Showing posts with label Tom Cruise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Cruise. Show all posts

Monday, September 22, 2025

Who is the Next AFI Life Achievement Honoree?

Francis Ford Coppola winning the AFI statue
from past winners George Lucas & Steven Spielberg
With the recent passing of Robert Redford, an interesting trivia topic comes up, one we've talked about on occasion on this blog but not in a few years.  Redford, screen luminary, movie star extraordinaire, film festival pioneer, & Oscar-winning director, has always felt like the oddest person to never win the AFI Life Achievement Awards, one of the highest honors for an actor or director, to the point that I have long-wondered if he just didn't want to accept (it's hard to imagine it was never offered to him).  With his death, though, it invites the question of who will be the next person to win the AFI Life Achievement Award, and I thought it'd be fun to make a Top 10 list of the people I think are likeliest to be next.  Before we get to the list, I came up with a list of criteria that usually hint at who will be the next AFI Life Achievement Award winner.

Age: The average age of a winner is roughly 70, though that's definitely an average and we have seen a pretty wide range of ages winning this (i.e. don't count someone out like Francis Ford Coppola, the  most recent winner, who took it at 86 in April).  19 of the winners have been in their 70's, which is by far the most common age group to have won in, and no victor has been older than 90 (top in age was Lillian Gish) or under 46 (Tom Hanks was the youngest, and that win was criticized enough that I doubt they go for someone that young again).  As a result, bonus points to anyone somewhere between about 65 and 79, though obviously they could and have leaned outside that age range.

Occupation: The award is open to anyone in the film industry, but like most honors, it's more geared toward movie stars.  70% of the winners have been principally known for acting, and all but one of the remaining victors have been film directors (the sole person who was neither was John Williams, and there's really no living behind-the-scenes person who could rival Williams in terms of public perception, so it's going to be a movie star or a director).  The film directors who did make it are extremely well-known, just as famous to the public in recent years as a movie star (think George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg), so don't count on aging directing superstars like Mike Leigh or Ridley Scott, as they likely aren't famous enough.  They're also not American which brings us to...

Geography: This is the American Film Institute Award, and while that title doesn't preclude anyone, it sure helps if you're American.  92% of the winners were Americans upon the time they won (this includes people who enjoyed dual citizenship like Elizabeth Taylor, Nicole Kidman, and Sidney Poitier), which is potentially why foreign-born icons like Charlie Chaplin, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, & Laurence Olivier never won, and likely why figures such as Anhtony HOpkins or Sophia Loren (who otherwise would have been shoo-ins) haven't taken the honor yet.  The four foreign-born figures who did win (Sean Connery, David Lean, Julie Andrews, and Alfred Hitchcock) don't really have a lot in common, so it's hard to find some commonality to one person getting in if they aren't American other than a lot of fame.

Oscar History: If you're going to be taking the AFI title, it helps (a lot) if you're an Oscar winner.  78% of all of the honorees were at the time of their victory winners of at least one competitive Academy Award, and another ten were nominees (two of which, Henry Fonda & Martin Scorsese, would win competitive Oscars post their AFI ceremony).  The only person to have never been nominated for an Oscar and still win the AFI is Steve Martin, someone you'd be hard-pressed to find an obvious corollary to today.  This pattern has gotten even stronger in recent years-85% of the past twenty recipients were Oscar winners (excluding Martin, George Lucas, & Harrison Ford).  So it's likely that the next person to take the AFI will have won a competitive Oscar.

Gender: The ceremony seems to be trying to correct this in recent years, but it's still very much a boy's club at the AFI.  78% of all winners have been men, and the ceremony has never honored a woman who was solely or principally known as a behind-the-scenes figure (women like Shirley MacLaine, Barbra Streisand, and Diane Keaton have all directed films and won the AFI, but all three made their names in movies as actors).   I also wouldn't read a lot into the last winner being male...it doesn't feel like a tradeoff situation as a rule (i.e. the next could also be a man).

DeMille/Kennedy: There are at least two other awards (other than Oscar) that are a strong indicator of whether or not someone will take the AFI trophy-the Cecil B. DeMille Award and the Kennedy Center Honor.  58% of all winners of the AFI were also DeMille winners and of those who were alive to receive it (the Kennedy Center Honors started last of the three honors, in 1978, so John Ford was dead by the time they rolled around despite having already won the AFI), 70% of the AFI Award victors also won the Kennedy Center Honor.  24 people have pulled off all three.  While the AFI has occasionally led the field (ie someone won it there before they picked up other honors, like Steven Spielberg or Elizabeth Taylor), it's a pretty strong indication if you're primarily known for film and you win one of these trophies that you're going to win one (or both) of the others.  One could make a sincere argument that the list of people who have taken the DeMille or Kennedy Center Honor without also having an AFI is particularly short right now, so AFI may be forced to add a new name to the roster next year.  Of the 16 living DeMille and/or Kennedy Center victors (without an AFI) who have meaningful cinematic contributions, almost all of them have something stopping them from taking this leg of the Cinematic Life Achievement Triple Crown (I started calling it that years ago...and it has not caught on).  There is one non-American (Sophia Loren) and one American more commonly known for citizenship in a different country (Anthony Hopkins).  There are figures with major contributions to cinema but who are more known for TV (Dick van Dyke, Lily Tomlin, Rita Moreno, Billy Crystal) and music (Cher, Bette Midler), and then there are a few figures due to health or antipathy to such things might not show up at all (Joanne Woodward, Woody Allen).  There's also the new stain on the Kennedy Center Honors due to the heavy involvement of President Trump that might make it hard for Sylvester Stallone to get this award given he won with that asterisk next to his name.  That actually only leaves five figures who could be considered real contenders that AFI hasn't picked yet, four of which I'll list in my Top 10, and the fifth of which I'll cite in the Honorable Mentions.

