OSCARS 2023: Triangle of Sadness (2022)

Not that long ago, I saw a tweet that compared "The Menu," "Infinity Pool," and "Triangle of Sadness," saying that we need to stop making "this movie." Presumably, by this kind of movie, that person meant films critical of the rich and portraying them as depraved or foolish. I disagree. I think this is an evergreen moral. As long as the rich continue to act in that manner, making movies about it will remain a valid exercise. In a time when a billionaire purchases a social media platform and proceeds to act like a doofus on it every day, or when a failed game show host cons his way into the highest office in the country and tries to dismantle democracy, stories that criticize the rich should be expected. Moreover, I don't think these three movies have all that much in common. (Outside of "Infinity Pool" and "Triangle of Sadness" both being distributed by NEON.) The most prominent difference is that "The Menu" and "Infinity Pool" are genre efforts, rift with bodily dismemberment, while "Triangle of Sadness" is an arch satire that has been surprisingly well received by the Academy Awards. 

Aspiring male model Carl is dating successful model and social media influencer Yaya, though their relationship is filled with tension. The two are invited to join a luxury cruise upon a super yacht, captained by a neurotic Marxist. On the journey, they meet rich eccentrics like a Russian manure magnate or a friendly pair of war profiteers. Among the clientele is an old woman who insists the staff go for a swim with her. This sets up a chain of events that lead to mass food poisoning and the yacht drifting into hostile territory, where it's exploded by pirates. The survivors – including Carl and Yaya – wash up on an island and find the social structure they're used to living with overturned. 

"Triangle of Sadness" is, obviously, a movie about class division. Specifically, it strikes me as a film about an inability to communicate across these boundaries. The woman who insists the staff swim with her is repeatedly rebuffed but refuses to take no for an answer. When the food sickness hits, a rich woman is told to drink some water but instead demands champagne. Carl, implied to come from a poor background, is unable to connect with Yaya... Until they enact some class based sexual role playing, where he pretends to be a blue-collar plumber come to service Yaya's pipes. (So to speak.) Maybe the most blatant indicator of this theme is a guest on the boat who recently had a stroke and literally can't talk with people. When she meets a native merchant in the last third, she simply can't make herself understood. It seems the master/servant relationship is the only way these two social strata can relate to each other. 

It's fairly evident where writer/director Ruben Östlund's sympathies lie. The upper class rich folks are repeatedly portrayed as hilariously out-of-touch. The Captain, played by Woody Harrelson at his most pontificating, is so neurotic that he doesn't even leave his cabin that often. As the boat starts to drift, rolling back and forth through rough waters at askew angles, the captain has a heated debate with the Russian oligarch. These two men are so cluelessly focused on their own squabbling – explicitly about the differences between Marxism and capitalism – that they don't even notice the boat careening out-of-control around them. Meanwhile, the staff of the boat, the cooks and maids and mechanics and supervisors, are just trying to keep everything in order. The woman who demands a henpecked staff member swims with her is good natured, desiring to switch the script on who is serving and who is being served. But she is fixated on her own wants, unaware that her request will have serious consequences for the whole boat. The rich childishly bicker and want their every wish fulfilled, while the working class are just scrambling around and trying to make sure the literal and metaphorical boat doesn't crash. 

Somewhat inevitably, it all leads to disaster. The first two parts of "Triangle of Sadness" are much more compelling, as they focus on the simmering tension between the haves and have-nots. Once an errant grenade lands on the yacht and a handful of the ensemble wash up on the island, there's the expected reversal. Abigail, a put-upon Filipino maid who wasn't even a major character in the first half, declares herself leader on the island. She's been a server her whole life and, now that fate has tossed everyone into this precarious situation, demands to be the served. She keeps more food and resources for herself, under the logic that she caught it and cooked it, therefore she's entitled to it. This eventually extends to other topics, as she takes Carl as her lover, much to Yaya's (confused and conceited) frustration. 

I'm sure somewhat who has read more Marxist theory then I have could probably assign specific meanings and purposes to each of these characters and turn-of-events. It seems to me that "Triangle of Sadness" is mostly about the cycle of power struggle, of the repressed overturning the ruling class and immediately falling into the same pattern that birthed this situation. The movie is pretty heavy-handed with its ideas and most of the characters are ciphers to convey them. It's notable that colorful performers like Harrelson or the late Charlbi Dean as Yaya can't do much to make their characters living, breathing, compelling people. They are pawns, put in to deliver a certain point and to play off the filmmakers' ironic plot construction. This is probably why "Triangle of Sadness" is nowhere near as funny or biting as "The Square," Östlund's previous film which took a similar approach to the art world. That movie had a fully-formed, relatable protagonist to center its story around while "Triangle of Sadness" is an ensemble piece. Nobody really emerges as human beings we can root for or against. Instead, they are ideas. 

Having said that, I still found plenty to like about "Triangle of Sadness." Östlund knows how to sustain a certain absurd tension just though visuals. A long sequence devoted to the yacht slowly drifting out-of-control, people inside the boat literally sliding back and forth, features many long, continuous shots. The image of a woman, rolling back and forth on the floor of her bathroom while in the throes of food poisoning, is going to stick in my brain for a while. To underscore the weirdo menace of this moment, it’s scored to blaring heavy metal. The contrast between the still, controlled visuals and the surreal events often create an interesting feel to the movie. 

I’m not quite sure if “Triangle of Sadness” totally worked for me. Its characters are kept distant from the viewer, the performers never getting a chance to really bring them to life. The story is so focused on its sociological premise that it looses track of any sort of heart. This is especially evident in the abrupt, and overly ironic, ending. Yet Östlund remains a master of the cinematic arts, creating unforgettably strange visuals with a unique power all their own, both amusing and unsettling. It’s in that uncomfortable place, between laughs and discomfort, that “Triangle of Sadness” really succeeds. I can only assume that the perceived relevance of the story is why it resonated with the Academy so much. Or maybe AMPAS’ tolerance for arthouse sensibilities and off-beat satire has increased in recent years. [6/10]

OSCARS 2023: Causeway (2022)

One hesitates to say anything bad about Jennifer Lawrence. She is, after all, one of the most successful actresses of the modern era and, ostensibly, still is a beloved, popular star. And yet... Like so many critics and film fans, I was blown away by Lawrence's performance in "Winter's Bone." However, most of her acting after ascending up the Hollywood A-List has seriously underwhelmed me. Her work in big franchise films, like "The Hunger Games" and "X-Men" series, often veered into the somnambulant. Meanwhile, in increasingly lame awards bait, she began to grotesquely overact. I think I officially stopped being a Lawrence fan after her shockingly terrible performance in "American Hustle." It didn't help that her #Relatable antics quickly started to feel overbearing after a while. After several busy years, Lawrence would kind of disappeared. The actress herself would admit that she wasn't really giving those blockbuster roles her all and decided to be more choosy with her projects from now on. Lawrence's 2022 comeback project — if you can say that a still very famous person like her truly ever went away — was "Causeway." An Apple TV exclusive, the emotive drama would be primed as a major awards contender at one point before largely vanishing from the conversation. However, the Academy did end up giving the movie a surprise nomination. Not for Lawrence but for her co-star, Brian Tyree Henry.

