Cert – 15, Run-time – 2 hours 3 minutes, Director – Barry Levinson
Childhood friends Frank Costello (Robert De Niro) and Vito Genovese (De Niro) find their relationship growing tense over the decades as their ways of controlling New York City and fellow crime bosses differ.
The comparisons to Goodfellas and crime classics have been many for director Barry Levinson’s latest, The Alto Knights, so far. With writer Nicholas Pileggi behind the screenplay, and indeed Levinson’s past credits such as Bugsy, a throwback to the mafia movies of the 90s seems to have been expected. However, The Alto Knights is something of a quieter affair less about the upfront crime and more about the relationship between two crime bosses in the 50s, both with very different ways of getting things done.
We see much of the film’s events through the eyes of Frank Costello (Robert De Niro), trying to live his life peacefully as he fills the pockets of police and politicians. This is his business and he deals with things in a largely straightforward way. Meanwhile, Vito Genovese’s (also De Niro) business is violence. Often surrounded by gang members and henchmen, the film opens with a hit job he orders against Frank. The two grew up together as childhood friends, however over the decades tensions have grown in their relationship, particularly in a bid for control of New York City, and more importantly other crime families.
De Niro isn’t quite playing two leads, more a lead and key support. We see less of Vito than might be expected, and the two only really appear in two scenes together – handled well without the feeling of a gimmicky push of ‘look, it’s the same actor!’ The actor, who has suggested multiple times in the past that he’s done with crime movies, puts in a pair of good performances which in many ways the film rests on. While there may not be many differences, aside from the fact that Vito often wears a hat and glasses and appears to be inspired by Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, there’s enough to sell these as two separate figures and move the narrative along with them as their lives crossover multiple times, with some cases being more conflicting than others.
As the third act unfolds we see two different perspectives of a journey to a key meet-up, it’s a simple drive, but Levinson brings in a layer of growing tension, particularly for Frank, as the destination gets closer. It’s an extended sequence which while causing the run-time to be felt a little bit, acts as one of the most engaging points of the film. There’s a good deal to like throughout the subdued nature of the narrative, largely in scenes where we see the different behaviours and responses of the two bosses – as Frank testifies to congress Vito watches on TV, shouting at the screen and forming a highlight at the same time. Again, much of The Alto Knights seems to rest on the decision to bring De Niro in to play both roles and his performances, and luckily they’re effective turns which help to move things along and create a rift between the characters which still holds the impression of childhood friends who grew up together.
It doesn’t seem like Levinson is trying to go for Goodfellas, or those other notable throwback titles. Yes, there may be some shared elements and nods here and there, but as a whole this isn’t a film with the same darkness or bite. It has its moments of tension, largely after a good deal of build-up in the relationship and quiet feud between the two De Niro roles, and that feud is the central focus. The ways in which its organised and gone about, and the differences between the two figures responses. There’s an interest to be found in it and while the run-time could do with a slight trim, for the most part there’s an engaging and competently made crime boss drama at play.
Not the throwback to the likes of Goodfellas that some may be expecting, The Alto Knights is a more subdued affair that rests on the shoulders of Robert De Niro’s engaging central performances, making for a well made film with enough interest to see it through.
Cert – PG, Run-time – 1 hour 49 minutes, Director – Marc Webb
After escaping from the kingdom ruled by her evil stepmother (Gal Gadot), Snow White (Rachel Zegler) plans to free her home and restore it to the caring community it once was.
The design of the dwarfs in Disney’s milestone 1937 take on Snow White was specifically sculpted to show off just how expressive animation could be. When the same physical characteristics are wiped across squat, CG replications, with imitated human flesh and skin, the effect from their first appearance marching one by one round a corner in a mine, towards the camera, is somewhat unsettling. With their introductory number of Heigh Ho being stretched out to almost five minutes and each figure being given some form of musical introduction each time the details seem to have settled down another is thrown directly into a close-up to try and capture a cartoon sensibility but simply adding to the horror-inducing nature of the number.
It’s a sequence that feels as if it was approved heavily by multiple studio executives after much back-and-forth between the ranks. While not the most present characters, when the likes of Doc, Sneezy and Dopey are on screen they just feel completely out of place with the various CG backdrops. Their scenes are largely confined to the familiar Snow White story which makes up much of the first half of Disney’s latest live-action remake – the first to be presented by them in the title.
The studio influence seems clear as, once again, the original segments in a remake are the strongest and somewhat save the film – although here there’s a lot of lifting to be done. Like with Guy Richie’s darker sections of Aladdin, often feeling the studio reins pulling it in, or David Lowery’s underrated take on Pete’s Dragon, Marc Webb’s film succeeds in the moments which take a step away from the familiar mould. As Rachel Zegler’s Snow White (more than holding up a tune or two throughout and bringing some life to some of the more lacking numbers – Disney have, somewhat understandably, tried to push character ballad Waiting On A Wish despite the presence of better songs from Pasek and Paul on the soundtrack) gets to know bandit and freedom fighter Jonathan (Andrew Burnap) a brighter, more energetic form comes to the narrative.
Kicking off with the film’s best song, Princess Problems, there’s a likable bounce back and forth between the pair. Zegler’s allowed to bring more to her character while still displaying the same through-and-through good-heartedness, and as a whole the film seems to shift and change. It becomes more wholly likable to give the lead star’s shoulders a break from carrying much of the weight. There’s just a brighter burst as Webb can play around with new material instead of the familiar beats of the original story as told by Disney all those decades ago, and watched by plenty of people young and old since. All by doing something different, and indeed giving the director that bit more freedom.
While we have to jump back to some familiarity by going back to Gal Gadot’s take on the Evil Queen, Gadot seems to be trying to replicate a panto villain but can’t quite muster the campness or energy. Yet, thanks to the mid-section there’s at least more of an original angle to things once the final key story beats have been ticked off. Zegler has discussed in many interviews in the build-up to the film’s release about the more empowering side to this film, the title character’s journey to becoming a leader and spreading fairness in her home kingdom, taken away by her stepmother who shut her away from the rest of the world as a servant for years. While the film itself might not go into this as hard as these interviews might suggest there’s still something more present which helps to move things along. Helped by the lead performance at the heart of much of the film’s events, and creating that initial spark of engagement when things are wandering around in what we’ve seen before.
These moments are generally fine, albeit while including the nightmare-creating sight of the dwarfs, but it’s very clear to see the elements that are holding things up, and the want to be more creative with this take on Disney’s oldest feature property. It means that Snow White is a largely amiable film which certainly has its standout moments but leans on two or three key elements to hold the weight of the heavily studio-influenced surroundings.
As with a number of Disney remakes, Snow White is at its best when leaning into originality. The bounce and energy of these sections, alongside Rachel Zegler’s central performance, lifts up the heavily studio-manufactured surroundings which while watchable have clear issues, and truly unsettling CG dwarfs.
Release Date – 21st March 2025, Cert – 12, Run-time – 2 hours 24 minutes, Director – Yu Yang
In order to get their respective bodies back for good, Ne Zha (Yanting Lü) and Ao Bing (Mo Han) must inhabit the same body in order to complete deadly tasks to obtain a life-bringing elixir, however past battles may be incomplete and catching up.
Ne Zha 2 currently sits as the fifth biggest film of all time, the biggest animated film of all time and boasting multiple opening weekend records, including topping China’s chart. Yet, outside of its home country the release of the film, up until its various records and box office receipts, may be a quieter affair – although in recent weeks it’s also done well in the US. However, success has perhaps meant a bigger push for the film, including time on IMAX screens – where it’s surely to be best experienced.
In the climactic stages of the extensive third act there are some truly spectacular visuals. Waves of gold and black armies fly through the sky, colliding in a swirling paint-like mixture as they collide in battle. It may be part of a drawn out set of events which increase the run-time of the film, while staying afloat and keeping up engagement there’s still the feeling that this sequel is about 20 minutes too long. It’s a much more serious exchange, on a grander scale, to the fights and battles we see in the build-up – which tend to have a lighter tone with more humour mixed in – but never feels like it’s from a different film altogether.
The fights beforehand are largely centred around tests that feisty protagonist Ne Zha (Yanting Lü) is put through in order to obtain an elixir which will restore both his spirit to his body, and the same for friend Ao Bing (Mo Han) who inhabits the same body after an attack on Ne Zha’s home city means that the restoration doesn’t go as planned. While this is the general gist of the film’s opening stages so much happens in the first half hour that it could be easy to become lost in all the set-up. Multiple strands and villains are introduced after a short prologue recapping the first film, and much of it seems to happen all at once against the backdrop of a battle causing fiery havoc throughout the city.
