I’ve got voting on the brain.
That’s right, it’s only 113 days till the Oscars.
And, this year, the race to the Academy Awards is starting to feel like a presidential election: frantic and down-to-the-wire.
Not only is there no obvious frontrunner for Best Picture yet, with less than two months to go until the cutoff, but most average viewers would be hard-pressed to name a single contender.
Whenever I mention “Emilia Perez” to smart, artsy friends, I get stares blanker than an 8 ½ x 11.
I adored “Anora,” which won the top prize at Cannes, but any time I try to sell people on it, I start to empathize with encyclopedia salesmen.
The 2025 Oscars are shaping up to be a Night Of 100 Small Movies Most People Will Never Watch.
That’s no bueno for the ceremony, which has seen its ratings cut in half over a cruel decade of cord-cutting and disinterest.
Too bad, because last year things were looking up with “Oppenheimer” and “Barbie.” Big hits, big stars, real emotional investment from movie fans.
This award season, hobbled by the 2023 Hollywood strikes that delayed production and whole projects, is a total about-face from that.
Most pundits can barely agree on more than a few films that will be nominated.
“Anora,” “Conclave,” “Emila Perez” (starring Selena Gomez), “Dune: Part Two” and “The Brutalist” are pretty safe bets, but there are five more slots for some dumb reason.
Consider that by Nov. 3, 2023, we’d already seen every eventual Best Picture nominee at either a festival or normal movie theater, and there was a general consensus on what would be honored.
Everybody knew that “Oppenheimer,” which grossed nearly $1 billion, would probably win. And it was becoming clear that “Barbie” ($1.4 billion) would be in the mix.
Late addition juggernauts are not uncommon.
“Titanic” hit theaters on Dec. 19, 1997, and “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” started its run on Dec. 17, 2003.
But nothing like them — not even close — is on the way. This time, there are two possible photo-finish blockbusters: “Gladiator II” and “Wicked,” both hitting theaters on Nov. 22.
Those who’ve been to early screenings of the “Gladiator” sequel like it, but reserve the lion’s share of praise for Denzel Washington.
Sure, Ridley Scott’s original won Best Picture in 2001, of course, but it’s not really a classic. I don’t think I’ve watched it in, well, 24 years.
And lest we forget that Scott’s last two movies — “House of Gucci” and “Napoleon” — were huge embarrassments.
“Wicked” is said to be a blast, but I’ve also heard whispers that the Broadway musical’s plot comes off thin when blown up on the big screen.
For instance, the consequential event that sets the two-film tale in motion is talking animals losing the ability to speak.
Lighter than air. “Wicked” will either defy gravity in March or have a super fun night at the Golden Globes.
Perhaps “A Complete Unknown,” starring Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan, sneaks in like a rolling stone. Though director James Mangold’s other music biopic, “Walk the Line” about Johnny Cash, came short of a Best Picture nod.
It’s all so hazy, that I’m tempted to throw my crystal ball out the window onto the curb.
Some insist that a real horse race, unlike the grand coronation of “Oppenheimer,” generates interest and excitement.
That’s the same optimistic logic used by a few Democrats to promote an open convention at the DNC that never happened. Whoops!
Unfortunately, I see the mass confusion in a less positive light: An obvious sign that it’s been a weak year at the movies.
article credit