Fame: This is a hard one to quantify, but all of the winners have to be famous, and tend to still be extremely well-known when they won.  This has become even more pertinent in recent years.  Arguably the last time someone who wouldn't have been a household name still the year they won was Robert Wise in 1998, and in the past few years we've seen actors who are very active in modern filmmaking like Diane Keaton, George Clooney, and Denzel Washington take the trophy, so I suspect that the winner next year would either be still revered or quite frankly be someone whom you'd expect to be getting top billing on your local marquee still.  This means that names like Ellen Burstyn, Sissy Spacek, Julie Christie, Faye Dunaway, Mia Farrow, or Goldie Hawn, names that probably have earned this kind of distinction but aren't really household in the same way as Clooney, Streep, & Washington, are going to struggle to get a citation without some sort of revival.  This ceremony is funded by advertising revenue, and as a result they need a bigger name for ratings.

With all of that said, here are my guesses as to who the Top 10 contenders for the trophy are.  Sound off in the comments if you have predictions as well!

Honorable Mentions: Lots of options here, but seven names that come to mind are Anthony Hopkins, Robert Downey, Jr., James Cameron, Ron Howard, Eddie Murphy, Ralph Fiennes, & Jessica Lange.  All of them have debits, ranging from a curmudgeonly persona off-screen that might preclude such an honor to not having a strong enough filmography to not being American, but these are names I wouldn't be shocked get into contention.  I will note that in the past when I've done this prediction list I missed future winners because I didn't know they'd be having a moment (i.e. I had Coppola as someone whose time had likely passed until Metropolis came out and he seemed to make a point of wanting to get these honors on his resumé before he died or to remind people that movie won't be his epitaph), so some of these might be contenders, but I don't see them being immediate threats.

10. Tim Burton

It feels weird not to list a single person primarily known as a director on this list, even though directors rarely win this award, and the concept of the celebrity-director is increasingly passé, but more than Cameron, Howard, or even Quentin Tarantino, it feels like Tim Burton is the kind of guy that gets in with AFI.  Inevitably, he's going to get an Oscar moment at some point, and that will invite conversations about his singular filmography.  In many ways Burton's personality feels at-home here.  He's a California-born director, and similar to someone like Mel Brooks (a past winner) he has made or advanced the careers of a lot of stars (such as Johnny Depp & Winona Ryder) who haven't really had a moment with the AFI, and this would be a way of acknowledging that very successful segment in Hollywood.  Call it a hunch that he could win this.

9. Sally Field

A more conventional choice would be Sally Field, a recent Kennedy Center Honoree, and an actress who has been doing a lot of the "I'm a legend" rounds in recent years (not just taking the Kennedy Center Honor, but also the National Medal of Arts and the SAG Life Achievement Award).  Field is also well-regarded (it helps if you're popular), and has had a diverse career as a two-time Academy Award winner who has gone back-and-forth between populist hits and art-fare.  Also, and most critically, she is one of the rare stars of the 1970's & 80's who still works regularly in major projects and is known to a new generation of moviegoers in a way that, say, Faye Dunaway would not be that hasn't won this yet.  In some ways Jessica Lange makes more sense (she also has had television success in recent years), but for some reason she doesn't seem to be getting these types of awards (and with Trump in office, it's doubtful she'll get help from the Kennedy Center), so I will continue to bet on Field.

8. Viola Davis

You could make a sincere argument that Davis shouldn't be on this list.  In terms of leading work in films, she has  the most recent and arguably most scant filmography of these artists.  But there's a sense that Davis, one of the great talents of her generation, was cheated out of a longer career due to Hollywood's inability to give leading roles to Black women, and one wonders if that contributed in part to her recent Cecil B. DeMille Award (don't look at me like that-name another actor with as short of a filmography as Davis has had as a leading star that has won that award).  Only three Black actors have ever won the AFI Life Achievement Award (Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, & Denzel Washington), and none of them have been a woman.  I think Davis makes sense here, particularly with the recent passing of Cicely Tyson, and it's more a question of if, not when, she'll win.  But she's rated lower as I think they make her wait just a few films more before they give her this statue (but it's coming).

7. Brad Pitt

Brad Pitt's wildly successful F1 (can you believe it made over $600 million?!?) earlier this year confirmed what we all know about him-he's one of the last movie stars of his era, someone who can still actually open a movie without creative IP attached (albeit he had the world's largest sport attached, but that's another story).  Pitt's problem is going to be less about his filmography (given his stature in the industry and his long career, it's hard to begrudge him this statue) and more so that Pitt is a bit of an online pariah right now.  That doesn't matter as much in Hollywood (see how he starred in a massive hit movie earlier this year), but advertisers don't want to touch him in an era of a boycott-heavy electorate, and the thorny allegations in his divorce with Angelina Jolie make me think that they might wait a few years to see if things cool down with him (this could also be the case with Johnny Depp & Ben Affleck, who I didn't list on this countdown, but obviously feel in the wheelhouse of someone who would win this).

