Director Report Card: Julius Onah (2025)

4. Captain America: Brave New World

For years, we heard cultural critics and film reviewers talking about what they called "superhero fatigue." This idea that the public was getting sick of super powered blockbusters kept getting thrown around and Marvel and DC movies kept making billions of dollars. However, it is now evident that the superhero bubble has definitely burst. Several high profile sequels, sequels to movies that made seven figures at the box office, have flopped. Being based on a comic book is clearly no longer a guarantee that a film will be a financial success. Marvel and their Disney overlords are all too aware of this shift. Compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and an actor's guild strike, their upcoming slate of superhero movies have been delayed, reshuffled, and endlessly reshot. The first victim of this damage control maneuver has been "Captain America: Brave New World." Filmed in 2023 and originally intended for a 2024 release, the sequel has been subjected to controversy, rewrites, studio interference, and a ballooning budget from the beginning. After all that, the sequel finally opened last month to merely decent box office and worst reviews. "How did this happen?" is clearly a question we won't have an answer to for quite a while but the film, in its desperately compromised "final" form, remains. 

Sam Wilson, the Avenger formally know as the Falcon, has inherited the shield and title of Captain America. General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross, best known for his rabid pursuit of the Hulk, has been elected president. He hopes to establish a good working relationship with the new Captain America. Sam is invited to the White House and brings Isaiah Bradley, the black man who was imprisoned and subjected to government testing during the fifties in hopes of recreating the Super Soldier Formula. During a presentation about the newly discovered element adamantium, President Ross hoping to create a peaceful trade of the metal among the world's superpowers, something goes horribly wrong. Bradley and several others are compelled to attempt to kill the president. Hoping to clear his friend's name, Sam Wilson sets out to uncover the conspiracy behind these events. Soon, he has uncovered a master plan from a vengeful villain, orchestrating events that could unleash a world war and turn President Ross into a monster. 

There are many answers to the question of how the hyper-successful Marvel train derailed. I'm sure many think-pieces have already been written on the subject and many more will follow. However, I think the main factor leading to the public's growing indifference to the Marvel Cinematic Universe is similar to how the comic book industry itself began catering to an increasingly smaller audience over the last three decades. We call it "Continuity Lockout," the point at which a nerdy property becomes so weighed down by prior events and currently on-going storylines that it becomes nearly impossible for casual enjoyers to easily jump in. Unless you know a lot about superhero comics and the histories of many major characters and teams, it's hard to get into the latest books. This arose out of Marvel and DC desperately appealing to an entitled audience of unhinged nerds that can never be pleased and following trends after the collapse of an unsustainable speculators' market, alienating what is ostensibly the medium's primary audience of children. 

The Marvel Cinematic Universe, meanwhile, has become a massive network of interconnecting feature films, TV shows, streaming series, and short films in the sixteen years since Robert Downey Jr. first put on the Iron Man suit. "Captain America: Brave New World" is something like the forty-sixth installment of the MCU. It is a sequel to three previous "Captain America" movies and "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" Disney+ mini-series. You have to have seen that show to understand the plot of this movie. It is also a de-facto sequel to "The Incredible Hulk," the second MCU film that nobody seemed to like that much at the time and has been largely forgotten. It also draws heavily from all the previous "Avengers" movies and "Eternals," one of the least popular Marvel movies.

That is a massive time investment, with a lot of moving parts, for the average filmgoer to keep up on. Is it any wonder that a lot of them opted out after "Avengers: Endgame's" rather satisfying conclusion? How many people watched "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier?" How many saw the trailer for "Brave New World" and were confused as to why Sam Wilson was Captain America now? The money people that control Hollywood now believe in the dogma of capitalism, that you must always expand and expand, that you must always make more money next quarter than you did the last one. Applying that idea to storytelling leaves an audience increasingly overwhelmed by a deluge of new stuff, much of which is starting to look the same. This is so true that someone like me – who is still ostensibly invested in the MCU, who does watch all the movies and most of the streaming series, who knows entirely too much about comics – was still left a little adrift by "Brave New Wave." A major character in the film is Joaquin Torres, the new Falcon, Sam's loyal sidekick, and a tech expert. Joaquin was apparently introduced in "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" but I had entirely forgotten that. I was confused as to why the film was treating seemingly a new character like a member of the established cast. In other words, the Disney masterminds have not done a good job of ensuring that their new characters are very memorable. 

Marvel Studios being run like a sausage factory is not the only reason "Brave New World" turned out the way it did. To learn the film was subjected to numerous extensive reshoots and rewrites could not be more apparent. There is a disconnect between many scenes and subplots. Sam and Joaquin investigate a black site in West Virginia, while the head of Ross' security team is witnessed to brain-washed guards killing minor supporting characters the viewer has already forgotten about. These two events never feel as linked as they should be. Sam has a buddy in the Marines – a brief glance at the Wikis reveals that this is a totally unrecognizable version of perpetual Marvel D-lister Demolition Man – who seems weirdly important to the story despite being relatively minor. In fact, a lot of the movie hinges on characters that feel otherwise unimportant and generic, such as the Japanese prime minister or some nameless jet fighter pilots. The way the heroes jump around locations, faced with undefined adversaries, as hastily assembled exposition is thrown in to explain why our guys are going to this place or after this thing next, suggests a script that was repeatedly remixed and reshuffled. It does not result in a cohesive feeling story. 

What of that story? Director of superhero movies – clearly embarrassed to be working on a corporate product based on disposable children's books, beholden to a stifling formula – often say their cape movies are patterned after more respectable genres. “The Batman” was a noir. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was a seventies conspiracy thriller. “Brave New World” wants to be a conspiracy thriller too. There's a problem though. The sequel has clearly been subjected to so many rewrites and re-editing, each one simplifying and dumbing down the story. What we have been left with is a conspiracy thriller whose conspiracy runs in a straight line, one guy being responsible for everything that happens. All of the subterfuge that goes down is the result of cartoonish mind control. The mastermind's scheme builds towards an act of ridiculous sci-fi revenge, that the entire advertising campaign for the film has been constructed around. The result is a “conspiracy thriller” that feels like it was written for school children. 

In this sense, “Captain America: Brave New World” is a movie about nothing. It exists simply to deliver sequences that will satisfy, whether that be a reference to something viewers might recognize or through some rudimentary action spectacle. At the same time, motion pictures of such a scale as this do not exist in a vacuum. All art is political, even corporate mandated and by-commission art such as this. From this perspective, “Brave New World” may very well be the most neo-liberal movie ever made. The superhero story acknowledges that the American government has made mistakes and done bad things, with the imprisonment and treatment of Isaiah Bradley being the most prominent example. However, all of this is totally swept under the rug, the script ultimately deciding that all the problems in the story are the result of only two guys. It's a cowardly declaration, a refusal to grapple with any of the fallout of the American empire. 

Which is also apparent in the film's unspoken support of Israel, in the present of Ruth Bat-Seraph. For the hardcore nerds, they'll know that character from the comics as Sabra, the Marvel Universe's de-facto Captain Israel whose first appearance has her discovering Palestinian children have souls. There's one line confirming that Seraph is a former Mossad agent and, if you squint, you can see her wearing blue and white briefly. Otherwise, she's an unrelated character, with her origins tied to “Black Widow.” Which makes me wonder, when Marvel realized now was an especially bad time to debut this character, they didn't simply cut her entirely during any of the endless reshoots. It's not as if the stiff, distractingly petite Shira Haas gives a star-making performance or anything. But, no, it was essentially important for some reason to acknowledge that the U.S. government supports the existence of Israel and everything it may or may not have done in this comic book superhero movie. 

