Oscar 2020 - Predictions

I promised that I'll write a predictions entry, although I'm more and more convinced with each passing year to give up on this habit. I've said multiple times why, so I won't repeat it (I might say it again without intending to later anyway). As usual, I'll stick to the categories where I've managed to see everything = thanks to the Academy for the approachable dispersion rate among the nominees :P

Animated Feature Film - 2019 wasn't a very bright year for animations. "How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World" closed the franchise with a sort of GoT finale feeling. Lazy, boring and senseless writing. Doesn't deserve more comments. "I Lost My Body" is a French animation that plays the role of "the something different" for this year, a typical habit of the Academy to throw in a title that looks more "artistic"/mature to save the appearance of a category for kids. In brief, it's the story of a severed hand looking for its owner, which gives us the opportunity to get through the guy's life. The premise is promising, the final result is too pretentious and ends abruptly. Moreover, technically, the animation is not the best - it's done in the classic 2D manner, which is actually a nice thing, but there are parts where the frames are scarce leaving more of a stop motion impression (which I always thought it looks terrible in 2D). To conclude, we're left here with three candidates with some real chance: "Klaus" - a cute version of the Christmas origin story, which actually gives some sense to the gifts tradition and other customs; "Missing Link" - where a Sasquatch looking for a family meets some very unfriendly Yeti; "Toy Story 4" - (aka "The Search for Forky") on which I wrote last summer. All three of these are ok, but I'd say none of them is a memorable piece of animation. So, as much as I'd be fed up with the typical Pixar over-sentimentalism, I guess the latest "Toy Story" is the one that has that something required to move you a bit more than the rest, ergo my bet goes there.

VFX - In the last few years the award for visual effects typically was given to movies including less CGI. Probably because you can't see much difference between the movies relying on that for VFX. So, on this ground I'd exclude the latest "Avengers" and "Star Wars" from the nominees. What's left? "The Lion King" is a "real-life" animation that's not much more than what we've seen in "The Jungle Book" a couple years ago, when it also took the Oscar, the team behind it being the same. So, I'd say it won't happen for a second time. There are many saying that "The Irishman" is the main contender here due to the digital rendering of De Niro, Pacino, etc passing through different age periods. As I was saying in the review I did at the end of last year, for me the result looks almost as hideous as "J. Edgar". So, as final option, I'd go for "1917", which might bring up the question "where are the VFX?". Well, actually in many scenes, and the plus comes from the way these blend in with the rest ;)

Sound Editing & Mixing - In brief editing = effects, mixing = the sound track arrangement. Almost every year the lists of nominees have a single difference (probably to justify splitting in two categories - BAFTA or other awards have just one sound section). This year the single entries are for "Star Wars" on editing, and for "Ad Astra" on mixing. I doubt either has any chance - although the the final track in "Ad Astra" is actually nice. To continue cutting from the common nominations, the first to fall out is "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", basically here just to fill up the numbers. We're left with three options. "Joker" doesn't seem to have much on editing, but scores better on mixing. I guess though that the final call will be between "Ford v Ferrari" si "1917", which are a on top of the rest. I'd risk to go again with "1917" on both counts. The final track is by far the best I've heard last year. On the editing side is closer to the other one, but well... I might be subjective :-) I was more impressed by the sound variation from the "silence" of the woods to the bombs explosions than by the wheels screeching and engines hurling in the other movie.

Music - Score - As above, for the score I think we're also left with two choices. First, the ones to pass I'd say that are: "Star Wars" - the soundtrack written by John Williams is nice, we have some new elements, but still it sounds a bit too much alike to what we've heard before; between "Marriage Story" by Randy Newman and "Little Women" by Alexandre Desplat I can't decide on the irritating factor (probably the latter), but I might be again subjective - anyway, I find these two repetitive, and a bit too present for the genre of the movies they're supposed to fit. So the choice would be between "Joker" by Hildur Gudnadottir and "1917" by Thomas Newmann. The first is given as favorite by pretty much everybody with a score that amplifies well the tension in the movie. However, I prefer the soundtrack of "1917", which for me brings exactly the needed contrast, where is needed. So, maybe we'll have a surprise here ;)

Costume Design - Usually I'm avoiding this section because I have zero experience for a qualified opinion. Still, this year I'd give a quick one. From what the online says, the main contender is "Little Women". Strictly visual, I'd go for a surprise, which is "Jojo Rabbit", where this part contributes to the colorfulness of the movie. We might go further with some philosophy about the meaning of this colorfulness :-) but let's stay on track. The other nominees here are "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", "The Irishman" and "Joker".

Production Design aka art direction = location setting + set decoration. To start again by cutting off the outsiders, "The Irishman" is first to drop. "Jojo Rabbit" and "Parasite" probably break even, and what we see there is actually probably a bit above the online favorite here, which is: "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood". I assume the reason for that is to walk out over some movie sets and bringing some variation by doing this. On my side, I see "1917" miles away from the rest of the nominees. Basically, at least half of the movie is built over a perfect integration of the scenery with the camera work. Only the fact that the lengths of the prepared terrain was calculated to sync with the length of the shots is something to count for already. Anyway, the clip below says much more, but its second part is probably more relevant than anything else I could write here.

Film Editing - This is probably one of the most difficult to predict categories of this year. I guess that we can place "The Irishman", "Jojo Rabbit" and "Joker" in a second tier. The other two nominations where I think the battle will be are "Ford v Ferrari" and "Parasite". It's hard to compare the editing of the two movies, since it's directed towards completely different directions. In "Ford v Ferrari" we have fast race scenes, with cuts made to keep you caught in the alertness of the action, in "Parasite" we get a thriller editing with enough moments where you don't know what the next second brings, the fitting of sequences giving a certain rhythm and counting much in the final feeling you get. I'd say that "Parasite" is technically superior, but I might be subjective again. In any case, the clip below provides an excellent analysis, sparring me of any justification ;)

Cinematography - As complicated it is to give a prediction for editing, as simple is to give one for the camera work. There's a clear distance between Roger Deakins and "1917" and the runner-up which I'd say it's "The Lighthouse", followed further by "Joker", "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" and "The Irishman". I wrote already that together with the production design this is where the strength of "1917" lies.