6. Matt Damon

Pitt's Ocean's Eleven costar Matt Damon feels far more likely to win.  One wonders if they'd consider doing a pair between Damon and his childhood best friend Ben Affleck, but of the two I think that Damon, with his squeaky clean off-screen persona would be an easier sell.  Damon is actually old enough to win one of these statues now (for those wondering if I'm crazy for putting him on here), just a few years north of potential future contenders like Reese Witherspoon and Leonardo DiCaprio, and I think is a serious threat to take this, though I partially believe that he'll get the DeMille first, mostly because they tend to like younger and they love getting movie stars to show up.

5. Jeff Bridges

Robert Redford for many years was my go to answer for "who is the weirdest living person without an AFI Life Achievement Award."  With his death, that title passes to Jeff Bridges.  Bridges is such an odd exclusion from this list I constantly have to remind myself he's never won-he's a movie star from way back (and further back still if you remember he's a NepoBaby), an Oscar winner, and has a fame that means different things depending on how old you are, which is also the sign of someone with a robust filmography.  Bridges is certainly the type of person who should have an AFI Life Achievement Award (it will be a miss, similar to Redford, if he never wins), and if I was asked to unilaterally give this out to someone next year, he'd be my choice.  But his inability to win even when he could've gotten it 10-15 years ago makes me wonder if he's demurred, or isn't really on their radar.

4. Samuel L. Jackson

Bizarrely, Samuel L. Jackson has never won any of the three major Triple Crown Awards, though he did recently get an Honorary Oscar.  Jackson is a ubiquitous movie star, perhaps not to his credit (it's worth noting that Michael Caine never won any of these three prizes either, mostly because he had so much crap to go with the jewels in his filmography), but Jackson is such a big star it feels wrong that he doesn't win this award.  In many ways, between his forays into countless major franchises (Star Wars, MCU, Jurassic Park, XXX) to his position as a muse for both Quentin Tarantino and Spike Lee he is the prototype for how to navigate the IP era, so you have to believe they know they should pick him, particularly given the embarrassingly low number of Black actors who have won this prize.

3. Tom Cruise

The Top 3 are not a question of if, but when, for the victory.  All three are 1990's movie stars who have stayed relevant into the 2020's (sometimes for television, sometimes in the case of #3 for mining his filmography for legacy sequels), but they are all too famous to never win this award.  Cruise is third both because he is about to win an Honorary Oscar (and in my opinion, likely to win a competitive one next year too, which makes the Honorary statue feel like a waste when it could've gone to, say, Catherine Deneuve who needs it more), but Cruise has graduated beyond the tabloid toxicity that once nearly wrecked his career (i.e. another reason they'll likely wait on Brad Pitt), and has become the savior of the movie theater industry.  The ageless screen star probably doesn't like that he's now at the age where you win lifetime achievement awards, but it'd be nice if he won it while some of his earliest costars (like Dustin Hoffman & Jack Nicholson) are still around to give it to him.

2. Julia Roberts

Another ageless movie star that feels like she's too young to win this, but has entered that era is Julia Roberts (our Star of the Month last month!).  There's more urgency around Roberts to win, in part because she's clearly the Queen of the 1990's movie stars (you could see a world where, say, Sandra Bullock or Demi Moore also win this statue at some point, but not before Julia), and also because she seems to be itching to do this again.  In recent years she's been working more regularly, appearing in films that might gain a reputation (even if it's a bad one) like Luca Guadagnino's latest, and clearly wants to cement her place as one of the last great movie stars before IP took over Tinseltown.  Roberts, in a similar fashion to Cruise, also wants to get this statue while all of the actors whom she starred opposite early in her career are still with us (as sad as it may seem Richard Gere is 76, Dustin Hoffman in 88, & it's unlikely most of her older costars in Steel Magnolias stay around much longer)...this would be the time to give it to her.

1. Jodie Foster

But I'm going to put someone who has the DeMille (unlike Julia & Tom) at #1.  Jodie Foster doesn't have as plentiful of a filmography as Roberts & Cruise (and isn't famous in the same way anymore), but her two Oscars and recent successful run on True Detective add a timelessness to her star persona that you can't really rust.  I also think it's noteworthy that she's a feminist icon, and a film director (and would be the first openly queer person to win the award).  As I stated above, no woman has ever won this award primarily for being known for directing, but several have histories with directing, and Foster would add to that list.  She's also 62, so just a few years shy of the prime age that wins this award, and giving it to her early is hardly a moment that will age poorly (no one really focuses on winning too early if it was someone who was always destined to win).  If I had to bet on who wins next, I'd put my money on her.

Thursday, January 09, 2025

What Will Be the Next $1 Billion Movie?

We are continuing our brief "annual articles" run on the blog (where I'm taking a sabbatical from my hiatus to do five articles I really want to write, and then will go back into hibernation) with one of my absolute favorite articles to write annually: the $1 billion movie prediction.  Box office in 2024 was down 3% compared to 2023, which is honestly surprising given the number of tentpole franchises in 2023 (there were three Marvel films in 2023 compared to just one this year, for example) and so I thought it'd be a larger dip.  This was driven by larger-than-expected box office in North America (much of the downside was in China), and resulted in at least two $1 billion movies (Inside Out 2 and Deadpool & Wolverine) with Moana 2 almost certain to clear $1 billion sometime next week, giving us three movies in total to reach that milestone.

