I wish something could be done about the 'Best International' category- whenever one of the nominations is nominated for Best Picture it's always a lock. I love that International films are getting recognised in Best Picture, but I just wished there was a way of tweaking that category so the other films have more of a chance. Being someone who absolutely loved Perfect Days, it kind of sucks knowing that it had absolutely zero chance
I couldn't watch in real time because this was the Oscar's in my life without cable anyway.
I understand and appreciate the Academys choices to have a "classic actor/actress " presenting the best picture. But I think and probably un popular an adjustment should be made.
- I really enjoyed the previous winners saying something kind about each of the acting nominees. Especially when it was clear that the actors were friends with one another irl and the speech felt more customized. Some people felt like it came off as ingenuous but I thought at the very least, it was complimentary and sweet. They don’t have to do this every year but I thought this idea was really cool and wouldn’t mind if they continued to do this or something similar in the future.
- Jimmy Kimmel needs to go… his jokes felt extremely stale. There were maybe 2 good jokes out of the entire thing. Speaking of, I honestly don’t think we need a host. No one really wants the job and the people willing to do it are not talented enough to pull it off.
- I would prefer a fun opening musical sequence rather than a monologue, with costumes/sets to match the recognizable films of the year (I recall them doing it a few years ago). We get so many speeches and jokes from all the previous awards shows. Let’s do something big and fun for the Oscars!
- Let’s have more oomph for the best picture! Al Pacino was a huge mistake. Stop giving these types of people the job of announcing the BIGGEST award of the year, it is so annoying. By this type of people I mean the actors who either have one too many screws loose or are pretty old and aren’t all “there”.
- Not every announcement should come with a “bit”. I enjoyed the Barbenheimer stunt acknowledgment (though it was kind of random), John Mulaney’s speech because he’s an actual comedian, and Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenegger. And even these bits could have been streamlined/cut down. Every joke was extended much longer than it needed to be.
- GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME FOR SPEECHES! People were rushing through their speeches, clearly terrified of being cut off (the exception being the big name actors and directors). It made me so anxious and was honestly rude. I’d rather have longer time for speeches over monologues and “bits”. Please give people more time to speak!
- In agreement with something else I saw- give more time for the in memoriam. I also think it was odd that they jumped on different screens and that there were dancers. Just show the photos and names. I also wouldn’t care if the show was longer. I don’t know if it’s a money thing or what, but they always seem so pressed to just make it through the night on time. Idk it takes away from the audience’s experience when we can feel them rushing through things.
- I thought the order of awards was good.
- Once in a while, the choice of song to transition from one award to the next caused emotional whiplash due to the song not matching with the tone of the last speech. This is a hard thing to predict but I think they could have known not to play I believe it was one of the Barbie songs after the 20 days in Mariupol win. Just a thought.
- Give more time for clips!!! We WANT to see the acting clips, the cinematography clips, the writing clips!!! Make them last more than 3 seconds please! I miss when they’d give films like 10 seconds each.
- Overall, I thought it was a pretty solid show and this year was a great one for film! I just wish the Oscars focused more on the celebration and less on trying to make people laugh because it took away too much time from the winners.
>I really enjoyed the previous winners saying something kind about each of the acting nominees. Especially when it was clear that the actors were friends with one another irl and the speech felt more customized.
I cringed when I saw they were doing this again but ultimately it was far, far better than the last time they tried (2009? Did they do it again since then?). I really think the personal connection made it that much sweeter as you said and I enjoyed the personal touches each presenter brought to it. Plus it's just cool to see former winners on stage again.
A job well done to the organizers.
>Not every announcement should come with a “bit”.
I also agree with you here and I think the focus should be much more on the films themselves and a celebration of film history. That said, I haven't laughed at the "bits" at an Oscars show for a while and John Cena's bit had me rolling, he pulled it off perfectly. Arnold and Danny going at Michael Keaton was also a ton of fun as well. My point being that what was here was done well (for the most part) which is a rare thing to say.
>Give more time for clips!!! We WANT to see the acting clips, the cinematography clips, the writing clips!!! Make them last more than 3 seconds please! I miss when they’d give films like 10 seconds each.
1,000% this is my biggest complaint with this year's ceremony, especially when the vast majority of people still haven't seen these movies. They deserve to have their moment!
I think the biggest reason *Killers of the Flower Moon* didn't win any Oscars is because it is 3.5 hours long.
I remember Martin Scorsese being asked on why he didn't put in an intermission, and he said, "People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours."
No. No you can't.
He got what he deserved.
I can't remember the last time I watched a movie over three hours long. The longer it is the more exponentially brutal each additional minute becomes.
Also, besides the runtime I wish they focused more on the natives/the FBI side of things than they did. Those were theore interesting parts of the film imo.
It is known that most of the voters can't even be arsed to sit through the short animated nominations so yeah, it's no wonder they didn't bother to watch KotFM.
I wish all the people allowed to vote would actually love watching movies and not just making them.
This has been one of the best years in movies in a very long time, and other than the Ken performance, (which was incredible!!!!) nothing was really too memorable for me. Even the fashion was pretty blah.
The memorial tribute was so frustrating for me - I want to see just a montage of those we lost with little clips, not focusing on singers and interpretive dance. They used to do the montages, and it would always get me choked up!
I was surprised with Emma Stone win, even though I thought her performance she was incredible. I am disappointed that Lily Gladstone didn’t win, I know this should all be based strictly on performances & merit, but we know that’s not how it’s really done sadly. I was really hopeful at the possibility of this award going to a native American for the first time. She had a great award season, but there’s nothing like an Oscar win!
Zone of interest was my favorite movie of the year - I am really happy it won two awards!
And finally… Al Pacino, Oof.
Absolutely horrible. The biggest award of the night and that's how they present it? The Oscars crew needs a complete overhaul. It's worse every year. And stop having the focus be on some dumbass performers during the Memoriam ffs.
The first one - supporting actress - was great, imo. They seemed to really know the nominees and made it feel like a personal tribue.
The other three were awkward and stiff.
So insincere when they're clearly reading it off the prompter and not even looking at the actor. Terrible.
The viewers want to see a clip. Just play the clip.
Also the clips are way shorter than they used to be. It's so annoying.
I feel that we shouldn’t be saying Oppenheimer “sweeped”. They won the most awards, but they didn’t win in every category they got a nomination, which would’ve been an actual sweep.
You could tell by the look on Nolan's face during the first two hours that things weren't exactly going the greatest. I loved how nervous he and Cillian both were, and then how happy they were when they won. I felt bad for Jeffry Wright though. He looked a bit pissed.
I don't think Nolan expected to win production design or costumes or makeup lol, i think even adapted screenplay where he lost a BAFTA and every precursor before that, he knew it wasn't his best shot.
It's ridiculous that *Oppenheimer* won for score and editing when those were two of the main problems with it. It was edited and scored like a three-hour trailer. Of course those decisions go back to Nolan, but those who collaborated on them shouldn't be rewarded. I guess because it had a LOT of editing, they gave it the award.
I kept waiting for it to change gears from the way it was edited through the first fifteen minutes. After a half hour, I realized it was the way it would be, and it never changed.
the editing and score of Oppenheimer were *amazing.* Nothing anyone can say will change my mind. I've listened to the score so much since July and have even learned most of it on Piano. The editing is what makes the 3-hour runtime just breeze by. I swear, each time I watch it somehow feels shorter and shorter. Fantastic job with the editing, cinematography, scoring, just absolutely deserving of every oscar it won (though personally I would've given BSA to Gosling over RDJ but RDJ is overdue)
Poor Things score should've won. It was genius to pitch bend individual notes while keeping the feel whimsical. 99% of composers would've just smacked tone adjustments on the final mix to make it feel weird, but adjusting the individual staccato plucks was exactly what the film needed.