Lawrence stars as Lynsey, a U.S. military veteran. While deployed in Afghanistan as a dam engineer, her Jeep was exploded by an IED. This would leave Lynsey with a traumatic brain injury, that left her physically crippled for a time. While still traumatized and heavily medicated, she moves back into her childhood home, reigniting old issues with her mother and absentee brother. Struggling to put her life back together, she naively hopes to get well enough to return to the military. Along the way, she forms an unusual friendship with James, a local mechanic with a tragedy of his own in his past.

"Causeway" is, if nothing else, a return to the aesthetic of "Winter's Bone" for Lawrence. (Who also produced, with Lila Neugebauer in the director's chair.) By which I mean it's an incredibly understated drama with humble goals, about real people in difficult situations. In fact, "Causeway" might be a little too understated. It's a very quiet film, with no use for histrionics. The troubled history Lynsey has with her mother is only hinted at. Her sexuality —she's gay — only comes up once, a topic that probably could've been explored a little more. Her relationship with her brother, a drug dealer and addict, is only expounded on through dialogue. In fact,  almost the entire movie is composed of people sitting around a suburb of New Orleans, talking about their lives. While most Oscar dramas are overlong and bloated, "Causeway" runs a svelte ninety-two minutes. Yet this is a film that might've benefited from a little more time. We feel like we only get a peek at these characters' lives sometimes, the movie giving us a beguiling but somewhat vague idea of who they are and what they've been through. 

However, I must applaud "Causeway" for being committed to its theme of recovery and what that really means. We get the impression about Lynsey that she mostly defined herself by her role in the military. (Another idea that could've been expanded on.) For her, recovery means getting right back to the place she was before her injury, which means deploying again. Yet it quickly becomes clear that this won't be easy. Sometimes, her hands shake and she drops things, an occurrence in one of the best scenes in the film. She argues with her doctor about medication, fearful that she's on too much yet having side effects without it. James, meanwhile, is an amputee from a horrible car wreck, which left serious emotional scars too. For both these people, there is no returning to their old lives. "Recovery" means finding some sort of peace with the changes in their bodies and with the lives they've tried to leave behind. The typically quiet — some would even say underdone — conclusion to this arc is, nevertheless, touching in its own way.

If "Causeway" has a frustrating tendency of keeping some of its ideas too interior, it does still manage to be a showcase for Lawrence and Henry's acting prowess. The way Lawrence subtly trembles with fear while driving for the first time since the incident is effective. Her body language, controlled and determined not to appear vulnerable, does a lot of lifting here. It's absolutely a return of the quiet, concise talent we saw in "Winter's Bone," even if it feels like Lawrence is trying to fill out a character that was left underwritten by the script. Henry, meanwhile, does largely steal the show. He's immediately charming, having an affable chemistry with Lawrence from their first moment together. He plays a seriously good guy, who does his best to protect people who need it, even if they don't want to admit that. Both performers get fantastic monologues, describing their accidents in gripping detail, in singular, sustained shots, that suggest both have lived with this pain for quite a while. The emotional climax of the film comes a little early, when the two jump into the pool together. (There's a lot of water imagery in the movie, connecting with the titular metaphor that never quite comes together.) Lynsey and James end up getting into an argument, the tension often felt between them rising to the surface. It's the only time the carefully guarded emotion in "Causeway" really expresses itself and it's a cathartic, powerful moment.

"Causeway" can't be an altogether satisfying experience. The subplot about Lynsey's brother is resolved in an especially half-assed manner. It feels like the movie ends just when it's starting to get going. I know, I complain when Oscar movies are too long and too melodramatic. Here comes a movie that is short and quiet, while tactfully handling serious, real world issues in a mature and reflective way. And I still bitch about it. But there has to be some sort of middle ground between the two poles. I'm glad Jennifer Lawrence is back to doing this style of acting in this style it movie. "Causeway" is definitely a good, thoughtful film that I would recommend. Yet I think, with a few changes and a little expansion, it really could've been a lot more than it is. [7/10]

OSCARS 2023: Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (2022)

In 2010, beloved stand-up/“SNL” cast member Jenny Slate and her animator husband Dean Fleisher Camp posted “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” to Youtube. The thoroughly adorable three-minute short quickly went viral, spawning two follow-ups and a children's book. The success would prompt Slate and Camp to team up with the Chiodo Brothers – the stop-motion specialists behind “Killer Klowns from Outer Space” – to make a feature length “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On.” A24, obviously hoping to extend their domination of the indie movie market into the realm of children's movies, would quickly pick the movie up for distribution. Continuing the surprisingly robust year the company has had at the Academy Awards, “Marcel” would earn a Best Animated Feature nomination. 

Marcel is a mollusk with one great big eye, who traverse his home from within his curly shell with a pair of shoes on his feet. He lives with his elderly grandmother, Connie, in an AirBnB. That is where a filmmaker named Dean discovers the charming shell and begins to document his life. Marcel and Connie used to live in an expansive community of shells but they all vanished – including Marcel's parents – when the man and the woman who own the home acrimoniously separated. Dean puts the short video he made about Marcel on the internet, where the little guy soon gathers a following. This begins Marcel's quest to be reunited with his family, though it will not be a smooth journey.

