Thoughts on the 2025 Oscar Nominations

    There will always be movies nominated where I think, "What was the academy thinking?!? How can anyone think this movie is the best of the year?" (2023's Triangle of Sadness, I'm looking at you).  I have mixed feelings about this year's slate of nominees, as it was considerably weaker than last year's.  Last year, the top eight movies were all worthy contenders, and even with the bottom two, I can see why they were nominated, even though I myself didn't like them.    

This year, the best movies were only very good, and most didn't rise to great. The slate was characterized by wasted potential and the failure to kill the director's darlings:  

• The Substance was on track to be the best movie of the year and perhaps the best horror movie of all time. It built the suspense and dread through the first 3/4 of the movie until it fell down in the final act, with its blood-drenched crescendo that suddenly and massively violated suspension of disbelief.
• Nickel Boys took a great story about good kids but ruined it with experimental and distracting film techniques and head-hopping.
• The Brutalist needs to cut at least 30 minutes but perhaps as much as an hour, particularly if can't be bothered to close its plot holes. What happened to Van Buren?  How did Laszlo rebuild his career after the fiasco depicted in the movie?  When did his niece overcome her trauma?  The list goes on.
• Anora failed to make me care about any of the characters. The character I liked best and identified with, was hired muscle who inadvertently assaults the main character (though she was so annoying, who can blame him?)
• Emilia Pérez was actually a pretty good movie, but the director's lack of research was kind of insulting and played on everyone else's ignorance of the difference between Spain and Mexico.
• Wicked was imaginative, but like Anora, failed to make me care about the characters.  Worse, it was a musical with not very good sound design.

    The only movies that didn't disappoint me in some way were Conclave, Dune 2, and A Complete Unknown (I haven't seen I'm Still Here, which hasn't yet come to streaming and is unlikely to before the award ceremony). 

    So, here's how Chris's and my ranking of the movies fall out:

1. A Complete Unknown (Super songwriter's origin story; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
2. Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
3. Emilia Pérez (Stereotypes, redemption, and transition; Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)
4. Dune: Part Two (Best rendition of a classic SF novel; Cathy: 4, Chris: 4)
5. The Substance (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 5, Chris: 5)
6. The Brutalist (Troubled architect explores the pitfalls of patronage; Cathy: 6, Chris: 6)
7. Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 7, Chris: 7)
8. Winner: Anora (Steaming pile of говно; Cathy: 9, Chris: 8)
9. Nickel Boys (Civil rights meets a feverish collage of an arthouse film; Cathy: 8, Chris: 9)

    Interestingly, except for Anora and Nickel Boys, we remained in perfect lock-step. That's pretty rare, as we are both pretty opinionated.

     I also try to draw conclusions about interesting cross-movie themes:

• Four movies take place in modern times (The Substance, Anora, Conclave, Emilia Pérez)
• Four movies are historical period pieces  (The Brutalist 1947-1960-ish; A Complete Unknown 1961-1965; I'm Still Here, 1971; Nickel Boys, 1964).
• Two movies take place out of time (Dune 2, Wicked)
• One movie deals with genocide, or more accurately, its aftermath (The Brutalist).
• Six movies contain a language other than English.  Two were mostly or entirely not in English (Emilia Pérez, Spanish; I'm Still Here, Portuguese). The others were mostly or almost entirely in English but contained other languages as well (Conclave, with Spanish, Italian, and Latin; Dune 2, Fremen and sign language; Anora, Russian; The Brutalist, Hungarian and Italian).
• One actor (Timothée Chalamet) starred in two of the nominated movies (A Complete Unknown, Dune 2).

    I'm hesitant to offer predictions or opinions for other categories because I haven't seen all of the performances, but here are my opinions in spite of my ignorance. I underlined the one that I thought should win.  Bold indicates the winner.

    Note: There should be five nominees per category. If I don't mention a nominee (or indicate a winner), it's because I haven't seen the performance. If I didn't mention a category, it's because I have no opinion.  