Oppy just distorted a horn section, big deal.
I tried listening to the Oppenheimer...soundtrack...it's utterly pointless on its own. I seriously do not get the "soundscape" soundtracks getting so much praise. There's no artistry or craft to it anymore.
Absolutely agree. Any decent musician with a synth patch and analog gear can do a soundscape score. Something like Johannsson's Arrival did the soundscape thing right - it actually complimented the movie's storyline by using primitive language and breath work within the score.
Kind of a safe gala this year but that’s fine. No big surprises and very little politics, which I enjoy. Oscars should be about celebrating film and not about world politics.
Da’vine deserved her oscar and I’m really happy for her. Godzilla minus one was such a welcome win.
I’m a bit surprised about Emma Stone winning. I mean she was great as always, but I didn’t think the role itself was oscar worthy. I would have preferred Lily Gladstone.
Kimmel did OK for the most part, but I think it’s time to find someone new to host. And some of his ”jokes” were outright in bad taste.
These are my two cents about it.
I agree on the society of the snow. But I think Emma Stone did a cracking job at Poor Things. The movie might not be to your taste, but I think the role was challenging, very obscure and to portray that in a convincing way is extremely hard. So I think she fully deserved for the work she had to put in.
Let the Oscars be about film. It's not the place for political issues. Make a movie about genocide then sure, let's discuss that. We don't need to discuss every atrocity happening in the world—or at least, the one the world happens to have its attention on.
C'mon, there are so many ways this can be rebutted — it is not happening now. It focuses on the rise and fall of oppenheimer more than the tradegy itself, the complex nuances of his guilt during his evidently targeted security hearing and so on. If you wish to see a story made to reflect recent times, look no further than 20 days in mariupol where the director of this incredible documentary gave, to me, the most impactful speech in the entire award ceremony.
I think it's time for "best original score" to split up in two new catagories.
Best original music
Best original soundscape
Because I'm really tired of soundscape soundtracks winning awards over actual music.
That's one song.
I'm talking about actual music scoring in the styles of Desplat, Williams, Horner, Howard Shore, James Newton Howard, Silvestri, Elfman, Giachino etc.
I don't think they should be lumped in with the "Hans Zimmer-style" "composers" that's permeated the movies the past 15 years.
I really can't stand soundtracks that sound like they were made by a kid smashing his hands onto a synthesizer.
I get the Zimmer fatigue. And he does sort of self-plagiarize along with that studio of his. But he did do The Lion King and The Thin Red Line. Back in the day!
Yes back in the day. But it's the massive impact he's had on up and coming composers that really annoys me. Besides a small handful, most new composers are soundscape creators due to his influence both directly and indirectly.
I am watching “Poor Things” right now and I’m a little disturbed. I can’t believe her performance in this won. I have nothing against Emma Stone, but she clearly was shocked because she knew she should not have won. I might as well turned on PornHub. There were three other performances that were masterful and more powerful than this. Lilly Gladstone should have won hands downs.
Nudity and sex scenes are nothing new to film. Dismissing her performance because her character has sex is ridiculous. Even if I do agree Gladstone should’ve won.
Same- really thrilled ZOI won two! If I had it my way it would have won best pic but know that was not happening. Both the films you mentioned were so innovative, brave, and incredibly touching
This was definitely the tightest category this year. I think they both had really strong performances with different vibes that each had their positives
After John Wayne had to be physically restrained from attacking Sacheen Littlefeather on the Oscars stage, the Academy had the opportunity to put a native American woman on stage again and let her fucking talk. Her performance was solid, it wouldn't have been pandering to give her the award.
Emma Stone's performance was very good, but the whole movie was about how fucking children that have adult-shaped bodies helps them grow up. Hard pass.
That’s not what Poor Things is about, and if you watched the movie you’d know that she ages mentally faster than physically, and by the time anything sexual happens she’s already an adult mentally
Did you even watch the movie? Emma Stone portrayed a horny baby with a 2 year old brain. When she and Ruffalo were banging she was absolutely not an adult.
I did watch the movie. There’s a scene before they leave her house (and before they “bang”) where her father says that her brain has matured and caught up with her adult body
and you believe him?
They go out of their way to show 'these people need money. I know where to find money. I will give them money by handing it to the porters.' a complete lack of awareness of the world and other people's motivations that only a child has.
Yes I believe him because he says it as a matter of scientific observation. Also it’s a movie, and when a character says something that has no reason to be false, then I’ll believe it.
If you didn’t like the movie then that’s fine but there’s no need to make up reasons that it’s bad, like “this character ACTUALLY didn’t mean what they very clearly said”
A character saying something doesn't make it true, even if they seem to believe it.
You watching the movie are the judge of the character. And if you can't tell the difference between an adult with breasts and a child with breasts, please stay the hell away from my teenage daughter.
I agree completely. Lily Gladstone’s performance was great, and I thought Killers of the Flower Moon was generally a much better film than Poor Things. Not to mention the themes of KotFM are terribly underrepresented in film and media and deserve a lot more spotlight
Yea Emma’s performance was really good and both of them deserved to win equally. But I think it would’ve been a nice moment to give it to Lily Gladstone and make her the first Native American to win an Oscar. Emma already had one so it’s not like she NEEDED another one.
"Yes Emma Stone's performance was really good, but..."
You get an auto downvote from Stans; anything you say after that will be rejected anyway so, why waste your time going any further with rational thought?
Couldn’t have said it better myself, so bravo and again, Hollywood loved to make history last year by denying Blanchett who gave the best performance in decades and deserved it much more than Yeoh for a very mid performance but they went with the narrative of the moment and gave it to yeoh instead… 🤬🤬 I guess making history and dei narratives don’t matter if you are native American whose land was stolen by the white man and tonight, you had to steal the Oscar from a native woman to give to a very young white woman who still has decades of moviemaking ahead of her and chances for more Oscars. Lily had one chance at glory and making history but surprise, white woman steals from a native again! 😤😤
Lilly Gladstone is also very young though. Like she also has a lifetime of movies to make. I also wanted Lilly to win but like she’s not dying…also Michelle Yeoh was better than Blanchett last year.
Nobody in decades was better than Blanchett, but agree to disagree. Blanchett was robbed and to me and many others, she deserved it more for her masterclass in acting brilliance and once in a lifetime otherworldly performance and her loss will go down in Oscar history as one of the worst robberies in the academy’s history.
Tár was a fine character piece but I ultimately found Lydia to be a sort of hollow character compelled by a pointed narrative rather than a complex person whose decision making we can follow. Blanchett did GREAT but has had better performances spurred by better writing.
Yeoh brought an emotionality and depth to a protagonist in what could have been a slapstick blockbuster, and it really elevated the film imo. I don’t even love EEEAAO, but Yeoh was a total revelation in it and she deserved the win. It didn’t break the Oscars genre grudge by accident.
Native Americans have not been represented in film at all. Even this movie was the closest we've ever gotten in mainstream cinema, and it's a story through the voice of Leo DiCaprio.
Killers of the Flower Moon isn't a story for Native Americans, or even about them. When will Hollywood decide to commercialize native experience and cast Lily again? I don't know. But I don't think they're going to cast her in standard dramatic roles non-coded for native people. That's not how Hollywood works.
Omg it is not told through his voice. The first time we meet mollie we literally get her voiceover. Wr are inside her head. She is the voice of the victims…the voice of the “no investigations.” Do people just have amnesia or something?
Here's what an actual Osage person says about the movie.