Yet, from here things somewhat calm down narratively as the various tests begin to unfold. Ne Zha is a wonderfully entertaining character brimming with energy who carries much of the emotional journey of the film, and indeed its tonal shifts. These are handled effectively as they both add to and stem from his character. From successful fart and toilet gags – there’s only really one of each but they both raised a good laugh from me – to enraged jumps to seek revenge the way the film is told through him is somewhat quiet but knowingly done; and indeed increases the overall effect.
As things develop humour is still present and helps to bring a lighter sense to certain events, while still being balanced with the seriousness of certain instances and the drama at hand within the central character’s life, and that of his friend’s. Forced from their past, largely the previous film, are still active and threatening to catch up at any turn while they could themselves be walking into something much more sinister on the way to the elixir. It’s not a force that quite hangs over the events of the film but is more built-up to through the side-plots and actions of the villains throughout the film, all eventually coming together rather effectively for the climactic clash.
During this battle there’s a brief moment where a shot switches to a different animation style, just for a handful of frames, before going back to the one used throughout most of the film. It’s an amazing visual moment, pushing me back in my seat uttering a quiet “wow.” The tonal shifts in Ne Zha 2 are handled just as fluidly and with a good deal of impact, too. This is a visually and narratively richer film than the first entry, which while likable falters under familiarity, and an overall more entertaining experience with a good deal of spectacle held in the animation. Yes, it might feel overlong, but it still manages to fill that time with a good deal to keep you engaged and at times thrilled. Much stemming from the titular character who is a fiery bubble of enraged and playful energy.
While it might be overlong there’s plenty of strength to the visuals and tonal shifts within Ne Zha 2, with a good balance of action, drama and humour there’s a lot to like about a film that, much like its title character, hits hard and often knocks it out of the park.
Cert – 12, Run-time – 2 hours 8 minutes, Directors – Anthony Russo, Joe Russo
When a robot arrives at her home possibly containing the consciousness of her late brother (Woody Norman), orphaned teenager Michelle (Millie Bobby Brown) enters a robot exclusion zone looking for answers, with a tech billionaire (Stanley Tucci) trying to stop them.
With a much-mentioned $320 million budget, the Russo Brothers appear to have worried that the visual effects may be so distracting that everything else in The Electric State might not be seen or understood. Therefore, their direction appears to have largely been based around obviousness. Sure, we can understand how a character is feeling through a mixture of elements but can we see it spread across their face? It leads to exaggerated performances, particularly from lead Millie Bobby Brown, where characters feel as if they’re emphasising emotions in some form of pre-take exercise.
Maybe these performances are meant to contrast with the lack of emotion displayed by human faces on robot screens. As Stanley Tucci’s tech billionaire Ethan Skate, alongside robot hunter Colonel Marshall Bradbury (Giancarlo Esposito) follow Brown’s orphaned teenager Michelle into the robot exclusion zone we see their in-person exchanges and the robot forms that hunt down Michelle and shaggy-haired black market tech dealer Keats (Chris Pratt, leaning into a familiar Chris Pratt performance). Their faces appear on tiny screens in the heads of the robots and throughout these scenes appear to display almost no emotion, as if that’s just something that happens with this technology. It creates a real disconnect which echoes throughout the film as in general there’s little emotional connection with the unfolding events, largely due to the fact that the plot beats feel so familiar, and in some cases underwritten.
Michelle’s reasoning for entering the exclusion zone relates to a robot which arrives at her home, claiming to contain the consciousness of her late younger brother (Woody Norman), although only able to speak in catchphrases from an old cartoon. In order to find out what’s happening she must track down robot leader Mr Peanut (yes, the American brand mascot – voiced here by Woody Harrelson), who was at the fore of the fight, and resolution, of the war between humans and robots when worker bots began to demand more rights. And thus we have an alternate 90s landscape full of futuristic technology, as if looking at the past’s view of the future.
Again, the visuals themselves are good and clear effort has been put into making the robots fit into the world shown, although not quite making up for the lack of character they have. Whether the visuals were worth $320 million is a slightly different matter, however a good chunk of that also seems to have gone towards getting quite a starry cast (including Ke Huy Quan, Colman Domingo, Anthony Mackie, Jenny Slate, Brian Cox and Holly Hunter).
However, the cast themselves struggle to bring a proper core to the film. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely’s screenplay is full of clunky lines of dialogue which strike a similar vein of obviousness, or occasionally stick out as needing a couple of tweaks, as to the directions of the film itself. The Russos appear to be wanting to go for a Spielbergian vibe to both the world and overall feel of The Electric State. As if this could be their Jurassic Park, their AI, or perhaps their Ready Player One – of which there are echoes of in this film, particularly in the final stages. Where things will go feel somewhat obvious from the early stages of Michelle’s isolation and distance from technology, refusing to wear the big virtual reality helmets which are mandatory for school classes, choosing to read a book instead.
There’s a watchable nature to the film as a whole, the biggest issue is because of the fact we’ve seen so much of it before it feels bland. Lacking in a sense of wonder, adventure and exploration which feels as if it should be rooted in a family sci-fi adventure such as this. Instead we get an overfamiliar narrative and set of events which don’t quite capture the imagination, or general engagement. It passes by for 2-hours, but never fully grabs your interest, despite some nice ideas of moments here and there in the exclusion zone once surrounded by the different robots, but even this feels as if it could be reaching for more instead of playing it so safe.
Lacking a full creative drive the overfamiliar nature of The Electric State’s narrative adds to the overemphasised obviousness of some of the performances and dialogue. Watchable, but largely lacking in entertainment and engagement factor.
Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 34 minutes, Director – Steven Soderbergh
Veteran spy George (Michael Fassbender) is on the hunt for a traitor involved in the selling of a top-secret device which if used could create global nuclear disaster, however could the person responsible be his wife (Cate Blanchett)?
One of my favourite screenings that I’ve been to was the LFF press screening for Knives Out. After Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc details not just who the murderer is but how the executed the twists and turns of their scheme a round of applause and cheers spread throughout the screening room. As Black Bag nears its conclusion in much the same way as it started, a group of colleagues sat around a dinner table, the big reveal is deserving of the same reception.
Michael Fassbender’s stony-faced and analytical spy George Woodhouse is hunting down a traitor within his close circle. Someone who has sold a top-secret device which could lead to tens of thousands of deaths in a nuclear disaster, increasing global tensions in the wake of it. After an extended opener seeing the potential suspects quizzed about their lives, relationships and resolves the elements are all in place for the game of suspicion to truly take shape. Yet, the person George most reluctantly suspects seems to be his wife, Kathryn (Cate Blanchett), also a spy and flying out on a secret mission in a couple of days. But, when lying is not just a part of the job but also the relationships at the core of the film how many layers have to be peeled back to find the truth?
Fassbender and Blanchett are fantastic in their respective roles, capturing a flirtatious wink within the central relationship which could be filled with deception. Back-and-forths and mistrust appear to be key to their years-long marriage, one noted by many in the organisation, but what they’re not showing isn’t a matter for either figure but the audience. George’s search is kept to those close to him, kept refined by the ways in which other figures are connected, whether it be romantically or through workplace shrink Dr Zoe Vaughn (Naomie Harris). With the refinement comes consistent links and developments which hold each other up and allow for the supporting cast (also including Tom Burke, Regé-Jean Page, Marisa Abela and Pierce Brosnan, all on entertaining form) to each have chances to shine and be a major suspect.
Fittingly for the execution of the conclusion the developments begin to play out like a murder-mystery. There’s a delicious nature to the entertainment factor of the film and how slickly it cruises through its events, backed by David Holmes’ bouncing, jazz-inspired score. David Koepp’s screenplay is tight and focused, as is the final edited cut of the film, clocking in at a breezy 94-minutes. So much is contained in that time which grows from the key sequence towards the start, with a scene of table-based chat avoiding a stage-like feel as Steven Soderbergh’s camera remains focused throughout. Growing our interest in the arguments and tensions at hand from the initial quiet spark.
Once engaged, which happens quickly as the characters are clearly laid out from the early stages, the spy thriller narrative develops quickly with plenty of intrigue to be found in the possible yet uncertain layers of lies and deception. All leading to an applause-worthy reveal worthy of a fine murder-mystery.
Tightly told, Black Bag is a deliciously slick spy thriller which plays out with the entertainment factor and layered nature of a great murder-mystery, pushed by a starry ensemble who match the focus of the camera and bounce of the score.
Cert – 18, Run-time – 1 hour 36 minutes, Director – Nick Love
45-year-old Jack (Danny Dyer) is given six weeks by the court to fix his life, marriage and find work – however his cocaine addiction and love of a footie-based punch-up threaten to send him to prison.