It has become an annual tradition on the blog for us to predict for the upcoming year which films are likeliest to hit $1 billion.  The first $1 billion movie came in 1997 with Titanic, and since 2008's The Dark Knight, every year (save for the pandemic-impacted year of 2020) has had at least one movie that crossed the threshold.  I actually did really well with predicting last time-I called both Inside Out 2 and Deadpool & Wolverine in my Top 5, and while I didn't predict Moana 2, to my credit it hadn't been announced yet (I have confidence that I would've guessed it in my Top 5 given the first one's success on Disney+).  Two of the other three contenders I guessed (Despicable Me 4 and Wicked) were enormous successes, and there's a decent chance Wicked will upset Dune 2 to get into the Top 5, meaning I'll have called 80% of the Top 5 (the fifth film I guessed, Joker 2, I definitely missed but then so did all of Hollywood in their assessment of that movie).

I have listed below the five films I think are most likely to make it to $1 billion, listed chronologically by their current release dates.  I have confidence that 2025 will have at least a couple of $1 billion movies (we've been averaging about 2.5 since the quarantine lifted, I don't see that changing), though I do wonder if we're ever going to totally get back to pre-pandemic theater returns or if 2019 might've been a high-water mark for ticket dollars.  Without further adieu, let's dive in!

Honorable Mention: I'll name-check a few contenders below that also should be in the running here, but two films that don't neatly fit into comparisons to the below films but deserve a shout-out in an article likes this are Minecraft and Wicked 2.  Minecraft is a global phenomenon movie in the vein of Mario and The Last of Us, both of which were gargantuan successes.  The trailers do not inspire confidence, but if this clicks, I would imagine that we're going to see a lot of people talking about video game movies the way we talked about comic book movies in the 2010's.  Wicked 2 could follow in the footsteps of Inside Out, Dune, and Moana, where an increased audience at home causes the movie to outgross its predecessor, but I have my doubts.  The second half of the musical is much darker than the first, and it won't have as much time to grow in only a year's time.  Both will probably be hits, but I don't think $1 billion hits which is why they aren't below.

Mission Impossible - The Final Reckoning

Release Date: May 23, 2025
Reasons It Will Hit $1 Billion: Tom Cruise showed in 2022 that he has what it takes to make a nostalgic throwback into a surprise $1 billion phenomenon in Top Gun: Maverick.  The final installment of the Mission Impossible franchise, which in some ways also feels like it could be the final action film in Cruise's career (he seems to be signaling this is the end of an era for the quintessential 1990's movie star) will have a lot of people turning in to see how he goes out.  Finality has been a draw in a universe where movie franchises never seem to end-Guardians of the Galaxy 3, for example, was able to hang on when other MCU films were faltering in large part due to people realizing it was the "last" movie in the franchise...could that be the case here?
Reasons It Won't Hit $1 Billion: For starters, none of the movies in the franchise have done this.  The closest that any has come is Fallout, which couldn't even hit $800 million, and was getting an extra push because it was at the height of the MoviePass craze.  This will need audience members who have largely eschewed the last movie in the franchise, which didn't even make $600 million.  Harrison Ford nostalgia wasn't enough to get people to Indiana Jones 5...can Tom Cruise nostalgia get them to Mission Impossible 8?
What It Could Mean for the Rest of the Year: There are several action-adventure franchise extensions out in 2025, with new movies in the Predator, Tron, Karate Kid, Naked Gun, and 28 Days series premiering later this year.  Mission Impossible is the biggest (by far) of those options, and so if it isn't making it, it's hard to see these having much cache. 

Jurassic World: Rebirth

Release Date: July 2, 2025
Reasons It Will Hit $1 Billion: I mean, all of the other ones did?  If you consider Jurassic World as its own series (separate from Jurassic Park) it's the only series ever to have all of its movies hit $1 billion.  People love dinosaurs, specifically in this franchise (others they largely eschew).  There's also not a lot of other really big blockbusters this year, and they cast global movie star Scarlett Johansson AND star-of-the-moment Jonathan Bailey as the leads.
Reasons It Won't Hit $1 Billion: Chris Pratt has left the franchise, and while the dinosaurs are the true stars, Pratt's box office prowess (even Garfield was a hit last year) is enviable, and not necessarily duplicative.  I think the bigger problem is that they continually churn out terrible movies on the memory of one perfect one...how long can that actually last?  The last one just BARELY made $1 billion.
What It Could Mean for the Rest of the Year: One of the biggest reasons I'm worried about the 2025 box office picture is that there's not a lot of films like Jurassic World: Rebirth this year.  Star Wars, Harry Potter, Fast & the Furious...we aren't seeing anything new from the most beloved franchises other than Jurassic World (and #5 on this list), which leaves little room for error if one of the big tentpoles crumble (particularly given there's not a lot of obvious contenders for *gasp* something original to succeed!).  As a result, if Jurassic World falters, it's less about a group of films that might matter and more that we might just be having a long year.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Release Date: July 25, 2025
Reasons It Will Hit $1 Billion: Deadpool becoming the first superhero film in three years to hit $1 billion proved that there's still juice in the can for the comic book genre even if it's not as consistently lucrative as it once was.  There are four major comic book movies coming out in 2025, none with the box office guarantee of uniting Hugh Jackman & Ryan Reynolds, but all with potential.  Of the four, my bet for the likeliest winner is Fantastic Four, which stars Pedro Pascal (who is coming off of the major successes of The Last of Us, The Mandalorian, and Gladiator II right now), and honestly feels like a Marvel bet that will work (i.e. this feels like one that Disney is putting so much attention into, I kind of get the vibes that it will be genuinely good).
Reasons It Won't Hit $1 Billion: Fantastic Four is something of a running joke in terms of quality, as every big-screen attempt at the franchise has failed in the past, and I say this with great sadness as it's my all-time favorite comic book series (I used to rush with my brother to buy editions of it at our local Pamida).  It's possible that people are over comic books, and even if they aren't, post-pandemic the biggest successes have been Spider-Man, Deadpool, & Batman at the box office...all more established as a fan favorite than the Fantastic Four.
What It Could Mean for the Rest of the Year: Hollywood takes a long time to catch a trend on the decline (just look at how long it took action films to fall out of fashion in the 1990's), but they will eventually catch it.  After the major failures of The Marvels, Madame Web, Aquaman 2, it's hard not to see the writing on the wall-comic book movies need a hit (and not a guaranteed one like Deadpool 3).  Captain America 4, Thunderbolts, Superman are also ambassadors (for the record, Superman, which had a well-received trailer, was my #6 entry for this list as I do think it has a lot of potential) of the genre, but if none of them click...are we going to start to see this fade from relevance?