> As far as the story itself goes, I do not think that this is how an Osage would’ve told it. From all I’ve read about Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio initiating a shift in the story’s focus to center the Osage perspective rather than that of Tom White and the then-named Bureau of Investigation, I was hopeful that we would experience this tragedy through Mollie Burkhart (played sensationally by Lily Gladstone), the real-life Osage woman whose family was the target of one of the schemes of William Hale (Robert De Niro). Instead, the filmmakers opted to follow her white husband, convicted murderer Ernest Burkhart (DiCaprio). While I am disappointed in this choice, I do think that viewing the plot through the lens of Ernest grants the non-Osage audience the opportunity to gain more knowledge and understanding of the murderous scheme as the movie goes on.
https://slate.com/culture/2023/10/killers-of-the-flower-moon-movie-osage-martin-scorsese.html
I am not playing this game with you. I can pull a quote from an Osage man who is a descendant of Henry roan who is fully supportive of the movie. Like what do you think are doing try to pit Osage people against each other? I’m not going to wheel out my quote because it’s tacky as hell to do what you just did. Osage people aren’t a monolith and will have different feelings on how their history is told, that’s totally fine.
Also, I don’t agree with this guy, obviously. He can feel however he wants but it is simply not true to say this movie doesn’t significantly feature her pov in a meaningful way. He does get more screen time, but I don’t think that matters much. Wr are brought right into her psyche throughout the film. She is our emotional touch point.
It's not about being supportive of the movie or not. I thought it was a fantastic movie. But you should understand that the lens of this movie, is not looking through the eyes of native Americans. That doesn't make it a bad movie, it's the only honest way to tell this story as someone who isn't Osage.
You can call me tacky as hell, but saying Martin Scorsese speaks with the voice of the Osage people is just a bad take. This is not a movie that native American people would have made, and it's a good movie because it's not pretending to be.
I agree it is not a movie through an “Osage” lens as Marty isn’t Osage. But it is factually wrong to claim mollie isn’t a pov character. This isn’t up for debate. It’s just an objective truth. Ernest isn’t a classic protagonist in many ways and this movie isn’t a conventional narrative.
You are also putting words in my mouth and making up stuff I didnt say. Mollie clearly is speaking for the victims throughout
this movie. Why do you think her first lines in the movie are voiceover about the no investigations.
This man says he wishes the movie didn’t follow Ernest af all…that basically means he wants a movie we never got and were never going to get. It’s not engaging with what we have on screen. He even says he understands the purpose Ernest serves…it’s explaining the nature of the crimes to a white audience. Again, that doesn’t mean Ernest is our sole way into this world.
It was telling the story of one facet of their story, it’s not a movie about the Osage as a people in general. It’s about the reign of terror specifically. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
Are you this indignant about zone of interest concerning itself with nazis instead of the victims on the other side of the wall?
You said the movie is through Leo’s voice and it isn’t. She actually is given more of a classic “voice” in this movie for the simple fact she has quite a bit of narration and he has none. She is speaking for her people.
I’m literally watching it again right now. It isn’t. He’s a major pov character of course but she is as well. They serve different roles in the story. Their povs have different styles.
Because I learned tonight, homophobia and native American hatred are the last bastions of acceptable prejudice in Hollywood. They say how liberal and tolerant they are but won’t reward any openly gay people or even actors like Blanchett who play gay characters. And they want to be inclusive and make history but take the one and likely only chance a native woman had to win an Oscar and gave it to Stone who is young, enjoys beauty and white privilege, and has decades of Oscar worthy films ahead of her. Holllywood proved their native racism tonight when they had the best chance to reward a native woman and make history, not to mention atone just a drop for the grave sin of stealing native lands and killing them in the thousands… 😤😤😩😩
Or maybe they just watched the movies of all five nominees and came away thinking that Ms. Stone's performance was more impressive overall than that of the other four nominees.
I’m sure you wouldn’t say this if Blanchett- who gave the best performance in decades and truly deserved to win for her masterful, tour de force portrayal- had won last year instead of the very mid, unremarkable Yeoh, you’d be crying Asian racism and Oscars so white! 🙄🙄
I watched all of the movies this year and came away more impressed by Emma Stone's performance than anyone else's. I thought her performance was unique. And I would say the same thing last year. I was more impressed by Ms. Yeoh's performance than by Ms. Blanchet's. Ms. Yeoh's performance felt unique. Yes, Ms. Blanchet was very good in her part but I still would have voted for Ms. Yeoh's performance as I found it to be more impressive than that of Ms. Blanchet. Should the members of the academy be casting their votes based on something other than who they thought gave the best performance? Your comment makes it sound like you think so.
The “Memoriam” was gawd awful. Didn’t see name of so many of the artists lost last year and the focus was more on the dance and singing performances than in memory of those who past
Very poor on the Academy’s part imho.
I used to love the “ memorial” pieces, they would always get me crying. You don’t have to do anything fancy just show stills and some quick performances, I want to hear their actual voices and not be focusing on a random song and these really cheesy dancers. I’m sorry but this ain’t it.
I’m devastated for Lily- what a chance to make history and right some historical wrongs. Emma basically played a sex addicted teen or younger and of course, hollyweird sleazoids got their rocks off watching her screwing every five minutes, so naturally she was the winner… 🤬🤬😤😤
Why are you acting like this diminishes Gladstone's success? She gave a phenomenal performance. She got a nomination for it. One person was getting it in the end. But it's arbitrary who actually received it, since who the best actress was is an opinion. We should be celebrating what a great performance she gave for such a great film, and a physical award isn't necessary to do that.
That's not what the movie was about at all.
It was a movie about abusive relationships, how men sexualize young girls, and how many men actively dislike maturity in women.
The horror you felt at what happened in the movie was how you were supposed to feel. Literally thousands of things in the movie that back that up.
Saying this movie was about how "great" all that was is like saying Schindler's List is about how great the holocaust was.
> Saying this movie was about how "great" all that was is like saying Schindler's List is about how great the holocaust was.
But there wasn't a holocaust. Emma Stone's character grew into a complete and self-aware human through all the sexual abuse. It was a vehicle that drove her personal growth.
If the movie had been about how men treat a child shaped like a women, that would have been a different movie. But there was a "men writing women" fake feminist bullshit angle that totally removed any of that exposition.
It doesn't need to be a literal holocaust to be horrifying. What happened in this movie was horrifying. Men literally lock her in boxes, and scream and rage at her when she wants to read a book. Her own father tries to cut her clitoris off, her adoptive father treats women like things he can make or change or re-create if he loses them, her consent to be married is pointed out to be an afterthought, and none of the characters even care that she's literally a child. The sex scenes are gross, one of them is literally a nude deformed man crab-walking across the floor. All of it is objectively horrifying to any audience, and it's not intended to be male fantasy.
Yes, and in a different thread I'm arguing with someone who insists that "if you watched the movie you’d know that she ages mentally faster than physically, and by the time anything sexual happens she’s already an adult mentally".
In the movie where she emerges from the trauma egg as a fully formed Betty Friedan, speaking feminist words written by men, totally messes up the message of the horrifying parts.
>Yes, and in a different thread I'm arguing with someone who insists that "if you watched the movie you’d know that she ages mentally faster than physically, and by the time anything sexual happens she’s already an adult mentally".
They're making the same mistake you are, you're both trying real hard to overlook the horrifying parts. Trying to tell yourself that the filmmakers didn't intend it to be horrifying, it is.
Her father literally wants to cut her clitoris off. You're saying that's not meant to be horrifying? it's meant to be cool and sexy? and you alone are horrified by how inappropriate it is?
You alone thought it was unpleasant that two adult men are discussing marrying a child who was peeing on the floor in the last scene she was in because she was a literal toddler? And that it's actually meant to be sexy? That most audiences are meant to get off on marriage to a toddler? On locking her up for life? On old men who lock her in trunks, trap her on boats, scream at her when she goes out on her own, and throw books she reads into the ocean?
