Episode 41: 2025 - One Battle After Another / Sinners

Ten nominees. One gold statue. On this episode of Revisiting the Oscars we’re revisiting every Best Picture contender ahead of the Oscars — from the undeniable masterpieces to the prestige indies to 'F1', the feature-length Formula 1 commercial that somehow found itself in the race. Who’s taking the big prize and who has got no chance of making it to the front from the back of the grid? 

2025 Best Picture Nominees
F1
Train Dreams
Bugonia
The Secret Agent
Sentimental Value
Frankenstein
Marty Supreme
Hamnet
Sinners
One Battle After Another

**This podcast will contain some spoilers for these movies although we have tried our best to signpost them on this occasion!

If you're enjoying the podcast please give us a 5-star rating, subscribe to the show, and join us on our social media channels!

FOLLOW US!
Twitter: https://twitter.com/UpLateAtNightAg
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/uplateatnightagain/
Website: https://uplateatnightagain.com/
Podcast Links: https://revisitingtheoscars.buzzsprout.com/
Episode Link: https://uplateatnightagain.com/2026/02/25/revisiting-the-oscars-podcast-episode-41-2025/

Transcript

SPEAKER_05 0:19

Hello folks and welcome to your Oscars 2025 episode of Revisiting the Oscars, the podcast where each episode we take one year in Academy Awards history and break down every single best picture nominee. It's been a while since we did our last episode, but we have, of course, returned in time for this year's Oscars, where of course we don't know who's who's going to win, so there's not going to be much revisiting in this one, but we're going to talk about the ten nominees that are in contention this year. I am one of your hosts, Luke Watson, and I'm joined by my two co-hosts, Scott Bingham, Richard Mason. Folks, what have you two been up to?

SPEAKER_06 0:56

A lot of stuff, uh including having another win, which I don't think we had another well, we definitely didn't have another win last time we did this, I'm pretty sure. Makes watching films pretty tricky, makes going to the cinema impossible. Um apart from if you want to take if you wanted to take a toddler to watch the Scarecrow's Wedding or The Smeeze and the Smoo's, which I thought would work, but um resulted in him just running around the cinema and having to go home. So yeah.

SPEAKER_07 1:20

What is The Smeeze and the Smooth's?

SPEAKER_06 1:22

Uh it's like a BBC production. Um it's it's like a kid's cartoon where they've got to be.

SPEAKER_07 1:27

Well, I know it's a kid's cartoon. Well, you know, I want you to sell it to me. Why should I be watching The Smeeze and the Smooze?

SPEAKER_06 1:34

Uh it's got a little really good wee tune in it. And also it is about the relationship of two little aliens called Bill and Janet. Very good name, uh Janet. So I thought it was good to wedge that in there. And yeah, there's not much else to say about it. It's alright.

SPEAKER_07 1:47

Well we only talk about shy tunes on this podcast, so uh good one in it and forget it. Well, I've not had any children I can confirm. That I know of, am I right, ladies?

unknown 2:00

Uh uh no, no kids.

SPEAKER_07 2:02

When was the last one? About six months ago?

SPEAKER_05 2:04

Yeah, it's like September, I think. It was just before uh way number two for you, Bingham. Yeah, yeah, November the 4th was D-Day.

SPEAKER_07 2:12

Since the last podcast, I have been blessed by the Pope.

SPEAKER_06 2:17

Is that a joke? Serious.

SPEAKER_07 2:20

I went to Rome, went to the Vatican, and uh the Pope was there doing a blessing up from his little balcony. So technically, I mean there was about 5,000 people there.

SPEAKER_04 2:30

I was gonna say, I mean, he's he's not blessed you personally.

SPEAKER_07 2:33

He's not blessed me personally, but I was part of the group that got blessed, you know. He waved his hand about in front of me.

SPEAKER_06 2:38

Did you go in the 16 chapel?

SPEAKER_07 2:39

No, if you keep joking out here, it's about 25 quid.

unknown 2:42

Shh!

SPEAKER_07 2:44

Catholics love a Catholics, they love a bit of coffee, you know how it is.

SPEAKER_06 2:48

Yeah, yeah. Well, I've been in there. I've been not very staunch of me, but yeah.

SPEAKER_07 2:54

Were you were you moved?

SPEAKER_06 2:56

Uh no, I was shy. I was just waiting for the queue to move on so I could leave. Yeah, you need like a lot of medieval artwork to enjoy it or be super easy to just switch out. Yeah, it's a lot of artwork. Yeah, we went from memory, it was quite a while ago now, um that we we were part of like a little tour where the some of the stuff at the start was a bit interesting, but then I got really bored and ended up just wandering about myself. Tried to leave, but then kept was not able to leave because they kept going through their own door and ended up in the Sistine Chapel and ended up in um St. Peter's Church or whatever the hell it's called, where there's just vast amounts of gold and expensive looking shit, which um I found to be very contradictory of the Catholic Church. Well, not contradictory, but contradictory if you stood back from it. Um so yeah, and I'll I'll I'll stop before I say.

SPEAKER_05 3:45

Yeah, I was gonna say this uh this year there isn't really uh unless I'm mistaken, I don't think there's any particularly religious films on the the agenda today. Good good stuff anyway. So we would usually have Bingham's blast from the past or or blast from the present as it tends to be in these episodes. Um however it has been cancelled because it couldn't be arsed. It couldn't be arsed, yeah. We're thinking about can we come up with some excuse for it, but no uh having two wings is obviously uh affecting affecting your downtime, Bingham, isn't it?

SPEAKER_06 4:19

Yeah, it is affecting my downtime. Uh didn't have a spare spare hour to write it, so so yeah. But you've done pretty well to be fair, um managing to watch all these films as much as anything. Uh yeah, well I've said that to you that um my evenings usually result in me falling asleep pretty early because I'm just basically up like five times a night. Either from kid number one or kid number two to be fair. Um but I, you know, uh sort of fought asleep last week to make sure that I watched all these films in the evenings.

SPEAKER_05 4:50

So, anyone joining us for the first time, or to be honest, any of our regular listeners who it's been so long that you've forgotten what we do on this podcast, a little bit of a I would recap or a primer for what we're going to be doing on the next hour and a half or so today. So the idea of the podcast is very simple. We look back and ask what still works, what really doesn't, how have these films aged, and if we had a ballot in our hands at the time, who would we actually have voted for? Now, of course, we're talking about films that some of them we've only seen two or three weeks ago, so it's not quite the same as going back to 1975 or so, but we can provide some insight, context, background, and a bit of trivia. What we're going to be doing today is go through all 10 best picture nominees, a bit of a deep dive into each of them, and tell you what we think of them. But first off, we'll cover off the box office top ten. Um and I'll use this time as well to just say if you are enjoying our Oscars coverage or you have enjoyed it by the end of the episode, we do have a bonus episode where we go deep on the other categories performances, screenplay, acting, and of course, are now a popular takedown of the best song nominees, and that'll be with you before the ceremony in two or three weeks' time. The best part of that, of course, is the annual chance to listen to whatever Diane Warren's been up to because of course she is nominated again. So, whether you're a longtime listener or you found us because it's award season, welcome, let's get into the episode. So, we're going to start off by looking at what were the films that did best at the box office last year. So, the USB box office, the top five, Zootopia 2 at 5, Jurassic World Rebirth at 4, Superman at 3, Lilo and Stitch at 2, and a Minecraft movie at 1. You do also have in the top 10 Avatar Fire and Ash, which I think would be number one, but it came out at the end of December, so a lot of its takings will have been in 2026. Wicked for Goods in there, Sinners is in there, as well as How to Train Your Dragon and the Fantastic Four First Steps. Any particular standouts or thoughts on that, folks?

SPEAKER_07 6:50

Well, I'm glad to say that Avatar 3 didn't get nominated because the first two didn't they were both dogshit. So um it's clear that the Academy of Comes to the Centres are not nominated it this year because it is just more of the same. I was watching The Bastards last night and they showed a clip. I think it won one actually. I think it won Best Special Effects. I was thinking the special effects are exactly the same as the last two films. So what's new in this one? Um I felt horrible for some of the other um nominees who didn't win. Uh so yeah. Glad to see the back of that, at least for a couple of years. And then what else did I have about? Minecraft movie. That was a bit of a phenomenon for a period, wasn't it? I remember the song. Did not see the film.

SPEAKER_05 7:26

Something about a chicken, was there not?

SPEAKER_07 7:27

Yeah, yeah, something about a chicken.

SPEAKER_05 7:30

Yeah, I I did I did not go and see that one. I do think with the you mentioned Avatar 3 not being nominated, and I'll group Wicked for Good in with this as well. I suspect that the Academy were expecting that they would have nominated at least one of those films, but then they came out and the critical acclaim was just not there, even though they've still done pretty well at the box office.

SPEAKER_06 7:51

I was very, very pleased that that Wicked um hasn't hasn't made the the cut after having to watch the the first one was good.

SPEAKER_07 8:01

Second one was a shame.

SPEAKER_05 8:04

I think the biggest shame with Avatar is that James Cameron has wasted the last like twenty years of his career making these daft sequels. What a waste. He's not he's not the kind of guy that cares about the Oscars, does he?

SPEAKER_06 8:16

I think he you know he was desperate to make and sort of finish a trilogy trilogy with Avatar, um albeit it did take him a while, but he he's not one to sort of grease the palms of um Academy voters.

SPEAKER_05 8:28

I'm sure there's a couple more still to come as well. I mean, I didn't even bother going to see this one. Was like, oh, should I go and see it, but it's over three hours the second one.

SPEAKER_07 8:36

Yeah, you've already seen it.

SPEAKER_06 8:39

I thought that was it done. Is it not finished?

SPEAKER_05 8:41

I thought it was just a trilogy more. Oh for Christ's sake. I think there's meant to be five in total. So just like cool, mate. They're still doing well though. Worldwide box office, it's it's right up there. So obviously there is an audience, even though it's weirdly a series of films that just nobody really talks about. Or care about. Exactly. The other thing that I thought was fairly notable is that you do have Fantastic Four in there, but it's quite light on comic book movies, certainly not as much Marvel stuff in the top five as you would usually get. I think Fantastic Four's eight, and then their other two releases last year didn't break the top ten. So maybe that kind of superhero fatigue thing is starting to show itself as we had Superman there.

SPEAKER_06 9:22

Yeah, I can't even think of it. I can't think what was out last year. It was not that one that had Dakota Johnson in it, was that last year? That got awful, like terrible super.

SPEAKER_05 9:34

Oh Madame Webb, no, I think that was the year before. I think there are two other releases where Captain America Brave New World, which featured a Red Hulk, which I think might have been played by Harrison Ford. And uh Thunderbolt.

SPEAKER_07 9:47

Although there's a new event just meant film coming in this year, so we'll see it again.

F1

SPEAKER_05 9:52

They will keep churning them out, I am sure. Right, so we have ten films that we're gonna talk through in more detail now. The way that we usually do this episode is we talk through them in reverse order based on what Skybet think uh is the likeliest winner. So that means that we're gonna start with F1, the outlier in the category, and then we will finish with one battle enough after another, which, as things stand, is the bookie's favourite to win best picture. So we'll kick off with F1.

