I still haven't come around to seeing many of the winners:poor things, anatomy of a fall, the boy and the heron, American fiction and Godzilla are all still on the watch list. So i guess it is impossible to give a qualified opinion. That said, this is the Internet, so I'll just give my unqualified one:
Oppenheimer was pretty good, but I wouldn't say it is "7 Oscars good". Seems to me like it benefited from a weaker year. From the ones I've seen neither Barbie, the holdovers or killers of the flower moon were outstanding.
Killers of the flower moon was ok, but not amazing. So I am fine with it going home empty. Can't comment on the leading actress category without having seen poor things, that would have maybe been the only one.
Spiderman was Oscar deserving, but then again maybe so is the boy and the heron, which I haven't seen.
Without having seen the other entries 20 days in Mariupol is an unsurprising winner for me. It's a good documentary and the topic put it in prime position to win.
Sad to see Perfect Days go home empty, since it was one of my favorite recent movies. Then again this looks like a stacked category, since Zone of interest seems to be great and I've also heared good things about the teacher's Lounge. He wasn't nominated for it, but in my books Yakusho Koji could have gotten the leading actor award.
Didn't view the show. Didn't read the article. I just went to Wikipedia to see the winners. For me Oppenheimer is 1 of the top flicks of the decade. I'm :) for everyone behind that flick. I'm :) with the decisions Nolan made. No composite character for scientists. Black and white for the Lewis Strauss things. Sticking with practical effects for the Trinity test even if it was hard. (I think this is 1 of the 👍 marketing things for the flick. Tell the public no cgi in the flick.) He didn't shorten the flick to, say, 2 h and 15 min, which would probably make the studio gladder. (My idea is Infinity war and Endgame showed that a long flick can earn much even if it's long. Are studios more accepting of long flicks now?)
Cillian Murphy's and Downey Jr.'s acting were 👍 so I wasn't :o that they won.
It was 👍 that Jennifer Lame won Best film editing. The flick was nonlinear temporally so 👎 editing could easily screw it up. Lame edited it such that it was easy to follow despite the nonlinearity.
Best screenplay is always one of the categories that i find harder to judge as a layman, at least compared to some of the others.
Can't really judge best actress without having seen Emma Stones performance, but maybe this was just a case of two strong performances where one had to lose out in the end.
I'll have to rewatch Past Lives again at some point. I also really enjoyed it, but i remember having such high expectations before watching it, which it couldn't quite live up to.
Haven't watched the oscars in quite a while, so I'm not sure if it's a recent thing, but the personal tributes to the acting nominees was nice. A lot of them seemed pretty heartfelt, too, especially Ke Huy Quan. While I wasn't really pulling for much, I was hoping for a Colman Domingo upset, though Cilian certainly earned it. The song performances where nice and I'm Just Ken would've won in a landslide if the award was for that. What a perfromance. Also wasn't expecting to see quite that much of John Cena. Interesting choice.
The Production Design category had me scratching my head about why Barbie didn’t take it until I remembered the Mattel headquarters. That was one part that felt under-thought. Every square inch of Poor Things was a feast for the eyes.
The real stinker award was Best Animated Short going to a wish.com Christmas Truce story based on John Lennon and Yoko Ono songs about how war sucks. All of the other nominees were better films.
Personally I thought Poor Things deserved everything it was nominated for, except maybe Ruffalo. Cinematography, score, costumes, and production design were all so unusual and creative.