The original “Marcel” shorts were essentially cute little gag comedies, with the shell delivering absurd observations about life when you're so small. The movie includes a lot of these jokes, even recycling a few of the better ones. Such the facts of Marcel's bed or his "dog." Or what happens when the shells stand on a laptop keyboard. Yet the movie manages to move beyond simple comedy. Through his relationship with Nana Connie — voiced wonderfully by Isabella Rossellini, bringing a little "Green Porno" energy to this kid's flick — Marcel experiences some important life lessons. About having courage, being afraid, needing to explore the world, and the inevitability of loss. These themes, supported by the naturalistic mockumentary visuals and an ambient musical score, create a quietly reflective atmosphere. This pairs nicely with such a ridiculously adorable character, Slate's muttering vocal performance never becoming too overwhelmingly cutesy. 

More than anything else, “Marcel” is a movie about community. To the tiny little mollusks, a suburban house seems as massive as the whole wide world. Marcel's grandmother traveling from the garage to the house as a child is compared to an immigrant coming from one country to another. This seems to emphasize how lonely the two critters are, creating their little existence out of the everyday objects laying around the house. Marcel describes the happier times with his parents and the rest of their friends, the egalitarian life they had, helping each other out. It's the little shell's desire to reconnect with this – which has him making friends with Dean as well – that drives the narrative. 

Amusingly, the film has a little bit more than just that on its mind too. The initial short about Marcel being posted to the internet is incorporated into the film's story. After the video goes from 88 views to 22 million overnight, Marcel suddenly has to grapple with being an internet celebrity. People track down the house and do TikTok dances outside it, while filling the Youtube comment sections with nothing but basic observations. This frustrates Marcel, as none of this stuff brings him closer to finding his family. Soon, the little shell is covering the windows with newspaper to dispel the constant attention. He comments that the viewers online are an audience, not a community, which is a salient observation about fame in the ephemeral internet era. 

While “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” features its share of melancholy, it's mostly a delightful experience. The stop motion animation – a considerable step-up from the frequently crude movements seen in the original shorts – has a charming, home-made quality to it. The way Marcel and his fellow shells have made a little world for themselves at such a small level is adorable. He climbs inside a tennis ball and rolls it around. He fashions a needle and a match into little weapons. Chairs and walkers are made from twisted up paperclips, while tissues form blankets and pillows. Elaborate contractions are strapped together, from ropes and an electric mixer, to shake nuts from trees outside. Meanwhile, bugs and little spiders are friends and companions for Marcel and his grandmother. There's something adorably earthy about the movie's point of view, creative solutions being found for problems that we normal sized folks take for granted. 

“Marcel the Shell” is full of laughs too, Slate's squeaky delivery often bringing a quiet sort of sarcasm with it. The role Marcel and her grandmother's fandom of “60 Minutes” plays in the story is also extremely charming. “Charming” is really the word of the day here, as “Marcel” is a funny, sweet, and softly touching little motion picture. It seems unlikely to win but I'm glad the Academy didn't exclude it from the Animated Feature category, due to the large amount of flesh-and-blood actors in the film. (Which includes a surprise appearance from “Battle Angel's” Rosa Salazar.) Camp already has his next gig lined-up: The live action version of “Lilo & Stitch” at Disney, which has zero chance of being as likable as this one is. [8/10]

OSCARS 2023: All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

Only two years after Erich Maria Remarque's groundbreaking anti-war novel was published, it was already being adapted to film. The 1930 version of “All Quiet on the Western Front” would prove to be only the third winner of the Best Picture Academy Award. It remains a well regarded film but certainly enough time has passed that there's room for a new version of the story. What really distinguishes the 2022 take on “All Quiet on the Western Front” is that it's a German film. Considering Remarque's book was inspired by his own experiences in the First World War, seeing German filmmakers and artists tackle the story is worthwhile. It seems to have been a successful idea, as the new “Western Front” picked up a number of its own Academy Award nominations.

The year is 1917 and the Great War rages in Europe. Paul Bäumer is but seventeen years old, lying about his age to enlist in the German army. He hopes to be war heroes with his friends but, the very first night he is deployed in the trenches, he watches his buddy Ludwig die in front of him. As the fighting continues, Paul quickly becomes a battle hardened soldier, stealing food to survive and people dying around him every day. He looses more friends as the end of the war draws closer. Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away from the front, the leaders of Germany debate a ceasefire with the forces of France.  

Early within “All Quiet on a Western Front,” we see another soldier – a teenage boy – take a bullet to the helmet and flop to the ground. This is the first sign that no punches will be pulled here. What makes the violence all the more effecting is how nonchalant it is. At one point, the camera pans up towards the trees, showing a blown-off arm hanging from a branch. Soldiers quickly become numb to the sight of dead bodies in the trenches. The most harrowing sequence involves a run through enemy territory. A tank crushes a man and bodies are cut in half by machine gun fire. Flamethrowers leave men burning, twitching hunks. None of it is gratuitous, like the stylized violence in Hollywood films like “Hacksaw Ridge” or "Black Hawk Down." It's brutal but realistic, the focus as much on the terror and dread of the acts as the death itself. Seen in the screaming faces, the fleeing rats, and the panic stricken men. 

While it's long been debated if any film that depicts war can truly be anti-war, director Edward Berger makes a pretty good case with his “Western Front.” The film begins with a montage of a terrified young soldier rushing from the trench and into battle. By the next scene, he's already dead. His uniform is stripped from his body, washed, and given to Bäumer. The name tag is carelessly yanked off the shirt before being given to its new recipient. This is how a country at war treats the men, the boys, it sends into combat. This is drawn into especially sharp reflect in the final act, when the German high command forces Bäumer's unit back to the front, to fight a battle in a war that they've already lost. It's futile and awful, life and bodies being wasted to gain a few more feet of ground in a meaningless conflict. “All Quiet on the Western Front” goes out of its way to repeatedly emphasize how purposeless all this horrible destruction is. 

Yet “Al Quiet on the Western Front” is not just an act of war-time nihilism, meant to savagely draw attention to the pointlessness of war. Instead, the movie focuses in on the experiences of the boys fighting it. A camaraderie forms among people when you're facing death with them, every single day. Especially touching is the bond Bäumer forges with a soldier nicknamed Kat. Despite being older and having a wife, Kat is also illiterate, the younger man reading letters from his wife to him. The men try and find what peace they can in such a horrible situation. They steal a goose from a farmer, loving being able to share a real meal together. Another solider named Franz gets to spend a night with a French prostitute and treasures the scarf she gives him. He gives each one of his friends a whiff of it. It's not much – it's almost nothing actually – but this is the only joy they have to hold onto. 

