The Official Review Thread of 2022

[danfrank]

I’m of two minds about All Quiet on the Western Front. It’s certainly a well-made and affecting film, but does it have anything new to say?

The good: it’s stunningly filmed, with a color palette that is at once beautiful and bleak. Equally effective are the set pieces, all of which feel very real, not stagey. I’ve seen trenches in lots of films, but none that came alive the way they do here. I have no idea how they filmed the wide views of the battlefield: just stunning. The makeup nomination is fully deserved, with all manner of soot, mud, blood and other debris so realistically rendered on the soldiers’ faces. It was smart to film all the war scenes—the great bulk of the movie—from the close-up perspective of the Paul Bäumer character. Peter Kammerer is quite effective and relatable playing the role.

The questionable: I feel like I’ve seen too many movies about the horrors of war, and though this film makes technical advances in depicting war more realistically, it still doesn’t say anything particularly new about the subject. This could have been offset by telling a human story, and Paul is the perfect vehicle for that, but I feel the script failed somewhat because I never felt like I knew much about him other than through his reactions to what was going on around him. The Remarque book depicts more of his family life prior to him leaving for the war, and has an important section where Paul returns home on a leave and feels completely alienated from normal life. I think the film would have been more effective at showing this and sticking with the Paul perspective, and deleted the scenes with the general and the negotiators, which didn’t really add much save for showing that some people were sensitive to the atrocious loss of life while others were not. The musical score was generally pretty good except for those jarring bits of loud, discordant, ominous music that somehow felt anachronistic. There was SO much violence and suffering depicted, which is true to the realities of that atrocious war, but left me as a viewer feeling numb to it, which works against the presumed goal of engaging the viewers emotionally.

Overall this is a grand effort, and I don’t begrudge it its boatload of nominations, but for me it fell a little short of being great art.

[anonymous1980]

TÁR
Cast: Cate Blanchett, Noemie Merlant, Nina Hoss, Mark Strong, Julian Glover, Allan Corduner, Sophie Kauer.
Dir: Todd Field.

A world-renowned female conductor preparing for a live performance recording of Mahler's Fifth Symphony as well as the release of her autobiography has her life turned upside-down when allegations from her past surfaces. Wow. Just wow. To put it quite simply, this is indeed one of the best films of the year. I was expecting it to be good but not this good. Yes, Cate Blanchett is astounding in her vivid, very lived-in performance of this unforgettable larger-than-life character but the film itself is a marvel. In his 16 year absence from filmmaking, Todd Field has upped his directorial game by a lot, crafting this epic yet intimate character study. The way he handles the difficult subject matter of cancel culture and the like is quite nuanced and wisely allows the audience to make up their own minds. I shall be thinking about this film for a while. A truly remarkable piece of work.

Grade: A.

[OscarGuy]

I don't think they'll take Riseborough's nomination away. It really wasn't her fault that everyone around her broke the rules to get her a nomination. It doesn't match the Bruce Broughton situation because HE campaigned for himself. If Riseborough had been a part of the shenanigans, then perhaps, but I'm not getting that vibe. Besides, there's no guarantee that if she was removed she'd be replaced. They didn't do that for Broughton's song, so other than as a bitter resentment for the Weinstein-level campaign, I don't see them doing it. Suspending Mary McCormack's membership on the other hand, I could totally see that happening.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Since I've mentioned Henry, I'll note that I also watched Causeway the other night, and found it mostly inoffensive. It's the kind of movie that kind of prides itself on not having much plot, but which could have used more, regardless. Lawrence is solid enough in it, though, and Henry is quite terrific. It's a quite substantial role (I'm surprised the Category Fraud Police haven't been out after him, since it's close to a co-lead), and Henry brings a ton to it -- his line deliveries are terrific, but even better is his body language, which conveys so much of his conflicted feeling for both Lawrence and his situation. I fully endorse his nomination.

I was going to hold off on commenting on Causeway until I had a few more films piled up but honestly, by then it's going to fade from view. It didn't really do anything for me. It offered me no new insight into the experience of post-war PTSD, soldier motivation, anything. I know that they had to deal with the effects of COVID during shooting but it's a curiously depopulated film with almost every scene between two people. I'm a fan of Jennifer Lawrence's and I'm curious to see what she does next in her career but this kind of role is not what she excels at. I never felt like I was watching a character but just Jennifer Lawrence trying to be still.

I'm mostly with you on Brian Tyree Henry. He runs off with the film by default. The only reservation I have about his performance is that I'm pretty familiar with his moves from the series Atlanta. Although this character is a kinder soul than Paperboi, whenever he wasn't on-screen I kept thinking he was talking to Darius about what's going on with this white chick. But he does a great job of dramatizing this guy's inner-life, especially in contrast (IMO) to Lawrence. This is also such a welcome surprise because it's the kind of thing that rarely happens anymore: a sole nominee for this one exemplary element. The Academy has bent over backwards to avoid doing this thing resorting to coattails (Jesse Plemons) or category fraud (both Kaluuya and Stanfield?) that it's nice to see them getting this one right.