While there may not have been many people in the audience for the screening of Marching Powder I was at there was a clear split amongst them. That split being me and pretty much everyone else. I’ll acknowledge that I’m not the target audience for Marching Powder, and that those who are likely to see and enjoy it probably, and rightfully, won’t be unswayed; if you liked the look of the trailers you’ll probably enjoy the film.
While gags relating to the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Andrew Tate and the sexual experience of nuns may have been met with a mixed response, those relating more to scattered political jabs, or those towards British towns, got a chuckle out of me even if noone else. The bluer, c-bomb filled – the leading reason for the film’s 18 rating over the unmentioned drug use in the BBFC description for the film – material, however, seemed to get a better response from others in the screening who the film perhaps played more to. It’s all part of the laddish character of 45-year-old Jack Jones (Danny Dyer), who has been told by a court judge that he has six weeks to get his life together or else he’ll face up to five years in prison.
While telling himself that cocaine and drink are out the door, and repairing his marriage, with wife Dani (Stephanie Leonidas) – whose sole purpose largely seems to be just for Jack to win back, yet when she seems most pivotal her character is largely pushed to one side – is a priority. However, temptation frequently calls him back, especially in the heat of a football-rivalry scrap. Addiction in these cases seems less a big dramatic point with serious consequences and more just a point of Jack’s life, and those of his dealer friends; largely played for laughs when the use of cocaine is at the centre of a scene. At times you can feel the film wanting to make a more serious point about addiction and drug use, but it shies away not wanting to break out of the mould that it’s provided for itself.
To some extent this means that Jack actually seems to have little development over the course of the film. By the time we get to the final stages there’s almost a sense of disappointment in him that after what’s been shown and how we’re apparently meant to feel about his relationship with Dani there’s just sympathy for there as he almost arrogantly seems to have shunned any change of progress, and we’re meant to cheer that. Dyer himself is good and Leonidas puts in a solid turn with what she’s given, but their characters find themselves caught in a cyclical mix which begins to feel like a set of mixed messages.
Jack’s brother-in-law Kenny Boy (Calum McNab) has just been released from a psychiatric hospital, with Jack often looking after him. We’re told that he might be bipolar or schizophrenic, often he’s played for laughs before causing trouble by attacking people involved in drug deals like a low-level, unmasked, back-alley vigilante. However, the back-and-forth nature of his behaviour and the way the film presents it comes with an air of uncertainty – similar to that surrounding certainly lines of dialogue such as a randomly thrown in “does that mean you’re woke?” when someone says they’re from Woking – the switches feel harsh and sudden, as do certain elements of the character in general, and, once again, largely seem to be present to back the actions and experience of the main character’s journey.
Yet, perhaps the most prominent issue throughout Marching Powder is the fact that much of the time the laughs simply fail to appear. The style of humour is clear and it may well work for the target audience and, again, those who liked the look of the trailers, but often the barrage of f-bombs, and frankly overuse of c-bombs, mixed with exaggerated laddish phrases and humour fail to take off and get a response, although the joke is clear to see. There’s a good deal of the film which simply feels uncertain and in need of delving a bit deeper, but gets side-tracked by the eventual unevenness and back-and-forth of both its narrative treatment and central character.
Those who like the look of Marching Powder will almost certainly have a good time, for those unsure of it, it’s best to avoid its uneven nature when it comes to its presentation of more dramatic elements, while comedic beats often fail to get a response, despite the efforts of the two solid central performances.
Needing to get off of Earth, Mickey (Robert Pattinson) becomes an expendable on a colonisation mission, when he dies a new version is printed off. However, when one version of him is presumed dead a case of multiples causes problems on the ship.
Whilst a big budget film with the backing of a major American studio, Bong Joon-ho’s latest, his first since Parasite took home four Oscars, feels just as much at home with the rest of his genre-meshing filmography. Stylistically his direction and treatment of his characters and the situations they find themselves in feels familiar to his previous works, although this time launching them into space.
In the case of Mickey (Robert Pattinson) he finds himself launched into space in a number of different ways after fleeing Earth to escape a gangster he owes a debt to. Signing up to the last mission to leave for the season he becomes an expendable, his memories are regularly saved and installed in a newly-printed version of him whenever the previous version dies. However, returning to the ship after surviving a fall which leaves him presumed dead he crashes into bed to discover an 18th version of him already lying there. With multiples being forbidden either one has to be killed or their existence has to be kept a secret, otherwise both could be killed and Mickey deleted as a whole.
Pattinson puts in a good job with his dual cartoon-inspired performances, he’s stated that the voices were slightly inspired by Ren and Stimpy with the physical side stemming from Jim Carrey in Dumb And Dumber. He helps to bring out the more comic beats which lie in a handful of scenes leaning into the frantic and hungry nature of least Mickey 17, with 18 being much more confident and angered by Mark Ruffalo’s egotistical colony leader Kenneth Marshall, launching the mission to another planet to create the perfect civilisation after losing two congressional elections on Earth. After receiving an Oscar nomination for his gloriously hammy performance in Poor Things, Ruffalo once again ramps up the theatrics with a character that – while writer-director Bong has claimed isn’t inspired by the President – you can’t help but think is inspired by Donald Trump in both the phrases he uses and some of his attitudes and gestures.
It takes a bit of time for the two figures to properly come together, and for the case of multiples to be unveiled to the rest of the ship. A good deal of the first half feels like a good deal of build-up for the world and narrative. As if it’s going to branch out further eventually and broaden the story instead of keeping itself as a generally contained narrative, set within the confines of the ship and the nearby reaches of the ice planet – populated with woodlouse-mammoth hybrid creatures with simple yet creepy details.
Due to the feeling that the film is going to branch out a bit more a good deal of it continues to feel like build-up. What’s there is entertaining, with a couple of chuckles here and there and some likable observations in regards to Mickey’s views on life and mortality, but there are a handful of instances where scenes feel slightly overlong, as does the film as a whole, despite picking up and rattling along well in the third act. While Bong has stated that he had final cut of the film there are certain moments where you can feel a slight hint of the studio providing notes, or at least having a hand of some sort in the project and how it goes about some of its themes, which because of this feeling don’t always fully come through or have the chance to flourish amongst the sci-fi caper that’s unfolding at the fore.
For the most part, though, there’s an engaging and likable time to be found within Mickey 17. As it grows its narrative without quite stretching itself in the way it might build itself up to do so Pattinson’s performances create effective leads as the two Mickey personalities clash and begin to create chaos throughout the central ship, and for those in charge. When these elements come together the film is at its best and most consistent in the way that things move along. There may be some slower moments in the build-up but once through them and things have come together there’s a solid sci-fi dramedy here.
You can feel Mickey 17 wanting to be more existential, and wish it were, however while the gradual build-up might have its slow moments, once things come together and Robert Pattinson’s lead performances are allowed to clash and run rampant there’s a consistently flowing and enjoyable time to be had.
Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 28 minutes, Director – Gia Coppola
Shelley (Pamela Anderson) has been a Las Vegas showgirl her whole adult life, when her show gets a closure notice the life she left behind, and her family, begins to catch up with her.
It seems there are four groups of people when it comes to Pamela Anderson. Those who know her for Baywatch, those who know her for Borat, those who know her for what Pam And Tommy was about and those who don’t know her at all. In The Last Showgirl she delivers a revelatory performance which will hopefully lead to more offers and dramatic roles in the future.
Without her hopefully career-changing turn, The Last Showgirl perhaps wouldn’t have the same strength or hit as we see Las Vegas Showgirl Shelley coming to terms with the imminent closure of Le Razzle Dazzle, a last-of-its-kind show which she’s spent all her adult life performing in. However, with the closure the life she left behind, including now-adult daughter Hannah (Billie Lourd) begins to catch up with her, alongside her age being just one factor in being unlikely to get further work performing on the strip.
Vegas is made to seem like a dried-up, deserted landscape, one holding the hopes and dreams of a long-gone era. The look and feel of the buildings calls back to Sean Baker’s The Florida Project – the bright purple motel next door to Disneyworld – Baker receives a special thanks in the credits. Shelley tries to work out what she can do now her life performing seems to be over. Auditions don’t go well, she could become a casino waitress like her friend Annette (Jamie Lee Curtis) – who performs an almost tragic dance to a nearly empty casino full of passersby ignoring her – but her calling still says that she’s born to be on the stage, it’s what she set out to spend her whole life doing in tasteful shows, not like the modern nude circus which is taking over the theatre she performs in to sell-out crowds.
Much of The Last Showgirl is a character piece for Shelley, led by her emotions rather than a full narrative. And Anderson sells that brilliantly as she fully invests herself in a character whose life was put to one side in exchange for her dreams and now is facing the effects of that. Desperation begins to come in as she continues to represent shows of another era, “I’m not old, I’m older” she tells the younger performers (led by Brenda Song and Kiernan Shipka) around her early on.