Zootopia 2

Release Date: November 26, 2025
Reasons It Will Hit $1 Billion: The formula is simple-after Inside Out and Moana, getting an animated film from the mid-2010's, one that has been playing regularly on Disney+ screens, as well as still fresh enough for Gen Z to feel a nostalgia for it as one of their own formative movies, it makes sense that Disney would try for a third.  Zootopia is the only other movie of this time frame that could pull off this type of appeal, and unlike the other two, it makes the most sense for a sequel.  It's possible it might not just be a hit, but given its November release date, it might also end Disney's current drought with winning the Oscar for Animated Feature (if Inside Out 2 loses as expected, it'll be their longest ever).
Reasons It Won't Hit $1 Billion: Zootopia is well-loved, but it doesn't have the same lasting pop culture cache of Inside Out or (especially) Moana.  That's honestly the only thing I can think of though-this makes total sense as a greenlight, and were it not for the guarantee of the last film on this list, it'd be the one movie I was absolutely confident would make the $1 billion club.
What It Could Mean for the Rest of the Year: Disney got all three $1 billion movies last year (the first time ever that we've had 100% of the 3+ $1 billion movies from the same studio).  They've got other opportunities if people are back into their live-action fare (Mufasa won't hit $1 billion, but it'll paw past $500 million this weekend, and almost certainly $600 and maybe $700 million in the coming weeks after a slow start), as both Snow White and Lilo & Stitch are opportunities to revitalize that avenue.  Other animated movies like Elio and The Bad Guys 2 don't have the same calling-card that Zootopia 2 has, but I'm watching (and hopeful especially for Elio, the rare original thought from the Mouse House recently).

Avatar: Fire and Ash

Release Date: December 19, 2025
Reasons It Will Hit $1 Billion: Not only has the first two films crossed the $1 billion mark...they've also crossed the $2 billion mark.  Avatar is a guaranteed "must see in theaters" for audiences, given Cameron's groundbreaking special effects & his ability to bring a quality to his work that few other directors are able to maintain (he also is the only filmmaker who can convince lay audiences to wear 3-D glasses in mass, adding to his box office totals).  The movie could make less-than-half of what the last one made and still qualify for this list, so I'm absolutely confident we'll get at least one $1 billion movie in 2025.
Reasons It Won't Hit $1 Billion: If Avatar 3 doesn't hit $1 billion, the entire industry needs to unplug and reboot.  The only way I don't see this making at least $1 billion is if it wasn't released in 2025 and James Cameron delayed it again.
What It Could Mean for the Rest of the Year: Again, there's no comparison to Avatar.  I do wish that this was the end of the series, so that Cameron might have the chance to do at least one more original idea before he makes his own journey to Pandora (he's 70 and makes 1-2 movies a decade...I worry we might only get Avatar from him going forward), but nothing else in 2025 compares to this.

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

OVP: Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Film: Interview with the Vampire (1994)
Stars: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Stephen Rea, Antonio Banderas, Christian Slater, Kirsten Dunster
Director: Neil Jordan
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Art Direction, Score)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

All October long, The Many Rantings of John is running a marathon dedicated to the Horror classics of the 1960's-00's that I'm seeing for the first time this month.  If you want to take a look at past titles from previous horror marathons (both this and other seasons) check out the links at the bottom of this article.

The 1990's were really the last decade that was indisputably about the movie star, and even horror, a genre famous for having B-Grade names and a willingness to tackle unknown actors, was not immune to trying to use big names to guarantee major box office.  One of the biggest hits of the mid-1990's, in fact, was a horror film starring two of the most important movie stars on the planet, Tom Cruise & Brad Pitt. The film is, of course, Interview with the Vampire, and while I am a huge Brad Pitt fan (he is maybe my favorite working American actor?), this has been the most glaring gap in my viewing filmography of his (it is my 38th Brad Pitt film, putting him squarely in the Top 5 most-viewed movie actors ever for me).  The movie was nominated for two Oscars, keeping with our trend this month of favoring Oscar-nominated horror movies, but let's be honest-this is all about the gigantic stars at the center of its cast, facing off in the only movie they have made together (to date).

