The Monthly reporters share their thoughts on The Oscars Best Picture Nominees

Avatar: Way of Water

James Cameron’s “Avatar: The Way of Water” wasn’t at the top of my must-watch movie watch list this year.

Nonetheless, the film, which totaled $2.32 billion at the global box office, became the third highest grossing film of all time. The movie’s tremendous financial performance, coupled with its Oscars recognition, gave me enough reason to commit myself to the world of Pandora for three whole hours. 

The sequel to 2009’s “Avatar” takes place more than a decade after the first, and starts with Jake Sully and Neytiri living happily with their family. However, as humans return to Sully’s new home of Pandora to use it as a replacement for a dying Earth, Jake and his family escape to another side of the planet, a world of water, to seek refuge.

For those who have not seen the first movie, it is not hard to catch up with the second. However, the latest installment in the “Avatar” franchise has too many unnecessary storylines. 

From a friendship between one of Jake’s sons and Pandora’s version of a whale, to focusing on the struggles of a human child left behind on Pandora, the movie contains a variety of narratives that all remained underdeveloped. The film’s main storyline does not vary much from that of the first movie and the added subplots only make the movie outrageously long. 

While a third “Avatar” movie is currently in the works, the significant number of unfinished storylines causes confusion. 

However, the movie’s success centers on its versatility. Not only does “Avatar: The Way of Water” explore many genres, such as science fiction and action, it also touches on other important issues, including imperialism, environmentalism and the meaning of family. The exploration of these issues make the “Avatar” franchise such a popular one as the movie attempts to resonate in some way with every viewer. However, it can be overly ambitious with its exploration of these “big name” issues, as many of them are explored only on a superficial level. 

Despite its length and convoluted storyline, I was still delighted that the movie fulfilled its role in providing gorgeous visuals and empowering themes. 

The filmmakers’ vibrant animation of Pandora is at the pinnacle of the movie’s success. While the storyline is slow at first, the movie’s glowing skies, crystal blue waters and majestic forests make up for its dragging plot. Nearly the first hour of the movie is dedicated to reorienting the audience within the world of Pandora and allowing them to appreciate its beauty. Since I began the movie expecting to be wowed by the sets and animation, this choice was refreshing.

Despite its flaws, the second “Avatar” film’s journey to Pandora remains a worthwhile one. While I might not think “Avatar: The Way of Water” is worthy of its spot as the third highest grossing movie of all time, the film does a sufficient job at capturing the complexity of life, even from another planet. 

– Emily Lichty

Everything Everywhere All At Once

Googly eyes. Hot dog fingers. Laundry and taxes.

Despite the absurdist premise, at its core, “Everything Everywhere All At Once” revolves around the Wangs — Evelyn (Michelle Yeoh), Waymond (Ke Huy Quan), Joy (Stephanie Hsu),  Gong Gong (James Hong) — and their broken immigrant family. 

Evelyn and Waymond are in an unhappy marriage, trapped by a culture that does not speak about divorce. Their daughter Joy struggles to convey her emotions to her parents and yearns for her mother’s acceptance of her sexuality. These themes are embedded in Evelyn’s ventures across the multiverse as she aims to defeat Jobu Tupaki — a version of Joy (the daughter) fuelled by bitterness who seeks vengeance on her mother. 

To say the Daniels — directing duo of Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert — made a film that swept awards season is an understatement. EEAAO picked up seven of its 11 nominations at the 95th Academy Awards, two Golden Globes, five Critics’ Choice Awards, four SAG Awards and more. 

And the hype is deserved. The movie’s $14.3 million dollar budget paled in comparison to competitors like the $170 million for “Top Gun: Maverick” and the estimated production budget of about $250 million for “Avatar: The Way of Water.” Still, the low-budget film is a masterclass in visual effects and cinematography, with beautiful choreography that traverses universes. 

I have watched the film twice since its release and ugly cried unabashedly both times. But, after moving to Northwestern, the movie took on a new meaning for me. 

After living in the U.S. for a few months, my ears perked up at the sound of Cantonese and Mandarin seamlessly fused into scenes, most especially in the famous “laundry and taxes” scene. 

如果有來⽣，我還是會選擇和你⼀起 開洗⾐店，報稅。In another life, I would have really liked just doing laundry and taxes with you. 

Dreamy, vintage Kar-Wai-Wong-inspired visuals reminded me of home and Hong Kong, and Waymond’s call for simplicity echoed his sentiments throughout the film. In a campus full of incredibly high-achieving students, this simple line in a language dear to my heart reminded me that it is okay to not be everything and everywhere, all at once.