In the last act, the film depicts the President becoming a hideous, rage monster. He destroys the White House and the Washington Monument, symbols of our American ideals, before brandishing the U.S. flag as a weapon. We never learn anything about President “Thunderbolt” Ross' ideologies but, considering his hot tempered saber-rattling pushes the world towards war, it's hard not to assume he's a half-assed Trump analogue of some sort. How do we defeat a supervillain, an unreasonable and brightly colored horror, elected to the highest office in the land?  “Captain America: Brave New World” presents the most middle-of-the-road solution possible. Why, you talk to him! You reach out to his heart. See, the evil president isn't so bad! He just needs a hug from his daughter and a good therapy session. What could represent the modern Democratic philosophy better than that, that everything will work itself out if we reach across the aisles and talk it out? How's that working out for us? Despite the subtitle suggesting a world that is both new and brave, the finale actually features a line about how America needs a “return to normalcy.” Because nothing about how the situation was before had anything to do with us being in this mess in the first place. Perhaps this marks the sequel as one of the few pieces of cinematic art to emerge from the brief Biden interlude between the Trump Regime.

In the long lead-up to “Brave New World's” release, Julius Onah made some mention about how Sam Wilson would not be conflicted to be Captain America. However, clearly that element of the script changed during one of the many tinkerings. This movie shows a Captain America eager to prove himself, still insecure about whether this is a role he can fill. In the context of Onah's other works, this reads as a continuation on his frequent theme of being an immigrant. Sam Wilson is an American, has been his whole life, and has plenty of experience being a superhero at this point. Why does he still feel like an imposter? In a scene where he meets Isaiah in prison, one of the more tensely directed sequences in the film, the two have a conversation that highlights of difficult of being a proud American and a black man, abused by this country so many times. The question of “Will this country ever allow a black man to be Captain America?” floats over the film. I suppose the hopeful ending provides an answer but it never feels like the topic is truly addressed. 

What's most frustrating about “Brave New World” being such a chopped up mess is that, at the center of it, is a hero that easily could've carried his own movie. Anthony Mackie undeniably has the verve and charisma to be a movie star. The handful of brief moments throughout the sequel, where he's not weighed down by the contrived script or heaps of CGI, you can see it. During the fight scenes, such as a rumble in a church at the beginning or a scuffle in a junk yard with a supporting supervillain, you realize that this guy actually does have the stuff to play this role. The film repeatedly has Mackie doing all sorts of CGI-assisted, silly looking leaps and flips throughout, ignoring that he's at his most compelling when he's on his feet and scuffling with the bad guys, fist-to-fist. 

Another interesting element about Mackie's performance is that he doesn't have a female co-star to bounce off of. He only shares a few scenes with Shira Haas and the two characters are never alone. He doesn't have a woman you could generally describe as a love interest, a common sight in these movies. Which isn't to say that he doesn't have a love interest at all. Sam Wilson shares a lot of scenes with Joaquin Torres. They are always bantering. One moment, where Sam grabs his superhero suit while Torres does hacker stuff at the computer, gives the impression of them living together. When Torres is injured, late in the film, Sam takes it extremely hard. Their eventual reunion seems incomplete without a kiss. Throughout, Joaquin seems utterly devoted to Sam in turn. Either Marvel is intentionally trying to tease the yaoi fan girls or Mackie was intentionally playing Sam as gay. I'm inclined to believe the latter, as Mackie has homoerotic tension with nearly every male character in the film. During sweaty gym training sessions with Isaiah, tense stare-offs with President Ross, being chummy with a random army guy, or running from Sidewinder while wearing tiny shorts, there's this undeniable tension in every scene. Thus, I must conclude: Everybody, welcome our first gay Captain America. 

Ultimately though, with a film so clearly plagued by rewrites and reshoots, it was obviously difficult for most of the cast to get a read on the material. Harrison Ford seems directionless as Ross, grumpy but prone to unbelievably maudlin moods. Danny Ramirez is kind of annoying as Joaquin, a Scrappy-Doo-like character that is both plucky comic relief and a tech genius and an overly enthusiastic young superhero. Haas gives a totally blank performance, which is true of most of the cast. The only actors who emerge with any personality at all are those playing the hammiest villains. Giancarlo Esposito plays Sidewinder with the verve of a mustache-twirling bad guy, energizing his few scenes. Tom Nelson Blake as the Leader gets to croak a lot of terrible dialogue but somehow maintains not only his dignity but adds an amusingly unhinged quality to the part. Though the make-up choices made to bring this iconic villain – the Hulk's archenemy in the comics – to life isn't going to win over many hardcore fans. 

Simply put, it is impossible to separate "Brave New World" from the circumstances of its production. Knowing the movie was in a constant state of flux, at the mercy of last minute reshoots always more last minute than the previous ones, informs every minute of its runtime. You can see this most obviously in what are some surprisingly chintzy looking special effects. Sometimes, Sam and Joaquin look fine flying through the air and flexing in their super suits. Other times, they look like graphics from a subpar video game. We know Marvel is fond of shooting on green screens, when actors seem to be floating on-screen without any connection to their location, you notice. The Red Hulk looks pretty good but Sam's armor seems plastic-y in the same scenes. We can only assume that such an expensive film having such underwhelming effects is the result of Disney cracking the whips on underpaid and overworked digital animators, forcing them to crank out a finished product within a few weeks, to hold onto a set-in-stone release date. 

Being the result of such a chop-slapped production, I suppose it should be impressive that any of Julius Onah's trademarks as a filmmaker are evident in the final cut. There's a rotating tracking shot that reminded me of a similar shot in "Luce." That the Leader infects people through cellphone signals feels like it could have been a sign of Onah's continued interest in how technology effects our daily lives. Lastly, the titles and end credits carry his tendency for using boxed-off sections of the screen as a visual technique. I imagine, in the aftermath of such a chaotic production, the director will receive most of the blame. I don't think "Captain America: Brave New World" being a mess is Onah's fault though. The sequel ending up this way is a direct result of Disney trying to turn Marvel into an unending distraction for a not-picky-enough public, for failing to correctly gauge the limits of their own popular franchises, the film caught in the crossfire of trying to right a sinking ship.  [Grade: C-]

Director Report Card: Julius Onah (2019)

3. Luce

It seems to me that the Sundance Film Festival remains the most prestigious of the big independent film festivals. It's where future Oscar winners and break-out indie hits often first emerge, where careers are made and dreams are broken. A related phenomenon is a movie getting rave responses out of Sundance, a major studio paying big bucks for it, only for the film to open to middling box office. Julius Onah had technically already had his breakout film by 2019, though I can't blame him for wanting to put "The Cloverfield Paradox" behind him. He truly seemed to catch people's attention with "Luce," an adaptation of JC Lee's 2013 stage play. Fantastically received at the festival, NEON picked it up for a wider release. It didn't exactly break through in a big way, not flashy enough to catch the attention of the industry award shows, but it remains a movie people discuss and think of fondly. If nothing else, it established Onah as a director to watch. 