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is told in flashback, here by Louis (Pitt), a centuries-old vampire who is telling Daniel Molloy (Bale) the story of his life.  The film goes back to Louis beginning as a vampire, when, widowed and with a dead child, he wants to die, but a vampire named Lestat (Cruise) has other ideas, and turns him into a vampire, initially as his companion.  This becomes a problem when Louis cannot stomach the constant murder that comes with being a vampire, living off of rats & chickens rather than humans like Lestat.  He finally breaks with the orphaned girl Claudia (Dunst), who is dying of the plague, and as a treat, Lestat turns her into a vampire too.  The problem is that she cannot age, and will remain a young girl forever, which makes her angry and restless, blaming Lestat for her condition.  She and Louis try to kill Lestat, and flee to Europe, where they meet a band of vampires including Santiago (Rea) and Armand (Banderas).  Santiago tries to kill them both for the "unforgivable crime" of killing a vampire, which they think they did to Lestat, in the process killing Claudia but not Louis (who gets his revenge by killing all of the vampire coven except Armand).  The film ends with us back to the present day, where Daniel begs to become a vampire, Louis realizing in the process that he has learned nothing (human beings will always want immortality, no matter the price), and Daniel, fleeing, runs into Lestat, who bites his neck, and offers him "a choice" indicating that he will have to choose whether to die or become a vampire, the same choice that was once offered to Louis.

The movie's horror elements are pretty minimal.  Other than Lestat's jumpscare at the end with Daniel, it's honestly not even scary, and I don't know that it's meant to be-it functions in a lot of ways like a very dark gothic novel, perhaps more Alexandre Dumas than Bram Stoker.  Its horror tag is solely based on the vampire aesthetic, which is good.  The Oscar nominations are totally earned-I loved the shifting cities and looks of the vampires (the way that they continually seem themselves, slightly out-of-place, no matter the century they're in), and the Goldenthal score is both extravagant and a bit cheeky, which works with the picture.

That's because while it's not a good movie (it's too decadent and ridiculous to actually be good), Interview with the Vampire is a fun movie.  Cruise is delicious, and honestly kind of a riot as Lestat, forever being a total bitch to everyone.  Both of these characters (as well as Banderas's) are obviously intended to be gay (or at least sexually fluid), but only Cruise has the balls to actually play him that way, not just when he seduces a young fop (that looks comically like him), but also just in general-he's flirting with Louis like a married couple the entire movie.  The best performance in the film is Dunst's, which shows a real range.  She was nominated for a Golden Globe for this (she missed with the Oscars), and it shows why-just a child when it happened, she showed a remarkable ability to feel like (toward the end) she is channeling a bratty teenager or young woman who is constantly frustrated by her inability to grow up.  It's good stuff, and makes her cruel fate even harder to stomach-she never stood a chance.

Thursday, July 25, 2024

OVP: Supporting Actor (1999)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (1999)

The Nominees Were...


Michael Caine, The Cider House Rules
Tom Cruise, Magnolia
Michael Clarke Duncan, The Green Mile
Jude Law, The Talented Mr. Ripley
Haley Joel Osment, The Sixth Sense

My Thoughts: The Best Supporting Actor field of 1999 is one of my favorites.  With one exception, I genuinely admire all of these performances.  I think that different styles of acting are being represented here in a really cool way, and we get a lot of famous actors at different stages of their careers.  It's a tough field, quite honestly, to pick a winner (even Michael Caine seemed a bit flummoxed as to how he had been the one to come out on top in this collection).  So to try and end with some happy, we'll start with the one performance that I didn't care for of the bunch.

Michael Clarke Duncan seemed like a nice enough guy (and based on the ceremony, had a blast being an Oscar nominee), but wasn't a good enough actor to really compete with this field.  His work in The Green Mile is quite one-note, sympathetic and sweet but lacking in a lot of depth, and not adding to the film itself.  I get why this was nominated (it's the type of scene-stealing role that Oscar falls in love with), but that's no excuse given how many really strong achievements were waiting in the wings for this field.

Beyond that, get ready for the superlatives.  I mean, look at Jude Law.  No, seriously, look at him.  Has anyone ever been as beautiful as Jude Law is as Dickie Greenleaf.  He doesn't need to be good in this movie-he is such a golden god that you wouldn't care if he wasn't grand, but he is.  His breakthrough role gives us a depth-of-range.  He is always about protecting himself, Dickie, even when he's trying to help someone else it's always on his terms.  Law does a good job of making his carefree attitude nasty whenever that paradigm is shifted.  Spoiled, petulant, but violent and irresistible.  It's a tour-de-force, and proof that he was going to be a big star, as Caine said in his speech.

Caine's win is ill-regarded, but it's hard for me to really join in on the pile-on, as I love what he's doing here.  This isn't a stretch like some of the other men (or as complicated as some of the other figures), but does that matter?  Not all great acting needs to come with a thesaurus, and he is carefree and effortless in the way he brings this doctor to existence.  I love the little details he puts in, the stubbornness borne out of both always being in charge and also knowing he's about to die.  The interactions with the children, teaching but caring in one breath-this is good stuff from one of our finest actors.

Haley Joel Osment's work in The Sixth Sense became the sort of textbook definition of great child acting so quickly, you can honestly be forgiven for forgetting how good he is.  But the way that his Cole unfolds, giving us so much knowledge from the opening moments, and how his monologues land every single time (particularly the late-in-film one to his onscreen mother Toni Collette) is magical.  I will admit that I don't think he's supporting here.  I don't buy that "but it's X's story" nonsense-he's in more than twice the movie compared to all four of his other nominees: he's the lead.  So I take a point off for that, but that's it-this is one for the ages.

Tom Cruise has, to date, only gotten three Oscar nominations, and while he got a My Ballot nomination in 2002, I feel like we haven't really talked about him yet in the Oscar Viewing Project.  I genuinely think Cruise is a great actor (but an even better movie star), and it feels weird to start that conversation with Magnolia, which is not only spoofing Cruise, but honestly spoofing L. Ron Hubbard (still not sure if Cruise realized that at the time).  The performance here is sensational, his take on crumbling toxic masculinity fully-felt and realized.  This didn't win an Oscar because it's a very prickly performance, but man is it good.