Original Screenplay - From all the nominees here I mostly liked the story & script in "Knives Out", but I have to admit it doesn't have the density of the script in "Parasite", which I see as winner here. There are also chances for "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", but that's not really Tarantino's best. The nominees list is completed by "Marriage Story", which is a Woody Allen story written by, and "1917" where the script is fine, but not really among the best traits of the movie.

Directing - Again, we have a pretty certain prediction here: Sam Mendes for "1917". We also have here Bong Joon Ho for "Parasite", Scorsese for "The Irishman", Tarantino for "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" and Todd Phillips for "Joker". Compared to other years (and other categories) the level is quite high here; you can feel a consistent role of the directing and a personal touch in all the five movies. Still, I'd say the way Sam Mendes managed to stick together all elements composing "1917" place the directing here in a different league.

Best Picture - Nominations: "1917", "Ford v Ferrari", "Jojo Rabbit", "Joker", "Little Women", "Marriage Story", "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", "Parasite", "The Irishman". The most important category was a bit of a surprise win at the latest Oscars, maybe with the exception of last year. I wish to not be again the case, because the widely accepted prediction is that "1917" deserves the title of best movie, and I totally agree. I don't want to make this long entry even longer. For most of the above I had a review, and about "1917" I wrote a couple weeks ago. Any result we'll have, "1917" is a win for cinema in general, and that's what finally matters.

Oscar 2019

I was thinking to skip the Oscars completely this year, but I have to admit that there are still some reasons not to do it. Actually, more like one important reason - the nominees list still has good value in pointing out movies that otherwise I would've passed over, like "Green Book", "The Favourite" and "Vice", which I reviewed recently. About the awards... for several years already the politically correctness stance became really destructive. It seems it's completely forgotten that the man, and actually the single criteria that should matter is the one imposed by the nominations category objectively, and not some others related to social issues in everyday life care that have no place here. I'm really not in the mood to debate this too much, even more considering that if you do it you risk being labelled for disregarding racial issues, orientation issues, etc. Above all, I'm finishing this entry a bit too late to be actual more than a few hours, but unfortunately I didn't have an easy day, and what was supposed to be ready at 12:00 noon is after 12:00 in the night... As last year, I'm gonna go just through some categories where I've seen all nominations and point out what deserves attention + my choice, because well... movies without predictions, no fun :)

Best animated feature movie doesn't have the best selection this year, but we had worse. About "Incredibles 2" I already wrote, and I don't want to argue again on how thin/illogical is the story. "Ralph Breaks the Internet" has a bit more sense, but unfortunately the comparison with the first "Ralph" brings it down. "Mirai no Mirai" represents the Japanese animes in this category where the Academy grants a slot from time to time. Unfortunately it's not something to remember in this niche - we have a little boy and his newborn sister; he's transported at pretty much each episode of crying and jealousy for lack of attention, through the interior garden of his house, either in the future, either in the past, either in an universe where the family's dog takes human shape, either in the Tokyo train station where he gets lost, each time for a new life lesson. We have the typical Japanese anime fantasy style, a bit too entangled, and which doesn't reach the level of the best period of Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki.

"Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" is apparently the main favorite here. What can I say... The super-villain Kingpin opens an interdimensional gate, which puts in danger all the planet, in order to find a copy in a parallel universe of his deceased wife and child. Spider-Man tries to stop the disaster, but only makes it temporarily, and unfortunately dies in the process. Lucky us, we have parallel worlds, and, therefore, plenty other Spider-Man, or Woman, or Pig. Plus an afro-latino-american kid in the current world who's also bitten by chance by a radioactive spider exactly on time to take over the job. Why that didn't happen with anybody else or why we don't have 2x, 3x, 4x Spider-people in other universes is a mystery, or why each universe has a different impersonation and no two are the same. But that's not a problem as long as we gathered enough racial or sex diversity to avoid anybody saying we're discriminating and to make the movie catchy for everybody. It doesn't matter that what comes after is super-linear and simple as a subject = all super-heroes take on the evil force Avengers style, the problem is obviously solved by the newest and youngest Spider-Man, and that's pretty much all of it. Oh.. we also have some little drama replaying some the origin story, where Spider-Man loses his uncle again, but this time that one is in the category evil guys first, after which he's not any more... In any case, it's the single piece in the story that brings some depth to a character, which funny isn't even one of the bunch of Spider-people. As animation technique is the probably the simplest, overall very cliche, very thin, but also very politically correct = perfect as a candidate for the awards.

"Isle of Dogs" is by far the best animation of the five. I wrote last November about it, so I won't make it much longer. Ironically, considering the subject + the script, it is the same, if not more politically correct than "Spider-Man" - besides diversity & equality, we also have an ecological problem packed here; but it's finer, it's thrown in front of you and doesn't cry "vote me for this". Besides that, what concerns the depth of character is way far from "Isle of Dogs" = we have plenty of dogs with clearly different personalities, unlike "Spider-Man" where the exterior form has some cliche associated with it and that's all (headphones and rap for the black guy, an a la Bogart look for the neo-noir Spider-Man, a hammer for the cartoon character, a robot for the Spider-Man made in Japan). Technically, stop-motion is an art in itself, much more complicated than a 2D animation turned 3D. That's why, besides what's produced by Aardman who are specialized in this technique we don't have many other titles in this niche. More on this below... But well, the Oscar goes to, we'll see...

In visual effects we have "Avengers: Infinity War" and the rest. In "Christopher Robin", we have an immersion of animated characters in a regular movie - was done before = "Paddington" as recent example. Nothing very spectacular. "First Man" seems added here more to fill up the category = we have the space sequences, the Moon and inside the ships, but considering the VFX is light years away from "Gravity" or "Interstellar". "Ready Player One" catches your eye initially, but you realize quickly that what you see is actually half live action movie, half pure animation, which are not really interacting, so with all the motion capture it has, it loses ground due to the clear separation there. "Solo: A Star Wars Story" looks good, but it doesn't stand out with anything compared with what you see in a SciFi blockbuster. The last "Avengers" seems to be the only title here that detaches a bit from the rest. We're moving through plenty environments, from a green Wakanda up to fight in space and deserted planets. Each super-hero comes with his own package of VFX. Even though partially was the job of the guys from ILM who also worked in "Solo", to me it looks better.