That the men in the trenches are so starved and desperate, that they steal food sitting on the table in enemy embankments, is notable. Edward Berger's film adds a new subplot to the story, that isn't present in the text. These scenes detail the German authorities negotiating with the French powers. These scenes not only draw attention to the harshness of the terms of Germany's surrender, a dark foreshadowing of events that would lead to a second World War. It also shows the high-ranking officials and leaders eating fine meals in opulent halls, around warm fireplaces where they can feed their dog. These are the men who decide to launch another futile battle, to destroy more lives to serve nothing more than their pride. The men who send boys to die get no taste of the scarcity and horrors they cause. 

“All Quiet on the Western Front” is powerful filmmaking. The pounding musical score creates an atmosphere full of doom. The cinematography is bleak but meaningful, showing the extensiveness of the devastation. The acting is subdued but well orchestrated, while the grisly make-up makes the bleached-out skin and sunken eyes of the combatants especially vivid. It's not a movie I especially want to revisit. It's a grim movie but makes its point effectively. War is hell, always has been and always will be. If human beings continued to blow each other for no good goddamn reason, compelling films like “All Quiet on the Western Front” will continue to need to be made. [8/10]

OSCARS 2023: Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

When a sequel to “Top Gun” was first announced in 2010, I found myself asking: Who gives a shit? Twenty-four years after it was released, “Top Gun” was regarded as a campy product of the Reagan years, Cold War propaganda awash in the visual signifiers of a bygone decade. I could only conclude that “Top Gun 2” was a vanity project being pushed through solely by Tom Cruise's ego. As the movie continued through Development Hell, even after Tony Scott's passing, I continued to feel this way. After “Top Gun: Maverick” was subsequently filmed, and then delayed for over two years due to the pandemic, my question remained. Who is this movie for, excepting Tom Cruise himself? I guess this proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. “Maverick” became a massive blockbuster, well received by critics and film nerds. It was for a lot of people, it turns out. Now it's nominated for six Academy Awards, including a surprise placement in the Best Picture category. 

Some 34 years after the events of “Top Gun,” Pete “Maverick” Mitchell is still a captain and still flying jets for the Navy. After a ballsy stunt to save the test pilot program he's working for, Maverick is once again sent back to the TOPGUN fighter pilot academy in San Diego. This time, Maverick will be a teacher, instructing a new team of pilots on a ridiculously risky mission to destroy an uranium plant within enemy territory. Among the younger pilots is Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw, the son of Maverick's long-dead BFF “Goose.” Rooster blames Maverick for the death of his father. Pete Mitchell has to grapple with these new and old burdens as he attempts to prove himself the best of the best once again. 

While reviewing the original “Top Gun” as part of my Tony Scott Director Report Card in 2021, I noted that I'm not a fan of the film. This is largely because I think Maverick is a deeply unlikable protagonist, an endlessly cocky douchebag that the entire narrative bends around in order to justify and preserve his ego. The belated sequel does, if nothing else, humanize Tom Cruise's superhuman hero to some degree. As so much of Cruise's modern filmography is meant to do, the opening montages draw attention to how fragilely human Cruise's body is. This makes his miraculous stunts of daring even more incredible but at least he's depicted as an actual human. The script also makes sure to have Maverick constantly getting chewed out by those all around him, from his bosses, to his students, to even his potential love interests. He's still incredible and he still succeeds on the back of his preternatural talent, Tom Cruise wearing a huge grin the whole time. Yet at least he's a little more grounded this time. 

How much you like “Top Gun: Maverick” seems to depend entirely on how invested you are in Tom Cruise and his status as the Last Movie Star. This is not just because Cruise's otherworldly charisma is the entire motivating force behind the film. It's also because every emotional issue in the script is filtered entirely through Maverick's wants and needs. The tension he feels with Rooster is hard on him. Not because someone's father died but because it reminds Maverick of loosing his friend. When Iceman, played by a voiceless Val Kilmer, dies off-screen, we're supposed to be sad because Maverick loved Ice so much. When Maverick is pulled off the program, and the new pilots are taught to focus on maneuvers that will likely get them killed, it's bad not because the pilots might die... But because it means Maverick will have let his team down. 

In this movie, all of gravity bends around Tom Cruise's ego. If you're like me, someone who honestly finds Cruise more off-putting than compelling, “Top Gun: Maverick” doesn't give you much of a reason to give a shit about anything that happens. The laser-intensity focus the script has on Maverick's arc means none of the other characters are developed beyond the thinnest sketches. The new pilots are the broadest of stereotypes, all defined solely by their pithy callsigns. “Hangman” – played by Glen Powell, a doll-faced ready-made movie star in the Cruise mold – is the new Ice, an overly cocky jerk who is somehow different from the overly cocky jerk we're supposed to root for. Miles Teller's blustering “Rooster” goes from resenting to respecting Maverick over the course of a montage. The romantic subplot Maverick shares with Jennifer Connelly's Penny – who is written as if she's an established character, even though she's not – is totally free of chemistry. If you don't buy into Cruise's mega-watt star power, you're unlikely to get much out of “Top Gun: Maverick.” 

The film, like so many decades-late legacy sequels, also puts a lot of weight on callbacks to the original. The reappearance of a motorcycle, a bomber jacket, an iconic airplane, and a gratuitous shirtless volleyball scene are meaningless unless you've already seen the original “Top Gun.” Yet, as much as the sequel depends on nostalgia, it does function as spectacle in its own right. Director Joseph Kosinski – who specializes in Cruise vehicles and legacy sequels – doesn't have the visual panache of Tony Scott, no matter how much he tries to replicate that Golden Hour shine. However, he does know how to engineer some thrilling stunts. The scenes of the jets moving in line with each other, or the pilots tossed around inside the cockpits, are impressive. I didn't care for a single minute about “Maverick's” plot or characters and even I got a thrill out of the climatic sequences. This is a well organized action movie that uses less CGI than you'd probably think.