Teenager Luce Edgar has an inspiring story. Born in war-torn Eritrea, he was adopted by Peter and Amy, an upper-class white couple. He's a track star at school, a lauded student, and has been asked to deliver a speech at a presentation. His history teacher, Miss Wilson, confronts Amy with something she finds troubling: When asked to write a paper from the perspective of a historical figure, Luce chose Frantz Fanon, an African revolutionary who believed violence was necessary to overcome colonialism. Wilson also found fireworks in Luce's locker. Peter and Amy are concerned but Luce claims Wilson also singles him out, as a symbol of "black excellence," while tokenizing other members of his class. Luce, while talking with Wilson, seems to subtly threaten her. Amy, meanwhile, gets in touch with a former girlfriend of Luce's, who describes being sexually assaulted while drunk at a party. A series of events unfold, Wilson convinced Luce is playing the people around him to further his personal grudges while Amy grows increasingly unsure of what her son is capable of. 

"Luce" is a film with a lot of ideas on its mind but one of its primary concerns is with the other people perceive us. Luce's story, raised as a child soldier in Africa before being brought over to a wealthy American family and achieving academic and scholastic success, strikes many as inspiring. It's a status the young man seems happy to embrace at first. He's held up as a symbol of the American dream, coming from horrible circumstances to achieve greatness. He's referred to as "Obama" by more than one person. Wilson treats other members of her class in similarly idealistic ways: Stephanie, plagued by rumors of sexual misadventures, is regarded as a female suffering in silence. A friend of Luce's, DeShaun, was thrown off the track team after Wilson found pot in his locker, as the teacher seems to consider him a more standard example of an underachieving youth. As writers, we often create characters as "symbols" of various ideas, representing social woes or philosophical concepts. But real people aren't symbols. They are messy, complicated human beings with conflicting attributes. "Luce" presents a scenario where someone fires back at being elevated to symbol status. 

It goes without saying that race plays a major role in how others are perceived and what they become symbols of. Luce, being a black boy from a poor country and adopted by a white couple, is already well aware of how the color of his skin influences how others see him. Rich white people adopting little black babies from poor countries to call their own and raise in the lap of luxury is a phenomenon covered in difficult social layers, prompting discussion of race and class, of white Americans acting as saviors to anyone deemed less fortunate in order to make themselves seem more progressive. Luce, meanwhile, is culturally perceived as "one of the good ones," someone destined to rise to great status... With the implication being that he overcame the disadvantage of being born brown, poor, and African.

He's an erudite, well spoken young man, knowledgeable about history and culture. This is comparable to DeShaun, who smokes pot and peppers his speech with slang and profanity, whose name seems to be indicative of both his skin color and his standing in society. Luce was not born with that name. His mother couldn't pronounce his African name and he was given Luce – Latin for "light" and exactly the kind of thing a pampered white couple would name their kid – as an alternative. Luce can see through the artificial designations society has given both him and DeShaun. The two black boys are not that different in many ways. Luce enjoys a joint every now and then too. The perceptions other tie to them is what makes them different, what makes one a future Obama and the other a "thug." 

"Luce" could also be short for Lucifer, which brings up another complicated layer in both the film and the character. Throughout, we see Luce easily slip into the persona of a well-spoken young man eager to impress. This has made him a favorite among the school staff, the principal joking around with him in a casual manner at one point. The boy is well aware of how others perceive him and is capable of using that perception. Not necessarily for innocent goals either. His seeming admiration for a violent revolutionary suggests he sees force as a way to achieve a goal. When "apologizing" to Wilson, he seems to subtly sneak a threat into his words. He does it again before the end. Throughout the film, there's this mounting fear that Luce is manipulating everyone around him, playing people's bias against each other in order for him to come out on top. There's a word for people like that, who see others as mere tools to control and only cares about his own success: A sociopath, a highly mythologized term that nonetheless accurately describes a personality type we've all encountered or seen in office. 

Miss Wilson seems to be the only person, at first, capable of seeing Luce as a manipulative, dangerous person. After a humiliating day, Wilson comes home to find a racial slur written on her house. She accuses Luce of doing this but nobody else can imagine such a shining star student being capable of such a thing... At first anyway. When presented with the concerning history paper, Amy is fast to defend her son. This is what a mother does. However, as the story goes on, as she sees more of what exactly her son can do, Amy begins to have doubts about Luce herself. Peter is more willing to see their son's sinister side. Ultimately, his wife says it's their job as parents to defend their son while being unable to suppress her own fears. Who is the true Luce then? The popular, successful, intelligent young man that the principal and most of the other students? Stephanie sees Luce as a kind person who only wants what is best for her. Wilson believes Luce is smart and capable enough to play games with others. Amy wants to protect her son, still seeing him as her beloved baby boy. She asks Peter at one point which side he's on. Which is what it often comes down to. We choose which perception of someone is personally true for us, which one is "real."  

Of course, the perception of people is not only formed by their friends and loved ones. Society does it too. Miss Wilson has a mentally ill sister that lives with her. She comes to the school, having a meltdown, stripping off her clothes. She screams at Wilson, accusing her of thinking she comes from a better racial class then her. The white students whip out cell phones and record the public breakdown, happy to provide another example for the stereotype of black people as mentally instable. Near the film's end, Luce confronts Wilson at her home and she explains how she feels her singling him out is justified, that people of color must be extraordinary to overcome the limitations the culture has imposed on them. Luce objects to being made an example or a spectacle, Wilson arguing that he has no choice in the matter. If the versions of us that exists in other people's heads are as valid as any other, then the effect race and status play in forming that perception can't be overlooked.

The contrasts and complications of how we might be perceived versus the people we might actually be is something “Luce,” as a film, is willingly playing with. The musical score is often sparse, adding to the sense of chilly tension in the film. Whenever it seems Luce is up to something devious, a rap style beat with rough vocalizations plays. It's as if the film is intentionally baiting the audience, asking us to consider whether this upstanding young black man is, in fact, prone to the violence that “super-predators” like him have been accused of. Stephanie is a young Asian girl, the kind of figure that is culturally shown as vulnerable and exploited. Luce has her intentionally playing up that element of her appearance as part of his final scheme, another way the movie is pushing some buttons very intentionally in order to make us question our beliefs and preconceived notions on how we look at someone.

Julius Onah clearly has a personal investment in this story. He is an immigrant too, born in Nigeria, lived all the over the world, and settled in the United States. “The Girl Is in Trouble” and several of his short films touched on this subject too. Something pointed Luce says is that, as an immigrant from a war torn country, he feels like he only has two options of what he can grow up to be: Either a monster or a hero. The film intentionally has him existing between both of these poles, showing a number of unsettling personality traits while outwardly achieving a lot. In this context, we can't see his apparent sociopathy as anything but a reaction to the pressures of being from a foreign country. You either exceed the expectations society puts on you or you play right into them. Onah is clearly reflecting on some of his very personal frustrations through the film's story.

