23
votes
'Oppenheimer' lands seven Oscars including Best Picture
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Oscars 2024 Winners List (Updating Live)
- Authors
- Jordan Moreau
- Published
- Mar 10 2024
- Word count
- 1198 words
Oppenheimer is now the third highest grossing Best Picture winner, behind The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and Titanic. And in my opinion is easily the best winner of the 21st century. Which in reality is not that high a bar to clear if you actually look at what's won.
The Academy perfectly matched the Oscar's in all the categories, so for the second year in a row I did pretty bad lol. Usually one DGA nominee goes home empty handed, but because I bet on Gladstone going home with Actress and was betting on Poor Things only winning Production Design, I decide to switch my PD prediction to Barbie to blank Poor Things. That was an incredibly stupid decision as it turns out.
Gladstone becoming the consensus choice of the awards community to win did make me worried that Stone would end up winning. Which is exactly what happened. And now social media is melting down because a white woman won over a Native American. And Stone's critically praised performance is now being revised as being a bad performance simply for that reason. Internet people will always moralize awards, and will try super hard to be performative in every instance, including trashing Stone. It's annoying as fuck, Stone is a good winner and hopefully when the dust settles people realize that again.
The only award Oppenheimer was expected to win that it lost is Sound, which went to Zone of Interest as the story is largely told through Sound (I still think Oppenheimer deserved that award).
The ceremony was pretty good! One or two things were bad: The in memorium could have been presented better and Pacino announced the Winner in such an awkward way. But other than that, this is the first ceremony I've truly enjoyed since the Parasite year.
Easily, even! Wow, I could not possibly disagree with you more š
Well, you are not entirely wrong that it isn't a high bar. There are a ton of movies a lot more deserving of winning the BP award most years since 2000. The only of my favourite movies to have ever won BP would be ROTK, all the rest are rather niche or smaller productions or at least indie enough to not get Oscars attention at all. Movies that hit all the marks but have no emotional impact on me won't ever get a 10/10 from me.
Anyway, I am highly surprised that Oppenheimer won so many Oscars. I gave it a 8/10, however meaningless that might sound. It was a solid 9/10 in the first ~2 hours, but that whole (widely criticised) trial part felt so tacked on and wholly unnecessary and really dragged it down a lot in my opinion.
Not sure what to expect, to be honest. Awards have lost a lot of meaning for me. It's a shame they still mean so much to the people actually in the business.
For every The Departed or No Country for Old Men we get stuff like A Beautiful Mind, Crash, and CODA.
K
I donāt really get why itās a shame. Even if you donāt particularly care for them why is it a shame that the people in the industry care about it lol. Studios vying for Oscar attention are a large part of why movies like Poor Things, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Banshees of Inisherin, and TAR even get made. Without the Oscars we wouldnāt get those movies.
Kind of tempted to just throw a "K" at you in response. What the hell is that...
Matt Damon said it well.
What is this supposed to mean?
I watched Poor Things last night and saw Killers in theaters...I don't get the decision to have Gladstone in the lead actress category since she's not very involved in the second half of the movie. I was a bit surprised to Stone win since all the buzz was around Gladstone but it made sense. Emma Stone delivered a great performance in a movie that revolved around her character and gave her more opportunities to show off her range.
As for the show, I thought it was great. I am by no means a Kimmel fan but I think he did a terrific job, the best in recent memory for sure.
Yeah Gladstone was initially widely believed to be going Supporting. Which she probably would have won had she stayed in that category. A similar thing happened last year with Michelle Williams and The Fabelmans. Williams would have easily won the supporting category but decided to go Lead to lose.
Iām a big fan of Kimmelās first time hosting the Oscarās (the La La Land Moonlight) but I felt like he phoned it in the next few times he did it. This time though you can tell he actually put in the effort.
I didn't watch the ceremony, but I'm glad Christopher Nolan won. He's my favorite director and has a great catalog of films
I'm convinced we're going to look back on Oppenheimer in 10 years and think it was overhyped. It was just an okay film that stuffed so many stars in it that people felt compelled to praise it like it was high art.
I've written a lot of words about Oppenheimer here on Tildes when it came out. And I completely agree. I'm in a demographic that would readily latch on to Oppenheimer. I thought it was middling and not necessarily because I went in with high hopes; I tend to be pretty neutral on Christopher Nolan.
