It’s that time of the year where I allocate so much time and energy into watching the Best Picture nominees and assessing them. I had to ask myself why I do this. Is it for the sake of tradition? A nostalgic personal exercise? Whatever it is – I had to remind myself to make the process satisfactory and fulfilling. Since I’m quite the procrastinator, time pressure seems to be always part of the deal. Heck, I crammed five of these movies in the last five days alone. And then, there’s also the possibility of the Academy Awards not rewarding my preferred choices. So yeah, sometimes I question why I put so much investment when the return could be so paltry, or worse, costly.

But I think there’s almost something priceless in discovering a superb movie. And the best ones engage and challenge you in surprising ways. At worse, the bad ones might waste your time, but they also sharpen your critical and emotional thinking. Every year, I struggle in ranking these Best Picture contenders. But it seems to be harder this year, considering I should have my own standard of criteria already. The extra question I’m posing is “Would I be willing to watch this again?” But is it a good question? Perhaps, the ultimate one is “Why am I making myself go through this again?”

RANKED 10th

BELFAST

This is where I usually put movies I intensely hate. But “Belfast” is actually a well-made movie, but like its protagonist, a nine-year-old boy named Buddy, it’s too gentle and wide-eyed, in comparison to more ambitious films on the list. Nothing wrong with it. But from past experience, Kenneth Branagh, the actor and the filmmaker, is known for being effusive. But in “Belfast,” he is restrained for a change, even making the film mostly in black and white. However, if one has to employ minimalism, I feel like it has to maximize somewhere else.

It was really up to the cast and Branagh’s humor to keep this movie afloat. While the amusing Jude Hill is certainly a delight in the lead, the veterans (and Oscar nominated) Ciaran Hinds and Judi Dench stole the spotlight for me. Their supporting roles are far from Oscar-baiting flamboyance, but they deftly imbued such nuanced and lived-in performances. And I feel like this cast, so solid and down-to-earth, was capable of more if the material was there. Maybe Branagh’s sole goal is to simply capture his childhood. On that intention, he achieved it.

RANKED 9th

WEST SIDE STORY

I’ll be honest. I didn’t expect to be so giddy at the start at the film. You hear Leonard Bernstein’s unmistakable score and then, there it was, Jets strutting and dancing on the screen. It was like reliving a forgotten dream. Then something is a bit off, but you convince yourself that the spirit is intact. Eventually, you realize the musical statement is “Wake up, this is a Spielberg movie!”

Spielberg’s “West Side Story” is fine on its own. But it degrades the more I compare it to the original 1961 version. He and screenwriter Tony Kushner made some revisions – hire actual Latinx actors and even refuse to provide English subtitles when Spanish is spoken. There is tinkering of plot details and an extra feed on the setting’s historical context and characters’ background. Spielberg goes to great lengths to make it more cinematic. Lots of editing cuts, multiple shooting locations, and showy camera movements.

And yet, with principled repairs and modern flashiness, this new version, despite conscientious intentions, is too busy and reeks a bit of pretentiousness. Consider the “America” sequence – which has been one of my all-time favorites from the 1961. It is a rousing number, staged on an apartment roof, with some fiery, energetic dancing. But the playful, sassy chemistry between Moreno and Chakiris puts it easily over the top. The mastery of body language and facial expression is unparalleled. The Spielberg version is a bigger, flashier number. And what gets lost? That chemistry between the two singing leads. The 1961 version has the two characters interacting with each other. In the 2021 version, Spielberg is constantly butting in, as if his own choreography of lights, camera, action is the purpose of the number.

RANKED 8th

KING RICHARD

“King Richard” should probably be lower in ranking. But I have bias – I like tennis. Also, the character of Richard Williams was initially fascinating to me. Here’s a man who had a big bold plan in mind (“If You Fail To Plan, You Plan To Fail”) – to make his two daughters Venus and Serena into tennis superstars. The setback is that he’s straight out of Compton, with little means and connections. But instead of these becoming obstacles, he turns them to a driving motivation.

Now this role is a bit of godsend to Will Smith, because it’s intriguing and complex enough to put his Hollywood persona in the background. It’s a respectable performance that grows braver when Richard shapes up to be a self-centered jerk. While the movie will spin its way to make him inspirational, Smith did not lose sight of his character’s flaws, even downright abusive. His plan is the Bible and he is the King of kings (“I call the shots!”)

