The 10 nominees for Best Picture at the 2022 Academy Awards, aka The Oscars, ranked in order, with my own personal take on and rating for each:
This is an extremely cool film. It’s badass, for lack of a more erudite description. It’s been a long while since I’ve seen a film that has appealed to both the inner child in me, with its sense of wonder and awe, and also the student of film in me, with its intelligence and craft. Dune is a fine film. It’s very well made and you can see the workmanship and passion for the story onscreen in all aspects. The cinematography is exceptional and the art direction, production design, costumes, and makeup are all stellar. This is some of the most fleshed out and vibrant world building I’ve ever seen captured on film. So much is introduced with minimal explanation but it’s done in such a way that it all feels instinctual.
The effects are incredible. Nothing looks fake or CGI…nothing. It’s refreshingly natural. That is an amazing feat (and I’ve learned about the benefit of brown screens vs green screens to help make the visual effects look right). The shadows and lighting and scope and scale are perfect. It was a joy to absorb. And oh my, the soundscape…deep bass and punctuated notes here and there. I’m grateful for my new sound bar in its conveyance of the film’s sound as it was intended. The acting is measured and adept throughout. You never feel like you’re watching characters played by actors. These are people/aliens that we get a glimpse of as they inhabit their universe.
I just want to say, once again, how cool this film is. I kept thinking that over and over as I watched. And it was refreshing to feel that after some of the underwhelming nominees that preceded it. The film is not perfect, in my opinion, though. There are entirely too many scenes of dream logic for my own taste (much like Villeneuve’s Arrival). And the film’s last act seems to dip ever so slightly in terms of energy and direction as we slowly start to realize why they put “Part One” under the title in the opening scene – you can feel that shift from sprint to marathon in the story. It’s not disappointing. It’s just that you start to miss the spectacle and sheer magnitude of what came before. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I’m not sure it will win over the hearts and minds of the Academy voters. But it will rack up several technical category victories (sound, effects, etc.). In my opinion, it deserves a Best Picture win should it deliver one, and that is a result of it checking so many boxes with all of the technical skill from so much talent on display here. My biggest regret is not seeing it in theaters like it was intended. That would have been a visual and auditory treat.
Rating: 93
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this film and how impressive it ended up being. I’ve not been a fan of McKay’s more serious work so I went into this one skeptical. But the satire was more subtle and nuanced than I was anticipating. And the filmmaking was solid and confident. The cinematography fluctuated between commercial gloss and gritty film, but it all worked together in a visually pleasing way. The graphic effects bordered on cartoonish in spots, but I believe that was the intention, to some extent. The script was sharp, witty, and biting. And it had more emotional depth than I was ready for.
The acting is what shines the brightest here. This is a large-scale ensemble piece that features outstanding performances all around. DiCaprio is incredible, weaving back and forth between a subtle approach and a bombastic, angry one when the scene calls for it. His character feels lived in and real. Lawrence is impressive, in her own right, but her character is not as fleshed out as the male lead’s. Rylance, Hill, Chalamet, and Streep all provide memorable performances. It’s worth stating that I saw this film before the nominations came out and I was impressed by it so much so that I felt I needed to go ahead and jot down these notes. It’s not a perfect film and it definitely wants to shout its take on modern society, social media, politics, and more as it bellows about various topics. But taken as a whole, it works. And it entertains. And it sticks with you long after the credits (and post credit scenes!) have stopped rolling.
Rating: 86
3. King Richard
This film is a solid, moving portrait of a complicated and driven individual. It also provides a unique glimpse behind the curtain of two of the most iconic athletes the world has ever seen. For a sports film, it’s studied and grounded, with a realness to its athleticism that is absent in far too many of its kind. Plus, the dramatic irony that comes with knowing how this story ends makes for a satisfying and comfortable viewing experience. The story may be about the making of Venus and Serena but the titular character is center here. Will Smith gives a magnetic performance of a visionary but flawed character that is frustrating and nuanced and exhilarating all at once – it’s some of the best work of his career. The rest of the cast is a mixed bag, with some stilted performances here and there that tend to detract from the goings on. But Aunjanue Ellis gives a fine performance as the backbone of her family and Bernhal’s acting is energetically infectious.