The character study which plays out comes together to make for an interesting drama that without its leads performance would perhaps feel much more middle-of-the-road or familiar. There are familiar moments here and there and sometimes scenes which feel on the slow side, but at just 88-minutes The Last Showgirl keeps its ideas generally concise and moves forward with the developments, regrets and admissions of its central figure as everything appears to suddenly hit her at once.
Without Pamela Anderson’s fantastic lead performance there may not be as many layers relating to the life put aside for the pursuit of dreams in a fading landscape as there are in The Last Showgirl’s echoes of The Florida Project.
With the Best Picture race looking to go in any direction, the same could be said for many of the other categories at this year’s Academy Awards. This year sees a number of close races where there’s a good chance that frontrunners could cancel each other out or an apparent surprise could quietly slip into the lead and win on the night.
But, before the winners are unveiled later tonight, here are my final (until they change five minutes after posting this) predictions for who and what will win in each category at this year’s Oscars.
Best Cinematography – The Brutalist Dune: Part Two could possibly slip ahead here, repeating the first film’s win in this category, but The Brutalist seems to have the edge over the rest of the nominees here. With the film a possible frontrunner in Best Production Design, and good production design sometimes being confused for cinematography, the way the various landscapes are captured, particularly amongst the developing construction, seems to put it ahead in this race. Quite simply: the film looks great and that seems to be a point that people very much agree upon.
Best Costume Design – Wicked As usual in most categories, particularly the technicals, replace ‘best’ with ‘most’ and you’re more likely to find the winner. Wicked has a grand display of costumes throughout and it appears to have the upper hand over the other nominees here due to the upfront and clear costume design. Nosferatu seems to be the runner-up here, but with only a couple of technical nominations it has something of a disadvantage. Wicked simply seems to be the kind of film, and costumes, that are more likely to make it to a win here.
Best Makeup And Hairstyling – The Substance It genuinely feels as if anything (apart from Emilia Pérez) could win in this category. But, while the body horror element of The Substance could put it a disadvantage due to not being watched by all voters, despite a Best Picture nomination, it does perhaps have the most upfront examples for this category which work their way into the narrative. While this is also the case for other nominees, such as A Different Man, The Substance may well have the edge because of just how much change we see in the performances, particular Demi Moore, over the course of the film. Plus, Moore is a frontrunner for Leading Actress and often Makeup And Hairstyling will pair up with one of the acting winners. I wouldn’t be surprised if any of the other films (apart from Emilia Pérez) manages to take the win in this category, though.
Best Production Design – Wicked I really want to say that The Brutalist is likely to win here, mostly because I think it should win, but it seems to be the runner-up in a category that I think is much closer than most people seem to think. But while the idea of architecture and design is more key to the narrative of The Brutalist, Wicked perhaps has the grander examples that are most noticeable through the towering structures and colours of the various buildings and locations seen throughout.
Best Sound – Dune: Part Two Another race where it feels some nominees are being underestimated, namely The Wild Robot, and even A Complete Unknown, but it feels as if this is one that Dune: Part Two will quite easily get. Once again creating the soundscape of the world of Arrakis, and beyond, and the roars, crashes and bangs of explosions against giant spacecraft. The detail that goes into creating the sound of the world just as much as the look of it feels like this will be one of the few repeat wins tonight for Dune.
Best Visual Effects – Dune: Part Two In a category heavy with monkeys and sci-fi, Dune: Part Two, for the same reasons as its Sound win, feels a safe bet here. Again, quite simply because of the highly cinematic, and believable, world that the visual effects in question create.
Best Original Song – El Mal from Emilia Pérez Emilia Pérez’s chances may have fallen away in some categories after the controversial (and downright racist) comments of its lead star and director, but Zoe Saldaña’s Supporting Actress chances seem to have gone unhurt. And with this song being largely left to her character it might have less of a dip, even if it ever had one. But, the song in general has been a frontrunner in this category for some time, and has still had wins at other ceremonies. The main competition appears to be the returning force of Diane Warren, having written the music and lyrics for The Journey from The Six Triple Eight, this could very well finally be her year after 16 total nominations (and one each year for the last eight years). But, whether the song has the strength to win in an albeit quite weak category is a different matter. I still think that this is quite likely to be El Mal’s, especially as it seems to have been quite a standout song in a musical film voters will have seen compared to one from a film that there’s a chance that may not have even heard of.
Best Original Score – The Brutalist Conclave could sneak up and grab the win here, but The Brutalist appears to have the upper-hand through the build-up and general discussion around this category. It’s also a score that’s very present throughout the film which could give it a boost as well.
Best Film Editing – Conclave A tense thriller with plenty of well-tracked twists and turns all told over the course of just 2-hours, that feels like a strong winner for this category. If Anora’s love spreads further from the major categories it has strong chances of winning in that could lead to a win here, and maybe the fact that The Brutalist gets away with a three-and-a-half hour run-time could be commended, alongside just what it packs in in that time. But, simply for how concisely yet effectively Conclave tells its story and establishes its details, I’m pretty confident in predicting it to win here.
Best Documentary Short – I Am Ready, Warden As usual, I’m quite out of the loop when it comes to the short categories, so to some extent my predictions are informed by those of other people and general consensuses online. But, with the idea of death row and the death sentence becoming increasingly prominent in the US and the story that’s being told in I Am Ready, Warden it seems as if it’ll likely connect with Academy members and get the win here – although with this reasoning Death By Numbers could very well win for its deeply emotional focus. While, Netflix’s The Only Girl In The Orchestra could prove a challenger this seems like it could grab the win.
Best Live-Action Short – The Man Who Could Not Remain Silent It feels as if there’s a push for each of the nominees in this category, but I’ve gone for The Man Who Could Not Remain Silent for much the same reason as I predicted I Am Ready, Warden: a sense of relevance. Not just for the US but the direction people feel the world is going in, and the story that’s being told over the 13-minute run-time. It appears to be a short that many people have responded to and may just have the bit of an extra backing compared to the other shorts in this category to pick up the Oscar.
Best Animated Short – Yuck! As with Live-Action Short it feels like there’s a good backing behind each of the nominees here. And while Wander To Wonder could sneak up and take the win here, Yuck! appears to be the popular choice (or at least one of them). But, Yuck! seems to be the short that might have the widest appeal due to its more straightforward nature. But, again, anything could win here and my predictions in the short film categories should be taken with a mountain of salt (or just simply ignored).
Best Documentary Feature – No Other Land I’m really not certain about this one. No Other Land has only had a very small release in the US, and there are many saying that its basis is enough to turn a lot of voters away. Porcelain War (the only nominee I’ve not been able to see yet due to no UK release as of yet) has also appeared as a winner and nominee at a number of big ceremonies in recent weeks. However, I think that the importance, and harrowing nature, of No Other Land is going to be enough to connect with voters and lead the film to a rightful win in this category, providing that enough voters will have been able to see it – of course there will be screeners and ways for members to watch the film, so the lack of release may not damage it as much.
Best International Feature – Emilia Pérez With the growth that I’m Still Here has had in recent weeks, and the controversy around Emilia Pérez, there’s a chance that this once favourite could easily have dipped away from the lead in this particular race. However, with 13 nominations, and a lot of love across the film industry, I think that Emilia Pérez is still likely to get this win, even if it isn’t as much of a frontrunner as it once was.
Best Animated Feature – The Wild Robot Inside Out 2 seemed like the clear winner when it was first released, and even for quite some time after, but once awards season properly kicked in The Wild Robot appeared to take the lead and has had a lot of conversation around it, and picked up a couple of key wins along the way. Add in the layered story about parenthood that the film tells, which could connect well with a number of voters, and the fact it may be one of the more widely seen nominees in this category (and its two additional nominations in tech categories where it has some backing) and The Wild Robot feels like a clear winner here.
Best Original Screenplay – Anora Anora has picked up a good deal of Original Screenplay awards throughout this awards season, and with it being a frontrunner for Best Picture it seems almost locked in to win here. Especially with the details that come forward in the final scenes, and the humour that it’s managed to strike with a wide audience.
Best Adapted Screenplay – Conclave As with Anora in Original Screenplay, Conclave has picked up a number of Adapted Screenplay awards this season and is a frontrunner for Best Picture. It also stands out amongst the rest of the nominees in this category which don’t quite have the same push of backing as screenplays in the impact that they’ve had. Conclave here also gains the same points that it does for its likely Film Editing win with the various well-tracked twists and turns throughout.
Best Supporting Actor – Kieran Culkin in A Real Pain Kieran Culkin has pretty much won every single precursor under the sun for his performance in this film. He’s almost guaranteed the win.
