Oscars 2024: The Zone of BARBENHEIMER (LIVE)

[Heartofice]

Yeah I can't say I really enjoyed Poor Things all that much, the music and visuals turned my stomach too much, but Stone definitely deserved to get an award for her performance as the entire movie hangs on her shoulders. 

[Veltigar]

31 minutes ago, Relic said:

I fear the day he dies. I might actually cry. Al can drool all over my lunch if he wants to. 

 

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

1 hour ago, Relic said:

I fear the day he dies. I might actually cry. Al can drool all over my lunch if he wants to. 

Right now he's busy drooling over a 30 year old , old enough to be his grandaughter! Typical Hollywood...

Edited March 11 by Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Veltigar said:

Billy Eilish for best song, which I thought was odd, because it wasn't memorable at all. If I think of any original song from Barbie, it's just Ken, so I would have given that nod too to Ryan Gosling

I will say it again, it feels like there's some strange private push to make Eilish a bigger star than her talent commands. She's a pretty average singer and sounds strung out all the time, plus the songs aren't that great if Swift or Beyonce sang them. I just don't get it. She's basically the modern Cold Play. It's not very good, but oddly wins awards. 

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Right now he's busy drooling over a 30 year old , old enough to be his grandaughter! Typical Hollywood...

And meanwhile you're still a virgin.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I will say it again, it feels like there's some strange private push to make Eilish a bigger star than her talent commands. She's a pretty average singer and sounds strung out all the time, plus the songs aren't that great if Swift or Beyonce sang them. I just don't get it. She's basically the modern Cold Play. It's not very good, but oddly wins awards. 

I think it's a nice, if not exactly very original song. My kids like it, I don't mind listening to it. I have no idea about Ellish, all these popstars fade into the background for me because I'm a middle aged old git.

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Poobah said:

By the time I was half way through Poor Things I was convinced that Emma Stone aught to walk away with an Oscar for her performance; her performance was so absolutely outstanding in such a myriad of ways that I would have found it deeply hard to believe anyone gave a better or braver one. I haven't seen Killers of the Flower Moon (and don't have access to a platform it's available on) but honestly based on what y'all have said here if Lilly was only in an hour of this three hour movie I kinda feel like the real injustice was putting her in the best actress rather than best supporting actress category. 

This. I’ve seen Gladstone and while I thought she was great, what she had to do compared to Stone wasn’t even close. Stone was sensational. It was an acting tour de force unlike anything I’ve seen in ages. Well well deserved.

[Darryk]

Really happy for Cillian Murphy getting an Oscar. He's been one of my favourite actors since 28 Days Later way back in 2003.

My brother played poker with him in London once. He kept pronouncing his name "Sillian" and Cillian eventually politely told him "it's Killian".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Poobah said:

 I kinda feel like the real injustice was putting her in the best actress rather than best supporting actress category. 

IIRC a lot of critics thought it was a bad idea to do it.

33 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think it's a nice, if not exactly very original song. My kids like it, I don't mind listening to it. I have no idea about Ellish, all these popstars fade into the background for me because I'm a middle aged old git.

That's the thing, her work isn't bad, it's just meh. She got an Oscar for one of the most boring Bond songs in a terrible Bond film where she mumbled half the performance. It doesn't make a lot of sense. 

[Veltigar]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

That's the thing, her work isn't bad, it's just meh. She got an Oscar for one of the most boring Bond songs in a terrible Bond film where she mumbled half the performance. It doesn't make a lot of sense. 

I think you're a bit harsh on her. She's got some genuinely good songs as far as I'm concerned, she just doesn't bring those to the movies. I remember not being impressed by her Bond song, but weak competition might also have been a factor. Not sure who else was nominated that year, but she might genuinely have been the best of the bunch.

A bit like Cillian Murphy this year to be honest. Love the actor and I think he gave a very good performance as Oppenheimer, but his category was strangely weak this year in my opinion. Good for him to get an Award out of it, but Oppenheimer wouldn't crack my top 3 of Cillian Murphy performances.

2 hours ago, Mexal said:

This. I’ve seen Gladstone and while I thought she was great, what she had to do compared to Stone wasn’t even close. Stone was sensational. It was an acting tour de force unlike anything I’ve seen in ages. Well well deserved.

In her category, I think you have to go back as far as Nathalie Portman's 2010 turn in Black Swann to find anything even remotely comparable. 

[Cashless Society]

8 hours ago, Ran said:

Really pleased for Stone, and looking at clips she seemed quite shocked. But this (and the Boy and the Heron win, plus Poor Things in Makeup) tells me that people need to bump up the weight of the international section of the Academy when prognosticating.

I'm surprised at how many people don't take the voting power of the new members into consideration of their predictions. Poor Things would have never received a nomination just a decade ago. The international section really loves Lanthimos.

6 hours ago, Veltigar said:

I'd given Best Picture, Best Director and Best cinematography to Poor Things (in that order of preference) over Oppenheimer. Heck, Glazer for Best Director would also have been better come to think of it.

 

Can't wait for the 20-year retrospective on this, when people start asking what the Academy was thinking giving Oppenheimer all these awards when better films existed alongside it.

6 hours ago, Mladen said:

Infused myself with some coffee and now I have a break... Time to recapitulate

So, 17/23. Not great, not terrible. Allowed myself into thinking too much about Academy and how they vote and opted for Spiderverse instead of "The Boy and the Heron". Expected to see some spreading the wealth in Costume, Production and MakeUp and POOR THINGS just swept like they did in BAFTA.

