97th Academy Awards: 2024 Oscar Predictions Post

2024 OSCARS PREDICTIONS

The 97th Academy Awards are upon us and anyone with half a brain in their head and any semblance of a life doesn’t even remotely give a flying fuck.

Unfortunately, I do not meet the previously stated requirements…so here we are at my Oscar predictions post.

As long-time readers know I am the proud owner of the longest Oscar predictions winning streak in history…and even more remarkably, this is not just the longest winning streak in Oscar history, but the longest winning streak of any kind in any competition….EVER!

What’s it like to be the greatest Oscar predictor of all time? Thanks for asking…the reality is that it’s a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing because being great at anything is a gift from God. It’s a curse because…well it’s the dumbest fucking thing in the world to be great at.

And truth be told…and this stays just between us…I really have no idea what I’m doing. Of course, that works to my benefit because the members of the Academy who vote on the Oscars have no idea what they’re doing either, so I guess that’s why I succeed in reading their diseased minds.

Every year the trade papers in Hollywood publish interviews with anonymous Academy members in the hopes of deciphering who will win the awards. These interviews are extraordinary because they always reveal Academy members as being the biggest dopes, dupes and dipshits on the planet.

It's nice to fantasize that Academy members are dedicated professionals who take their craft, their art, cinema and the film community seriously…and then you read these interviews and realize these people are lazy and entitled pieces of shit with the worst taste imaginable.

My favorite part is that these people get to see all the nominated movies for free…in their home…and they still don’t watch them, or they watch just fifteen minutes of them.

Then there’s the mindlessly political pricks who won’t vote for anything that doesn’t have the “correct”, and most obvious, politics. Yawn. This explains a great deal about how the Oscars work and why we get so many atrocious movies not just getting nominated, but winning big awards.

The truth is that the Oscars are nothing more than a popularity contest for the adult high school known as Hollywood. The expansion of the Academy membership in recent years in order to be more diverse and inclusive, has only heightened that sentiment.

Regardless of how ridiculous some members of the Academy are, and how diminished the Oscars have become…I still watch the movies and watch the Oscar telecast. Although if I’m being honest…there’s a very good chance that I will bail pretty early on the telecast because I’m on the East Coast and I’m an early riser. Missing the Oscars would’ve been inconceivable a few years ago…but not now. I am now indifferent to the Oscars and very protective of my precious sleep.

As for my Oscar predictions this year, I have to be honest…I have almost no idea how this year’s awards will play out. It’s been a strange year at the movies, and unfortunately not a particularly good one, so picking winners is a fool’s errand. But as you all know…I am nothing if not a fool.

So…on to my picks!!

BEST PICTURE

Anora

The Brutalist

A Complete Unknown

Conclave

Dune: Part Two

Emilia Perez

I’m Still Here

Nickel Boys

The Substance

Wicked

This is a rather underwhelming collection of films, only one of which, Anora, did I think was very good. Does that mean Anora will win? You’re guess is as good as mine. If Anora doesn’t win, then Conclave will…or at least that seems to be how the Academy is shaking out. There is a miniscule chance that A Complete Unknown sneaks in out of nowhere…but I wouldn’t bet on it. If Emilia Perez or Wicked win then we have officially entered the End Times.

WILL WIN: Anora

SHOULD WIN: Anora

 BEST DIRECTOR

Sean Baker - Anora

Brady Corbet – The Brutalist

James Mangold – A Complete Unknown

Jacques Audiard – Emilia Perez

Coralie Fargeat – The Substance

Ok…this is an interesting category. Baker won the Director’s Guild award, which should give him the leg up here…but don’t be shocked if Brady Corbet or dark horse James Mangold sneak in and steal it.

WILL WIN: Sean Baker - Anora

SHOULD WIN: Sean Baker

BEST ACTOR

Adrien Brody – The Brutalist

Timothee Chalamet – A Complete Unknown

Colman Domingo – Sing Sing

Ralph Fiennes - Conclave

Sebastian Stan – The Apprentice

Lots of hub-bub about Timothee Chalamet and his win at the SAG Awards last weekend…but Oscar voting was over so his speech and such will have no sway. This is really a two-man race between Chalamet and Brody, but if they split votes there could be a dark horse winner in Ralph Fiennes. My guess is that two-time Holocaust survivor Adrian Brody pulls it off (this is a great Nikki Glaser joke).