Yet I still can't escape the nagging question of what “Top Gun: Maverick's” purpose is. The original film was Cold War propaganda, designed to make the U.S. Navy and Air Force look like glamorous, unstoppable superheroes. It was a movie all about shallow posturing, of making our country look cooler than the Soviets. But the Cold War has long since ended. “Maverick” goes out of its way not to identify the enemy nation that has built this offending uranium plant that motivates the plot. We never see any flags or insignia that assign to a real world country. The enemy soldiers are literally rendered faces, their faces hidden behind goggles and oxygen masks. “Maverick” is agitprop without a cause, designed to make the Navy and fighter jets look cool and competent and super effective... Against a totally nebulous enemy. Its propaganda for the U.S. military complex alone, without even a pretend notion of some higher goal to aspire to. Join the Navy, pilot jets, look cool, be heroic, and kill somebody, anybody, as long as they aren't other Americans. 

 

“Top Gun: Maverick” was beloved not just by general audiences. Critics praised it as the kind of older spectacle that we need more of, in an age of increasingly samey superhero movies. The Film Twitter crowd adored it, turning their admiration for the film into a meme itself. The wellspring of love around “Maverick” is such that I don't think there's any controversy about its Best Picture nomination, even though a blatant popcorn movie like this is not your typical Oscar bait. Yet I suppose my lack of love for Cruise, my indifference towards the original, and my distrust of the military industrial complex left me largely immune to “Maverick's” charms. I love me some bitchin' stunts but a movie needs more than that. And “Maverick” didn't even have the good sense to be as homoerotic as the original, the sheen of muscled bodies and dude-on-dude bonding mostly taking a backseat to more generic themes of teamwork. What is “Top Gun” without camp? Not much, it turns out. But what do I know? [6/10]

OSCARS 2023: The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

Some filmmakers take years to build up a beloved reputation with critics and awards prognosticators. Other directors, meanwhile, seem to become favorites pretty much immediately. It's hard to say which category Martin McDonagh falls into exactly. Coming to prominence as a playwright in the nineties, McDonagh won his first Oscar in 2004 for his short film, “Six Shooter.” To those that don't pay attention to the shorts categories, it would seem McDonagh slowly earned recognition for his violent comedies, “In Burges” and “Seven Psychopaths,” before “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” became an Academy front runner in 2018. Now, McDonagh has returned with “The Banshees of Inisherin,” which has predictably become another high-profile awards season release. Whether you call that instant success or a gradual build, I suppose depends on whether you think a Best Live Action Short Oscar is worth much. 

As the Irish Civil War of 1924 wages on the mainland, the residents of the tiny Irish island of Inisherin live in isolation. Farmer Pádraic Súilleabháin travels to meet his friend, fiddle player Colm Doherty, at his home. Instead, Colm ignores him. Pádraic soon learns that Colm no longer wishes to be his friends, that he considers him “dull” now. This baffles and enrages Pádraic. Every further attempt Pádraic makes to reach out to Colm only causes the blustery loner to push him away more, with increasingly disturbing actions. Soon, the old friends have become bitter rivals. 

During a key confrontation in “The Banshees of Inisherin,” Pádraic insists to Colm that he's a nice person, that everyone on the island knows that he is nice. Colm fires back that niceness doesn't matter. That he wants to devote what life he has left to perfecting his musical compositions, to creating art that will outlive him. This raises an important question, one we've all probably grappled with from time to time: How do you measure a good life? Is it all about the legacy we leave behind? Or is it about being kind to others and living an existence that is as pleasant as possible? It's really a matter of opinion but this disagreement on what we should be striving for, in our world, is what drives “The Banshees of Inisherin.” 

Of course, part of the irony of “The Banshees of Inisherin” is that Pádraic is not as “nice” as he believes himself to be. As Colm's rejection of him goes on, he goes to increasingly unsettling attempts to prove himself as an interesting person. Colm's own reaction to Pádraic repeatedly violating his boundaries is also pretty extreme, involving bodily mutilation. As the gorgeous cinematography pulls back and shows the vast, green island, I started to think the problem here is not the people but the place they are in. Inisherin – a fictional island, by the way – is isolated. This is the 1920s, before cell phones, the internet, or television. The island doesn't even seem to have telephone lines or radio yet. Pádraic's acerbic sister gets off the island midway through the film and encourages her brother to do the same. I think living out in the middle of nowhere, with nothing to do but drink and bitch with the locals, is making everyone go a little stir crazy. 

I've seen “The Banshees of Inisherin” described as a comedy, which is true. However, it's about exactly the kind of comedy you'd expect from the scribe of “The Pillowman.” That is to say “Banshees” provides an especially existential type of humor. Colm, while in confessional, wonders if God observes people's actions at all. There are deaths, violence, mentions of sexual molestation, and references to war. Yet “The Banshees” is funny. This is mostly thanks to McDonagh's colorful dialogue, which makes the most use of the word “fecking” I've ever heard in any film. Pádraic's drunken rambling, awkward attempts to manipulate people, and the tense conversations he has with his sister are all frequently amusing. McDonagh's strength has always been his ability to capture a small-town specificity, with a creative vulgarity, which is fully on display here.

A negative review describes “The Banshees of Inisherin” as an attempt to turn a short story into a novel. This strikes me as probably an honest criticism of a film that, honestly, doesn't have quite enough narrative meat on its nearly two hour long bones. Yet the performances really keep this one alive. Colin Farrell is at his squirmy best as Pádraic, a man of modest depth who has been pushed into an increasingly uncomfortable scenario. The moment where he declares his rivalry to Colm will doubtlessly be Farrell's Oscar clip and it's a fantastic scene. Brendan Gleeson has seemingly always carried an immense sense of world-weariness on his shoulders. That is put to excellent use here as Colm, a man determined to be left alone with his art. The oddest performance belongs to Barry Keoghan as Dominic, the island simpleton who is frequently abused by his father. Keoghan shows brilliant moments of shining clarity under an overgrown man-child who has clearly never been given much of a chance. Even if his subplot never amounts to much, Keoghan is still a highlight of the film. 