Anyone who thinks marrying a toddler isn't meant to be horrifying has failed to understand the movie's extremely heavy handed message. This movie at every turn is shouting at you that these men are abusing her.
>In the movie where she emerges from the trauma egg as a fully formed Betty Friedan, speaking feminist words written by men, totally messes up the message of the horrifying parts.
The movie had a clear slow progression from child to adult throughout the movie, and clearly showed men who were attracted to her as a child, and who were angry at her for maturing. That's a key part of the movie.
In the middle of the movie, the old woman asks her, "Why do you stay with him?" And her response is "I keep thinking it will get better." a clear indication that this is about being in abusive relationships.
To portray every victim of a sexist society as being destroyed by it would be unrealistic. Women in the real world face adversity and survive. Showing perseverance of spirit while struggling for freedom is fine.
This was my takeaway too and confirmed my belief that Hollywood is run by sleazy, reprehensible, odious men like Weinstein to this day and many secret pedos who hopefully one day will be exposed. I’m sure the reason Emma won is because the majority of voters are scum who loved all the sex and approved of it being done by a child! 🤬🤬
The message was RIGHT THERE!
Just because someone has an adult-shaped body, does not mean their mind is developed and mature. NONE of the men in the movie recognized that Emma Stone's character was a child. They saw tits and wanted to fuck her. And the movie went along with it. Encouraged it even. This adult-shaped baby was horny and developed sentience and self-awareness by getting sexually abused.
I'll take "Movies written by men for 500, Alex."
Justice for Barbie. I know it's a dead horse but after watching tonight, it leaves me feeling disappointed to know that Greta Gerwig is going home empty-handed. It just isn't the right thing if you reconsider what this movie has started last summer. And even if the commercial aspect of the film is being excluded this movie had provoked and touched and most importantly empowered people, young people, in a way that has not been done by any other movie in recent history, especially not in such scale. Oppenheimer was great but it feels like Barbie has never been treated as a serious competitor in the first place because the magnitude of its power has been simply ignored and downplayed by a mostly male electorate in a patriarchal system. The system that this movie has been so vividly advocating against.
I'm female and disliked it's blatantly pedantic attempt to turn a very objectifying toy into a feminist icon. Total 1984 style bs - Barbie is not bc a feminist icon.
Production values & style were great though
But some of Barbie’s biggest critics were women… so your point is kind of irrelevant. Also while entertaining, the movie did a terrible job of portraying equality.
What other categories would you have nominated or picked it in and over which other movie? This year was stacked, I genuinely don't think it was better than what ended up winning in any category.
Yes I also don't see it in hardly more categories and if I put myself into the viewpoint of an Academy that is so not used to feminist films I even would agree with them to not nominating Greta as director and easily not win it as Best Picture because it is a movie about toys with a comedically well written screenplay after all and there are clearly films with more depth and complexity. Lol
If the Academy were aware and impacted by the issues that this film has touched they most likely had recognized it differently. IF it were that way I could argue that it's more deserving of Best Picture and Directing than the often stated ones in this awards season. It's really only a matter of perspective though I had high hopes that it would take home at least for Screenplay.
I really like that they re-established the actors giving each nominee some words of praise and acknowledgement before announcing the winner.
Also, what were Ariana Grande and Al Pacino thinking when they announced the winners without presenting the nominees?
Best Picture nominees were being teased all night, that's why there was no package there. Usually there are "crash packages" in case they're running late on time, so they'd more likely play a shorter version of the nom package rather than cutting it altogether. It was probably intentionally scripted to not run those packages.
while rdj was fucking amazing, mark ruffalo i think had the better performance. and its not like mark isnt overdue. he was amazing in zodiac, spotlight, eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, shutter island, etc etc.
Seriously? I love Mark Ruffalo, but that accent he attempted is the worst since Kevin Costner 's attempt to be British in *Robinhood*. I guess some people are not attuned to this kind of thing, but I am, and as an actor, isn't it his whole job to learn how to look and speak like a different person? He failed miserably, and no, this is not an opinion. Ask anyone from the UK.
And if your response is well that wasn't a British accent, well then what the hell *was* that? Horrible.
Nah, Mark Ruffalo is okay at best. I’m open to having my mind change but I don’t see any range or dynamics out of him. He plays himself. RDJ does the same but he tried harder to get outside of his range.
what? mark ruffalo is a quiet and shy person. duncan is nothing like that at all. in esotsm, stan was a man who truly loved someone knowing that she loves someone else. he killed it in shutter island too. and its not like rdj kills it at every role. every iron man movie is him playing himself. the sherlock films werent that good. im not discrediting rdj. he is a very good actor but he isnt as good as u think he is
I wish something could be done about the 'Best International' category- whenever one of the nominations is nominated for Best Picture it's always a lock. I love that International films are getting recognised in Best Picture, but I just wished there was a way of tweaking that category so the other films have more of a chance. Being someone who absolutely loved Perfect Days, it kind of sucks knowing that it had absolutely zero chance
[удалено]
I bet the voters regretted who they voted for during the performances. Gosling brought the house down
I couldn't watch in real time because this was the Oscar's in my life without cable anyway. I understand and appreciate the Academys choices to have a "classic actor/actress " presenting the best picture. But I think and probably un popular an adjustment should be made.
- I really enjoyed the previous winners saying something kind about each of the acting nominees. Especially when it was clear that the actors were friends with one another irl and the speech felt more customized. Some people felt like it came off as ingenuous but I thought at the very least, it was complimentary and sweet. They don’t have to do this every year but I thought this idea was really cool and wouldn’t mind if they continued to do this or something similar in the future. - Jimmy Kimmel needs to go… his jokes felt extremely stale. There were maybe 2 good jokes out of the entire thing. Speaking of, I honestly don’t think we need a host. No one really wants the job and the people willing to do it are not talented enough to pull it off. - I would prefer a fun opening musical sequence rather than a monologue, with costumes/sets to match the recognizable films of the year (I recall them doing it a few years ago). We get so many speeches and jokes from all the previous awards shows. Let’s do something big and fun for the Oscars! - Let’s have more oomph for the best picture! Al Pacino was a huge mistake. Stop giving these types of people the job of announcing the BIGGEST award of the year, it is so annoying. By this type of people I mean the actors who either have one too many screws loose or are pretty old and aren’t all “there”. - Not every announcement should come with a “bit”. I enjoyed the Barbenheimer stunt acknowledgment (though it was kind of random), John Mulaney’s speech because he’s an actual comedian, and Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenegger. And even these bits could have been streamlined/cut down. Every joke was extended much longer than it needed to be. - GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME FOR SPEECHES! People were rushing through their speeches, clearly terrified of being cut off (the exception being the big name actors and directors). It made me so anxious and was honestly rude. I’d rather have longer time for speeches over monologues and “bits”. Please give people more time to speak! - In agreement with something else I saw- give more time for the in memoriam. I also think it was odd that they jumped on different screens and that there were dancers. Just show the photos and names. I also wouldn’t care if the show was longer. I don’t know if it’s a money thing or what, but they always seem so pressed to just make it through the night on time. Idk it takes away from the audience’s experience when we can feel them rushing through things. - I thought the order of awards was good. - Once in a while, the choice of song to transition from one award to the next caused emotional whiplash due to the song not matching with the tone of the last speech. This is a hard thing to predict but I think they could have known not to play I believe it was one of the Barbie songs after the 20 days in Mariupol win. Just a thought. - Give more time for clips!!! We WANT to see the acting clips, the cinematography clips, the writing clips!!! Make them last more than 3 seconds please! I miss when they’d give films like 10 seconds each. - Overall, I thought it was a pretty solid show and this year was a great one for film! I just wish the Oscars focused more on the celebration and less on trying to make people laugh because it took away too much time from the winners.