The film has its stereotypical trappings (most sports films do) as it hits familiar notes, but it still manages to provide a fresh feel to the subject matter. I was impressed with the subtle realism of the lighting and the sound design. Both stand out to me as I think back on the film. There is also some truly touching and complimentary use of archival footage. Overall, it’s an inspiring and entertaining true origin story/character study. The film made me laugh, made me a bit misty eyed, and ultimately made me reflect on what it means to be a father – and I am thankful to it for that. Even though I wouldn’t consider it a truly superb film, it is very well done and I enjoyed it.
Rating: 82
4. Drive My Car
Okay, first things first…this film is quite lengthy. So, if you choose to watch it, settle in. It’s full of quiet, peaceful, rich, mesmerizing shots of Japanese cities and landscapes, as our main characters’ car travels from spot to spot, taking us viewers along for the ride. There is a lot going on in this film. The avant garde stage play of multinational and multilingual actors is a fascinating backdrop to the main plot of the film. Seeing the inner workings of such a production was an unexpected treat.
There are some powerful moments throughout the film with various subplots playing out. But it’s the core stories of the two main characters and the contemplation of grief that all unfolds like a blossom with revelation after revelation across the film’s nearly 3-hour run time. That’s probably my biggest quibble: the film is just too long. So many pillow shots and slow builds and a tranquil, novel-esque approach to pacing. And you can sense the focus and goal of the filmmakers in how they choose to build the world of this film. It is craft and skill on full display. But for it to be as subtle and quiet as it is, the end result feels just a tick too “showy.” And I know that isn’t the intention. It doesn’t carry the same level of pretentiousness as The Power of the Dog, though.
One interesting item of note is the presence of the most late occurring opening credits I can ever recall in a film (and it’s even more interesting to learn about the connection to the original short story’s source material being the reason for that). I liked this film, to a good extent. And I can appreciate the craftsmanship of it – the cinematography, the art direction, the framing, the scriptwriting, the sound design, and the acting are all of high quality, and the diversity and representation on screen (a more reverent depiction of sign language than CODA) is impressive – but the sum total is somehow less than what the various parts add up to. It’s much like the Uncle Vanya play the characters rehearse and perform that we see so many snippets of throughout – you can sense something good and powerful is present, but you just aren’t able to see it all come together. It’s tough to recommend this one. Still, it’s a good, thought-provoking, arthouse film.
Rating: 80
5. CODA
This is a cute film. It felt, at times, though, like a high gloss, formulaic after-school special. It never was able to transcend to something greater for me, though I very much wanted it to. The main plot treads in fairly standard underdog-rises-up territory. Hell, the film even boasts not one, but two music montages of time passing and great progress made by the protagonist and her gang – like it was snatched from an 1980’s John Cusack film. You never really doubt the story arc floating to its destined conclusion. And that’s okay, because it’s a joy to watch, with some truly funny, truly touching, and truly raw moments. But it’s the surrounding environment of the deaf family that provides this film with its uniqueness and heart (CODA is an acronym for Child of Deaf Adults). It’s a wonderfully intimate yet non-exploitative glimpse into a world so few of us have experienced. The deaf world here is not portrayed as one of disability but more of just…difference. That is a refreshing approach.
One qualm I had with the deaf ensemble cast that I couldn’t shake, though, is that their acting often came across as overacting and very demonstrative in a way often attributed to “bad” acting. It’s distracting at times but not overly so. The same could be said for some of the speaking roles, as well. Emily Jones does a fine job conveying all of the weight that her role in her family lays on her – plus her sweet voice is so pleasant to hear. Kotsur does well with his role, too, and I was happy to see, after the fact, that he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Overall, the cast does an admirable job but you can see their limitations. The filmmaking, itself, is capable and solid. It takes only a couple of stylistic chances – and they definitely stand out – but otherwise it’s fairly basic. And there are some questionable plot contrivances that don’t sit well – mainly dealing with a helpful but career-steering teacher. The charm of the movie, though, rises above all of these things that I feel as though I’m overemphasizing and overanalyzing. This is a good film. And I think most who watch it will enjoy it. I don’t think this one has enough weight and gravitas to compete for the Best Picture prize but I can appreciate its inclusion in this year’s list of nominees.
