This week we conclude our three-part series where I review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. We will talk about my favorite director Steven Spielberg who directed one of the final three movies we will cover. The Oscar ceremonies are tonight March 12 on ABC. Apologies for this long episode but we had lots to talk about. Next week will return to my faith journey stories and after that back to disability topics.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 10 of Contemplating Life.

This week we conclude our look at the Oscar-nominated films for this year with three of the best of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture.

In the first episode of the series, I expressed my bias in favor of Avatar which included its director James Cameron. I have an even stronger affection for Steven Spielberg and his work. With multiple Oscar nominations over the years and 2 Directing Oscars as well as the prestigious Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award–Oscar loves Spielberg as much as I do.

Before we get to one of Spielberg’s nominated films, please indulge me as I reflect on his work and share with you my thoughts as to why his films illustrate what I find most enjoyable about the movies. Specifically that although movies are an illusion, they allow us to explore feelings and themes that are very real to us.

As a young boy, Spielberg was taken to the movies to see the 1952 Oscar-winning Best Picture “The Greatest Show on Earth” directed by Cecil B DeMille. He mistakenly believed he was going to see a real circus instead of a movie about a circus. However, he was not disappointed by the experience. In fact, he was mesmerized by its ability to transport him to the world of that film. He was especially disturbed by a scene where a train collided with an automobile. To be able to cope with the image, he used his father’s home movie camera to recreate the scene using his toy train and a toy car. Thus began his career as a filmmaker. He followed that with other homemade films one of which earned him a photography badge in the Boy Scouts.

In my opinion, Spielberg is all about keeping it real. We see this theme of “reality” in a couple of my favorite films of his. In his 1977 “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” there is a scene in which UFO investigator Claude Lacombe played by François Truffaut asks Roy Neary played by Richard Dreyfus, “Monsieur Neary…what do you want?”

Neary replies, “I just wanna know that it’s really happening.”

He can’t believe that he is really watching aliens step out of a real UFO. He wants to know that it’s real.

However, my favorite scene in a Spielberg film and one of my favorite scenes of any film whatsoever is in his 1982 hit “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”. Although you’ve probably seen the film maybe more than once, let me set the scene for you…

A young boy named Elliott discovers an extraterrestrial in his backyard. ET has accidentally been left behind by his people and Elliott and his brother and sister assist ET to phone home. ET and Elliott develop a kind of psychic empathic link in which they can feel what each other is feeling. When ET becomes ill just as the government investigators move in, Elliott becomes ill as well. Fortunately, the link is broken as ET apparently dies.

In a heart-wrenching scene, Elliott says his final goodbyes to ET. “You must be dead… because… I don’t know how to feel. I can’t feel anything anymore.”

Note that he doesn’t say “I can’t feel you.” He says, “I can’t feel anything anymore.”

When the mothership approaches, ET is miraculously resurrected and suddenly we… excuse me I mean Elliott… can feel again.

Elliott and his brother steal a government van containing ET. They paused briefly to say to their friends, “Get the bicycles and meet us in the park.” After a harrowing chase scene where they escape from the G-men, they meet up in the park.

Elliott and ET appear at the back door of the van and his friends see ET for the first time. Elliott calmly explains, “He’s a man from outer space and we’re taking him to his spaceship.”
His friend Greg sarcastically asks, “Well, can’t he just beam up?”

If you’re watching the film in a theater, you might have missed the next line because everyone is laughing. But to me, this is the most important line in the film. Perhaps the most important in any Spielberg film.

Elliott says in disgust, “This is reality, Greg.”

Think about that line and what it represents.

Elliott is saying, “Greg you fucking idiot! When an extraterrestrial lands in your backyard, you develop a psychic empathic link with him, you help him phone home to be reunited with his people, and when you suffer the pain of losing him and experience the joy of his resurrection, that is more real than what is arguably one of the most beloved sci-fi franchises in entertainment history namely Star Trek. This is reality you idiot imbecile moron Greg!”

And we as the audience agree completely. While the scenario is pure fantasy, the emotional roller coaster that Spielberg has taken us on is completely 100% real. We have developed a psychic empathic link with the characters in the film. We feel what they feel. We experience on a very personal level what they experience.

That is the true power of cinema when wielded by a master like Steven Spielberg. From the terror of “Jaws”, to the wonder of “Close Encounters”, to the heartfelt emotions in “ET”, to the horrors of World War II in “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” Spielberg is all about creating that magic reality that he first experienced as a young boy the first time he went to the movies.

In the final three completely fictional films we discuss this week, one of which was directed and co-written by Spielberg, we are taken on a journey that feels completely real.

First of all, we have Spielberg’s own semi-autobiographical family drama “The Fabelmans”. In outline form, the film exactly parallels Spielberg’s own early life. Young Sammy Fabelman is taken to see his first film, “The Greatest Show on Earth” and he similarly begins his career as an amateur filmmaker.

In an online discussion, I heard someone explain, “I’m not going to see the film. I don’t want to sit through two hours of self-indulgent, sentimental schmaltz explaining how Spielberg got to be the master filmmaker he became.” While I had no reservations that the film would be such a thing, let me reassure you that that critic was 100% wrong.

Instead, we get a deeply personal and somewhat tragic family drama as teenage Sammy, played by Gabriel LaBelle, uncovers a terrible secret about his mother who struggles with mental illness. While on a camping trip, he films something he had never noticed before. Upon reviewing the footage he is shocked at what he uncovered. It nearly destroyed his relationship with his mother. When she finally pleads with him to explain why he has turned against her, he shows her the footage of what he discovered.

The incident also nearly destroyed his passion for filmmaking. His camera saw things he didn’t want to see. His camera revealed a hidden reality that was quite disturbing.

Along the way, the family is also torn apart by his father who uproots the family twice to move to a new city because he is offered better job opportunities as a computer engineer.
Sammy’s stress level peaks after the last move which gets him out of the comfort he has experienced in Hebrew school and thrusts him into a public high school where he is confronted with terrifying and dangerous anti-Semitism.

There is nothing heroic or self-aggrandizing about this intimate portrait of a family in turmoil.

By the way, I was expecting lots of little Easter eggs where some event in his life would go on to inspire his future films. While he did make a very dramatic war film and a sci-fi film, there aren’t any blatant references to his future work that I noticed.

In addition to its Best Picture nomination, it won the Golden Globe for Best Drama. Spielberg is nominated for original screenplay and director. He won the Globe for directing and was nominated for a Globe for the screenplay.

A total of 7 Oscar nominations include Michelle Williams as the lead actress playing the mother, Judd Hirsch as the supporting actor in a memorable yet brief role as an uncle, and John Williams for the musical score naturally.

SAG nominations were earned for the ensemble cast, Paul Dano for his portrayal of the father. Michelle Williams earned the Actress – Drama Golden Globe.

While it’s not action-packed like Spielberg’s blockbusters nor is it as poignant or tragic as “Private Ryan” or “Schindler” it is still a highly compelling, realistic, and moving film that I highly recommend.