• Best Dirctor: Coralie Fargeat/The Substance, James Mangold/A Complete Unknown, Jacques Audiard/Emilia Pérez, Brady Corbet/The Brutalist, and Sean Baker/Anora.
• Best Actor:  Timothée Chalamet (for his Bob Dylan role), Adrien Brody, and Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes successfully made me sympathize with a Catholic cardinal, a person I have zero in common with.
• Best Actress: Cynthia Erivo, Karla Sofía Gascón, Mikey Madison, and Demi Moore.  No question -- Moore's performance in The Substance was fantastic.
• Best Supporting Actress: Monica Barbaro, Ariana Grande, Felicity Jones, Isabella Rossellini, and Zoe Saldaña. Saldaña held Emilia Pérez together.
• Best Supporting Actor: Guy Pearce, Edward Norton, and Yura Borisov. He is the ONLY person I sympathized with in Anora.  I also loved Ed Norton's turn as Pete Seeger.
• Best Writing (original screenplay): The Brutalist, Anora, and The Substance.  Extra kudos for it having been written in French and perfectly translated to English.
• Best Writing (adapted screenplay): A Complete Unknown, Conclave, Emilia Pérez, and Nickel Boys.
• Best Sound: A Complete Unknown, Dune 2, Emilia Pérez, and Wicked.
• Best Production Design: The Brutalist, Conclave, Dune 2, and Wicked.
• Best Cinematography: Dune 2, Emilia Pérez, and The Brutalist.
• Best Makeup and Hairstyling:  Emilia Pérez, The Substance, and Wicked.
• Best Costume Design: A Complete Unknown, Conclave, and Wicked.
• Best Visual Effects: Wicked and Dune 2.

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - A Complete Unknown

    For me, the only disappointing thing about this movie was that it opened after Bob Dylan left Minnesota. It would have been awesome if we saw some of his life in Duluth or Minneapolis. But it's not about a local boy who makes it big, it's about how the only songwriter to ever win the Nobel Prize in literature (which he didn't attend) gets his big break and stretches his wings.

    I tend to enjoy movies about famous musicians - I loved Walk the Line, Elvis, and La Bamba - but this movie seemed tailor-made for my husband and me. Chris and I both grew up listening to our mothers' music, and in fact, I've been to a Peter, Paul, and Mary concert with my husband, mom, and mom-in-law at Jesse Auditorium at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and Mom and I have been to see Joan Baez at The Blue Note (also in Columbia).  Chris and I both connected instantly with the characters, perhaps because we know and love their music.    My daughter, on the other hand, didn't care about the people, rightly labeled Dylan a jerk, and was appalled by Dylan's singing (also fair - I've always preferred Dylan's songs when they are sung by other people).

    So I don't know if I'm seeing the movie with clear eyes or not, but I loved A Complete Unknown. I loved seeing how that boy from Minnesota lost his innocence, developed as an artist, and went his own way.   I loved seeing how the political crises that happened before I was born (but I grew up hearing about so they feel contemporary) shaped him. I loved his relationships with Baez, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, and his girlfriend, Suze Rotolo (called Sylvie Russo in the movie).

    The casting and acting were brilliant, and all the actors did their own singing.  Timothée Chalamet looks just enough like the real Bob Dylan, and is a good enough actor that I was never pulled out of the world of the movie.  Ed Norton was excellent as Pete Seeger, and I'm astounded that the same man played both the vicious Derek Vineyard (the neo-Nazi from American History X) and the gentle Seeger with equal believability. Elle Fanning captured just how difficult it would be to be a famous artist's lover, for it seems to be a truism that great artists are great because they are willing to be self-centered and neglect the people who love them.  And Monica Barbaro captured my beloved Joan very well, singing in a clear soprano voice (with perhaps less vibrato than the real Joan uses), and she delivers my favorite line of the movie with a perfect blend of I-just-figured-this-out and blunt matter-of-factness:

Bob: Your songs are like an oil painting at the dentist's office.
Joan: You know, you're kind of an asshole, Bob.
Bob: Yeah, I guess.

(Pithy Reviews; and Ranking out of 10 nominees):

• A Complete Unknown (Super songwriter's origin story; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
• Emilia Pérez (Stereotypes, redemption, and transition; Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)
• Dune: Part Two (Best rendition of a classic SF novel: Cathy: 4, Chris: 4)
• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 5, Chris: 5)
• The Brutalist (Troubled architect explores the pitfalls of patronage; Cathy: 6, Chris: 6)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 7, Chris: 7)
• Anora (Steaming pile of говно; Cathy: 9, Chris: 8)
• Nickel Boys  (Civil rights meets a feverish collage of an arthouse film; Cathy: 8, Chris: 9)

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - The Brutalist

  

    The Brutalist is a very long and strange movie, with moments of brilliance, moments of confusion (usually when the protagonist is strung out on heroin) and then it resolves with a surprisingly satisfying conclusion.

    The 3 1/2 hour movie has an actual intermission with a neat countdown clock (evidently in theaters, it was a 15-minute intermission, but at home it was only one minute).  And fortunately, for such a long movie, it wasn't boring, though it was occasionally slower than I'd like.