SPEAKER_03 10:25

Mysterious moves at Apex GP who have finally announced the driver who will take their second seat. And in a bizarre twist, it's American Sonny Hayes, who hasn't raced in Formula One for over three decades. Son of an indie car mechanic, Hayes was considered something of a reckless young phenomenon. The greatest who never was. His former career being brought to an abrupt halt by a horrific accident at the Spanish Grand Prix.

SPEAKER_05 10:53

F1 is a movie, as the title suggests, that is about Formula One. And we'll come on to in a bit more detail about whether it's a movie in its own right or it's just a great giant advert for the sport. Um however, a bit of background first. So this is the second film to be nominated for Best Picture by director Joseph Kacinski after Top Gun Maverick. It stars Brad Pitt as Sonny Hayes, who, as you heard from that clip there, is a former Formula One prodigy whose career went up in flames in the 1990s, but there's a reason why he's been lured back to help rescue a failing team. At its core, it's got quite a simple premise. It's a comeback sports story, and it pits an aging star with unfinished business against a hotshot young driver who is cocky and arrogant and doesn't think that he needs any support. They are both representing a struggling F1 team. Those familiar with F1 will know that all the teams have got two drivers. One tends to be the dominant one and the other one is the Support Act. So it sets up this battle between the two of them while they also have to try and set aside their differences to do things for the greater good of the overall team. Now the main reason that I think this has been nominated is probably twofold. I think firstly, we mentioned about Wicked for Good and Avatar Free just not having the critical acclaim that they had before, and I think the voters have clearly shown a preference over the last three, four years to have at least one successful box office movie in the 10 nominees, and this year that is clearly one of the reasons why F1 is nominated. And I think the other reason is that from a technical spectacle perspective, this is actually pretty well made. The racing scenes are exciting, they're well directed, and Kaczynski brings the same filmmaking approach that he used in Top Gun Maverick and bringing the action scenes to life. And when you go and see this at the cinema, as I did, I saw an IMAX screen. In the moment, it's actually a pretty, pretty exciting film. Well made, you can see that it's going to do quite well in the non-best picture categories, things like sound design, etc., where I believe it is favourite. In terms of the performances, Brad Pitt's pretty well cast and he can play that role in his sleep. And the central dynamic between him and Damson Idris's rookie is is reasonably well played out, even if it does fall into, I would say, expected beats. There's not a huge amount of surprising about how this film does play out. The bit about it being an advert for F1, I mean, it is definitely a lengthy advert for Formula One. All of the branding's all over it. It's got the same glossy presentation that you would expect if you've ever watched Formula One, and it doesn't really delve any deeper than surface level in looking at other aspects of the sport. It's basically this is a fashionable, glamorous, showy sport, and it's exciting, and that's exactly how it plays it. It's very, very safe from a film-making perspective. So for me, I did have a good time watching it. I can't believe it's made it into the top ten here on merit as a film, to be honest. But yeah, it was good it was good at the time, it's got no chance of winning here. But yeah, I'd be interested to know what you two thought of it because I'm gonna guess that you watched it at home and not the cinema, which I suspect might have made a difference. But let's see what you thought first, bingum.

SPEAKER_06 14:00

Right, I'm gonna start by saying just to get this point out of the way, F1 is for Anarak, let's be honest. It's for guys that fly drones and we races down the park. It is not it's just not a cool spot. I mean, you you're a lot more positive on this than me. I agree with all your bits in it. Bear in mind I did watch it at home, like you said, I agree with your points around the races and how they're shot and filmed, and I can see why in the cinema those would perhaps look better than they did on screen, even though they did look pretty good on Mattelli. Uh, but I had tons of issues with this film otherwise to the extent I thought it was actually pretty fucking atrocious. I mean, it is really formulaic, you've already covered that, but I I think the bit that really sticks out like a sore thumb for me is even if it's formulaic does not mean that you have to um write dialogue as bad as that they've written. You know, the cheese, it's actually dialed up to the nines. I found it really cliched. I think it the dialogue falls flat a lot of the times, and I was actually I felt embarrassed a little bit for the actors having to say some of the lines with a straight face. Um and some of the writing was genuin something I would expect from like you know, like a school kid. Um things like, you know, I'll see you down the road, which comes out Brad Pitt's character's uh mouth as he exits. Also the the the sort of rookie driver saying he hated Sonny's stupid face. I just it just was I just I had I'd cringed. And the little clip there that you played of this kind of um sort of sports commentator or race commentator's narration, I th that was really cheesy throughout. I I I really cringed at some of the the F1 language that he was using. One of the other kind of main points to this that you you you know you talked a bit about Brad Pitt. I think he's fine in these roles, you know, he's pretty charming, his face kind of fits. I do think he is better as a supporting actor, and that's something that he admits himself, and I think it allows him to be a bit more free and funny playing a role that gives him a bit more freedom rather than one which pretty much just relies on his looks and charisma. Yeah, I think that the the sort of final thing I had on this was a bit of a jokey thing that oh no, sorry, actually I had one more point was that now I did start by saying that the F1's for Anarchs, you know, I maybe maybe I was an Anarak once. I have watched it a few times, and I even my limited knowledge, I do know that they don't use crashes and safety car the safety car coming out as a tactic in a race. That's pr pretty much an illegal no-no. Yet that seems to be quite a central premise in in at least one part of Sunny's Uprising, which I think is pretty poor because he had quite a lot of involvement from F1 itself. So I'm surprised that that was that was Labour on, but maybe they just need to do it.

SPEAKER_05 16:52

I didn't have to there is that fundamentally Formula One's just not that exciting a sport. So like if they played it even on the outlandish side of realistic, it just wouldn't have been entertaining. That's true.

SPEAKER_06 17:02

As the guy with the best car wins, basically, just gives Sonny a like a fucking spaceship and just see him romp, romp home. So yeah, yeah, I I I thought I thought this was borderline atrocious, frankly. But yeah, anyway, Mason.

SPEAKER_07 17:17

First thing I think Formula One is the worst sport on earth. Um and I think it's the disgrace that this film's nominated. Um it's it I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad film, but you know, it's not my street. It's I would say popcorn, a popcorn film for divorced dads to take the teenage son to. That's that's the audience for this. Because it's nothing more than a massive marketing exercise, not just for the sport, but it's you know, it's dripping in corporate logo, it's branding greed. It's even in the dialogue. I know that in the James Bond films, you'll get Bond swinging at a Heineken. Every second scene in this has got some sort of brand in it. It's an awful, it's borne, I would say boringly unoffensive. Not just that, but the absolute cheek that they have to cast a woman in a technical director position that requires a lot of expertise, a lot of professionalism. And I can imagine them sat around thinking, let's cast a woman in that role and be very progressive of us. And then have her as they're all reduced to nothing more than basically a shag piece for Brad Pitt's character. Absolutely insane to have that as a decision in this film. And I at least it would be insane if literally any woman watched this film. No women watching this film, let me tell you that. This is it's for middle-aged men. I've said it's for divorced guys, it's all for middle-aged men who sexy guys are sexy. It's um honestly. I was saying you mentioned a couple of positives. Look, yeah, the sound's good, the race scenes are well done. But if you want good sound and good race scenes, just watch a fucking Formula One race. I mean, at least that's real. Why does this film even exist? Uh if you want drama or or excitement from watching Formula One, watch Formula One. I can say the only reason I've extraordinated you've been kind there instead is because Wicked and uh what's the other one?

SPEAKER_05 19:07

Uh Avatar.

SPEAKER_07 19:08

Avatar, because they're a bit rubbish. Yes, they are. But I would say it's corporate greed. I think it's a few backhanders gone through uh the Academy here. The Oscars are meant to showcase the best of the best in cinema. And this box is gonna be one of the best ten of the year. Absolutely no chance. Something dodgy's gone on here.

SPEAKER_01 19:25

There's obviously a lot of divorced middle-aged guys around the world because it's made over six hundred million dollars at the the worldwide box office.

SPEAKER_07 19:32

Not a single woman has paid for a ticket towards this. Awful, awful.

SPEAKER_06 19:42

I think if you want to watch a film about Formula One, you just watch Rush from like ten years ago, whatever. I thought that was pretty much it. Yeah. Yeah, it was actually really good, but I I suppose that's not yeah, it is about Formula One, but it's a bit m but you know, it's a bit more than just about Formula One. It's about the sort of relationship between whatever his name was, Nicky Lauder and James Hunt. Uh is it wasn't it? Yeah, Robert Center maybe.

SPEAKER_07 20:06

What's a film about actual Formula One rather than shy?

SPEAKER_05 20:09

I mean the the bookies do agree that this has got no chance. It's a hundred to one, which is um I think in the four or five years we've been doing the current episode is probably about as high as I've seen. So yeah, keep your keep your money in your pocket. It does have three other nominations as well as best pictures. So I mentioned best sound already, where it is favourite. It's also nominated for best film editing and best visual effects. Okay, uh next up then, slightly different, uh change in direction then. So another film that's got little chance according to the bookies is Train Dreams.

Train Dreams

SPEAKER_10 20:40

There must be something for us to learn from that.

SPEAKER_06 21:04

So out of the collection of the nominations, I'm gonna call this one the sort of hidden surprise slash India for fighting the big boys. It was shot in twenty-eight days, a small budget of like ten million dollars. It was directed by Cl Clint Bentley, um which from my accounting I think that's on his second direction, and it only had a really limited theatre release before it was picked up by Netflix. And actually I think that backdrop serves quite well for the film itself. So what's it about? It's based on a novella by Dennis John Denise Johnson or Dennis Johnson, and it follows Robert Granger, who is a quiet labourer in the early 20th century American West, whose life unfolds during a period of unprecedented precedented change. He's orphaned at a young age. The film sort of traces Granger's life from rough and tumble work building rail lines that stitch the country together and these sort of towering forests of the Pacific Northwest through a marriage to Gladys. It was played by Felicity Jones before Life offers him a bit of a shit hand. I would call him a drifter who lives off grid, tries to mind his own business and just wants to provide for his family and uh ends up, you know, following uh yeah an extraordinary man with a bit of an extraordinary story. My thoughts on this, yeah, I mean I I put my cards on the table. These type of small type releases really do catch my eye. I think if you are making a film, these ones are right up my street, everything just fits together so well and really plays to my kind of preferences. It's gonna sound a bit wanky, but um you know I think it's got a really lovely, haunting and kind of intimate vibe. It's really beautifully shot, every scene is like a painting, it gives it this kind of dreamy um feel. And I felt myself like sinking into the story watching this pretty introspective guy just get on with his quiet and lonely existence after a um you know a pretty torturous event, you know, set against a really beautiful backdrop in a time when things are motoring on at pace, so he's got changing his his sort of own personal life, but then he also has to face an environment which he works in that him as well as the other colleagues that he encounters during uh his work that you know they've got to face these changes in the world around them and you know it's changing regardless of anything that they can do. I think also it doesn't overstay its welcome. I think it's paced perfectly and allows you to kind of settle in and seep into the story. I just yeah, I guess it is I'm trying to say, or in not so many words, that it's sort of pitched it, massively pitched at telling a delicate story about a guy with um quite invisible grief. There was a few lines in it that sort of stuck with me, and it's probably one of the films out of these ten that um probably thought about after. Um one of the lines is it's something online, so like sometimes feeling like the sadness could eat him alive, and sometimes it feels like it's happened to someone else, and I think that really sums the tone up of the film and how well it's portrayed. And then the other main plus I would say for me is that Joel Edgerton um I think he sticks in a really excellent performance here, and it'll definitely be among one of his career standouts in managing to portray a you know, powerful powerfully portray this um this character. Interesting what you thought. I I suspect uh I I I would guess that this you would be hopefully as positive as me on this, but Mason.