With an estimated budget of $40 million and a worldwide gross so far of just over $31 million, it is far from a hit. It is still available to see in the theater and is available for purchase as a digital download from Amazon.

Our second film this week, “Tár” starring Cate Blanchett in what I believe it’s the best actress performance of the year. Unfortunately, the film has only earned $13.4 million on an estimated budget of $30 million. It is currently streaming on Peacock.

Blanchette plays Lydia Tár, the conductor and music director of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra – one of the most prestigious postings one can have in her field.

While a couple of the films we reviewed in this series wait until the end to bring out the memorable portions, near the beginning of the film we start off with a spellbinding sequence of scenes that paints a detailed portrait of the title character. She is interviewed for “The New Yorker” in front of a live audience in a sort of James Lipton style. Throughout that interview that runs nearly 12 minutes of screen time, you completely forget that you are watching an actress playing a role. You easily become convinced you’re watching a real interview with an accomplished classical conductor and composer. The effect is absolutely stunning.

The realism continues in the next extended scene in which she has lunch with another conductor who is desperately trying to pick her brain about an amazing performance of hers that he witnessed. She insists that rather than mimic her techniques he needs to find his own way but throws him a morsel of advice.

Then at the 25-minute mark of the film, we are treated to the most realistic and compelling performance I’ve seen in years… perhaps ever. She is guest teaching a class in conducting at Julliard. A young violinist and conducting student named Max explains to her “I’m not really into Bach.”

She’s stunned and asks, “Have you ever played or conducted Bach?”

He replies, “Honestly, as a BIPOC, pangender person, I would say Bach’s misogynistic life makes it kind of impossible for me to take his music seriously.”

“Come on, what do, what do, what do you mean by that?”

“Well, didn’t he sire, like, 20 kids?”

“Yes, that’s documented. Along with a considerable amount of music.”

Throughout the remainder of the scene, she passionately illustrates the magnificence of Bach while deconstructing his politically correct fueled argument. She explains to him, “ If Bach’s talent can be reduced to his gender, birth country, religion, sexuality, and so on, then so can yours.” She then reminds him that members of the orchestra rate their conductors and she asks, “Now, what kind of criteria would you hope that they use to do this? Your score reading and stick technique, or something else?”

It is a brilliant argument for separating the art from the artist. This discussion is timely considering the controversy currently raging online regarding JK Rowling, her toxic anti-trans views, and the attempts to boycott and cancel the entire Harry Potter franchise.

One of the amazing things about this scene is that it lasts a full 10 minutes and is one continuous steady cam shot that follows her around the room. There is no opportunity for the typical long-take tricks such as masking a cut as you walk through a doorway or a whip pan that blurs the transition between takes. It is 100% certain that what you are witnessing is a single continuous 10-minute take.

While many films have used such techniques to heighten the realism of a scene, and this one certainly does so, there is another reason the director ensures that we witness the scene exactly as it happens. I won’t spoil that reason.

While this hyperrealism only lasts the first 35 minutes of the 2 hours 37 minutes, the rest of the story still feels real and true.

The next section of the film covers her preparations to produce a live recording of Gustav Mahler’s iconic 5th Symphony. During those preparations, she learns that a former student who accused her of having a manipulative inappropriate sexual relationship committed suicide. This thrusts her into a rampant scandal.

From there onward, her career, and relationship with her wife and young daughter slips into a downward spiral that completely tears her life apart.

In my as-yet-unsuccessful attempts to publish my own fiction, I learned that one of the axioms of the trade is “show, don’t tell”– a skill I have in no way mastered. What that means is, don’t use exposition to tell us what a person is thinking or feeling or what events mean to them. Rather, write a scene that illustrates these things. The remainder of the film, especially near the ending, is a master class of showing rather than telling. So much so, that there are huge gaps in the plot. I’m not talking about plot holes in the traditional sense of the phrase which is that there are inconsistencies in the plot. Rather I mean that events of the story are completely skipped and we are only shown her reaction to these events and the consequences of them.

In many instances, we never learn “what really happened.” But it doesn’t matter. The story is not about the events. The story is about the huge cost that those events impose upon her.
The film earned six Oscar nominations including Best Actress for Blanchette and I will be disappointed if she doesn’t win. She has already won the Actress – Drama Golden Globe for her performance and is nominated for an individual SAG award. Todd Field is nominated for directing and for his original screenplay. It is also nominated for cinematography and film editing the latter of which I find ironic because the most memorable scene is an unedited 10-minute take.

If you are a Peacock TV subscriber, please watch at least the first 35 minutes of this film. You’re in for a real acting master class and will learn a little bit about classical music along the way. If you can tough it out through her chaotic downward spiral, you will be treated to an especially delicious ending. Just don’t let the holes in the narrative bother you. What happened, isn’t important in this film.

We conclude our journey of 10 Best Picture nominees with “Women Talking”. It is probably the least seen of the 10 films released only in the US and Canada with a gross of just $3.7 million. It is currently only available in theaters.

Based on the novel by Miriam Toews which is in turn inspired by actual events, women in a Mennonite religious farming colony were drugged and raped repeatedly by the men of their community.
The facts behind the true story are that over a period of four years 130 women and children aged 3 to 60 in the colony were drugged with cow tranquilizer and raped. Although many of them became pregnant, the men insisted that they had either imagined the assaults or they occurred by ghosts or demons. When two of the men were caught in the act, the men were punished internally by the community but were eventually turned over to the police and after two years 7 of the 8 accused were convicted, and a ninth evaded capture.

There is no claim that the events depicted in the novel or the film are anywhere close to what actually occurred. Just that the premise is inspired by the actual facts. At the beginning of the film, there is a pop-up message saying, “What follows is an act of female imagination.” While that parallels the excuse that the women were gaslighted into believing that they had imagined the attacks, what it says to me is that writer-director Sarah Polley is depicting what she wishes had happened. Whether the story is factually accurate or not, it realistically depicts the dilemma that the women in the situation faced.

In the film, while the men are away in a nearby town trying to bail out the eight men responsible for the rapes, the women gather to decide what to do. They vote on three options: stay and do nothing, stay and fight, or leave. An initial vote is a tie between stay and fight or leave. So a group of about 10 of them gather in the hayloft of a barn to debate their options.
They are assisted by a trusted sympathetic young man from the colony named Austin played by Ben Whishaw. His job is to take the minutes of the meeting because none of the women can read or write.

The ensemble cast is led by Rooney Mara, Claire Foy, Sheila McCarthy, and Judith Ivey, and a brief appearance by Francis McDormand. All of them give phenomenal performances but I was most impressed by the younger members of the cast Liv McNeil, Kate Hallett, and Michelle McLeod. While much of the time the children remain in the background as the adult women deliberate, there are moments where these youngsters hold their own against their more experienced cast members in very dramatic moments.