I suspect actual Irishmen will have more insight into “The Banshees of Inisherin.” The references to the Irish Civil War, which the entire story seems to be a somewhat strangled metaphor for, goes a little over my dumb-ass American head. (At least one writer has actually criticized the film for employing Irish stereotypes, which I'm also woefully unaware of.) I do appreciate McDanagh making sure an actual banshee of sorts, in the form of an ominous old woman fond of predicting people's death, appears here. And, after “Three Billboards” ambiguously supported police brutality, it's refreshing that he wanted people to make sure his opinions on cops were made clear here. Ultimately, I don't think “The Banshees of Inisherin” is a groundbreaking work of genius. I do think it's a really interesting, funny, clearly personal work that grapples with big themes in a quiet way, never quite coming to clear conclusions but being an enjoyable ride nevertheless. [7/10]

OSCARS 2023: Nominations and Predictions

Oscar season is here once again. The last two ceremonies have been such outrageous disasters, marked by weirdo pandemic shooting perimeters, bungled attempts to pay homage to fallen talent, disrespectful comedy skits that make it seem like the telecast writers don’t even like movies, and an unprecedented smack in the mouth that people wouldn’t stop talking about for weeks. When combined with the growing disparity between what general audiences actually watch and what critics and industry insiders enjoy, it’s made the Academy Awards seem like an even more questionable enterprise. The broadcast has started to feel like a desperate circus and the question of “Who are these even for?” floats hopelessly in the air. 

Things seem grim but there is hope. Because I know who the Oscars are for. They are for me! And, well, people like me too, those who delight in Academy Award history and pride themselves on watching all the nominees every year. We’re film fans. We love movies and think they are important. I don’t know if the people running the Oscars, or even the Academy voters who decide what’s nominated and what wins, feel that way. The actual outcome is almost besides the point for me. I love the nominees, I love the snubs, I love the glitz and glamour. I love catching up with what Hollywood itself deems the best and brightest of the previous year. I just can’t help it. 

And so the time has come for me to dig into the nominees and give my hopelessly uninformed predictions of who will win. It is time once again.

BEST PICTURE:

In recent years, heavily promoted streaming exclusives with little crossover success and art house darlings have come to dominate the Best Picture race, much to the alienation of your average movie-goer. Maybe there was a deliberate push this year to nominate movies people had actually seen. Blockbuster, crowd pleasers like “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Avatar: The Way of Water,” and “Elvis” all scored Best Picture nominations. Of course, these movies were critically acclaimed too, representing a sort of older style spectacle in a big movie landscape increasingly dominated by samey superhero movies. 

This isn’t to say that the usual kind of artsy, streaming releases didn’t place in this category. I doubt the average person on the street has heard of vomit-filled bourgeois satire “Triangle or Sadness.” A fact-based drama about sexual assault like “Women Talking” or a grim German-language war movie like “All Quiet on the Western Front,” currently playing in around a 1000 theaters or buried on Netflix respectively, are not the kind of cinema non-film nerds are invested in. One could argue that nominating movies like this is why the Oscar broadcasts have such low ratings these days.

Mixed in there are what you would define as more typical Oscar movies: Beloved new releases from respected filmmakers. “The Banshees of Inisherin,” “Tar,” and “The Fabelmans” come to us from critical darlings and Academy favorites like Martin McDonagh, Todd Fields, and Steven Spielberg. “The Fabelmans” is a love letter to cinema itself, making it a logical choice to win Best Picture. While “The Banshees” is the kind of respectful, middlebrow tragicomedy that I could totally see also winning the top prize. (“Tar” probably won’t win Best Picture, though styling itself after the always buzzy biopic – even though it’s totally fictional – didn’t hurt its chances.)

Yet we live in stranger times than that. Here in 2023, the clear front runner for Best Picture is an extremely quirky, 25-million dollar indie movie that features kung-fu fights, a multiversal comic book plot, hot dog fingers, an interdimensional bagel, and multiple butt plug jokes. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” became the little movie that could last year. Beloved by critics, surprisingly popular with audiences, and hotly debated by the Film Twitter set, this unlikely movie seems to be the predicted fave to walk away with Hollywood’s top honor this year. Honestly, I’ll be a little surprised if that comes to past. I can see the older Academy voters skewing things in “The Banshees of Inisherin” or “The Fabelmans’” direction but, for now… 

OFFICIAL PREDICTIONS:

Probably “Everything Everywhere All at Once” 

BEST ACTOR:

The Academy loves nothing more than a comeback story. Brendan Fraser was, for a brief glorious period, a box office attraction who never quite got the respect he deserved critically. He slowly disappeared from the spotlight for years before the sad reasons for this made him an internet favorite. The Brendan Fraser redemption arc has been brewing for years and seems to be headed for its expected climax, with the actor winning an Oscar for Darren Afronofsky’s buzzy indie drama “The Whale…” Except “The Whale” has been critically divisive, with mixed reviews and accusations of fatphobia and being a miserable slog. Will this backlash be enough to cost Fraser his Oscar?

I don’t think so, namely because Fraser doesn’t have any real competition. The closest challenger is Colin Farrell, in “The Banshees of Inisherin.” Farrell is a respected performer and seems likely to win an Oscar someday. Yet there’s not much heat behind his campaign this year. Austin Butler might’ve been a front runner in a different year, as “Elvis” has many of the hallmarks of your typical Oscar success story. But Butler seems too new to the business to already be deemed a winner and people seem divided in whether his performance is great or goofy.

Rounding up the docket are two performers who are unlikely to win but I’m happy to see them anyway. Bill Nighy in “Living” represents a long-working character actor finally getting some love from the Academy for some random British movie I had never even heard of until a few days ago. Paul Mescal in “Aftersun,” meanwhile, really seemed like a long shot to me until this morning. I would’ve guess that movie was too indie and low-key for the Academy. I guess A24’s campaign budget this year must’ve been enormous. 

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:

Brendan Fraser for “The Whale” 

BEST ACTRESS:

Best Actress is maybe the most interesting of the big categories this year. There’s a compelling narrative behind almost all the nominees here. My favorite of which revolves around Andrea Risenborough. “To Leslie” is a tiny, not widely seen indie that was seemingly on nobody’s lips at the end of last year. Yet the people who did see “To Leslie” were other actresses, who were apparently blown away. A campaign led by Kate Winslet and multiple other high-profile performers to get Risenborough a nomination for the obscure film was a success. Honestly, seeing the established names in a field use their influence to shine a spotlight on a less well-known name is very touching to me.

