1548165618-oscars1

Lead up to the Academy Awards used to be fascinating to me. It’s a chance for me to discover the best movies of the previous year. But recently, there is too much noise from campaigns and Hollywood politics that’s shitting on everything. Does the Oscars really deserve this much spotlight, that every week there are analysts anticipating the front-runners, losers, and snubs? And if there is not much movement, they are reporting controversies and backlashes to shake up the rankings.

It didn’t used to be like this. I could depend on the late Roger Ebert to view a movie on its own merit. Most of these noisemakers are not critics, but spectators of the campaign trails. Now, I am worried about being prejudiced about a movie before I even see it. God forbid I would love one that’s made in some immoral manner. Should I feel guilty? Feel ashamed?

That’s why I think it helps me to write it out. When I analyze my reaction, I need to figure it out it’s strictly based on the movie itself. If it’s not, then admit it.

RANKED EIGHT
Bohemian Rhapsody

I would probably be happier if the film entirely recreated a two-hour Queen concert. Let’s face it, “Bohemian Rhapsody” is pretty much a supplement to the legendary band’s music. In standard biopic format, it is not that good.

Despite an assured performance from Rami Malek, I found Freddie Mercury (the character) a problematic protagonist. He came off more like a villainous diva, who is full of himself and pretty much got what he wanted. I wasn’t able to connect to him, and thus, I was not caring much about the dramatized melodrama. The screenplay is more concerned of stringing along anecdotal scenes, rather than building to an emotional climax of a rocking, full-throated life.

Perhaps, it’s probably for the best, when the filmmakers are neither talented nor visionary as Mercury, for the movie to be subservient to the music. “Bohemian Rhapsody” is royally screwed without it.

RANKED SEVENTH
GREEN BOOK

I cringe when I think of this movie. Even when it got better and there’s great chemistry between its leads, I never recovered from that feeling. I felt sorry for actor Viggo Mortensen being saddled in the role of Tony Lip, a racist, crude Italian-American muscle who’s hired to drive a talented and refined African-American pianist (Mahershala Ali – a fine performance).

Tony Lip is an offensive character by today’s standards. But since this happened so many decades ago, it’s cute and funny? Mortensen has fun and charm, but it’s a trying balance act to make Tony tolerable.

I don’t think “Green Book” realized it has tasked itself to delicately portray a racist credibly without pandering to or insulting anyone. The movie naively failed on that. It simply knows Tony Lip, in real life, did shed his racism. “Green Book” is ignorant and lazy to read between the lines to convincingly show that.

RANKED SIXTH
THE FAVOURITE

It’s not rare to see Oscar-baiting lesbian dramas, but “The Favourite” might the first one I’ve seen as Oscar-baiting lesbian fantasy. Its three white female leads are in power-grabbing standings and far from oppressed by their sexuality. Men, although not entirely emasculated in powered face and wigs, are marginalized and left to circle the trio as vultures.

On first impression, “The Favourite” fascinates with its naturally striking cinematography and peculiarly coarse tone in storytelling. Among the ensemble, the commanding Rachel Weisz was the highlight for me. Emma Stone was good but needed to ramp up the “bad girl” duplicity convincingly. As for Olivia Colman, the actual Best Actress contender for this film, I don’t know what to think. Her childish and easily manipulated queen is too much of a sad joke.

On final impression, “The Favourite” is a disappointment. Its female characters ultimately came off as scheming caricatures in a reality game show. And the ending is such a flaw and unearned. The movie deserved either a grand flourish or a dark, biting end. For such an acute movie to mentally disconnect is an artistic brain quif.

RANKED FIFTH
A STAR IS BORN

Among the Best Picture nominees, “A Star is Born” probably has the best first act. We see Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper immediately transform before our eyes. The singer is stripped of her pop star persona and the actor, not only sings, but also deepens his voice as an aging country star. It’s refreshing that there’s no mutual spark at first meet between their characters. He’s drunk in his own smiley state of mind. She’s credibly cagey and guarded; trying to figure why this man is attracted to her. Slowly and surely, the movie gives them time to romantically link through music. When they perform the now-iconic song “Shallow” onstage for the first time, it is surround-sound, emotional movie magic.

Unfortunately, the movie never achieves such heights again. Although Bradley Cooper is never better and the musical set pieces are great due to Lady Gaga being a first-rate performer, the screenplay fails to really punch up the drama. A lot of time is devoted towards their doomed relationship but it lacks a combustible, fireworks-boom of emotions. Cooper and Sam Elliot (in small, but powerful dosages) surprisingly have more rawness in their confrontations.
Lady Gaga’s limited acting chops probably hampered the movie. Ditto to Cooper’s direction, as it needs a more clear-eyed vision. But these are impressive debuts, nonetheless. “A Star is Born” is a celebration to the births of their talents. May they rise to new heights on their second acts.

RANKED FOURTH
VICE

The pressure on “Vice” is high. Can you imagine the expectations as Adam McKay’s follow-up to “The Big Short”? And can you make a great film out an evil man who lacks personality? Out of all the eight nominees, “Vice” has the highest level of execution. The filmmakers and cast were probably out of their minds in making this. But it is great news that at least, they weren’t out of their depths either. It is one thing to be ballsy, but it’s another level to do it with talent.