Rating: 75
This film surprised me early on in its runtime with its showmanship and throwback style…a pulsing rhythm of old-school Broadway and Hollywood musical spirit colliding with new age movie wizardry of acrobatic camerawork and whiz-bang editing. The songs, at first, are born out of an organic place within the film’s universe, all the pomp and presentation and overacting and melodramatic storytelling, it all clicks and it all makes sense…for a while. I found myself grinning and entertained, swept up (as much as I could be, seeing as how I’m not really a fan of musicals) by what was playing out on screen before me. And I knew, generally, going in what lied ahead of me with this film, having seen the original 1961 musical film and its story loosely based on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. That film’s place in my memory is held loosely in my mind as playing on some TV screen in my elementary school that the teacher had rolled into the room.
As I watched this new film version of the story, I found myself checking off vague boxes in my mind, comparing it to the original. And for the first half of this new one, I found it enjoyable. The songs are imprinted in my brain, in a way, and it was sweet to revisit them. The choreography, the staging, and the cinematography make this a visual treat to take in…for a while. But then something happened. The story takes its well-worn turn into more serious territory and it changes…for the worse. Bright, technicolor, vibrant fun and joy and the wonder of a first love (which is very well captured here) is replaced by a dour, overbearing vibe that suffocates the entire enterprise. So much so that the song, “I’ll Feel Pretty,” sticks out like an antiquated sore thumb, as it arrives after that serious turn, and reminds us this is a musical and there are songs to sing.
For me, the film’s second half doesn’t work. The fun of the first half is gone and what follows is so incongruous with what preceded it that it all starts to crumble. Having said that, Spielberg is a master craftsman and he pumps all he has into this production. But two things happen: one is that the antiquated story and characters both labor in their update for modern cinema and the director’s energy for the events onscreen starts to dwindle as the story limps to its conclusion. I think this is a decent film and I can see why it earned its nomination, both as a result of Spielberg royalty and the throwback to Hollywood of yesteryear. Beyond that, all I can say is that I wish that grin that I had during the first half of it had not faded like it did over the course of the whole film.
Rating: 72
I did not enjoy this film. It’s beautifully shot, with sweeping, panoramic vistas alongside quiet, controlled close-ups. And it’s got antique style to spare. But my goodness, it’s an anxiety-riddled, depressing piece of cinema that gives the viewer few moments of enjoyment. The story – or what the filmmakers try to assemble as one – strolls along at a dawdling pace, filled with ambling, unfocused intrigue here and there. And the characters give little to invest in or root for. Cumberbatch does an admirable job but I could never shake the feeling that he was miscast – and I felt his character was a jumbled mess of antagonist and protagonist who never finds his proper footing for what the film needed him to be. McPhee is interesting to watch and he does provide the film with its sole bright, albeit ambiguous, glimmer. The three acting nominations are all a bit surprising to me as I found each to be underwhelming – with Plemmons being the most confusing of the lot.
The art direction, cinematography, and score are the higher marks here. The film has a dusty feel of old-fashioned time past and the music does a solid job of ratcheting up the tension. There is a sense of creeping dread and foreboding that hangs over the entire film – as we watch and wait for the story elements to build and come together. They do…eventually. But I was left with a guilty feeling of cheated deliverance. This film wants to be high art but in my opinion, it stumbles in its attempt. I found it pretentious and lacking, though the skill and talent gathered here is evident. It was a hard, unsatisfying watch. It apparently has a good shot to win the Best Picture prize. I would respectfully disagree but that’s nothing new with me and the Oscars. Perhaps if you watch it, this review will set your expectations low enough so that you might find some more enjoyment or entertainment in it than I did.