In a classical "configuration" - I don't remember when it was last time to have a different case - on sound editing and sound mixing, we have four similar nominations and one exception. And the exception in each category, again, as many other times, seems to have big chances to win. "Black Panther" is a noisy movie, which usually find a spot in both places (especially on editing). Still, we'll probably stop just on the double nomination here. "Bohemian Rhapsody" is also "by design" in the sound world, with plenty of chance in sound mixing where it's considered favorite. My thought on this, is that the part which counts mostly in this category is the feeling the final track gives you = the combination of all that includes sound effects, score, intertwining. Despite the fact that "A Star is Born" is much, much too overrated, my ear tells me that the final mix is slightly better there. Somehow, the problem comes from the script, in "Bohemian" we have lots of music on the background, in "A Star is Born" more often alternations, which also result in something more fluid and more complex - changes in intensity, more mix-ins and mix-outs of different tracks, etc. But let's move forward because I'm gonna start rambling nonsense soon. "First Man", with a double nomination, is considered the favorite on sound editing - where the accent is on effects and how these are edited/merged. Ironically, it seems to me that the fight here is with "A Quiet Place", nominated only on editing, and the irony comes from the fact that both movies are remarkable through their... silence :) Which indeed takes out all the squeezes, screeches, screams, and whatever else you can hear there. For me "A Quite Place" is remarkable regarding this, so again I would choose something else than the popular opinion. We have "Roma" left, with a double nomination, but I don't really know what's with this here...

For makeup & hairstyling I'll stop just a bit on "Vice". Which, continues positively what we had last year in "The Darkest Hour", where Churchill's face was re-created. Even though it's about a nomination that's mostly for a single character and the acting brings in a lot, in this case Christian Bale transforming into Dick Cheney, the result as look is remarkable compared with disasters from a couple years ago (see "J. Edgar"). Other nominations here are "Border" and "Mary Queen of Scots", but I doubt that any of these has a chance.

And since we reached to "Vice" let's also stop at editing. Besides, we also have "BlacKkKlansman", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Green Book" and "The Favourite" here. The latter is the only other which stands out a bit, which is related with the episodic structure. Editing comes packed though with cinematography at least as visual impact for a movie, and "The Favourite" has more advantage on the camera work side. In "Vice", however, the way the scenes are put together and cut basically "makes the movie". It's enough just to mention the fake ending somewhere close to the middle of its running time to give an award here.

For original script I think we have one of the best years, and it's hard to predict a winner. In "First Reformed" we have the story of a preacher, who slowly gets convinced by the idea of a public martyrdom, and even though the script has some lengths and moves on in a predictable manner, the ending is slightly different than what would you expect. About Cuaron's "Roma" we can talk a bit further, but overall we have a decent script - or better said you couldn't do much more on the subject it has. With "Vice" we're moving into the favorites category - as I wrote in the review a couple weeks ago, the exceptional editing wouldn't be possible without a decent script. But I think the final fight will be between "The Favourite" and "Green Book". The episodic structure a la "Tarantino" and the witty lines, in some of the most unexpected moments would make "The Favourite" favourite. On the other hand, the script in "Green Book" gets much closer to Alexander Payne's style from "Sideways" + "The Descendants" and puts in evidence all the context around the action + it has its own set of witty lines:
Tony Lip: So can I put the, “P.S. Kiss the kids?”
Dr. Don Shirley: A P.S.?
Tony Lip: Yeah, like at the end.
Dr. Don Shirley: That’s like clanging a cowbell at the end of Shostakovitch’s seventh.
Tony Lip: Right, so that’s good.
Dr. Don Shirley: It’s perfect, Tony.

I'm not gonna comment on leading roles, because I didn't see everybody there. On supporting, we have the following: Adam Driver in "BlacKkKlansman", Mahershala Ali in "Green Book", Richard E. Grant in "Can You Ever Forgive Me?", Sam Elliott in "A Star In Born" and Sam Rockwell in "Vice". It's 100% clear and right that the Oscar will get to Mahershala Ali for "Green Book". Unfortunately, for supporting actress, the clear favorite, Regina King in "If Beale Street Could Talk" is not an objective prediction. I'm sorry, but no matter how good you might see her acting, it's far from exceptional, and her presence in the movie is maybe comparable just with Marina de Tavira in "Roma". All the other three nominees: Amy Adams in "Vice", Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone in "The Favourite" have a much, much more solid commitment. Unfortunately the criteria on which all the US critics predict Regina King here is purely racial both for the actress and for the topic of the movie, and has nothing to do with the acting. In BAFTA's she wasn't even nominated. Anyway, neither there I don't know how objective was the award being preferred the British option = Rachel Weisz, considering that Emma Stone makes clearly an exceptional leading role, not a supporting one in "The Favourite". I would even go as far as telling that was better than two years ago with "La La Land".

Finally, the best movie. Options, alphabetically: "A Star is Born", "BlacKkKlansman", "Black Panther", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Green Book", "Roma", "The Favourite", "Vice". Long story short: everybody says "Roma" will win. It's not a bad movie. Visually, it's probably on top of the list, although subjectively speaking I've never been a fan of black-and-white. The story though... It's a year in the life of a maid hired by a family in 70's Mexico. It's a rough year, presented realistically, and which covers plenty not-so-easy subjects: the woman gets pregnant, the father doesn't recognize the child, the child is stillborn, her employer is left by her husband in the same period and she has to deal alone with three kids, we have a civil conflict emerging. However, you don't feel a story... is more like a newsreel. It doesn't have a beginning, it doesn't have an end. Life moved here. This happened. Life moves on. As a movie, "The Favourite" and "Vice" about which I wrote and which left me with a much better impression - the irony is that "Vice" is effectively a documentary, but much more "movie-like". Above all though, call me cheesy, but I really prefer "Green Book" :) Why? Well, as I wrote a couple weeks ago - you have the calm after the storm... in "Roma" you don't know if the storm stopped :) But well, from the perspective of awards awarded in the US, unfortunately the wall with Mexico might have unwanted big implications on the decision here...

Oscar 2018

I said last year that I'll write at most one entry on the topic of Oscar 2018 and I'll keep my word. More, I'll try to just limit myself to some predictions. If these work out = if we won't get again some major surprise awards based on political/social criteria that have nothing in common with the cinema/art factor, maybe I'll resume next year the extended coverage of the event I was typically doing... maybe... But, let's get to the point.