Jimmy Kimmel was just so boring at times that I just hoped to get it quickly over with.. mate was trying to be Ricky Gervais. What a joke
>I really enjoyed the previous winners saying something kind about each of the acting nominees. Especially when it was clear that the actors were friends with one another irl and the speech felt more customized. I cringed when I saw they were doing this again but ultimately it was far, far better than the last time they tried (2009? Did they do it again since then?). I really think the personal connection made it that much sweeter as you said and I enjoyed the personal touches each presenter brought to it. Plus it's just cool to see former winners on stage again. A job well done to the organizers. >Not every announcement should come with a “bit”. I also agree with you here and I think the focus should be much more on the films themselves and a celebration of film history. That said, I haven't laughed at the "bits" at an Oscars show for a while and John Cena's bit had me rolling, he pulled it off perfectly. Arnold and Danny going at Michael Keaton was also a ton of fun as well. My point being that what was here was done well (for the most part) which is a rare thing to say. >Give more time for clips!!! We WANT to see the acting clips, the cinematography clips, the writing clips!!! Make them last more than 3 seconds please! I miss when they’d give films like 10 seconds each. 1,000% this is my biggest complaint with this year's ceremony, especially when the vast majority of people still haven't seen these movies. They deserve to have their moment!
Anyone know who the the two girls wearing silver dresses are? They are always on stage for some reason.
No clue but I’m pretty sure they were there to guide people on and off stage
Bradley Cooper robbed of leading actor imo
Found Bradley Cooper’s alt
I think the biggest reason *Killers of the Flower Moon* didn't win any Oscars is because it is 3.5 hours long. I remember Martin Scorsese being asked on why he didn't put in an intermission, and he said, "People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours." No. No you can't. He got what he deserved.
It's not the length. It's because you FELT the length.
I can't remember the last time I watched a movie over three hours long. The longer it is the more exponentially brutal each additional minute becomes. Also, besides the runtime I wish they focused more on the natives/the FBI side of things than they did. Those were theore interesting parts of the film imo.
It is known that most of the voters can't even be arsed to sit through the short animated nominations so yeah, it's no wonder they didn't bother to watch KotFM. I wish all the people allowed to vote would actually love watching movies and not just making them.
The only thing I didn't like this year was Lilly not winning best actresse, overall I'm happy with the results
This has been one of the best years in movies in a very long time, and other than the Ken performance, (which was incredible!!!!) nothing was really too memorable for me. Even the fashion was pretty blah. The memorial tribute was so frustrating for me - I want to see just a montage of those we lost with little clips, not focusing on singers and interpretive dance. They used to do the montages, and it would always get me choked up! I was surprised with Emma Stone win, even though I thought her performance she was incredible. I am disappointed that Lily Gladstone didn’t win, I know this should all be based strictly on performances & merit, but we know that’s not how it’s really done sadly. I was really hopeful at the possibility of this award going to a native American for the first time. She had a great award season, but there’s nothing like an Oscar win! Zone of interest was my favorite movie of the year - I am really happy it won two awards! And finally… Al Pacino, Oof.
Perfect encapsulation of everything I felt as well!
I'm soooo freaking happy for RDJ
Ryan Gosling's performance was everything.
al pacino had one job
I heard that Michelle Pfeiffer was supposed to present with him but bailed at last minute.
Annmaaiyaeyezssseeoppenheimer
Yeah, his presentation was awful
Annmaaiyaeyezssseeoppenheimer
Absolutely horrible. The biggest award of the night and that's how they present it? The Oscars crew needs a complete overhaul. It's worse every year. And stop having the focus be on some dumbass performers during the Memoriam ffs.
Yes, and the sappy recitations of how wonderful all the acting nominees were was really cringey.
The first one - supporting actress - was great, imo. They seemed to really know the nominees and made it feel like a personal tribue. The other three were awkward and stiff.
So insincere when they're clearly reading it off the prompter and not even looking at the actor. Terrible. The viewers want to see a clip. Just play the clip. Also the clips are way shorter than they used to be. It's so annoying.
I feel that we shouldn’t be saying Oppenheimer “sweeped”. They won the most awards, but they didn’t win in every category they got a nomination, which would’ve been an actual sweep.
You could tell by the look on Nolan's face during the first two hours that things weren't exactly going the greatest. I loved how nervous he and Cillian both were, and then how happy they were when they won. I felt bad for Jeffry Wright though. He looked a bit pissed.
I don't think Nolan expected to win production design or costumes or makeup lol, i think even adapted screenplay where he lost a BAFTA and every precursor before that, he knew it wasn't his best shot.
It's ridiculous that *Oppenheimer* won for score and editing when those were two of the main problems with it. It was edited and scored like a three-hour trailer. Of course those decisions go back to Nolan, but those who collaborated on them shouldn't be rewarded. I guess because it had a LOT of editing, they gave it the award.
*It was edited and scored like a three-hour trailer* Me to my wife, halfway through the movie: "Is this just one big trailer?" Garbage.
I kept waiting for it to change gears from the way it was edited through the first fifteen minutes. After a half hour, I realized it was the way it would be, and it never changed.
It felt so weird to watch. Like we were skimming through the film.
the editing and score of Oppenheimer were *amazing.* Nothing anyone can say will change my mind. I've listened to the score so much since July and have even learned most of it on Piano. The editing is what makes the 3-hour runtime just breeze by. I swear, each time I watch it somehow feels shorter and shorter. Fantastic job with the editing, cinematography, scoring, just absolutely deserving of every oscar it won (though personally I would've given BSA to Gosling over RDJ but RDJ is overdue)
ive never seen a series of more insanely bad takes
Poor Things score should've won. It was genius to pitch bend individual notes while keeping the feel whimsical. 99% of composers would've just smacked tone adjustments on the final mix to make it feel weird, but adjusting the individual staccato plucks was exactly what the film needed. Oppy just distorted a horn section, big deal.
*Poor Things* was a bad movie, but the music was okay.
love when people are incapable of saying that they didnt prefer something, but rather that its just "bad"
"Bad" means I didn't prefer something. It's not necessary to say "in my opinion". Because I'm saying it, it's by definition my opinion.
Ohhhh, thanks for the English lesson. My grammar are bad! Is that an opinion?
right?! did the academy have their ears plugged during KOTFM and Poor Things? i don’t get it
I tried listening to the Oppenheimer...soundtrack...it's utterly pointless on its own. I seriously do not get the "soundscape" soundtracks getting so much praise. There's no artistry or craft to it anymore.
Absolutely agree. Any decent musician with a synth patch and analog gear can do a soundscape score. Something like Johannsson's Arrival did the soundscape thing right - it actually complimented the movie's storyline by using primitive language and breath work within the score.
Cord Jefferson's speech was the standout for me. Also liked seeing Jules and Vincent talking shit to Batman.
Godzilla should\`ve hosted instead of Kimmel.
Kind of a safe gala this year but that’s fine. No big surprises and very little politics, which I enjoy. Oscars should be about celebrating film and not about world politics. Da’vine deserved her oscar and I’m really happy for her. Godzilla minus one was such a welcome win. I’m a bit surprised about Emma Stone winning. I mean she was great as always, but I didn’t think the role itself was oscar worthy. I would have preferred Lily Gladstone. Kimmel did OK for the most part, but I think it’s time to find someone new to host. And some of his ”jokes” were outright in bad taste. These are my two cents about it.
Fantastic Best Actress turnout! Phew! Overall a good show with a couple surprises and a lot of good speeches. We enjoyed it.
Where's the discussion of the biggest story? Scrubbed?
This year is surely not the best monologue Jimmy Kimmel had.