Best Supporting Actress – Zoe Saldaña in Emilia Pérez Much like Culkin, Saldaña has won many precursor awards, even after the controversy surrounding the film and some of the figures involved in it. She seems pretty comfortably set to win the Oscar, particularly after having won at SAG where a good deal of people were predicting a win for Ariana Grande after the nomination support for Wicked at the ceremony. When Saldaña won there it seemed pretty clear that she was on track for the Oscar.
Best Leading Actor – Adrien Brody in The Brutalist While Timothée Chalamet may have pulled ahead with a surprise win at SAG, Brody has won a good deal of awards in the build-up to the Oscars. But, what we have is a similar situation to when Austin Butler and Brendan Fraser were battling out for this award a couple of years ago. A biographical performance of a very well known singer, with Chalamet doing his own singing in the film, and a very physical performance which you can see the effort being put in to. I have a feeling that Brody may just have the edge of Chalamet because of the physical side of the performance and the directions the film takes his character in regards to past traumas and the emotional waves that he creates and rides as part of his journey, and performance.
Best Leading Actress – Demi Moore in The Substance While Mikey Madison may have won this award at BAFTA, alongside a couple of other places, for her role in Anora, Demi Moore surged ahead from an outside position to the frontrunner shortly after a win at the Golden Globes, boosted even further by a SAG win. Madison could still get a win here, or maybe somehow the pair will cancel each other out (albeit with quite different roles and performances) and Fernanda Torres pulls ahead and wins for her role in I’m Still Here, however Moore’s role is one reflective of the film industry, and while The Substance hasn’t got much chance of winning Best Picture due to its body horror angle this doesn’t seem to have stopped Moore from her Best Actress wins. It’s also something of a physical performance with its transformations and make-up, as cited if it wins Makeup And Hairstyling, which can often pair with an acting win. Plus, there are those who are saying there’s something of a career-side to Moore’s chances and possible win. Madison has a lot of people backing her, and she’s brilliant in Anora, and unlike some for Chalamet in Lead Actor, age doesn’t quite seem to be blocking her with people claiming ‘she’s too young’ (a stupid idea like repeat wins – you’re judging the quality of the performance or what the category falls into in this case against the ‘competition’ from the year, not whether someone was too young or old). Regardless, it does seem as if Demi Moore might just have the edge in the Lead Actress race. For a body horror film, and that’s quite exciting!
Best Director – Brady Corbet for The Brutalist After his win at the DGA Awards Sean Baker got a boost in this category, alongside Anora in general, however the scale of The Brutalist in terms of visual and narrative style is full of excellent direction and flair. Corbet’s direction has been consistently praised, and while his loss at the DGA was quite a surprise and also seemed to dip The Brutalist’s chances in both Picture and Director, I still think he has a good chance at, deservingly, winning the Oscar. Especially with what he managed to do with that film on around $10 million, something which he has been commended for a good deal already. The general style of The Brutalist, and again the scope of it, has a lot of elements and details that are often favoured by the Academy when it comes to awarding Best Director, I still think this award is likely to go to Corbet.
Best Picture – Anora This award could genuinely go to any of the nominated films and I don’t think I’d really be surprised by any of them. However, the race appears to have come down to Anora and Conclave, with The Brutalist just behind them in a likely third place. While Conclave picked up late wins at BAFTA and a Best Ensemble nab at SAG the latter feels as if it is definitely for the overall ensemble acting performance of the cast, as it should be, while BAFTA have disagreed with the eventual Best Picture winner on most occasions in recent years. After picking up big wins from the DGA, PGA (who use the same preferential ballot voting system as the Oscars do for Best Picture) and WGA and seemingly building back momentum after some had thought it faded away. With Madison also being a strong contender in the Lead Actress race, and her title character being so reflective of the film as a whole in the way she powers through it, that could also be a slight boost for Anora in the Best Picture race overall. This is a truly unpredictable year, and while it might not seem set to win big in terms of total awards on the night that doesn’t necessarily damage the film’s chances. Remember, CODA won Best Picture while only being nominated for two other awards (Supporting Actor for Troy Kotsur and Adapted Screenplay, both of which it won). Especially if leaning into the shifting nature of the films the Academy leans towards (such as Moonlight, The Shape Of Water and Everything Everywhere All At Once), I think Anora may well end up being this year’s Best Picture winner. Although, ask me in ten seconds and I’ll likely tell you Conclave.
To read this year’s excessively overlong ramble looking at the chances of each of this year’s Best Picture nominees winning the top prize on Oscar night you can read 2025’s What Will Win Best Picture? piece here.
After last year’s Best Picture nominees saw a selection of big names, in terms of titles and crews, competing for the top prize, 2025’s line-up is dominated by a diverse range of genre films. Featuring multiple blockbusters, indie flicks and foreign-language films there truly is an eclectic selection in the running for the top prize at this year’s Oscars. And with a race which has seen a number of different titles take the apparent lead in a consistently neck-and-neck race, even after multiple awards shows throughout the season, to use a consistent cliché, this year’s Best Picture race seems as unpredictable as ever.
And so, as with every year, it’s time to take a look at each of the ten nominees and the forces which could lead them to, or diminish their chances of, Oscar glory. A variety of very different films battling it out on a preferential ballot and a race that’s led to no clear winner; it’s time to once again look at what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences could name the best film of the last year.
If there’s one film that shows the way in which genre has been embraced in this year’s Best Picture category it’s The Substance. Out of all genres the Academy are often labelled for being particularly horror averse, especially when it comes to body horror. However, after much acclaim when released and many expecting its chances in technical categories The Substance has grown in strength and found itself with five total nominations – including nods for director Coralie Fargeat and Lead Actress Demi Moore, a frontrunner in that category. While when it comes to horror the Academy have their leanings, social horror such as Get Out and Best Picture winner The Silence Of The Lambs (campaigned as more of a social thriller), there’s no denying that while The Substance represents this it’s still a body horror.
Yet, the social elements have even more of an awards body favourite element, the fact that they directly reference and relate to the film industry itself. By revolving around body and beauty standards, particularly those held towards women, from the perspective of a screen star from years gone by there’s a mirror shown to Hollywood. And, if there’s one thing that Academy voters love it’s a film about themselves. However, there’s no denying that the style of horror may likely turn some voters away. Some in anonymous articles have mentioned that they’ll gladly vote for Moore, with the angle of a career vote (although she is great in the film!), but won’t watch the film because of how gory they’ve heard it is. It could very well mean that this is the nominee least likely to appear on the most preferential ballot rankings, diminishing its overall chances.
However, there are still pushes for the film. It finds itself with nominations in key categories, in addition to those mentioned there’s also a nod for Original Screenplay; and finds itself as a frontrunner in Makeup And Hairstyling. If it wins this, particularly with the film’s style in mind, it could mean that The Substance is being given a chance, and has been embraced by multiple key bodies (even if only partly by the actors branch who many say snubbed Margaret Qualley in Supporting Actress – although this branch makes up the largest percentage of Academy votership, with a likely large overlap with SAG who awarded Moore Lead Actress this year) within the Academy. Not just in major categories, but also in below-the-line races showing that there are further impacts being made and noted about the film.
It’s already exceeded early expectations from when it was released, and was one of the most praised and celebrated films of last year for its boldness and just how it presents itself and its themes. With the likes of Everything Everywhere All At Once and The Shape Of Water being recent Best Picture winners, there’s every chance that The Substance could end up winning the top prize this year, especially if it manages to win in the categories it’s predicted by many to win in outside of this race. However, the constant feeling that it may simply be avoided by voters, especially older more traditional members who still make up a good chunk of the membership, due to what it’s perceived to be (in actuality the most severe body horror doesn’t come until towards the end and may not be as graphic as you could make it seem. Well, apart from that ending). But, this is one of the most unpredictable films in this year’s race, because of the fact there’s not really been anything like it at this level at the Oscars before (The Exorcist is perhaps the closest comparison, and maybe the aforementioned Get Out), and with the consistency it’s displayed and the way in which it’s been embraced, particularly as a portrait of and for the film industry, The Substance could find itself sneaking up as a very exciting Best Picture winner.
If The Substance is viewed as a divisive nominee then undoubtedly the most divisive of this year’s Best Picture assortment is Emilia Pérez. A film which has had a strong campaign built against it online. But, if there’s anything that the Oscars have proved over the years, it’s that voters don’t really take into account, or see, what’s happening online; after all Green Book still won Best Picture. That is apart from when such points make their way into the trades and beyond, then a film can find itself on shaky ground. After receiving 13 nominations, the most of any film this year, and being a much-discussed favourite of many vocal figures in the industry, this musical drama’s chances of receiving Best Picture quickly diminished shortly after nominations were announced.