The director brings some of his other trademarks with him. The usage of cell phones throughout the film show a continued interest in technology, in the way it has changed how we communicate.  Mostly, Onah and cinematographer Larkin Seiple shoot “Luce” like it's a horror movie. They often place characters apart from each other, between the foreground and background, as if to emphasize a predatory distance between them. There's a coldness to the color palette, the interiors shadowy and haunted, that adds to a disquieting atmosphere. The camera often peeks into lockets or at desk, creating an alien and inhuman feeling in this setting, further adding to that chilly tension. Save for a moment or two, “Luce” stubbornly refuses to alleviate the suspense it creates, the unsettling questions and uncertainties the film raises lingering with the viewer long after the movie ends. The clearly cinematic style also helps the film escape its stage-bound roots, helping the audience overlook that most of the movie is made up of people sitting around and talking in rooms.

Holding “Luce” totally together is an excellent cast. Kelvin Harrison Jr. gives what should be a star-making performance in the title role. Harrison is especially good at hinting at the darker capabilities of Luce while also putting on an outwardly inviting appearance. His ability to control his exterior, and his awareness of how that effects people, because very clear in one of the final scenes of the movie. Harrison swinging so easily between such convincing poles is chilling. Naomi Watts, without going into histrionics, does a strong job of showing the conflicted emotions she is feeling. Amy goes through the wringer, still loving her son despite the suspicions she has about him. Tim Roth is more caustic, as you'd expect from him, though he makes every line count. Octavia Spencer, as Miss Wilson, says a lot with a single look or glance, suggesting the frustration and anger she is feeling under the surface. 

”Luce” is a movie clearly without a lot of complicated ideas on its mind, approaching thorny issues in a thoughtful way that doesn't rob them of their power. Race, class, and self are discussed without turning the story into a boring lecture, the film often operating as a tense thriller in its own right. It's the kind of movie that is perhaps a bit too proud of its own boldness. There are several moments where it seems to be pontificating. I suppose that is an unavoidable aspect of the material being adapted from the stage, where standing before an audience and saying your piece is kind of expected. Nevertheless, it unfolds in a tense and disturbing manner, powered by some damn fine performances. It's clear that this is the kind of material that Julius Onah excels at and I hope he gets to make more movies like this someday. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Julius Onah (2018)

2. The Cloverfield Paradox

It was a neat idea. J.J. Abrams' and Matt Reeves' "Cloverfield" put a fresh spin on the giant monster movie premise. The hype around the teaser trailer is still unlike anything I've seen since, the discussion and investigation about what it could be truly being an exciting moment in 2000s nerd culture. Abrams' mystery box approach brought with it a bucket of lore, which hardcore "Cloverfield" heads soon dug into. When combined with the box office success, demand for a sequel appeared quickly. However, Abrams and Reeves became very busy with other projects. The idea of doing another found footage kaiju flick seemed to lack the novelty that made the first one work. Around this time, Paramount had acquired a buzzy low budget horror script called "The Cellar." When Abrams' Bad Robot became involved, another interesting idea presented itself: What if "Cloverfield" became a brand, a banner under which distinct sci-fi/horror titles could be presented? It was a clever way to draw attention to medium budget genre projects that probably wouldn't get much notice otherwise. The choice was made in secret and, when "The Cellar" was revealed to be "10 Cloverfield Lane," it led to another explosion of speculation among fans. 

Which brought forth another question: What next? If a "Cloverfield" movie could be about anything, where do you go from there? Every Bad Robot production now prompted rumors that it could be the next "Cloverfield" movie – might there be some alternate universe where "Overlord" was released as "The Battle of Cloverfield Point?" – which drained away a lot of the surprise. After Oren Uziel's spec script "God Particle" was acquired by Paramount and Bad Robot, people quickly pinned it as another potential "Cloverfield" film. This was more of less confirmed as filming rolled with Julius Onah at the helm, "God Particle" being reworked during production into the third "Cloverfield" film... That was in 2016 and there was no news for quite a while after that. The project languished on a shelf for two years, prompting questions about whether Bad Robot had a rotten egg on their hand. 

How do you pull off the kind of surprise marketing coup that the previous two "Cloverfield" pictures did a third time, especially when everyone knew that's what the movie was and many feared it wasn't very good? Netflix, still in their expanding phase, had developed the habit of picking up cast-off studio films. Budget squabbling had kept "God Particle" unreleased, the studio fearing it was too expensive to be a hit. Netflix, savvy marketers that they are, had a great idea. The first trailer for the film was released during the 2018 Super Bowl, with the film being viewable on the streaming service immediately after the game was over. It was a brilliant way to instantly generate hype for the long thought discarded sequel. It also shows the short-sightedness of Netflix as a corporation. People were super excited to see "The Cloverfield Paradox..." And then they watched it, the anticipation vanishing in a burst of disappointment. Since then, "The Cloverfield Paradox" has become a well known example of Netflix's strategy of prioritizing instant gratification over actually making good art. The spin-off hasn't garnered much reappraisal in the years since but, surely, there must have been something about the film that made it worthwhile at one point? 

Set in the near future, the film takes place in a world gripped by an energy crisis and on the brink of war. The crew of the Cloverfield space station floats above Earth and seek to revolve the conflict with the massive particle accelerator aboard the station. The crew, led by British engineer Hamilton and German physicist Schmidt, have had little success so far. Hamilton maintains contact with her husband on Earth, the two trying to recover from the death of their child. Finally, the accelerator works correctly but the success is short lived. The station suffers a power outage afterwards and that's when the crew noticed something disturbing: Earth has vanished. Other strange incidents occur, such as an unknown new member of the crew appearing partially absorbed into the station's hull or test subject worms seemingly teleporting into another scientist's body. The crew soon realize that the success activation of the accelerator has created a paradox, the station shifting between parallel universes. Hamilton works to unravel this mystery and return to her husband on her Earth.

A popular conspiracy theory in the late 2000s was that the Large Hadron-Collider – CERN's massive particle accelerator in Sweden created to study physics in astonishingly new ways – would bring about the end of the universe. That it would open a black hole on Earth. That it would create anti-matter and cause a chain reaction that would destroy all matter everywhere. Or that it would trigger a new Big Bang or transport us to an alternate universe. The fears resulted in a lot of paranoid rambling, many internet memes, and little actual panic among the public. Scientists assured the world there was a miniscule chance of any of these scenarios to happen. The LHC was successfully activated in 2009 without kicking off the apocalypse, at least in any way we could detect. Oren Uziel was clearly inspired by these rumors when writing "God Particle," obviously since the script took its name from the legendary Higgs-Boson particle that the LHC would reveal in 2012. 

I'm not a physicist and the kind of shit that goes on at CERN is way over my head, as I imagine it is for most folks. However, the way "The Cloverfield Paradox" attempts to utilize these high-minded science-fact ideas for a pulpy science fiction thriller never quite comes together. Conceptually, "The Cloverfield Paradox" is about a massive science project opening doorways to other universes, with disastrous results. In practice, the film operates under the logic that shifting between parallel worlds will cause all sorts of crazy shit to happen. The effects of the anomalies bend from people being fused with their surroundings – recalling the supposed details of the Philadelphia Experiment – to limbs disappearing and working on their own, among other far-fetched payoffs. There's no interior logic to it, the script operating under the assumption of "particle accelerators and paradoxes can do anything" and using it to create a number of bizarre horror sequences. The result is a film where the threat never quite meshes, the audience often unsure of why or how any of these events are happening, how the heroes can stop it, or even how they plan on doing that. 

