 By Jacob Jones It’s been nine years since Mad Max: Fury Road roared the once-thought-dead action franchise back to life with one of the most perfect action spectacles ever put to screen, and while there is still no direct sequel to that film (though The Wasteland remains in pre-production), Australian mad lad and franchise director George Miller has resurrected that film’s principle character for an origin story all her own. Anya Taylor-Joy stars as Furiosa, a young girl belonging to a place of abundance who is kidnapped from her home by the madman Dementus (Chris Hemsworth). Over the course of many years, Furiosa must learn how the wasteland works by way of trade and road war, how to survive its many cruelties and trials, how to rise through the ranks in order to eventually seek revenge on the man who took everything from her, and above all, how to find her way home.
The best of the Mad Max films have never been all that concerned with complicated stories, which makes this Mad Max Saga an especially interesting test case in seeing whether or not Miller and company can pull off a slightly more nuanced version of the Fury Road feeling without it seeming like they’re just trying to do the exact same thing again, and to that degree, it largely succeeds. While Furiosa absolutely makes an excellent companion piece to Fury Road in tying everything together in way that doesn’t feel cheap or condescending from the origin points of certain character traits to the introduction of specific vehicles to even some musical motifs from the original Tom Holkenberg score, it is still very much its own movie, with its own ideas, its own story, and its own sense of place. The plot mechanics of our titular character’s odyssey across the desert are decidedly more complex than those of its predecessor, which thrived largely due to its magnificent craftwork overlayed on top of its simplicity, rather than attempting to weave it into a tale requiring more finesse. This movie a tale of the blood-soaked tragedy behind all the rage and resolve our titular character possesses when we meet her in the previous film, which by nature invites further complications into determining how those parts of Furiosa came to be, and its deliberate avoidance of peddle-to-the-metal pacing present in Fury Road – along with the longer runtime – is the clearest indicator that Miller is attempting to paint a complete and all-consuming portrait of who Furiosa is as a character; he is not crafting an action extravaganza, but a revenge epic. That said, the action sequences that do appear in this film – at least most of them – all carry the same visceral adrenaline that those of Fury Road did. There is a chase sequence towards the middle of the film (which is broken up into five distinct segments) which could easily outclass all other action sequences made this year; at one point, the man next to me’s jaw actually dropped in response to one of the fighting mechanics introduced during the scene. It’s the kind of action filmmaking only the truly insane are capable of performing at this level, and despite the fact that it is clearly laden with more visual effects than any singular scene of Fury Road has, the way it’s shot and edited makes it feel like something no one except George Miller ever could pull off. And while that scene in particular was the definite highlight of the film for me personally, there are a few others that deserve near-equal praise in how they utilize the sound design, as does the entire film in that specific respect; you can feel the rumble of every engine, the power of the tires in the sand, the crack of the gunshots across the desert air. It’s the sort of sound design that forces one to realize just how much better great sound can make an already great movie. There are a few admittedly nitpicky areas in which Furiosa falters, chiefly in the visual makeup of the film (some of the green screen is a bit obvious and the color grade doesn’t feel as saturated as Fury Road does, making it less vibrant) and the fact that unfortunately, that epic sense of pace does mean that this movie feels longer than it probably should, despite the fact that everything within that length is working about as well as it can be expected to, but the craftwork in this still operates high above almost anything else being produced in Hollywood right now. A great film can’t rest on craftwork alone, though. All the performers have to step up to the plate, and dear reader, they all knock it out of the park. There are, of course, some familiar faces involved which we get to know later on in Fury Road, and Tom Burke’s character does ultimately feel a tad superfluous when all is said and done despite his admirable performance, but this film truly belongs to the new blood. Anyone even remotely familiar with Anya Taylor-Joy is aware of her immense talents going all the way back to The Witch in 2015, but she gets to turn on a new mode here of feminine rage that feels not so much like a reaction to what was done to her, but an evolution of who she was destined to become; that’s a very hard line to act with minimal dialogue across two-plus hours, and she nails every moment she’s asked to. That said, Chris Hemsworth is the performance everyone is sure to be talking about coming out of this film; he's chewing scenery left and right, clearly having the time of his life playing the despicable (and occasionally hilarious) Dementus in what might be his finest performance to date. I’m not entirely sure I’m ready to hop on that train yet as we can only see how his part in all this stacks up with time, but it’s certainly the most fun he’s been to watch since at least Thor: Ragnarok, and probably ever. In the end, though, this is still very much a George Miller film, and although Fury Road may be a better movie on the whole, this – I believe – is a better-directed piece of work, if only because the direction is more visible without a whole lot of other masters at work sharing the spotlight. It may seem trivial, but refusing to just play the hits again, even if they are hits for a reason, is an exciting thing for a filmmaker at Miller’s caliber to commit to, and despite any shortcomings the film may have, making this a different kind of movie than Fury Road was still absolutely the correct approach to telling this story, which he has rendered into existence with an exciting fervor. It’s so clear he cares about this world and these characters to such a degree no one else has even tried to make one of these, and if I had my way, no one else ever would, even after he’s long passed from this Earth. I’m giving “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” a 9.1/10 - The Friendly Film Fan
0 Comments
 By Jacob Jones With their debut feature, We’re All Going to the World’s Fair, director Jane Schoenbrun burst onto the scene as a voice with a particular talent for examining gender dysphoria through coming-of-age horror, utilizing found footage and screen recordings a la Unfriended and Searching to explore how online spaces may exacerbate or further complicate the uncertainty of youth and our innate desire as human beings to belong to something…or somewhere. Hoping to pull off the hat trick a second time, Schoenbrun now has set their sights on the world of late-night 90s television in an effort to relay the experience of queer dysphoria primarily through the lens of trans identity using old-school, analog psychedelia as a means of telling their story. The central premise revolves around the relationship between Owen (Justice Smith) and Maddy (Brigette Lundy-Paine), who meet on an election night at the local high school. The two bond over their shared love for a late-night show called “The Pink Opaque,” which somewhat mirrors real-life hits like Goosebumps or Are You Afraid of the Dark? Over the next several years, both Owen and Maddy begin to feel that something about their lives isn’t quite right; stuck or suppressed, they know that whatever experiences they share through The Pink Opaque feel more real than reality itself – could it be more than just a tv show?
The plotting of this movie may occasionally feel static, the characters within not fully drawn while their respective personal journeys stretch too thin for comfort, but further examination of these elements’ relationship to the film’s themes reveal their deliberacy in being crafted this way. I Saw the TV Glow is not merely concerned with the idea of trans identity, but the with the journey of its inherent and often terrifying uncertainty, prior to its embrace or rejection by the individual wrestling with it. It is in this way that we come to connect with Owen as a character; because he doesn’t know who he is, we also don’t, and any queer individual will instantly recognize just what that feels like – to not really know if the real you is just a bug in the system, an idea that requires suppression because the truth is a terrifying antithesis to the reality you know. When we first meet Owen, he is a husk, a shell merely watching life play out on a tv screen; we witness his journey from boy to man between cut-ins of him sitting at a fire, recollecting what it was like to have lived as himself at all, attempting to examine his own repression, recalling how Maddy’s presence in his life has altered it in a way that terrifies him. It is also in this way that Schoenbrun pleads with their audience to recognize the dangers of suppressing one’s true identity as a queer individual (in this film specifically, a trans individual); the melancholy that accompanies it leaves one in eternal night, a forever death that eventually subsumes all else, even as no one else can see it happening until it’s too late. To quote the film itself, “the longer you wait, the closer you get to suffocating.” Working at both a movie theater and the ironically-named “Fun Palace” where the only light sources are entirely artificial, Owen suffocates under the guise of living life how it “should” be lived; one of the quotes playing in the background film on display states that “machines now walk the Earth,” as Owen does. In refusing to let go of the life with which he is familiar, he becomes nothing more than a robot, a believer in the idea that even as he suppresses his true self, love will save him from the melancholy that plagues him, even as the viewer knows it won’t; it can’t – only though embracing his identity can it ever be conquered. But as much as the film is a warning against the suppression of identity, it’s also a call to those people who feel this dysphoria to embrace the truth, even if it’s terrifying to confront one’s true self; “there is still time,” written in chalk on a suburb street, reminds us that though time moves quickly, one can be free of the “midnight realm” and defeat “Mr. Melancholy” through true self-actualization. As Owen walks down the hallways of his school during act one, the first sign he sees states “to thine own self be true,” the last “without courage no other virtues matter.” There is, of course, other signage on the walls, including one just down the hall from the last, but for Owen’s walk, these are not coincidental placements. Immediately after he turns down a different hallway, he is bathed in the light of the trans flag colors as they make up the stained glass in the windows. In the opening section of the film, prior to the title card coming on screen, Owen can be seen participating in a group activity with a gymnasium parachute which also features the colors of the trans flag; he is the only one to get up and walk around underneath it, in direct contrast to the previous idea of his being a husk stuck in “reality.” I feel here than Schoenbrun is asking their audience to walk around as themselves for a while, just to know what it looks like – at the very least, it’s better than being stuck in a world where suffocation and melancholy are the alternatives. While the success of I Saw the TV Glow as a film is sure to vary from person to person, there is something entirely undeniable about its being; there’s no doubt this film comes from a very personal place, as it sees queer youth – specifically trans youth – through a lens that only a queer person really can. In one act two bar scene, the band Sloppy Jane performs their song “Claw Machine,” which features the lyric “I paint the ceiling black, so I don’t notice when my eyes are open.” If you have ever struggled as a queer person with your identity, you understand this lyric better than anyone. The confrontation of one’s true self is a terrifying thing; it can be so easy to just paint the ceiling black so one doesn’t even notice it anymore. Schoenbrun’s film is both an understanding of that temptation, and a plea not to follow it, with all the style and vision a story such as this would require. Queer cinema, horror cinema, and queer horror cinema have shown audiences a lot of ways to interpret identity dysphoria, but rarely has it been this clearly rendered. It’s an almost impossible feeling to apply language to, but suffice it to say, to bear witness to something that allows one to feel seen in this specific way – I’ve never experienced anything quite like it. I’m giving “I Saw the TV Glow” a 9.8/10. - The Friendly Film Fan “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” Review: A Worthy New Chapter in One of Cinema’s Great Franchises5/9/2024  The Friendly Film Fan Breaks Down the New Film from director Wes Ball. Franchise storytelling is difficult, to say the least. How many film franchises can moviegoers name off the top of their heads which have not only continued well past their original iterations into entirely new eras of cinema but have continued to evolve, innovate, and offer new and exciting ways of telling the same story? And how many of those have the same longevity of something like the James Bond films without having to reset or alter their continuities every few entries? It’s a rare feat to begin with – X-Men, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Wars, and even Lord of the Rings to some degree have all failed to net a consistent-enough batting average across all of their films to be considered among the great franchises beyond their legacy contributions to cinema itself – but this accomplishment is rarer still when the sci-fi genre is involved. Alien, Terminator, Predator – in the history of sci-fi filmmaking, not one of these has scraped by without multiple true duds embedded in their being…but that story changes with Planet of the Apes.