Past (although still very recent) controversial (and in some cases downright racist) comments and tweets from lead actress (and nominee) Karla Sofía Gascón and (also nominated) director Jacques Audiard were brought to light bringing much controversy to the film and its awards chances. Can voters vote for Emilia Pérez and the film about her when the person playing her has made such troubling statements? It certainly could be the case. But, what if the film is actually about Zoe Saldaña’s character? Despite being a frontrunner, having almost swept the category at multiple awards shows where voting has closed after the controversy surrounding the film, in the Supporting Actress category many have claimed Saldaña to be the lead – in one of what many have said are multiple instances of category fraud in this year’s supporting categories – and perhaps this, despite the title, could switch the perspective and tone of Emilia Pérez for some voters.
The film has been a big contender since its Cannes premiere, meaning it’s been in the conversation for a long time and clearly has remained in some minds, and it still finds itself as a frontrunner in the categories it was leading even before Gascón’s past comments were brought to light. And a vote in Best International Feature could lead some voters to remember how much they liked the film there, leading it to a higher ranking on the preferential Best Picture ballot. Or, the adverse effect could be had. Why give the film multiple wins in categories where it’s been named as an overall best, why not share the love? Although, again with 13 nominations, the love certainly seems to be strongly recognised across the Academy. And with two Best Original Song nominations, with El Mal still leading the pack for the win, the key musical elements of the film are also clearly being remembered and focused on and staying in the minds of voters. Maybe an earworm could be what keeps Emilia Pérez in mind (even if it didn’t work for La La Land a few years ago).
But, where the film could best succeed is in its representation. While many Mexicans and LGBTQ+ people have spoken out against the films representation and said that it’s full of negative portrayals, for those who have liked the film, and there are clearly many, the story on display and those featured in it could act as something of a political vote. The Oscars have certainly been political on a number of occasions, and under a returning Donald Trump presidency there could be a handful of figures who push a film like Emilia Pérez in the wake of this, despite the backlash towards it in this regard. It has clearly had a staying power, there’s no doubt about that. And I also don’t doubt the amount of Academy members who are completely unaware of any division or controversy relating to the film or those in it. It was once a frontrunner and seemed one of two films that could win this prize, and then suddenly fell away overnight. But, if its wins at other ceremonies show anything, it’s that there’s still clear support for this film and maybe there’s been an overestimation of how much it’s fallen away in the Best Picture race, alongside others. After all, much of this doom-saying is on social media. And since when does that dictate what wins Best Picture?
If there’s one film that some are saying could damage Emilia Pérez’s chances not just in Best Picture but also Best International Feature, it’s I’m Still Here. Because why not just pit the non-English language features against each other instead of looking at their respective stories and elements? Much like The Substance, I’m Still Here found success at the Golden Globes (while I’ve been negative towards this ceremony many times in the past, one thing it has done this year is shine a light on these films and helped grow their interest and chances in the awards season races). From there this Brazilian film went from being on very few radars to being a contender in three Oscar categories, including Best Picture.
Much like Drive My Car in 2022, I’m Still Here has grown as a word-of-mouth success throughout awards season. After it started to do well at other ceremonies people went to check it out and see why it was getting such acclaim. While this film may not have the same number as nominations, or perhaps success, as Drive My Car it may have had slightly less time, and has only grown as more people have had the chance to see it, especially after it crept into what appears to be the ninth or tenth slot for eventual nominees. While that slot often signifies a film with an outside chance of winning Best Picture, due to not many appearances or mentions in the conversation, there’s no denying the growth that this one has had since the nominations, again because of the word-of-mouth success.
In International Feature it could pull ahead of Emilia Pérez, and even in its other nominated category, Leading Actress, some are predicting a possible win for Fernanda Torres, and not even in a situation where Demi Moore and Mikey Madison cancel each other out. While missing out on key Screenplay, Director and Editing nominations, I’m Still Here could well have a chance of winning the Oscars’ highest honour. Some of its themes, the film itself is set largely in the early-70s, echo into today and have an air of social relevance alongside telling what has been praised as a strong and effective story with the force of an emotionally stirring leading performance.
And since the nominations there has been a big campaign put behind the film. And one that doesn’t seem to have backfired as has been criticism of some films in the past, often those backed by Netflix; one of the criticisms of 2022 nominee The Power Of The Dog (which lost to fellow streamer Apple TV+’s CODA) was that it simply became overpromoted to voters. While subsequent awards bodies have put minimal attention on the film the effect on Oscar voters could lead it to a Best Picture win, if the limited time between nomination and voting closing meant they had time to make a bigger connection with it compared to those that have had longer to stay in the mind, and may have been watched more than once. In that regard, I’m Still Here might have something of an uphill struggle compared to its competition (and the fact that its qualifying run was a very brief, very limited release at the end of last year with its main US release only arriving just a couple of weeks ago, although in time to be checked out on the big screen at a key time for voting so it’s fresher in the minds). If its impact is strong enough, and its word-of-mouth consistent enough, then we could very well be seeing the second non-English language feature winning Best Picture.
Moving from a small film that’s grown through word-of-mouth to a blockbuster which has had masses of promotion. Wicked has been a part of not just awards but general conversation for months prior to its release with what might be one of the world’s longest, and still ongoing, press tours. After years of trying to get an adaptation of one of Broadway’s most successful musicals to the big screen, Wicked had plenty of build up and plenty of box office. Showing strength after overperforming against predictions at other ceremonies, in terms of nominations, translating into 10 nods at the Oscars (not including one for Original Song, with the film making the rare decision not to include one for the adaptation).
However, what might hamper Wicked is the fact that it’s only half a story. With Part II (AKA Wicked: For Good) scheduled for release in November of this year, and the film ending on a cliffhanger, there’s a chance that voters may wait for the second part to be released, presuming it will be as good, with the thought that by that time it will have their vote. It’s something we’ve seen before with The Lord Of The Rings and even Dune, the sequel of which is also nominated for Best Picture this year, that if we know there’s a follow-up on the horizon there may be nominations but the win will often be waited for, if it ever arrives.
But, Wicked appears to have particular favour with the actors branch, having done well with SAG nominations, including a surprise nod for Jonathan Bailey in Supporting Actor, although not translating to the Oscars. Despite this, the film didn’t pick up any awards at the ceremony, losing Best Ensemble to Conclave. Meaning that there may be favour towards Wicked from the Academy’s biggest branch, but maybe not enough to lead towards a win.
There’s also the fact that while the film has ten nominations, including a slight surprise appearance in Original Score, it lacks a presence in Best Director or Adapted Screenplay, key categories to look out for alongside acting and editing, which it ticks the boxes of. With these nominations lacking it does mean that Wicked may have something of a distance to Best Picture, but there’s clear support from a number of groups – and it’s believed to be a frontrunner in some of the technical categories such as Production and Costume design.
Despite nothing for an Original Song nomination, the songs that are present are undoubtedly earworms. They have been for many years already, and by ending with Defying Gravity there’s no denying the final punch that this first part delivers, perhaps landing it with a strong effect at the end for voters to stay in their mind. These songs are synonymous with the musical, and the film; they come to mind when you think of them and could easily be the case for voters in remembering them and perhaps enjoying them, giving Wicked a boost in this race. There’s also, again, the fact that it’s felt like it’s been around for so long because of the lengthy promotional campaign focusing on the two leads, both nominated for acting awards – Cynthia Erivo for Lead and Ariana Grande for Supporting Actress – which may not quite give them a push in their respective races, although Grande is believed to be a strong competitor against Zoe Saldaña, but could boost the film, if how much has been seen and heard doesn’t backfire.
From one blockbuster to another, Dune: Part Two was widely believed to be a Best Picture frontrunner after the Oscar success and acclaim of the first instalment, people were just waiting for the story to be finished. When this sequel was released to similar acclaim it seemed set for awards glory, all until the confirmation that follow-up Dune: Messiah would be going into production, now likely to film this summer. With that announcement Part Two’s chances diminished, as shown by its nominations.
While the first film managed to pick up an Adapted Screenplay nomination amongst multiple tech nods, this second half of the story has only five nominations, including Picture, each of which are tech-based, and it doesn’t even seem set to win all of those as Dune almost swept them. With a lack of acting, Film Editing, Screenplay and particularly Best Director nod for Denis Villeneuve, a second time for this franchise, Dune: Part Two almost seems to be a case of The Two Towers. The middle film that gets less nominations, picks up one or two wins, while we all wait for the third and, in this case likely, final instalment which goes out with a bang and plenty of gold statues. With no Best Director nod for Villeneuve’s grand scale work, and even Film Editing nomination, it really does seem like this sci-fi epic went from a frontrunner to something of an outsider.