    It does make the mistake of occasionally trying to immerse the viewer into the confusion and disorientation of the main character's drug-addled state, but confusing visual storytelling just causes a confused viewer, and I was pulled out of the movie in two key scenes, where I was left wondering what the heck was going on.  

    The movie has an odd tendency to not resolve plot points, something I find just incredibly annoying.  Did the rich guy's son assault the girl or not? (I don't know).  Did the main character go to Israel with his wife or not?   How was he able to rebuild his career after the fiasco depicted at the climax of the film?  When and how did the traumatized girl start speaking?  Where did the rich guy go?  Interestingly, Chris and I disagreed on that point - he thought that not explaining was a playful and artistic move on the part of the filmmakers.

    Speaking of playful and artistic - one of the most beautiful scenes in the movie was filmed in Carrara, Italy, in the same marble quarry where Michelangelo carved the sublime La Pietà.  Interestingly, the statue was vandalized in 1972 by a Hungarian Catholic named Laszlo Toth, who believed he was God, and the main character of the movie was named after him.   I'm not sure of the symbolism of that. Was it intended to show that the protagonist was crazy and hubristic?  Maybe it was to show that he wasn't a fan of marble? (He did prefer cement to stone.)

    One thing I though was brilliant was how they mostly didn't show the Holocaust (and it's not a Holocaust movie), but it still formed a shadowy backbone to the movie, creating a marvelous sense of unease and dread.   The trauma it caused in the main character, his wife, and his niece was key to many of the later scenes in the movie and in the surprisingly satisfying resolution. 

    Overall, I thought the movie was pretty good (but not great), and it was well-acted and well-cast. The cinematography was solid and bare (rather like the titular architectural movement), and even the credits were designed to look brutalist (though I've read the actual architecture depicted mostly wasn't) which was a nice touch.  

(Pithy Reviews; and Rankings* out of 10 nominees):

• Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• Emilia Pérez (Stereotypes, redemption, and transition; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
• Dune: Part Two (Best rendition of a classic SF novel: Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)
• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 4, Chris: 4)
• The Brutalist (Troubled architect explores the pitfalls of patronage; Cathy: 5, Chris: 5)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 6, Chris: 6)
• Anora (Steaming pile of говно; Cathy: 8, Chris: 7)
• Nickel Boys  (Civil rights meets a feverish collage of an arthouse film; Cathy: 7, Chris: 8)

* Rankings can change.

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Unwatched - A Complete Unknown (A biopic about the early days of Bob Dylan's career)
• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - Nickel Boys

    This was a deeply weird fever-dream collage of a movie.  It was as if the filmmakers set out to make an art-house film, and so they took a straightforward story and inserted apparently unrelated visual motifs (like live alligators), wove in historical footage of Dr. Martin Luthor King Jr., the space race, and flash-forwards to 2010, all while revealing the world of the movie with weird camera angles and shaky first-person filming.

    The author of the source novel, The Nickel Boys, Colson Whitehead, was inspired by a real-life runaway named Jerry Cooper, who hitched a ride with a driver of a stolen car. They were caught, and Cooper, whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, was sent to a particularly brutal juvie, Florida's Dozier School for Boys. Whitehead changed a few details, researched the school to build his world, and came up with an imaginative story with an interesting (and unexpected) twist at the end.   I haven't read the book, but it won a Pulitzer, and Time magazine called it one of the best books of the decade, so I suspect it's pretty good.

    Unfortunately, the movie is not.

    The good:  It's well-cast and well-acted.  The scenery was pretty, and the costumes and sets convinced me that it was the 1960s and I liked the inclusion of historical footage. The message was also good, and movies like this one are important, to remind us that human beings are capable of monstrous behavior, that if we forget the past, we'll certainly repeat our mistakes.

    The interesting (but not necessarily good): first-person POV filming, which I'm not generally fan of, but it made some amount of sense here. It was also filmed in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, mirroring generations of old TVs and movies. I suspect it was intended to make the viewer feel constrained.

    The bad: pretty much everything else.  The fever-dream atmosphere cycled between boring, mesmerizing, and worst of all, confusing. The first-person filming was often shaky and sometimes nauseating (shades of Blair Witch).  The movie often head-hopped without warning -- a common rookie mistake in writing, but this is the first time I've ever seen it in a visual format.   The movie was full of weird camera angles (the director liked to film from directly above as shown in the movie poster), or with the camera turned sideways, and frequently left the main characters with their heads out of the frame.   I often didn't know what was happening, so I usually felt confused and off-kilter; perhaps this was intended to immerse us in the emotions of the the main characters, but what it accomplished was pushing me out of the world of the movie, and the experience was unpleasant and difficult to watch for the wrong reasons.  Human rights violations should be hard to watch, but in this instance, the artsy-fartsy movie-making weakened the power the movie might have had. 

