King Richard reviews

[Cinemanolis]

I actually think that Ellis sweeps the floor with Smith in their kitchen scene. She is much better than him in the film and she deserves to be nominated. Will Smith on the other hand... he is good in the film... probably one of his best performances... but if there was any Oscar justice (there isn't) he should be grateful with a spot in the top5. A win though would be too much, even if we have seen worse....
What's interesting this year is the fact that due to Covid we see most contenders earlier than we used to (at least in Greece). In previous years i used to watch most contenders 3-4 months after the oscar season started with the Venice and Tornoto screenings. By the time i watched them, the 4 month oscar buzz from the social media and the oscar "prognosticators" had become a given and undeniable fact. The fact that this year most of us have by now seen these performances and have made our own mind makes a huge difference.

[danfrank]

Actually there are many small little moments where she shines. Not only in the confrontation with Smith. There is also that moment where she goes up to the neighbor. For a film about a father and his 2 tennis playing daughters you come away from the film remembering not too much about those daughters. Yes there are endless shots of them hitting a ball but its their Mom who you remember long after the film is over. And Smith of course.

Ellis deserves a nod.

I agree with all this. I also liked the scene where she was coaching Serena. She did a great job pulling off a complex character: tough, tender, wounded, driven, protective.

[Reza]

Jefforey Smith wrote
Aunjanue Ellis as Oracene is receiving quite a bit of buzz for a Supporting nomination -- it's all about one confrontational scene with Richard.

She’s also had a very good run of projects recently, but yes. It’s for one scene. That being said, this is looking like a very weak year for Best Supporting Actress so one scene is probably enough.

Actually there are many small little moments where she shines. Not only in the confrontation with Smith. There is also that moment where she goes up to the neighbor. For a film about a father and his 2 tennis playing daughters you come away from the film remembering not too much about those daughters. Yes there are endless shots of them hitting a ball but its their Mom who you remember long after the film is over. And Smith of course.

Ellis deserves a nod.

[Sabin]

Jefforey Smith wrote
Aunjanue Ellis as Oracene is receiving quite a bit of buzz for a Supporting nomination -- it's all about one confrontational scene with Richard.

She’s also had a very good run of projects recently, but yes. It’s for one scene. That being said, this is looking like a very weak year for Best Supporting Actress so one scene is probably enough.

[Jefforey Smith]

Aunjanue Ellis as Oracene is receiving quite a bit of buzz for a Supporting nomination -- it's all about one confrontational scene with Richard.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
I didn't say most remembered for a long-ago situation comedy, I said most fondly remembered.

Well, I don't agree with that either. I think he's most fondly remembered from the one-two-three punch of Bad Boys, Independence Day, and Men in Black.

[Big Magilla]

I could throw numbers at you but Will Smith has proven himself consistently capable of box office numbers few were capable of back in the 1990s and few are capable of now. We're talking about a very consistent worldwide draw.

How about just pointing this out?: in 2014, he was asked to present Best Picture at the Oscars. I'd say that's a pretty good measure of how the film industry views his stature. And it's not someone most remembered for a long-ago sitcom.

I didn't say most remembered for a long-ago situation comedy, I said most fondly remembered.

His IMDb. page highlights him as the producer of that show from 1990-1996 over all his film work. Next in line, I Am Legend, Men in Black, and Independence Day. But wait until next year when Bad Boys 4 could outdo them all at the 2022 box office.

[Reza]

Ok so we are all clear on one thing. Will Smith gets his Oscar next Spring. Does he deserve it? Maybe not but it will be his reward for being a consistent profit making entertainer in a part that asks him to go dramatic. Enough reason to honor him. And I won't even mention that "trend" nowadays that "allows" such a win to take place with much more ease than it did when Mr Poitier had to wear a suit and tie to prove he was good enough to compete with the likes of Mr Niven, Mr Newman, and *gasp* Mr Tracy and his ilk.

Times have thankfully changed. For the better. So lets celebrate Will's win. Unless of course Mr Cooper proves to be an upset.

[Mister Tee]

I could throw numbers at you but Will Smith has proven himself consistently capable of box office numbers few were capable of back in the 1990s and few are capable of now. We're talking about a very consistent worldwide draw.

How about just pointing this out?: in 2014, he was asked to present Best Picture at the Oscars. I'd say that's a pretty good measure of how the film industry views his stature. And it's not someone most remembered for a long-ago sitcom.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
By Gen-Xers to Millennials and beyond maybe, but to older filmgoers, Denzel Washinton is the biggest and most beloved African-American actor even more so at this point than Sidney Poitier whose cultural significance was beyond anyone of any ethnicity in the 1960s.

But if we measure by box office, I think Will Smith films has grossed more than all of Denzel Washington's and Sidney Poitier's combined even if you adjust for inflation.

Big Magilla wrote
Smith is still most fondly remembered for his late 1980s into the 90s TV show, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Unlike Denzel, who continues to successfully alternate between popular genre films and culturally relevant dramas, he has not had a major hit in some time despite delivering really good work in films as diverse as Concussion and the live-action remake of Disney's Aladdin.