However, the scale and scope are also courtesy of the visual effects and technical departments with have been recognised with nominations. The key details that many have loved and found so absorbing about Dune and the world of Arrakis and beyond still land an effect and have been remembered many months on. While Wicked has had consistent promotion, Dune: Part Two may have lingered in the mind – having been released at the start of March last year, even before the 2024 Oscars ceremony! Some could say that its release date could mean that it was too far away to any longer have a chance or impact, although the idea that you have to release late-October to mid-December to be in with a chance of Best Picture or general Oscar glory is continuing to gradually fade.
In the film’s lead role, and a key push for some for it, is Timothée Chalamet. A man who has starred in seven Best Picture nominees in seven years (often two a year, as is the case this year) and multiple box office successes. His continued presence on the awards circuit, and promotional trails, could well give Dune: Part Two a boost, even if the main point of his promotion is the film that he’s in the running for as Lead Actor, A Complete Unknown. In this case the latter film could well be getting the focus with Dune left somewhat in the background, but the fact that Chalamet prominently stars in both could give the former a boost in voter’s minds, and it perhaps helps that it’s quite a different beast. A big, grander scale cinematic beast that makes the most of the big screen – here’s just hoping the voters have seen it on the big screen rather than on a screener at home.
And from one Chalamet-led film to another, A Complete Unknown is perhaps the most traditional film amongst this year’s Best Picture nominees. The kind of safe and conventional film which benefits most from the preferential ballot. People consistently like it, and therefore agree on it and it gets consistent placements on ballots. It’s the way in which safe and conventional films like CODA and Green Book win Best Picture. And to some extent A Complete Unknown is helped by the fact that it’s a biopic of sorts, with Chalamet challenging Adrien Brody in the Lead Actor race, having won at SAG, for his portrayal as Bob Dylan.
Having not screened at major festivals to give time for editing to make it to a December release in good condition, A Complete Unknown was turned around quickly and it seems to have worked with the acclaim which it has received. Stacking up eight nominations, ticking off all key categories except for Film Editing and even picking up some technical nods. James Mangold was seen as something of a surprise nomination in Best Director, even after his DGA appearance, but the fact that he shows up here shows just how much of a push there is behind the film, in addition to three acting nominations (with Edward Norton and Monica Barbaro joining Chalamet in Supporting Actor and Actress respectively). Mangold also seems to be growing as a favoured director for the Academy with a number of his films finding awards favour over the years, Ford V Ferrari was nominated for Best Picture alongside other nods and even Logan found itself in the Adapted Screenplay race, despite the Academy’s aversion to comic-book adaptations.
And, again, this is the kind of traditional film that does well with a variety of voters, particularly older voters and the good deal of the Academy membership that they make up. Not just in terms of being a biopic, which helps Chalamet’s chances, but the general tone and style of the film as a whole, largely brought about by Mangold – who receives his first Best Director nomination for this film. Due to the last-minute nature in which A Complete Unknown properly came into the race, it was suggested to be a contender due to the basis and star power behind it in the build up to release, the film is perhaps fresher in minds and has only had chance to grow, and may not have reached its peak. And with Chalamet’s surprise win at SAG there is perhaps growing favour towards him and the film. And if he’s playing Bob Dylan in a film about Bob Dylan, and his shift to different styles of music as he went electric, that core performance could have an effect on the film and could, like with the concerts in the film, lead A Complete Unknown to only continue its growing loudness with the cast and crew being the last to take the stage on Oscar night.
If Chalamet wins Best Leading Actor then he will become the youngest actor to win in this category, beating current record holder Adrien Brody by around seven or eight months. Brody also finds himself nominated in this same category this year, 22 years on from his win for The Pianist, and appears to be a frontrunner after having won a number of precursors for his turn in The Brutalist.
Brady Corbet’s film, for which he seems likely to win Best Director, is an epic drama which has picked up ten nominations, including one in each key category and appears to be a frontrunner in quite a few. In some years the idea of a long run-time – in this case just over 3-and-a-half hours – could be said to be a turn away for voters, and maybe the suggestion of an intermission might help or hinder The Brutalist, but it feels that this argument can’t quite be used this year. A number of nominees are around the two-and-a-half hour, or longer, mark this year, with the average run-time being that mark with the combined run-times making for the longest set of Best Picture nominees in Oscar history (totalling 24 hours and 53 minutes).
To bring back the point of the current American Presidential administration, The Brutalist tells a story about immigration and the American Dream, and trauma echoing from the past into the present and the ways in which this is, and isn’t confronted. Much of these themes feel universal to some degree, and we’re all aware of the American Dream, but feel especially backed against a current political background, and could give the film more of a leaning in voters’ favour.
There’s also the feeling of a cinematic achievement here, this sprawling epic with a look and feel on this scale made for $10 million is truly a big achievement, and is part of why Corbet feels like he’s leading the pack for the Best Director Oscar – even if Sean Baker picked up the top prize at the DGA awards for his work on Anora. While the awards haven’t lined up as consistently in recent years there’s still an idea that if you look at Best Picture, Best Director should line up with that, and it had come back into effect in the last year or two with the likes of Oppenheimer and Everything Everywhere All At Once. If Corbet picks up this win then that would likely put The Brutalist in good favour for the top honour of the night, especially when taking into account that aforementioned achievement of it being pulled off, and the emotionally affecting narrative that it tells; much of which is captured in Brody’s performance.
As the season has gone on The Brutalist has found itself consistently in the awards conversation, but not always at the fore. It’s not been pushed towards the back of the pack, but just behind the frontrunners. And maybe that’s what it needs to win. Again, the consistently liked and agreed-upon film that can get high-enough ballot placements that can help it to win Best Picture through that agreement rather than a lot of overall acclaim. Even as frontrunners have changed overtime, The Brutalist has maintained something of a steady position, a key indicator that there’s consistent favour towards it. If voters can get around that considerably longer run-time, less so for the run-time but spending it with the heavy themes that its playing with, then this could very well be the film the Academy names as the best of 2024.
Moving from a story set in and about the past to a thoroughly modern story, Anora has had quite the back-and-forth journey this awards season. Starting out at its festival appearances many were tipping it as an early Best Picture frontrunner. From there, as with most early frontrunners – think most Spielberg and Scorsese films of late; West Side Story, The Fabelmans, Killers Of The Flower Moon, The Irishman – it fell away from the conversation as other titles began to be more discussed, particularly once the nominations were announced. However, this may be the social media vacuum coming into play again because suddenly in came surprise wins at both the Producers and Directors Guild Awards – the Producers Guild being notable for using the same preferential ballot system as the Oscars.
Alongside a win for Original Screenplay at the WGA Awards, with the film a frontrunner in this category at the Oscars, Anora has won a good deal of its precursors. Mikey Madison may be said to be slightly behind Demi Moore in the Lead Actress race, although she managed to pull off a win at the BAFTAs and I don’t think she should be underestimated for being able to pull off the big win, she’s fantastic in the film and that has been recognised. The success at such major precursors with overlap with Academy members suggests that the initial responses that Anora underperformed in terms of nominations – despite ticking all the key boxes, and it wasn’t really going to be competing in that many technical categories anyway – were incorrectly signalling the drop in the films chances.
Even those who have claimed that the Academy are quite sex-averse when it comes to the films they award; let’s remember this is a film following exotic dancer and sex worker Ani discovering her relationships with sex and intimacy, should take a look at more recent Oscar winners – especially after the success of Poor Things last year, particularly Emma Stone’s lead performance; although these are quite different to actually winning Best Picture. The biggest question is: could a film that could be viewed so strongly as a comedy win Best Picture? Comedy, like horror, is another genre that the Academy often tends to stray away from, largely because of just how subjective it can be, or the different impact it has compared to a great drama which can stay with you in another way. Anora certainly seems to have jumped these hurdles with its more serious moments and themes, but there’s still a good chunk of the film that could be seen as playing out as a comedy, whether this chaotic strand turns some people away or not is a different matter.
Certainly Producers and Directors seem to like the film. Yet, alongside the film not quite running away at BAFTA, Madison again still won Best Leading Actress there, Anora didn’t find much love at the SAG awards when it came to winners; although consistent nominations for Yura Borisov in Supporting Actor categories do show some additional love for the film and its subtleties, especially with his largely quiet, perhaps background-held, supporting role. Whether Anora’s success is a bounce-back or a case of the love for it never actually went away there’s clearly a strong backing behind it. Voters are often not bothered by something picking up multiple wins in a season and therefore switching to something else, hence why plenty of films have swept across a season each year. And Anora could continue its string of victories to lead Sean Baker’s latest, Baker himself growing in appearances and love at awards shows after frequently cropping up with wins and nominations at independent award shows for his last few features, to pick up Best Picture on Sunday night.