The problem these women face is that their faith dictates that their participation in the colony is the pathway to salvation. To leave the community to which they’re dedicated is to risk their soul. They also preach a message of pacifism and forgiveness. Any violence they commit even in their own defense as well as any lack of forgiveness is contrary to their core values.

Although the women have lived their entire lives isolated in the colony and are illiterate, they know Scripture and the tenets of their faith deeply. They argue eloquently over the deep theological and moral questions they are facing. At times I found myself hearing the voice of the modern author rather than these seemingly unsophisticated women. But again on further reflection, their arguments are not based on any modern feminist ideology but are rooted deeply in the theological tenets of their faith. It is completely credible that they are well-versed in those principles.

Had you not known the true story behind the events, you would not know the time or place of the film until about a third of the way through when a man driving a pickup truck drives through the community with a loudspeaker blaring music and asking residents to come out and be counted for the 2010 census. The actual events occurred from 2005 to 2009 in Bolivia.

I cannot begin to imagine how someone who had experienced domestic abuse or sexual assault would feel about the film. As a man who has never experienced such horrors personally, naturally, I entered the story through the eyes of Austin who takes the minutes of the meeting. Like Austin, I know what it’s like to feel powerless to be helpful to women who have experienced such horror. You can see his anguish as he wants to help the women yet he knows that ultimately it is their decision to make and he has no input. When he does on rare occasions venture to make a comment, some of the women harshly admonish him to stay out of it. Then on another occasion, when he is directly asked for input he defers saying, “I don’t matter in this discussion.”

One of the women replies, “Imagine your entire life was like that where nothing that you thought or felt matters anywhere anytime.”

That is just one of dozens of poignant and heart-wrenching moments in the film.

If I were to apply my typical plot critique the likes of which I like to impose upon a sci-fi or fantasy film, the story itself doesn’t hold up at all. It is too convenient that all of the men except one sympathetic one with the skills that they need would leave the colony for more than a day giving them the freedom to debate their own fate. Similarly, once the decision is made (and I won’t spoil what decision it was) we see nothing of what happens afterward and any speculation that we have about what happened leads to so many unanswered questions that it could spoil your experience.

Ultimately, the story is not about the facts of the situation, what led up to the meeting, and what happened afterward. As the title suggests, it’s only about women talking. Talking about taking control of their own lives, staying true to their values and beliefs, and protecting themselves and their children both physically and spiritually. So you can’t judge it for its plot holes.

While it can be difficult to watch at times, it succeeds in creating that ET-like connection between the audience and the characters. We feel what they feel. We struggle along with them. There are even a few lighthearted moments that break the tension and they come as much of a relief to us as they do to the women in the story. Although not my favorite, if it wins I will not be disappointed.

So, that concludes my look at the 10 Best Picture Nominees for this year. Although I had some problems with four of them, in the end, I think they all were probably worthy of their nominations. Even those that I found problematic had some extraordinary performances.

Each of these 10 films succeeds on some level in creating that ET-like empathic link between the characters and us as the audience. While the plot, premise, or setting of these films might be completely unrealistic, the way they make us feel is totally real. And that’s what movies are all about.

I’m sorry I haven’t had the time to see any of the other films that earned acting Oscar nominations but were not in the 10 best picture list. When I get a chance, I will try to watch those films and perhaps do a bonus episode after the Oscars.

Here is a brief recap counting down from the film I liked least to the one I liked best. That’s not necessarily me making odds on which films are most likely to win.

10. “All Quiet on the Western Front” – A brutally realistic depiction of the hopelessness and futility of war. Perhaps it was too real for my taste.

9. “Triangle of Sadness” – Even if we take the story as three distinct loosely related narratives rather than a continuous story, the first third seemed pointless, the middle third has some memorable gross, funny scenes, but only the last third made me feel the extent to which indulgent, arrogant, rich people abuse and demean everyday workers.

8. “The Banshees of Iniserin” – People I respect say this was their favorite film of the year and I don’t deny is a quality piece of filmmaking. The performances are top-notch and worthy of their nominations. We cannot help but feel connected to the characters’ emotions. However, the premise just doesn’t work for me. I never understood why these two people were friends in the first place or if they were, why everything changed so suddenly. I tried unsuccessfully to apply the same logic I applied to “Tár” and “Women Talking” by saying, “It’s not about why these former friends feuded… it’s just about the consequences of their feud.” I just couldn’t make that leap. The argument that it is a metaphor for the Irish Civil War doesn’t save it. Give the actors their Oscars and if you have to maybe the screenplay, cinematography, and directing but this is not the Best Picture.

7. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” – With Golden Globe wins, the most Oscar nominations of any film this year, and hundreds of other nominations I still feel this is much ado about nothing. It had a few funny memorable moments and the acting was notable although not up to the level of Banshees. I again feel that for this type of over-the-top, quirky action comedy I liked “Bullet Train” much better. I never did feel anything for the characters until the last few minutes of the film and by then I really didn’t care that much anyway.

6. “Tár” – the first 35 minutes of the film gave me the most memorable acting performance of the year and I will be severely disappointed if Cate Blanchett doesn’t win. This performance will stick with me for a long time but overall the film will not.

5. “Women Talking” – The screenplay and performances in this film as well as the topic inspire part of me to wish this would win Best Picture. If there is a dark horse in the bunch this is it. It is in no way an enjoyable experience but it is compelling and real despite the plot problems previously discussed. You should see this film but don’t plan on liking it.

4. “The Fabelmans” – Spielberg on Spielberg… Of course I loved it. It’s not ET, Jaws, or Schindler but it’s still quality filmmaking by the master.

3. “Top Gun: Maverick” – Objectively this should not have gotten a Best Picture nomination. It ranks here only because of how much fun I had watching it. If you are talking Oscar-worthy filmmaking it doesn’t make the top 10.

2. “Elvis” – A beautifully crafted biopic of a legendary performer. Memorable performances all around. If it’s not going to be Avatar on top, this was my favorite of the year. While I didn’t feel significantly emotionally attached to the characters, I feel like I was realistically a witness to history.

1. “Avatar: The Way of the Water” – Desperately trying to find some objectivity in this film that I love so much subjectively, you cannot deny it is a phenomenal achievement in filmmaking. It is three hours of eye candy, and action, and the story is better than the original Avatar. I not only felt totally immersed in this alien world, I cared about the characters. It checks all my boxes and remains my favorite.

That’s the order in which I liked the films. If I had to rank them as Oscar-worthiness I would still go with “Avatar” first followed by “Women Talking”, “Elvis”, “Fabelmans”, “Banshees”, and “Tár” and I won’t bother to rank the rest.