With one notable exception (the failed 2001 Tim Burton remake), the Planet of the Apes franchise has perhaps the most consistent batting average in not only sci-fi filmmaking, but all of franchise filmmaking. Even with entries that work less than its best ones, or don’t work very well at all, there is at least offered some sort of innovative spin on the material these movies choose to tackle. The 1968 original – a sci-fi classic – has its twist ending, the third film switches up the environments, and the most recent trilogy takes viewers all the way back to the beginning of when the apes’ intelligence came into being with the original Caesar. It is that most recent trilogy, in fact, which made me a fan of this franchise, becoming not only some of my personal favorite films, but what I consider to be one of the greatest and most undervalued film trilogies ever made, thanks largely to the talents of those VFX teams and the director of the latter two films, Matt Reeves. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, which is directed by former Maze Runner trilogy helmer Wes Ball and sports an entirely new cast of characters, sets its story some generations after the events of Caesar’s time. Noa, a young ape living in a small woodland village and this movie’s primary protagonist, seeks to impress his eagle master father by raising and training his own bird from birth. Right away, the audience is endeared to Noa and his friends on a difficult climb which they all make in order to collect eagle eggs for what is known as Bonding Day. Complications arise, however, when another tribe of apes which Noa does not know attacks his village and kidnaps his clan under the belief that they shelter a human. With no choice left to make, Noa sets out to rescue his clan, encountering two companions – an Orangutan called Raka and a human woman – along the way. What sets Kingdom apart from the preceding Apes trilogy, apart from the large-scale time jump, is the scale at which the filmmaking takes place. It may not boast the specificity of image-making that Matt Reeves’ films did, but it offers grandiosity in return, and that grandiosity is a wonder to look at on a big screen. Large vistas of woods, great mountains, enormous rusted tanker ships…even the runtime is the longest in the entirety of the franchise. That can sometimes lead to pacing issues, or an act three that’s a tad overwrought in its execution, but on the whole, this may be the most spectacle-driven Apes film to date, and it more than earns its place amongst the most beautiful-looking of them all, especially in regard to the visual effects, which stay remain the most impressive thing to see even within some already impressive set-pieces. The apes themselves have rarely looked better than this, and under Wes Ball’s steady direction, the performances aid that look admirably. The film also makes a brilliant choice not to ignore the events of the previous trilogy, but to instead mythologize them, echoing notes of what the original series does with its “law giver” character in making Caesar into a quasi-religious symbol whose words different tribes of apes twist to fit their own meaning, something Raka – the Orangutan – addresses upon first meeting Noa. As characters go, Raka (Peter Macon) is the most fun and Mae (which we learn is the human woman’s name, played by Freya Allen) is a more complicated character than one might give her credit for at first, but the real standouts are Owen Teague as Noa and Kevin Durand as Proximus. The latter of the two unfortunately doesn’t really come into play until the third act of the film, but when he does, Durand is the imposing presence the story needs in order to keep things interesting during what ends up being the most ill-paced part of the whole thing. He commands every room he’s in with a performance practically born for this sort of part and knows just how to carry himself so that he overtakes the film’s scenery without outright chewing it up. In contrast, Owen Teague’s Noa is a more emotionally-driven character, and Teague is well up to the task of carrying a film like this on his capable ape shoulders. It’s from Teague’s performance that the emotional notes of the film – when Wes Ball chooses to employ them – get their power, and it’s from his eyes and facial expressions that the viewer understands his character. There are a lot of close-ups and medium close-ups on him in which he’s made to hold the camera’s gaze, and he plays it all beautifully. The film does struggle – as noted – with pacing in a few spots, which seems to come from the idea that the film follows both of the distinct tones present in the preceding trilogy, rather than committing to one or the other; the first half of this film is closer to Rise in narrative flow, whereas the second half sits closer to what Dawn and War (especially the former) were going for in their earlier moments. This is most prominent in the third act, which feels as though the script had two different third acts in mind and simply smashed them together in lieu of throwing one of them out. The way that Mae’s journey plays out during this third act is also written quite broadly but without the necessary clarity of character that comes with having to paint with such large brush strokes. Freya Allen is executing on this admirably, but there’s only so much she can do with what’s not on the page. Still, these are relatively minor complaints compared to what the film offers on the positive end, and I certainly wouldn’t begrudge a filmmaker having to follow up one of cinema’s great trilogies a few lackluster elements here and there. In the end, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes may not carry the same gravity as its immediate predecessors, but given that very few films ever could, the fact that it’s still this good is a win for movie fans everywhere, and especially for fans of this franchise. It looks great, the performances are all very good, the scale is beautiful, and just being in this world again is sure to be enough to remind viewers why they fell in love with it in the first place. It’s clearly setting up for a further series of adventures with Noa and the rest of these characters, and if they can manage the same miracle as Caesar’s trilogy – a tall ask, but entirely possible – we’re in for something really, truly special. I’m giving “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” a 7.8/10 - The Friendly Film Fan  The Friendly Film Fan Breaks Down the Latest from director David Leitch. Stunt work is – without question – some of the most underrated work in the movie business. Stunt performers are the true lynchpin of just about every action movie people have ever watched, and more often than not, a lot of non-action fare as well. They take hits, they fall down, they get back up to give a hit back, and they give their job everything they’ve got so the movie they’re in can work as well as it’s intended to. That’s the ultimate mission of The Fall Guy, a new action comedy starring (among others) Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt: to celebrate stunt workers as the unsung heroes of moviemaking, the ones who make it possible to actually make something larger than life. It’s a noble effort for what, in the end, is a fun, slightly zany comedy about the guys whom the industry would die without but who have not yet gotten their dues. There’s enough going for it that I would consider this a good movie; it’s just a shame it’s not a better one.