Other Precursor Contenders: Get ready for some repetition (except BAFTA)!  The Globes picked the same lineup as Oscar, but instead went with Tom Cruise for their winner.  SAG skipped Jude Law and put in Chris Cooper (American Beauty), but otherwise copied Oscar, and also gave it to Michael Caine.  The BAFTA's totally threw their hands in the air, picking Law as the victor atop Caine, Rhys Ifans (Notting Hill), Timothy Spall (Topsy-Turvy), and Wes Bentley (American Beauty).  You could maybe make the case for one of the American Beauty actors, but honestly...I think sixth place was behind two men who got no precursors, but whose films were well-liked by Oscar: John Malkovich (Being John Malkovich) and Christopher Plummer (The Insider).  Both are well-respected thespians, and make sense given who else got in.  If I had to pick who was in sixth I think Plummer's was more conventional (and thus an easier sell), but they both make sense.
Performances I Would Have Nominated: Oscar spent decades ignoring Christopher Plummer, but I am not such a fool.  His vain, driven Mike Wallace is one of the best aspects of The Insider.
Oscar’s Choice: In something of an upset, Michael Caine beat both Osment & Cruise (his chief competition) to win his second Oscar (neither of the other two men have been nominated since).
My Choice: Despite losing a point for category fraud, that's not enough to derail Osment, who is giving the best of the 20 performances nominated for Oscar in 1999.  Behind him are (in order) Cruise, Law, Caine, and then Duncan.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you want to hide under your bed with me, or would you rather extend a morphine drip with Oscar?  Is Tom Cruise ever going to be nominated for an Oscar again (or for that matter...is Jude Law)?  And was it Plummer or Malkovich in sixth place?  Share in the comments!

Monday, July 24, 2023

OVP: Picture (2022)

 OVP: Best Picture (2022)

The Nominees Were...


Malte Grunert, All Quiet on the Western Front
James Cameron & Jon Landau, Avatar: The Way of Water
Graham Broadbent, Pete Czernin, & Martin McDonagh, The Banshees of Inisherin
Catherine Martin, Gail Berman, Patrick McCormick, & Schuyler Weiss, Elvis
Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert, & Jonathan Wang, Everything Everywhere All at Once
Kristie Macosko Krieger, Steven Spielberg, & Tony Kushner, The Fabelmans
Todd Field, Alexandra Milchan, & Scott Lambert, Tar
Tom Cruise, Christopher McQuarrie, David Ellison, & Jerry Bruckheimer, Top Gun: Maverick
Erik Hemmendorff & Philippe Bober, Triangle of Sadness
Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, & Frances McDormand, Women Talking

My Thoughts: We are at the end of yet another season of the Oscar Viewing Project!  This is the quickest turnaround we've ever done from the initial ceremony to the OVP ballot (the Oscars were just a few months ago), so I'm excited we were able to do this within a calendar year.  I'm going to make you wait a little more than week for our next season; we'll kick it off in August, but as a hint we'll be doing one of the two remaining years left this century (for links to past contests, click the bottom of this page).  We'll also be doing one of my favorite series to write on the blog-whom I would've picked if I had picked all of the nominees tomorrow.  But for now, grab the popcorn & get ready for one last ride with Oscar's ten best pictures.  Hopefully the ride goes better than our first film...

Triangle of Sadness is another commentary from Ruben Ostlund about the ways that capitalism & power destroy our combined humanity, and how no one is really exempt from it.  Combining Lina Wertmuller's Swept Away with recent Best Picture winner Parasite, the movie is a fascinating look at a lot of ideas that definitely needs a better editor.  The second third of the movie lasts too long, with Ostlund less trying to aid his tale and more attempting to gross out his audience, but much of the rest of the movie is worth sticking around if you can stomach it, specifically grand performances from Dolly de Leon and Harris Dickinson.  The ending needed to chop the last thirty seconds off of it, though.

Top Gun: Maverick is the antithesis in pretty much every way of Triangle of Sadness, here finding ways to glorify the industrial complex & capitalism.  The movie itself works in key aspects.  Some of the supporting cast (Glen Powell & Jennifer Connelly, specifically) play well, and this is a last great lap of one of the quintessential action heroes, Tom Cruise.  Plus, in a world dominated by CGI, it's thrilling to see actual sets, actual stunts, and not just a wall of computer-generated banality.  But the movie's script lands like a lead balloon, is filled with cliche & the dialogue is cheesy as hell (plus, Jon Hamm continues his weird trend of not knowing how to act in movies after giving one of TV's most iconic characterizations).

Women Talking is that rare film where you say "a film feels like a play" but you mean it is a compliment.  Everything about this is about finding direction through conversation, with us learning more about the complicated world these women live in, but also about the freedom they feel outside of the gaze of men.  I loved the way that your initial assumptions of how these women will progress alters, in the way that new ideas change your mind, and I've never felt claustrophobia used as a framing device (rather than something to overcome) so well.  Sarah Polley's movie is fresh, alive, & full of uncomfortable truths.

All Quiet on the Western Front joins the very short list of movies where both the original and the remake got cited for Best Picture (I believe this is just All Quiet and West Side Story...not a great look for Hollywood originality that both are in the past two years).  The story in this movie is too hard to break entirely-it's one of the most damning anti-war tales ever told-but this one feels paint-by-numbers, and includes a needless addition of Daniel Bruhl reminding us of the ticking clock that we already understand is hanging over these soldiers' heads.  With a remake, I need more than just "it's more realistic" to justify its existence, and this movie never provides that.

