94th Annual Academy Awards

Titane, The Last Duel, and The Green Knight deserve far more recognition than the snooze fest Don’t Look Up. A truly baffling best picture nomination.
 
Don't Look Up got in there because of the timely socio-political commentary.
 
The most obvious, lazy and smug social commentary.
Pretty much. I reckon that commentary combined with McKay directing and a cast including Leo, Streep, and J.Law made this an autopilot decision for the Academy.
 
I’m glad Nightmare Alley got a nomination. I’m not sure it deserves it but I really liked it anyway.
 
No lie, I kind of want Don't Look Up to win an Oscar, regardless of category, if just to see Twitter melt down the way it did when Green Book won Best Picture or Anthony Hopkins winning Best Actor over Chadwick Boseman.

It won't happen, and even though I enjoyed the film, I don't see a category where it wins, but it'd be funny to watch.
 
No lie, I kind of want Don't Look Up to win an Oscar, regardless of category, if just to see Twitter melt down the way it did when Green Book won Best Picture or Anthony Hopkins winning Best Actor over Chadwick Boseman.

It won't happen, and even though I enjoyed the film, I don't see a category where it wins, but it'd be funny to watch.
Had it come out in a weaker year I could have seen it winning Best Original Screenplay but nothing else.

As it is, I'm not even sure what the favorite is to win Best Picture right now. Would it be Power of the Dog just because of how many nominations it got?
 
Power of the Dog bored me to tears, but I wouldn’t necessarily be mad or anything if it won.
 
Power of the Dog bored me to tears, but I wouldn’t necessarily be mad or anything if it won.
I thought it was a slow movie but still pretty good mainly thanks to Cumberbatch but I'd still prefer to see something like West Side Story or Dune win over it.
 
Power of the Dog felt like it was missing a proper ending.
I was getting a "There Will Be Blood lite" feel during the whole movie which had me expecting a big Daniel Plainview moment that never came. Cumberbatch doing something like this would have been absolutely terrifying:

tumblr_mfddxrNTFM1ritbuto8_r1_250.gifv
 
or maybe because it was good…
Regardless of whether it's good or not, it's no secret that the Academy fawns over movies that are socially and politically relevant to the times.
 
Regardless of whether it's good or not, it's no secret that the Academy fawns over movies that are socially and politically relevant to the times.

That's not un-true. Even though I liked Sean Penn in Milk, I maintain that, for my money, the Academy gave him Best Actor over Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler because of all the hoopla surrounding Proposition 8 at the time.
 
Which was also great movie, imho better than the Social Network
 
Don't Look Up got in there because of the timely socio-political commentary.
I mean, 'First Reformed' tackled the same issue in a much better executed and aggressively convicting way, and got ignored. The Academy loves an 'issue' movie, but only so long as that issue is addressed in the safest, tamest way possible.

And, of course, the key: 'Don't Look Up' had a murderer's row of cast and crew that the Academy loves. When half the voters don't even watch most of the movies, they flock to the ones with the people they know.
 
Power of the Dog bored me to tears, but I wouldn’t necessarily be mad or anything if it won.

It was definitely a chore to get through, but I’m still confused about the motivations of the characters. But I think Cumberbatch, Dunst and Smit-McPhee all did earn those noms.
 
It was definitely a chore to get through, but I’m still confused about the motivations of the characters. But I think Cumberbatch, Dunst and Smit-McPhee all did earn those noms.

That's weird to me, as I think the motivations are very clear.

Cumberbatch is clearly shown to be a lonely, closeted gay man. His toxicity is partly a front to pass as straight, in a time and place where being gay can get you killed, and partly a reaction to hold on to the only permanent friend he has, his brother. He recognizes himself in the Smit-McPhee character and has a romantic interest and also a mentoring interest.

The first words of the film are from Smit-McPhee. “When my father passed, I wanted nothing more than my mother’s happiness. For what kind of man would I be if I did not help my mother? If I did not save her?” While he clearly has mixed feelings about Phil, as Phil might be right and he might be gay plus being effeminate even if not gay can get you killed in that time and place and Phil is actually helping him, but he has pure feelings about his mother who Phil is bullying.

Dunst views herself as unworthy of being part of this rich family. Which is not helped whatsoever by Phil.

What's unclear about any of that?
 
That's weird to me, as I think the motivations are very clear.

Cumberbatch is clearly shown to be a lonely, closeted gay man. His toxicity is partly a front to pass as straight, in a time and place where being gay can get you killed, and partly a reaction to hold on to the only permanent friend he has, his brother. He recognizes himself in the Smit-McPhee character and has a romantic interest and also a mentoring interest.

The first words of the film are from Smit-McPhee. “When my father passed, I wanted nothing more than my mother’s happiness. For what kind of man would I be if I did not help my mother? If I did not save her?” While he clearly has mixed feelings about Phil, as Phil might be right and he might be gay plus being effeminate even if not gay can get you killed in that time and place and Phil is actually helping him, but he has pure feelings about his mother who Phil is bullying.

Dunst views herself as unworthy of being part of this rich family. Which is not helped whatsoever by Phil.

What's unclear about any of that?

All of that I got, but let me clarify:

I should've said that their intentions is what I'm still trying to figure out.

Like with Peter, I get that he wants to protect his mother from suitors that could be a problem, but was he also the one who killed his own father? It was said he hung himself, but considering what we know about Peter, he's very sociopathic and he manipulated Phil into his own death.

And then with Phil and his obsession with tearing down Rose and humiliating her. It's like he was in love with his brother, or competing with her over him.

It's some interesting themes the film presented overall though.
 
All of that I got, but let me clarify:

I should've said that their intentions is what I'm still trying to figure out.

Like with Peter, I get that he wants to protect his mother from suitors that could be a problem, but was he also the one who killed his own father? It was said he hung himself, but considering what we know about Peter, he's very sociopathic and he manipulated Phil into his own death.

And then with Phil and his obsession with tearing down Rose and humiliating her. It's like he was in love with his brother, or competing with her over him.

It's some interesting themes the film presented overall though.

I think you got it, albeit it's pretty unweildy to discuss in this thread. What I find interesting is that there are plenty of gray areas to discuss. Which I consider a feature, not a bug.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,304
Messages
22,082,658
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"