The lack of plausibility in the script is at odds with the pretensions the film clearly has about itself. Mirroring Julius Onah's early short films, "The Cloverfield Paradox" is a movie that takes itself very seriously. The tone the film is clearly hoping to replicate is that of genre classics like "Alien," "The Andromeda Strain" or "Apollo 14." You can see parallels to all of these films, in scenes of the cast running around dingy cyber-gothic hallways, the scientist arguing among themselves over what can be done, and the extremely perilous attempts to repair the damage to the space station. In its best moments, "The Cloverfield Paradox" does grab a little bit of that energy. People stumbling around outer space is almost always a creditable recipe to make tension, as space is such a very perilous place and the exploration of it is extraordinary dangerous. Probably the most striking moment in the film occurs when the team decides to exit the station. The camera pulls back from the airlock, through a storm of debris and chaos, while Bear McCreary's sweeping score plays. It's the only time "The Cloverfield Paradox" successfully grabs any of the sort of grandeur the best sci-fi movies generate.  

While “The Cloverfield Paradox” was clearly inspired by acclaimed sci-fi classics, in structure, the film resembles a much less glossy form of genre product. Very quickly, the film establishes a pattern. Its various scientist characters will argue amongst themselves, this leading to either heated conflict or a last ditch attempt to save the world. Inevitably, the character instead fall victim to the bizarre effects of the anomaly. In other words, the ensemble cast is picked off, one by one, in elaborate death scenes. “The Cloverfield Paradox” is a trashy slasher movie in sci-fi drag, draped with theoretical physics to justify its wildest leaps. I'm not against building a prestige film around such a familiar set-up. “Alien” can also accurately be described as basically a “slasher movie in space” and it's awesome. I'm certainly not one to ever turn my nose up at a sleazy body count flick. 

“The Cloverfield Paradox” certainly cooks up some bizarre and striking eliminations for tis characters. The first major death involves a man's body seeming to slide out of place, his eye rolling around loose in his socket. It ends with a deliberate shout-out to “Alien,” with worms exploding from his chest. That kind of freaky body horror is the film's best element. A woman being discovered to have fused with the interior hull of the ship, the metal cords and wires weaving in and out of her flesh, is a shocking sight. The sequences that follow – a chamber filling with water or a sudden decompression – don't have the same sort of visceral bite as the earlier beats. In fact, they become silly pretty quickly. If “Cloverfield Paradox” is a flashy sci-fi slasher, that means the shock factor of its death scenes are a big part of its appeal. The movie quickly runs out of ways to make its parallel universe paradox idea propulsive enough. 

In fact, the film comes off as increasingly poorly thought-out the longer it goes on. The back story, of a world running out of fuel sources and pushed to the edge of mass war, never seems especially detailed. We hear that China and Russia and the United States are all on the verge of fighting but the how and why is left unexplained. In its last third, “Paradox” relies on sudden shifts in personality among the cast, a character becoming a dangerous villain for reasons that are blurry at best. When you look at the movie's weirdest sci-fi swings, you start to realize that Uziel's script doesn't seem to make much sense. When a character has his arm severed from his body by a size-changing hole in a wall, it's a freaky set piece. The visual of the hand crawling around by itself and writing on its own is too. The lack of logic behind this image though speaks to the film's overall lack of actually thinking its ideas through.

In defense of the screenwriter, he was called in half-way through “God Particle” being filmed to rewrite it as “The Cloverfield Paradox.” That might explain some of the haziness of what the sequel does. Or why the further connections to the wider “Clovefield” universe seem tacked-on. A brief appearance of a Slusho! mascot or a familiar last name are easy to overlook. All of that proceeds the biggest connection though. One that the film simply can't wait to deploy. Further diluting the tension of what is happening aboard the space station, the movie will periodically cut to Hamilton's husband on the Earth. He witnesses explosions, the city being wrecked, pulling a hurt kid out of the wreckage. He also sees some sort of giant beast lumbering in the mist, which tells us everything we need to know. “The Cloverfield Paradox” is a prequel to “Cloverfield” and presents an origin for the giant monsters and alien invasions seen in the other two installments. Sure, as a giant monster fan, it was neat to see the Large Scale Aggressor again. However, it feels like a desperate attempt to pump up a half-assed script by throwing the jangling keys of a familiar sight at the viewers. It exposes the hollowness of the entire enterprise. 

Ultimately, that's what keeps “The Cloverfield Paradox” from working. The film struggles to make it clear that those writing and directing it care about why these events are progressing this way, aside from a delivery system for cheap thrills and fan-appeasing throwbacks. You can see this lack of care in how thinly defined its characters are. Each crew member of the Cloverfield is given exactly one defining characteristic. Gugu Mbatha-Raw's Hamilton is grieving her lost child and strained marriage, the most perfunctory of traumatic back stories. John Ortiz' Monk is neurotic. Chris O'Dowd's Mundy is a smart-ass. Aksel Hennie's Volkov is confrontational. Zhang Ziyi's Tam is overly certain of her own theories. Daniel Brühl's Schmidt is untrustworthy. Elizabeth Debicki's Jensen is unpredictable. A lot of these elements seem to correspond to the characters' nationalities. Mundy is Scottish, Volkov is Russian, Tam is Chinese. Schmidt is German, Jensen is Australian. I don't think there's anything wrong with hiring reliable actors to enliven underwritten characters with their trademark abilities. O'Dowd and Brühl are clearly having the most fun. However, the characters are ultimately thinly defined to the point that we can't care about what happens to them.

In the aftermath of “The Cloverfield Paradox” being released, most of the critical reaction was negative. More than one review referred to it as a “train-wreck.” It is certainly a messy film, with far too many half-formed ideas to be satisfying. The attempts to link it to the other corners of the “Cloverfield” franchise come off as desperate. While it contains some grisly special effects, the film can't sustain that kind of tension throughout. Julis Onah does not exactly define himself as an auteur with this one, which feels increasingly generic as it goes on. “The Cloverfield Paradox” is doomed to be remembered more for its clever release than its actually content, which can't hold together. Despite clearly being made to relaunch the “Cloverfield” series, “Paradox” seemed to have killed it instead. A fourth film, said to be a direct continuation of the original, was announced. Babak Anvari signed onto direct a script from Abrams and “The Ritual's” Joe Barton. IMDb still list the sequel as “filming” but there's been no news about it for two years. I guess we'll see if “Untitled Cloverfield Sequel” will result in the same sort of mess as “The Cloverfield Paradox,” a movie with a handful of cool touches but that doesn't function as a whole. [Grade: C]

Director Card Report: Julius Onah (2015)

Who is Julius Onah? He's a filmmaker you might not have heard of. Well, he's the son of a Nigerian diplomat. After a bunch of short films made all over the world and a little seen debut, he directed a much-hyped but poorly received entry into a popular sci-fi franchise. His third feature, “Luce,” got him the best reviews of his career so far, which seemingly caught the attention of Disney and Marvel. Yes, this is the latest obscure indie director that Marvel has scooped up for one of their high-profile superhero projects. Is Onah a work-for-hire professional with little personal connection to his films – chosen by a big studio because he'd be easy to boss around – or is he actually a distinctive filmmaker with a vision all his own? I decided to find out before watching the new “Captain America” movie. 