It’s a great story but Risenborough still seems like a long-shot to win. Months back, Cate Blanchette seem to solidify her chances of winning her third Oscar for “Tar.” Not much has changed in the weeks that have followed and Blanchette is still among the most talked about nominees. Lydia Tar is exactly the kind of difficult, multifaceted character that Academy voters love. 

Yet there is a certain degree of unpredictability in this year’s nominees. Years of incredible work has taken Michelle Yeoh from a cult favorite to a beloved, international icon. If the Academy loved “Everything Everywhere All at Once” so much that they made it the most nominated movie of the year, it stands to reason that the actress the entire film is a loving tribute to has a good chance at winning. 

And that would be great, but there’s another Michelle to consider. Michelle Williams has proven herself to be among the most versatile and talented performers in Hollywood. She’s been nominated for an Oscar five times previously. Her performance in “The Fabelmans” is clearly a highlight of that movie. In a less competitive year, she probably would’ve been a lock. Now, she seems like a probable runner-up.

Rounding out the list is a nominee I really didn’t expected. Ana de Armas was slotted into the Oscar race early on for her performance as Marilyn Monroe in “Blonde.” After people actually saw the controversial movie, and it received a critical pummeling, her chances at getting a nod seemed slim. Yet something about de Armas’ performance might’ve impressed the Academy as they did nominated her. (Likely pushing out expected nominees like Viola Davis and Danielle Deadwyler.) This has caused the widely disliked “Blonde” to earn the coveted title of this year’s Villain Movie at the Oscars. 

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:

Probably Cate Blanchette in “Tar,” though I’m rooting for Yeoh. 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

If Fraser is the main comeback story of this year's Oscar season, a no less unexpected turn has been Ke Huy Quan's path to award season gold. Watching the eighties child actor get a great role in “Everything Everywhere All at Once” was delightful. Seeing him grab multiple statues along the way has been even better. Will he win the Oscar as well?

The odds seem to favor him, though the former Short Round does have some stiff competition. Brendan Gleeson is a beloved character actor who has been giving fine performances for years. A win for “The Banshees of Inisherin” would be a fitting achievement atop his entire career. Barry Keoghan is also nominated for the same movie and seems to have the stand-out role in the film. He's similarly been stacking up award seasons wins. It certainly seems probable that either of these two could take home the Oscar.

Rounding out the category is Judd Hirsch in “The Fabelmans,” in the kind of wise mentor role that the Academy simply loves. The real surprise in this category was Brian Tyree Henry in “Causeway,” a movie that had all but disappeared from the award season chatter. I had honestly forgotten about that one and certainly didn't expect a nomination. I don't think either of those guys have a shot at winning though.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:

While I can totally see Gleeson or Keoghan winning, I'm hopeful Ke Huy Quan gets it.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: 

Best Supporting Actress is the main category this year without much in the way of a major front runner. Kerry Condon has been raking up nominations and many wins all throughout the award season. In a more normal Oscar year, she would probably win. And she still has a good chance at it. 

However, this is an odd category this year. “Everything Everywhere All At Once” has earned two supporting nods, for Jamie Lee Curtis and Stephanie Hsu. While I love that Curtis is finally an Oscar nominee, I'm surprised it's for a simple role like this. Hsu has the juicier part and there's a feeling in my bones that she might just get it. Meanwhile, Hong Chau has definitely earned some strong notices for “The Whale” as well.

Yet we can't forget that the Academy voters frequently loves to give awards to honor whole careers and make up for missed opportunities. Though the  Slap has eclipsed in terms of notoriety, I bet some Academy members are still feeling the sting of the 2021 broadcast's biggest gaff: Building the entire emotional climax of the show around Chadwick Boseman winning Best Actor... Only for someone else to win instead. Since “Black Panther 2” is an entire movie built around carrying the weight of Boseman's loss, and Angela Basset does the majority of the Capital A Acting in that one, she has emerged as the favorite to win here. And who says superhero movies aren't cinema?

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:

I still feel like Condon may pull off a surprise win here but Angela Basset seems like the safest bet. 

BEST DIRECTOR:

In the history of the Oscars, duos have incredibly strong odds in the Best Director category. Only two teams have been nominated before – Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins in 1962, for “West Side Story,” and the Coen brothers in 2008, for “No Country for Old Men” – and both won. This seems to shine brightly on Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, collectively known as “Daniels.” They would probably be the favorites to win anyway, as “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is clearly the Academy’s favorite this year. Yet the historical odds seem to be in their favor. 

Only sentimentality seems likely to disrupt this victory. Obviously, Steven Spielberg is probably the most respected director working today. “The Fabelmans” is his most personal film yet and I can see the Academy giving him the award simply for that reason. I also can’t shake the feeling that “The Banshees of Inisherin” may prove to be the dark horse candidate this year, with Martin McDonaugh sweeping up a win on the way to surprise Best Picture victory. 

At the bottom of likely winners is Todd Fields for “Tar” and a surprise nominee for Ruben Ostlund for “Triangle of Sadness,” a movie the Academy liked way more than expected. Neither have any chance of winning this year but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Academy gives them statues at some point in the future. 

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:

Daniels for “Everything Everywhere All at Once.”

BEST WRITING:

Of course, Fields and Ostlund have another shot in the Best Original Screenplay category. In fact, the Academy nominated the exact same group of people for Best Original Screenplay as they did for Best Director. Since the category is Original, and “Everything Everywhere All at Once” has been widely acclaimed for its zany originality, it seems probable that the Daniels will pick up statues in this category as well. (Which may shift the favor towards Spielberg in the Best Director category.) Yet my gut is telling me that Martin McDonaugh is the most writerly of the writers here, with “The Banshees of Inisherin” feeling like the most script-centric of these nominees. I think it’ll win.

While the Academy did a total copy-paste job in Original Screenplay, the nominee for Adapted Screenplay feel a little more chaotic. “All Quiet on the Western Front” is by far the most respectable of the nominees here, with “Women Talking” being the buzziest and most relevant. Both are likely winners for that reason. “Glass Onion” would receive its sole nomination here, as being a sequel apparently classifies a movie as Adapted. This is also why “Top Gun: Maverick,” a movie whose writing seems like its least notable element, placed in this category. Last place is “Living,” a remake of Kurasawa’s “Ikiru,” that was on few radars before Tuesday but apparently impressed the writing branch enough. That it was written by an internationally beloved novelist was probably a factor.

