Noteworthy:
Sinners was nominated for 16 Oscars, the all-time record. (Good for Delroy Lindo, deserving, but surprising.)
Wicked For Good got no nominations, although the prequel had received ten!
Oscar nominations, snubs and surprises
Related Posts
The most overrated superheroes
It can be a bitch to write for some of these one dimensional characters, and that has often forced comic writers to paint themselves into corners. How do you come up with a conflict for a guy who can travel through time, can move planets from their orbits, and is…
The top nude scenes of 2024
Here is my overview of the top twenty, plus all the appropriate links for all of the top twenty lists dating back to 1995, when the universe was still young, and I was … well … younger than now, and also slightly younger than the universe. The numerical results of…
The Eagles made Taylor Swift sad in Superb Owl Licks
She was booed when her face appeared on the Jumbotron. That, in conjunction with a stinging loss, should be good for an entire album of whiny songs. It was no contest. The Eagles were up 40-6 at one point. Even if they had held it, that would have been nowhere…
Snub-Amanda Seyfried
I think the academy had hangover clarity on Wicked. That movie in no way deserved noms.
I don’t know anything about the technical side of the business, but I think it probably deserved some of those nominations.
I wonder if the Academy’s voters figured, “OK, that’s the same stuff we already gave them credit for in the first half.” Or maybe there was some sentiment of “This isn’t a new film. It’s just the ending you forgot to add last year.”
“Sinners” getting more Oscar nominations than “Gone With the Wind,” “West Side Story” or “Lawrence of Arabia” sets a new benchmark for Oscar inflation. But the real surprise was that Rachel Zegler was snubbed for a Razzie nomination for “Snow White.” Well, that’s Hollywood, baby!
Especially since they nominated all seven dwarves!
Maybe, but Sinners is a really great movie. And West Side Story, for example, is not.
I don’t agree with that. The original West Side Story still holds up quite well. Relative to most 1961 films, it stood as a titan. Relative to other screen musicals, I’d still place it in the top three with The Wizard of Oz and Singin’ in the Rain, which means no better one has come along in the past 65 years.
Sinners is terrific, but will it still be regarded as well in 65 years?
I think that we have to agree to disagree on this one. I have seen West Side Story a number of times and think that it is quite a weak film. The acting is so-so at best, the music is mediocre (sorry Mr. Bernstein, but your boring, simplistic, repetitive score just does not cut it) and its overall cinematic qualities are not great. Meanwhile, I do think that Sinners will hold up to repeated viewings and continue to be even better regarded over time. In my view Sinners is a film of generational quality hiding under a horror genre overlay.
I have to say that in my long life, that is possibly the most bizarre opinion I have ever read, possibly excepting Trump’s claim that the sound of windmills causes cancer. I think everything about it is exactly the opposite of the truth.
I assume that you are talking about my opinion re West Side Story, not Sinners. Still, nothing is going to get me to agree that Bernstein’s ‘masterpiece’ actually is one, despite the many reviews that say that it is. I am not saying that it is a terrible film, but I stick to my view that it is a weak one, including the music.
But I am heartened and amused that the perspective I expressed has at least been the most ‘something’ in your life…while at the same time being appalled to having been compared to anything within the realm of the Orange Turd. 😄🥺
I didn’t like Sinners and I will place 100% tariffs on anybody who has a different opinion than me on this.
I thought Weapons was much better than Sinners.
The reason I group the two together is because they were the only two top twenty films at the domestic box office that weren’t a sequel, prequel, remake, spin-off or animated film.
Interestingly enough, despite the big difference in Oscar nominations, they’re close on IMDB with Sinners at 7.5 and Weapons at 7.4. My guess is the gap is larger with American audiences.
Well, F1: The Movie was also in the top 20. It was an original story per se, but I’m not sure how to classify it.
I liked it but I thought Ron Howard’s sadly overlooked Rush was quite a bit better.
What are your reasons?
I’ve seen a number of horror movies since then so maybe I’d appreciate the tropes used in Sinners more now, but when I saw it I was taken aback by it suddenly becoming a horror movie and I thought the horror part of the movie was kind of a mess.
So, I liked the music especially, but when I saw it I thought it was a disorganized mess.
As I’ve said here before though, Sinners touched on a number of racial themes from American history that not being an American I’m not totally familiar with. I thought the Irish being the vampires though was a clear reference to the Irish historically being referred to as the ‘white N… of Europe.’
The low Irish status in the U.S. was definitely a sub-theme of Sinners, and one used very effectively. There used to be parts of Canada where the Irish were similarly badly treated. In the “Orange’ (heavily Protestant) areas of Ontario, there used to be signs on bars and shops saying “No Dogs or Irishmen’.
When I lived in Miami, one could still see signs that said “No Dogs or Jews.” That was in the 1970s.
I’m still trying to figure out how they knew whether somebody was Jewish. (Unless they go full Haredi.) Did they have a Jesus quiz?
This was why the Irish in the movie were saying ‘we’re brothers’ or whatever the line was.
Portman better win the Razzie for “Fountain of Youth.” She basically read a teleprompter in that flick.
In other words, every performance she’s given since Léon: The Professional. (Her many Oscar nominations notwithstanding.)
They should have nominated Jennifer Lawrence for die, my love atleast she went full nude again for this role maybe expecting the same response as Emma Stone got for poor things (2023) and even won an oscar and this would have encouraged more top actresses to go fully nude as in 2024 oscars it was Emma Stone and then in 2025 oscars it was Mickey Madison for Anora so if they would have given oscar to Jennifer Lawrence in 2026 oscars and kept Amanda Seyfried atleast in Nominations for going nude then future of nudity would have been brighter in hollywood.
Also last year Deemi Moore was also nominated for the substance (2024) which again had her fully nude.
On another Oscar note, my wife and I watched Sentimental Value last night, which has received 9 nominations, including Best Picture, Best International Feature, and numerous acting nominations. I thought that it was very engaging, thoughtful and enjoyable. Cinematic studies of family dysfunction are nothing new, but I thought that this one was particularly well done. I don’t think that it is a serious contender for Best Picture, but it certainly could get a deserving win in one or more of the acting categories.