SPEAKER_07 24:32

Yeah, you can pick a film to a legend. Every time I see him, I just think, oh, he's not in the office stuff because he's excellent in everything else. I was just gonna say, in contrast with F1, is there's what this is the film that the Oscars is all about. This is like top short performances, it's beautiful cinematography, it's got a genuine narrative, it's got quiet realism. So unfortunately, I do feel a bit bad saying this after what I've just said about F1. So feel free, listeners, to call me a hypocrite. But uh I thought this was a little bit dull. I guess it's a film about a sad lonely man. You know, like you think I'm all over that. That's the kind of thing that I feel I like watching. Great concept for a film. Um, and just when you guess what you want from life, it's ripped away from him. Brilliant. Another good thing that happens in a film. But I mean, this is bleak, this film. It has the death of a child in it. And obviously that's devastating, heartbreaking joking back from that. But in the film we're gonna talk about a bit later in the pod, did you manage to eke a little bit of affirmation in the grief to get a bit of hope um by the end of the film? In this film, there is no hope. Hope is not present in this film. So I'm I'm glad it's nominated. I think some all films with a cast of I'm gonna call them B listers for the City Johns, maybe it's creeping into a, but you know, not only a lot of getting cast in Marvel films, for example. Gabby Condon, who we just talked about in F1, she managed to get a bit of um her ego back after that nonsense. But yeah, I'm glad it's nominated. It's perhaps in the back all round from me. It cancels out F1, but I think the nomination is the prize here, no chance of winning. It was alright. I enjoyed it more than F1. I I feel like I should be more positive about it, but I'm not. Oh sorry. Watson, you liked it, I'm sure.

Bugonia

SPEAKER_05 26:12

Yeah, yeah, I did. I know we've spoken about it before. I'm I'm definitely more in tune with you and this one, Bingham. I thought this was a like a really, really good, powerful little film, to be honest. I mean everything you say, it's perfect time to talk about it just after F1 because these films are like the polar opposites, but equally have zero chance of winning for for very different reasons. I think what I liked about this is that kind of slow methodical pace. I mean Clint Bentley that directed it did a film called Sing Sing, which didn't get a best picture nomination but was nominated in a couple of other categories two or three years ago. You can tell that it's made by the same person, it's got that same like poetic approach, uh the music's really nice, cinematography's lovely, and it's kind of just about I guess in this case it's more one man and the people that he passes through, but it really just like shines a light on ordinary life. The whole story, as much as anything, is about the passing of time and how someone copes with everything life throws at him, and uh as you both acknowledged, life throws a hell of a lot at him. It's not really about the big events, a lot of the big events actually happen off screen, but it's just how how that shapes and changes Robert Grenier as the the narrative goes on. I did think towards the end I know where you're coming from, Mason, that yeah, it's like his life is sad and it doesn't get materially better, but I think there's uh an element in there where it is about perseverance and persevering even when all hope is lost or you've gone through something deeply tragic. And I think that is woven into the the way that he lives his life, um despite everything that happens to him. And it's that kind of strong, silent, quiet masculinity that is shown through him. As you say, Joel Edgerton is fantastic in this, he's he's a pretty reliably good actor, I would say, in a lot of things. This is not necessarily a rare lead role, but it's certainly one of his strongest roles, and I think probably count himself a little bit unlucky not to be in the conversation with a best actor, albeit it's a bit of a strong bunch this year. So yeah, I I thought this was was really good to be honest. Yeah, it's one of those ones that gets nominated when there's ten films. Wouldn't be there if there's five, but I thought it was it was really good. It's got four nominations, same as F1, best picture, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography, and best original song for the song of the title Trained Dreams, which is sung by Nick Cave and written by him and Bryce Desner, who is in the national as we said, very little chance of winning anything. So his best hope is getting more people to go and see it, basically. Yeah. Cool. Okay, so that is two films down then. Where are we going next? We are going to Begonia.

SPEAKER_08 28:46

How can you tell she's an alien? Well, the signs are obvious. They did a hell of a job on it, but the tells are there. Narrow feet, then cuticles, slight overbite.

SPEAKER_07 29:03

So Begonia is the tenth film by Greek director Jorgos Lenthomos, and he's third to be nominated for Best Picture, following the Favorite, for which the lead one best actress, and Poor Things, for which the lead one best actress. In Begonia, obviously, we have two leads: Emma Stone, who's in her fourth collaboration with Lanthamos, and Jesse Clemens, who's in his second. Clemens stars as Teddy Gax, who we heard there. He's a warehouse operative and importantly a conspiracy theorist who lives at home with his cousin Don, who we also heard. Uh Don, I'm gonna call uh actually I'm gonna back off. I'm gonna back away from that. Let's not describe Don. Teddy is convinced that Michelle, played by Emmerstone, is not really the wealthy CEO of the pharmaceutical conglomerate that Teddy works for, but he's actually an alien and was responsible for enslaving humanity. No, as he's part of the cause in Lanthamoss's work, things do start to get a little bit silly and get even more mental. I think if you're a fan, especially of the lobster in Poor Things, uh, you're gonna get a lot out of this movie. I am a fan of those. Um, and I to be honest, I thought this was superb. One thing that Lantham does, I think, better than any director, is having comedic characters who don't know they're funny. So like Colin Laps, Colin Fowl in the Lobster, Kevin Stone in Poor Things are great examples of it. But in this, Jesse Clemens actually knocked it out of the park. For me, it's his best role to date. He's very good playing small character roles and popping up in things where you don't expect him. We don't often see him as a lead, but based on this, he deserves to get to the lead in far more uh films. I don't think it's a scandal that he's not nominated best actor in, albeit it is, like you said, earlier, a stacked category. I think Jesse Clemens manages to go from serious to funny, bereft to furious, and sometimes all in once he's an anti-hero who's onto something that he's unsure of himself. He can't quite follow through, but he wants to. Emma Stone, who is nominated. I think she's also fantastic. As, to be honest, she is in pretty much everything. I just I I really like how Lanthamos trips feeds the payoff here as well. We know all the way through that um Clemens is a bit of a ridiculous character, but does he have a point? And I'm just when you think that this film can't get any more ridiculous, he somehow manages to when you get towards the final act. JC is another smash hit from not only Jorgis Lanthamos, but in his collaboration with them is still on. For me, long may the partnership continue. A big hit. Watson.

SPEAKER_05 31:32

This is very typically a Jorgis Lanthamos film. He's got into a place maybe you know what you're gonna get with them. I don't mean that his films are predictable, they're almost like consistent in their unpredictability, is probably the best way to put it. He gets great performances from his cast in pretty much every film, that's been a standout point. Emma Stone, as she always is, is excellent here. Jesse Clemens equally as good, and a couple of the other supporting roles are memorable, I would say. It's a bizarre story based, um I don't think you said, on a South Korean film called Save the Green Planet from 2003, which I've not seen, but I think does diverge a little bit in terms of how the story goes. But I think ultimately where Lamphomos is taken this is he's got the basis of a and he does this in other films as well, he's got the basis of a like unconventional thriller, and he makes a film like that, but also makes quite sharp points about modern society. So this one is clearly a bit of a takedown off like capitalist society, that those like rumours that are the elite Slizard people, all that type of thing, but does it in a sharp and funny way that does actually keep you guessing, and I think the the violence that's peppered throughout this is it's brutal but it's also quite funny at the same time. It's a well-made film. I do think with this one though, I think he starts to lose a little bit of control of it as it gets towards the end, and I think there's definitely you can see there's a bit of conflict about how he wants to end the film, and I think I quite liked the way that it ends, and I know there's a kind of spoiler stuff here, so I'll be careful what I say. Almost like he was always gonna do that. I don't think it's as daring as um as he maybe thinks it was as a filmmaking choice. So I was like I definitely didn't like it as much as you, Mason, but I did think it was really good. Say Lantham's work, I've loved some of his stuff and I've hated some of his things. This is definitely closer to poor things, which for me is still his high point, but not quite as quite as good as that film was.

SPEAKER_06 33:24

Me and Lantham's don't really get on, which is quite weird because I quite I usually like the weird and solemn, but I just got an issue with pretty much every film that he's done throughout his back catalogue, and it's the same recurring thing which I think comes up time and time again that I just never can see past. And I think I think he he he suffers from an ability inability to write like an entirely coherent film that when you stand back from it actually knits together really tightly. Instead, I think here and even some of his better work, there's like a really good, solid, central premise. And you know, you you can see it's believable in today's conspiracy-ridden American world, albeit it does turn out to be ridiculous. But then it is too many other ideas thrown at it which just don't stick. And I think he does he does also struggle at times to know how to move it along. And Watson is a bit like you said, like he kinda knows where he wants to get to, but then doesn't quite know how to get there, and it it means that you end up with some pretty unsatisfactory parts of the plot, like the antifreeze bit here, it's like a device just to reveal a pretty key part of the story. To me, that was just like a shitty five minutes bit of rubbish. I just don't think over the piece we get a film which fleshes out a central point around conspiracy and surveillance well enough. The other issue I had is despite his crazy ideas, I found the ending really fucking predictable. I mean, me and Sarah were sitting there watching it and we like called it well before that it that that sort of played out like that, albeit incidentally she is sort of more in um you know your your two camps with liking this film and liking um his work. Um the the other thing uh I that I didn't like about it, I thought the score was an absolute pain in the arse. Like it it really, really I know it's it's a score almost to make certain bits of it a bit weird or an unsettling um you know or an unsettling event, but I just found it really fucking grated on me. Um but in saying that the performances are really excellent. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about Jesse Plumont's. He he typically plays like the bad he's always like the kind of like police guy or police sergeant that's like the bad guy that you're not supposed to like just because his face. Like he's not got a very likable face here, he played. He plays he plays like a totally different role here and he's he's really fucking good. And Emma Stone's just Emma Stone, like she's um excellent, albeit she needs a bit of practice at uh sort of acting to do a limp. Our limp was really poor. Um maybe that's just a small small critique.

SPEAKER_05 36:08

Yeah, I think I like that as a critique that if that's the worst thing you can say about something that someone's limp isn't realistic. She just forgets that she's doing it. I mean you talk about the score, we've not done the favourite yet, but by God that score is the most irritating fight I think I've ever heard in my life.

SPEAKER_07 36:25

Oh yeah, that's right. Is it a clicking otherwise or something?

SPEAKER_05 36:29

Yeah, the clicking, which I think is meant to replicate the feeling of someone having like gout or something like that, but it's it's it's it's quite painful to listen to even if it's by design. This does have a nomination for best original score, best adapted screenplay, Emma Stone for Best Actress and Best Picture. Jesse Plemens, you you mentioned that right at the outset. Mason not being nominated, he's very good here. Uh I don't think he's been nominated for an Oscar yet, but he can't be far away.

SPEAKER_07 36:56

Did he not get one for um The Power of the Dog?

SPEAKER_05 36:59

Oh yeah, he maybe was nominated for that. He didn't win though, I don't think.

SPEAKER_07 37:02

No, he's not won. He's not won.