For VFX the Oscar should go to "War of the Planet of the Apes". It's the third time in three movies when we have a nomination for this series and if it still loses I guess this category will also completely lose any credibility it still might have. "The breakthrough" to say it so was made by the first movie in the series, which brought something consistently new in the area of CGI depicting an animal in a movie. Even if the sequels didn't have something as revolutionary on the technical side as the first, the VFX complexity is still on top of the competition, first of all considering the nature of the movie. Unfortunately though, this award was way too much assimilated with the one for cinematography in the recent years, and it's not the same thing (it also happens the other way around...), but hopefully not this year too...

The sound categories of this year - editing and mixing - came with something that didn't happen for quite some time - the nominees list is identical. "Traditionally" four of them were the same and there was one difference. Normally, for editing the award should go to "Dunkirk", but I say that we might get a surprise winner here with "Blade Runner 2049". Again, normally the mixing award should go to "Baby Driver", where the final track mix is absolutely brilliant - and that's the stuff that should matter the most here, but the Oscar will most probably be awarded to "Dunkirk".

On production design = art direction & set decoration, we have a pretty tight competition, but I'd choose "Blade Runner 2049" as winner. For me this part is the strongest technically in the whole movie, considering the feeling it brings = transposing you in the created world, it's at least on par with the rest, and the advantage comes from the variation it brings. And from all this variation, if we just look at the Vegas part is already enough.

It's been long since there was such a tight competition on the score/soundtrack as this year. Even though the favorite movies seem to be others I say there are good chances for a surprise win for Jonny Greenwood and the music from "Phantom Thread". This is also judging based on the way the "ear" of the Academy works, which typically is sort of conservatory on this category. As personal taste I prefer the score of Carter Burwell from "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri", but it's far less likely to have a win here.

If we stopped at "Phantom Thread" let's just stay a bit longer with a certain prediction in this year awards: costume design. Not that I'm an expert on this, but given the topic of the movie I hardly see how it could lose here.

"The Shape of Water" will most probably bring a first Oscar for directing to Guillermo del Toro, which is a bit unfair considering that "Pan's Labyrinth" still remains his best movie. More unfair is that "Dunkirk" will not bring to Nolan a first Oscar for directing, given that, and I'll repeat once more, this man managed to put together and excellently composed piece of cinema from a subject that's hardly fit for a movie.

Generally I avoid talking much about the actor's performances, and this year the awards are anyway pretty predictable here. I'd still have comment on the leading actor where Gary Oldman is considered the certain winner for his Churchill take on "The Darkest Hour". As I wrote in the movie review, despite the character that was built where I can't objectively comment being extremely well studied/acted by the level of gesture, speaking habits, etc. and where the makeup had its share of contribution, I'd still would've found more natural the choice of some other actor who should've been naturally closer to the wanted result. Based on this criteria I would give the Oscar to Daniel Day Lewis, who in "Phantom Thread" has probably his best performance in a movie after the one in "There Will Be Blood". The irony is that he got it for "Lincoln", where he wasn't far from the position where Gary Oldman is this year, so...

I guess I covered enough categories to stop this year's "overview" with obviously, Best Picture. We have two favorites here: "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" and "Shape of Water", which I say deserve their position in the current selection of nine nominees. As long as we don't have any surprise as in the last years where the title of best movie of the year reaches a production that's somewhere behind half of the rest even on some critics list (the few ones that are still not judging on political criteria), we'll have a step forward. I have blog entries for both movies above so, I'd like to end the Oscar 2018 chapter without more details. I'll just stick to my previous evaluation of the movies = although close, my final vote & prediction goes to "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri".

Oscar 2017 - Epilogue ( ...or why I'm done with this ...sort of ;) )

I don't have other subject this week & I normally don't do this. I think I wrote just one time a post-Oscar entry in the previous 8 editions I covered, no matter if my prediction rate was 100%, 50%, whatever... This year I had 7/10. That doesn't bother me. I always said that I give the predictions for fun, more important are the movies these awards bring on my "should watch" list year by year. Still, you cannot ignore who wins indefinitely...

The Academy Awards have a voting mechanism that should make these in theory the most objective award in cinema. If the Globes have behind something called "The Foreign Press Association" composed of 30-40 people, who you could expect to be more often "politically correct", for the Oscars there are somewhere around 5000+ members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences voting. For 5000 people I would expect to see in the vote result some artistic criteria and less "politics". How do we know it's not like this?... Well...

It's the second consecutive year when the Oscar for best picture gets to a movie who has 3 awards or less in total (last year it did have only 2...). You would expect some correlation between "Best Picture" and other sections won. Well.. maybe if "other sections" include only technical awards we could forget the correlation, but for a movie which had: a Oscar for directing, one for actors, one for cinematography, one for production design, and two for music - and another movie who has an award for actors and one for script ... now tell me, how the 2nd gets to be appreciated overall as the best?

Statistics. Let's check an evolution of "Best Picture" of the previous year in the last 3 decades:

The '90s:

• 1990: Dances with Wolves
• 1991: The Silence of the Lambs
• 1992: Unforgiven
• 1993: Schindler's List
• 1994: Forrest Gump
• 1995: Braveheart
• 1996: The English Patient
• 1997: Titanic
• 1998: Shakespeare in Love
• 1999: American Beauty

The 2000's:

• 2000: Gladiator
• 2001: A Beautiful Mind
• 2002: Chicago
• 2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• 2004: Million Dollar Baby
• 2005: Crash
• 2006: The Departed
• 2007: No Country for Old Men
• 2008: Slumdog Millionaire
• 2009: The Hurt Locker

The 2010's (up to now):

• 2010: The King's Speech
• 2011: The Artist
• 2012: Argo
• 2013: 12 Years a Slave
• 2014: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
• 2015: Spotlight
• 2016: Moonlight

Now tell me... Which ones since "The Hurt Locker" could qualify as a heavy, solid movie, a movie to impress you more than through its subject, a movie that stays in your mind for 10-15-20 year from when you've seen it. Or well... compare the latest with what you got left from "Dances with Wolves", "The Silence of the Lambs", etc...

Some analysis (if we're already at statistics). In 2009, the American Academy had the clever decision that the best movie to be chosen out of 9-10 nominations (for a higher impact on the public of more titles). Now, consider the following... On one hand we have votes given based on artistic criteria. On the other hand we have votes given based on "politically correctness" criteria. The votes for artistic appreciation will always have a higher dispersion rate. Just for the taste factor. In other words, as many the nominees number, as many votes the best movie will lose here. On the other hand, the votes given for "that's fair in this unfair world" will pretty much focus on the same title. Ergo - "Spootlight", "Moonlight" and whatever "...light" follows.