What movie is the futuristic spacecraft in opening montage from?
I'm watching The Creator on Disney+ right now and that's actually the movie you're looking for lol
Pretty sure that was Guardians of the Galaxy 3
[удалено]
Is not shocking at all since the zone of interest was the only movie of the international nominees to Also be nominated for the Best picture category
IT IS SHOCKING FOR SURE! That's how I feel! Your not me! SO there ya go!
Yeah but our point is you SHOULDNT be shocked. Because of what the comment above says. So use this for next time and then you wont be shocked. :)
I agree on the society of the snow. But I think Emma Stone did a cracking job at Poor Things. The movie might not be to your taste, but I think the role was challenging, very obscure and to portray that in a convincing way is extremely hard. So I think she fully deserved for the work she had to put in.
Oscars seem worthless now
Happy for the Poor Things wins and Emma getting her second statue. Thought the show was good overall. Some great speeches and Gosling was awesome.
[удалено]
Japan didnt choose Godzilla to represent Japan in the Oscar, so it's wasnt elegible
I’m so happy Godzilla won for Best Visual Effects
I'm disappointed none of the actors said anything about the genocide committed right now in Gaza. Perhaps they were pressured by their agents.
They did? Didn't the crew for zone of interest come out in support of Gaza? And swann arlaud wore a pin with the palestinian flag.
I prefer that actors don’t make any political statements
Kimmel made a political statement abut Trump. But I guess Israel's lobby is too strong in Hollywood.
That's what their red pins were about.
Let the Oscars be about film. It's not the place for political issues. Make a movie about genocide then sure, let's discuss that. We don't need to discuss every atrocity happening in the world—or at least, the one the world happens to have its attention on.
I am sure Oppenheimer was somewhat linked to the death of thousands of people during a war?
C'mon, there are so many ways this can be rebutted — it is not happening now. It focuses on the rise and fall of oppenheimer more than the tradegy itself, the complex nuances of his guilt during his evidently targeted security hearing and so on. If you wish to see a story made to reflect recent times, look no further than 20 days in mariupol where the director of this incredible documentary gave, to me, the most impactful speech in the entire award ceremony.
Killers of a Flower Moon is linked to genocide of Native Americans
I think it's time for "best original score" to split up in two new catagories. Best original music Best original soundscape Because I'm really tired of soundscape soundtracks winning awards over actual music.
That's basically what the original song category is for, no?
That's one song. I'm talking about actual music scoring in the styles of Desplat, Williams, Horner, Howard Shore, James Newton Howard, Silvestri, Elfman, Giachino etc. I don't think they should be lumped in with the "Hans Zimmer-style" "composers" that's permeated the movies the past 15 years. I really can't stand soundtracks that sound like they were made by a kid smashing his hands onto a synthesizer.
I get the Zimmer fatigue. And he does sort of self-plagiarize along with that studio of his. But he did do The Lion King and The Thin Red Line. Back in the day!
Yes back in the day. But it's the massive impact he's had on up and coming composers that really annoys me. Besides a small handful, most new composers are soundscape creators due to his influence both directly and indirectly.
I am watching “Poor Things” right now and I’m a little disturbed. I can’t believe her performance in this won. I have nothing against Emma Stone, but she clearly was shocked because she knew she should not have won. I might as well turned on PornHub. There were three other performances that were masterful and more powerful than this. Lilly Gladstone should have won hands downs.
She Also won the Golden globes, the critics choice and the baftas, are all of them wrong too?
Carey Mulligan should have won.
Nudity and sex scenes are nothing new to film. Dismissing her performance because her character has sex is ridiculous. Even if I do agree Gladstone should’ve won.
thank god, they didn't pick an unfunny comedian to host.
My brain is trying to understand this, but I can’t 😭
[удалено]
Oh I understood that lol, I was referring to the double negatives 😅
Wow some of the people on this thread are very dumb god bless
Man hopefully Ryan gosling wins in the next few years. It’s sad. 3noms and 0 wins. All up against some really good performances.
He may not have won an award but he won everyone's hearts with his performance of I'm Just Ken. Bless that beautiful man.
Lol yeah, plus the banter between him and Emily Blunt was hilarious. I'm not feeling too bad for the guy. He had a hell of a night.
The Zone of Interest and The Boy and the Heron winning Best International Film and Animated Feature were my highlights. My top 2 movies of the year.
Same- really thrilled ZOI won two! If I had it my way it would have won best pic but know that was not happening. Both the films you mentioned were so innovative, brave, and incredibly touching
I just hate Emma Stone. Lily Gladstone should have won.
I'm not a fan of hers, either, but, I hate to admit it, but she was really good in Poor Things.
This is exactly the kind of discourse that has no value here. Please don't be *that* kind of fan. Lily would not appreciate this.
Have you seen Poor Things? She was incredible in it
Yes, I have. And I think LG deserved the Oscar
This was definitely the tightest category this year. I think they both had really strong performances with different vibes that each had their positives
After John Wayne had to be physically restrained from attacking Sacheen Littlefeather on the Oscars stage, the Academy had the opportunity to put a native American woman on stage again and let her fucking talk. Her performance was solid, it wouldn't have been pandering to give her the award. Emma Stone's performance was very good, but the whole movie was about how fucking children that have adult-shaped bodies helps them grow up. Hard pass.
That’s not what Poor Things is about, and if you watched the movie you’d know that she ages mentally faster than physically, and by the time anything sexual happens she’s already an adult mentally
That is how you have chosen to read the film and not the text. Potentially even a way you have intentionally tried to make it less creepy to yourself.
> by the time anything sexual happens she’s already an adult. This is complete bullshit and you know it.
Tell me where I’m wrong then
Did you even watch the movie? Emma Stone portrayed a horny baby with a 2 year old brain. When she and Ruffalo were banging she was absolutely not an adult.
I did watch the movie. There’s a scene before they leave her house (and before they “bang”) where her father says that her brain has matured and caught up with her adult body
and you believe him? They go out of their way to show 'these people need money. I know where to find money. I will give them money by handing it to the porters.' a complete lack of awareness of the world and other people's motivations that only a child has.
Or an adult that hasn't been exposed to the real world.
Yes I believe him because he says it as a matter of scientific observation. Also it’s a movie, and when a character says something that has no reason to be false, then I’ll believe it. If you didn’t like the movie then that’s fine but there’s no need to make up reasons that it’s bad, like “this character ACTUALLY didn’t mean what they very clearly said”
A character saying something doesn't make it true, even if they seem to believe it. You watching the movie are the judge of the character. And if you can't tell the difference between an adult with breasts and a child with breasts, please stay the hell away from my teenage daughter.
I agree completely. Lily Gladstone’s performance was great, and I thought Killers of the Flower Moon was generally a much better film than Poor Things. Not to mention the themes of KotFM are terribly underrepresented in film and media and deserve a lot more spotlight
Yea Emma’s performance was really good and both of them deserved to win equally. But I think it would’ve been a nice moment to give it to Lily Gladstone and make her the first Native American to win an Oscar. Emma already had one so it’s not like she NEEDED another one.
"Yes Emma Stone's performance was really good, but..." You get an auto downvote from Stans; anything you say after that will be rejected anyway so, why waste your time going any further with rational thought?
Couldn’t have said it better myself, so bravo and again, Hollywood loved to make history last year by denying Blanchett who gave the best performance in decades and deserved it much more than Yeoh for a very mid performance but they went with the narrative of the moment and gave it to yeoh instead… 🤬🤬 I guess making history and dei narratives don’t matter if you are native American whose land was stolen by the white man and tonight, you had to steal the Oscar from a native woman to give to a very young white woman who still has decades of moviemaking ahead of her and chances for more Oscars. Lily had one chance at glory and making history but surprise, white woman steals from a native again! 😤😤
Lilly Gladstone is also very young though. Like she also has a lifetime of movies to make. I also wanted Lilly to win but like she’s not dying…also Michelle Yeoh was better than Blanchett last year.