1. The Girl Is in Trouble

Being the son of a diplomat who was friends with the Clintons, you would think, would give Julius Onah opportunities and access that other people don't have. And I'm sure it did. However, he maintains his roots were humble. He studied theater in Connecticut and film at NYU. While in school, he made several short films. Most of these are available to watch on his website with a very annoying menu design. Some of these shorts are rather amateurish, with rather ropey acting and some choppy camera work. However, Onah's early work does show a reoccurring interest in how people connect and interact.  As well as voice-over narrations and cleverly edited montages. Of the shorts I watched, the highly personal “Goodbye Chicken, Farewell Goat” and the dialogue-free “Linus” are probably the best. 

It was during this time that Onah also began working as an intern for Spike Lee. Hollywood is all about who you know, naturally, and Lee clearly gave Onah the boost he needed to get his first feature made. That would be “The Girl Is in Trouble” and Spike was an executive producer on it, allowing his name to be slapped on the key art. Not that this did to much to sell the movie. “The Girl Is in Trouble” sat on a shelf for two years before finally finding distribution. Entertainment One would give the film one of its standard, tiny theatrical release and same day/same date VOD release, where it gained very little attention. In fact, I had not heard of the film at all until I looked up its director. In light of his more high-profile later work, it's worth going back and checking out his debut. 

August is a struggling DJ living in New York City, hoping to make his dream come true but unable to get into most clubs. After another disappointing night, he receives a phone call from Sidge, a Swedish singer he met at a club months before. She ends up back at his apartment, the two hooking up. What seems to be a simple booty call soon turns into something much darker. Sidge has a video on her cell phone of a man murdering another man. She claims to have recorded it the night before during a date gone wrong. August recognizes the dead man in the video as Jesus, the brother of drug dealer, Angel. Angel is well aware of what happened too, looking for the people responsible for killing his brother. The strangler in the clip is Nicholas, the son of a rich but crooked Wall Street banker. August debates over whether to trust Sidge as the vengeful Angel increasingly closes in on them. 

One of the earliest scenes in “The Girl Is in Trouble” is also one of its most interesting. In one of many voice over monologues, August describes how he knows Signe. How she is a girl he met at a bar, got her number, but never got a call back. This opens up a web of connections he has with all the other characters in the plot, most of them he knows strictly through social media. This raises an intriguing question. In this era when so much of our social interactions happen through screens, how do you truly define a “friend?” Because you added someone on Facebook or Instagram deson't mean that you can trust them or that they have any special loyalty to you. The brief glimpses we get at these social media profiles are already hilariously dated, resembling old Myspace profiles. However, considering what personal connections and friendships mean in our computerized age is certainly worth asking. 

Unfortunately, this scene is also the only time “The Girl Is in Trouble” actually considers that idea. Instead of looking at modern issues, it is much more concerned with looking back. The film is more about invoking classical film noir tropes. The title is also a one sentence summary of more than a few classic noirs, often starting with a woman in peril. The titular girl is also the archetypal femme fatale. Sidge is beautiful and uses her sex appeal to manipulate men, while her own loyalties remain impossible to determine. August is an everyman protagonist who gets in over his head, a simple act of kindness soon involving him in a crime land saga of sex, drugs, and murder. And there's no guarantees of who will make it out of this story alive. 

The piece of evidence driving the plot of “The Girl Is in Trouble” is a video recording of a murder. This is a murder mystery where we seem to have concrete evidence of who the killer is from the beginning. Instead, the mystery comes from figuring out the exact circumstances that lead to that murder. When that is finally revealed in the last third, it seems a lot more reasonable than we might expect. That proceeds another death, the motivation of which is also rather understandable, albeit in a totally different way. Ultimately, “The Girl Is in Trouble” runs with the very noir-like idea that every crime is justifiable by those that commit them, given the circumstances. 

While Onah clearly has some interesting thoughts in mind about playing with noir conventions and the nature of crime, “The Girl Is in Trouble” forgets an important ingredient: Making a coherent plot filled with characters that we actually care about. While that early montage about social media is one of the film's best moments, it also drops a lot of names, faces, and information on us. The details go by so quickly that it's a bit tricky to keep track of everything. Unfortunately, all those different parts are integral to “The Girl Is in Trouble's” storyline. The script simply has too many moving parts. The inclusion of drugs all throughout the story – seemingly every character casually snorts some lines – or the role of investment banking in the script all seem to be specific commentary on various issues. How it connects in a meaningful way to the rest of the plot is less apparent. By the time a foul-mouthed sex worker wanders into the plot, I was truly wondering what the importance of all these plot points are.

Within “The Girl is in Trouble's” web of storylines are several subplots that remain hopelessly undeveloped. August and Sidge form a romance of sorts. Obviously, the first interaction we see between them is physically intimate. However, as the story progresses, it is clear that August actually starts to like the girl. This is despite her own erratic behavior, that includes pointing a knife at him at one point. A man falling for an obviously dangerous woman and overlooking clear red flags because he's enamored is probably the most common plot device in all of noir. However, Sidge still seems to be a character that changes with the whims of the story. This leaves the love story, what would otherwise be the centerpiece of the plot, hopelessly uninvolving. Why does August fall for this girl so hard? We never truly find out.

There are signs of a bigger story here. August mentions his hand shaking at one point, but that he has no funds to see a doctor, a bit of information that is never brought up again. He dreams of becoming a DJ, while Sidge wants to be a singer. There is this thought throughout the film that it's hard out there for an artist these days, that trying to live in New York while working in the creative fields is an economic impossibility. Similarly, Jesus turns back to dealing drugs right after getting out of prison because he has no other prospects. This is in contrast with the rich kid Nicholas. While these discussions of economic and class divides are interesting, they never emerge into a worthwhile point. In fact, “The Girl Is in Trouble” doesn't seem to be making any clear statement about class divides aside from how much they suck.

Most of the characters are immigrants and that's a bit of attempted social commentary too. Sidge is Swedish, Angel and Jesus have roots in the Dominican Republic, and Nicholas' family were European Jews that came to New York decades ago. August, meanwhile, is from Nigeria, an attribute he shares with the film's director. (Making you wonder if August isn't something of an author's surrogate.) That means “The Girl Is in Trouble” is also a movie about coming from another culture to New York. This element also doesn't develop into a coherent point. However, it is more interesting, as it so clearly reflects the director's personal experience. There's a lot more detail and color to this side of the script and it's no doubt because Onah was drawing from putting his own lived experiences in. 

Life as a member of multiple cultures was a reoccurring theme in Onah's short films. You see a few of his other trademarks from his early work making its way into his debut. “The Girl Is in Trouble” features a lot of voice over narration from the protagonist, a device Onah utilized in several of his shorts. This is paired with interestingly edited montages, sometimes with text on-screen, something else he did a lot. Presumably as a shout-out to the movie's executive producer, Onah also includes several of the dolly-shots that are the visual quirk everyone knows from Spike Lee. That was a nice touch.