Politically correctness might have sense in casting, in payment rates, and in many parts related to work on a movie. But I think it doesn't have any place in appreciating a movie. The best movie is the best movie for its general artistic value, not because half or more of the cast is black or for the social themes approached as correct and fair may these be. Don't mix that with art. It would be as saying that Rubens is the greatest Flemish painter because he painted more fat women than any other cared to do. It's simply stupid.

It's hard to believe that I got to take the side of a musical I rated with 3 out of 5, especially considering that I don't have anything against "Moonlight", which is a good movie, but not that good... So, let's cut this short: Starting next year I'll only dedicate max one entry for Oscars instead of a full month as I did before. At least until I see it's given based on merit, or we're getting back to the best of 5 system that seemed more fair. Until then, this thing doesn't really matter anymore...

Oscar 2017 - Best Picture

I was considering skipping the final Oscar entry for this year. Besides the fact that I rushed the previous, I'm also disappointed of what we have on the list... I kept hoping this week when I watched the last couple movies that I'll finally get to "the one". Well, I didn't ... although maybe there's still a small exception...

I did write about "Arrival" already. It's an interesting idea in the "time travel" context, but hardly believable given the way it's explained in the end. Ultimately it's the fault of the book, not of the movie, but even the movie, it's not Villeneuve's best ... Enough said.

"Fences" adapts a play, whose author is also posthumously nominated for the script. We have some excerpts from the not so happy life of a black family. The movie gets across the racial aspects issues, and delves into a more general area of family problems. I would actually say that the second half of the movie could be used as definition for the idea that "families are very complicated", and it also might touch some sensitive aspects depending on the viewer. However, to get there, you have to get through the first half of the movie, which has too many unnecessary lengths...

I did write also about "Hacksaw Ridge". That's the small exception in this list I was referring to. Still, even though the movie is undeniably good, and Gibson's comeback as director is a really nice surprise, something still seems missing... Something that we had in "Apocalypto", in "Passion", and mostly in "Braveheart". There's some feeling there which here is faded, not completely but it is :) ...

"Hell or High Water" is a revenge story. And as any revenge story has a sort of catchy romantic side. Two brothers, from yet another family with problems (that's a recurring theme this year), decide to solve the issue of a mortgage with the "help" of the bank that set it. Up to some point I would say that the movie is ok, but in the end it got a bit too rough due to some unnecessary kills... or maybe I'm getting too disgusted about the reality of life and I prefer watching fairy tales :)...

"Hidden Figures" is a sort of biopic of three black women who worked at NASA in computing during the first space missions. The movie is not bad, but from somebody who's active in a technical area I can't get over some obvious exaggerations. Besides that, somehow brought back to me memories on a "A Beautiful Mind", and we can't compare that with this...

And we're getting to the "La La Land" about which I also wrote already. Given the massive appreciation this seems to get, I think that people are fed up with life issues, may these be family related, poverty, social/racial/whatever inequity and others, and expect from a movie exactly what I'm saying since ages that I think a movie should offer = a time to clear your head of reality's daily issues with a story. And I have to admit that "La La Land" is probably the closest in this list, although... even even here, the ending brings you back from the fairy tale.

"Lion" presents another incredible life story, of a child from India who gets lost more 1500 km away from his mother, ends up adopted by an Australian couple, and finally after around 25 years finds his way back to his still living relatives... The story is touching, but even though the irony is that his life probably turned more positive like this, it has some really really sad parts in it...

"Manchester by the Sea" brings us another family with issues. The main character has to move back to his town he left after an arson he unwillingly provoked years ago, when his brother dies, and his nephew needs a legal guardian. The interesting part here is a calm that the movie expresses from start to finish. It somehow tells you that things will eventually settle, no matter how complicated the situation is... Is it like that, it's not like that... In any case, it's more comforting :)

"Moonlight" moves through three periods of the life of a young black gay living in a rough community somewhere in Florida. We don't get rid of the "family issues" factor. Even harsher and bitter than the previous, and without an actual "solution" in the end. It's not what I expect from a movie, I'm sorry. However, this sorts of get as second favorite in various polls for getting the award. I hope it stays like that...

Verdict: Well... "La La Land" doesn't seem to have much competition, so I doubt we'll see a surprise again :). I'll stick to my personal option of "Hacksaw Ridge" being the best movie in this list. At least due to the unreal of the reality that gets it closer to a fairy tale ;) ...

Oscar 2017 - Supporting Actors

Yet another quick entry. I never liked commenting too much the acting, but on the other hand, the "supporting" area seems to me this year that deserves more attention than the "leading", so I'll just quickly roll out a couple clips and the wrapping prediction...

Viola Davis in "Fences":

Naomie Harris and Mahershala Ali in "Moonlight":

Nicole Kidman and Dev Patel in "Lion":

Octavia Spencer in "Hidden Figures":

Michelle Williams and Lucas Hedges in "Manchester by the Sea":

Jeff Bridges in "Hell or High Water":

Michael Shannon in "Nocturnal Animals":

Verdict: For actress is pretty clear that the monologue in "Fences" sets Viola Davis with the highest chances on winning this. For actor to be in trend with what the critics say, the winner will most probably be Mahershala Ali. My opinion though, is that his role in "Moonlight" is a short one that doesn't show much - the act of Jeff Bridges in "Hell or High Water" was much more consistent.. I would even say the best part in that movie. But I'm not voting ;)...

Oscar 2017 - Adapted Screenplay

It's late, I'm tired, I obviously didn't read the scripts, so let's just "compress" this to catchy all-in-one essential movie quotes in a record-short Oscar blog entry ;) ...

If you could see your whole life from start to finish, would you change things? ("Arrival")

Some people build fences to keep people out, and other people build fences to keep people in. ("Fences")

Three Negro women chasing a white police officer down a highway in Hampton, Virginia in 1961. ("Hidden Figures")

It would take a lifetime to search all the stations in India. ("Lion")

At some point, you gotta decide for yourself who you're going to be. ("Moonlight")

Verdict: "Moonlight" will nail this, but I'm subjectively rooting for "Fences".