(Pithy Reviews; and Rankings* out of 10 nominees):

• Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• Emilia Pérez (Stereotypes, redemption, and transition; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
• Dune: Part Two (Best rendition of a classic SF novel: Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)
• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 4, Chris: 4)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 5, Chris: 5)
• Anora (Steaming pile of говно; Cathy: 6, Chris: 6)
• Nickel Boys  (Civil rights meets a feverish collage of an arthouse films; Cathy: 7, Chris: 7)

* Rankings can change.

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Unwatched - The Brutalist (Jewish architect rebuilds his life in America after the Holocaust)
• Unwatched - A Complete Unknown (A biopic about the early days of Bob Dylan's career)
• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - Dune: Part Two

    Science fiction novels written in the middle of the last century were often really, really weird, and Frank Herbert's classic 1965 novel Dune is no exception. The novel is a gem, though, but there is no getting around the fact that it's also quite weird, and previous attempts to adapt it to the screen emphasize strange spectacle over story. I know David Lynch's 1984 version has its fans, so it feels a little transgressive to say that it was clownish and poorly cast. I never watched more than the first episode of the 2000 miniseries (it was boring, and didn't manage to leave the ridiculousness behind).

    Denis Villenueve's two Dune movies are both finely crafted storytelling, and he managed to translate the sometimes bizarre elements from the novel into something badass, and well, cool.  It was also perfectly cast and wonderfully acted, and the cinematography, special effects, sound, costumes, and makeup all perfectly support the storytelling.   In short, both movies were pretty excellent.

    The second movie in particular, isn't perfect, though.   Part two ends before the novel does (I believe he's planning another movie, and I'm guessing he'll include the missing material then), and the movie feels like it is setting up a sequel rather than giving the movie the resolution it deserves.  

   

    He also fundamentally changed the character of Chani.  In the books, she is nothing but supportive, which left the character far less interesting than she could have been, so I'm in no way opposed to giving her some ideas and motivations of her own.  But, in order to give Chani a reason to disagree with Paul, the director emphasized the North/South religious split (the "fundamentalist" aspects of the movie were not really a big part of the original story) in order to make Chani into non-believer. 

    But the unintended consequence was that it made her look like a rigid idiot who cannot believe the evidence sitting right in front of her that Paul is indeed the Kwisatz Haderach. She knows him in a way that the other northerners don't, and he has never been anything but a good leader and person who cares about the Fremen, yet she thinks he's just using the Fremen for personal gain. 

   She also never disrespected Stilgar (he was both her uncle and her trainer) or his beliefs, which she pretty much shared in the novel.  So, in the end, I approve of giving Chani more of a backbone, and giving her more to do than the novel did, but I do wish Villeneuve had done it differently. 

(Pithy Reviews; and Rankings* out of 10 nominees):

• Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• Emilia Pérez (Stereotypes, redemption, and transition; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
• Dune: Part Two (Best rendition of a classic SF novel: Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)
• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 4, Chris: 4)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 5, Chris: 5)
• Anora (Steaming pile of говно; Cathy: 6, Chris: 6)

* Rankings can change.

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Unwatched - The Brutalist (Jewish architect rebuilds his life in America after the Holocaust)
• Unwatched - A Complete Unknown (A biopic about the early days of Bob Dylan's career)
• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)
• Unwatched - Nickel Boys (1960s-era reform school survival story)

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - Emilia Pérez

Cathy's Review:

    Imagine if, say, an Italian director made a movie about 9/11 without bothering to learn anything about NYC or the people who live there, wrote stereotypical American characters, then translated the script into British English, hiring Cockney actors who couldn't do an American accent to play all the main parts?   And then imagine how New Yorkers would feel if the movie was then praised internationally?

    Change a few details in the above analogy, and you have Emilia Peréz. 

    I actually really liked this controversy-riddled, Spanish-language*, woman-centered movie about redemption, though the genre is difficult to pin down; IMDB lists it as: Comedy, Crime, Drama, Thriller, and ... Musical (yes, it's a musical about a transwoman who leads a Mexican drug cartel).  

    It stars Karla Sofia Gascón as the Mexican drug cartel leader who wants to leave her life of violence behind so she can get the gender-affirming surgery she needs.   Selena Gomez plays the wife, Jessi.  And Zoe Saldaña is the lawyer who helps both of them. 

    The acting is excellent, the scenery is beautiful, and the songs supported the story well.