I'm not surprised that it's won a lot of awards. But it checked the award season boxes: cinematic, big names with passable to good performances, drama on all sides. But substance was lacking. I haven't thought about it at all since seeing it.
But we have regularly conversations about Barbie and Poor Things in our house. Both films did what art should: challenge something within you.
I agree but that is rarely the type of film the Oscars award best picture. Recent years have seen some exceptions, so Oppenheimer is in a way maybe the return of āthe Oscar movieā.
Agreed and not every movie needs to be hard hitting either. I would have expected Barbie to get more nods. Because of the buzz I was expecting Poor Things to be more generally accessible than it was. Was pleasantly surprised to find it more artistic than expected. I'm glad Stone picked up an award for her performance, she did excellent with what I'd imagine to be a very difficult role.
I think Oppenheimer is a perfect illustration of the difference between "good movies" and Academy Award winning movies. Is it rewatchable? Eh. Do you leave the theater saying, "Holy shit, what did I just see?" Kinda, but not really since you went in knowing exactly what was going to happen. Looking at it that way, I don't think it cracks my top-5 for Chris Nolan movies.
Having said that, I can see why so many people appreciate the execution of turning that story into something compelling and (more importantly) worth seeing in the theaters. Isn't that what the Academy Awards are for?
For sure it doesn't crack my top 5 either. The Prestige, Memento, and Interstellar already take up 3 of the spots. Good point about worth seeing in theaters; it's a miracle films still pull in as much revenue as they do in theaters.
As for compelling, that's where I'm undecided. I feel that the film would have been much better if it focused on just one period of his life, or just one aspect. Instead, we get some rushed and poorly developed scenes in the beginning of the movie for the sole purpose of being able to move the plot later that Oppenheimer had interactions with communists. Or Kitty, who appeared, had her "you don't get to commit the sin and then have us all feel sorry for you that it had consequences" line, and then the deposition line, but was otherwise a meaningless character. And obviously the "feel sorry for you that it had consequences" line was about the atomic bomb. Way too on the nose there.
Oh, and the multiple times that Cillian would go slack jawed and "see" atoms colliding in his mind were just too much. There's got to be a better way to convey to the audience that Oppenheimer was tortured with his responsibility. That was such a lame way to do so.
I'm sorry, I haven't seen the movie, but did someone else just get the best picture Oscar for A Beautiful Mind-ing again? Is there a clip of this somewhere?
Oppenheimer definitely did not have this affect on me. To be fair, I had almost no personal interest in the story of Oppenheimer or the development of the atomic bomb. I will give the movie credit for keeping me interested for the entire runtime. However, to me the intrigue relied so much on Nolanās style. I guess thatās a good thing about how the movie was made, but because of that, the long term and even short term impact of the movie was pretty hollow for me. It was a spectacle with that didnāt say much to me. One of the main reasons I wasnāt interested in seeing this movie was because I have thought a lot about the development and use of nuclear bombs throughout my life. To make a movie about something so heavy with marketing and all that seemed somewhat inadequate or inappropriate to me.
When I compare it to other movies I saw this year that felt so unique and stayed in my head for a long timeā-Poor Things, The Holdovers, Godzilla Minus One, Koreedaās Monster, The Boy and the Heron, Barbieā-Oppenheimer felt so generic and unmemorable.
Some things are just subjective. I actually did watch Oppenheimer twice, the second after it came back to IMAX, and I think it's definitely my number one Nolan movie now after rewatching it.
Awards are relative though. They give them out every year, regardless of what is produced, they work on a schedule like that. Certainly I think it winning so many awards will make it seem pretty overhyped, but is there something else that was clearly that much better that should have won the awards? I'm not arguing if there's something you can make a case for, I'm saying, is it winning awards that it has no business getting compared to what else is out there, or is it winning awards because they have to give them out no matter what and it happens to be competitive enough with what else is out there?
I watched Oppenheimer but I haven't watched a lot of other things so the questions I'm asking aren't necessarily rhetorical, its not as though I think I already know the answers to them. I didn't come away with the impression that Oppenheimer was on the scale of being so influential that it would sweep every award it could, but I can see how it would be in the conversation for many of the awards and winning them could simply be that there wasn't something substantially better.
If anything there is a general consensus that this year, basically all the nominations are great films. But it isn't unprecedented that a film wins many awards without going down in history as something special. Shakespeare in Love also won seven Oscars and who remembers that today?