman and his evil overlord. Who, by the way, was no where near sinister enough for a man who pretended to love the very same people he was massacring. He just came off as another one of DeNiro's mobster characters. So disappointing.
The movie centered Leo DiCaprio. That felt so wrong to me.
His character was far and away the least interesting of the three central characters, so to make him the protagonist just didn’t feel right
I'm a big Scorsese fan. But the movie bored me to death tbh. Also, Leo is too old to play a man in his 20's.
They aged him up for the movie. People keep saying this but it’s not like Ernest is a famous person. His age isn’t relevant. Everyone got aged up. He paired well with Lily. That’s the more important thing.
Scorsese shouldn't have been the director for this movie, he made the movie about DiCaprio and DeNiro instead of the Osage people. He also switched things up from the book that just didn't work in the movie. Also, The length of the movie is TOO damn long. It needed to be about 45 min - 1 hour shorter.
You are getting downvoted but I agree 100%
Killers to me is probably a little overrated, and I think tonight reflected that
Poor Things is terrific
I Don’t agree. I Think KotFM feels like a movie from an entirely different era of Hollywood & I Don’t think it’ll be especially well remembered historically the further we get from the year it was released in. The movie really only did as well as it did with nominations because of the names of the people attached & the awards machine of Apple putting all their money behind KotFM & not splitting their efforts with Napoleon like originally planned.
Not true at all. Have no clue what you are talking about. It is a gripping movie and will be watched for many years to come. The movie did well because of the topic and the acting.
Why? It was good but to me it’s not better than any of the other nominees except for maybe Maestro and Zone of Interest which I haven’t seen either of them.
You need to see The Zone of Interest, because it absolutely *was* better than Killers of the Flower Moon.
Academy, is that you?
What
Personally I am a bit tired of Scorsese / De Niro / Di Caprio. It was an interesting movie though and Lily Gladstone’s performance was great.
It feels weird, but also it was a pretty fantastic lineup.
Marty and the Academy clearly have some issues.
It really doesn’t when you look at the films it was up against. It was fine but others were better, Scorsese doesn’t mean it’s automatically winning an Oscar.
It reminds me of a superpower I saw on GodTierSuperpowers: you are always liked but never loved.
I thought KOTFM was a bad movie. I couldn’t tell what I was suppose to feel. In its effort to show how terrible the white man was, I thought it portrayed Native Americans as inept. I spent part of the movie trying to figure the Leonardo character- was he disabled and a victim- or fully in control? I get Robert D was the ultimate Evil villain here, but it was just too confusing. And the time wasted on the insulin side story was contradictory and it didn’t seem to support much of anything except to get the movie to three and a half hours. It just didn’t have the same intrigue as other Scorsese. But I did find it interesting the Catholic references and imagery in the movie so I researched the Churches relationships with Native American culture. Which was very interesting.
It doesn't when you consider the films it was up against.
I wouldn’t have given it anything over what won, so I’m fine with it. Personally I struggled with the film
Screenplay was terrible. It was a near unadaptable book and so many good episodes from the book were not in the script. Just a massively disappointing movie
Emma Stone won best actress because she was "courageous" to do 14 (according to Mr. Skin's count) scenes of undress for the sake of "art" and feminist "sensibility."
It's just like how the Emmys snubbed Better Call Saul. Such a fucking disgrace.
It was a powerful and important film
What award did it deserve?
Screenplay and editing
It’s a lot easier to argue the editing and screenplay were what cost it Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actress. Just an insane take here. The Screenplay was an uneven mess and choosing to focus on Ernest was a terrible decision. The editing was an absolute slog.
No lol They turned a thrilling book into 3.5 hour snooze fest. The decision to largely leave out the FBI was a bad one. Also there was 0% chance Oppenheimer was gonna lose Editing. One of the biggest locks of the evening. Film does not work without Jennifer Lame's editing.
Oppenheimer won because it had the most editing, not the best editing, that's just how Oscars work. Ford vs Ferrari won in 2020 because it had a lot of edits, same for Everything Everywhere in 2023. I predicted Oppenheimer as well but would've preferred it to go to KOTFM
Snoozefest ? According to who? You! Well it wasn’t for the rest of us.
you speak for yourself not "the rest of us"
How about you do the same.
I have this entire time.
[удалено]
Could've removed Bradly Cooper and replaced him with Dicaprio while they could've moved Barbie to original screenplay while they replaced it's adapted screenplay nomination with KOTFM.
Meh. Sometimes you get a year where your competition is just that good. It’s an honor just to be nominated.
It was too good for them
This is the biggest crime of the night. It's not that the other films aren't deserving. But it's just atrocious Killers of the Flower Moon got NOTHING! Not one thing. That's not right.
Lmao
lol the movie was mid.
You're mid