    The movie is controversial but mostly not because of the currently-politicized transgender issues.  After her own transition, Karla Sofia Gascón made some rather ugly Islamophobic, racist, and misogynistic comments on Twitter.  Weird coming from a member of a marginalized community herself, but there you have it. She apologized and hopefully was sincere.

   

    There are other controversies, though, that are relevant to the production of the movie itself, and they are ... something.  The writer/director of the movie is French, and it was filmed not in Mexico City, but in Paris. I don't fault them for that - it was a French production with a tight budget, and filming in Mexico would have added complexity and expense.  

    But. The writer/director Jacques Audiard really should have done his homework. He speaks neither Spanish nor English, the two main languages spoken in the movie.  He did zero research about Mexico, the missing-persons crisis, the drug cartels, or the people and culture. So, the movie -- however well-made -- is one stereotype after another.

    It gets worse.  He didn't even consider the difference in how Spanish is spoken in Mexico vs. Spain, and the movie only had a single Mexican actor.  At least Selena Gomez was uncomfortable with her non-fluent Spanish, so they made her an American who is somewhat bilingual.   But Zoe Saldaña is American (of Puerto Rican/Dominican descent so she probably does speak the language), yet she plays a Mexican lawyer.  That in itself is not so bad, but they didn't bother to hire a dialog coach for her, and her accent is badly inconsistent (not as bad as Kevin Costner's in Prince of Thieves, but close). Karla Sofia Gascón is Spanish, not Mexican, but she's done a lot of acting in Mexican soap operas, so I suspect her accent was better.

    Even with the problems, the movie is mesmerizing, and captures emotion and pain, and inspired family discussions about what it means to change and whether it's possible for violent individuals to genuinely redeem themselves.

    * The movie is about 2/3 - 3/4 in Spanish, with the remainder in English.

Chris's review: 

    Emilia Pérez is a movie about how much a person can change themselves. More importantly, it's about the limits to those changes even in the face of a lot of dedicated wealth and will.

    While trying to evaluate things, I think most important is that the film was captivating. Our family broke the viewing up over three short sessions. Even with a lot of the dialogue in languages I don't speak (primarily Spanish) and the extra attention that requires, each time we were wrapping up a session (to suit the needs of my loved ones), I found that I didn't really want to stop. 

    The film is also a musical, and I think about a third of the song-n-dance routines were mildly annoying, a third were sort of fine, and a third were really great. The great ones stick with me a lot more than the opposite third, so I think I consider that element of the movie a success -- more for the dance choreography than for the music.

    There are apparently a bunch of ham-fisted decisions made in writing/casting/directing the movie -- things I found out about after viewing it and that I wasn't educated enough to pick up on on my own. They sound pretty bad, and maybe it could have been even better, but I don't think they were particularly detrimental to my enjoyment. I'm specifically not down-ranking anything here because of those aspects.

(Pithy Reviews; and Rankings* out of 10 nominees):

• Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• Emilia Pérez (Stereotypes, redemption, and transition; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 4, Chris: 4)
• Anora (Steaming pile of говно; Cathy: 5, Chris: 5)

* Rankings can change.

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Unwatched - The Brutalist (Jewish architect rebuilds his life in America after the Holocaust)
• Unwatched - A Complete Unknown (A biopic about the early days of Bob Dylan's career)
• Rewatching - Dune: Part Two (House Atreides kicks House Harkonnen off Arrakis)
• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)
• Unwatched - Nickel Boys (1960s-era reform school survival story)
  

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - Anora

Cathy's slightly-spoilerific Review: 

    I expected to like this movie, but the trailer jerked me around by pretending it was a comedy (the only genuinely funny scenes were in the trailer), but this was certainly was no comedy.  To quote Roger Ebert, "I hated, hated hated this movie," and I'm jealous of my daughter for noping out after the first 40 minutes.   She got 80 minutes of her life back, time that I foolishly continued to give to this steaming pile of probably incorrectly transliterated robho.* But I was in the odd position of wanting to know how it ended while resenting every minute of the ride.

    The thing is, it checks a lot of the same boxes that a good movie does: It was well-acted, the cinematography was good, and the story was well-told. But it's like they went out and found 10 of the most irritating POSs they could find (and I'm not being classist here - I hated the rich folks who produced such a pathetic little son far more than I did the stripper. She was only extremely annoying. His actions (and those of his family) are amplified by his wealth, power and abuse of the public.  

    It also was no Cinderella story - a powerless girl remains powerless.  She's annoying and brash, and stupid-yet-street-smart.  She marries the pathetic scion of Russian oligarchs, and they royally screw her. Her husband (and it pains me to award him that title) is little more than a wrecking ball, a selfish toddler in a 21-year-old body. At least Ani gives pleasure to her clients.  Vanya on the other hand is a net negative.  He reminds me a lot of Jean-Ralphio Saperstein from Parks and Rec, but without the heart.