WILL WIN: Adrian Brody – The Brutalist

SHOULD WIN: Colman Domingo – Sing Sing

BEST ACTRESS

Cynthia Erivo – Wicked

Karla Sofia Gascon – Emilia Perez

Mikey Madison – Anora

Demi Moore – The Substance

Fernanda Torres – I’m Still Here

A three-woman race between the big favorite Demi Moore, the ingenue Mikey Madison and the international, dark horse candidate Fernanda Torres.

I think Demi Moore wins it because it’s a great “comeback” story and makes Academy members feel good about themselves for some reason. Personally, I think Moore is good in the film and gives a “brave” performance, I just think Mikey Madison’s performance is much better.

WILL WIN: Demi Moore – The Substance

SHOULD WIN: Mikey Madison - Anora

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Monica Barbaro – A Complete Unknown

Ariana Grande – Wicked

Felicity Jones – The Brutalist

Isabella Rossellini – Conclave

Zoe Saldana – Emilia Perez

Zoe Saldana is the big favorite…but if there’s an upset it will come from Isabella Rossellini…and maybe, maybe, maybe…from Monica Barbaro.

WILL WIN: Zoe Saldana

SHOULD WIN: Monica Barbaro

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

 Yura Borisov – Anora

Kieran Culkin – A Real Pain

Edward Norton – A Complete Unknown

Guy Pearce – The Brutalist

Jeremy Strong – The Apprentice

I was not a fan of A Real Pain and not a fan of Kieran Culkin’s performance, but this shit is set in stone.

WILL WIN: Kieran Culkin – A Real Pain

SHOULD WIN: Yura Borisov - Anora

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Anora – Sean Baker

The Brutalist – Brady Corbet

A Real Pain – Jesse Eisenberg

September 5 –

The Substance – Coralie Fargeat

This is a fascinating category…if Sean Baker wins this…there’s a real chance he could win four Oscars in one night (Picture, Director, Screenplay and Editing), which would be incredible…so incredible I don’t think it will happen. I think the Academy spreads the love and rewards one of their own Jesse Eisenberg with the Oscar here.

WILL WIN: Jesse Eisenberg – A Real Pain

SHOULD WIN: Sean Baker - Anora

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

A Complete Unknown

Conclave

Emilia Perez

Nickel Boys

Sing Sing

Conclave is the frontrunner and presumptive winner…but if it doesn’t win then we might be in for a wild night.

WILL WIN: Conclave

SHOULD WIN: Conclave…I guess. I liked Sing Sing a lot but the script isn’t elite.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Flow

Inside Out 2

Memoir of a Snail

Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl

The Wild Robot

A fascinating category…The Wild Robot is in the lead but I actually think Flow is going to win it thanks to the international contingent in the Academy.

WILL WIN: Flow

SHOULD WIN: Flow

BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE

Emilia Perez

Flow

The Girl with the Needle

I’m Still here

The Seed of the Sacred Fig

Emilia Perez had this wrapped up a few months ago and then the Gascon scandal hit and…well…not so good for Emilia Perez after that. I now think the vociferous Brazilian contingent drags I’m Still Here over the finish line.

WILL WIN: I’m Still Here

SHOULD WIN: Flow – I just really liked that movie.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Black Box Diaries

No Other Land

Porcelain War

Soundtrack to a Coup

Sugarcane

This has the potential to be the funniest category of the night. The Oscars are notoriously political when it comes to documentaries, so I think the Ukrainian war documentary Porcelain War will win because the simps in the Academy fall for this type of shit. The funniest outcome would be for the Palestinian documentary No Other Land to win because the presenter for this award is Gal Gadot…actress and former member of the Israeli Defense Forces. Watching Gadot have to give this award to Palestinian activists would be hysterically delicious …but it won’t happen for the same reason No Other Land has no distribution in the U.S. – because the people who run Hollywood (and our government) are Zionists or, at a minimum, Zionist adjacent.

WILL WIN: Porcelain War

SHOULD WIN: No Other Land

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT

A Lien

Anuja

I’m Not a Robot

The Last Ranger

The Man Who Could Not Remain Silent

I have no idea…

WILL WIN: A Lien

SHOULD WIN: No clue

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT

Death by Numbers

I am Ready, Warden

Incident

Instruments of a Beating Heart

The Only Girl in the Orchestra

I’m just picking based on the subject matter…which is exactly how the Academy members do it!

WILL WIN: I am Ready, Warden

SHOULD WIN: No idea

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM

Beautiful Men

In the Shadow of the Cypress

Magic Candles

Wander to Wonder

Yuck!