In every language and in every multiverse, Yeoh delivers a masterclass in acting. From the comedic to the dramatic, she is the anti-hero we all need. Each gesture, facial expression and meaningful look screams of tension. Alpha Waymond describes Evelyn as a failure in everything, and Yeoh portrays her character’s ensuing resentment and despondency with nuance. 

EEAAO ends unresolved –– which fits. Evelyn and Joy form a shaky resolution as they agree to stop exploring the multiverse and settle back into their original, bland universe. Still in a fragmented brain, different versions of herself attempt to entice her from the mundane reality she has chosen. 

At some points, I can admit the plot drags and at times even becomes overstimulating. Some reviewers say the film is too much of a nihilistic, absurdist action film, and not enough of a complex family drama. Maybe in a different multiverse, everyone would see themselves represented in this movie. But for me, the script hit home, especially while I am so far away from mine. 

— Beatrice Villaflor

Elvis

One for the money, two for the show: Austin Butler and director Baz Luhrmann were snubbed at the Oscars despite crafting an incredible biopic. After losing every award despite eight nominations, “Elvis” definitely deserved better. 

“Everything Everywhere All At Once” dominated the Oscars (as it should have, I genuinely lost track of how often I cried while watching that movie) with seven awards won out of 11 nominations. But, with “Elvis” grossing over $288 million dollars at the global box office, I just can’t shake the fact that it was one of the best biopics I’ve ever seen.

Differentiating yourself from the hundreds of Elvis Presley impersonators on the Las Vegas  Strip is no small feat. However, Butler succeeded in embodying Elvis in a way I didn’t think was really possible. His performance didn’t feel over-the-top and cheesy, but he also channeled the larger-than-life energy Presley exuded throughout his career. 

Despite Butler having a really modern face (he for sure looks like he knows what an iPhone is), I was somehow entirely immersed in the mid-1950s era Elvis dominated. Putting scenes from the movie side-by-side with actual Elvis performances makes it clear Butler carefully studied Presley’s mannerisms. In some performances, like Presley’s iconic 1968 Comeback Special, Butler almost looks like a reincarnation of the king of rock ‘n’ roll himself. 

Not to mention, Luhrmann’s hyper-individualized directing style present throughout the movie is unlike that of any other director I’ve ever seen ― it elevated “Elvis” in a way that I feel that no other director could have accomplished. The fast-paced movement through Presley’s life felt just right and let me understand what it felt like for Presley to be thrust into stardom. 

At the end of the day, awards at the Oscars are just awards. “Elvis” definitely deserved to win at least one, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it was a whirlwind to watch and an amazing depiction of the life of an iconic musician. 

― Selena Kuznikov

Triangle of Sadness

One of the first scenes in Ruben Östlund’s black comedy “Triangle of Sadness” depicts a group of male models splattered with beige, burgundy and blue paint as M.I.A.’s “Born Free” blares. The opening aptly sums up the 147-minute satire: Östlund throws paint — sometimes human waste, champagne or pool water — at the human canvas, but not all of it sticks.

Östlund’s second Palme d’Or pick follows the comically pompous lives of 21st-century elites through the eyes of a striking young couple in three grandiose acts. The first glance we get into the relationship between Carl (Harris Dickinson) and Yaya (the late Charlbi Dean) takes place in a dimly lit restaurant with an “unsexy” squabble over who will pick up the bill. 

After the two make amends, Carl and Yaya join an ensemble of Russian oligarchs and war profiteers on a luxury yacht for a chaotic cruise. We’re introduced to the cruise’s head of staff Paula (Vicki Berlin) who gives her staff a pep talk inspiring enough to make her a contender for the hotel manager position in the third installment of “The White Lotus.”

The guests range from a self-described family who run a “business producing products in precision engineering (which) have been employed in upholding democracy all over the world” to a post-stroke wife capable only of uttering the German translation of “up in the clouds” — a cheap blow at the yacht’s characters.

The second act culminates in a climactic, nauseating dinner which features a literal river of feces and vomit; the film is not for viewers with weak stomachs. 

Östlund drops the ball in the film’s third and final act, a cheap “Lord of the Flies” reboot that sees social pyramids predictably reversed as a cleaning lady, Abigail (Dolly De Leon), exploits her unique position as the only beached passenger with basic survival skills. 

Unlike its Best Picture competitor “Tár” — which also went home empty-handed in March — “Triangle of Sadness” lacks the incisiveness of Todd Field’s hyper-realistic drama about a fictional conductor’s fall from grace. Despite its excremental extravagance and narrative absurdity, Östlund’s critique of the patriarchal plutocracy offers nothing new to a catalog of 2022 class satires (I’m looking at you, Mark Mylod).

Ultimately, “Triangle of Sadness” goes just far enough to bring Cannes critics to their feet but not so far as to offend their highbrow sensibilities.

— Jacob Wendler