    But it's very telling that by FAR the most relatable and likable character is Igor, the Russian hired goon who assaults Ani (he never strikes her, but he does restrain her, tie her up, and is a party to her kidnapping). Ultimately, he's the ONLY person who recognizes the wrong that was done to her, and the best part of the movie is the very end .... 

Spoilers ahead. Skip the next line if you plan to see the movie.

... when he does his best to comfort her as she finally breaks down and sobs.

Chris's review: 

    There are three exceptionally damming traits exhibited by Anora:

1. The first 35 minutes is incredibly boring, but not just boring -- boring and disgusting.
2. Every single character who saw more than ten seconds of screen time, with just a single exception, is vile to the core, and the world they inhabit would be made better by their death.
3. Smoking freaks me out, and I'm pretty sure I've never seen a movie where there was so much smoking (of various kinds). Super-gross.

    It's hard to evaluate with an open mind when you want everyone dead, but the technical aspects of the film were all well done. The acting was solid, the visuals were engaging, I didn't have any problems with the audio (though I bet it would have been uncomfortable in the theater), and the very tip of the ending was kind of a delight.

    I guess I'm glad to have gotten through it, but I certainly won't do it again, and I can't recommend it to any but the most depraved audience.

* говно: Russian for shit, bullshit, poop, turd, worthless thing, nonsense.

(Pithy Reviews; and Rankings* out of 10 nominees):

• Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)
• Anora (Steaming pile of говно; Cathy: 4, Chris: 4)

* Rankings can change.

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Next up - The Brutalist (Jewish architect rebuilds his life in America after the Holocaust)
• Unwatched - A Complete Unknown (A biopic about the early days of Bob Dylan's career)
• Unwatched - Conclave (Conspiracy thriller while picking a new pope)
• Rewatching - Dune: Part Two (House Atreides kicks House Harkonnen off Arrakis)
• Unwatched - Emilia Pérez (Conspiracy to help a transgender mob boss disappear)
• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)
• Unwatched - Nickel Boys (1960s-era reform school survival story)
• Unwatched - The Substance (Beautiful horror movie ruined by ending)
• Unwatched - Wicked (Retelling of The Wizard of Oz)

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - Conclave

Chris's review: 

    This is a hard movie for me to review, and I'm not quite sure why. I loved it. Saying that is simple, but when I look at the way my numeric scores layout, it's just a movie. So what am I supposed to say? 

    First, it was very pretty. Not in the phantasmagoric way that Wicked was, but the pretty buildings, furniture, costumes (so much red!), *cough* the Sistine Chapel *cough* combine to be a feast for the eyes.   

    And the pacing was perfectly tuned to me. I'm kind of easy to bore and fidgety, and so even great movies that are a slow burn have trouble capturing me. But this one did it. There isn't a lot going on, but there's a lot going on. And I found the narrative textural enough to grab onto and think about as the next scene slowly burned along.

I'm pretty removed from papal...um, anything really. I mostly don't care about the pope, though I guess I'd rather he not be ex-Hitler Youth. But because the world takes the position seriously, it's somewhat serious. And with all that history and tradition, it's interesting to get a glimpse into the succession (I'm just assuming it's realistic-ish here), so the setting was interesting.

    There's a "big surprise" within the "big surprise" which I don't want to really spoil, but I kind of found the one underwhelming and the other predictable (though I think you're supposed to in that last case). But even so, I really enjoyed watching it and it held my attention.

Cathy's Review: 

    I really liked Conclave.  It starts with a slow burn, but it gradually gains more and more momentum until at the end, you cannot look away.  Ralph Fiennes plays Cardinal Thomas Lawrence, the dean of the college of cardinals at the Vatican. The Pope has just died, and Lawrence runs the conclave, the process used to pick the next Pope.  The movie lays bare the politics, controversies, and the very human flaws each papal candidate displays during the arcane and ancient ritual. 

    I don't want to say too much about the characters for fear of giving away too much, but Fiennes, along with John Lithgow, Stan Tucci, Carlos Diehz, Lucian Msamati, Sergio Castellitto all did spectacular work.  Due to the patriarchal nature of the Church and of the conclave itself, the women's parts were smaller and fewer, but Isabella Rossellini in particular, perfectly pulled off a key moment.  