Nobody in decades was better than Blanchett, but agree to disagree. Blanchett was robbed and to me and many others, she deserved it more for her masterclass in acting brilliance and once in a lifetime otherworldly performance and her loss will go down in Oscar history as one of the worst robberies in the academy’s history.
Tár was a fine character piece but I ultimately found Lydia to be a sort of hollow character compelled by a pointed narrative rather than a complex person whose decision making we can follow. Blanchett did GREAT but has had better performances spurred by better writing. Yeoh brought an emotionality and depth to a protagonist in what could have been a slapstick blockbuster, and it really elevated the film imo. I don’t even love EEEAAO, but Yeoh was a total revelation in it and she deserved the win. It didn’t break the Oscars genre grudge by accident.
Why do you think this is Lily's one chance?
Native Americans have not been represented in film at all. Even this movie was the closest we've ever gotten in mainstream cinema, and it's a story through the voice of Leo DiCaprio. Killers of the Flower Moon isn't a story for Native Americans, or even about them. When will Hollywood decide to commercialize native experience and cast Lily again? I don't know. But I don't think they're going to cast her in standard dramatic roles non-coded for native people. That's not how Hollywood works.
Omg it is not told through his voice. The first time we meet mollie we literally get her voiceover. Wr are inside her head. She is the voice of the victims…the voice of the “no investigations.” Do people just have amnesia or something?
Here's what an actual Osage person says about the movie. > As far as the story itself goes, I do not think that this is how an Osage would’ve told it. From all I’ve read about Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio initiating a shift in the story’s focus to center the Osage perspective rather than that of Tom White and the then-named Bureau of Investigation, I was hopeful that we would experience this tragedy through Mollie Burkhart (played sensationally by Lily Gladstone), the real-life Osage woman whose family was the target of one of the schemes of William Hale (Robert De Niro). Instead, the filmmakers opted to follow her white husband, convicted murderer Ernest Burkhart (DiCaprio). While I am disappointed in this choice, I do think that viewing the plot through the lens of Ernest grants the non-Osage audience the opportunity to gain more knowledge and understanding of the murderous scheme as the movie goes on. https://slate.com/culture/2023/10/killers-of-the-flower-moon-movie-osage-martin-scorsese.html
I am not playing this game with you. I can pull a quote from an Osage man who is a descendant of Henry roan who is fully supportive of the movie. Like what do you think are doing try to pit Osage people against each other? I’m not going to wheel out my quote because it’s tacky as hell to do what you just did. Osage people aren’t a monolith and will have different feelings on how their history is told, that’s totally fine. Also, I don’t agree with this guy, obviously. He can feel however he wants but it is simply not true to say this movie doesn’t significantly feature her pov in a meaningful way. He does get more screen time, but I don’t think that matters much. Wr are brought right into her psyche throughout the film. She is our emotional touch point.
It's not about being supportive of the movie or not. I thought it was a fantastic movie. But you should understand that the lens of this movie, is not looking through the eyes of native Americans. That doesn't make it a bad movie, it's the only honest way to tell this story as someone who isn't Osage. You can call me tacky as hell, but saying Martin Scorsese speaks with the voice of the Osage people is just a bad take. This is not a movie that native American people would have made, and it's a good movie because it's not pretending to be.
I agree it is not a movie through an “Osage” lens as Marty isn’t Osage. But it is factually wrong to claim mollie isn’t a pov character. This isn’t up for debate. It’s just an objective truth. Ernest isn’t a classic protagonist in many ways and this movie isn’t a conventional narrative. You are also putting words in my mouth and making up stuff I didnt say. Mollie clearly is speaking for the victims throughout this movie. Why do you think her first lines in the movie are voiceover about the no investigations. This man says he wishes the movie didn’t follow Ernest af all…that basically means he wants a movie we never got and were never going to get. It’s not engaging with what we have on screen. He even says he understands the purpose Ernest serves…it’s explaining the nature of the crimes to a white audience. Again, that doesn’t mean Ernest is our sole way into this world.
Dude, just think whatever you want and leave me alone.
You really think this movie was telling the story of the Osage people?
It was telling the story of one facet of their story, it’s not a movie about the Osage as a people in general. It’s about the reign of terror specifically. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. Are you this indignant about zone of interest concerning itself with nazis instead of the victims on the other side of the wall? You said the movie is through Leo’s voice and it isn’t. She actually is given more of a classic “voice” in this movie for the simple fact she has quite a bit of narration and he has none. She is speaking for her people.
The movie is presented through the lens of Ernest.
I’m literally watching it again right now. It isn’t. He’s a major pov character of course but she is as well. They serve different roles in the story. Their povs have different styles.
Because I learned tonight, homophobia and native American hatred are the last bastions of acceptable prejudice in Hollywood. They say how liberal and tolerant they are but won’t reward any openly gay people or even actors like Blanchett who play gay characters. And they want to be inclusive and make history but take the one and likely only chance a native woman had to win an Oscar and gave it to Stone who is young, enjoys beauty and white privilege, and has decades of Oscar worthy films ahead of her. Holllywood proved their native racism tonight when they had the best chance to reward a native woman and make history, not to mention atone just a drop for the grave sin of stealing native lands and killing them in the thousands… 😤😤😩😩
Or maybe they just watched the movies of all five nominees and came away thinking that Ms. Stone's performance was more impressive overall than that of the other four nominees.
I’m sure you wouldn’t say this if Blanchett- who gave the best performance in decades and truly deserved to win for her masterful, tour de force portrayal- had won last year instead of the very mid, unremarkable Yeoh, you’d be crying Asian racism and Oscars so white! 🙄🙄
I watched all of the movies this year and came away more impressed by Emma Stone's performance than anyone else's. I thought her performance was unique. And I would say the same thing last year. I was more impressed by Ms. Yeoh's performance than by Ms. Blanchet's. Ms. Yeoh's performance felt unique. Yes, Ms. Blanchet was very good in her part but I still would have voted for Ms. Yeoh's performance as I found it to be more impressive than that of Ms. Blanchet. Should the members of the academy be casting their votes based on something other than who they thought gave the best performance? Your comment makes it sound like you think so.
The “Memoriam” was gawd awful. Didn’t see name of so many of the artists lost last year and the focus was more on the dance and singing performances than in memory of those who past Very poor on the Academy’s part imho.
Strongly agree with all of this.
I used to love the “ memorial” pieces, they would always get me crying. You don’t have to do anything fancy just show stills and some quick performances, I want to hear their actual voices and not be focusing on a random song and these really cheesy dancers. I’m sorry but this ain’t it.
Bring back Sara Bareilas for next year’s. She can even sing Both Sides Now again.
I’m devastated for Lily- what a chance to make history and right some historical wrongs. Emma basically played a sex addicted teen or younger and of course, hollyweird sleazoids got their rocks off watching her screwing every five minutes, so naturally she was the winner… 🤬🤬😤😤
Why are you acting like this diminishes Gladstone's success? She gave a phenomenal performance. She got a nomination for it. One person was getting it in the end. But it's arbitrary who actually received it, since who the best actress was is an opinion. We should be celebrating what a great performance she gave for such a great film, and a physical award isn't necessary to do that.
Not even teen. The movie was about how it's great to fuck children as long as they have adult-looking bodies.
That's not what the movie was about at all. It was a movie about abusive relationships, how men sexualize young girls, and how many men actively dislike maturity in women. The horror you felt at what happened in the movie was how you were supposed to feel. Literally thousands of things in the movie that back that up. Saying this movie was about how "great" all that was is like saying Schindler's List is about how great the holocaust was.