Aside from Lee, the other recognizable name above the title on the poster is Wilmer Valderrama. Ya know, Fez from “That's '70s Show.” Valderrama has, inconceivably, managed to successfully reinvent himself as a tough guy character actor in the years since his sitcom days. That's the mode Valderrama is operating in here, giving a perfectly serviceable performance as Angel, a violent thug with a sense of honor about his family. He's not the star of the movie though. That would be Columbus Short, best known for the television series “Scandal” and the “Stomp the Yard” movies, I guess. Short is likable enough, managed to insert a degree of understated charisma into the character of August. That's more than Alicja Bachleda can do as Signe. She makes for a convincing unhinged woman of questionable morals but can't bring any further complexity to the part. 

Ultimately, “The Girl Is in Trouble” is the kind of indie movie we don't exactly have a shortage of. It's a genre riff with an ensemble cast, using some cultural specificity to help sell a movie without much star wattage. We get roughly a dozen of those every year and most of them go straight-to-VOD and aren't seen by many people. (Sometimes they get slapped with advertising artwork that present gritty crime dramas as if they were shoot-em-up action movies, a marketing deception that never fails to amuse me.) This is probably why “The Girl Is in Trouble” sat on the shelf for a while before slipping out into the public. It's not a terrible movie. It actually shows some promise. However, a muddled screenplay and a lack of distinct characters ultimately makes it a deeply forgettable experience. [Grade: C]

OSCARS 2025 LIVE BLOG!

6:53 - Hello and welcome back to Film Thoughts' annual live-blog of the Oscars ceremony! I'm a little late starting this because I had to choke down some pizza. This is the climax of a full month and a half of me watching and reviewing my way through all the nominees, so it's been quite a journey, I guess. I don't know how many years I've been doing this and I'm sure two people are reading these words right now. Nevertheless, I love giving a minute-by-minute reaction to the glitziest night in Hollywood. Conan O'Brien is a good pick for host, I hope he delivers!

Here's who I would vote for in every category, if the Academy ever gets with it and make me a member.

7:02 - And off we go with the first of what will surely be many heart-touching montages.

7:03 - I'm going to come out being an asshole first thing this year by admitting that I don't especially like Ariana Grande's style of singing! She is overdoing it so badly right now. 

7:05 - Enrivo's nails are certainly making a statement.

7:06 - How much of the ceremony tonight is going to bank on a pre-established fondness for "Wicked?" Cause if it's a lot then.. Gonna be a rough night.

7:08 - By the way, it is sort of fun going into the Oscars genuinely having no idea what will win best picture. Let's see the Academy completely blindside everyone and hand it to "Nickel Boys," just for funzies. 

7:09 - Alright, the cut to "The Substance" made me laugh. This is a pretty good bit! Are we to expect more bizarre skits like this? Hope so.

7:12 - I like the way Conan pronounces "Nosferatu." 

7:13 - Lots of jokes incoming tonight about "The Brutalist's" runtime? 

7:15 - Is, uh, Karla in attendance tonight? Can't blame them for going with the easy punchline with her. I do think I've laughed more during this opening monologue than I have in the last few ceremonies. 

7:17 - Gotta give Timothee some credit: He pulls off the yellow tux. 

7:18 - I love the sparse, uncomfortable chuckles after he made mentioned about how a man unable to give his wife an orgasm. Don't even get me started on Amazon buying the Bond rights...

7:20 - The withering stare of John Lithgow is very effective. 

7:21 - Damn, Guy Pearce had a rockin' mullet. 

7:22 - Adam Sandler's fluffy sweatshirt rubbed up against his mic there. He's having fun, I respect that.

7:25 - Conan getting serious 25 minutes into his set. But I appreciate what he's saying here. See, that really is what the Oscars are all about. Celebrating the little guys! That's why you don't cut the Shorts categories from the boardcast! 

7:26 - This bit isn't very good. The audience is hating it, lol. But I do have to admire the audacity and stupidity of this. Especially the piano playing sand worm! 

7:28 - RDJ stopping by at the Oscars on his way to collecting another ten million from Marvel. 

7:29 - In a year that didn't have stand-out performances like Culkin or Strong or Pearce, I would agree with the estimation that Edward Norton should just get an Oscar at this point. But "A Complete Unknown" is such an nothing movie and it's such a bland performance. Come on, Kiernan, get that gold!

7:31 - Been a fan of this guy since "Igby Goes Down," so it's nice to see him winning. The sound just cut out on the Hulu feed. How many siblings does he have? 

7:33 - Maybe acceptance speeches should have more rambling anecdotes like this. 

7:38 - Andrew Garfield's brown suit is bitchin'. 

7:40 - Awwww, aren't these two cute together? I'm really rootin' for "Flow."

7:41 - Hoo-ray! May we have more winners from Latvia in the future! 

7:43 - I'm rooting for "Magic Candies" but one of the lamer ones will probably get it. As long as it's not "Beautiful Men." 

Not surprised that the most Serious, definitely not the best, of the nominees won though.

7:46 - Seeing these two bicker over their cellphone was amusing. 

7:54 - Honestly, I'd probably vote for "Conclave," if it was me. But I'm still hoping for a Sweepferatu. But "Wicked" had the Most Costume Design, so it'll be deemed the Best Costume Design.

7:57 - Oops, passed the camera over to Bowen by accident for a minute. I'm really appreciating the general tone of the ceremony this year, of paying tribute to all the artisans in the industry. 

8:00 - "Conclave" Bros, it's not too late. We can still make this happen!

8:05 - I love Conan's commitment to stupid bits. I'm glad Nick Offerman's resounding voice has paid off for him. 

8:07 - The opposite of joy: Screenwriting! Now I'm curious who would win Best Hair...

8:09 - People on Twitter have been extremely normal about Sean Baker all week, so I'm sure they are overjoyed with it winning anything. 

8:12 - Desperately hoping we have a complete "Emilia Perez" lock-out tonight. Can "Nickel Boys" pull it off? 

8:13 - "Conclave," huh? Probably wouldn't have been my first choice but I'll take it. 

8:15 - Time for the yearly tradition of Janet Yang appearing on-screen.

8:20 - Hell yeah, let's keep Conan changing tuxes all throughout the night!

8:21 - June Squib supremacy! "The Substance" will get it and probably deserves it but "Sweepsferatu!" Alas.

8:24 - I like the little green flowers on this lady's jacket.

8:25 - "I had the pleasure of working with them on the worst Bond movie ever." This tribute was real weirdly timed, in light of the Amazon news. Also, I love the way Halle's dress keeps reflecting the light back at the camera. 

8:27 - Margaret Qualty's tooth-gap? I'm just sayin', it DOES things to a man. 

8:28 - Okay.. "Lisa." 

8:30 - Hey, Doja Cat can actually belt it out! Boy, this is going on for a while, isn't it? I don't know who this person is and I don't know why they invited her. Her hand motions are distracting me. 

8:37 - Conan has been killing it tonight. A building devoted to streaming movies! What a concept!

8:39 - "The world's sexiest Daryl." Jesus, twenty years since "Kill Bill Vol. 2?" I am crumbling into dust.

8:40 - Really gotta give Editing to "The Brutalist," right? 

Okay, "Anora" for Editing. Huh. That's a choice, I guess. How many more times is Sean Baker going to be up on stage tonight? 

8:43 - Seems like a little bit of a long shot but I'm hoping Isabella Rosalleni wins Best Supporting Actress. Come on, she wore blue velvet to the show tonight! 