Rating: 69
I don’t know what I just watched and I don’t know if I would be able to describe what I just watched if I tried. This film is an enigmatic, confounding, exhilarating, and problematic piece of cinema. I enjoyed it, for the most part, but I can’t say that it’s good. It feels like the filmmakers tossed a bunch of ideas into a blender and set it too high. And some of the parts aren’t as funny or entertaining as they think they are. I love PT Anderson films, for the most part, but this one confused me. I thought I had figured it out at one point that the events of the film were all in one character’s teenage imagination. That would have made more sense, honestly. This one feels like an echo of Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood, another aimless director’s fever dream/personal vision project – or maybe even Cuarón’s Roma, in that it’s a collection of memories and ideas from the director’s past that he thought was “film worthy.”
There is so much going on here, and it can be thrilling to watch. But so many strings are presented but then left dangling that I felt helpless to try to figure it all out. It left me with no cohesive feelings other than just a collection of sporadic ideas, some good, some funny, some wild. And maybe that’s the point. Maybe this is a film meant to just be witnessed and not overanalyzed or broken down. That’s what my initial takeaway from it is. It’s a love letter to the 70’s and Southern California, with so much style and charisma. But the main character’s exploits and adventures require a great deal of suspension of disbelief or it’s a matter of you buying into the tale, wholesale. And I guess I just couldn’t. It lost me. Plus, the central relationship between two characters never pulled me out of the core uncomfortable feeling I had from thinking this story could not be told in today’s world if their genders had been reversed. It’s a coming-of-age story, to some extent, but the main characters bravura and personality in his attempt to be older than he is makes what should feel wistful and nostalgic seem a bit cheated and inauthentic. Fine acting, memorable sound design, superb art direction, and incredible cinematography are all present here. All of that, at least, is evident from a film appreciation standpoint. Maybe upon reflection, I’ll come to a different conclusion from this film, but fresh off of it, I’ll stand by my own enigmatic statement: I liked it, but it wasn’t good.
Rating: 69
9: Belfast
I’m not sure exactly what to make of this one. With accents thick enough to require me to use subtitles, I admittedly felt somewhat of a disconnect with this film from the start of it. It is a lovely piece of cinema to look at but at the same time, the stylistic choice of black and white film stock seemed to clash with its soundtrack full of period-specific yet anachronistically sounding tunes. Van Morrison would swoop in several times to serenade us non-diagetically and each time it felt incongruous. These musical transitions were so jarring that it took me out of the film each time. The story is a simple one, set against a complicated backdrop of early 1970’s strife in Northern Ireland. I, being only vaguely aware of “The Troubles” conflict, would have preferred a bit more context and wider view of the political and social events that took place at that time. But this film doesn’t concern itself with those matters beyond their vague framework. Instead, the film is a small, intimate portrait of a family navigating the strife around them, maintaining their humanity and their spirit throughout.
I had trouble connecting with the characters, though. And I blame that more on the staging than the thick Irish accents. There seems to be a thin layer of artifice that hovers over the entire operation. Branagh has chosen long, wide shots for most of the conversations between his characters and the result is a theatrical feel of woodenness and line memorization rather than emotion and acting. It was yet another drop in the bucket for me not being able to fully connect with the film. Too many instances of that happen here for me to walk away from it giving it high praise. Plus, though Balfe and Dornan are beautiful to look at in their roles as the parents, they just seem out of place for what should be working class Irish parents. This is also yet another entry into the pantheon of personal, “memory” films by directors (Roma, Licorice Pizza, Minari, etc.) who have brought their childhoods to life when they were probably best left as stories told and reminisced upon rather than as fodder for cinema. It’s a pretty film (the abundance of natural lighting is a treat) and it has some fine acting (but nothing outstanding outside of the always strong Judi Dench) and solid scriptwriting moments (though the story is a bit simplistic and tried, plus you slowly grow tired of hearing “wee bit”). But you want the film to touch a deeper nerve within you than it does – than it thinks it does. This film was merely okay. Not great and certainly not Best Picture worthy, in my opinion. But it’s decent and engaging in a mildly enjoyable way.