Oscar 2017 - Cinematography

I don't agree since quite some years with the results for the Oscar cinematography. Because the Oscar for cinematography is not really given lately for cinematography, but for collateral stuff that falsely makes camera work to look deserving. It's either VFX, editing, or as most probably this year, production design. Still, it's not so wrong as in the previous... But, let's cut this short.

Bradford Young for "Arrival". I don't know how hard is to stay limited to an area with grey shades and filters that keep the gloomy feeling of the movie from the beginning to the end, but probably that's the main merit here. Nothing more.

Linus Sandgren for "La La Land". Full contrast with the above. But besides that we also have a contrast between the first and second half of the movie, which is supported well by the cinematography, even though it always keeps a very lively chromatic. Another difference comes from the framing and movement part, which is obviously at a different level here, at least through the need of dancing shots. All in all... how much of what we see comes from production design, and how much from camera work... I wonder.

Greig Fraser for "Lion". Well... maybe I'm too conservative, but finally what we have here is indeed pure camera work. It spans on almost everything, from panoramas to close shots, from good use of kinetic to fixed tracking shots, filters a bit less but we have these too. And maybe one of the most impressive is the composition of some fixed frames. The clip below doesn't do justice for all we have here, but unfortunately I don't have time to look for more now... Just watch the movie ;)

James Laxton for "Moonlight". The movie is shot ok-ish, but I don't find it much better overall than "Arrival". Probably the most impressive part is the sequence below... There are few frames "to remember" in the rest.

Rodrigo Prieto for "Silence". Scorsese's movie, adaptation of a book on the torment of several missionaries in the Middle Age Japan has an implicit factor of "cinematography boost" = the historical/epic character coupled with the open air action. In brief, it gains a bit from the open shots, the rest is ok overall, but not impressive.

Verdict: "La La Land" will probably get it, but I will keep my fingers crossed for "Lion".

Oscar 2017 - Directing

I was thinking to leave this entry for later, but at this time I still didn't see enough to write about smth else, so let's get this one done. Especially considering that the "Anatomy of a Scene" series saves me of commenting too much besides the actual nominees :).

Denis Villeneuve gets a first nod for "Arrival". I only can say that the guy deserves recognition as one of the best active directors, but ... for other movies like "Prisoners" or especially "Incendies". "Arrival".. not that much ...

Mel Gibson is back :) ... as I was saying in an entry not long ago. And I'll continue repeating myself since "Hacksaw Ridge" confirmed my opinion of setting him #1 in my own "top directors". Therefore, I would be subjective to comment more, so...

Damien Chazelle is I guess one of the youngest ever to be nominated here, and he gets it for "La La Land". Despite the obvious appreciation enjoyed by this movie, I'll stick to the opinion that the direction is not that good. Indeed, you can appreciate the way the contrast between the first and second part is built, probably the most obvious quality at a wider look. Which somehow results in the worse part - the first half being so positive that it gets horribly annoying...

Kenneth Lonergan comes here with a nice surprise in "Manchester by the Sea", a story of a guy who, against his will, is given parenthood for a nephew after his brother dies. What you can say about a movie that's supported by life issues and still manages to offer you what you expect froma a movie = getting your mind away from your life issues, it's just that is really well written and directed. Enough said.

Barry Jenkins is another new name getting a nod here for "Moonlight". I would say it's somewhere between the rest. The directing is good, the three parts of the movie having each some slightly different personality. Still it's not the best around.

Verdict: Damien Chazelle will probably get it for "La La Land", but my option would be Mel for "Hacksaw Ridge".

Oscar 2017 - Production Design

Early flight next morning => quick entry now. Production Design aka Art Direction including Set Decoration, brings this year the following...

"Arrival" where we have as focus the inside of the alien ship. Apparently effectively built. Not that it doesn't fit with the movie... but the movie is sort of dry and so it's also this part => let's move to next one...

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" was released last year as a sort of sequel to the Harry Potter universe, which unfortunately for me always had the status of an unpolished salad, where the author built each new episode not knowing exactly what's next (but something should've to keep the cash flow alive). And that's obvious also in this one. Well... I've watched this to have a complete view for this entry, so let's stick to production design, where things are very simple to summarize: I didn't see anything noticeable on top of what I've seen already in the previous HP episode. Next...

"Hail, Caesar!" is the latest movie of the Coens, maybe not as good as others, but for what we're discussing now deserves some attention. 1) It's a low budget movie. 2) We have such a variation in the set decoration part that it doesn't let you notice the 1) part. The action is set in the '50s in Hollywood prin anii '50 and walks us through an entire series of movie sets which include stuff ranging from Roman Empire decorations up to siren lakes and some extra bonuses = a Russian submarine. This was nice...

"La La Land" has a context for production design somehow similar with the one above, but which doesn't offer such a various range on what you'll see. It still keept the same colored tone, which is also quite in line with the general look of the movie, stuff that apparently was quite appreciated. For me it's a bit overrated. After all it's the most .."common" entry here, but well...

I liked "Passengers" both for the looks and as a movie. We have two passengers on a gigantic ship set on autopilot for 120 years, who are woken up before time. A surprise came from a couple nuances, which were more mature than I was expecting after checking some bashing reviews. On the topic, what we have here is obviously the ship, or more precisely the interiors, which are by far among the most eye-catchy I've seen in a SciFi context. On top of this it also creates somehow a sort of feeling that's similar with the "Dawn of the Dead" mall, where the ship = the apparently safe space providing everything & zombies = ever-growing malfunctions. I'm afraid though that this will suffer of the eternal problem: how much brings the decoration vs. the effects? ...

Verdict: "La La Land" will probably win, but my vote goes to "Hail, Caesar!".

Oscar 2017 - Sound Mixing

As usual, I should maybe start with the difference between "sound mixing" and "sound editing". Well, I won't. 1 - I explained this in too many of the year before already. 2 - I didn't have time to watch all what's need to cover both sections, so I'll just stick to mixing this time. Which is about the way the final track of a movie's sound is composed/arranged/worked by putting together everything that gets there - voices, effects, score, etc. So, let's start...

In "Arrival" we have an interesting mix. Besides the camera work, I think it's the second major element of the movie that keeps up the gloomy mood. Interesting fact: the two Canadians (if I'm not wrong...) who worked on this mix, Bernard Strobl si Claude La Haye, have also "The Red Violin" in their CV, which I think has one of the best sound mixes I've ever heard... However, that didn't even get a nomination, so...