SPEAKER_05 37:04

Oh, yeah, you're correct. Yeah. He's seems to be one of these guys that's just been in loads of like critical acclaimed stuff recently. I'm sure he's in like Colours of the Flower Moon and a few other things that have been nominated for Best Ficture recently. He's he's a really I feel bad.

SPEAKER_06 37:17

It's probably not the right way to say it. Not safe choice, but I reckon if you like got a pretty tight film, you're not getting a shite performance from him. He's he's always going to do a pretty stand-up job. I just think he's a better actor than getting someone in to do a stand-up job in a supporting character. He's you know, he's he's sort of lead material as he is here, or joint lead at least.

The Secret Agent

SPEAKER_05 37:38

Yes, uh so that is Bogonia then. So another nominee for Jorgis Lanthamos, although very much on the the outsider chances, 50 to 1 Skybet reckon for this one, so you can make a pretty penny if you think this one is going to win Best Picture. Next up, then, we are going to cover the first of two foreign language films that are nominated for Best Picture this year. Um and this one we're going to Brazil for the Secret Agent. This is the second year running that we've had a Brazilian film nominated for Best Picture. Last year we had I'm Still Here, which was nominated also set at the same time period in the 1970s during the military dictatorship that was in Brazil at the time. But this is a very different film from that one, even though it's set at the same time period and it is every bit as political as that film is. So this is directed by Kleber Mindonka Filio, and it stars Wagner Mora as Armando, who is a widowed university professor navigating the paranoia and violence of Brazil in 1977, right in the midst of the military dictatorship. It starts off with him returning to the coastal city of Recife during the carnival season with the aim of lying low and reconnecting with his young son, but he quickly becomes involved in a web of surveillance, suspicion, and political repression, some of it linked to the reasons why he's um he's having to hide in the first place, and some of it related to actions that are going on at the time, as he does move into a refuge for political dissidents and that's ran by a very memorable performance by Tanya Maria as an older lady who runs a hideout basically. This is quite an odd film in its approach. I actually think it's pretty similar to one battle after another in a way, not just because of the political elements that it's touching on and broadly looking at like left-wing political activist groups, I suppose. I think it's also that this, as well as the conventional thriller aspect, it also has a bit of a shaggy dog nature in how it approaches its story. This loves a bit of a diversion, so you've got your core story, but it's constantly going off in other directions. There's a running surreal theme about a severed leg that seems to take the life of its own, attacking people in increasingly bizarre ways. In some sense, you could say, why have you inserted that into a political thriller about a guy trying to stay in hiding? But it weirdly kind of works, and I think there's almost an element of it that it just plays into the broader mood of paranoia that people are feeling at the time and how that feeds through to those living in Brazil under authoritarian rule at the time. The thing that's really good about this film, from my perspective, is the sense of time and place, so not being in Brazil in the 1970s clearly, but um you get a real sense of place, the characters are memorable, even those that pop up in small roles, and like the music that you used as well feels like the type of music that you would have at the time. It just feels really immersive, and despite it being over two hours long, I don't think I was really bored throughout it. Um helped as well by Wagner Mora, who is who is excellent in the leading role. I think most people in the Western world will be familiar with him from the TV series Narcos, where he played Pablo Escobar, but he has also been in quite a lot of Brazilian films and some some American films as well, where he's also been really good. I'd be interested to know what you two think of it. I did think that as it went on, I was enjoying it, but it does uh it does maybe make a few too many diversions at some point. It's quite scatter shot in nature. It's definitely more about evoking a sense of mood than it is about necessarily having a really tight narrative that that drives right through. And then there's a couple of bits towards the end that I was kind of like, d do we really need that one being a bit of a diversion into the future, which incidentally I'm still here, also did and probably didn't need to do. However, it's another testament to the strength of Brazilian cinema right now. Obviously, we've started to see the Academy for all the criticism we can give them for nominating relative nonsense like Formula One or F1. Um they do seem to be willing to nominate more foreign language films, and whilst there was only two nominated in the end, there was two or three others that probably had a strong enough shout to be nominated too, which we'll maybe touch on when we cover our best international film and the bonus pod. But yeah, interested to know what you two thought of this, so I'll go to go to your first meeting.

SPEAKER_07 42:32

Yes, I only watched this two days ago, so this is the film that's most fresh in my mind of all the ones. Big fan. I think two and a half hours is this film's length, and that's a long time for a movie anyway. Even more so I would say for a subtitle film. But I could have happily stayed with these characters for longer, I think. Each character that I meet in this film could have had their own spin-off, I thought. Uh doesn't matter if you spend 30 seconds with them or half the film checking in on them. They're all so three-dimensional and well drawn that you feel like you know them, their motives, their background, and you want to spend more time with them. You mentioned one of those, which is the old lady that runs the the building that Armando Slash Marcello lives in. She's superb. She steals every scene that she's in. Then, as well as her, you've also got, you know, the two hitmen who are looking for Armando. They could easily have been drawn as just a classic henchmen. But then again, you get drawn into they get their own motives and backgrounds and histories. The chief of police and his two creepy sons, a little bit of comedy there. Every single character in this is is is interesting. I mean, even I don't want to labour the point, but there's a there's a young gunaway lad who who helps the old lady at the the refuge at the building. There's not really any need for him to be in this film. He doesn't drive the narrative forward, but him being down hearing one line from him about why he's left his home adds more colour to the story and helps build a picture. I think it's also a film, and I I alluded to this with Picony, but this film really does it. It does. Not spring feed the plot. It drops you in to the film with a scene at a petrol station that has again has no real bearing on the main plot, but it's tense, it's dramatic, it's funny. You're not told until about halfway through at least why he's on the run. And even then, you've still got to do a bit of work yourself, you've got to join the dots. Or again, about halfway through, I don't know where you know you just jump forward 50 years to the present day. It doesn't explain it, you've got to work it out yourself. I I thought the colours in this were brilliant soundtracks as you heard in that clip. The soundtracks are brilliant. I liked every short sleeve shirt that lagged the Morawares in this. I thought it was really, really good. Could have spent more time with it. Glad it's dominated, excellent. Thank you.

SPEAKER_06 44:42

Oh Christ, I'm on a Debbie Downer. I struggled with this one. Might might perhaps be my level of tiredness when I was trying to watch it during the course of last week. But I did have a few problems with it. My main thing was just w you've already touched on kind of both main points. One, I think the pacing's a little bit off. It felt to me like you took almost like an hour and a half to sort of set up the film. Unless you already had a bit of an intimate knowledge of Brazilian politics and events and that sort of era. And then the overall run time was I think just too long. There was too many irrelevant parts that were sort of spliced in. Stuff, I would rightly criticise something that's going to spoon feed the audience. Here it just felt I had a little bit more work to do to try and figure it out, and maybe in my tired state, and the fact that it was subtitles maybe made that a lot more difficult for me. I did also think it was a bit disjointed and messy. Again, you can argue it both ways, can't you? I think what you you know you were talking about that it's you know clearly a deliberate choice, but and you know, as thematically, I suppose you could argue that events in a corrupt uh military dictatorship don't work out in a clear and concise way, so therefore why try and put them in a clear and concise way in a film? But um it just struggled for me to to to come write it a bit of a struggle to follow it. I just think there's just too much that's been chucked in there. You know, f for instance the the little bit about that had like Udo Kier, I I was sitting trying to figure out why did he keep referencing the little germ the little bloke and then I don't think there was really any point to it. I did quite enjoy the severed leg to be fair. And there was a there was a reason that was chucked in and that is um a myth or or a popular kind of urban myth or not urban myth, but sort of story from the area in Brazil or region in Brazil that the film um is set in. So yeah, I was a bit lukewarm on this, really struggled with it. But yeah.

SPEAKER_07 46:51

I do think it helps watching it in a cinema when with no distractions. Because it seems a long film that you've got to read. So if you're tired, you've got two kids, you're a whole lot of the brother.

SPEAKER_06 47:00

Yeah, that's fair. Well, I was just trying to stay awake.

Sentimental Value

SPEAKER_05 47:05

Yeah. Cool. So so this has got every film so far has had four nominations. Um and every film so far is probably not likely to win win very many. Best picture, Fagramora has a best actor nomination, best international feature film, and uh interestingly, it is a best casting nominee, so that is a new category this year. We'll talk about that more in the bonus episode. But The Secret Agent is one of the best picture films that is also nominated for best casting. We are now going to sentimental value.

SPEAKER_10 47:36

Why didn't you want to do the wrong? He wanted you to do it. I can't work with him. We can't really talk. My father is uh very difficult person.

SPEAKER_07 47:57

So, following on from a Brazilian film, here we have a Norwegian film, this time from director Joachim Trier, who we've actually seen at the Oscars before in a screenplay capacity for his film The Worst Person in the World, which did also have Renata Reinseve as the lead, as does this. This film follows sisters Agnes and Nora, who are packing up the belongings of their family home after their estranged father and film director Gustav, played by Stonis Garsgard, decides to sell it following the death of the girl's mother, his ex-wife. This film is a study of the relationship between Gustav and his daughters. It's about his passion project new movie, which he he wants to film in the family home, which is clearly a lived experience for him. Plus, you've also got the introduction of the film's American Star, played by El Fanning, who is playing the role initially offered to Nora. So there's four performances in this film that are nominated here, and I think it's fully deserved. I think this is a film that's completely carried by its acting performances. There's no hiding here, uh, particularly when you've got actors playing actors, you know, they better be good. I I particularly like to hear the the slow breaking down of the walls between the two daughters and their father. You see, you get to see the film within the film come together as the film progresses. I did really feel the emotions of the two daughters as the father becomes a presence again in their lives. That does connect to what for me was a small criticism because I did love this film. This is a slight spoiler, but uh I didn't fully buy the reconciliation ending. The ending happens when they're watching the hospitalized dad flirt with the nurse in hospital, and they're like they're rolling their eyes to each other and be like, oh god, what's he like, eh? When, you know, for the rest of the film, they've resented him just for that, for being a philanderer for leaving their mother. And suddenly he chats to a nurse and they're like, Oh, daddy. Started to lose it a little bit then, but um, by that point I was already fully on board with it, so I will forgive it that. Um I thought this was it's an intelligent, well-written, well-acted, thoughtful film. And much like the worst person in the world, which was all of those things as well. I think Jocky Mcria knows what he's doing, and this is a uh top-notch film. Bingham, how'd you feel with this foreign film?

SPEAKER_06 50:16

No, I quite like this one actually. Pretty much agreed with virtually everything you've said, including the critique uh or or the the main criticism of it. I I just didn't I I don't think the way that um the sort of the the way it ties it up at the end, I'm trying not to give away too much spoil. I just don't think the the way the characters are portrayed uh and the father that that that is the most likely way. It's a bit too much like putting a bow on a present, uh is maybe the best way of putting it. I thought the act the acting is is superb in this, particularly Skarsgar, I mean what you would what you would expect, but there was one particular scene that I thought demonstrated that where um Elf Annan is reading out the you're sort of reading the dialogue for one of the scenes out in front of him, and the camera just sort of pansed his face and without really doing all that much you can tell exactly what he's thinking, that he's just sitting there thinking this is not doing it for me, it should really be my daughter that's um playing this role. Um and incidentally I liked how the film then later flipped to that point later on where his daughter is reading that dialogue, incidentally not to not to him but to uh to her sister, um, and while she's kind of just reading it sort of throwaway, you can feel it suits her a lot better than what it did suit Elf Annon. I just thought it was you know a super bit of acting. Um also did quite like the direction, it's quite naturalistic, um, it lets the film breathe. I suppose my other slight preference rather than criticism would be that I don't think this film is as good as the worst person in the world, which I absolutely loved, and I think it probably just lacks that bit of directional flair that that film has, but then it's a bit of a different film. Um the there is one piece which is maybe a little bit of a artistic nod, which it was I think there's a trope that's in like vertigo or something where they had the the face of the like the film sort of broke away and then there was just like a face that transformed between the father and like the father and his two daughters, and you know, to to to sort of make the point that they're all quite similar and and connected in an emotionally deep way, but I I was a bit on the nose personally, I don't think the film needed it. Um but yeah, of the piece I I I really enjoy. It's a really, really good film.