Rating: 67
10: Nightmare Alley
I knew going into this one that I wasn’t going to like it. That’s a combination of the director (I’m just not a fan of del Toro’s work) and the subject matter and look of the film (psychological thriller wrapped up in retro faux film noir). Well, typically when I go in with low expectations, I come out the other end having enjoyed the film more than I thought I would. Not this time. My expectations were spot on. This was a boring, aimless, plodding film with unlikable characters and absolutely nothing to root for. In my opinion, the filmmakers think this is highbrow and intelligent cinema when it’s really just overly lit, overly art-directed, vampingly acted, sadistic schlock. Cooper is fairly magnetic on the screen and it’s somewhat interesting to watch his character arc. But whatever steam this film builds, it happens in the final 30 minutes but it’s too little, too late to save all that came before. I’m guessing it got a Best Picture nomination simply from Academy cronyism, with Cooper’s fame and track record and del Toro having helmed the previous (underwhelming) Best Picture winner, The Shape of Water. I was bored and I did not enjoy it and I really don’t want to think much more about it so here endeth the review.
Rating: 57
So that’s it. That’s my take on the 10 nominees for this year. Once again, like last year, I found this year’s crop of nominees to be underwhelming. It feels like the Academy is checking off boxes for inclusion and pedigree here and the resulting list is a jumble of films that look and feel like they are Oscar-worthy, but upon closer inspection, they don’t hold up.
I do have to say that I find myself feeling entirely too analytical and critical after finishing my viewings this year. There was not a lot of joy or entertainment for me as I worked my way through these reviews. And it felt like work. It felt like many of these films were chores to watch. It shouldn’t be like that. I miss the joy and wonder of going to the theater and being blown away by what I see onscreen. That may be a result of the rise in streaming options for viewing (I saw 8 of these 10 films sitting on my couch) but I think it’s also a product of a film industry trying to find itself as it tries to both entertain AND make art. As for the overall takeaway from these 10 films, the result is general disappointment with a few high marks.
Here are my Should Win/Will Win predictions for the top prizes this at year’s ceremony:
Best Picture – Should Win: Dune; Will Win: CODA (though The Power of the Dog could prevail)
Best Director – Should Win: Ryusuke Hamaguchi; Will Win: Jane Campion
Best Actor – Should Win: Will Smith; Will Win: Will Smith
Best Actress – Should Win: NA (I saw none of the nominated performances); Will Win: Jessica Chastain
Best Supporting Actor – Should Win: Troy Kotsur; Will Win: Troy Kotsur
Best Supporting Actress – Should Win: Aunjanue Ellis; Will Win: Ariana Debose
Best Adapted Screenplay – Should Win: Drive My Car; Will Win: CODA
Best Original Screenplay – Should Win: Don’t Look Up; Will Win: Belfast (though I wouldn’t be surprised if The Worst Person in the World slid in here, that’s one that I want to see)
Let me know what you think in the comments. What was your favorite film? Am I wrong on some of my takes – or spot on? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
This marks the 25th year of this hobby of mine. I’ve carried on this “Oscar Adventure” of seeing each Best Picture nominee each year since 1997. When the films that have been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture are announced, I make a point to see all of them before the Oscar telecast (which for this year, takes place Sunday, March 27th).
The criteria I use to judge the nominees is a long, convoluted mix of cinematic artistry and entertainment. I try to go into each film viewing with zero expectations and as little knowledge of the plot as possible. And I always try to form the basis of each review immediately after the film is done, jotting down notes that I later turn into these write-ups.
Thank you for taking the time to read them. I love this annual tradition. I hope you’ve enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed watching the films and writing about them.
Leave a Reply