"Hacksaw Ridge" has Kevin O'Connell behind, one of the most nominated people on this planet (21 times) who didn't get an Oscar yet (no, DiCaprio did not have this record). I actually know about this guy because, along Greg Russell who we have below, is the author of the highest impact sound mix I've heard in a movie, which is "The Rock". Maybe it's also a matter of taste, but I didn't hear anything better in 20 years. Leaving this aside, what we have here sounds good, but I wouldn't say it shines. At some points the score seems too thin, at some points it seems to cover too much what's besides it... In any case this is most probably one of the 2 most possible winners here. A more detailed analysis comes from Soundworks Collection:

"La La Land" might seem to gain from being a musical, which happened before (ex., "Les Miserables"). Still, I have to admit that the sound mix is almost flawless, and that considering I hate the genre. Despite the fact that you have indeed a lot of singing, the transitions are made in such a way that the result is not annoying, not even for people like me.

"Rogue One" has a good mix, but I won't say it gets on par with the rest. So, let's not stay too long here...

... and neither on "13 Hours" where we have Greg Russell I was mentioning above. It's an action movie sound mixing on a war movie based on real facts. What you hear sounds good, but a bit too artificial for the depicted context...

Verdict: I say that this year "La La Land" will win.

Oscar 2017 - VFX

I decided to start again (it becomes sort of "traditional") with the VFX nominations (not that I would really have a choice, it's the only section where I've seen all movies...). So... the effects in "Deepwater Horizon", the story of the disaster happened in 2010 on a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, are focused mostly on the fire during that event. Without too many comments, I find this entry a bit as an outsider here...

"Doctor Strange" has effects that reminded me of "Inception". However, a bit too colored for my taste...

"The Jungle Book" brings probably the best on-screen rendering since "Planet of the Apes" for CGI animals. Actually, pretty much everything seen there is CGI, and considering both the volume of effects in this movie and also that the result is a really nice piece of work makes this a favorite in this category. Leaving aside the topic of the current entry for one second, I did not expect to like the movie. It was a nice surprise. I have no idea how much of it was mere nostalgia but it's also a very catchy version for Kipling's stories. A different ending from the classic animation, surprisingly less mature I would say, but overall more happy :)

I wrote about "Kubo and the Two Strings" last year. Regarding the VFX it's probably the most complex animation I've ever seen. Maybe Aardman's stuff gets close, but I don't think they've reached this level yet. I have an objective preference here.

Finally, we have "Rogue One". We could get a surprise here, but I can't say that I've seen something very impressive. Although as a movie was better, the VFX was pretty much on par with "The Force Awakens". Maybe I'm subjective, but well...

Verdict: "The Jungle Book" will probably win, but my vote goes to "Kubo".

Oscar 2017 - Nominees

After the downfall in the last 2 years, when I missed as many winners as in all the rest together since I'm doing predictions, I seriously thought to give up with the traditional February = the Oscar entries month. It's clear I don't have enough time any more to analyze what's the Academy thinking. But in the end this never was the main point since 2008 when I started doing this. First of all it's still the opportunity to discover something new + as I said it every time, to keep a constant focus of one month on a series of movies which are at least a bit better than average if not much better. So, let's try again ... one more time. But if I'm messing it up again this year, I guess I'll really call for a break in the next :) ..... So, for now, the nominees are here. We'll see next week what's the starting section...

Oscar 2016 - Best Picture

I said it's not a good timing this year. And as much as I'd like to have time to write more (if it would make any sense so close to the awards area), apparently I don't. What's nominated deserves a watch. It's a good selection (compared to other years). What I can say is that I have the certainty ( well, 99% :) ) that this year the last "The Oscar goes to ..." ends with "The Revenant".

Oscar 2016 - Supporting Actor

As said last time - lightning fast: I don't like writing entries about actors, but this year's "supporting actor" is probably one of the most interesting categories considering it's hard to predict anything. We have two nominations which we can leave aside (Christian Bale si Mark Ruffalo) to simplify it a bit. As personal appreciation from who's left, Tom Hardy makes a better role in "The Revenant" than DiCaprio, and if everybody says that DiCaprio finally gets an Oscar this year, it would fair to see one also in Hardy's hands. However, I guess the award will be won by Stallone for "Creed", who had by far the best performance of his career, and I also doubt he will ever top that. Based on the "career representative role" idea BAFTA awarded Mark Rylance for "Bridge of Spies" who's the direct competition, but the Oscars are US based, so ...

Oscar 2016 - Directing

I don't think I ever had such a bad sync between the work to do volume with the period of the Oscar Awards. So, with apologies, I'll just stick to some final lightning fast entries, based mostly on external material ( that's actually more likely to be interesting compared to my senseless babbling :) ). New York Times has a nice series on YouTube, called Anatomy of a Scene, that describes the way a scene in a movie was thought or executed directly from the director's perspective. For the first nominees of this year we have such a clip, which I think gives a pretty concise summary of how each of them works. For the last in the list I found another material that I hope it's at least a bit relevant for the movie directing. In any case, we talk about a category where I doubt there's any doubt on the winner: "The Revenant". However, I can't skip completely saying something about "Room", where the directing is the part that produces the maxed out impact, the movie being built in its first part to be so hard psychologically speaking that I think it competes in a weird way with a hard horror on the difficulty to watch criteria (although there's no other relation with that genre). But, let's see what the nominated ones have to say :) :

Adam McKay - "The Big Short"
George Miller - "Mad Max: Fury Road"
Alejandro G. Iñárritu - "The Revenant"
Lenny Abrahamson - "Room"
Tom McCarthy - "Spotlight"