That’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

In our next episode, we will continue the story of my faith journey. When we last visited the topic, I was 19 years old and had just left the Catholic Church. After we explore that topic for a few episodes, we will return to the disability issue with the history of my experiences in special education. I’m also looking for some interview opportunities that we might throw in along the way.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

This week we continue our three-part series where I review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. We will cover 3 films this week – “The Banshees of Iniserin”, “All Quiet on the Western Front”, and “Triangle of Sadness”. Apologies for butchering the pronunciation of names and places in this episode. Next week we will wrap up with the final three films. NOTE: Next week’s public episode will come out Sunday morning March 12 prior to the Oscar presentations that night.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 9 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue our look at the Oscar-nominated films for this year. Last week we looked at big-budget blockbusters and genre films that in times past had been overlooked until the Best Picture category was extended from 5 to 10 films.

Last week’s episode was pretty long because it covered 4 of the 10 nominated films–the last of which I didn’t care for even though I tried to. This week we will look at three more films that I found problematic. Next week we will talk about the remaining three films all of which I found to be absolutely amazing. So I apologize that this week will be a bit of a downer but we are going to finish strong next week I promise.

Minor spoilers are included in these reviews. I just can’t tell you what I didn’t like about the films without giving away some details.

There is an old Hollywood adage sometimes attributed to Samuel Goldwyn and also attributed to him many others that goes, “If you have a message, call Western Union.” It reflects the attitude of studio executives that they are there to make movies that entertain and not promote an agenda. That attitude however is old-school Hollywood. Today many films tackle important social justice issues and promote particular political and social agendas. For better or worse, Oscar seems to prefer films that have something to say even if the films are not popular.

This week we will discuss a character-driven film that attempts to be an allegory for a political conflict that tore apart a country that had just gained its independence, a brutal look at the pointless inhumanity of war, and a reflection on the arrogance of the ultrarich as they look down upon those serving them.

There are times when you see an advertisement for a film in October or November and you say to yourself, “It must be Oscar season.” When you see top-notch British or Irish actors, picturesque scenery, and dramatic cinematography, your expectations are automatically raised. Before it is even released, the trailer implies “For your consideration”. Such was the case with “The Banshees of Iniserin”.

This film reunites writer/director Martin McDonagh with Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleason who previously had success with their 2008 film “In Bruges”. Their new collaboration is a very dark dramedy set on the fictitious island of Iniserin off the west coast of Ireland in 1923 near the end of the Irish Civil War.

Farrell portrays Pádraic Súilleabháin who along with his sister Siobhán, played by Kerry Condon, runs a small dairy farm. When not attending to his animals, especially a beloved miniature donkey Jenny, he spends his time at the local pub hanging out with his longtime friend Colm Doherty played by Gleason. Colm, a folk musician who dreams of writing music that will be remembered after he is gone, inexplicably decides to push Pádraic out of his life. His only explanation is that he finds his former friend to be a boring, pointless, waste of his time.

He concludes that life is short and he needs to focus on composing music. Later in the film, he finishes his masterwork which he titles “The Banshees of Iniserin”. A banshee is a mythical female spirit in Irish folklore that heralds the death of a family member. Colm notes that there are no banshees on the island but he called it that anyway. There is an old woman on the island who predicts death is coming for one or more of the island’s inhabitants.

Pádraic spends the entire film trying to understand why his friend has turned against him and trying to reconcile their disagreement. Colm is so adamant that he be left alone that he threatens to cut off one of his own fingers if Pádraic doesn’t comply. He eventually makes good on the threat even though it severely restricts his ability to play his fiddle.

Both Pádraic and the audience speculate endlessly about why he would take such drastic action. One wonders perhaps if he is dying of some disease and wants to soften the loss of his friend.

I found mildly interesting Pádraic’s futile attempts to understand the feud and to deal with the blow to his self-esteem over being dubbed for boring. Also somewhat entertaining is his relationship with his sister with whom he constantly bickers over his need to have his pet donkey in the house as a comfort animal. She is in a never-ending struggle to keep him out of trouble especially when he goes on a drunken binge.

My favorite character is Dominic, played by Barry Keoghan. He is the somewhat dimwitted son of the local constable. Dominic attempts to befriend and comfort Pádraic while unsuccessfully trying to form a relationship with Siobhan who is much older than him.

Farrell is nominated as Lead Actor and has already won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical for this performance. Gleason, Condon, and Keoghan have all received Supporting Actor Oscar and Golden Globe nominations and individual SAG nominations as well as a SAG nomination for Ensemble Cast. Again it’s sad to see actors competing for the same award from the same film because fans of the film will split their votes. In my opinion, Keoghan gives a more memorable performance but Gleason probably has a better chance because he is a bigger name. We look forward to seeing Keoghan who is unofficially speculated to portray Joker opposite Robert Pattinson in the next Batman film. Also, Farrell is likely to reprise his role as Penguin in that film currently slated for October 2025.

“Banshees” won the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical. Martin McDonagh is nominated as director and for his original screenplay. The screenplay earned him a Golden Globe win. It is also nominated for film editing but I’m no judge for a category like that.

With an estimated budget of $20 million and a worldwide gross of nearly $38 million, the film did okay for its type. It is currently showing on HBO and HBOMax.

Overall I thought the performances were all worthy of their nominations but the film itself fell flat for me. It takes place against the background of the Irish Civil War which was a war between various factions that had just won Irish independence from the UK. One supposes that the point of the film was that the pointless and self-destructive feud between the former friends is a metaphor for the Civil War which was being fought between people who had recently bonded together against a common enemy. Yet that metaphor does little or nothing to enlighten us about the real conflict it is supposed to represent except to highlight the futility of war and the ridiculousness of war between people who should have something in common to begin with. Not being very well versed in 1923 Irish history, I wouldn’t have understood the backdrop had I not done some research.

If you want an example of the pointlessness of war, a much more graphic example is “All Quiet on the Western Front”. In addition to its Best Picture Oscar nomination, this German film is also nominated for Best Foreign Film. It is a remake of the Oscar-winning Best Picture from 1930. There was also a made-for-TV Hallmark Hall of Fame version in 1979. Although I have not seen either of the earlier versions, I’m certain that the brutality of World War I is more graphically portrayed than either of the other two versions. I watched the current version on Netflix dubbed in English. All three versions are based on the 1929 novel of the same name by Erich Maria Remarque. One reviewer said that the current version deviated significantly and negatively from the original novel (especially the ending) however having not read it, I can’t comment on that.

It follows the story of a group of 17-year-old German kids who enthusiastically signed up to fight for the Fatherland in World War I. They expect to be marching into Paris triumphantly in a matter of months. Those fantasies are destroyed when they face the brutality of trench warfare. Throughout much of the war, both sides suffered horrendous losses taking and then losing the same pieces of ground over and over again with the battle lines never advancing very far in either direction.

At one point, the film skips forward in time two years to the point where Germany has effectively lost the war. They are trying to sue for peace and stop the carnage. The Kaiser has abdicated and a provisional government is attempting to end the war. The allies, led by France, will accept nothing less than total surrender. We see them refuse to agree to a cease-fire while the final negotiations are underway.