The story concerns our main character, Colt Severs (Ryan Gosling), who’s gone off the grid for quite some time after an apparent accident with a stunt rig which resulted in a back-breaking injury. Having heard that former flame Jodi (Emily Blunt) needs a new stuntman to head up the team on her directorial debut – and that the lead movie star on the project has gone missing – he suits up once again to discover if he may be able to save the production from imminent disaster, and hopefully, be able to rekindle what was once thought lost. The film also stars Hannah Waddingham, Winston Duke, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Teresa Palmer, and Stephanie Hsu. The issues The Fall Guy experiences can essentially be attributed to this: David Leitch is just not a good enough director on his own. Sure, a lot of the scripts he works with have the right among of wit, action, and engagement to keep audience entertained, but rarely have I come out of a David Leitch film – pretty much all of which I’ve enjoyed – and made note of how good the direction of the movie was. (I even like Bullet Train.) Unfortunately, the same is true of this film. Essentially coasting off the strength of its two key elements, those being the stunts and performances, the direction of the film feels very flat, as if it doesn’t quite know what it’s meant to be doing with itself. As a result it feels as if the film is simply waiting for someone with a clear vision to steer it along, and no one ever really takes the wheel. This could be attributed to a few script issues as well; between the stuntman love story and the missing movie star story, the film never really establishes which is its A-plot and which is its B-plot, so the two are sort of fighting over screen space for longer than the climax of the film takes to finally wrap up. It’s a very wonky mashup of genres which features some great editing choices and other not-as-great ones, forcing the structure of the film to compromise both genres rather than elevating one or the other. All that said, The Fall Guy does offer enough entertainment for summer audiences to sit back and relax to as an opening summer tentpole. The stunt work is genuinely great, and it’s nice to see a film with a mainstream reach and mass-audience appeal highlight stunts in such a major way. From car rolls to being set on fire to large falls to jumping boats, every action sequence is well-choreographed and exciting to watch, thanks in no small part to the talented stunt team this movie has. I’ve got little hope that the Academy will now do the right thing and add some form of a Stunts category to the Oscars before the next decade has wrapped up, but that’s better than no hope at all, and frankly, the possibility of that happening is closer than it’s ever been. The performances also really sell a lot of what the script has to offer in the positive sense, particularly for Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, whose on-screen chemistry sizzles when they get to share scenes, as unfortunate as it is that they don’t get to share quite enough scenes together to make the romance work in this story. (The romance itself always seems on the edge of the frame, like a tantalizing bit we can’t commit to because the movie has to follow this other missing persons plot.) Gosling and Blunt have been on the road promoting the movie since the Oscars when they each showed up for their “rival” Best Picture contenders, and it’s clear that the film takes full advantage of each of their strengths – Gosling’s comic timing, Blunt’s action abilities and line-reading skills – in order to elevate what’s on the page. But I’d also like to give a shoutout to my man Winston Duke, whose work in the film nearly rivals that of its two main stars, especially in the one action sequence he gets to share with Gosling. He gets a lot more screen time than one might expect, and he makes the most of every moment. As summer movie season openers go, we’ve certainly had better than The Fall Guy, but we’ve also had worse, and this film feels appropriately positioned as a movie star-driven action comedy with enough mainstream appeal that it’ll attract a decent-sized audience back to theaters. As unfortunate as it is that it needs to coast on the stunts and performances in order to keep its sub-par direction and scattered storytelling from overwhelming the two hours it has to get everything done, those performances and stunts are well worth the big-screen treatment, and in the end, it’s a fun enough movie that I would say without question it is worth seeing. At the very least, we could all do our part in supporting a pure celebration of the stunt community to get the Academy’s attention on their importance. I’m giving “The Fall Guy” a 7.1/10 - The Friendly Film Fan  The Friendly Film Fan reviews Zendaya’s new star vehicle. There’s a moment in Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers where the energy shifts; up to that moment – viewers may recognize it as the hotel room scene from the film’s trailer – the film is bouncing back and forth on its feet, having stayed in the game just enough to keep things exciting but, at least in appearance, not 100% certain of how it’s meant to navigate whatever comes next…or even what comes next. But once this scene takes place, and the film finds its footing amongst what, up to that point, has largely been an unconventional but inspired edit, the electricity of the film could singe the arm hair off of any audience member paying even a modicum of attention to what’s really going on. This is the moment where the viewer will know if they are going to enjoy themselves or not, and for those clued into its particular brand of sensual tricks by this time, the subsequent thrill ride is intoxicating.
Juxtaposed against a climactic tennis match between its two rival hunks in Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor) and Art Donaldson (Mike Faist), Challengers’ story revolves around the two men’s mutual obsession over tennis prodigy Tashi Duncan (Zendaya). After meeting the phenom at a party following a hot-blooded tennis match, the pair find themselves entangled in a will-they-won’t-they web of arousal, each magnetized by Tashi’s gravity and entirely unable to resist her pull (this would be the aforementioned hotel room scene). From here, the two men are pitted with and against one another over the course of decades in a mad scramble to determine who ultimately deserves Tashi’s attention, each perhaps too aware that Tashi is in turn playing her own game, and true victory – to her – is in the act itself. There are a great many things that recommend this movie to an audience hungry for cinematic excitement, but what ultimately makes it work beyond the simplistic synopsis offered above is that it just moves. That’s not to say it doesn’t ever slow down or that there aren’t moments which are perhaps a little less invigorating on the whole, but it never stops outright in what it’s attempting to do. Luca Guadagnino is obsessed with the sensual pull of people towards and away from each other; he’s obsessed with the match, the back-and-forth, the meeting of two, all set to a club-worthy score from Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross which recalls some of their best work from and, I would argue, is their best work since The Social Network. There’s an energy to Challengers that’s not simply irresistible, but invigorating as the camera takes the POV of the ground beneath and sweat drips down as a tennis ball hits. There may be more eloquent ways of phrasing it, but put simply: it’s hot. It’s sexy. Guadagnino is a director entirely taken with the foreplay of it all, in the tease of what it all leads to, and it’s reflected in his direction of this film – how he at first endears us to Tashi and then tells us how we shouldn’t be, and yet we can’t help but be pulled in by her power, which rests comfortably and perfectly on the shoulders of cinema’s new “it” girl. (And, for those curious enough to care, the tennis matches themselves are absolutely exhilarating in just the right ways. Eat your heart out, King Richard.) While everyone who’s witnessed her work on Euphoria is well aware that she could ace a more complicated part than her Spider-Man appearances (to say nothing of her brilliant work in Dune: Part Two), Zendaya’s turn in this is nothing short of magnificent, a movie star turn in the purest sense of the term. Not for one second does the viewer ever doubt that she’s in charge, nor for a moment does it feel as if the film gets away from her. In fact, one might go so far as to say the film can’t get away from her, so powerful is her pull. There’s a single shot in particular, wherein Tashi goes to sit down by a tree, which cinches the deal. Zendaya holds the camera’s gaze for no more than a minute at the most, and yet one can’t help but be enraptured by how she holds it, how it’s entirely her frame and hers alone. Tashi, to put it mildly, is not exactly a likeable individual and yet when Zendaya is on screen, she becomes the center of it no matter where or how she stands in the frame. This of course is not merely confirmed but supported by both Josh O’Connor and Mike Faist’s not-quite-equally excellent performances, and it’s their dynamic which ultimately drives the plot forward. Faist continues to improve with every second of screen-time he gets, but it’s Josh O’Connor whom American audiences – at least those who didn’t watch The Crown – will likely be the most taken with. There’s a certain shit-eating charisma to him one can’t help but be excited by, and O’Connor is more than up to the task of playing that up whenever the script requires it. Challengers may not be entirely flawless – there’s not one moment in the whole of its runtime where I would believe Mike Faist could be 40, as the script at one time claims – but it is the movie of 2024 most comfortable with the flaws it has; they’re bugs, not features, sure, but they don’t actually matter because the movie itself knows that it has you regardless. When sweat looks this cinematic, when characters are this complicated, when filmmaking is this sexy, how it could it not? It may not end up being the year’s best movie – there’s still a lot to come – but when all is said and done, barring a truly bonkers contender for the title, this will undoubtedly be its hottest. I’m giving “Challengers” an 8.4/10 - The Friendly Film Fan  The Friendly Film Fan Reviews Alex Garland’s Directorial Swan Song. What is the point of journalism? What is its essence? Is it objectivity, or truth? And who’s to say the two aren’t always the same? What responsibility do we bear in observation when atrocities occur before our very eyes? These questions lie at the heart of Alex Garland’s latest and perhaps last directorial effort, Civil War, a film set in the modern day which follows a group of rogue photojournalists as they traverse a divided America in the midst of an ongoing and increasingly deadly conflict – a literal civil war. But while the script offers a perspective on these questions, it doesn’t exactly answer them, preferring instead to present the audience with ideas that films such Jordan Peele’s Nope have also wrestled with regarding the human obsession with spectacle, the perfect shot, and what level of ethics we find ourselves sacrificing in order to attain it, whether in service of ourselves, or in this case, in the pursuit of objectivity. Even then, to focus on the act of journalism itself may be missing the point. As a largely apolitical film which doesn’t simply refuse to present the ideologies of either the in-power American government or the Western Forces (henceforth referred to as the W.F.), but actively avoids even hinting at them, Garland’s story lacks a point-of-view in the traditional sense, but to watch the film play out, one gets the idea that the mere observation of all the havoc wartime violence wreaks – not a stance on whether that violence is justified or not – is exactly what he’s aiming for here.