First, I think you're underestimating the impact he had with Bad Boys, Independent Day, and Men in Black across Gen X and Millennial lines.

I don't disagree with you that King Richard's Oscar standing is a bit rocky for a host of reasons and I don't want to harp on splitting hairs like this, but if you want me to be honest, I think you've possibly shortchanged the Will Smith phenomenon over the last twenty five years because he's largely been in films that maybe aren't for you. They're not entirely for me either. He may not have had as much success alternating between prestige and entertainment (to put it that way) but I think you're shortchanging his reign as an entertainer. I could throw numbers at you but Will Smith has proven himself consistently capable of box office numbers few were capable of back in the 1990s and few are capable of now. We're talking about a very consistent worldwide draw. It's pretty clear this last decade was a bit of a mixed affair but he's been turning his attention towards producing and turning his family into a brand by pushing his son Jaden's career.

But you're right, the big question is whether or not Academy voters take him seriously and what impact his films and career have had on them.

[Big Magilla]

I know that you're not shortchanging Will Smith's impact in this post but it is worth saying this: Will Smith might be the biggest African-American movie star of all time. I haven't done the math. But that might be right. His movies have grossed an insane amount of money. He's bankable worldwide. He's a brand and he's a lasting brand. He's also seen to it that he has stayed relevant across generations from Gen X-ers to Millennials and now to Gen Z-ers with his presence on social media. He has a massive presence online and he is beloved.

By Gen-Xers to Millennials and beyond maybe, but to older filmgoers, Denzel Washinton is the biggest and most beloved African-American actor even more so at this point than Sidney Poitier whose cultural significance was beyond anyone of any ethnicity in the 1960s.

Smith is still most fondly remembered for his late 1980s into the 90s TV show, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Unlike Denzel, who continues to successfully alternate between popular genre films and culturally relevant dramas, he has not had a major hit in some time despite delivering really good work in films as diverse as Concussion and the live-action remake of Disney's Aladdin.

I can understand, given the hype surrounding King Richard, why many, if not most, prognosticators thought this was finally going to be his year at the Oscars, but although it may still be, it is at this point far from guaranteed.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
In 1965, when I, along with thousands of other kids 18-21 from all over the country, were drafted into the Army, one thing we were all familiar with was Wayne's Oscar-nominated performance in Sand of Iwo Jima. When we were taught in basic training how to handle a grenade, we all knew what the sergeant meant when he said "you don't throw a hand grenade like John Wayne in Sands of Iwo Jima." I don't know about now, but they were still using that line in 1969. How many cultural references are there to Smith's Oscar-nominated performance in Ali? How many of today's 18-21- year-olds have even seen that or his second nominated performance? Or, more importantly, how many of today's Oscar voters have seen them, or remember them fondly if they have?

Well, sure, I don't know if his Oscar nominated performances are that influential or lasting in the same way as Sand of Iwo Jima...

I know that you're not shortchanging Will Smith's impact in this post but it is worth saying this: Will Smith might be the biggest African-American movie star of all time. I haven't done the math. But that might be right. His movies have grossed an insane amount of money. He's bankable worldwide. He's a brand and he's a lasting brand. He's also seen to it that he has stayed relevant across generations from Gen X-ers to Millennials and now to Gen Z-ers with his presence on social media. He has a massive presence online and he is beloved.

Also, I think Will Smith can absolutely be compared to John Wayne and Tom Cruise. They're all movie stars who generally found a very comfortable niche in the popular incarnations of the action movies of the day.

But you're asking about his impact with Oscar voters. I think that's an important distinction. I recognize that. I have no idea whether the zeitgeist that is Will Smith has hit Oscar voters. But I want to reframe what that zeitgeist is because I don't think you're seeing it exactly:

I don't think it's controversial to say that Will Smith was the biggest star to come out of the 1990s. He went from successful rap artist, to the star of a very big sitcom (The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), graduated to Bad Boys (a hit), Independence Day (biggest film of its year), and Men in Black (almost repeated). The cultural impact of these films was huge across the decade. He hasn't quite matched it but he's had astonishing staying power over the subsequent two decades. Kids today aren't saying "Welcome to Earth" or "That's what I call a close encounter." That's more due to the changing nature of the medium. But his impact with the African-American community is comparable.

[Big Magilla]

Magilla, I don't recall anyone in 1969 talking about John Wayne having had cancer as part of the equation. What they said was, this huge-for-30-years star finally had a showcase role, and it was time for him to win an Oscar. Will Smith is 10 years younger today than Wayne was in '69, but Smith also became a star younger -- he was 27 when Independence Day made him box-office king (Wayne was 32 when Stagecoach lifted him from the obscurity of routine westerns). Smith has now been a star 25 years, which is within shouting distance of where Wayne was in 1969. Both men were far more recognized as audience favorites than as particularly gifted actors: Wayne appeared in a few more prestigious vehicles (mostly Stagecoach and The Quiet Man, though The Alamo somehow snagged a best picture nomination; such films as The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance are revered now, but, pre-Cahierists, they were just seen as standard westerns); Smith, on the other hand, outranks him in previous nominations, 2 to 1. I see them as quite analogous.