Throughout much of the film, my impression was that it was showing me nothing I hadn’t already seen in the Oscar-nominated 2019 film “1917”. I felt that “All Quiet” didn’t give me much opportunity to get to know the characters well. Then again, perhaps part of the point was that they were meaningless cogs in a heartless war machine.

Only as the war is drawing to a close and the prospect of peace is imminent did I begin to feel anything for the characters as they reunite and begin to reflect on what life will be like when they return home. I preferred 1917 and the difference between the films is this film is completely devoid of hope. Although 1917 was a brutal depiction of a terrible war, it depicts two heroes who are on a mission to deliver a message that will save 1600 lives from walking into an ambush. In this film, there is no sense of purpose. There is no heroism except the quest to keep you and the man next to you alive and to collect dog tags from the dead to bring some closure to their families. It is a totally heartless, meaningless quest for honor and glory that can never be achieved. The ending provides a brutal exclamation point to the entire story that leaves you drained. Your only relief is that the film is over, the real war was over a century ago, and you are left with the sad knowledge that the so-called “war to end all wars” did no such thing.

It has received 9 Oscar nominations including cinematography, makeup and hair, production design, visual effects, adapted screenplay, score, and sound as well as a Golden Globe nomination for foreign film. The special effects, stunts, and production values are amazing given its budget of about $1.2 million. Its estimated worldwide gross was just over $3 million. I think it would highlight the irony of the words “all quiet” in the title if it were to receive the Oscar for sound.

While it is probably worthy of all of those nominations, I cannot recommend the film on any basis. Go watch “1917” instead.

Finally this week, we come to the film “Triangle of Sadness”. It’s another film with a big statement to make. This is an exploration of the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Our main characters are Carl, a young attractive male model played by Harris Dickinson, and his girlfriend Yaya, a model and Instagram influencer played by Charlbi Dean. Tragically, in real life, Dean died of a lung infection shortly after filming. Her condition was reported to be complicated by the loss of her spleen in a previous auto accident.

During an early scene, Carl is at a modeling audition and the casting director tells him, “relax your triangle of sadness – the area above your nose and between your eyebrows.” We have to conclude, however, that there is a double meaning to the title. The film is divided into three distinct parts each of which could be described as constituting a triangle of sadness.

Part 1 is titled “Carl and Yaya” which focuses entirely on their relationship. They could be described as a “friends with benefits” situation although Carl tries to convince her that there is something more between them. At dinner, they engage in a ridiculous debate over who should pay for the meal. He ends up paying even though female models make three times as much as their male counterparts. While we get some wider insights into the fashion and Instagram influencer business, and we know that we are getting to know the major characters in a way that is presumably going to pay off down the road, in my opinion, the first third of the movie is completely pointless. Everything that we gain from this exercise could be learned in a five-minute scene. We get the impression that this is going to be all about the fashion industry. Yet by the end of their segment, that theme pretty much disappears. All we have done is establish that this is a couple of self-absorbed young people riding the benefits of their fame.

In discussing the film online with someone who liked it, I asked what they thought of this first third which I found pointless. They said I should view the film as three short stories loosely connected rather than a continuous piece. I suppose as a standalone vignette it isn’t that bad but it seems seriously disconnected from the rest of the film even though the characters appear in the other two segments.

Part 2 is titled “The Cruise”. We find the young couple on a small cruise ship with what appears to be perhaps 50 passengers at most. They were given free tickets as part of their role as influencers. Yaya is constantly posting photos on Instagram using Carl almost as a prop to promote her brand.

Along the way, we meet a cast of strange characters. There is a Russian businessman who made a fortune selling animal manure as fertilizer. He is accompanied by his wife. Another rich businessman and his wife made their fortune selling hand grenades. There is a lone businessman whose partner did not accompany him on the cruise and he tries to pick up various women who seem to give him attention only to make fun of him. There is a woman in a wheelchair who is unable to speak because of a stroke but who is fully aware of everything around her. She is accompanied by her husband.

The cruise director Ms. Paula is seen prepping the staff for the guests by admonishing them that no matter what the guests want, the answer is always yes. Throughout the cruise, there are several instances where we see that the staff is totally at the mercy of the whims of the rich passengers. A minor complaint by Carl costs one crew member his job. Another passenger has to be placated because she believes the sails are dirty even though this is not a sailboat.

Ms. Paula also has to contend with the captain played by Woody Harrelson who is content to remain in his cabin inebriated rather than fulfill any of his duties.

At one point, the Russian’s wife insists that the staff be given an hour off to go swimming even though it will disrupt everything aboard the ship. Her rich husband threatens to purchase the boat if his wife’s demands are not met.

That night, they manage to get the captain presentable in his uniform for the captain’s dinner with the most important guests. The ship encounters rough weather and is tossed violently. Combined with the delays in food preparation because of the mandatory swimming party, nearly all of the guests get violently seasick. The extremely graphic scene depicting seasickness looks like something out of a Monty Python sketch. The situation deteriorates further when toilets begin overflowing around the ship.

Meanwhile, the socialist captain who is embarrassed by his own wealth engages in a political debate with the Russian capitalist. They get drunk, lock themselves in the captain’s office, and begin spouting political propaganda and joke announcements that the ship is sinking causing panic among the frightened passengers and overwhelmed crew. In an attempt to shut down the PA system, Ms. Paula accidentally causes a shipwide blackout only further complicating the situation.

One reviewer said that this grotesque scene resulted in more people leaving the theater in the middle of a movie than they had ever seen before. Although I found the debates between the drunken Captain and a Russian businessman entertaining and I couldn’t help laughing at all of the grotesque projectile vomiting and people slipping and sliding in sewage from overflowed toilets, I found particularly disturbing the scene of the husband frantically trying to lift his disabled wife into a wheelchair and get her life vest onto her believing that the ship really was sinking. The genuine looks of panic and despair on them and the other passengers were in no way funny.

The next morning, the ship is attacked by pirates and although we don’t see the details, there is a long shot of an explosion on the ship. We then cut to Part 3 “The Island”.

Only seven passengers and crew wash up on the beach of an island in inflatable life rafts. They are Carl, Yaya, the Russian, the lonely businessman, the paralyzed woman, the cruise director, and a man who claims to be part of the engine room crew but is likely one of the pirate hijackers. The next morning a large enclosed lifeboat washes up on shore containing a fortysomething-year-old Asian woman named Abigail whose job aboard the yacht was to clean toilets.

She is now in charge of the enclosed lifeboat containing a cache of supplies. She is able to catch an octopus, clean it, start a fire, and prepare a meal. In the most memorable scene of the film, she divides food giving herself half of it and forcing the other seven castaways to split the other half. Ms. Paula tries to remind her they are both employees of a shipping company and responsible for the safety of the survivors. “You work for me. You clean toilets,” she tells Abigail. Abigail responds in broken English, “Where is yacht? We not on yacht. On yacht, I clean toilets. Here I am captain.” She then insists each of the survivors acknowledge her as captain and when they do, she tosses them a morsel of food in the way you would give a treat to an obedient dog.