    The costuming was gorgeous, and I was blown away at how the actors were able to make it look natural, like each man had spent decades (and not weeks or months) wearing cassock, cape, sash, zucchetto (the skullcap that looks just like a yarmulka) and even the bishop's mitre.   The actors also pulled off many languages as if they were born to it. The movie is mostly in English, but the languages used reflect the nationalities of the cardinals themselves, and there are moments of Latin, Italian, and Spanish, and the actors slip in and out of their native tongues as comfortably as they do their costumes.

    The cinematography was beautiful, alternating between dreary and stark scenes and moments of breathtaking beauty; there is a scene of the cardinals crossing a courtyard in the rain that is pure visual poetry.  The soundtrack was quiet, with a nice emphasis on clarity of speech that I liked.

    At its heart, the movie is a conspiracy story, about the schemes and machinations the main candidates put into place to hide their own wrongdoings, to expose the wrongdoings of others, and to influence the election of the Pope, and therefore guide the Church itself - does it continue to reform or does it return to traditional actions and attitudes and risk harming their flock? Yet these minor intrigues are a smoke-screen (pun intended - the Church uses smoke signals during the conclave) to the main one at the heart of the story.  

    Unusual for a movie that centers on conspiracies, the storytelling is simple and straightforward. I was never confused as to what was going on (except perhaps when my ignorance of Catholic ritual left me in doubt, but the movie generally revealed what it needed to, to keep me involved).  I also rather enjoyed the blending of ancient and modern.  Cellphones were confiscated, wifi turned off, and they swept for bugs, yet just as it has for nearly 2000 years, voting was done with pen and paper, manually tallied, then the ballots were burned when no majority was reached. They still use smoke signals to indicate failure or success of a vote, but instead of adding straw to the burning ballots to turn the smoke black, they use colored smoke canisters and electronics to release the smoke.   

    Conclave reveals the main conspiracy at the end of the movie, but it doesn't resolve it - we are left to wonder whether it remains a secret, but given the Church's tendency toward secrecy, I think it would be likely to remain hidden, which makes me feel like I'm in on the secret, and I like that very much.

(Pithy Reviews; and Rankings* out of 10 nominees):

• Conclave (Absorbing conspiracy at the Vatican; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 3, Chris: 3)

* Rankings can change.

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Unwatched - Anora (NYC sex worker marries a Russian oligarch) Next Up.
• Unwatched - The Brutalist (Jewish architect rebuilds his life in America after the Holocaust)
• Unwatched - A Complete Unknown (A biopic about the early days of Bob Dylan's career)
• Rewatching - Dune: Part Two (House Atreides kicks House Harkonnen off Arrakis)
• Unwatched - Emilia Pérez (Conspiracy to help a transgender mob boss disappear)
• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)
• Unwatched - Nickel Boys (1960s-era reform school survival story)

2025 Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee - Wicked

Chris's review: 

    Wow, is this movie ever a feast for the eyes?! The set and costuming are just so beautiful! I think people focusing on this aspect will inevitably compare it to last year's Barbie, which did an excellent job with the visuals, but in Wicked, it feels like there's a lot more to see. On top of just being beautiful and visually rich, the creators knew their way around the use of motifs -- visual elements and mannerisms of the players, at least, and these were often delightful. But I also had some issues. I guess I'm considering watching it again soon, so how bad could it be, right? Well...my first experience of the film was pretty seriously harmed by what felt like two big flaws. 

    The first is that it took me seventy minutes to care, at all, about what was going on. I was sitting there with Cathy, watching this Best Picture nominee, and sort of wishing we could 'nope out' of it. I'm glad we didn't, and this experience is part of what makes me want to watch again...now that I've been hooked, will I be invested from the start upon a second viewing? But I still have to call it a flaw. An hour of being bored is a problem!

    The other big flaw is that the audio is muddy. This is a musical! The songs were hard for me to follow and parse. And there was frequently too much going on in the aural sphere -- I could take in one little strain of it while knowing that all the other stuff was passing me by unappreciated. When they broke into song, I generally wished they'd shut up and talk, which is not how I normally respond to musical theater. This might be just me -- Cathy rated the aural artistry much more highly than I did and I have some sensory processing issues. But that's how it was for me and I can only relate my own experiences.

    The acting was great, particularly by the two young witches, and only one casting decision seemed weird. I've read the novel, but it was several years ago and I don't remember it well enough to call out inaccuracies. My sense is that it was much more nuanced -- but how could it not be? So I'm not willing to call that a fault of the film.

Cathy's Review: 

    Before watching this movie, my only experience with the Land of Oz was seeing the 1939 movie when I was a kid, and playing in the pit orchestra for the stage version when I was a young adult (I got thoroughly sick of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow").  The only thing I knew about Wicked was that like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, two minor characters in an older story become the main characters in another, filling in the backstory of the witches in L. Frank Baum's 125-year-old story.