SPEAKER_05 52:37

Um what do you For some reason I don't think I enjoyed this as much as I thought I would enjoy it, and certainly not as much as you two did. It is a very well-made film. I think there's a lot to admire about it. The acting in particular is really strong from all of the main cast members, and what I did like is uh a lot of what matters in the films and the subtext. Uh I think Josh Montreer's script is intelligent enough not to feel the need to spell everything out. Like we can we can read into what he's getting at with a lot of things, particularly the I guess the dynamic between L. Fanning's character and Renati Rensfi's character and in respective cast in the film. I think it does hinge on Stellan Skarsgar's performance, and I'm I mean this is another category fraud thing. He is favourite for best support and actor, but for me this is the best actor performance in the film. I think everything hangs off him, even though he he maybe isn't in the film as much as some of the other best actor nominees. It's interesting, just shows what he's like as a person, even when he's trying to be better and get on more with his like grandson, for example, he's still like bringing them gifts off like random films that are completely inappropriate on uh VHS or DVD or something like that. It's just quite interesting how that stuff's played through. I do think the ending is a little bit neat considering how the felt the film had gone before, felt it would have warranted from a messier ending, but this is a film that is obviously one of those more mature films that's well made, more of an adult drama with proper adult themes, I guess. And it's a good film, I just didn't love it as much as I thought I might have done. Quite a lot of nominations. It is the first of the films that we've talked about today that also has the best director nomination, best picture as well. Then it has um nominations for four of the acting awards, so Renata Rensvey for Best Actress, Stella Skarsgard for Best Supporting Actor, Elfanning and Inga Ibes daughter, Lilias for Best Supporting Actress.

SPEAKER_07 54:30

You've done well there because I did not bother with her name.

Frankenstein

SPEAKER_05 54:33

Yeah, that's not the easiest one to say. Um Best Original Screenplay, Best International Feature Film and Best Film Editing. Oh, an interesting one for me here is we just talked about best casting there, but how can you nominate the four main cast members for acting awards but not give the film a best casting nomination? That's a good point, yeah. That seems a bit odd odd to me. I know the cast is wider than those four, but that is one that definitely stood out. It's got a couple that it might win. Um Best Support and Actor for Stell Skarsgrode. He seems to be the favourite now ahead of the one battle after another duo, and it's got a good chance of winning Best International Feature film, but the others are probably less likely. So that is sentimental value then. Okay, next up we are going to Frankenstein.

SPEAKER_09 55:15

Some of what I will tell you is fact. Some is not but it is all true.

SPEAKER_05 55:28

What manner of creature is that what manner of devil is This is Guillermo del Toro's adaptation of Frankenstein, the Mary Shelley novel that I'm pretty sure everybody listening here is familiar with and has seen previous adaptations or or takes on it. Over the years there's been countless attempts to retell this story. Del Toro seems a perfect fit for this because he has particularly recently made his name directing like gothic romance, so gothic horror type films, and this is very much in that spirit. So it seems a perfect match between director and material in this respect. It's also at a time when I would say Del Toro's became a bit of a an academy favourite after the Shape of Water winning about seven, eight years ago now. He's been nominated a couple of times since, and this nomination for Frankenstein is one that I think falls into it's because it's him that's made it rather than because this is genuinely a deserving film that's worthy of a best picture nomination. This take on the story does flip things around a little bit. It broadly splits the story into two halves, one from the perspective of Victor Frankenstein, and one from the perspective of his creature. Victor Frankenstein played by Oscar Isaac, and the creature played by Jacob Alordi. You also have Mia Goth playing out of Love Interest and Christophe Waltz with a main role in it as well. The main things I can say in terms of positive about Frankenstein is it's uh visually gorgeous to look at, it's like very well created. Gillimard del Toro shot quite a lot of it in Scotland, or he used inspiration from different medieval castles and buildings in Scotland, and you can see that coming through. The performances, particularly from J Balordi, are very good. He brings a bit more humanity to the creature and it makes him someone that you you can almost feel sorry for, relate to a little bit. His performance is very good, and Oscar Isaac is is fine, I would say. It's got a good tone, good mood, and builds a bit of atmosphere, and as I said, Del Toro's became a bit of a master at those gothic gothic overtones that definitely is prevalent throughout this this movie. Overall, though, I've like I've I feel it's like it's a good movie, it's just not a great movie, and to me, for best picture, you should be striving for something more than good. I think it's probably a little bit too long. We could say that about a few of the films that we've talked about today. A little bit heavy on some of the exposition, and I think some of the emotional elements don't always work, particularly when it tries to draw together parallels between Isaac's character and Jacob Lordy's creature. So for me, this is a atmospheric, well-crafted, good film, not quite best picture caliber. And yeah, I think Del Toro's popularity with the Academy is a large reason why it's been nominated, as opposed to this being a genuinely great film in its own right. Let's see what you folks thought of it then, so I'll go to Bigham first.

SPEAKER_06 58:36

Yeah, nah, I mean I I've actually watched this twice, not because I've seen it a while back, but because the first time I tried to watch it I fell asleep because of the runtime's that long. Um and then I watched the full thing again, but actually stayed fully awake. And was it worth the effort? Not really. Your overall sentiment about it being Del Toro and being a bit of a favourite, I think it absolutely stacks up. I think he's fallen into this like kind of wee trap nowadays where all his films are his unmistakable style, they're all really well done, yadda yadda yadda. But I feel like he puts all his efforts into the spectacle rather than the film as a whole, so he makes a Del Toro film rather than a Frankenstein film here. And I also think that you know that can be seen that the film is a it's a bit black and white, whereas the book is a lot more nuanced. You know, the book is much more of a horror, like Frankenstein's a fucking monster. Whereas here he they've made the choice to sort of foresee him as a sort of misunderstood creature, and that I think is where the film sort of diverts off piece. We it it becomes a bit of a melodrama when really I want it to be a proper horror, which incidentally I think Del Toro would be pretty good at because the set pieces look great, and yeah, it's just took bloody long, it runs on for absolutely ages. That I I did quite like when it flips to see it from the monsters perspective, but it did not say anything there that I I you know I I when it when it did that I initially thought, oh that's quite a cool um way of doing this, and then I started or continued to watch it and I thought, oh crap, they've made an absolute heart of this. The other thing that I would say is that Christoph Waltz, like ever since he played Hans Lander in Ingorious Bastards, he has been stuck in a fucking doom loop of playing every character the same way. Like he just every time I see him in a film, he's it's the same. And it really starts to irritate me. So yeah, I wasn't hot on this one, really. And and yeah, like you say, that the reason this is in here is because of Del Toro and the Academy loves him. Mason.

SPEAKER_07 1:00:42

Uh this is rubbish. Um this is rubbish. Firstly, like you say, Frankenstein in the book is a bad he's like a murderous, awful creature that kills people at will and for no reason. And in this they make him some sort of misunderstood, lovable I I just I don't like how they've portrayed him in this. It's too it's they completely flipped him, but not for the better, if you ask me. Also, the film is completely I know there's a bit of it's just in Edinburgh, but pretty much entirely CGI. And yeah, I know that Del Toro loves gothical and magical and creatures and romance, but this felt to me like someone who spent$150 million on a game or Del Toro parody. I thought the acting here was ridiculous. And I know it's a Frankenstein film, but there's no subtlety whatsoever in any performance. Jacob Lord is a best support and actor. What for lumbering about and then varying between shouting and whispering? No. I know that plot point, there's a few plot points I've made, but uh in the interest of brevity, one point out is maybe this is the book I did off, but the setup for this film is that Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein, the creator, is rescued by Danish sailors in a, I think, in the Arctic. And then the monster, Frank the Frankenstein's monster, then rampages through, he's chasing Victor, he murders about seven or eight of the captain's men horrifically. And then old Frankenstein's like, uh, yeah, sorry about that. I'll just chill out here while I tell you my life story. Why on earth would these Danish lads who just had seven of the motes killed be asked about what this guy's story is? And then if that's not mental enough, halfway through the film, Monster breaks back onto the ship again and he's like, Oh well, we're telling life stories, aren't we? Well, sit back now, because I'm gonna tell you mine. You just murdered about eight people here, mate. You're not welcome. It's a stupid story, not very well put together. Sorry, Del Toro. You've made this film before in Crimson Peak. We've already seen it. Not for me, this. Sorry.

Marty Supreme

SPEAKER_05 1:02:39

I do wish he would go back to making some of these Spanish language films. I still don't think he's better, Pan's Labyrinth. Um and obviously was gonna adapt and not continue making like films like that anymore, but he does seem to be stuck in I'll use your phrase about Waltz and Doomloop, where he's just making gothic horror romances and just changing the setting very slightly. And having a look at the odds, it looks like it might win some of those technical categories, but very little chance in any of the others. That leaves four films then. So the four films that we have left are the four that have probably got a chance, some of them an outside chance, of winning Best Picture on the Day. And we're gonna kick off that sequence with Marty Supreme.

SPEAKER_11 1:03:41

I have a purpose.

SPEAKER_09 1:03:42

Okay.

SPEAKER_11 1:03:44

Let me ask you something. Do you make money at this little table tennis thing?

SPEAKER_09 1:03:48

Not yet. Do you have a job? No.

SPEAKER_11 1:03:54

Becky! Becky! How do you live?

SPEAKER_09 1:03:59

Well, I live with the confidence if I believe in myself, the money will follow.

SPEAKER_11 1:04:03

And what do you plan to do if this whole dream of yours doesn't work out? It doesn't even enter my consciousness. Maybe it should.