From this point forward, we get a serious reflection on the way arrogant rich people treat underlings as their roles are now brutally reversed. Abigail establishes a dictatorial matriarchy in which she bends all of the survivors to her will.

Dolly De Leon who plays Abigail did not receive any Oscar nomination however she has received numerous other supporting actress nominations for the role including BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations. She is the first Filipino actor to be nominated for a Golden Globe and I believe it is much deserved. I would’ve rather seen her get a Supporting Actress Oscar nomination than Jamie Lee Curtis this year.

In addition to the Best Picture nomination, Ruben Östlund was also nominated for directing and his original screenplay. It was nominated for Golden Globe Best Comedy or Musical and was honored with the prestigious Palme d’Or at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival. I found it ironic that a film that mocks and ridicules the elite rich would win the top prize at Cannes which is attended by the upper crust of high society.

With an estimated budget of just over $10 million and a worldwide gross of over $23 million, it is a good success. It is still available in theaters or for purchase or rent as a digital download from Amazon.

With a run time of over 2 hours and 20 minutes, it is way too long. As previously stated, the first section seemed pointless and superfluous to me. The in-depth look at Caarl and Yaya seems to be a big waste of time and could cause one to lose interest completely before we get to the meat of the story. I liked it a little better than “Everything Everywhere All at Once” that I reviewed last week, but like that film, it seemed to me that we had to wait a long time for a payoff at the end of the movie. And speaking of the ending, it is decidedly ambiguous and I found it as unsatisfying as the end of “Banshees”.

I’m all in favor of there being a point to a film. Having an agenda or a message does not mean you cannot have an entertaining film. Unfortunately, like the metaphor of “Banshees” and the antiwar sentiments of “All Quiet” this film’s commentary on the social and economic divides between the filthy rich and ordinary people doesn’t offer much beyond its poorly executed message.

Despite memorable moments, overall I didn’t care for it. I recommend that you wait for streaming or cable and skip the first section completely and fast-forward through anything else that bores you. Meanwhile, if you want a film that is a commentary about the arrogant rich and has shocking surprises, I recommend “The Menu” currently available on HBO and HBOMax. Although it did not receive any Oscar nominations, it has earned many other nominations including Golden Globe nominations for lead actors Ralph Fiennes and Anya Taylor-Joy.

That’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

In our next episode, we will conclude our look at Oscar-nominated films with three amazing films that I believe are perhaps the most Oscar-worthy of the bunch this year. Note that new episodes of this podcast usually premier at midnight Monday mornings, however, the Oscars will be presented Sunday night before that. So the public release of this next episode will be moved up to Sunday morning March 12 prior to the Oscar ceremony.

If you want to get episodes early or if you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. In addition to early access to the podcast, you will be eligible for any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

When I began the podcast, I mentioned that one of the topics I was going to cover was entertainment. This week we began a three-part series where I review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. We will cover 4 films this week and three films each of the next two weeks. We start with “Avatar: Way of the Water”, “Top Gun: Maverick”, “Elvis”, and “Everything Everywhere All at Once”.

Hello, this is Chris Young, and welcome to a special episode of Contemplating Life – Oscar Edition.

When I started this podcast, I said I would cover various topics, including entertainment. I’m a huge movie fan and I am very much addicted to television. This is very much in line with the overall theme of the podcast. The silver screen not only reflects the image from the projector, but it is also a mirror that we hold up to ourselves as we reflect on the human condition, human emotions, and the issues that shape our lives. Entertainment media is another way of Contemplating Life.

Today I’m going to begin a three-part series where I give you my thoughts on all 10 of the films nominated for Best Picture Oscar which will be presented Sunday March 12, and shown on ABC. I will also throw in my comments about any acting or other awards for these films. I will probably not get into anything nominations for films that are not among these 10 Best Picture candidates. I will also mention Golden Globe nominations and winners which were already presented on January 10th and can be replayed on Peacock TV. I will also mention nominations for the upcoming Screen Actors Guild or SAG awards Which can be seen on February 26 on Netflix’s YouTube channel for free with no Netflix subscription required.

There will be minor spoilers, especially on the films I didn’t enjoy. I hate to spoil but I want to explain what I didn’t like about them.

In times past, Oscar seemed to focus on small independent prestigious films bypassing most highly popular films. But beginning in 2009, they expanded the Best Picture category from 5 to as many as 10 films giving the opportunity to recognize a broader range of films including big-budget blockbusters. We will start with 4 of those highly popular movies this week and in the following two weeks, we will cover 3 movies each. Apologies that this episode is going to be a bit long.

We begin with the long-awaited “Avatar: The Way of Water”. I’m going to be honest upfront that I will not be very objective about this film. I am a huge fan of CGI effects. Years ago I co-authored a book about computer graphics. And ever since I got one of those little toy View-Master 3D devices for Christmas when I was about 7 or 8 years old, I have been addicted to 3D.

I saw the original “Avatar” in theaters at least 6 times in IMAX 3D including when it was re-released a few months ago in anticipation of the sequel. I’ve also seen the original several times on Blu-ray including 3D Blu-ray on my 3D TV. I didn’t care that people dubbed it a remake of “Dances with Wolves” in outer space because I never saw that film. And so what if it wasn’t the most original plot? James Cameron has always been known for ripping off other people’s work. The original “Avatar” was clearly the most visually stunning film of my lifetime. Like most fans, I anxiously awaited for 13 years to revisit the alien moon, Pandora.

In one sentence… It was worth the wait.

Once again we become totally immersed in this alien world. Even someone like me who deeply appreciates the technical achievement found himself forgetting that these were CGI characters.
Initially, I was worried that the reviews I read of Avatar 2 talked about how spectacularly beautiful it was but they didn’t say much about the characters or the story. I was pleasantly surprised that from a storytelling point of view, this also exceeded the original.

In this film, set 16 years after the original, we confirm that Jake has successfully left behind his human body and full-time occupies the body of a native Na’vi without the need for technological assistance. He is now the chief of the Omatikaya tribe. He is married to Neytiri and they now have 4 children. Jamie Flatters plays Neteyam, their son age 16. Britain Dalton plays 14-year-old son Lo’ak who struggles to compete for his father’s approval in the shadow of his more accomplished older brother. Their youngest child an eight-year-old daughter named Tuktirey nicknamed “Tuk” is played by Trinity Jo-Li Bliss. She brings an infectious childhood enthusiasm to the story that has been absent previously. Her CGI image is quite adorable as are the renderings of various Na’vi infants we see in the film.

They also have a 14-year-old adopted Na’vi daughter Kiri who is the offspring of the avatar body of Dr. Grace Augustine, Sigourney Weaver’s character from the original film. Even though Dr. Grace’s human body dies at the end of the original movie, apparently her avatar body was pregnant. It’s a mystery who the father is. Teenager Kiri is also played by Sigourney Weaver through the magic of performance capture and CGI. The family is also accompanied by a teenage boy called Spider played by Jack Champion, a human child who was abandoned when humans were exiled from Pandora.