I’ve not seen any of these so I’m stabbing in the dark here.

WILL WIN: Magic Candles

SHOULD WIN: You’re guess is as good as mine.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

The Brutalist

Conclave

Emilia Perez

Wicked

The Wild Robot

Interesting category that could be a harbinger of bigger things to come for some movies. If Wicked wins, then it might have a good run in a bunch of categories. Same with The Brutalist and Conclave.

WILL WIN:  The Brutalist

SHOULD WIN:  The Brutalist

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

El Mal – Emilia Perez

The Journey – The Six Triple Eight

Like a Bird – Sing Sing

Mi Camino – Emilia Perez

Never Too late – Elton John

I think all of these songs are awful….but what do I know?

WILL WIN: El Mal – Emilia Perez

SHOULD WIN: None of them

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

The Brutalist

Conclave

Dune: Part Two

Nosferatu

Wicked

Another interesting toss up category. I feel like Wicked could get some below the line love and these seems like a category it could win. That said, The Brutalist could start a big run here.

WILL WIN: Wicked

SHOULD WIN: Nosferatu

BEST SOUND

A Complete Unknown

Dune: Part Two

Emilia Perez

Wicked

The Wild Robot

I just want to say that I think it’s really stupid that a few years ago the Academy combined the Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing categories into one. Disrespectful and dumb.

WILL WIN: A Complete Unknown

SHOULD WIN:  A Complete Unknown

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Brutalist

Dune: Part Two

Emilia Perez

Maria

Nosferatu

I think Nosferatu should definitely win this award going away but unfortunately won’t. I think that The Brutalist gets the gold.

WILL WIN: The Brutalist

SHOULD WIN: Nosferatu

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

A Complete Unknown

Conclave

Gladiator II

Nosferatu

Wicked

I think Conclave and Nosferatu are head and shoulders above everything else in this category…which of course means they won’t win.

WILL WIN: Wicked

SHOULD WIN:  Nosferatu/Conclave

BEST FILM EDITING

Anora

The Brutalist

Conclave

Emilia Perez

Wicked

This category is a great indicator of how the night will go. Writer/director Sean baker also edited Anora…so if he wins then expect that film to do very well. On the other hand, there is a chance they give him an award here and then feel like that’s all he gets and spread the love elsewhere. Don’t find that non-prediction helpful? That makes two of us. Anyway…I think Anora wins but won’t be shocked if either The Brutalist or Conclave get the gold.

WILL WIN: Anora

SHOULD WIN: Anora

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

A Different Man

Emilia Perez

Nosferatu

The Substance

Wicked

I think Wicked could win here again because the simps in the Academy like shiny, shitty things. That said, this is a category where they can reward The Substance and I think they will.

WILL WIN: The Substance

SHOULD WIN: Nosferatu

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Alien: Romulus

Better Man

Dune: Part Two

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Wicked

A tough category…again this could be an indicator of a big below the line night for Wicked if it wins here. But…the craftsmen of Dune: Part Two are highly respected and they did do tremendous work. Toss up.

WILL WIN: Dune: Part Two

SHOULD WIN: Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

And thus concludes my Annual Oscar Prediction Post. There’s a very good chance that I go 10-23 this year so my recommendation is that you don’t gamble actual money based on my predictions…that would be foolish. But feel free to follow along Oscar night and see how poorly I did this year… for as the great American financier Jeffrey Epstein once taught us…all good things must come to an end…and this year might see the ignominious end to my miraculous Oscar prediction winning streak.

p.s. Don’t look for me at the after party!!

©2025

The Brutalist: A Review - American Dreams and Nightmares

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 3.25 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT.  A dramatically uneven, cinematically stellar, ambitious movie about ambition that is not a great film but a film that wants to be great.

The Brutalist, written and directed by Brady Corbet, stars Adrien Brody as Laszlo Toth, a talented Jewish Hungarian architect who survives the Holocaust and comes to America to start a new life.

The film, which has garnered 10 Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress, is favored to dominate this year’s Oscars.

I have many thoughts on the philosophy and ideology expressed in The Brutalist, but will save that discussion for a second, more in-depth “analysis and commentary” article I will publish at a later date. For now, I will simply review the film.

The Brutalist is a film so cinematically ambitious as to be audacious. It is a film that asks a lot of big questions, and tackles a lot of big issues, and does so all on a miniscule $9 million budget, and a monumental three-hour-and-thirty-five-minute run time.