Everything Everywhere All at Once is bizarre because my initial review of it on Letterboxd (follow me) is way shorter than I normally would've gone with a Best Picture nominee, which is kind of an indication of how I feel about it (and how out-of-nowhere it felt at the time for the Best Picture race).  I liked it, I didn't love it.  I think that the central performances are all good, but the final third is too convoluted, frequently borrowing from things we've already seen and rarely in a way that feels like it's adding more texture to the story.  It's a miracle that an original movie with no established IP or real-life figure managed to take over the pop culture/box office in such a way, so I give it credit for that...but it's not as original as it needs to be, nor as well as well-edited as it has to be, if we're going to throw around phrases like "masterpiece."

If you want to give out that title for a wholly original movie, you gotta look at a movie like Tar.  The movie is an epic, staggering character study of human nature, and the reasons why we keep things secret.  Cate Blanchett gives the performance of a lifetime (and it's Cate Blanchett we're talking about here, so the lifetime was already on a pedestal) as Lydia Tar, owning every scene of her movie and giving us a domineering, complicated, over-her-head woman that defies expectations.  One of those movies you only truly understand once you've seen every second of it.

I'm always a sucker for an "ode to cinema" and the past couple of years have given us high-profile takes from major directors.  2022's best was The Fabelmans, which gives Steven Spielberg the vulnerability to share not just where he came from, but where some of his best movies came from.  Within The Fabelmans, we get a sense of the prickliness that we see in so many of his movies (for all of the "happy ending" criticism that Spielberg gets, so often the children in his films are from "broken" or divorced homes, just like Sammy here).  Solid performances from Williams, LaBelle, & Dano help to underline the central dynamic of a father-and-mother's love being so crucial to a young man finding himself.

I have been so sick of musical biopics (by far the most tired & overdone genre in movies today) that I kind of forgot that they could have some thrills.  Leave it to Baz Luhrmann to get me there with Elvis.  This movie doesn't always work in its approach-the length (oddly enough) is fine, but it glosses over side characters too much (particularly Presley's wife Priscilla), to the point where it makes the editing feel choppy.  And I don't entirely get what Tom Hanks was doing here, even if there are times it kind of works (bad acting can have its place in a movie, though that is what this is).  But casting Austin Butler as this unknowable sex god is so appropriate and so inline with Elvis, you might believe at some points that that electric magnetism has been brought back from the dead.

An even more successful spin on a tried-and-true genre (the buddy comedy) is The Banshees of Inisherin.  The best parts of Martin McDonagh's films are when he gives us sharp edges on his characters, which we get as the film goes-the central four characters are all imperfect, and sometimes that imperfection has consequences they can't take back.  Buoyed by the best acting ensemble of 2022, the writing & acting are so heightened and extraordinary it's hard not to feel you're in the presence of some great, untold tale.  I loved it.

With Hollywood telling more and more stories that we've already heard, an increase in sequels in this category is inevitable.  If that's the case, please make them all as good as Avatar: The Way of Water.  I had honestly forgotten a blockbuster movie could look this good, with James Cameron genuinely caring about light & design in his film rather than piecing together action set pieces with no care in-between.  The story itself is strong, particularly the way that he folds it into a thrilling action sequence over the film's last 40 minutes (you will not look at your watch once in this very long movie), but it's the glorious visual effects that make this something truly special.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their categories into Drama and Musical/Comedy so we have ten films to discuss, but in a different style than Oscar's ten.  Best Musical/Comedy went to The Banshees of Inisherin against Babylon, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Glass Onion, and Triangle of Sadness while The Fabelmans bested Avatar: The Way of Water, Elvis, Tar, and Top Gun: Maverick in Best Drama.  The PGA Awards gave their statue to Everything Everywhere All at Once beating most of the Oscar lineup with Women Talking, All Quiet on the Western Front, & Triangle of Sadness replaced by Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, Glass Onion, & The Whale.  BAFTA only does five nominees, and picked All Quiet on the Western Front against Banshees, EEAAO, Elvis, & Tar.  In eleventh place...I think it was probably The Whale given it won two major awards and got the PGA nod.  I maintain that had Glass Onion (a populist hit if you've ever seen one) gotten a real run in theaters and not just a "quick, get it onto Netflix" it would've gotten a nomination here the second it hit $100 million at the box office.  Streaming, I cannot stress this enough, is ruining the entertainment industry.
Films I Would Have Nominated: You'll find out tomorrow!
Oscar’s Choice: An easy call for EEAAO-BAFTA & the HFPA were doing their own things (which I love) but by Oscar night, it was evident that EEAAO was taking this over All Quiet and The Fabelmans.
My Choice: Comparing films is insane, and that's very much proven by my top two films, Avatar: The Way of Water and The Banshees of Inisherin, two superb movies that have nothing in common.  I started this article ranking Banshees first because the acting & story is a bit better, and I'll stay there, but this is one of those decisions I'll waffle about forever.  Behind them (in order) I'd go: The Fabelmans, Tar, Women Talking, Triangle of Sadness, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Elvis, Top Gun: Maverick, and All Quiet on the Western Front.

And there you have it-another OVP in the books.  Are you staying with Oscar's bandwagon love of EEAAO or do you want to hang with Jenny the Donkey & I over with Banshees?  Do you think The Whale, Glass Onion, or something else was just out of this contest?  And overall-what is your favorite movie of 2022?  Share your comments below!


Past Best Picture Contests: 2002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020, 2021