Oscar 2016 - Film Editing

"The Big Short" is the reason why I decided I must write an entry this year for "film editing". I don't remember when I've seen a movie where the editing has the impact it has here. I also don't think there is any better way to edit this film than what I've seen. The frequency of the cuts, the movement of the focus, the transition between scenes, absolutely everything fully supports the economic thriller nuance that makes this movie watchable, and which also brings it on a very different level compared to another story about the 2008 crisis - "Margin Call". Of course, there's a different point of looking at the facts in the two films, but somehow ironically the full two years development of the event in "The Big Short" is much more engaging than the 24 hours of the crash climax in "Margin Call". And the secret for that stays in the editing. If doesn't win the award this year it really means that the Oscars are unfair ( sort of obvious already, right? :) ).
"Mad Max: Fury Road" is probably the most serious candidate to the first in the list. By definition, a movie full of action can't be good if the editing isn't at least decent. "Mad Max"'s editing is more than decent. It also sets a tone that manages to keep the movie in a constantly alert state, but without making it tiring.
"The Revenant" is probably the most close candidate to the first in the list :) (got the nuance?). Unfortunately the editing here gets in the shadow of the camera work. And somehow doesn't catch your eye. In any case, if you pay enough attention, you'll get some really nice connections between scenes, as the sequence explained below, which deserve the full appreciation.
"Spotlight" is a sort of a light "Big Short" for editing (actually ultra light). Having in common the real story context, and a subject that develops over a long period of time ending in a climax, the comparison is inevitable even though the subject is totally different. Unfortunately we also have big difference in the editing ...
"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is the "fill the list" entry here. I'm not gonna spend more time on this one ...

Oscar 2015 - Best Picture

I don't like this year Oscars. I've said that before, right ? I barely have one movie in the nominees list that I really enjoyed. The only positive aspect to say so, is that a couple hours before the show the situation seems to be a bit different (at least that's what critics say), and we don't have anymore a clear winner ... Well, I'll stick to my initial opinion about who'll get it. But I already said too much considering the this year's competition level, so let's get to something more visual ...

"American Sniper" or the perfect example of cliche in a war movie. Starting with the love for country that brings us in the first line of battle (doesn't matter that's on a different continent) up to the best looking girl in the bar falling for an uniform (I'm exaggerating ... but the movie is not far). The worst movie made by Eastwood since "Space Cowboys" ... And I think I enjoyed that one more.
"Birdman" or how to test the patience of the audience for half of the movie so that the 2nd half to seem by contrast the greatest achievement in the director's career (why do you think we have "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" as subtitle?). I can't deny that the 2nd part of the movie, and especially the ending are not good (although severely depressing). That's why I can say that I see as a positive aspect the awaking of various guilds (directors, producers) who, through the recent awards given, brought some suspense in deciding this year Oscar winner. Still ...
"Boyhood" or how to test the patience of the audience for the entire movie. And when the movie is 3 hours long, my recommendation is to skip the cinema option. At least you deserve the right to have a pause button. Not that you couldn't skip some 5-10 minutes intervals ... don't worry ... nothing unexpected happens. Maybe that's where the appreciation wave emerged from. Finally a movie where we don't have any suspense on how it's ending. The only surprise would be to lose the Oscar.
"The Imitation Game" or "who's left without a biopic?". If the question isn't clear, count the "real-life based" nominees. Half of them are biopics. In any case, I think Alan Turing has a more interesting story, and also the movie has less cliches than the first entry in the list. Not much chances though for The Weinstein Company. They exhausted their "luck" for an indeterminate time after the "King's Speech" 4 years ago...
"The Grand Budapest Hotel" or the only movie that deserves a Best Picture Oscar this year. Unfortunately it won't get it. Again, I don't think this is the best movie done by Wes Anderson ("Moonrise Kingdom" rulz - here the budget made the difference), but compared to the rest is in a different league. Unlike all other nominees "The Grand Budapest Hotel" is a movie that will be remembered. Even if only for the pink hotel ...
"Selma" or the yearly politically correctness exercise made by the Academy. I have nothing against the movement for black voting rights lead in the '60s by Martin Luther King. But, come on ... The only other nomination "Selma" has this year is for Best Song. By comparison "Foxcatcher" has 5 .. and none for Best Picture. No comment ...
"The Theory of Everything" or "who's left without a biopic? what, nobody? not even somebody still living?". I don't know Stephen Hawking received this movie, but for me it seems a bit strange to do a biopic about somebody's life, when the somebody has still something to say. On the other hand, I assume the result is more truthful (otherwise you could expect protests from the "lead character"). Anyway ... despite the appreciation wave it got, for me "The Theory of Everything" seemed to be a sort of "A Beautiful Mind" more dry, more depressing, and more superficial. I won't spend time now drawing a parallel analysis between the two movies (because I'm talking about the movies, and not the persons), but I think the pluses and minuses are quite obvious ...
"Whiplash" or why the Academy was felt a sudden relief when they found out that "Into the Woods" is not the only musical released this year. Otherwise it would've been hard to motivate adding it among the rest for best picture. Because, if there's one available, we definitely need a musical as Best Picture nominee. Ah, it's not the typical light comedy like "Chicago" or "Moulin Rouge"? It's a drama .. well, even better. I don't know. I'm still amazed by the preference of the public in the States for this genre. And I also don't like jazz ...
That wraps it up for this year. So, let's see who gets it ...

Oscar 2015 - Music

One of the few sections this year where we have a decent competition, without a certain winner is the soundtracks section. Alexandre Desplat, nominated constantly during the last years has two entries here. The first, which is also my option for the winner, is the score from "The Grand Budapest Hotel". The tune fits perfectly the movie, and remembers a bit of the rhythms from "Fantastic Mr. Fox". Well, same director, same composer, similar score ...
"The Imitation Game" is the second movie featuring music composed by Desplat. Completely different compared with the first nomination. From tempos to instrumental composition. I have to admit that lately I'm pleasantly surprised of how versatile can this guy be when writing music. Typically a movie score composer, no matter how good he is, starts to get repetitive. It's not the case here & I hope it'll last ...
Talking about good composers but who tend to re-use too much of what they're composing, we have another surprise this year. Hans Zimmer manages to produce something new in "Interstellar". Although still following the same style, superbly simple but incredibly efficient = incremental construction of tracks merged gradually, it seems that the nuances are more suave and the melodic variation at the level of the track is not anymore based only on loops executed with a different instrument, pitch, etc.
Until "Mr. Turner" I didn't hear about "Gary Yershon". Again, we have here something interesting. A soundtrack that I don't think I could listen outside the movie. The highs are so dense that they're scratching my ear. Somehow though, it gets tolerable in relation with what you see on screen = fits perfectly with the context.
Johann Johannsson has an ok soundtrack in "The Theory of Everything". However, a bit too ... normal. Which unfortunately tends to please the Academy, but I think/hope won't be the case this year.