The film is exquisitely photographed using VistaVision, and has been released in both 35 mm and 70 mm. I watched it, twice, on a SAG screener in my house and was astonished at the cinematography by Lol Crawley – who is, in my mind, the undeniable star of the film.

Crawley’s camera movement, lighting and most of all his framing, are sublime. This is a small budget, arthouse film that looks and feels expansively epic, in both scope and scale, thanks to Crawley’s work.

The film is designed to question America and the American dream, and to give voice to not just the immigrant experience but the Jewish immigrant experience in particular. It deftly uses stock footage, newsreels and radio reports to set the stage and strengthen the not-so-subtle sub-text.

Writer/director/producer Brady Corbet has also spoken about the film being a metaphor for the filmmaking experience itself…which is plain to see. Filmmakers are, at least in some cases, artists who must navigate a cold and cruel capitalist system just to be able to make their art. Filmmakers aren’t painters who can buy a canvas and some paint and go to work. No, filmmakers need money to make their movie and therefore must get into bed with those that have it (in some cases…literally).

The same is true for architects like Laszlo Toth. An architect must have a benefactor…someone who has the desire to make a great building, the means to do so, but not the artistic vision and expertise to bring it to life.

The Brutalist as metaphor for the filmmaker’s plight is certainly insightful, if not a bit self-aggrandizing, and considering the film’s politics (which will be discussed in length in my second article) egregiously hypocritical.

Regardless of that, there can be no doubt that Brady Corbet had a big idea and was able to translate it onto the big screen. Kudos to him.

Not so good for him is that the film, which boasts a first half as good as any seen this year, stumbles badly in its heavy-handed second half. The film, which again, runs for three and a half hours, actually has an intermission…and it is after the intermission when it loses its grip on its narrative and its storytelling.

The biggest problem with The Brutalist is that it tries to do so much that it ends up doing not quite enough of anything.

For example, it is an immigrant story, an American capitalism story, a Jewish story, a Holocaust story, a love story, a sex story, an artist’s story and a drug addict’s story. The drug addict angle in particular is superfluous to the point of frivolous, as is the sex story, which does nothing to enhance the narrative but only confuse it.

A major problem for the film is the character of Erzsebet Toth, Laszlo’s wife who follows him to America. Erzsebet is played by the woefully miscast Felicity Jones, an actress I usually like quite a bit. Erzsebet’s arrival on the scene signals the end of the film’s tight grip on its drama, and the beginning of a rudderless wandering into the wasteland of dramatic doldrums.

The character of Erzsebet would have been better served never being seen, but rather as a sort of dream from Lazslo’s past never to be regained.

The rest of the cast are hit and miss.

Adrien Brody, who is nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for his work as Laszlo – a fictional character by the way, is good in the film. He has a lot to do and he definitely does it. I didn’t think his performance was transcendent, but I thought he did an admirable job. Considering the last-time I saw Brody act was when I recently watched the series Peaky Blinders, where he played an Italian gangster from New York in the 1920s…and it was one of the worst, most embarrassingly awful pieces of acting I’ve ever witnessed, and now he is probably going to win his second Best Actor Oscar, speaks to how insane Hollywood can be.

Guy Pearce is very good as Harrison Van Buren, the rich American who becomes enamored with Laszlo’s talent and hires him to build his dream project. Pearce really sinks his teeth into the role and never relinquishes his steely grip, devouring every scene he inhabits.

Other performances, like that of Alessandro Nivola as Laszlo’s friend Attila, and Joe Alwyn as Harry Van Buren Jr, seem to disappear the moment they wander onto screen. They are so weightless as to be non-existent.

There’s one final performance that is worth mentioning…and that is of Raffey Cassidy as Zsofia, Laszlo’s niece. What struck me about Cassidy’s performance is that she looks remarkably like Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who plays Harry Potter. So much so that I literally was wondering if Daniel Radcliffe was playing Zsofia in drag in some sort of arthouse tomfoolery – amusingly I wrestled with this question for quite a while as I watched. What is even weirder is that Raffey Cassidy, in real life and even as Zsofia, is a truly beautiful woman…which left me very, very confused. The bottom line though is that Raffey Cassidy is NOT Daniel Radcliffe, and Daniel Radcliffe is NOT Zsofia. Mystery solved.

The Brutalist intentionally calls to mind other ambitious films that, ironically enough, are about ambition, like Godfather II and There Will Be Blood. Unfortunately, The Brutalist shrinks exponentially in comparison to such cinematic greatness as Godfather II and There Will Be Blood.