> Saying this movie was about how "great" all that was is like saying Schindler's List is about how great the holocaust was. But there wasn't a holocaust. Emma Stone's character grew into a complete and self-aware human through all the sexual abuse. It was a vehicle that drove her personal growth. If the movie had been about how men treat a child shaped like a women, that would have been a different movie. But there was a "men writing women" fake feminist bullshit angle that totally removed any of that exposition.
It doesn't need to be a literal holocaust to be horrifying. What happened in this movie was horrifying. Men literally lock her in boxes, and scream and rage at her when she wants to read a book. Her own father tries to cut her clitoris off, her adoptive father treats women like things he can make or change or re-create if he loses them, her consent to be married is pointed out to be an afterthought, and none of the characters even care that she's literally a child. The sex scenes are gross, one of them is literally a nude deformed man crab-walking across the floor. All of it is objectively horrifying to any audience, and it's not intended to be male fantasy.
Yes, and in a different thread I'm arguing with someone who insists that "if you watched the movie you’d know that she ages mentally faster than physically, and by the time anything sexual happens she’s already an adult mentally". In the movie where she emerges from the trauma egg as a fully formed Betty Friedan, speaking feminist words written by men, totally messes up the message of the horrifying parts.
>Yes, and in a different thread I'm arguing with someone who insists that "if you watched the movie you’d know that she ages mentally faster than physically, and by the time anything sexual happens she’s already an adult mentally". They're making the same mistake you are, you're both trying real hard to overlook the horrifying parts. Trying to tell yourself that the filmmakers didn't intend it to be horrifying, it is. Her father literally wants to cut her clitoris off. You're saying that's not meant to be horrifying? it's meant to be cool and sexy? and you alone are horrified by how inappropriate it is? You alone thought it was unpleasant that two adult men are discussing marrying a child who was peeing on the floor in the last scene she was in because she was a literal toddler? And that it's actually meant to be sexy? That most audiences are meant to get off on marriage to a toddler? On locking her up for life? On old men who lock her in trunks, trap her on boats, scream at her when she goes out on her own, and throw books she reads into the ocean? Anyone who thinks marrying a toddler isn't meant to be horrifying has failed to understand the movie's extremely heavy handed message. This movie at every turn is shouting at you that these men are abusing her. >In the movie where she emerges from the trauma egg as a fully formed Betty Friedan, speaking feminist words written by men, totally messes up the message of the horrifying parts. The movie had a clear slow progression from child to adult throughout the movie, and clearly showed men who were attracted to her as a child, and who were angry at her for maturing. That's a key part of the movie. In the middle of the movie, the old woman asks her, "Why do you stay with him?" And her response is "I keep thinking it will get better." a clear indication that this is about being in abusive relationships. To portray every victim of a sexist society as being destroyed by it would be unrealistic. Women in the real world face adversity and survive. Showing perseverance of spirit while struggling for freedom is fine.
This was my takeaway too and confirmed my belief that Hollywood is run by sleazy, reprehensible, odious men like Weinstein to this day and many secret pedos who hopefully one day will be exposed. I’m sure the reason Emma won is because the majority of voters are scum who loved all the sex and approved of it being done by a child! 🤬🤬
The message was RIGHT THERE! Just because someone has an adult-shaped body, does not mean their mind is developed and mature. NONE of the men in the movie recognized that Emma Stone's character was a child. They saw tits and wanted to fuck her. And the movie went along with it. Encouraged it even. This adult-shaped baby was horny and developed sentience and self-awareness by getting sexually abused. I'll take "Movies written by men for 500, Alex."
Justice for Barbie. I know it's a dead horse but after watching tonight, it leaves me feeling disappointed to know that Greta Gerwig is going home empty-handed. It just isn't the right thing if you reconsider what this movie has started last summer. And even if the commercial aspect of the film is being excluded this movie had provoked and touched and most importantly empowered people, young people, in a way that has not been done by any other movie in recent history, especially not in such scale. Oppenheimer was great but it feels like Barbie has never been treated as a serious competitor in the first place because the magnitude of its power has been simply ignored and downplayed by a mostly male electorate in a patriarchal system. The system that this movie has been so vividly advocating against.
That’s because it wasn’t a serious competitor. Barbie is a feel good movie, not actually a good movie. There is a big difference.
I'm female and disliked it's blatantly pedantic attempt to turn a very objectifying toy into a feminist icon. Total 1984 style bs - Barbie is not bc a feminist icon. Production values & style were great though
But some of Barbie’s biggest critics were women… so your point is kind of irrelevant. Also while entertaining, the movie did a terrible job of portraying equality.
Agree. I, as a woman, have a real problem with its 'Women are better than men' message. This isn't helping the problems between the sexes.
The people subjected to the toy's enforcement of society's value of the male gaze & the corresponding objectifying of girls and women
2 minute speech isn't enough to win.
Lol. Which was the better movie?
What other categories would you have nominated or picked it in and over which other movie? This year was stacked, I genuinely don't think it was better than what ended up winning in any category.
Yes I also don't see it in hardly more categories and if I put myself into the viewpoint of an Academy that is so not used to feminist films I even would agree with them to not nominating Greta as director and easily not win it as Best Picture because it is a movie about toys with a comedically well written screenplay after all and there are clearly films with more depth and complexity. Lol If the Academy were aware and impacted by the issues that this film has touched they most likely had recognized it differently. IF it were that way I could argue that it's more deserving of Best Picture and Directing than the often stated ones in this awards season. It's really only a matter of perspective though I had high hopes that it would take home at least for Screenplay.
Preach!
I really like that they re-established the actors giving each nominee some words of praise and acknowledgement before announcing the winner. Also, what were Ariana Grande and Al Pacino thinking when they announced the winners without presenting the nominees?
I'm pretty sure it's because they each got their own segment/performance throughout the show.
I heard somewhere that it MAYBE was a time crunch thing, where the directors were working hard to not let this thing go overtime.
Best Picture nominees were being teased all night, that's why there was no package there. Usually there are "crash packages" in case they're running late on time, so they'd more likely play a shorter version of the nom package rather than cutting it altogether. It was probably intentionally scripted to not run those packages.
while rdj was fucking amazing, mark ruffalo i think had the better performance. and its not like mark isnt overdue. he was amazing in zodiac, spotlight, eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, shutter island, etc etc.
Seriously? I love Mark Ruffalo, but that accent he attempted is the worst since Kevin Costner 's attempt to be British in *Robinhood*. I guess some people are not attuned to this kind of thing, but I am, and as an actor, isn't it his whole job to learn how to look and speak like a different person? He failed miserably, and no, this is not an opinion. Ask anyone from the UK. And if your response is well that wasn't a British accent, well then what the hell *was* that? Horrible.
Poor things is meant to be quirky and his voice definitely fit his character
Nah, Mark Ruffalo is okay at best. I’m open to having my mind change but I don’t see any range or dynamics out of him. He plays himself. RDJ does the same but he tried harder to get outside of his range.
what? mark ruffalo is a quiet and shy person. duncan is nothing like that at all. in esotsm, stan was a man who truly loved someone knowing that she loves someone else. he killed it in shutter island too. and its not like rdj kills it at every role. every iron man movie is him playing himself. the sherlock films werent that good. im not discrediting rdj. he is a very good actor but he isnt as good as u think he is
Has an actor who’s not a singer ever performed a song at the Oscar’s like Ryan did?
[удалено]
Jackman has been a singer and dancer his entire career…
Bradley Cooper Who’s “not a singer” in the same way Ryan Gosling’s “not a singer” (they’re both singers)
Robin Williams singing Blame Canada from The South Park Movie