SPEAKER_06 1:04:12

So look, I'm a bit of a self-confessed Safety Bros fanboy. I haven't followed their work for like the last 10 or 15 years. I've long said that I think they'd be destined for the big league, and they pretty much reached that point. You know, a good few films ago, particularly with the success of Uncut Gems, which incidentally I uh I don't actually think is the best work. However, interestingly, with arrival and the big league, they seemed to have split um and announced that split last year or the year before, where Benny went um, you know, seemed to be a bit more focused on acting. Um he took roles in that Happy Gilmore 2 guff, and then he did direct the Smashing Machine, which I think by and large was pretty disappointing, whereas Josh here is more focused on directing and I'm pretty pleased to see that his sort of signature style is now getting the plaudits it deserves with the nomination for Marty Supreme. But what is it about? So look at Chronicles, the rise, fall, and sort of improbable reinventions of Marty Riseman, who is a character based on a table tennis hustler from the sort of 1930s to 50s, um, which he sort of turned a basement pastime into sort of philosophy. At the centre of it, Marty Riseman's played by um Timothy Charlemagne with all that kind of wiry charm that he brings. Um the film's set in mid-century New York and follows Marty from being a sort of scrappy teenage hustler to national champion, navigating these kind of smoky pool holes. You know, it does sound like a sports movie, but really it's not. It's more of a character, it's a study about a nobody who wants to be somebody. Um and will try and charm well, I say charm, mostly manipulate and piss off a bunch of people to get what he wants, which really when you boil it down is simply uh I want to win. with a film which takes some really fucking random turns, which is typical safety style. What did I think about it? I I think this is like a film of two halves. But perhaps selfishly, I actually really didn't like the first little chunk of it. And that's all down to the central character being I an absolute prick um with very limited redeemable features. Felt his like unlikable hustler in it for himself, nature was laid on a little bit thick for me. You know like I fucking get the point. I don't need slapped in the face with it every two minutes with e every single interaction the interaction that he has that he is not a likable guy. However I think when the film kind of moves a little bit more you get introduced to different characters and the narrative starts to motor on I actually really started to enjoy it. Of course I'm going to mention the direction I just think like Josh Safty he's so good at these like gritty New York backdrops. The way it's shot looks beautiful and it really captures that sort of almost like CD time. He's so good at also building anxiety and and tension in quite random events. There's some really random plot lines here which I I I suspect someone might throw a a criticism at but it's something that all the Safety Bro films tend to have in it and I think some of the there's there's some really memorable scenes which come off of those. There's a bathtub scene here which I think is particularly well done as well as one of the twists which are in the film which I'll admit caught me by total surprise. Other kind of great things I've kind of touched on it already but they do a lot of good world building it feels really immersive. There's that big blairing eighties style soundtrack. I mean the 80s was the best dick music but I thought that was quite a bold choice because it's not actually set in the 80s but I perhaps just because I I I like that kind of electronica sound I think it works really really well. I think there's some super dialogue in the film it's it's really fucking sharp with loads of quotable lines and I think those work with well with some of the top scenes that I've already referenced. And I think the final point I would do before rattling on for any longer is that Charlemagne, you know he's every bit worth his nomination and and being the bookie's favourite for best actor I think he does a a cracking job of embodying what is really quite a difficult character but doing it in a captivating way without harming it up he is intense but shows quite a lot of restraint and I was interested to learn that he did learn to play table tennis over the last six or seven years in preparation for filming this. Also really enjoyed some of the other performances Kevin O'Leary was really good you know that's a guy that's not even a fucking actor albeit he is playing basically a version of his businessman self. Odessa is on um I thought she was excellent and I don't think it's the last we'll see for I think she's she's going to be part of that next crop of Hollywood talent based on this. So yeah in in in summary I kind of film with three quarters and a quarter I didn't like but over the piece I think I really really did enjoy it.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:09

What yeah yeah I enjoyed this film as well like you like most of the Safety brothers work I really liked Uncut James. I know you weren't quite as hot on that one. This I thought the trailers made this look quite annoying to be honest but I think once you see the film you warm up to it and I mean Sh Chalamy is is absolutely superb in this we we know he's a good actor anyway but he's he's just perfectly cast in this role. He's charismatic and exhausting in equal measure but he just dominates the screen and it is a a really fantastic performance and if he does as is likely win his first best actor award then it's hard to say that he doesn't deserve it. You've touched on a lot of the things that he that I liked as well about it so I won't go through it already but one thing I would just pick up on is I really liked how interesting the casting was so you've obviously got Chalamet at the centre of the picture but there's things that they do both with casting say the likes of Gwyneth Palatra who's not really been in much of note recently in a really good role where she gives a good performance as well some more random people being cast so her husband's played by Evan O'Leary who as far as I'm aware isn't really an actor he's more of a Canadian trump I guess he fits that role really well. It's almost just thinking outside the box and I think it does add to it quite a bit rather than just having a a series of um conventionally cast actors as we've got in most of the films production design's really good the score is great even though it's as you say it's like 80s music where the film's set earlier for the 50s basically similar to a couple other films we've talked about this year I think the ending is a bit of a cop out. However I think I'm not going to criticise a film for the last five minutes when the first two hours is is really entertaining. Just a really enjoyable film.

SPEAKER_07 1:10:46

Yeah I think this is another build to me it's all about Timothy Chalamet. It's a second year running that he's completely carried a fantastic drama of his own. I think last year he was pipped frankly in fairness but he was pipped by Adrian Brodie albeit I thought his Bob Dylan was brilliant. Basically it looks like it's between him and DiCaprio and I would be all for Chalamet when I I think in this he's frantic, he's panicked, he's tenacious, he's cocky, but yet he's still all the more captivating for it. And I think to make someone who is as unlikable as Marty genuinely brutable if that if that's the word he's all down to having the charisma that Timothy Chalamet has and he's even brought it through to his promotion of this that's he's quite annoying the promotion of this film with his jackets and his how he's dressed, how he's spoken on chat shows, but it's made makes people watch the film that's all he's interested in. So fair play. Yeah I agree on the casting very well done. I don't know if this is known as the best casting but this is actually you know is it harder to cast non-actors? I guess it is so uh this movie deserves a note for that. Direction I think it's clear that it's a Sassy movie in that it's sharp, it's tense and it's intense but it's not quite as cranked up as much as unfortunately I'm saying it's better for it I think in terms of a more marketable film that's uh got a wider audience. So yeah I was a big fan of Marty's superim be happy to see it.

SPEAKER_06 1:12:07

Would I be happy to see it when yeah I would I would I I think it's also the last time that anyone's gonna see Charme spanked in the arse with the table tennis I was like what the fuck but that's kind of Safety bros for you innit er or Josh Safety anyway. The other interesting well this interesting point about it is in something of the Safety bros and you know his presence here they always work with the same writer Ronald President I can't remember his name of the one there. Bernstein maybe it may be Robert Bernstein actually and actually one of the only ones he's not worked on alongside one of them is the smashing machine which I think why I'm sure we've spoken about or at least I might have read the blog that I don't I don't think you were that hot on that one.

SPEAKER_05 1:12:56

Nah it's um Ronald Bronstein's the guy you're talking about. Yes I mean I guess the smashing machine dramatically inert is probably the best way to put it it's just not got a good enough story and I mean to be honest like the rock is is actually quite good in it. But it's not anything particularly special and there's a reason that it's not been more critically acclaimed or given awards so this has nine nominations and it is nominated for Best Casting as you said Mason so might have a chance of winning that one Best Picture, Best Director, Chalamet for Best Actor, original screenplay, cinematography, film editing, production design and costume design so it's quite a lot of nominations there but from a quick check of the odds doesn't look like it's likely to win much else other than Best Actor Best Edit and probably its next best shot. So we'll see how it does on the night. Okay we're into our final three now then and we're gonna kick off with Hamlet.

Hamnet

SPEAKER_08 1:13:50

What do you wish to do Hamlet?

SPEAKER_10 1:13:53

I should be one of the players with the sword sword yes I shall clash it against the sword of the other player.

SPEAKER_05 1:14:13

You will win I shall of course of course you shall okay I think it's safe to say that for anyone that's been following us along in the last 40 episodes or so that period dramas are not our favourite genre collectively. We've had the odd one in there that we've we've liked or that some of us have liked but by and large it's usually an excuse to just take the piss out of usually a comedy death or like cheesy dialogue, over life theatrical performances, so on so forth Hamnet then, on the face of it should exactly fit into that bill it's based on Shakespeare for Christ's sake so it's got all the theatrical stuff down there. I must say that as much as it was critically acclaimed and you go in open-minded or as much as you can be open-minded I wasn't necessarily expecting to love this film I will say I was quite surprised by actually how much it worked on me. I guess going back to the start then this is uh I guess a historical drama from Chloe Jou that is not about Shakespeare the legend or even the man really it's more about his wife Agnes who's played by Jesse Buckley and a performance that has been sweeping all of the precursor awards and how her and to a lesser extent William played by Paul Mezcal cope with the death of their young son Hamnet who you hear their Hamnet not Hamlet. It's adapted from a novel by Maggie O'Farrell and it's split broadly into two parts I would say the first part of the film is very much about showing their early life together as the Shakespeare family grows and William's career takes him to London where he moves whilst Agnes stays in Stratford upon Avon and then the second half is after the death of Hamnet and how that affects the relationship going forward. I will say the first part is very typically period drama well-made period drama it must be said. It's a lot about the tension between William's career and Agnes and the family life and how they they make that work. It's helped by the performances particularly from Jesse Buckley who is very very good. Paul Mescal I think is fine in this but he's very much outperformed by Jesse Buckley couple of good performances in the supporting roles and the likes of Emily Watson as well. That first part is is fine it's well made well acted but it's in the second part of the film where this really comes into its own and that is where it really drills into a study of grief essentially primarily through Agnes but also through William as well you see how it drives them apart William becomes more distant he spends more time in London Agnes is to a large extent left alone trying to be there for her other children struggling to get past the the loss of Hamnet and the effect that that has on them. And then that leads to the ending. Now it's hard not to talk about this film without talking about the ending because the ending is so utterly pivotable to your views on this film and it's probably where it took me from thinking this is quite a well made period drama to this is actually something quite special potentially. And it's been criticised and praised in maybe not quite equal measure I think it's definitely more praised but it hazard some criticism. I'm not going to play the spoiler horn if you're listening to this I suspect you've probably seen it already but if you don't want to know spoilers for it I suggest you press the button and skip ahead to the the latter part of this or the next film. Basically what it shows is a performance at the Globe so Shakespeare's Globe in London where Agnes arrives with her brother and sees a performance of Hamlet where essentially I think her and William without speaking to each other start to understand how each is processing grief in a different way and how that's manifested her more openly he through his art the sequence is absolutely phenomenal it's got a recreation of some of the famous scenes from Hamlet and Noah Jup who you'll see in quite a few other things he plays Hamlet on stage but it's his younger brother who play Jacoby Jup who plays Hamnet so there's a resemblance there as well which I think works quite well for the film. It's an emotional recreation of Hamlet and the music some of it taken from that Max Richter bit of music which you'll maybe be familiar with from Arrival and used in other things soars and makes it beautiful and then it's all underpinned by Jesse Buckley's like moving performance there where she just nails it essentially in some quarters it's been talked about as being quite manipulative and to be honest yeah it is manipulative. It's meant to make you cry it's meant to make you feel something and it absolutely works in doing that. But for me I didn't really find it emotionally manipulative I thought that was the point and I came out of this thinking if if not the whole film been really special that ending was really special and yeah I I was pretty taken by this it definitely surprised me quite a lot. So I'll be interested to know what you guys think of it. Mason you tend to be a bit warmer on period dramas than I would say Bingham or myself are how did you find Hammett?