The Brutalist’s biggest flaw, besides its over-abundant narrative, is that it gets so heavy-handed with its not-so-subtle symbolism in the second half of the film that it loses a great deal of its credibility, coherence and artistic good will.

The bottom line is that I am glad The Brutalist exists, and I’m glad Brady Corbet is so ambitious as to make it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a great film.

I do not think The Brutalist is a great film, but I do believe it wants to be great, and is a great attempt to make a great film, and that makes it much more worthwhile than 99% of the garbage made nowadays.

If The Brutalist wins Best Picture at the Oscars I won’t be dismayed, even though I don’t think it’s the Best Picture I’ve seen this year. I will celebrate its win because hopefully it will allow for other filmmakers to take equally big swings when they get their turn at bat.

Brady Corbet took a big swing with The Brutalist and he flied out to right field just short of the warning track. No shame in that. Maybe the next guy, or maybe Brady Corbet the next time he gets up, will hit it out of the park, or off the wall, or into the gap for a double. Hell, at this point in cinema history I’d take a bloop single, a walk, or a hit by pitch over the strikes out that keep piling up.

Make no mistake…The Brutalist is infinitely better, and more worthwhile than recent Best Picture winners Nomadland, Everything Everywhere All at Once, and the god-awful CODA.

As for recommending this movie…I do recommend people give it a shot and watch it with an open mind. It will be, simply said, a bridge too far for most normal people. It’s expansive run time, challenging themes and numerous dramatic narratives, will be too much for normies to digest, especially since the film is not a cinematic classic like Godfather II or There Will Be Blood.

But just because I think most people won’t love it, or even like it, doesn’t mean I think people shouldn’t give it a shot. I didn’t love the film, but I admire its ambition, and I watched it twice.

So, if you have three and a half hours and want to wallow in lukewarm arthouse waters contained in a gloriously crafted, artisan bathtub, then give The Brutalist your attention. At the very least it will trigger discussions about both its quality and its philosophy/ideology…which are decidedly meaty topics for debate…and in my eyes a movie that triggers debate is definitely a movie worth watching.

©2025

Winning Time (HBO) Season Two: A Review – 'Winning Time' Plays a Losing Game

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!***

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. Great topic. Poor execution. Bad series.

Winning Time, the HBO series that chronicles the Los Angeles Lakers tumultuous rule atop the NBA during the 1980s, finished its second, and later announced, final, season on Sunday night, and it wasn’t so much an airball as it was a brick that landed with a resounding thud.

Watching Winning Time has been one of the more frustrating experiences for me as a cultural critic and basketball fan who was fortunate enough to live through the events portrayed in the series because the story it attempts to tell is so fascinating, interesting and dramatically compelling, and yet the series has consistently missed the target on every attempt.

The first season was a frustrating and muddled mess, but at least it had a bit of edge to it as it dramatized the rather uncomfortably voracious, and sometimes predacious, sexual appetites of both Lakers owner Jerry Buss and the team’s young superstar Magic Johnson.

Buss’ crude and problematic sexual behavior was well-known and, of course, so were Magic’s sexual escapades as they led to the HIV infection that ended of his career, which makes those stories vital to tell. But there can be little doubt that current Lakers owner Jeannie Buss, Jerry Buss’ daughter, was uncomfortable with that level of truthful examination and pressured the producers to be less edgy in their portrayal of her father…and probably Magic too, as Winning Time decidedly lost its balls in season two in regards to Buss and Magic’s failings.

Jerry Buss in season two was transformed from a creepy old-man, wannabe playboy into a broken-hearted victim of lost love, and Magic went from being a hopeless horn dog into a sexless monk who only had eyes for his hometown girl, and eventual wife, Cookie. Neither of these storylines was in the least bit compelling but they ate up the majority of season two.

Another indication of the producers genuflecting to Jeannie Buss is that her new husband, comedian/actor Jay Mohr, was given a small role in season two as an agent.

Interestingly enough, Winning Time did not change its very odd and at-odds-with-reality approach to Jerry West, the team’s GM and former iconic player. West, one of the greatest players and executives in league history, was made out to be a raving lunatic in need of institutionalization in season one – and the real Jerry West publicly complained about it, but he’s treated not much better in season two.

The problems with season two are numerous, chief among them is that it tries to cover so much ground and end ups rushing through most everything.