OFFICIAL PREDICTIONS:

“The Banshees of Inisherin” and “Women Talking.”

BEST MUSIC:

This year, the Academy gave veteran songwriter and perpetual Best Song nominee Diane Warren an honorary Oscar. Yet even this is not enough to bring our long national nightmare to an end. By which I mean Warren scored her token nominee this year – her fourteenth – for some sappy song from some fucking movie nobody has heard of. “Applause” is from “Tell It Like a Woman,” an inspirational anthology feature of some sort centering around women. It's sung by Sofia Carson, apparently a former Disney Channel star, who goes way over the top in belting out another set of faux-inspirational lyrics. At least the melody is mildly pretty, even if I'm left wondering how Warren keeps get nominated.

She'll probably get nominated again next year too, as I don't think her long-sought win is coming in 2023. If “Top Gun: Maverick's” status as a multiple Oscar nominee came as a surprise, it was always pretty much a given that Lady Gaga's theme song, “Hold My Hand,” would get a Best Song nod. Might “Hold My Hand” repeat the Oscar success that “Take My Breath Away” experienced with the original “Top Gun?” Maybe. Gaga's vocals soar over instrumentation that is a bit overwrought. Yet even a sourpuss like me has to admire the bombastic energy to this love ballad, especially once the wailing guitar solo kicks in.

Yet an unexpected victor seems to have emerged. The overwhelming awesome “RRR” did not score a nomination in Best International Film, because India didn't submit it to the Academy. Yet the absolutely irrepressible “Naatu Naatu” still grabbed a Best Song nod. It's maybe the best musical number I've seen in a movie in years, an utterly joyful and propulsive celebration of the two bro-iest bros in India dancing the shoes off some stuffy Englishmen. I don't know if the song is as good as the dance scene... But only because the scene is outstanding, while the song is merely great. It has to win, right?

It better but I wouldn't be shocked if the Academy gave the Oscar to Gaga or Rihanna's “Hold Me Up,” from “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” instead. The Rihanna song is pretty, I suppose, with an effective lullaby like melody. At least until she starts warbling tunelessly in the last third. And I guess the Academy's love for “Everything Everywhere All at Once” was further confirmed with even its theme song getting a nomination. I love David Byrne and occasionally enjoy Mitski but I found the song pretty forgettable and meandering. Hopefully “Naatu Naatu” fever will grip the Academy too.

Son Lux's score for “Everything Everywhere All At Once” got nominated too. It's a fittingly quirky score, full of creative piano melodies, scattering soundscapes, discordant jazz riffs, and thumping electronic touches. It's interesting but probably too weird to win an Oscar. 

Justin Hurwitz' fusion of big band, jazz, and modern dance music for “Babylon” is certainly energetic, and probably the most listenable score here when separated from its source movie, but I wonder if it'll appeal to the stodgy music branch of the Academy. Carter Burwell's “Banshees of Inisherin” score is much more traditional and, it must be said, very pretty. John Williams' score for “The Fabelmans” is even more traditional and also extremely pretty. Considering Williams is in his nineties, I wouldn't be shocked if the Academy honors him with one more Oscars. (If he won, it would be his sixth.) Volker Bertelmann's doom-laden score for “All Quiet on the Western Front” is definitely the heaviest, and least easy on the ears, of these nominees. Though it is effective in its own way. 

OTHER FILM CATEGORIES:

2022 was an incredibly high-profile year for feature length animation but the Academy’s nominees barely tell that story. I never expected the raw weirdness of “Mad God” to score a nomination but I hoped Netflix’s campaign money would be enough to score a nod for “Wendell & Wild.” Instead, another offering from the streaming giant scooped up the fifth slot, with the CGI sea monster feature “The Sea Beast” receiving a surprise nomination. (This also pushed out any of G-Kids’ potential selections.) 

The likely winner seems to be another Netflix production, with “Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio” being by far the most prestige festooned of the nominees. You can’t overlook the possibility that the Academy will just give it to Pixar again though. And it’s not like the excellent “Turning Red” wouldn't deserve it. The expected Dreamworks selection is “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish,” which received far better reviews than you’d expect from a decade-late sequel to a forgettable “Shrek” spin-off. 

A24 is having a very good year at the Oscars. “All the Beauty and the Bloodshed” is currently the fave to win Best Documentary and it’s easy to imagine a story of cultural relevance and artistic ambitions resonating with Academy voters. Yet there’s still a part of me that feels like A24’s arthouse pretensions may be too much for voters. (While “A House Made of Splinters” and “Navalny” will probably resonate with people who feel the war in the Ukraine is the story of the year.) I can imagine feel-good nature documentaries like “All That Breathes” or “Fires of Love” being a little more their speed. 

“All Quiet on the Western Front,” considering how much the Academy likes it, is all but guaranteed to pick up Best International Feature. Though I can’t help but root for “EO,” the quirky Polish road movie starring a donkey. Also, I hope “My Year of Dicks” picks up Best Animated Short, just so the presenter is forced to say that title on live television.

MISC.:

“Top Gun: Maverick” has its eye on the Best Sound award, I'm betting, and probably Best Editing too. (Though the hyper-kinetic visuals of “Everything Everywhere All at Once” pose a major challenger.) It would probably be a slam-dunk in the Best Visual Effects too if “Avatar: The Way of Water” didn't loom over that category so oppressively. 

Otherwise, the technical categories are all over the place this year. There are few obvious frontrunners. One assumes “Empire of Light” got its sole nomination, in Best Cinematography, out of deference to Roger Deakins' reputation, as that film otherwise has no buzz in a category with little hype. The colorful comic book costumes of “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” seem like a probable winner, though “Babylon's” period detailing is its next biggest rival. Damian Chazelle's divisive postmortem on Hollywood's golden age also has strong chances in Production Design, though “Elvis” is also a contender in there. I think “The Batman” turning Colin Farrell into the Penguin means it deserves the Best Make-Up Oscar but the pounds of latex they buried Brendan Fraser under in “The Whale” seems the likelier winner. 

Regardless of the outcomes, I'm going to try and squeeze in as many of the nominees as possible before the March 12th broadcast. I've managed to see all of the nominees in the last three years but there's some hard-to-find titles this year, so we'll see. Hopefully Jimmy Kimmel will restrain himself from ranting about how “Spider-Man” should've been nominated while hosting.