    The movie is visually gorgeous and imaginative (very much in the vein of last year's Poor Things and Barbie) and the special effects, makeup, sets, and costumes do a lovely job supporting the world of the movie.  The songs were nice enough, and there were plenty of wonderful moments (I loved how Galinda taught Elphaba to toss her hair, and later you see her practicing).  But, lovely visuals and wonderful moments don't guarantee a good movie, and this one felt bloated and disconnected. Worst of all, it failed to make me care what happened to the characters. And because I didn't care, I was bored.  And 2:40 is a long time to be disinterested.

    While the acting was excellent -- I have no complaints there -- they hired 3 actors in their 30s to play teenage characters (the movie mostly takes place at a university (though it feels more like a high school). Except for Ariana Grande (who at 31 looks to be in her mid-20s) I would have guessed the other two were 10 years older (and in fact, Cynthia Erivo is 38 and Jonathan Bailey is 37).    

    It's also hard to like a movie where nearly every character is an asshole (and that includes most of the main characters).   The adults abuse and neglect Elphaba because of her green skin, the children bully her, the teachers mistreat her, and the wizard wants to exploit her.  There are a few decent folks, but they are just tokens.

    Glinda (or Galinda) the not-so-good witch is just incredibly unlikable through most of the movie. When a story uses a mean girl as a protagonist, it really needs to reveal her vulnerability and make us like her despite her petty behavior. It has to show us that she isn't as shallow as she appears.   Glinda's shallowness eventually evolves from snarky to quirky, but it happens so late in the movie that I never connected with her.

    As for Prince Fiyero, he serves as a homecoming king of sorts, but in the end, there's little difference between someone who is shallow and one who only pretends to be, and who cares if a character is insightful if they just immediately fall in with the mean girl?

    I liked Elphaba better than anyone else; it's easier to identify with the interesting and talented-though-misunderstood character than anyone else.  But she is (understandably) prickly and often just seems along for the unpleasant ride.  She eventually takes charge of things, but again ... too late for me to feel part of her story.

But ... In a world of magic, with flying monkeys and talking goats, why does everyone look askance at Elphaba's green skin? Particularly when she lives in a world with an Emerald City, where everything is green and represents all that's good?

(Pithy Reviews; and Rankings* out of 10 nominees):

• The Substance  (Excellent horror movie ruined by ending; Cathy: 1, Chris: 1)
• Wicked (Beautiful, yet boring; Cathy: 2, Chris: 2)

* Rankings can change.

Unranked/yet-to-be-seen:

• Unwatched - Anora (NYC sex worker marries a Russian oligarch) Next Up.
• Unwatched - The Brutalist (Jewish architect rebuilds his life in America after the Holocaust)
• Unwatched - A Complete Unknown (A biopic about the early days of Bob Dylan's career)
• Unwatched - Conclave (Conspiracy thriller while picking a new pope)
• Rewatching - Dune: Part Two (House Atreides kicks House Harkonnen off Arrakis)
• Unwatched - Emilia Pérez (Conspiracy to help a transgender mob boss disappear)
• Unwatched - I'm Still Here/Ainda Estou Aqui (A Brazilian politician's wife makes a new life after her husband is disappeared in 1971)
• Unwatched - Nickel Boys (1960s-era reform school survival story)

Coffee with a Crazy Person

Prompt - Unrecognizable (200 words): Write a story from the perspective of someone who has woken up in a room or place they do not recognize.

***

I struggle to consciousness against a slothful, sluggish brain. I really want to be awake.  

First I notice the sounds, which aren’t at all familiar. No Catty-kitty meowing for breakfast.  No sounds of subways or traffic honking. No neighbors slamming doors or stomping down the hallways.   

Instead, I hear the whirr of something … a computer fan, maybe?   I also hear chains clinking, moans, and muffled movements as someone bumps around a confined space.  I hear bubbling and someone scratching a pencil on paper. I smell…. coffee?

I open my eyes and find I’m in a darkened room.  I see a white-coated, wild-haired man sitting before a computer, taking notes. Next to him, a beaker is bubbling over a blue flame. I locate the moans - they are coming from a closet that is padlocked shut.  

I have NO IDEA where I am.  I remembered my friends convincing me to voluntarily swallow a roofie so they could give me a birthday surprise. Suddenly, that decision struck me as profoundly stupid.

I must have made a noise because the wild-haired man turned and leered at me. 

“Welcome to the Escape Room. Solve the clues to get out,” he says, handing me a cup of coffee.

-- March 11, 2020