Season one had ten episodes and covered the team from drafting Magic in 1979 to winning the championship in his rookie year (1979/80). Season two has only seven episodes and has the gargantuan task of chronicling the 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 seasons…which is a hell of a lot as the Lakers went through major coaching and personnel changes as well as three NBA finals, winning one.

In addition to that Herculean task, the show also struggles to have a discernible protagonist upon whom it can focus the majority of its attention. Season two stumbles between Jerry Buss, Magic and Pat Riley as the drivers of the story and while all of them are worthy of being front and center in a tv series, none of them get adequate story time here to fully flesh out their character and fully realize their story arcs.

The antagonist is a shifting target as well…as it is sometimes snooty head coach Jerry Westhead, and often-times the boogie man of racist archrival Boston Celtics, their fans and the team’s star Larry Bird.

It is certainly not surprising in this day and age that race and racism is centered in a story, but the racial angle in Winning Time is never effectively manifested. For instance, the Celtics’ only sins are that they have more white players than usual in the NBA. None of them are overtly racist, their only crime is being white. In fact, the only people who comment on race are the black players on the Lakers, for example, Kareem calls Larry Bird a “punk ass white boy”.

The series also makes stuff up about Boston fans attacking the Lakers’ team bus after an NBA finals game in 1984. It seems to greatly undermine the series’ thesis of Boston and its fan’s being rabidly racist when the writers/producers have to concoct a pseudo-racist incident in order to make their point. It seems obvious to say but if you have to make things up in order to show groups of people (or individuals) as racist, then that probably means that the alleged racism in question didn’t exist in the first place.

Larry Bird is made out to be some sneering devil incarnate, which I suppose the Lakers and their fans felt he actually was at the time, but in reality, for all his trash talk and fearless play, Bird was as shy and progressive a soul as any human being despite being an absolute killer on the court.

Unfortunately, with the series being cancelled after season two which ended with the climax of the contentious 1984 finals, which is the height of unintentional comedy as the Celtics won the series, which must’ve tortured the blatantly pro-Lakers/anti-Celtics makers of this series. (As an aside, I attended the infamous game 5 of this series in the furnace known as Boston Garden, and laughed deliriously as Kareem, sitting a mere 50 feet from me, sucked on an oxygen mask as he tried to survive the sweltering, suffocating heat). The series ending its story in 1984 means viewers never get to see Bird and Magic’s bitter rivalry transform into real life friendship on screen. Although to be honest, I can’t imagine the series would be any more effective portraying that than they have been portraying anything else.

The acting in Winning Time has always grated as it gravitated much too close to caricature for my taste, and it always failed to re-create the basketball with any sort of realism.

For example, Quincy Isaiah plays Magic Johnson. Isaiah does a decent job in portraying Magic in the dramatic scenes, and has a passing resemblance to him, but Isaiah on the basketball court is an embarrassment. First off, he is a chubby guy with a paunch, which is difficult to overlook. I mean, you knew there was going to be a second season so why not bust your ass with a personal trainer and get into shape? Secondly, he is awful at basketball…and can’t even fake being a player. If I saw Isaiah as Magic do one more – jump in the air/fake left/ pass right move, I was going to gauge my eyes out. Although to be fair, that repetitious basketball garbage wasn’t nearly as bad as the endless phone calls between Magic and Cookie where he tries to sweet talk her. Yikes.

A different type of example is Solomon Hughes, who plays Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Hughes is actually quite good in the role and perfectly captures Kareem’s brooding and distant personality. And Hughes is even a respectable basketball player (he played briefly in the NBA) so he passes that physical test. My one problem with Hughes is that he’s playing Kareem Abdul Jabbar, one of the greatest players of all time, and yet he never attempts to replicate Kareem’s signature shot, the skyhook. That’s like playing Elvis and not learning how to shake your hips. I can go out into my driveway right now and mimic Kareem and take ten skyhooks and hit maybe five of them…so why couldn’t Hughes work on that one shot and get it down? I mean, it’s not like he needs to be able to actually score in a real game, they’re playing on a film set so everything is fake…so why not?

A positive example of this is that Sean Patrick Small, who plays Larry Bird, actually tries to shoot in a similar fashion to Bird. His rendition of Bird’s shot isn’t a perfect replica but its close enough and believable enough. Small also has a passing resemblance to Bird, which is a compliment to his playing of the role but on the street would probably be fighting words, and he actually does a solid job in the dramatic scenes.