The story, as it goes, is largely centered on Kirsten Dunst’s Lee – a wartime photographer whose previous efforts in the field she viewed as sending a warning back home against the very idea of war – and her colleague Joel (played by Wagner Moura). Lee’s ultimate endeavor is to capture the shot and get the story every photojournalist is after: the President of the United States on the brink of invasion. However, in order to acquire those two things, she needs to get to Washington D.C. before the W.F. is rumored to be reaching the White House on July 4, which in turn brings reluctant but respectful rival newspaper writer Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) along for the journey. Joined by a young up-and-comer named Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) with dreams of being a wartime photographer like Lee, the group needs to cross over 300 miles of dangerous terrain, passing through the front lines of the conflict on their way, where any threat could be the last one any of them ever meet. By and large, the plot of Civil War is rather simple and often fairly repetitive as our protagonists run into conflict, manage to narrowly escape it, run into a different kind of conflict, escape that, and so on and so forth. What ultimately sets this film up for success is not the unpredictability of its plot or complexity of storytelling, but the ways in which – despite knowing that certain scenes haven’t happened yet, so there’s no way they die in this scene or that scene – one constantly feels as though these characters’ ultimate peril is imminent. There are but one or two moments where things feel safe or restful, thanks largely to the film’s exceptional craftwork. This is some of the best pound-for-pound filmmaking in Alex Garland’s entire career, particularly as a director, and especially vis-à-vis the on-the-ground action sequences along the road to D.C., which are filled with fantastic camerawork and terrifically-crafted sound that could very well be competitive at the Oscars next year. The third act in particular is one of the most harrowing and visceral of any film in recent memory, a non-stop military raid on D.C. that belongs with the likes of Zero Dark Thirty in terms of sheer intensity. The film is also near-perfectly acted; readers may recall a thrilling sequence in the film’s trailer which features Jesse Plemons with bloodied finger grooves asking Wager Moura’s Joel “what kind of American are you?” before lifting his rifle to fire on him, presumably for offering an answer Plemons’ character wasn’t too fond of. The scene in question is every bit as rife with tension as the trailer presents it to be, and while it unfortunately largely bears little weight on the film as a whole, the performances contained within it are second-to-none. Stephen McKinley Henderson is as excellent as ever, though he doesn’t get any “moments” – even small ones like he did in Lady Bird – and Wagner Moura is consistently engaging, but the movie really belongs to Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny. What Dunst does with this performance is subtle, but all the more effective for it; she essentially has to be the rock of the group, but one can see in real-time that she’s slowly getting to the point where an at-home conflict where she can’t ever remove herself from the environment (such as with the others) is wearing her down to her last bit of resolve; I don’t think I would call it a career-best, but it’s certainly up there with the best of her work, even if the technical elements of the film are clearly what shines brightest overall. The slightly showier part – as “showy” as one can be with performances this wisely unassuming – belongs to Cailee Spaeny, who is now sure to have a firm grip on the attention of moviegoers everywhere after putting out this and Priscilla back-to-back. Spaeny’s ascendency from eager-to-please tagalong to somewhat tragic master of her craft is remarkable to watch; she carries so much in her eyes, and the performances she’s been able to pull off from one point to the furthest thing from that point in just over two hours without a second of it feeling unnatural (and she’s done it twice, no less) indicate a once-in-a-generation-level talent. Overall, while Civil War struggles to offer any real point-of-view or substance in terms of its themes or vision of the world, the good contained within it far outweighs what it lacks, making a not insignificant hole in its center seem more like a missing feature than an outright defect. The excellent cinematography shines on large-format screens and the visceral sound design worthy twice the admission price by itself. Any answers to the questions it presents may be a bit muddy when all is said and done, but the film nonetheless remains an exceedingly well-crafted piece of work which puts Alex Garland firmly back near the top of his game. I’m giving “Civil War” an 8.9/10 - The Friendly Film Fan  The Friendly Film Fan Reviews the Actor’s Directorial Debut. Dev Patel has always been one of the most interesting people to follow in Hollywood. While following his breakout film performance in Danny Boyle’s Best Picture-winning Slumdog Millionaire to his latest work alongside Benedict Cumberbatch in the Wes Anderson short films Poison and The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar has not always yielded perfect results, there has always been something about him that draws the viewer in regardless of each film’s varying qualities. Don’t get me wrong, no one escaped The Last Airbender unscathed, but beyond that, there’s almost nothing Patel has done that I haven’t either watched or at least wanted to watch. He's come a significantly long way since starring in Skins back in 2007, and there’s been a lot to celebrate in that time: Lion, The Personal History of David Copperfield (a grossly underrated movie, in my opinion), and The Green Knight all speak to Patel’s immense talent in front of the camera. But acting and directing are two very different beasts. Now, Patel finds himself behind the lens for his feature directorial debut, which he also co-wrote and stars in. Originally intended as a Netflix release before producer Jordan Peele bought it from the company to put it in theaters with Monkeypaw Productions (a bit on the nose there, eh Mr. Peele?), Monkey Man follows Kid (Dev Patel) as he seeks revenge on those who killed his mother and burned his childhood village to the ground. Along the way he encounters friends, foes, and a whole host of bodies to hit the floor with as he works his way toward completing his mission. What he doesn’t know is just how many corrupt people are involved in some of India’s political circles…or just how high up those circles go. One of the greatest compliments anyone can give a debut filmmaker is that they want to see what this person does next, and after seeing this movie, I’m more than ready for whatever Dev Patel wants to do next. While the story itself is rather plain and the film’s structure does little to lift it out of that plainness, Monkey Man still pulses with energy and passion in every step. Setting Kid’s journey as both parallel and homage to the tales of Hanuman may seem like an obvious choice at first glance, but it’s in how the film forges its own path outside of that parallel that makes it stand apart from other action fare like it. That said, the first half of the film does feel as though it’s unsure of just how to forge ahead, which one can feel when watching how often the editing jumps around from beat to beat without much of a breath or even a bridge between plot points. Long stretches go by without much in the way of action, and when the action does happen – again, first half only – the shaky-cam effect only serves to obscure the talent and work put into those sequences. Extreme close-ups in action sequences can be big moments, but only if used sparingly. Perhaps the point of the film being made in this way is to reflect the character’s initial mental state – fractured, on edge, etc. – whereas later he becomes more confident in his ability, so the film eases up on the viewer; that said, there are other methods of demonstrating that sort of blind rage that don’t involve shaking the camera that much or that often. Where the film truly excels is in its second half, which I won’t spoil except to say that the camerawork sees a significant improvement in establishing and wide shots, and the editing doesn’t feel so scattered as it did in the film’s early stages. If there’s one thing Monkey Man has going for it that few other directorial debuts – especially in the action space – could match, it’s style and personality. While comparisons to other films like John Wick are simply inevitable now whenever a new, highly-choreographed action film is set to be released (and this one drops that franchise by name), there’s no denying that this movie is still very much its own thing. From the costumes to the narrative to the filmmaking itself, this film has an identity it doesn’t share with almost anything else, and one can tell that real blood, sweat, and tears (plus a few broken bones, to boot) were put into making this thing the best it could be with what they had to work with. You can feel the passion for this film just oozing off the screen with every scene. The very notion that the film almost lost funding at one point makes even the existence of this film an outright miracle, but Patel’s hard work to haul it over the finish line himself is up there in every frame (especially in the film’s occasionally frantic but always impressively-designed action sequences), and that in itself is a beautiful thing to witness. What I hope for this film, and films like it, is that audiences will buy into and take a chance on them the way Jordan Peele took a chance on Dev Patel as a filmmaker. Mid-budget flicks like this are all too rare already, and while Monkey Man may be a simple tale of revenge without much in the way of narrative innovation, what it lacks in structural originality, it more than makes up for in sheer verve. Dev Patel’s efforts to get this movie made are all right up there on screen, and that effort was clearly a concentrated one given how the film’s identity is able to (mostly) spring free of comparisons to others that inspired it. The performances are fun (who doesn’t love a good Sharlto Copley appearance), the action is kinetic and occasionally brutal, the comedy mostly hits despite how little of it there actually is, and it’s very clear Dev Patel has as much of a future behind the camera as he’s had a past in front of it. I can’t wait to see what he does next. I’m giving “Monkey Man” a 7.8/10
- The Friendly Film Fan  The winners are finally decided. Ladies and gentlemen, and those who identify as both or neither, the time has finally arrived! Now that the Oscars are over, it’s time to get to the awards you’ve all actually been waiting for, as we officially announce the recipients for the 2024 Friendly Film Fan Awards! 2023 was a spectacular year for movies, from bombastic, action-heavy blockbusters to intimately still indies and everywhere in between. Filmmaking rose to new heights, design work was re-contextualized and innovated upon, and performances and scripts reached some of their greatest potential to date. It all comes to a head here, as we head into our first category of this year’s FFFA contenders, beginning with…  BEST SOUND DESIGN The Nominees:
To put it lightly, Sound was a stacked category this year; The Creator’s bridge sequence remains one of the year’s most underrated in this respect, both Oppenheimer and Maestro’s best scenes featured sound that – while undoubtedly loud – was as crisp and clear as could be, and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse’s soundscape not only matched but often informed the look and movement of much of its stunning animation. However, there was one film that came out clear ahead of the others, with a soundscape that not only told a deeply unsettling story just beyond the frame, but stuck with us long after the credits rolled and became in many ways the film’s defining element: Jonathan Glazer’s masterfully-told The Zone of Interest. A family drama about an SS Officer in Nazi-era Germany working at the Auschwitz concentration camp, The Zone of Interest uses its sound not to accentuate what’s happening on screen, but to constantly remind the viewer of the horror of what’s occurring off of it; the juxtaposition of its slice-of-life story against the lives those slices are taken out of renders the viewer not simply motionless but sickened, entirely dysregulated by way of the unyielding churns, screams, gunfire, and cries of a people’s erasure from life itself. Whereas the other nominees’ sound designs are one of several elements used in crafting their films’ identities, in many ways sound itself is Zone of Interest’s entire identity. There simply is no finer example of its use in film this past year.  BEST VISUAL EFFECTS The Nominees:
When it comes to visual effects, it’s important to remember that “visual” is the key term, not “computer-generated.” For all their wonderful work this year, from the miraculous Ginza attack sequence in the now Oscar-winning Godzilla Minus One to Mission: Impossible’s stellar blend of both practical and CG effects, there was no film for which the visual effects were crafted – or employed – quite like Oppenheimer. Though entirely devoid of CGI, the interstitial and often dreamlike effects which constantly interrupt the frame remain nonetheless the best-looking of any film released last year, supporting their titular character’s fractured and frantic state of mind at every possible juncture in the story. The ways in which many of these effects were achieved is not simply worthy of recognition with a nomination here, but in our view, far and away the clear choice as the ultimate winner in these Friendly Film Fan Awards.  BEST SCREENPLAY The Nominees:
Narrowing down the field of exceptional screenplays this year down to a mere five nominees across both the adapted and original spectrum was in itself a herculean task which took us multiple days to finalize, so you can imagine the stress levels involved in choosing a winner from these five unbelievable scripts. Ultimately, though, we elected to go the same route the Academy did; while we absolutely loved the delicacy of Past Lives and all it left unsaid, the screenplay for Anatomy of a Fall remains a completely undeniable tour-de-force, an overtly brilliant examination of how legal proceedings uncover so much more than simply who is or is not guilty in the eyes of the law. Whether one believes the decision made at the end of the film or otherwise is entirely irrelevant to the journey of Sandra Hüller’s character, to the unraveling of her relationship to her partner, how it infects everything around it, and how their mutual behaviors are seen by their son (played fantastically by Milo Machado Graner). It’s a magnificent achievement in screenwriting, and is – at least in our eyes – the correct choice for Best Screenplay. BEST SCORE The Nominees:
There was a lot of great work in film compositions this past year, some of which the Oscars forgot to include in their own nominations (looking at you, snubbers of Across the Spider-Verse), but if you’ve followed us for any significant length of time, you’re well aware that one score came out far ahead of the rest of the rest of the pack, which is why we’re more than proud to fall in step with the Academy with our choice of winner, Ludwig Göransson, for his incredible work on Oppenheimer. Simultaneously classical and timely, urgent and inevitable, Oppenheimer’s score is not only the best example of the use of music in film over the past year, but one of the best compositions of music committed to film in the past several. Göransson has quickly become one of the finest working musicians in any business, and his work here stands as a testament to both his immense talent and his constant growth. We can’t wait to hear what he has planned for us next. Congratulations, Ludwig, on your historic win here today.  BEST CHARACTER DESIGN The Nominees:
When it comes to the design elements of any given film from the past year, it has been a two-horse race all the way down the line, with Poor Things ultimately taking the Academy for a ride in Production Design, Costume Design, and Makeup & Hairstyling one after the other after the other. While we absolutely loved all the design work in Poor Things, however, our Best Character Design award – a combination of those latter two Oscars categories for the sake of efficiency and nominee pool expansion – goes to Barbie, which not only brough the titular dolls to life in vibrant color and unmistakable definition, but often informed where characters found themselves emotionally at different points throughout the film; plus, the looks are just plain fun! Barbie was a design juggernaut this year, among other things, and we couldn’t be happier to recognize all the incredible work on display in it, which also leads us to…  BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN The Nominees:
Another white-knuckle race between Barbie and Poor Things in which the latter ultimately came out on top in the Oscar race, Best Production Design was yet another stacked category this year, from the entirely created visual worlds of Poor Things, to the flawless realizations of life-size fantasy worlds in our ultimate winner, Barbie. We’ve all heard the story about the global pink paint shortage cause by Barbie’s immaculately-rendered Barbieland, but what we’re more interested in here is actually the construction and architecture of the world itself, rather than simply the colors used. Yes, Barbie has previously-realized visual palettes to draw from whereas Poor Things does not, but it’s in how entire sets were constructed as tangible, life-size versions of those palettes that we find the magic of Barbieland, set against large-scale matte paintings that both inform and accentuate the fantasy elements present in the film. Barbie is more than worthy of this award, and we’re proud to be the ones to hand it to the entire Production Design team.  BEST FILM EDITING The Nominees:
When it comes to film editing (not to sound like a broken record), there were a lot of pretty stellar examples this year, from The Zone of Interest’s decisions of what not to include, to May December’s “not enough hot dogs” cut, to the Academy’s choice of winner, Jennifer Lame’s frantic-yet-clear and unmistakably masterful edit of Oppenheimer. However, when it comes to editing, more than just speed and organization of fractured narratives matters – pacing matters, and no film is a finer example of prioritizing pacing over speed than Killers of the Flower Moon, edited by one of the best to ever do it, Thelma Schoonmaker. Killers’ edit doesn’t exactly make the film feel shorter, but that’s entirely by design; we’re meant to sit in the discomfort, in the dread, in the dismayed horror of what’s happening to the Osage nation at the hands of our protagonists. And when there is a lull (though there’s never a drag), we’re meant to feel that to, as though we need this to be over as much as the Osage do. Schoonmaker’s edit moves at the clip it needs to, always pushing forward but never without the push of the characters within it; it moves when they do, and for that reason plus many others, it’s our choice for the Best Film Editing of 2023.  BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY The Nominees:
Neon-soaked or black-and-white, this year’s cinematography nominees produced some of the most iconic and stunning looks in film history, with purposeful camerawork which highlighted the immense power of many of their subjects by placing at that power’s center those helpless in the shadow of it. However, gorgeous images notwithstanding, cinematography is about more than just how the frame looks on the screen; it’s also about whether or not the look feels fitted to the story it’s in, how the camera’s movement is both informed by the world and in turn informs how the characters are seen within that world, which is why in our humble opinion, no nominee this year quite so deserves this award as Robbie Ryan for his brilliant work in Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things. The cinematography in Poor Things speaks not simply to the innovation required to capture some of these frames (a 16mm lens on a wide-angle camera? Who does that?) but the inspired choices in movement and what the frame is able to capture because of it. Almost every time Bella is with Godwin Baxter and Max McCandles, the shots are static, still, not ugly but lacking in fervor, whereas when she is driving the story out in the world, the movement is fluid and full of life. These choices reflect Robbie Ryan’s skill and his attention to detail in Poor Things’ storytelling, which is why his cinematography is our choice for this year’s Friendly Film Fan award.  BEST STUNT ENSEMBLE The Nominees:
If and when the Academy finally does recognize stunt work with a real Oscar rather than a half-hearted montage clearly intended to advertise the presenters’ upcoming film, there will need to be a reckoning (a dead one, perhaps) with the decades of stunt work they have continuously elected not to award, even as they are introducing a clearly politically-motivated “Best Casting” award at next year’s ceremony since most of the higher-ups in the Academy at the moment are – you guessed it – casting directors. All that said, while the specter of Tom Cruise looms large over the entire stunt world for his continuously dangerous escalation of Mission: Impossible’s defining feature, this year’s award goes to another action franchise which has become perhaps an even bigger name in the stunt world over the last decade: John Wick. John Wick: Chapter 4 is chock-full of some of the best stunt work in the series to date, and whether or not one finds some of its non-stop sequences overwrought or occasionally too silly even for this franchise, to watch them play out is still undeniably impressive. From the Dragon’s Breath shootout to the staircase fall to a nightclub fight up there with the best ever committed to screen, Chapter 4’s stunt ensemble is without question one of the best in the business, and more than deserves this award.  BEST ENSEMBLE The Nominees:
There were many acting ensembles over the past year without which their films could not have risen to the level they did, but sometimes the bench is just too deep for other nominees to overcome; such is the case with Oppenheimer, which packs some of the best character actors of their generation – including previous Oscar winners – into single-scene bit parts simply due to higher-volume roles already filled by other high-level talents working at the top of their game. From Cillian Murphy to Robert Downey Jr. to Matt Damon and Emily Blunt in high-profile parts to actors like Josh Hartnett, Kenneth Branagh, David Krumholtz, Florence Pugh, Alden Ehrenreich and Benny Safdie in more supporting roles to Casey Affleck, Kenneth Branagh, Rami Malek, Alex Wolff and even goddamn Gary Oldman for no more than five to ten minutes of screen-time each, Oppenheimer possesses one of the all-time great ensembles in the history of the term, and for us here at The Friendly Film Fan, there was simply no other choice but to award it Best Ensemble.  BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS The Nominees:
Every great supporting performance by an actress this year was full of triumph, heartache, or often a mix of both brokered by either a sense of unbound piece or unresolvable brokenness. Both grief and closure rested upon all these women’s shoulders, some of whom even became the very foundations of the films in which they played a part, even if they weren’t the main characters. From Maura Tierney to Rachel McAdams, each of these performances stood out amongst the best the year had to offer…but the clean sweep is now complete as the winner of Best Supporting Actress, which she has been all season long, is Da’Vine Joy Randolph. Randolph’s work in The Holdovers grounds the film from its other two primary characters’ more absurd antics, providing the soul of the narrative and unerringly driving home the themes of found family and closure over deep-seated grief, even if that closure is not entirely completable. It’s a performance that comes at just the right time for an actress who’s only at the beginning of what’s sure to be a long and fruitful career of exceptional work, and while we don’t like to think of ourselves as an “it’s time” awards body, it is the right time – now – for her to receive her first of what very well might be many Friendly Film Fan awards wins.  BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR The Nominees:
While there is no denying the raw yet underplayed power of Robert Downey Jr., the sheer charisma of Ryan Gosling, the devious bastardity of Robert De Niro, or the devastating vulnerability of Milo Machado Graner, there was one more performance which for us cemented its giver not simply as a talent we didn’t expect, but one we had severely underestimated, which is why our Best Supporting Actor winner is Charles Melton for his incredible performance in Todd Hayes’ May December. Melton’s performance is filled with an innocence of self that’s fully aware of how violated that innocence has become, just how lost it is in the scramble for its own resurrection which can never occur. It’s a devastating turn from an actor no one realized was capable of such enormous depth – at least not at this level – and it took us completely by storm. Charles Melton, we will never again underestimate what you are capable of.  BEST ACTRESS The Nominees:
As much as we love every lead actress performance nominated here this year, plus several others there simply was not room to nominate, we can only be ourselves, and declare along with the Academy that yeah, there just wasn’t a better performance this year than Emma Stone’s career-best work in Poor Things. There may be other, more historically significant performances, or even more palatable performances in many ways, but from her physical movement in an absurdist dance number to her dialect to her decision on when to move and when not to, Emma Stone’s performance was something truly extraordinary, something new, something we’ve never seen anyone do before. From minute one, you can track her development as a character through her eyes, her face, and how she moves, and Stone never once loses the audience or makes it unclear exactly what stage of personal growth Bella Baxter finds herself in. It’s truly an astonishing turn from an actress who’s always been known to be, but now in undeniably and entirely, fearless. Well done, Emma Stone; you now have not only two Oscars, but two Friendly Film Fan Awards!  BEST ACTOR The Nominees:
Most Oscar-winning performances, with some limited exceptions, are loud, boisterous; they call attention to themselves as the audience is sucked into the gravity of the actor giving it everything they’ve got – they’re also, often, not unworthy as many would have you believe. Were it not for the sheer power of quiet in many of this year’s nominees, Bradley Cooper could be walking away with this award, and yet, the quiet eyes of Teo Yoo in Past Lives speak so much love into the film that goes entirely unsaid; we’d be fools not to hand him this award. Yoo’s performance is so deeply felt so as to almost be unnoticeable, so subtle as to be invisible – it’s a performance full of yearning, longing, full of grief over what was lost and acceptance that even though he can never get it back, what is given will have to be enough, and he accepts making peace with that notion. The ending of Past Lives may rest on Greta Lee’s incredible breakdown, but its middle and third act are largely carried by the shoulders of Teo Yoo, and we’re proud to hand him the Friendly Film Fan Award for Best Actor.  BEST DIRECTOR The Nominees:
Sometimes great direction is all about not getting in the way, about letting what’s in the frame dictate where the story goes and the feeling it gives an audience. But other times, such as in this case, the best direction we saw all of last year was all about control: understanding not only what to put in the frame, but what to never put in it, leaving one’s mark on celluloid so unmistakably that no one can question what it is you have to say, making every step along the way with absolute conviction so that none fall falsely along the way. This is what makes Jonathan Glazer’s direction of The Zone of Interest so undeniably powerful. To never travel inside the walls, to always present atrocity as slice-of-life-adjacent is to condemn the world for their own complicity, for their silence in the face of absolute horror. If these things are allowed to continue so casually in one man’s backyard, who’s to say that such apathy can’t extend to neighboring countries or the rest of the way across the globe? Glazer’s presentation of Zone of Interest presents the depths of human depravity, of just how twisted and untethered the soul can become, and leaves it up to his audience to do the examinations of such evil themselves. No matter how we feel individually, we are all capable of collective atrocities, and our mere silence, our desire to shut it out so as not to feel its sickening infection of comfort in the face of unspeakable evil, might be the worst of them all. And finally, the one you’ve all been waiting for…  BEST PICTURE The Nominees:
We’re fast approaching the point when Martin Scorsese will no longer be able to make movies, so for the master to offer up his own self up to this kind of scrutiny and vulnerability in filmmaking this late in his career is not simply a treat for movie fans, it’s a miracle for cinema itself. Killers of the Flower Moon may not be a perfect film; in fact, on a technical level, it might not even be the best one amongst these ten nominees. Yet, for any faults it has, it is the movie which has defined year in film for us, even more so than Barbie or Oppenheimer. Scorsese not only tells the story of the Osage Reign of Terror with grace and conviction, but confronts in the film’s ending the very idea that he’s made this story into a visual entertainment art piece at all, why on earth human beings feel it so essential to bring tragedy into an entertainment space, and why – even when we mean well – we will always fall short in telling stories that don’t belong to us. With every subsequent revisit, the film only gets better and better, and we imagine it will only age the way movies themselves do as its legacy becomes more than anyone thought it could be. It doesn’t simply possess one of the great movie endings of the last ten-to-twenty years, it is one of the master’s greatest-ever works, and we count ourselves lucky to not only have been around for its unveiling, but to name it the Best Picture of 2023. And those are your 2024 Friendly Film Fan Awards winners! What would you have picked to win from this list? Do you have your own nominations to share from last year? Let us know in the comments section below, and thanks for reading!
- The Friendly Film Fan  The Friendly Film Fan Selects What Will and What Should Win at the 96th Academy Awards Well, folks, that time has finally arrived, as the Oscars are nearly upon us. After a long and winding road through strikes, delays, and production setbacks, the awards season is due to come to an end (which wouldn’t be so exhausting if the Academy would just move the Oscars back to February, but that’s another piece). As of tomorrow, the Academy will have unveiled what they voted on as the best of the best in movies in 2023, so this is the last chance we’ve got at predicting what exactly their tastes line up to be. Of course, we have our own picks in each category, whether it’s something we believe should be taking home the gold or something that should have been nominated in the first place, as well as Dark Horse candidates not enough people are worrying about and secondary guesses in more competitive races. It all comes to a head tonight, so once more, here are our predictions for the winners at the 96th Annual Academy Awards! BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT The Nominees:
Will Win: The ABCs of Book Banning Could Steal: Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó Dark Horse: Island in Between Should Have Been Nominated: Last Song from Kabul It’s a strange thing to have the only non-publicly-screened category in the Oscar Shorts races be the most accessible of all three, and yet for Best Documentary Short, we were able to see all but two of fifteen shortlisted films (the missing two being Bear and Wings of Dust). To that end, we feel as if we’ve got a pretty good handle on this category, which makes it a bit disappointing that what is easily the weakest of the shorts – The ABCs of Book Banning – is most likely to take home the award at the end of the night. In a just world, The Last Repair Shop would walk away with this in a landslide, but we could also see an argument for the thoroughly charming Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó as well. In any case, many of the doc shorts this year were quite good, and the ones that weren’t…mostly didn’t make it this far anyway. BEST ANIMATED SHORT The Nominees:
Will Win: War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John & Yoko Could Steal: Ninety-Five Senses Dark Horse: Our Uniform Should Have Been Nominated: N/A As we have been unable to find or view Our Uniform and War Is Over!, we are abstaining from picking a “Should Win” in this category, but in all likelihood, the win will go to the latter of these two shorts. There is a small chance that the widely-supported Ninety-Five Senses could swoop in for the win, but it seems unlikely this late in the race. Watch out for Our Uniform, though. While we were not able to view it in its entirety, the style of animation present in the trailers for it display world-class creativity in the medium, and could appeal to voters who like their animation a little more unconventionally rendered. BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT The Nominees:
Will Win: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar Could Steal: Red, White and Blue Dark Horse: Knight of Fortune Should Have Been Nominated: N/A The second of the two shorts categories we were able to actually watch all the nominees for, Best Live-Action Short is stacked with really interesting and fun work (with one notable exception). The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar has everything it needs to win the night, including the invitation to give an Oscar to the great Wes Anderson, who has bafflingly remained winless to this point. That said, we would really like this one to go to Invincible, a wonderfully-told and poignant story paying touching tribute to a life lost too soon. If anything is likely to steal Henry Sugar’s thunder, however, it would seem to be abortion drama Red, White and Blue, which is very well-told, but perhaps a bit too theme-forward in the narrative. Knight of Fortune, a surprisingly funny and touching story of a man mourning his deceased wife, could burst through in a split vote between the prior two films, but as with Ninety-Five Senses in the previous category, it seems – at best – unlikely. If by some curse The After wins, we should all answer to God; it is by far the worst in the category, and its nomination here is baffling. BEST SOUND The Nominees:
Will Win: The Zone of Interest Could Steal: Oppenheimer Dark Horse: Maestro Should Have Been Nominated: The Killer There are one or two “no guts, no glory” predictions – what we call “hope-dictions” we’re going to make this year, the first of which is in Best Sound. While it is entirely possible that Oppenheimer runs the table in nearly every nominated category, Best Sound is one we think should and ultimately will go to Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest, a film in which the sound design is not only the best in the category, but the topic of conversation surrounding the film’s overall quality. You can’t talk to someone who’s seen Zone of Interest without the sound design coming up as the thing that most strikes the viewer. That said, Oppenheimer’s sound is almost just as excellent, and it’s likely to win many of the night’s below-the-line races; this could just be one of them. While the rest of the nominees also have good to great sound design (The Creator in particular has excellent sound – think of the bridge scene), it would have been nice to see The Killer nominated in the category. BEST VISUAL EFFECTS The Nominees:
Will Win: The Creator Could Steal: Godzilla Minus One Dark Horse: Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One Should Have Been Nominated: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse This is a two-horse race if ever there was one. While many believe that Godzilla Minus One’s enormous popularity may sway most international voters (of which the Academy has added many in recent years) towards the side of the atomic lizard, The Creator has not missed a visual effects award to date, and is widely viewed by the VFX industry as revolutionary to the practice. For our money, we do think that the Academy may ultimately decide the nomination itself is enough for Minus One’s representation and instead reward The Creator in this category. Even with all of that, however, it’s a shame that the exemplary work on display in Across the Spider-Verse couldn’t break the stigma of the effects being part of an animated film. BEST ORIGNAL SCREENPLAY The Nominees:
Will Win: Arthur Harari and Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: David Hemingson, The Holdovers Should Have Been Nominated: N/A This seemed like The Holdovers’ award to take for a while, even while Past Lives fans (including myself) tend to posit that that screenplay is far superior. However, momentum – and not undeserved momentum at that – has seemed to swing the way of Justine Triet for her and Arthur Harari’s ace screenwriting in the excellent Anatomy of a Fall, which would be a worthy win in any year. If there were another film – apart from Past Lives – that we felt deserved more recognition, it’s May December, the screenplay for which is exceptionally witty, insightful, and biting in its more satirical elements. Frankly, May December should have been nominated in far more categories…but we’ll get to that. BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY The Nominees:
Will Win: Cord Jefferson, American Fiction Could Steal: Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer Dark Horse: Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest Should Have Been Nominated: Eric Roth and Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon While it is a bummer that Killers of the Flower Moon was snubbed in this category – especially as it is a genuine feat of adaptation from its more true-crime style source material – the category itself remains exceptionally strong. The most likely winner looks to be Cord Jefferson for his debut feature, American Fiction, which would be a good win, even if we didn’t personally think some elements beyond the script ultimately landed the way the film clearly wanted them to. What we’d ultimately prefer to see, however, is a win for Christopher Nolan in this category; Oppenheimer’s screenplay – written by Nolan in the first person – is so clear regarding everything the audience and the characters are meant to be experiencing in such a tightly-wound piece that one could call it miraculous the whole thing doesn’t come off as one convoluted mess. That’s deserving of recognition, even if Barbie somewhat pulls off the same trick to a lesser extent. BEST ORIGINAL SONG The Nominees:
Will Win: “What Was I Made For?,” Barbie Could Steal: “I’m Just Ken,” Barbie Dark Horse: “It Never Went Away,” American Symphony Should Have Been Nominated/Shortlisted: “Camp Isn’t Home,” Theater Camp If this category is to continue at the Academy Awards, they’ll need to do more than just hand Diane Warren a nomination every year for an either actively bad or at least not very good movie. While I didn’t predict “It Never Went Away” being nominated (even though I really should have; I mean, c’mon, Jon Batiste’s name is right there), the presence of “The Fire Inside” in this category felt inevitable in a way that takes the fun out of what else could go here. The obvious conclusion is that one of the two Barbie songs nominated will ultimately end up winning, and either way, they’ll be worthy wins…but it should go to I’m Just Ken. The real bummer here is that the incredibly creative work on display in Theater Camp didn’t even have a shot, as none of the songs were shortlisted for the category. Still, the inclusion of “Wahzhazhe (A Song for My People),” is inspired. BEST ORIGINAL SCORE The Nominees:
Will Win: Ludwig Göransson, Oppenheimer Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: Laura Karpman, American Fiction Should Have Been Nominated: Daniel Pemberton, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse We’ve already written and spoken at length about the heinous snub of Daniel Pemberton’s score for Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse here, so we won’t belabor that point except to say that we have listened to all five scores, and while the first two listed in the category work well enough for their own purposes (American Fiction in particular is fairly underrated as 2023’s scores go), we’re still not sure we would have included them here over things like the aforementioned Spider-Verse or composer Joe Hisaishi’s soulful melodies for one of our other favorite animated works last year, The Boy and the Heron. All that said, as with many categories, this has been Oppenheimer’s award from the jump, as Ludwig Göransson catapults himself into the upper echelon any and all film composers working today. Of course, we love the late Robbie Robertson’s wonderful compositions for Killers of the Flower Moon, and Poor Things’ score feels as eclectic and off-kilter as the movie itself, but there’s a power behind Oppenheimer’s score that feels simply undeniable. It’s simultaneously new yet classical, always tense yet also filled with a knowing dread. There’s nothing else like it this year and there’s unlikely to be anything else like it in the years to come. It will be a well-deserved second win for Göransson (he previously won this category for Black Panther in 2018). BEST MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING The Nominees:
Will Win: Maestro Could Steal: Poor Things Dark Horse: Society of the Snow Should Have Been Nominated: N/A One of the more tenuous categories of the evening, Best Makeup & Hairstyling seems to be poised for a one-time-only win in Maestro’s favor, but it’s not as clear a victory as some may have you believe. Poor Things, too, boasts some excellent prosthetic work and late-breaking Netflix survival hit Society of the Snow does a lot with its makeup to convey just how brutal the conditions of the Uruguayan football team become after so long on the mountain. Our one brag here – as much of a brag as it can be for such a middle-of-the-road movie – is that we actually saw Golda in theaters, so we knew it was likely going to be appearing here. BEST COSTUME DESIGN The Nominees:
Will Win: Jacqueline Durran, Barbie Could Steal: Holly Waddington, Poor Things Dark Horse: David Crossman and Janty Yates, Napoleon Should Have Been Nominated: Stacey Battat, Priscilla The next two categories are a two-horse race between the same two films. Both Barbie and Poor Things boast excellent design work in virtually every department, and their near-equal proximity to a win in either race makes it fairly likely they could split votes here, with Costume Design going to Barbie for Jacqueline Durran’s perfect recreations of all the titular doll’s iconic outfits. If one keeps in mind that Little Women’s costume design (also by Jacqueline Durran) was so strong it managed to still pull off that film’s only Oscar win, the notion of Barbie taking this seems much more likely. BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN The Nominees:
Will Win: Shona Heath and James Price, Poor Things Could Steal: Sarah Greenwood, Barbie Dark Horse: Arthur Max, Napoleon Should Have Been Nominated: Adam Stockhausen, Asteroid City or Chris Oddy, The Zone of Interest Going the other way in the Barbie vs. Poor Things double-header, we’re fairly confident that the split vote will ultimately result in Poor Things taking the award designated for more overall design work. The sets and environments created by Shona Heath and James Price in Poor Things feel not only like the best way to fully realize the world set by the novel, but somehow the only possible way it ever could have looked. While Barbie’s production design is excellent – especially in its imagination of Barbieland – it doesn’t quite give off the same feeing, especially as it does have at least some previously realized visual material to pull from. The real question, however, is this: how the hell does Asteroid City not even land in this category? Regardless of how one feels about the film, it is impeccably designed and staged. Oh well, at least Wes Anderson will likely still have an Oscar at the end of the night. BEST FILM EDITING The Nominees:
Will Win: Jennifer Lame, Oppenheimer Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: Laurent Sénéchal, Anatomy of a Fall Should Have Been Nominated: Affonso Gonçalves, May December Film Editing is, in many ways, the key art form to master in filmmaking. One has to know not only where to cut but what to cut, and to take it a step further, what not to. Taking various pieces of footage and fitting them all together so that your film not only feels engaging from moment to moment but exciting to watch, and most of all properly paced, is a task that requires herculean amounts of skill, and not one nominee here is lacking in that skill. Oppenheimer is – you guessed it – the obvious choice here, as Jennifer Lame’s lightning-fast edit transports the viewer across multiple perspectives and eras in the life of its protagonist without missing a step or becoming convoluted along the way. For our part, though, we would give this to Thelma Schoonmaker for her god-like edit of Killers of the Flower Moon, which prioritizes pacing over speed, and as such lends the epic and tragic tale of the Osage murders a greater weight for all the time we spend with it. Since the 70s, Schoonmaker has cemented herself as perhaps the greatest film editor of all time – certainly one of them at least – and the Academy is fast running out of chances to recognize her mastery. BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY The Nominees:
Will Win: Hoyte van Hoytema, Oppenheimer Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: N/A Should Have Been Nominated: Dan Laustsen, John Wick: Chapter 4 or Linus Sandgren, Saltburn or Łukasz Żal, The Zone of Interest The only film on this list we did not get to see was El Conde, and shame on us for missing it, as the film came out all the way back in September on Netflix, and yet, every time we sat down to watch it, something else would pull our attentions away. Of the four we did see though, Poor Things’ cinematography felt not only the most innovative, but the most appropriate to the tone of the film. The lensing is not only inspired, but purposeful, and often gives the film a feeling of unparalleled uniqueness – there’s just nothing else like it. However, this is yet another award that Oppenheimer is most likely to take, and once again, it is not an undeserved win. Hoyte van Hoytema is one of the great living cinematographers, quickly becoming a household name amongst cinephiles after Dunkirk, Tenet, and Nope (for which he should have been nominated this past year) alongside Emmanuel Lubezki and Roger Deakins, and to see him finally win one is sure to be a treat. BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE The Nominees:
Will Win: 20 Days in Mariupol Could Steal: Four Daughters Dark Horse: Bobi Wine: The People’s President Should Have Been Nominated: Beyond Utopia The Best Documentary category is always the most difficult branch to predict in terms of what they will choose to nominate for the Oscars, and if this year is any indication, that’s unlikely to change any time soon. The absence of heavy contenders like American Symphony and Beyond Utopia (particularly the former) makes this category more difficult to understand but also easier to predict a winner for, as the intense and terrifying 20 Days in Mariupol – which chronicles Russia’s beginning invasion of the titular Ukrainian city – now has nothing really standing in its way as it marches towards a near-certain win. As we haven’t seen enough of the films in this category to warrant choosing a “Should Win,” we won’t be doing that here, but we will contend that if 20 Days has any competition at all, it would be in the wildly innovative Four Daughters, whose approaches to both its filmmaking and subject matter are so creative it would be a cinch if not for 20 Days’ feeling of urgency. BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM The Nominees:
Will Win: The Zone of Interest (United Kingdom) Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: The Teachers’ Lounge (Germany) Should Have Been Nominated/Submitted: Anatomy of a Fall (France) Well, the Best International Feature category has once more bitten France in the ass because they chose the wrong film to submit for the Oscars. Don’t get us wrong, The Taste of Things is an absolutely lovely, excellent, and romantic work of glorious quiet and subtlety, but to submit it for the Oscars over Anatomy of a Fall – which not only won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival but just came off of a whopping six César Award wins – seemed foolish even when awards season wasn’t yet in full swing. That said, there’s no way this award doesn’t go to the only film also nominated in Best Picture, Jonathan Glazer’s searing portrait of an SS Officer and his family’s “quiet” life in The Zone of Interest, which landed at #2 on our Top 10 Best Movies of 2023 list. BEST ANIMATED FEATURE The Nominees:
Will Win: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Could Steal: The Boy and the Heron Dark Horse: N/A Should Have Been Nominated: Suzume Firstly, while we have been thus far unable to see Robot Dreams, so has most everyone else, as Neon has decided not to release the film until May of this year, in a move which has riled up some controversy due to the release date’s long proximity from the awards race itself. Regardless, this can go one of two ways. Hayao Miyazaki’s The Boy and the Heron could come out on top, but we think it’s just a little more likely that Annie and PGA winner Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse will ultimately take the victory, and according to us, it should. We’ve spoken time and time again about how there’s simply no other team doing animation at this scale right now, bringing things to life audiences would never have though of even based on the previous film’s innovations (Into the Spider-Verse also won this category a few years ago), and if Daniel Pemberton’s score is to fall by the wayside in terms of nominations, the least the Academy can do is hand this film one win. BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR The Nominees:
Will Win: Robert Downey Jr., Oppenheimer Could Steal: Ryan Gosling, Barbie Dark Horse: Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction Should Have Been Nominated: Jamie Bell, All of Us Strangers or Charles Melton, May December We’re up to the big five now. Best Supporting Actor seemed like it could go a few different ways before awards season began, but with the absence of Charles Melton’s uncanny performance in May December – a performance that, frankly, should have been a front-runner in this category, all signs point to Robert Downey Jr. finally landing the plane to take home an Oscar all his own. Some have speculated that Ryan Gosling could steal the show here, and many underestimated the Academy’s love for Sterling K. Brown, but RDJ hasn’t lost this race even once leading into the night, so any name being called except his – which is the strongest of the Supporting Actor performances, to be sure – would be a genuine upset. (We really need to talk about how good Robert De Niro is in Killers of the Flower Moon, though. It’s one of his best performances in years and we’d be fools to let it fall by the wayside.) BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS The Nominees:
Will Win: Da’Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: Jodie Foster, Nyad Should Have Been Nominated: Rachel McAdams, Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret and/or Julianne Moore, May December Another category all wrapped up in a neat little bow, Da’Vine Joy Randolph is likely to be the sole win for Alexander Payne’s newly-minted Christmas classic, The Holdovers, and she is - without question – our “Should Win” for this category as well. Randolph has been one of our “to watch” stars ever since her dynamically fun turn in Dolemite is My Name, and to see her finally get the spotlight she deserves is really something special. There’s no chance anyone steals this award from her, although it would have been nice to see some love thrown the way of Rachel McAdams for her performance in Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. or even to Julianne Moore for hers in May December. Personally speaking, while we do love America Ferrera and her performance in Barbie is one that walks the delicate line well, we would have no problem swapping her out for either one of them. BEST ACTOR The Nominees:
Will Win: Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer Could Steal: Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers Dark Horse: Jeffrey Wright, American Fiction Should Have Been Nominated: Leonardo DiCaprio, Killers of the Flower Moon or Andrew Scott, All of Us Strangers As far as nominations are concerned, Best Actor metastasized much quicker than the other acting categories, as the five present here felt inevitable once awards season began. The only real question was whether or not the Academy was going to go for Jeffrey Wright over Leonardo DiCaprio, and given all the love for American Fiction, things seemed to be going that way anyway (although if we had our way, we’d probably have them swapped out). Colman Domingo’s nomination was always going to happen, as he landed at every major precursor on the docket prior to his nomination here, and while his performance is quite good, the film is more comfortable playing everything else as safe as it could be, which indicates to us that his time is still to come (get ready for Sing Sing next year, folks; we’re hearing it’s a big one). This, really, is a two-horse race between Cillian Murphy and Paul Giamatti, and as much as we’d like to see Giamatti with an Oscar in one hand and an In-N-Out burger in the other, Cillian Murphy’s victory – reflected by his SAG win most recently – feels like the inevitable crowning moment of the actor’s 20-year working relationship with Christopher Nolan. If you’re going for the safe bet, put money of Murphy. BEST ACTRESS The Nominees:
Will Win: Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon Could Steal: Emma Stone, Poor Things Dark Horse: Sandra Hüller, Anatomy of a Fall Should Have Been Nominated: Greta Lee, Past Lives or Margot Robbie, Barbie There’s one glaring issue we have with Best Actress, and as we’re sure you’ve guessed by now, it’s the inclusion of Annette Benning’s frankly subpar work in the decent-but-plain-toast Nyad, which somehow won the nomination over Margot Robbie’s endlessly fun turn in Barbie or, in the case of what we would have chosen in that spot, Greta Lee’s thoroughly moving performance in Past Lives. Yet another two-horse race wherein the SAG awards may have dictated the ultimate winner, we’re predicting a Lily Gladstone victory here, which would make her the first-ever Native American woman to win this category, and it would be a well-deserved win, regardless of whether one believes she should in the supporting categories or not. Her toughest competition comes in the form of Emma Stone’s greatest singular performance to date as Bella Baxter in Poor Things, which is saying something when one considers that she’s only gotten better since her first Oscar win for La La Land all the way back in 2016. Stone continually chooses to challenge herself with every new part; if she manages to eek out a second win within 10 years, we may have to consider her amongst the likes of the greatest to ever do it. (In the unlikely event of a split vote, watch out for Sandra Hüller, though.) BEST DIRECTOR The Nominees:
Will Win: Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: N/A Should Have Been Nominated: N/A We might as well have titled this the Christopher Nolan award, as the filmmaking juggernaut is finally poised to have an Oscar in hand after nearly a decade of some of the most exemplary filmmaking the business has ever had to offer. From The Dark Night to Inception to Dunkirk, Nolan’s direction has been snubbed time and time again by the Academy, and at last, his victory is assured, a deserved victory if ever there was one. For our part, however, we do believe that the most deserving nominee is Jonathan Glazer for just how delicate and dark a line The Zone of Interest is able to walk without ever feeling like anything less than an indictment of how easily people are able to deliberately ignore genocides happening right before their very eyes, even participating in them to the degree that their own comfort is unthreatened. Yes, it would be nice to see Scorsese take home a victory here as well for what we feel is the best work of his late-late period filmmaking career, but Glazer’s direction is the thing upon which the success of The Zone of Interest rests, even if it’s not the singular element everyone who sees the film talks about the most. BEST PICTURE The Nominees:
Will Win: Oppenheimer Could Steal: N/A Dark Horse: N/A Should Have Been Nominated: May December or Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Although any of the four films we’ve selected as “Should Win” would be more than worthy, this award has had Oppenheimer’s name on it since awards season began, and its PGA victory, as well as its Best Ensemble award win at SAG and Best Picture wins at nearly every non-critics-based awards show point to an inevitable and resounding victory for what many consider Christopher Nolan’s magnum opus. The case for it winning is strong as well, as the three-hour biopic shot partially in black-and-white about one of history’s most controversial and legendary historical figures made nearly $1 billion at the U.S. box office alone, becoming one of the year’s most widely seen and greatly beloved films; that’s something the Oscars are designed to celebrate, even more than highlighting other great work that may not otherwise be widely seen in the first place; an Oppenheimer win wouldn’t just be a win for the film, but for the Oscars as well (even if we do think Killers of the Flower Moon or The Zone of Interest may ultimately be more inspired choices on the whole). And those are our picks for what Should and what Will Win at the 96th Annual Academy Awards! What do you think of these predictions? Any surprises you’re making bold bets on? Let us know in the comments section below, and thanks for reading!
- The Friendly Film Fan  Hello all, and welcome back to The Friendly Film Fan! 2023 was an excellent year for cinema, and to that end, it’s time to celebrate what a special year it was. If you tuned in to our Instagram live earlier, you’re already familiar with how this list is going to work, but for those of you who didn’t get a chance, The Friendly Film Fan Awards patterns itself after the Oscar Nominations with a few light twists: Costume Design and Makeup & Hairstyling are combined and expanded under the category of Best Character Design, and The Friendly Film Fan Awards includes the additional categories of Best Ensemble and Best Stunt Ensemble. We also do away with Best Animated, International, and Documentary Feature categories, as well as the Short Films. With all those changes out of the way, let’s recap our choices for the best in cinema over the previous year. Here is the full list of the 2024 Friendly Film Fan Awards Nominees! Best Picture:
Best Director:
Best Actor:
Best Actress:
Best Supporting Actor:
Best Supporting Actress:
Best Ensemble:
Best Stunt Ensemble:
Best Cinematography:
Best Film Editing:
Best Production Design:
Best Character Design:
Best Score:
Best Screenplay:
Best Visual Effects:
Best Sound Design:
|