SPEAKER_07 1:19:07

I'm not really on board with calling this a period drama. Period dramas to me are like Pride and Prejudice and Bothering Heights and it's all uh corsets and women in young women in a big house and the dance evil. For us this is just a snapshot of a couple a couple more character study. But you know it's I suppose it's set in the 1500s so it is what it is. But this film is all about the forced performance from Jesse Buckley. Up to the final act I was thinking this is clearly one of those films where the performance is better than the film itself but when you get to the bit you mentioned in the globe the film completely catches up with her. It's are you I would say arguably the most definitely in fact the most moving sequence of the year. Arguably one of the most moving sequences we've seen in a long time. Even if you don't like the film up to that I think you're gonna be it's gonna drag you in, make you feel something like you said. It's really the standout sequence from this year I think. Couple of other things Paul Mescal I mean he he he is kind of overshadowed massively by Jesse Buckley who is the big performer here. However I always think with Paul Mescal you can just tell that he's acting he's it's like look at me doing lots of acting and I said that I think about a couple of people on this podcast before but particularly in this Paul Mescal is look at me acting I think he's trying to get an opportunity nomination and I'm not too disappointed that he didn't realist. And then the final thing you mentioned the brothers Jackaby and Noah Jupe playing Hameless in Ham Knit well that's not the only thing they've got in column with this podcast because I think you need to play the uh play the song yes for new viewers that is the theme tune for Corinne Street and we are hearing that because Noah and Jackie B Dupe's mother is Julie Carp from Combination Street love interest of Kirk friend to Eileen Grimshaw in the show for 10 years only died this last summer RIP and now she's got a bloody two kids in an Oscar nominated film so fair play Julie that technically that that's not a direct Cody Link. If you've got two two actors whose mum is in Cory that's a link um but yeah I don't think anyone else who's been in Cory in fairness but it was worth a shout out.

SPEAKER_06 1:21:38

Um God are you as uh taken in by Hamlet er I'm probably more in the camp that I was a bit lukewarm on it up to the final sequence and it has it has done so so well and kind of almost not overshadowed but uh it's completely it's swayed me in the other way to to to like the film a little bit more than what I did previously. I there's a lot of the points that you've already brought up that I agree with. I have a couple of them I'd just pick out I I agree with your point on Mezcal I'd written something down in it during that I can't shake this like feeling of a bit a little bit of like amateur dramatics at times like a bunch of actors who've stuck on I was going to call them period costumes but they're not they're quite weird costumes with a slightly modern uh slightly sort of modern touch which has clearly been a choice but um I couldn't shake that feeling at points and I think it probably is because Mez Cow just is acting it's obviously acting whereas Jet Jesse Buckley's like fucking incredible you know another one that I'm pretty certain we've referenced several times before and was uh it's always been in the up and I'm really glad that she's now getting to shine in sort of lean um a lean role. One of my other negatives that I'm just trying to think like I I it's probably already been referenced but I think Chloe's how she knows how she wants to end the film and she she's got that sequence in her mind. She just tries her best way to tee it up and she really does dial up the melodrama to the max. I think that kind of gone a goat a little bit that there's like just one intensely painful scene after another I mean I'm going to say some spoilers here but it's not that obvious but I mean we can't just have like one deed kid we'll have another one who for a wee while it looks like she might kick it, fuck it, we'll kill the bird. You know, we'll have Shakespeare pissing off the London and that really you know not not sitting well. What we aren't really doing subtle here to be honest and I I feel that's just trying to do everything it can to build up the emotion before the final sequence and you kind of get to see the the two characters dealing with grief and and understanding each other's position um through the the play which is is really well done to be fair. There was another criticism that I had the the portrayal William Shakespeare was he a tortured genius? I think there's enough about we know enough about Shakespeare that he's kind of portrayed as like quite a witty guy in in sort of real life or at least from from what I'd understood whereas they've they've kind of changed him here to this sort of tortured genius that kind of loses his words in front of people I thought it was a bit bit of an odd choice but I'm not standing up for Shakespeare 'cause the guy's a wank and his books are shite. I'd well ruined my sk ruined my uh ruined some of my years in school but anyway.

SPEAKER_05 1:24:28

You're right that I mean in terms of that portrayal maybe not so much what he was like as a person because who knows. The novel in this film takes a lot of liberties with what actually happened. So like Hamlet was made like a long time after the death of Hamnet and he made other plays in the interim period so the way it's played out here is very much like Hamlet's died and then he's put all that effort into Hamlet which is not entirely the case although you can see the the way some of that maybe seeps into his writing as the film shows. It's got eight nominations Best Picture, Best Director, Jesse Buckley for Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Casting, Best Original Score, Best Production Design and Best Costume Design Jesse Buckley by in a way very likely to win Best Actress. Not sure where else it's gonna win stuff unless it pulls a bit of a surprise but I guess we'll find out. Now we are on to the two films that I've been tussling out all awards season and and we're gonna kick off with currently the the slight underdog with Sinners.

Sinners

SPEAKER_00 1:25:32

We just gotta hold up till sunrise okay now we need garlic wood silver and holy water.

SPEAKER_07 1:25:54

So I mentioned earlier that Begonia was the fourth collaboration between Jorgas Lantham and Emma Stone. Well Sinners trumps that because this is the fifth collaboration between director Ryan Kugler and actor and producer Michael B. Jordan who are also nominated here for Best Director and Best Actor now this film you may know broke a record when the nominations were announced. It became the most nominated film of all time it has 16 nominations this year. It's also received I would say universal praise pretty much it's sitting on 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. So you know people like it. So what's it all about? Well I guess it's a bit like Frankenstein in that it's a gothic fantastical horror. It follows twin brothers Smoke and Stack, both played by Michael B. Jordan who'd been working for the mob in 1930 Chicago and returned to the Mississippi Delta to start up a Duke joint which I'd say is sort of a bar cum nightclub cum casino for the local black community. The first act of this film focuses on the recruitment for the bar with you get a pastor's son who plays guitar, you have a boss to play piano a farmhand who becomes a kind of bouncer and then you get Smoke's Estrange Wife as the cook. And now two of those people, two of those characters I mentioned have got nominations here. The farm hand is Delroy Lindo, nominated for Best Support actor and the Estrange Wife is Bon Miyasako who won the Batter last night. This serves as a way to get the cast all together in one place. Because until now despite this bit of gothic horror we haven't seen much horror. That horror comes in the form of Jacko Collins Remick and his crew of seemingly Irish gypsy uh vampires who attempt to coerce and trick their way into the bar because such is the lore a vampire must be invited in. The film then becomes a face off between Smoking Stack and Remick in a battle to the end. And also a white Lather from So I'm not fully familiar with the black blues culture of the Mississippi South. So again, as an argument that this film isn't made for me, I I just thought it was fine. I don't really get all the accolades that it's getting. You know, don't get me wrong, it's entertaining, the music is excellent in it, the performances are good, but I just thought it was just is it more than just a bit of fun? I don't know. I mean maybe I need to see it again, but I I'm just not really leaving the hike with this. I enjoyed it. Should it have 16 nominations? Is it worthy of being the greatest nominated film of all time? Not for me. But maybe I'm in the wrong.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:44

Yeah, I I I did really like this. I I I do share some of your thoughts. I'm not quite getting why it's absolutely blown everything away and it's now sitting with 16 nominations, which is is quite incredible to be fair. When you look at previous films that have carried that number of nominations, they are films that have like absolutely swept the board and have got a lot of cultural cachet. So in recent times you're talking stuff like Titanic and like Return of the King. Um I'm not really seeing that with Sinners. That said, I do think this is just a really well-made, thoroughly entertaining film. And if you look at it in that level, it's it's really enjoyable. I I didn't enjoy it a lot. I think it's well set up. I think Michael B. Jordan plays the dual role well. I I think you can kind of split it into different parts. You've got the bit before the vampires, the bit after, all the different genres mashed up that's put in or done well. It's got good music, it's good fun, like some of the themes it explores are quite interesting. And yeah, I I think it's just a very, very well made, enjoyable film. Where I do take issue with it though is it is not as original as it's been made out. It's literally the same premise as from Dust Till Dawn, and that they don't know what's happening, and then suddenly vampires are there. Obviously it's got its own spin on it and stuff, but this idea that this is some sort of original movie that's never been done before is not quite like the truth as far as I'm concerned. But yeah, I do I do think it's a it's a really entertaining film. It's one of the best ones of the year. It's not a winner for me though.

SPEAKER_06 1:30:12

Yeah, I pretty much agree. I w I went to cinema to see this. Actually, it was the only one that I watched in its rightful place. And I remember thinking like, mm, wonder if this yeah, uh w when I got to later on in the year, I was like, I wonder if that'll get like a best picture nomination. I certainly didn't expect it that it would uh get as many nominations as it has, and I I don't think it deserves as many as certainly. I agree with a lot of what you said. Like I think world is a better place that we've now we're now getting proper blockbusters like this. You know, you can let yourself go along for the ride. It's it's a lot more nuanced than original and I guess original and inverted commas given what you've said, what are you, but versus your you know, this Marvel shite that just gets turned out every year. But I I do think it is flawed in some respects, and that there's just the the cram hell of a lot into it, which I think leaves it a little bit muddled. The other thing, and I I did watch this again close to the time this pod, because it was out quite early in the year, um, and the thing that again struck me and I remember thinking the same in the cinema, is it takes ages to actually set up the premise. You know, you're talking I think it's like a good a good solid hour of the film for them just to get to that juke joint, and all they're really doing is getting the gang back together, and there isn't really any kind of sharp or interesting dialogue or scenes prior to that that that sort of make that hour worthwhile. I do get that you kind of want to build the world, you know, set that up properly for an audience, but I think it just sort of labelled on that a bit too long for my liking. And then like I say, I I think it does flirt with just a bit too much. I mean you've got a hell of a lot of different points in it which never fully come together. Um, and the final sort of critique I would have is that it's another one of these films that I'm I'm not sure that this actually knows how to finish it. Like, I feel like the we we've seen about three different endings, so we had to conclude the vampire stuff, and then it's like, oh well, you know, Michael B. Jordan, you know, he's a producer, helped fund it lately, you know, and he is the you know the the big guy. Um he's gotta have his big scene. And then like, oh well, we we need to know what happened with Sammy surely, so let's give him a scene as well. I'm like, Christ almighty man, just just finish the film and like, you know, get everyone on their way and you know, talking about outside the cinema. But I think you know, those are maybe I think those are fair criticisms, albeit I would say by and large I did enjoy it, and um I'm glad it's got a best picture nomination. I just don't think it deserves as many nominations for all the other things as as it's got.

SPEAKER_05 1:32:49

Yeah, I think that's fair. I mean you mentioned it's got sixteen nominations, I mean it'd be quicker to say which ones it's not nominated for, but three of those are acting ones for Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, Win Me Saku, Director Picture, Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Casting, Cinematography, Editing, Production Design, Costume Design, Makeup and Hairstyle and Sound, Visual Effects, Original Score, and Original Song for I Lied to You by Raphael Sadiq and Ludwig Gorenson. It's second favourite for Best Picture, one battle after another, which we're going to talk about in a second, is the favourite. Very good chance it's going to claim quite a few of those prizes, but whether it can take the the big one remains to be seen. So, final film of this show and this year, and that is one battle after another.

One Battle After Another

SPEAKER_00 1:33:36

I've fried my brain since then, man. I I have abused drugs and alcohol for the past 30 years, man. I'm a drug and alcohol lover, and I cannot remember for the life of me or the life of my only child the answer to your question. What time is it? 8:15. No, I I need this rendezvous point. You understand what I'm saying? I need it.

SPEAKER_09 1:34:01

I understand. And the question is, what time is it?