The same cannot be said for my old friend Adrien Brody who plays legendary coach Pat Riley. Riley is a master motivator who looks like a male super model but Brody is a phony and dullard who face looks like someone took a baseball bat to a Jack-O-Lantern that had melted in the summer sun. That Adrien Brody has won an Oscar is remarkable considering his shallow and toothless portrayal of Riley in Winning Time, as Brody lacks the presence and gravitas of the real-life Riley, and commands zero respect on the screen.

Jason Segal as feckless coach Paul Westhead is no better. Segal is an uncomfortable dramatic actor who relies on shallow mannerisms instead of depth of character and acting skill, and his Westhead barely registers as caricature, never mind character.

Jason Clarke is usually a good actor but his Jerry West is on another planet as he’s a one-note crazy person. West is one of the most remarkable people in NBA history and yet here he’s reduced to a yelling machine.

On the bright side, John C. Reilly really is terrific as Jerry Buss. Reilly never loses his grip on the enigmatic Buss despite being saddled with a below average script. It is a shame that Winning Time never lives up to the quality work that John C. Reilly does in it.

Another bright spot was Hadley Robinson. who plays Jeannie Buss and is quite compelling, but unfortunately the script never gives her anywhere to go or anything to do. She is nothing but a second-thought in the story and that’s a shame as in real life Jeannie has lived a very interesting life.

I didn’t like Winning Time, as it felt, despite its big budget, like a rather flimsy series that was better in in thought than in execution. But the truth is that I’m not like most people as I’m not looking to be distracted or mildly entertained by a tv series. I’m actually looking for something great, something transcendent and Winning Time sure as hell isn’t that. Greatness, which was the hallmark of the showtime Lakers on the 1980s, is nearly non-existent in modern day film and tv, so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

I realize my standards may be higher than other people’s so I try to watch things through more lenient and forgiving eyes. Which begs the question… is Winning Time at least entertaining? Frankly the answer to that is…not really. The series is, at its heart…just a sort of silly exercise, as it has the feel of grown-ups play acting…and not very well.

The bottom line is that as a member of the prime target audience for Winning Time, I wish it were better and I wish it succeeded…but it isn’t and it didn’t…and now its cancelled…so it ultimately doesn’t really matter.

 Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2023

Winning Time (HBO): A TV Review

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A second rate recounting of a first rate story. Just more fool’s gold from Adam McKay.

The title of the Adam McKay produced HBO series that chronicles the critical 1980 NBA season for the Los Angeles Lakers, Winning Time, subtly says a great deal about why the series is ultimately a failure.

Winning Time is based on the Jeff Pearlman book Showtime, which was aptly titled since it documented the birth and growth of the Showtime Lakers, which, along with Larry Bird’s blue-collar Boston Celtics, revitalized the NBA and the game of basketball itself in the 1980’s.

“Showtime” in this context has multiple meanings in that it refers to the Lakers flashy, up-tempo offense, Magic Johnson’s jaw-dropping passing ability, million-dollar smile and superstar charisma, and the team’s new glitzy, Hollywood-friendly image.

But “Showtime” is also a cable channel and HBO’s main competitor, so they couldn’t name the series “Showtime” despite that being the perfect name. It would be like McDonalds naming their new burger the Burger King.

So, “Showtime” was jettisoned and the series became the banal and boring Winning Time, which sounds eerily similar to the 90’s Saturday morning show and Saved by the Bell wannabe, Hang Time, about a high school basketball team. Hang Time starred former NBA player Reggie Theus and gave the world Anthony Anderson, and also set the art of acting back to the Stone Age.

Winning Time is little more than a glossier, glitzier, adult-version of Hang Time. In case you were wondering…that’s not a compliment.

Winning Time attempts to do the near impossible, make a compelling drama/comedy that has a cultural/political agenda and is filled with famous real-life characters, while believably capturing the essence of professional basketball as played at the time.

Ultimately, the series clangs off the rim in its shot at greatness because it is so ham-fisted in nearly everything it tries to do.

As a basketball fan the thing that was most uncomfortable about watching Winning Time is that the basketball in it is just cringe-worthy. This is not surprising since basketball is a very difficult sport to fake – see White Men Can’t Jump for proof of that, and in high school the drama nerds were too busy starring in Brigadoon rather than on the basketball court.

In recreating the 1980 Lakers (and their opponents) you first have to find actors who are big enough to be believable, and who share a resemblance to their famous characters. Once you have that…which is no easy task, then those actors need to be able to play decent basketball, which is highly unlikely since if they could be as remotely good at basketball as the character’s they portray, they wouldn’t be two-bit actors.