The movie does have enjoyable moments and it tickles our fancy of world not yet dominated by the Williams sisters. What an incredible chance it is that “two Mozarts” of tennis just happen to be sleeping on the same room. While frankly, I would have loved a Venus/Serena movie instead, it is undeniable that their father was instrumental in achieving their destiny. Or maybe even creating that destiny. It’s in his plan.

RANKED 7th

DUNE

I watched “Dune” back in October. I flipped back to my journal to see if I had notes. I found one liner reaction – “gorgeous and long but incomplete.” So … now I have to expound on those three adjectives.

“Gorgeous” Can director Denis Villeneuve fail on the visuals on big budgeted blockbusters? No, I don’t think so. The movie is splendid to look at. The creation of its own world is arresting as well. Great scores across the board for cinematography, production design, and costumes.

“Long” And yet, the movie does feel long. Maybe because I’m not familiar enough with the mythology to geek out about it. Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet) seemed to be overhyped as someone to fulfill a prophecy. And the supporting characters who seem more interesting to me, die by his side. The standout is Stellan Skarsgard’s Baron – who is as striking and memorable as Mad Max: Fury Road’s “Immortan Joe”

“Incomplete” The movie ends on a cliffhanger. As a viewer, I didn’t quite feel fulfilled. But it’s okay, before the sequel comes out, I’ll sand walk my way back into it and have renewed appreciation for it.

RANKED 6th

NIGHTMARE ALLEY

Th concept of “Shut Eye” is at the center of Guillermo Del Toro’s chilly neo-noir. The term refers to a man’s perilous belief of his own greatness. And if he’s not grounded in reality, he would feed that belief with constant lies until it leads to his own tragic downfall. Indeed, the movie is not shy mirroring this into our current world. It’s what makes the film so palpable and harrowing. “Nightmare Alley” might not feature a monster here, but it’s suggesting that the real nightmare might be our demons of our making. Yikes.

But for me, there is something off on Del Toro’s neo-noir style. He’s got a solid source material here. The cast is quite up to the task. In the lead, Bradley Cooper turns in a performance with texture and range. Among the supporting cast, David Strathairn (character-actoring the heck out of it) and Cate Blanchett (you sit up straight the moment she appears) are the standouts. As for the filmmaking, it lacks a bit of freshness and probably needs a more heightened dread. The plot is not as seamless as I would like it to be. Sometimes, the themes are laid on too thick. I won’t go so far and say Del Toro was blinded by his own greatness after his Oscar wins. After all, the structured “Nightmare Alley” is definitely better than “The Shape of Water” puddle.

RANKED 5th

DON’T LOOK UP

There might be many who hate Adam McKay’s guts, but count me in as another admirer of his latest high-wire act. His “Vice” might have been off-putting. “Don’t Look Up” however, continues the propulsive trajectory of “The Big Short.” The brilliance for me is that he manages to keep spinning the movie’s plates for more than 2 hours and then, breaks them all by the end. McKay is miffed at a lot of things, but his basic question – how do we act against a world increasingly getting absurd? Would an end-of-the-world scenario, like a comet hitting the Earth, wake us up? What if the answer is no? On that premise, McKay gets to spread his signature jam: a concoction of laughs and horror from a farcical reality.

And McKay gets a star-studded cast to play out his cautionary fantasy. Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence are actually refreshing leads here. They bring a good amount of gravitas as two scientists who tell the world of impending doom. The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Jonah Hill, Cate Blanchett, and Mark Rylance deliver the goods. Then some of the actors are meh. I wish McKay would recruit more comedians because they make his material sing. But I guess if wants to be taken seriously, he should use serious A-list actors? It’s complicated. The message I got is that we should keep ourselves in a reality check. We don’t need a comet for the whole world to end. Humans are more than capable of doing it themselves.

RANKED 4th:

LICORICE PIZZA

Move over, DiCaprio and Lawrence. The pairing of newcomers Cooper Hoffman and Alana Haim not only leads “Licorice Pizza,” the duo is also quite revelation. There are barely any jitters. They don’t look like models, but they strut their performance with such natural bravado and style. Haim is particularly adept on body language, faux cool in her own gawkiness flair. Hoffman has, meanwhile, inherited his own Oscar-winning father’s aura – not quite a halo, but more of a beaming light bulb inside one’s head. He puts that to good use, playing a rather entertaining teenager hustler. Together, they play a not-quite-together couple with a 10-year age gap. She, being older, resist reciprocating romance, but of course, emotions complicate the silly but truthful should-they-should-they-not dynamics.