8:45 - Category fraud! Saldana was clearly the lead of "Emilia Perez!" Also, that movie sucked! 

8:47 - Oh my god, this is a very intense acceptance speech! Maybe don't ladle it on so much, Zoe, jeez.

8:53 - "The Substance:" The first movie with an extended homage to "Re-Animator" to be nominated for Best Picture?

8:54 - We need to get Ben Stiller out there, doing bits again. He's been behind the camera too much. "Sweepsferatu!" Come on!

8:56 - Uggggh, "Wicked" is just going to bulldoze the technical categories, isn't it? Booooo!

8:58 - "Please welcome, Mick Jagger!" Okay, I don't know why he's here but why not? His eyes have gotten squintier over the decades. 

8:59 - I'm sure they'll give it to "Emilia Perez" but can we just give it to Diane Warren, so we don't have to think about her again next year?

9:01 - Best Original Song is a pretty weak category this year but "Like a Bird" is probably the actual best of the nominees. 

9:03 - Can we make sure that "Emilia Perez" wins for nothing else tonight? 

9:05 - Singing your acceptance speech is a nice touch, I'll admit. But fuck that movie! 

9:08 - Damn, Drake is so washed that he's getting dragged at the fucking Oscars! 

9:09 - I love the commitment they are showing to this stupid-ass Sandworm bit. "Samuel L. Jackson and Selena Gomez team up in what will hopefully be next summer's wackiest buddy comedy!"

9:10 - "Incident" probably won't win but I sincerely hope it does. 

9:11 - Lots of powerful filmmaking on display in the Best Documentary Short category this year and the Academy gave the Oscar to the thing that was on fuckin' Netflix. 

9:13 - Personally rooting for "Black Box Diaries" but it'll probably go to "No Other Land." 

Yep. I had read online that Gal Gadot was going to present this category but looks like someone changed their mind. I WONDER WHY????

9:16 - I can't help but be cynical about these things. I don't think giving a film about the topic of Gaza being destroyed and suppressed by Israel helps the people actually under that regime much. Good movie though. Donate money to Palestine instead. I no longer believe that simply watching a movie about a topic counts as activism. 

9:22 - The wild fires are still on-going, yes? Sort of crazy that the news cycle just moved on from that. Ralph Fiennes does not look like he wants to be here. 

9:24 - The show has been kind of middle-of-the-road tonight but Conan is such a natural pick for host. Most consistently funny ceremony in years!

9:26 - "Kilometers and Kilometery!" A writer wrote that joke. 

9:29 - I'm very blase on the "Dune" movies but, I'll admit, I probably would've voted for them in Best Sound too. They straight-up turned that last guy's mic off! Rude.

I've never heard a single person pronounce Gal Gadot's name the same way. 

9:30 - Come on, APES!

NO! Let the apes take the stage and steal the Oscar anyway! Chimp solidarity! APES TOGETHER STRONG. 

9:32 - The German starts talking and then they play da music to get him off da stage. "A legendary movie duo reunite!" I'm so glad that Clint and Clyde are getting back together after all these years...

9:37 - They got Sterling K. Brown to partner with Ana de Armas because Daniel Craig won't return their calls anymore. 

As always, Best Live Action Short is a super weak category. "The Man Who Could Not Remain Silent" is my pick. 

9:38 - "I Am Not a Robot" was solid. Surprised to see the Shorts branch award the one nominee that wasn't a heavy-handed issues movie!

9:39 - "But I love you." And they start to play them off. NO DUTCH AFFECTION AT THE OSCARS!

9:41 - Nothing but complete respect for Gene Hackman for living to 95 and still dying in a mysterious fashion. In all seriousness, an icon. Time to get sad. I'm glad Roger Corman made it into the broadcast montage. 

9:43 - Cheng Pei-Pie died??? 

9:44 - Lou Gossett Jr., one of my all-time favorite "That Guys!" Sad he won't be randomly popping up in stuff anymore. Shelley Duvall, you are missed! And the loss of David Lynch leaves a hole in my heart the size of a small town with a dark secret. 

9:50 - Did that non-controversy about A.I. really one-shot "The Brutalist's" chances in every category? Pretty bogus, says I. Let's give Lol some love at the very least! 

9:52 - "Maria's" cinematographer has THE DRIP. That fedora, the side burns, the turned-up collar? Dude looks like a Batman villain.

9:54 - COME ON, SWEEPSFERATU! GIVE ME SOMETHING!

Alright, also an acceptable choice. 

9:57 - Absolutely zero chance for "The Girl with the Needle" to win Best International Feature but it's a movie I like the more I think about it. Please, not "Emilia Perez!" 

9:59 - All I care about is that "Emilia Perez" did not win. "I'm Still Here," a totally cromulent motion picture. Kind of mean to play that guy off when he was being very sincere! 

10:05 - Absolutely brutal shade on the current administration there, Mr. O'Brien. 

10:06 - Oh hi, Mark Hamill. 

Once I saw the movie, "The Brutalist" score totally won me over. I hope it wins, not the least because it's competition is underwhelming. 

10:08 - Don't play this poor man off, he's about to burst into fire in the sun. 

10:12 - Damn, the show was almost running on time for once! Quick, throw in an unnecessary musical number to crush the pacing again!

10:19 - Awww don't be hard on yourself, Conan. I'm sure your mom thinks you are handsome. 

Sebastian Stan is my pick for Best Actor, who has no chance at winning at all. Timothee probably will get it because the Academy is so boring. 

10:22 - Is Adrien Brody going to go up on stage and French kiss Cillian Murphy? 

I love the anecdote about the make-up artist who tried to remove Brody's nose, assuming it was a prosthetic. How do you know who Adrien Brody is and not know that snoze? Anyway, I hope this means Neil Cicirega does a BrodyQuest sequel now.  

10:27 - Brody strong-arming the orchestra. That's star power, baby! 

10:29 - Awww, Conan getting sincere about Tarantino! I would to. 

10:36 - This deep into the show and Hulu's live stream goes cold! 

10:37 - Alright, my friends on Discord saving my ass. I'm sure Demi has got it in the bag but rooting for Mikey! 

10:38 - Heeeeey Mikey! Boy, all the other nominees doing or saying something stupid really worked in her favor! 

10:39 - She's absolutely delightful and I hope she becomes a huge star. 

10:41 - "The best Oscar host ever." Okaaaaay, suuure. 

10:43 - Watch them still give it to "Emilia Perez" just to infuriate me, personally. 

10:44 - Honestly, I'm quite pleasantly surprised that "Anora" ended up sweeping. "The Brutalist" or "Emilia Perez" seemed like the more obvious favorite. Back in January, I picked "Conclave" as the "safest" choice. I've already seen a ton of people debating the merits of "Anora" already so I don't think it's a safe choice at all. But I really liked it! Good for these guys. Can't wait for the months of debate and discourse over this film and Sean Baker now. 

10:30 - Third time Sean Baker has been upon that stage. I guess this seals the deal on "Anora" winning Best Picture. I would not have expected it a few months ago! 

10:51 - General thoughts on the show tonight: Conan was great! Could've done without the musical tributes! The winners were very weird! No bizarre stage antics or fuck-ups, which I guess is good! Hulu can suck my ass! That's another award season in the books. Good night, everybody!