Quincy Isaiah is a perfect example. Isaiah has a passing resemblance to Magic Johnson, and does an excellent job of capturing young Magic’s exuberant essence off the court. But on the court, Isaiah’s pudgy physique and his lack of basketball skill is, frankly, distracting and embarrassing.

Most of the rest of the players, be they Lakers or Larry Bird or Dr. J, suffer a similar fate, and no matter how much the director’s try and hide the awkward un-athelticism on display, you simply can’t tell this basketball story without showing basketball, and the basketball on display is an abomination.

The only real exceptions are Solomon Hughes as Kareem, and DeVaughn Nixon as Norm Nixon, and even they more look the part than actually play it.

Hughes is a 7-footer who played at Berkley and had a cup of coffee in the NBA. He perfectly captures the sullen brooding of Kareem off the court, and while his skyhook is definitely a bit wonky (which begs the question…why has no big man over the last 50 years tried to emulate the single most successful basketball shot in the history of the sport – Kareem’s skyhook?) he makes for a somewhat believable presence on the court.

As for Devaughn Nixon, he looks so much like Norm Nixon it freaked me out…but then I looked him up and he’s Norm Nixon’s son, so mystery solved.

Unfortunately, most of the non-basketball playing cast members throw up an airball as well.

For example, Jason Segel’s over-acting as assistant coach Paul Westhead is high school drama club reject level of awful. Segel’s Westhead is a feckless, Shakespearean fancy-pants with no lips and even less balls. Segel may be charming in various comedies, but he is an absolutely atrocious dramatic actor.

Adrien Brody, whose face looks like it was found in Picasso’s garbage bin, is, astonishingly, supposed to play super model-looking, Gucci mannequin and future Hall-of-Fame coach, Pat Riley. Brody is appallingly bad in the role. And watching Brody try to chew gum like Riley is one of the more alarming things I’ve ever witnessed, it’s like watching a brain-damaged camel chew on a truck tire.

Jason Clarke plays Laker icon Jerry West, aka The Logo, like he’s auditioning for a community theatre production of The Shining. West has made a stink about his portrayal in the series and is threatening legal action, and frankly, I don’t blame him. Clarke is a fine actor, but his choices as West are so absurd as to be insane.

One of the lone bright spots is John C Reilly as Dr. Jerry Buss. Reilly captures the degenerate clown show that is Jerry Buss. Buss, like many successful men of that generation, was a delusionally depraved douchebag and thought of himself as a cross between Hugh Hefner and James Bond.

Of course, Reilly’s Buss is funny because he’s so ridiculous in his tight jeans, unbuttoned shirt and with his scientifically impossible comb over, but he’s also pathetic, manipulative and disgusting, as he keeps pictures of all his sexual conquests and uses his wealth and the terminal illness of his mother to basically sexually assault a nurse.

Buss’s smoke and mirrors purchase of the Lakers, and his revitalization of the team, which ultimately led to the birth of the modern NBA, is an important story, but Adam McKay is incapable of properly telling it.

McKay uses his usual bag of tricks, like breaking the fourth wall and using different film stocks to give a visual flair to things, but this doesn’t elevate the material but rather feels like empty parlor tricks.

Winning Time, like all of McKay’s “serious” works, is loaded with the director’s personal politics, in this case there’s a plethora of pandering regarding misogyny and the patriarchy. These cultural political issues in Winning Time are a lot like McKay’s various filmmaking quirks in that they feel manufactured and used to cover up fundamental flaws in the storytelling.

McKay came to fame as Will Ferrell’s comedy caddy and then made the leap with the extraordinarily impressive The Big Short. The Big Short was a stunning achievement, one which I never would have thought a director like McKay could’ve made…but he did it.

But since The Big Short, McKay has tried to tackle equally complex material and has floundered. Vice, the story of Dick Cheney, was an ambitious failure. Don’t Look Up was a scattershot attempt to make a climate change satire, and it fell flat. As more time passes and more “serious” McKay projects see the light of day, it becomes more and more clear that The Big Short wasn’t the beginning of a great run, but rather an outlier from an ambitious but artistically very limited storyteller. Winning Time is just more proof of this thesis.

Ultimately, Winning Time is a loser because it’s a story of Shakespearean scope and scale about basketball made by someone who has neither any genuine insight into human nature nor a true understanding of the complexities of the game. As any big man worth his salt would say as he swatted a sorry shot into the third row, I say to Adam McKay and Winning Time, “get that weak shit outta here!”

©2022