Their idyllic family life is interrupted when the humans return. Among the humans returning is their old nemesis the vicious hard-nosed Marine Colonel Miles Quartich who died in the first film. His consciousness and memories were downloaded into a backup prior to his death and then uploaded into an avatar body. Many of his squad of badass Marines who were also killed are similarly resurrected as Na’vi. Now that they have powerful alien bodies they are even more dangerous and are hell-bent on chasing down Jake and his family to get revenge.

Jake and his family are forced to flee to a different tribe of Na’vi called the Metkayina who live in and around the water. This refugee family has to try to assimilate into the new community and learn the way of the water. We get memorable performances from Sam Worthington as Jake, Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, and Stephen Lang as Quartich. The Metkayina are led by chief Tonowari played by Cliff Curtis and his wife Ronla played by Kate Winslet. Winslet is unrecognizable in CGI form and brings nothing interesting to the screen. Everyone who was anticipating the Titanic reunion between her and Director James Cameron will be disappointed. Reports are that her character will play a more significant part in promised sequels.

The film must be seen in 3D to be fully appreciated and IMAX 3D is worth the premium price. Don’t wait for this to come to Blu-ray or streaming. It needs to be seen in a theater on a big screen with full digital surround sound. As soon as an opportunity presents itself, I will be going back to see it again in IMAX 3D. If I was voting in the Academy it would get my vote but then again I admit my biases.

It is also nominated for Visual Effects which it had better when hands down, Sound which it should do well although it has competition, and Production Design which blows away the competition. It should be noted that none of the nominations were in acting categories and that’s probably proper. I might have nominated Stephen Lang for Supporting Actor however I doubt we will see any performance capture character get nominated for a major award anytime soon. Andy Serkis has earned nominations and wins of lesser awards for his performance capture performances in the “Lord of the Rings” and “Planet of the Apes” franchises but never an Oscar.

Avatar 2 also received Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture – Drama and director James Cameron but did not win.

As a fan of big-budget sci-fi films, it’s heartening to see the Academy recognize a blockbuster after decades of only recognizing small artsy films that only saw a limited audience. With the budget reported to be $350 million and a worldwide gross of $2.1 billion so far, the Academy is finally recognizing popular films of quality. While movies educate, inspire, and move us to think deeply beyond our own experiences, ultimately they have to work as entertainment as well. Films like Avatar 2 and Top Gun 2 give us popcorn-chewing action while telling compelling stories with memorable characters and they deserve recognition as well.

While we are discussing long-awaited sequels with big budgets and massive box office numbers, we should turn briefly to “Top Gun: Maverick”. It’s been 36 years since we took to the skies with Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell. With an estimated budget of $170 million and a worldwide gross of over $1.4 billion, the Academy is again demonstrating it is no longer afraid to nominate action blockbusters.

When we last left Maverick, he was planning to become an instructor at Top Gun however we learn that only lasted two months. At the start of the film, he is a test pilot of a Mach 10-rated hypersonic aircraft. Naturally, he pushes it to Mach 10.2 and destroys the aircraft.

He then is tapped to train a group of elite Top Gun graduates for a special mission to destroy a rogue nation’s uranium enrichment plant before it goes online. Among the candidates for this extremely dangerous mission is Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw played by Miles Teller. Rooster is the son of Maverick’s former partner “Goose” who was killed in an accident in the first film. Rooster doesn’t blame Maverick so much for the death of his father as for the way that Maverick has thwarted his career as he tried to follow in his father’s footsteps.

Jennifer Conway plays bar owner Penny Benjamin who serves as the new love interest in the story. While there is a minor amount of chemistry between her and Cruise, it is nowhere near the level of passion we saw between him and Kelly McGillis in the original film. McGillis is mostly retired from acting and although she has played distinguished characters late in life, she no longer has the sex appeal she had as a young woman.

The film is pretty much a wall-to-wall fan service for fans of the original. It delivers lots of action and machismo that we expect from a Top Gun film. We are not at all surprised when Maverick clashes with the brass and gets in deep trouble that costs him his assignment nor are we surprised when he regains the job, proves that the impossible is possible, and saves the day.

We get a memorable brief appearance by Val Kilmer who reprises his role as Tom “Iceman” Kazansky now risen to the rank of admiral. We learn that he has spent years fighting to keep Maverick flying in spite of his usual antics. In real life, Kilmer has been battling throat cancer for many years and can barely speak. His condition is written into the story as his character struggles with the same condition.

At age 60, Cruise can still flash his signature charismatic boyish grin and has no difficulty re-creating the bravado of the character he created over 30 years ago. Teller’s portrayal of Rooster’s animosity towards Maverick comes across as completely credible without being at all cliché. Speaking of Teller, you should also check out his performance in the recent miniseries “The Offer” where he portrays movie producer Albert S. Ruddy recounting his experiences producing “The Godfather”. The 10-episode miniseries on Paramount+ is well worth your time.

While it was nice to revisit this franchise after all these years and I found this experience completely enjoyable and satisfying as a fan of the original, there is nothing new here. I’m glad it was recognized but overall I’m not sure it really deserves its Best Picture nomination. It also earned nominations for Film Editing, Sound, and Visual Effects all of which are worthy of the nomination but none of which are likely to win. Speaking of visual effects, it should be noted that there is minimal use of CGI and green screen in this film. When we see the actors in the cockpit of their aircraft, we are seeing them really flying in the backseat of actual fighter jets. The cast had to undergo special training to endure the G-forces involved. The nominated closing song written by Lady Gaga and BloodPop is nothing special. The song also received a Golden Globe nomination but didn’t win. I may have more to say about Oscar-nominated songs in a later episode. I don’t believe the Adapted Screenplay deserved its nomination.

“Top Gun: Maverick” is still in theaters and available for streaming on Paramount+ and MGM+.

Moving on to “Elvis”. With an estimated budget of $85 million and a worldwide gross of $187 million, it’s not in the same category as Avatar or Top Gun but it still a big hit. I am a fan of director Baz Luhrmann and when I heard he was taking on a biopic about Elvis I was immediately intrigued. And what’s not to like about Tom Hanks who has only made 2 bad movies in his entire career? I heard Hanks interviewed before the movie was released and he described it as “The most Baz Luhrmanny movie Baz Luhrmann ever made.”

I have a strange affection for Luhrmann‘s 1996 “Romeo + Juliet” starring Leonardo DiCaprio and which caused me to fall in love with young Claire Danes. His 2001 “Moulin Rouge” is a guilty pleasure that I enjoy very much despite Ewan McGregor’s horrific singing voice. Finally, “The Great Gatsby” from 2013 had his signature surreal twists that gave me a new appreciation for the classic story.