[Mister Tee]

I'm afraid I saw a few too many movies like To Leslie back in the 70s -- the screw-up/loser screws-up-and-loses for the better part of 2 hours, frequently in a downscale part of America. I enjoyed the movie more in its second half -- Marc Maron's character steered it in interesting directions -- but it still didn't amount to that much, for me. I think I semi-agree with Sabin on the lottery-ticket aspect of the plot...it didn't serve much purpose except as a topic on which other characters could ridicule Leslie. There's a buried subject -- that her fellow citizens think she had something handed to her that they would have treated more carefully, and they resent that it was wasted on her. But to explore that further might have required seeing some greater part of her blowing-it years (though you could certainly see from that initial TV interview that she was the sort of person who WOULD let it go to waste). As it is, it feels like a plot element that's under-utilized -- it sticks out as something that should either have been better used or eliminated.

Of course, the only reason anyone's talking about the film is the Riseborough performance. I have to confess I was wary from her initial, screaming-over-eviction scene: she started the performance at 11, in a way that reminded me all too much of Susan Tyrell's work in Fat City -- a performance I didn't much like, but which got her a nomination many cheered. Happily, Riseborough toned it down from there, and had plenty of interesting, sneaky moments. I can't say I'm in line with the "one of the greatest performances I've ever seen" take. It's basically a de-glam, no make-up part, and I guess transformative -- though I might have had more of that response had I held a clearer picture of Riseborough in my head; for all the numerous times I've seen her in stuff before this, I couldn't have visualized her face if you paid me. I think it's a good, worthy performance, but I have no hesitation in saying Cate Blanchett gets my vote this year.

That said, the "kick her off the ballot" movement is ridiculous. I fully concede danfrank's point, that a guerrilla campaign like this would likely never work for a non-white actress, simply because she wouldn't have the circle of friends to bring it about. And, as I said on Tuesday morning, it's no question awkward that this nomination coincided with the overlooking of the highly-praised Deadwyler performance. (I don't include Davis in the discussion, as many seem to be doing; Davis was always a "someone has to fill out the ballot" candidate.) But the idea that this means Riseborough somehow cheated her way onto the slate is ridiculous and inflammatory. On this very same Tuesday morning, Brian Tyree Henry got an unexpected nomination, for a tiny, mediocre movie that no one saw -- and everyone considered his citation a triumph for the good guys. (Despite the fact he knocked out a guy who has been denied nominations on more than one occasion, and who was connected to a prime film/director/screenplay-nominated film.) If your response to that is, "But Henry got a Critics Choice nomination, so he's more legit"-- it seems to me you're saying those bozos at the Broadcast Critics (who we mock annually) are more legitimate gate-keepers for the Oscars than a bunch of (checks notes) actresses who are actual Academy members. Really?

Since I've mentioned Henry, I'll note that I also watched Causeway the other night, and found it mostly inoffensive. It's the kind of movie that kind of prides itself on not having much plot, but which could have used more, regardless. Lawrence is solid enough in it, though, and Henry is quite terrific. It's a quite substantial role (I'm surprised the Category Fraud Police haven't been out after him, since it's close to a co-lead), and Henry brings a ton to it -- his line deliveries are terrific, but even better is his body language, which conveys so much of his conflicted feeling for both Lawrence and his situation. I fully endorse his nomination.

[Reza]

I know you're half a world away from me, but where did you watch this? Is there a way to see it without paying?

Check your PM

[dws1982]

I know you're half a world away from me, but where did you watch this? Is there a way to see it without paying?

It's only a rental in the US right now unfortunately.

justwatch.com is a good site for tracking what you can see and how you can see it. And if you create a free account you can add streamers that you want to keep up with and it will show you what they add every day.

[Mister Tee]

MARCEL THE SHELL WITH SHOES ON
Cast: Jenny Slate, Isabella Rossellini (voices), Dean Fleischer Camp, Rosa Salazar, Thomas Mann, Lesley Stahl.
Dir: Dean Fleischer Camp.

Marcel is a young shell with shoes on who's being interviewed by a filmmaker who has moved into the house where he was living and in the process, he is looking for his lost family. I've been hearing a lot about this stop-motion animation-live-action hybrid film for a while. Now that I've seen it, I have to say, that while I liked it very much, I'm not as head over heels enamored of it like its fans. Yes, the character is adorable. It is quite funny. It is also quite sweet and genuinely moving. It handles sincere goodness without being cloying or sappy which is not an easy thing to do. Jenny Slate and Isabella Rossellini both give wonderful voice performances. Yes, it is a very good film that I highly recommend but it is not my favorite animated film of the year which is the worst thing I can say about it.