I'll give you Wayne's cancer not being part of the 1969 Oscar equation but it was common knowledge in Hollywood. That aside, like Smith, Wayne had two Oscar nominations before True Grit. He was nominated as producer of The Alamo. The difference is that Smith is a popular actor. I think Reza's comparison of him to Tom Cruise is a good one. Wayne, though, love him, hate him, or merely shrug him off, was more than popular. He was a cultural phenomenon - Red River, Ford's cavalry trilogy, and The High and the Mighty as well as numerous other films were all well-known beyond their theatrical showings via multiple TV showings by the mid-1960s.

In 1965, when I, along with thousands of other kids 18-21 from all over the country, were drafted into the Army, one thing we were all familiar with was Wayne's Oscar-nominated performance in Sand of Iwo Jima. When we were taught in basic training how to handle a grenade, we all knew what the sergeant meant when he said "you don't throw a hand grenade like John Wayne in Sands of Iwo Jima." I don't know about now, but they were still using that line in 1969. How many cultural references are there to Smith's Oscar-nominated performance in Ali? How many of today's 18-21- year-olds have even seen that or his second nominated performance? Or, more importantly, how many of today's Oscar voters have seen them, or remember them fondly if they have?

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Am I wrong, or is the Rotten Tomatoes thing basically a thumbs-up/thumbs-down scale? Meaning, most of us here who've weighed in here would count in the 92% -- "not bad" translating to approval. The Metacritic thing measures intensity of approval, which is kind of important when it comes to choosing a best picture.

Yes, I'm sure this conversation has been had on this board as well.

Rotten Tomatoes sucks. It no barometer for enthusiasm. Something that has 50% mildly negative reviews and 50% wildly positive reviews, will end up being 50% "rotten." I Heart Huckabees sits at a 63% "fresh" while Shrek 2 has a 89% "fresh." There are also "Top Critics" who weigh in more closely as well as an audience score of users who weigh in, which is usually beset by toxic trolls. Occasionally, we see some intriguing splits between Critics and Audiences, in particular The Last Jedi got a 91% from critics and a 42% from audiences. It's a very flawed system. Metacritic, to contrast, feels a bit like a too-exclusive club, which speaking for myself is preferable to the binary "It's mass satisfying" vs. "It's not mass satisfying" system of Rotten Tomatoes, although the latter certainly feels like it's where the industry is headed.

All of which said, yes, Metacritic should be a better gauge for what is going to win Best Picture. After this chat, I'm intrigued to learn that The Power of the Dog has a 88 and Belfast has a 77. Those both seem low (and for Belfast, it is) but the upper 80s isn't a bad place to be for a Best Picture winner:
- The King's Speech (88)
- The Artist (89)
- Argo (86)
- Birdman (87)
- The Shape of Water (87)

Five films have risen above this mark (12 Years a Slave, Spotlight, Moonlight, Parasite, Nomadland) and one has fallen below (dare I say its name?).

Mister Tee wrote
I have to say, I'm fascinated to see Licorice Pizza for myself -- for many reasons, but keenly because, while there have been a flood of "it reminds me I love movies" tweets (and not just from the PTA hive; Anne Thompson, for Christ's sake, loved it), the dissenters (a minority, but they exist in some numbers) keep saying the movie is in Punchdrunk Love/Inherent Vice territory, which would be almost no one's favorite Anderson movies, and certainly the least Oscar-friendly. I won't get to the movie till a week or two after Thanksgiving, so I'm for now tantalized with trying to square that seeming contradiction.

I look forward to your assessment almost as much as I am looking forward to my reassessment.

I'll just share this anecdote: last week, I was in Chicago with my critic buddy. We went up to Traverse City to hang out with some of his friends. He had to cut his vacation short because another screening was made available for him to see a day early on Monday. He couldn't get me into that one but he said he would go to see the Monday screening and then go to the Tuesday screening for a second viewing before writing his review. I didn't see him after the Monday screening but asked him what he thought of the film. He said "I'll... just let you check it out." Tuesday rolled around. I saw the film. We left the screening. Took off our masks. Walked for a while in silence. He turned to me and said, "Yup, that's Licorice Pizza."

Later, he tweeted while under embargo: "That lonely feeling when the whole world is losing their shit about a new movie, and you're like, "Yeah, that was... good."" Owen Gleiberman responded by saying "Or even: "Really? That was...middling.""

Anyway, my buddy ended up giving the film a "B+" and I think he's in line with a lot of critics. If you see 100-200 movies a year, a Paul Thomas Anderson movie is a treat because it's not going to be crap. It's going to be interesting and different. It's not content. It's a film. I do think in no small part that the raves for Licorice Pizza are in some small part in praise of its film qualities, which are real and enjoyable. I just didn't find it very satisfying.

[flipp525]

There is simply no comparison between Will Smith’s and Benedict Cumberbatch’s performances this year. After finally seeing King Richard, I can’t believe that Smith is the supposed frontrunner.