I was pleasantly surprised that “Elvis”, while it had some surreal Baz Luhrmanny moments, was not as over-the-top as some of his other work. The film does a wonderful job of explaining the roots of Elvis’ musical influences in jazz and gospel having grown up in a black neighborhood. In a world where Elvis impersonators are a dime a dozen (if that much), Austin Butler does a phenomenal job embodying the character without ever becoming a cheesy imitation. He much deserves his nomination. He won the Golden Globe in the drama category and earned a SAG nomination for the performance. The film was nominated for a Globe but did not win.

Much of the story revolves around Elvis’ manager and promoter Colonel Tom Parker brilliantly portrayed by Tom Hanks. The self-proclaimed Colonel was a huckster and a con man who was responsible for much of Elvis’ success but who manipulated and exploited him mercilessly. Many have claimed that Hanks was snubbed by not getting nominated. However, despite heavy layers of makeup effects and a consistent foreign accent, one could not forget that they were watching Tom Hanks. Hanks delivers a memorable character that could have been nominated but I understand why it wasn’t.

Were it not facing stiff competition, this could easily be the Best Picture winner in a different year. With a total of 8 nominations including Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Makeup and Hair, Production Design, and Sound it could come away with multiple trophies deservedly. Let’s call it my third favorite in the Best Picture category.

Given my fandom of the sci-fi/fantasy genre, I was very excited to see all of the accolades for “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” The film received 11 Oscar nominations – the most of any film this year. It also has won 261 awards out of 392 nominations including a best actress Golden Globe for Michelle Yeoh. While not exactly a blockbuster, with an estimated budget of $25 million and a worldwide gross of over $105 million, it was a huge hit. With all of this high praise, I was really anxious to see it. The idea that a sci-fi/fantasy genre film was the odds-on favorite to win multiple major category Oscars really excited me. I was also excited to see a supporting actress nomination for Jamie Lee Curtis.

Although I’ve seen Michelle Yeoh in a number of films dating back to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” in 2000, I didn’t really become a fan until she appeared in the Paramount+ series “Star Trek: Discovery” where she played two different versions of the same character from different parallel universes. In “Everything Everywhere All at Once” she dives headlong into the multiverse portraying multiple versions of the same person.

When I finally was able to see the film I could not have been more disappointed. While I appreciate that it is intended to be a kind of slapstick comedy farce, I found it to be so ridiculous, so difficult to follow, and so pointless that I nearly gave up on watching it multiple times.

While Jamie Lee Curtis plays a mildly entertaining somewhat memorable quirky character, my initial reaction to her performance was that it was nowhere near as memorable as some of her other roles such as her Golden Globe-winning performance in “True Lies” or her nominated performances in the “Halloween” franchise as well as “A Fish Called Wanda”. I wonder if the nomination was simply recognizing her body of work and/or if she just got swept up in the mania over this film. She was nominated for a Golden Globe for this film.

While Michelle Yeoh’s handling of this mixed-up messy story is memorable and deserves the nomination, I never could get into the spirit of the film.

Yeoh plays Evelyn Wang, the owner of a laundromat that is deep in trouble with the IRS. Curtis plays the IRS agent auditing her. On the way to her tax audit, her husband and business partner Waymond suddenly changes his personality. We eventually discover that he is being possessed by an alternate version of himself from a parallel universe known as the Alpha universe. He reveals that an evil force is trying to destroy his universe and all parallel universes. He is convinced that Evelyn is the key to saving the multiverse. Waymond is played by Ke Huy Quan who you may recall from his childhood appearances as Short Round in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” and as Data in “The Goonies”. His performance is quite memorable and definitely worth the nomination.

Evelyn quickly begins to learn the method of jumping between parallel universes which allows her to pick up skills from different versions of herself in a way not unlike how characters in “The Matrix” are able to download new skills into their brain. As we jump between parallel universes, we get to see multiple versions of her character that are way more successful and apparently happier than the milquetoast mundane existence she is currently living.

We establish that in this universe her marriage is in trouble and we see how different choices she might have made lead to vastly different outcomes for the couple either together or apart. She also has a somewhat strained relationship with her lesbian daughter Joy who is played by Stephanie Hsu who also received a Supporting Actress nomination. With her and Jamie Lee Curtis both being nominated for the same category from the same film, fans of the film will split their vote probably ruining chances for either of them although my guess is Hsu has a better chance of winning.

While much of it is slapstick comedy mixed with kung-fu action that is not meant to be taken seriously (for example in one universe everyone has hot dogs for fingers) after a while the stunts become boring or unintelligible through sensory overload and the comedy just isn’t that funny.

If you really like comedic farce laced with phenomenal action sequences I would rather recommend Netflix’s “Bullet Train” starring Brad Pitt than this film. The plot is much more cleverly crafted, the comedy is better, and the action is just as enjoyable.

While I think Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan, and Stephanie Hsu probably deserve their nominations, I cannot recommend the film itself. With its massive momentum from all the other nominations and wins from other organizations, this film is probably the odds-on favorite to win but I for one will be disappointed if it does. Yeoh won Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical Golden Globe and Ke Huy Quan won the Supporting Actor Golden Globe. The ensemble cast has earned a SAG nomination as well as individual SAG nominations for Yeoh, Quan, Hsu, and Curtis.

It’s hard to describe what happens next without getting into spoilers so I apologize for doing so. In the upcoming spoiler, I will explain some of what redeems this mess of a film. If you don’t want to be spoiled, go ahead and stop this podcast and come back next week for reviews of more Oscar-nominated films.

Okay, you were warned. Here’s “what’s really going on” in this film. It turns out that the evil force she is battling is a parallel universe version of her daughter Joy.

Only in the final 15 minutes of the film do we get poignant moments between mother-daughter and husband-wife in which we come to realize that the entire battle that has been going on is really a battle to salvage their relationships. It seems to me like we went through a lot of crap just to get 15 minutes worth of quality acting, storytelling, and memorable moments. At the beginning of the film, we don’t really feel that the mother-daughter relationship was that broken. In the alternate universe, Joy turns evil because she is so disillusioned with her life. Yet we don’t see that same level of disillusionment in the Joy character from our universe. Only in the final scene when Evelyn asked her about her dissatisfaction with her life do we sense that dissatisfaction. It’s almost like Joy didn’t realize how miserable she was until her mother pointed it out to her at that moment. So the climax in which that relationship is finally healed doesn’t pay off. The healing of the husband-wife relationship is not emphasized even though it was set up better to begin with and we feel better about mending that relationship than we do the mother-daughter relationship.

Perhaps others saw something in the film that I did not or they gave more weight to the final 15 minutes of quality performances and poignant themes than did I. Perhaps the critics and Academy voters were willing to overlook the flaws in the payoff that I just described.

That’s just my opinion… I could be wrong. We will see what happens on Oscar night.

As always, I welcome your comments.

In our next episode, we will talk about 3 Oscar-nominated films that are more in line with what we traditionally expect from the Academy Awards. Although they contain quality performances, I had specific problems with all three of them. Don’t worry – in our third episode in the series I will cover the final three Best Picture nominees and films and I loved all of them. They are what quality filmmaking is all about.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.