In a Paul Thomas Anderson movie, the relationship vividly takes place in San Fernando Valley in the 1970s. Anderson litters their story with wild, diverting vignettes. Sometimes it has too much fun. Sometimes the plotting intentionally runs out of gas, just so the desperation of the characters can move the story into a delicious thrill. Not quite the peak PTA movie for me, but a welcome fun addition to his masterpiece collection.

RANKED 3rd:

THE POWER OF THE DOG

Jane Campion’s “The Power of the Dog” reminded me of her own masterwork “The Piano”. It’s a movie with stunning imagery, evocative score, and a psychological power dynamics. “The Piano,” though, had Holly Hunter’s steely and Oscar-winning performance in its center. Campion’s latest work has Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays a toxic cowboy named Phil Burbank. Alas, in my opinion, the lead actor lacks a certain magnetic malice that would have ratchet up the perilous tension of the film. Nothing against the actor, but it would’ve been such a hoot if he was able to deliver. Because, on the other end of the power dynamics, Kirsten Dunst is doing some of her best work in years. It’s not even active performance. It’s a reactionary, supportive role.

“The Power of the Dog” is indeed a slow burn though. There are buried hints and themes that won’t be unearthed until a repeat viewing. So, it doesn’t only test your patience but also your observational skills in piecing out its chilling outcome. My initial reaction to the ending is confusion. The pacing is so slow and then the movie pulls the rug out so quickly, and quite ambiguously I might add. You almost don’t blink on the movie’s final minutes, afraid to be missing a clue. I had to look up on online to consult if what I think happened actually happened. And oh yeah, that ending lingers and I can’t believe, with all the patience I’ve spent, I’m willing to see the film all over again.

RANKED 2nd:

CODA

For the first two-thirds of the movie, “CODA” didn’t seem destined to be high on my list. It felt like an indie hodge-podge of different movies. There’s a sitcom-y, blue collar comedy going on with the deaf parents and their son. Their hearing-abled daughter is in her own coming-of-age drama. Her diva of a music teacher is acting like in some sort of “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” starring himself. It was still a good movie up to that point. But it was splintering for me, even with the spotlight of deaf people in the forefront.

But when the third act starts, when the characters converge on the daughter’s coming-of-age drama, that’s when the movie comes on its own. And it’s quite jarring on how it all comes together. I attribute this to the lead performance of Emilia Jones as Ruby. She should have been nominated for an Oscar. What a star. You simply gravitate to her, even with such strong actors as Marlee Matlin and Troy Kotsur, hamming it up in their roles as her deaf parents. Jones also had extensive training in ASL and singing (her voice is so good).

The third act, though, is also a bit formulaic. But oh, it is done so well, climaxing into a glorious sob fest that is too honest and beautiful to bear. And its series of scenes towards its humbling finale is so exquisitely executed. Bravo. When the family has its one final embrace, the cast was affectionally earning its SAG ensemble. And maybe perhaps, also sealing the deal on a Best Picture Oscar?

RANKED 1st:

DRIVE MY CAR

The three-hour Japanese movie has a lot of talking and driving. Both are done smoothly. In the film’s story, the hired chauffeur is so adept that can she can negate the bumpiness of the road. In the film itself, the talking is never animated or stylized or fast-paced. Sometimes, they seem to all converse in low-key meditative pace and tone. But for some unknown reason, the movie was far from sleep-inducing. The best way I could describe it is it lulled me into a zone. Without any distractions, my focus was simply sucked it. The same way one could do prolonged concentration on the road while driving.

Did I get hypnotized? But it’s also obvious, it’s not just the delivery that’s magic. I was pulled in by the characters and their words. The movie captures the power and purity of storytelling – not cinematically, but by simply talking. It’s such a mind-blowing feat and throws out the “show, don’t tell” adage. If you’ve seen “My Dinner with Andre” or Christopher Walken’s monologue in “Pulp Fiction,” then you get a sense what the movie dexterously trying to achieve. And the movie can spin stories out of thin air so creatively – sometimes delicately layered, and impressively weaved towards a cumulative impact.

And yet, the movie is so much more than. The protagonist here is an intellectual widower, who guides a multilingual production of “Uncle Vanya” (another intriguing concept to be seen and heard). When his wife (seen alive during its long prologue) unexpectedly dies, he goes through a haunted journey of grief. It peaks at such a powerful revelation, yet it’s filmed so statically and calm. My minor quibble is a little detour the movie takes. While earned, it doesn’t quite generate the impact, compared to previous scenes. But I love this movie. It does things I didn’t know possible, but also do them so well.