SPEAKER_06 1:34:06

That's a big Paul Thomas Anderson, PTA. He's back. I know look at he's had like 40 odd nominations for his films over the years, and yet he's actually yet to win one directly, i.e., best picture or or or best director. Well, you have a bit more luck here with one battle after another, which has followed like it was kind of disappointing, much less interesting, licorice pizza, which had a nod from a few years ago and had he got a chance of winning, let's be honest. So one battle after another, it's a sprawling, dark comedy which sort of goes through sort of paranoia, political radicalisation, and sort of American idealism. Um it's loosely inspired by uh a novel Vineland by Thomas Pynchon, but you know, PTA kind of tidies the plot up a little bit more and makes it into a story which uh it is is more coherent as a film at least from what I understand from what I've read about the novel. So the film follows a former radical played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who uh effectively long since trades in his protest chance from uh domestic. Uh he's older now, semi-respectable, trying to convince himself that raised in a family counts as a successful revolution, but he struggles to outrun the shadows of his past, which is covered off in the sort of first part of the film, which includes his wife's partner in rebellion, Porfidia, played by Tanara Taylor, who along with the rebellion group face off against enforcement officers led by the rational antagonist that's just called the lockjaw, which is Sean Penn. Though some old alliances resurface later on, new threats emerge, and um Leonardo DiCaprio's character is kind of pulled back into this web of government surveillance, unfinished, find that it is, and the battles that we see through that play out through the rest of the film aren't always fought by weapons, they're you know sometimes a bit of uh uh ideological, bit generational I guess less about winning but more about good and trying to trying to live on once the revolution grows up. What are my thoughts on this? I I I I want to say I absolutely love this. I f think this is is uh you know i is his masterpiece. I think this is better than any work he's he's he's done before. I think there's several points I would highlight for that. I think um he does such a good job here of fusing genres together. There's action, there's satire, it's a thriller, it's a bit of family drama without ever not feeling unique. I think it's really a a really exhilarating film and thematically rich rather than just a simple blockbuster. It's crafted really well, like the editing's great, the cinematography's great, I think the score works really well. I'm kicking myself for not being able to see it in the cinema. What I was going to go and see is couldn't do it to two kids and all that jazz. Um I'd particularly wanted to see that car scene chase uh in the cinema. I think the way it's filmed is just bonkers and really original and and almost reminding me of something that you'd see in like a Hitchcock film, uh, the way that you're sort of you know, it's showing you cuts of the road and there's a car coming out of nowhere, coming in and out of shots. I think it's just a brilliant bit of filmmaking. Performances are clearly great. DiCaprio is starting to, you know, he just adds another great performance. You're starting to see him is he's starting to get to sort of Jack Nicholson levels, I don't know, but um I really enjoyed him in it. This a bit more of an understated role actually, where he isn't going total hammy, um, he isn't doing a wool for wall street style performance, he's he's a little bit more understated here. Um and of course your support and cast all have great characters and all are acted superbly well. And the one that I've not mentioned is Del Toro, I think he could I reckon you could watch a spin-off a bit of his character, such a weak in a gentle commanding sensei who um has a whole operation to avoid enforcement officers, but does so doesn't escape whilst continually bevel beving without a care in the world. Um could definitely watch him as in a separate film. My other bit of praise for it would just be the time, and yeah, I I'm assuming it's clearly deliberate, but you know, think of the world that we're we're in now. This has almost come out at the perfect time with all the the US immigration stuff, the the race battles and and surveillance going on in America, and I think it says some really smart things about that. So yeah, I just think it's a a top, top movie and is up there for for me in terms of his best work. Mason.

SPEAKER_07 1:38:37

Yeah, this is everything you want from cinema. It's got comedy, action, pathos, attention, it's got a car chase, it's got romance, the score from Johnny Greenwood, excellent. Brilliant performances. Um it's intelligent, but it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's well paced, it's well written, and it will be, I think, a deserving winner. Uh this. And I Paul Thomas Anderson thought he deserves this. Um the fact that he's had so many nominations without a win, he's almost this will be a little bit like Scorsese and that the one he'll win for won't be his best film. I know you said that this is his best film, but for me, I think still there will be blood. But he's had so many good films that are worthy winners, better than winners that we've had in the past. I'm thinking of Spooty Knights, uh, The Master Phantom Thread, even um very well uh made films. This is absolute excellent piece of work. I think what this does show also is that this this is a year of strong casts rather than a single role drive in a film. Obviously, DiCaprio is the lead in this, but everybody else in this he's had a lot of nominations, much like sentimental value. Sean Penn's brilliant. Not see him in not seen him this good in a long time. But his good old Toro, like you said. He he's gets a couple of the best lines in this. But the one about just a few small beers, brilliant. Tiana Taylor and is a chase affinity, who I think is the lucky to not get nominated, both fantastic as well. The whole cast is I think Regina King, who is an Oscar winner, is in this in like a tiny role. Umana Hyde, who was the lead in his last film, gets a tiny role in this. He can attract good actors, Karen Anderson, and um yeah, I think this deserves to win, to be honest.

SPEAKER_05 1:40:24

I agree. I think this is comfortably the best film of the year. I'm not going to repeat what you folks have gone over, but from the acting to the direction, the script, it's a wild ride. It is hilarious at times. Like DiCaprio, I think Charlemagne will be a deserving winner, but DiCaprio's absolutely superb in this. He is just like perfect, and then he's aided really well by a great supporting cast. Del Toro and Sean Penn obviously getting a lot of the plaudits. The the female cast members maybe caught out a bit by not being in the film as consistently as some of the other actors in the film, although it does look like Tiana Taylor's got a great chance of winning Best Supporting Actress. The big action moments complement the story quite well. I think it'd be quite easy for them to overwhelm it, and even with the diversions when it goes to like the white supremacists and stuff, I think it all works well in building the overall story. It's yeah, it's just a director that at the top of his game. Like you, I would wouldn't necessarily say I think this is my favourite Paul Thomas Anderson film, but it's certainly the best one that he's made in the last like 10-15 years, I would say. He's obviously done one other Thomas Pynchon adaptation which was Inherent Vice with Lacking Phoenix. This is much better than that film was. And I don't know if that's because the source material is better or if he's just made a much better film out of it. But I think this is a deserving favourite. And even though, yes, there is an element of PTA or Paul Thomas Anderson, whatever you want to call him, is due, like Scorsese was, I think this is a pretty decent one to win it for.

SPEAKER_06 1:41:52

I think with like the background of what's going on in America, like I'll be flabbergasted if this doesn't win, not only because it's the best film, but just with all the ice stuff.

SPEAKER_05 1:42:00

Um it's definitely ended up being very timely just with everything else that's going on. Although I do think like it'd be interesting, obviously, this one at the Bath Does yesterday, and it was two American film sort of favourites, but this is better than Sinners, but I think Sinners has I guess like political elements going for it as well. It's probably the best way to put it.

SPEAKER_06 1:42:19

Mason, what did you think of DiCaprio's performance? Because you um pretty certain you'd criticised him in the past because he does hammer up um in in other roles, not so much here. So I was quite interested to see what you thought on this.

SPEAKER_07 1:42:32

Yeah, I think in this the character he's playing it is meant to be uh I he even says it in that he said he talked through all these vices and says that you know he's an addict, he's an alcoholic, he's and he's been through shit. So I think it works for this character and he is excellent in it. Yeah, if he did win Best Actor, it would be a deserving win, but I just think because I've seen Shelby in a couple of films, and I you're not technically meant to do this, but I wouldn't be surprised that he's almost getting Shermay would also be getting the one because of his working a complete unknown as well.

SPEAKER_06 1:43:03

Um DiCaprio would get it if he hadn't had if he'd still been dinged. Um because I mean he got the revenant, didn't he? Which was again one of those ones.

SPEAKER_07 1:43:15

If he hadn't already got one, he would have gotten it for this, I agree.

SPEAKER_05 1:43:18

Yeah, yeah. They have got a habit of like not awarding people when they should award them, and then having to give them a makeup one, which in turn means that someone that's potentially more deserving doesn't win that time and perpetuates the the same same approach.

SPEAKER_07 1:43:32

Yeah, he's better in Destiny's the other album.

SPEAKER_05 1:43:36

Yeah, yeah. Uh 13 nominations for this one, so not that many off Sinners. Picture director, DiCaprio for Actor, Support and Actor, John Penn, Benita del Toro, Tiana Taylor for Support and Actress, Adapted Screenplay, casting, cinematography, film editing, production design, sound, and original score. So I think this will clearly gonna win quite a few. A lot of them it looks like it's a shootout between it and Sinners, obviously Best Picture being the main one there. Are we just minor shout-out? We'll maybe talk about this more next week, but credit for having support and nominations that are actually supporting performances as well. I think it's three very good, clearly supporting performances nominated and not shoehorning in uh a lead into the supporting category. That's a good aside as well. That takes us to the end of this part of the episode. So I think the only thing that's left to do is go through the standard question at the end. What would your top five be and who are you voting for as your winner? So, Mason, you want to give us your your view first?

SPEAKER_07 1:44:37

Yeah, I've uh I think four of these are Lux, switches. One battle after another, uh Hamnet, Marty Supreme, sentimental value. And then I'll taunt between the secret agent and Bogonia. Um, but I'm gonna go for I'm gonna go for the secret agent. Uh actually, because I did enjoy it. Maybe it's because I watched it two days ago, but yeah. And then my winner is one battle after another.

SPEAKER_05 1:45:02

Okay, good. So I've got three the same as you, so one battle after another, Hamnet and Marty Supreme would be on my list. I'd also have Sinners there, and I think I would go with Train Dreams, and my winner would also be one battle after another.

SPEAKER_06 1:45:16

Similar, I'd one battle after another, Marty Supreme Sinners, I think they're nailed on for me. Um I would probably also have train dreams, and then I'd have a toss-up between sentimental value and hamnet. Um just sentimental value. And yeah, I absolutely agree. I just feel that I feel like we don't often agree, but one battle after another's the deserved winner. Um let's see what happens.

SPEAKER_05 1:45:41

I did think if we were going to talk about any films that weren't nominated, that I not I wouldn't say should have been because it's a very British or Scottish film, but uh I did see that after all the furor about I swear and what happened at the Baths yesterday. Uh it's not actually been released in America yet, so it's not technically eligible, but be eligible next year. So you could have an interesting scenario if that controversy uh makes it quite big in America that um it could win. I don't I don't think I don't think he'll be getting an invite to the Oscars. But the film the film's brilliant. To be fair, some some of the people talking should should watch the film before passing judgment.

SPEAKER_06 1:46:20

Exactly. I've not I've not seen it. I think Sarah went to cinema to see it, but yeah, annoying because I remember the documentary from many moons ago about uh man Is David Thompson's name? John Davidson. John Davidson. John John Davidson. Oh fuck me.

SPEAKER_05 1:46:40

You had David in it there somewhere. Yeah, I definitely worth catching that one anyway, Bigum. One second. You've tired yourself out after watching all these films. Cool. So we will get this episode shared. Thank you for listening to it. We will be back very shortly with the extra bonus episode that we always do at this time of the year where we cover off some of the other big categories. Um so that's your best acting awards, your screenplays, and then your best song, international film, etc. Best song, of course, being a regular highlight. And yes, we have another Diane Warren song that we get to listen to, which I know uh my two co-hosts will be absolutely thrilled about. So we'll get that one out shortly. Please, if you have enjoyed the episode, like it, share it, tell your friends uh we do appreciate it, and this is the best time of year for people being interested in listening to film podcasts about the Oscars, essentially. Um, but we'll finish this one here thanks to my two co-hosts Bingham and Mason. Cheers, cheers, cheers, and speak to you all soon. Thanks. Bye.