It really seems that Academy spread the wealth rater nicely this year, unlike the last year. Eight out of ten nominated movies went with at least one award, with PAST LIVES and MAESTRO going home empty-handed. Huge departure from last year when EEAAO went 6/8 above-the-line and Women Talking winning Adaoted Screenplay. This year, we had 5 movies winning in eight above-the-line categories. Honestly, this year's set of winners - far superior than last year's. 

 

And forgot... In terms of relevance for Oscar predicting, BAFTA returned with a vengeance. After going 0 out of 8 in above-the-line categories, this year the overlap between BAFTA and Oscars is almost 100%. I think they only differ in Visual Effects - BAFTA giving it to POOR THINGS, Oscars to GODZILLA MINUS ONE. BAFTA matters people. Never doubt the Brits. 

I get the feeling that the new batch of members aren't at all concerned with the whole spread the wealth outlook. Also, where any of this year's nominees as hyped as EEAAO? Because hype can get you additional awards, deserved or otherwise. 

I've been waiting to write of the BAFTAs as a precursor ever since they announced that the winners are determined by a small select jury. Last year seemed like the start of it and yet somehow they bounced back.

[Ran]

I think Oppenheimer is the best directed and edited film of the year, a lean, tight 3 hours that never outstays it's welcome (which is an amazing feat in and of itself), and really have no problem considering it the best film of the year when looked together as a whole, across all the aspects of things that went into making it. So these results don't bug me whatsoever, personally.

[Mexal]

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think Oppenheimer is the best directed and edited film of the year, a lean, tight 3 hours that never outstays it's welcome (which is an amazing feat in and of itself), and really have no problem considering it the best film of the year when looked together as a whole, across all the aspects of things that went into making it. So these results don't bug me whatsoever, personally.

Agreed completely. What a wonderful movie. 

[hauberk]

Have only seen clips from the ceremony, but really annoyed that anyone feels the need to add production values to the In Memorium.  This has been something of a complaint this entire awards season.  Not being able to read the names of those being remembered because of a slow panning shot to pick up the interpretive dancers and then dipping so that their hands are obstructing the screens with the names is pretty absurd.

 

The Cena costume award presentation was a pretty entertaining bit.

[Darryk]

Happy with Oppenheimer sweeping and I think it will hold up a lot better than the other nominees. An expertly executed event film; pretty much Nolan's modus operandi.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Veltigar said:

I think you're a bit harsh on her. She's got some genuinely good songs as far as I'm concerned, she just doesn't bring those to the movies. I remember not being impressed by her Bond song, but weak competition might also have been a factor. Not sure who else was nominated that year, but she might genuinely have been the best of the bunch.

I've listened to a handful of her songs and they're all bland imo. That's why I used Cold Play as a comp.

Quote

A bit like Cillian Murphy this year to be honest. Love the actor and I think he gave a very good performance as Oppenheimer, but his category was strangely weak this year in my opinion. Good for him to get an Award out of it, but Oppenheimer wouldn't crack my top 3 of Cillian Murphy performances.

I'm happy for Murphy, but I think when we look back it won't be seen as a great performance or film in general. I still have a lot to see (also annoying that a lot of these movies aren't out yet to stream or rent at a decent price), but I think 2023 will be remembered as a year with a lot of B+ films. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I'm happy for Murphy, but I think when we look back it won't be seen as a great performance or film in general...

...I think 2023 will be remembered as a year with a lot of B+ films. 

How is this significantly different from any other year?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

How is this significantly different from any other year?

A lot of years in retrospect have a ton of great movies. I doubt many of the BP nominees this year will be remembered much in five years to the average movie goer. Barbie might be the only one because it's going to be a franchise. 

[Ran]

Oppenheimer has very well secured its place as one of the greatest biopics ever made, and will be remembered as such.

I think Zone of Interest is another A+ film that will stand the test of time. 

Barbie is not going to be soon forgotten, either, and will be one of those films that mothers will be showing to their daughters years down the line.

I'd say Poor Things will be remembered as Yorgos Lanthimos's best film (unless and until he ends up making something better, I suppose).

Those are the four unequivocal A films for me. Past Lives I've a special place for, but it's a first for Song and I suspect she'll be making even better movies down the road.

ETA: Now, to put it another way, which of these films will eventually end up in the Sight and Sound 250 greatest films? Zone of Interest seems a given to me and I'll be shocked if it's not there a decade from now. Oppenheimer, maybe, but it may take a couple of decades of distance. Ditto Poor Things, and that depending on Lanthimos's further career.

But I suppose I can't imagine Barbie or Past Lives will. 

Edited March 11 by Ran

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

A lot of years in retrospect have a ton of great movies. I doubt many of the BP nominees this year will be remembered much in five years to the average movie goer. Barbie might be the only one because it's going to be a franchise. 

Most Oscar nominees fall down the memory hole within a year, let alone five. As much as they may be competently made films, they're also influenced by the zeitgeist at the time the noms are chosen. 

I've seen plenty of commentary over the years about Raging Bull and Apocalypse Now. I can't remember the last time someone talked about Kramer vs. Kramer or Ordinary people or whatever that film was the beat Citizen Kane for best picture back in the day.