Grade: B+

I know you're half a world away from me, but where did you watch this? Is there a way to see it without paying?

[Sabin]

flipp525 wrote
I could actually see Andrea Riseborough winning.

I wouldn't officially predict it, but honestly, I could see it happening as well. She's very good in an Oscar bait-y role but she never plays it in an Oscar bait-y way. This performance has clearly made its way to enough Academy members and how many of them wish they could play this kind of role? Probably quite a few.

EDIT: but you also let me hope about Dolly De Leon so…

[flipp525]

I could actually see Andrea Riseborough winning.

[anonymous1980]

A MAN CALLED OTTO
Cast: Tom Hanks, Mariana Trevino, Rachel Keller, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Cameron Britton, Truman Hanks, Mike Birbiglia.
Dir: Marc Forster.

This is the second adaptation of the book and the American remake of the Swedish film A Man Called Ove, the latter of which I saw recently. The plot is the same: A misanthropic widower planning to join his wife gets his life turned upside down when a young family moves in next door. I personally thought the original Swedish film was fine. Nothing special. This one is pretty much the same which is the best thing I can say about it. The performances are what makes it watchable. Although I think Tom Hanks is a bit miscast in the title role, he's still effective. Mariana Trevino is the standout though. She is terrific and actually lifts the material. I hope she gets more roles after this. All in all, it's far from great but one can do a lot worse.

Grade: B.

[dws1982]

It's not a career worth defending, but I did like Kruger's Arlington Road screenplay back in the day. Haven't seen it in 20 years at least.

[OscarGuy]

The fact that Ehren Kruger is now an Oscar nominee should make everyone feel dirty.

[danfrank]

I had told myself I would not see Top Gun: Maverick. Against my better judgment—and because I almost always see all the Beat Picture nominees—I took the plunge.

I can totally see why this was such a popular movie. It IS technically well-made. It fulfills a huge swath of fantasies for the average straight, football-loving, American man, and the women who indulge them (or, inexplicably, continue to have a crush on Tom Cruise). Folks can live vicariously through the Maverick character, who:

-gets to play with incredibly expensive toys;
-gets to go really, really fast
-gets away with having a sh*t-eating grin on his face at all kinds of inappropriate times;
-gets to defy authority because he is always right and is oh-so-charming (see the part about the sh*t-eating grin);
-is ageless and somehow has better reflexes, better eyesight, and better motor skills than “the best pilots in the world,” who are about 35 years his junior [BONUS: he also can keep up with them playing shirtless beach football];
-gets to be the leader because he’s simply the best;
-accomplishes the “miracle” mission;
-gets to be the hero;
-gets the girl;
-gets a really fancy sports car (not sure why they threw that in at the end, but what the heck);
-gets to end the movie with that sh*t-eating grin.

The writer’s branch of the Academy loses a lot of credibility for nominating this incredibly corny, very predictable screenplay. Its reward should be making a gazillion dollars and sparking numerous sequels, not being rewarded with top-tier Oscar nominations. But here we stand.

[OscarGuy]

Animated Feature:

An animated film is defined as a motion picture in which movement and characters’ performances are
created using a frame-by-frame technique, and usually falls into one of the two general fields of
animation: narrative or abstract. Some of the techniques of animating films include but are not limited to
hand-drawn animation, computer animation, stop-motion, clay animation, pixilation, cutout animation,
pinscreen, camera multiple pass imagery, kaleidoscopic effects created frame-by-frame, and drawing on
the film frame itself. Motion capture and real-time puppetry are not by themselves animation techniques.
An animated short film has a running time of 40 minutes or less. An animated feature film has a running
time of more than 40 minutes. In an animated film, animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of
the picture’s running time. In addition, a narrative animated film must have a significant number of the
major characters animated. If the picture is created in a cinematic style that could be mistaken for live
action, the filmmaker(s) must also submit information supporting how and why the picture is substantially
a work of animation rather than live action.

Animated Short Film:

An animated film is defined as a motion picture in which movement and characters’ performances are
created using a frame-by-frame technique, and usually falls into one of the two general fields of
animation: narrative or abstract. Some of the techniques of animating films include but are not limited
to hand-drawn animation, computer animation, stop-motion, clay animation, pixilation, cutout
animation, pinscreen, camera multiple pass imagery, kaleidoscopic effects created frame-by-frame,
and drawing on the film frame itself. Motion capture and real-time puppetry are not by themselves
animation techniques. An animated short film has a running time of 40 minutes or less. An animated
feature film has a running time of more than 40 minutes. In an animated film, animation must figure in
no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time. In addition, a narrative animated film must have
a significant number of the major characters animated. If the picture is created in a cinematic style
that could be mistaken for live action, the filmmaker(s) must also submit information supporting how
and why the picture is substantially a work of animation rather than live action. Documentary short
films that are animated may be submitted in either the Animated Short Film category or the
Documentary Short Film category, but not both.