After “The Big Short,” Adam McKay is familiar now. It is inevitable that his voice would feel less fresh. But he’s neither less creative nor invigorating in “Vice.” He’s so adept at presenting and connecting people and ideas that I think we easily take him for granted (especially in today’s global warming of political madness). He’s like a modern Woody Allen for me. A singular voice of wit and intellectual insight. It’s a comfort that he’s familiar and may stay that way.

An even bigger talent? Christian Bale! While I admire Bradley Cooper, I sense a deeper commitment from Bale. Yes, there’s his physical transformation, but he’s restricted with a monotonous voice and controlled facial expression. Bale had to create a language out of smirking. And it’s a testament to his and Amy Adam’s craft that I actually get the Cheneys as politically vile as they are. But then again, I can only go so far to enthusiastically support a movie about an evil man. Are you out of your mind?

RANKED THIRD
ROMA

I was once a big fan of Alfonso Cuaron and then my admiration plummeted when he made “Gravity” in 2013. With “Roma,” I’m back in being a fan. You can always count on his technical expertise, at least. The Mexican maestro has now taken up cinematography in addition to directing, editing, and writing. “Roma” seems to be framed as a personal memory. It’s in black and white and purposefully unhurried.

“Roma” is not boring, with a pacing just right. Yes, sometimes nothing eventful is happening. But the camera seems to be always moving, even if slow. My eye tends to spot interesting details on screen in midst of inaction and throwaway lines. I just wish Cuaron could have filmed this in color. Come on, for such a vibrant and tumultuous setting as 1970s Mexico City, color would have heightened the story. I actually want more stank from the all dog shit he loves filming.
Yalitza Aparicio, the novice actress who portrays the beloved maid Cleo is a major find. She’s not at the level of other foreign actresses nominated for Oscar (like Cotillard, Cruz, Montenegro), but she’s heartbreaking at crucial scenes. It’s bittersweet and also disrespectful in the way Cuaron directs her. “Roma” is undeniably her story, but even she, mentally shackled in servitude, is almost always upstaged by something else on screen. My heart breaks that Cleo thinks she’s still a background player in her own mind.

The last act of the movie is absolutely stunning and wonderfully captured. I get chills when Cuaron is on “Children of Men” mode. Suddenly, the movie is layered with imminent danger and textured with pangs of emotions. Despite its greatness, I’m unsure if it’s durable enough on repeated viewings.


RANKED SECOND
BLACK PANTHER

The film probably benefited from a second viewing. When I first saw it in theaters, I really liked it but I was doubtful it would be nominated for Best Picture. Besides, it’s not even my favorite Marvel movie. Once it was nominated, I had to view it more than a popcorn fare and stack it among other nominees.
The movie’s world-building is a highlight for me. There is a surreal futuristic quality to Wakanda. It might look familiar but strange enough to be fascinating. Just the inspiration of African topography alone overwhelms the movie with picturesque mountains and foreboding waterfalls. Even the culture itself, with its chests and shoulders bouncing in ritualistic momentousness, the movie is no short of spectacle.

The ensemble led by the Chadwick Boseman (as the titular noble and naïve superhero) is among the best of the year. Not since “Spotlight” have I seen a movie with so many supporting characters stealing scenes. They really deserved that SAG award.

It was not until the second viewing that I realized the power of Wakanda as a fantasy, as a Utopian ideal. To the minorities, Wakanda is an empowering symbol. It awakens our imagination and shatters our self-reflection of identity. But then again, don’t white people actually relate better to the Wakandas? For a society with technologically advanced resources, Wakanda is really just suffering from first-world problems. It sounds like an upside-down reality, but I love that the movie itself is emblematic of that.

RANKED FIRST
BLACKKKLANSMAN

I couldn’t help but sit up straight upon watching “Blackkklansman.” This movie really wants your attention. It takes place all the way back in the 70s, but it feels so alive. The movie had music, swag, and humor. I was more than happy to smoke this Spike Lee joint.

The real story of a black cop, infiltrating a KKK is a cinematic minefield. The movie unabashedly milks it. It’s surreal enough to be comedy, dangerous enough to be a thriller, and serious enough to be drama. Besides the adventurous genre hopping, the screenplay operates in different layers of dialogues. There’s who is talking, what is he talking about, who is he talking to, whether he means what he is talking about, and does the listener believe what he’s being told. It’s exciting for the movie to twist these dialogues with a mixture of comedy and horror.

Spike Lee is probably the only fitting director for this material. He gets away with risqué lines, not to mention, ugly racist and explosive words. He gets the cast to commit, not just for comedy’s sake, but also in ghastly, realistic horror. This is also a very entertaining movie. It never lagged for me and I knew then it was going to be my top. Spike Lee is a bold veteran director, still revolutionary in spirit. Not only has he acquired so much finesse in his skill, he has also sharpened edges. How can I not sit up straight for that?