From films about the past and present to one about the clash between both, and beyond, Conclave could be the film that upsets Anora’s winning streak, and to some extent already has. After a trio of big wins for Anora, Conclave came along and won both Best Film at BAFTA (although the British-leanings of the film, which also picked up Outstanding British Film there, did give it bonus points there and BAFTA haven’t quite aligned with the Academy a great deal in recent years, and Best Ensemble at SAG. It was this latter win which truly shook up the race and once again showed just how unpredictable, and varied, this year’s Best Picture race is.
While much of the supporting cast weren’t able to make it into many Supporting Actor races, with multiple names likely competing against each other and therefore cancelling each other out, Ralph Fiennes fantastic lead performance was able to get a nod. Alongside Isabella Rossellini’s nomination for Supporting Actress, which some say is a career nomination, others a deserving nod despite just 12 minutes of screen-time, and one very clear Oscar clip, while some people might say both are true. Regardless, while Fiennes seems to be the third place contender for many in his race, but could quietly pull ahead, Rossellini is viewed as an outside contender. But, as an ensemble there’s no denying the strength of performances in Conclave, hence the SAG win.
Conclave has each of the key categories ticked off except for Edward Berger in Best Director, having also missed out on a nomination in 2023 for Best Picture frontrunner, also after BAFTA success, All Quiet On The Western Front. And in the likes of Adapted Screenplay and Film Editing it seems to have a clear lead for the win, perhaps helped by its angle as a political thriller against the backdrop of a papal election. While recent events relating to the Pope’s recent ill health won’t impact voting for the film, this news broke after voting closed, what could push it is that story of the new vs the old, conservative vs liberal stances and all playing out in a very secretive and closed-off process. Another traditional film but brilliantly told and with plenty of suspense, which has led it to pick up key notable awards for its various elements, and one or two technical nominations at the Oscars. Conclave has seemingly gradually grown since its festival screenings and could continue to do so, especially after its pick up of wins the later voting has closed in the build-up to the Oscars.
Additionally, it may well have the widest relevance due to its themes and the ways in which it presents them. Likely to connect with international voters, who have increasingly become more influential in recent years not just in Best Picture but across a number of major categories – the most notable example being Anthony Hopkins’ Lead Actor win for The Father over Chadwick Boseman in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom – as much as it does American audiences. With these combined elements, as with those in the film itself, Conclave could find itself at the top of the list after enough whittling down of ballots to be elected Best Picture.
And finally, one of the quietest nominees of this year’s awards season, which may have an equally quiet, yet strong, push behind it. While its only other nomination outside of Best Picture is for Adapted Screenplay it managed to pick up a win at the WGA Awards, although a number of screenplays are ineligible here due to WGA rules. Additionally the first-person perspective drama also managed to get a win for director (and co-writer) RaMell Ross for First-Time Theatrical Feature at the DGA Awards.
Nickel Boys, like I’m Still Here, may be viewed as one of this year’s Best Picture nominees that just slipped in as a ninth or tenth nominee, but it is now a serious contender. This means that, roughly, around 550 Academy members likely had it as one of their top two films of 2024 – the films that appear most in the top twos submitted go on to be nominated for Best Picture. Therefore, it likely already has this many first place placements on ballots, plus it’s a film that has a strong, emotionally affecting narrative echoing into the effects of generational trauma closer to the present. Documentary Feature nominee Sugarcane looks into similar themes as Nickel Boys, showing something of a trend amongst nominees which could be seen as something that the Academy in general is leaning towards. This particularly feels like a timely and very relevant film which could once again give it that bigger impact and push when it comes to voting.
There were fears that Nickel Boys, like Sing Sing which failed to get a nomination in this category, had had its awards campaign botched by the studios and distributor backing it meaning that it might not have been seen or heard of enough to land into the race. However, by getting into the Best Picture race it shows that there was a strong enough effect to, again, resonate with enough people to get the nomination, that could echo to more people seeing the film. Especially after the wins it’s picked up here and there along its awards journey, this could easily be another title that people are incorrectly putting aside simply because it hasn’t been around for so long. That being said, part of that does come from that the fact that the For Your Consideration campaign for the film was very muted and quite fumbled, it’s Best Picture appearance can still be seen as something of a surprise, although a welcome one – in my opinion it’s one of the best films in the line-up.
And with the relevance and links to other nominees in other categories, Nickel Boys could certainly find itself having grown its audience, and getting consistent placements on ballots in the key spots it needs to obtain in order to more likely get the final award on Sunday night. It has the backing in at least one other category, and you don’t need a batch of nominations to win Best Picture, even if it could help. And that nomination has a push behind it as shown from other places and ceremonies. It may have quietly entered the race, but that doesn’t mean that Nickel Boys should be pushed aside, it may well have quietly grown since the nominations and over the course of voting and could well find itself with enough support, especially thanks to its emotional punch, to win Best Picture.
And now, onto the main point of this, once again, overlong, poorly-written, overly-repetitive ramble: trying to work out what will win Best Picture. Not through maths, but through simply trying to guess what a group of thousands of people in the film industry have collectively enjoyed the most. This year’s line-up has a wide variety of films and genres and it’s made the race all the more unpredictable, meaning that it feels as if truly anything could win, but there are still some films that the preferential ballot could favour.
With the preferential ballot, this is where the idea that the film that is most agreed upon and liked could win over the one that has had the most vocal praise. You’re looking for the film that is more likely to get consistent second and third place rankings over the most first place placements. This meaning that it’s more likely to get to 51% of first place votes (the film with the lowest number of first place votes each round is removed, the number two for people who voted for that film becoming their new number one until one specific title has the majority of votes) for a film that’s more liked.
In starting to whittle down the nominees there are always those that seem like outsiders. The films that seem to have just slipped in the group of nominees and don’t quite have the push in the race, and throughout the season. Nickel Boys certainly seems like the standout here, and while it’s grown overtime in support I’m Still Here feels as if its chances are better in International Feature, and even Lead Actress, than in Best Picture.
In addition to this, The Substance, despite being likely to find success in other categories, simply feels as if it won’t be watched or included on the ballots of all voters simply because of its body horror nature, which could well also lead to low rankings for a number of Academy members who tend to lean away from the genre.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the blockbusters, Dune: Part Two has simply lost steam since Dune: Messiah was announced and it certainly seems as if voters will wait for that before rewarding a Dune film Best Picture, and Denis Villeneuve a Best Director nod (maybe win), and hope for the same quality. Wicked, on the other hand, doesn’t quite seem to have the same issue in waiting for the second part but doesn’t quite have the emotional response punch that other films have. It leaves an effect with Defying Gravity and its various songs, and has a good deal of love and nominations from various branches, but its entertainment factor leads it (which is no bad thing), but as a whole it feels like a film that’s agreed on but more likely to be placed around the middle of ballots rather than the top three, or maybe even four.
Then there comes the films which each feel as if they could really have a stronger chance of winning, and appear to have been battling it out as frontrunners all season. A Complete Unknown slightly sits outside of this pack, perhaps a bit too traditional amongst the rest of this year’s nominees, it certainly ticks some Academy favourite boxes, but its lack of wins at other ceremonies, and indeed name as a possible winner in the conversation, means that it seems to be assigned similar ballot placements to Wicked, around the middle of the race overall.
And now it’s truly difficult to separate the films and make a confident prediction. Even as I write this I feel all certainty (if there even was any) draining from me as I want to change my mind every few seconds. Yes, even with Emilia Pérez still not eliminated. With the most nominations and so much love from the film industry it still feels as if it could have a good chance of winning one of the biggest honours the film industry has to offer. However, the controversy around it, and comments from key figures involved, have seemingly caused some damage to the film as a Best Picture contender, even if not in all categories it appears in. Even aside from this the film has somewhat faded away in conversation overall as a contender, it does have a divided response (although, again, maybe largely held online, to which voters really don’t pay much attention, and perhaps rightly so), although maybe not as much as some may think based on total nominations and general love from the film industry. Yet, I have a feeling that its conversation even in the film industry (of which I have little to no inside information on) has diminished and moved away to other films, meaning that it has, in the final stages just as it seemed set to win, fallen away from the chance to win Best Picture.
And then there are the final three: Anora, Conclave and The Brutalist. And, to be honest, I may as well flip a coin for my final prediction. However, that would be a bit difficult in deciding between three options unless I counted the rare chance that it land on its edge as a possibility. The Brutalist has had a good deal of love, but it seems that after picking up only Best Motion Picture – Drama at the Golden Globes, a slightly iffy precursor for predicting, it hasn’t quite picked up much at any other precursors, even managing to not pick up anything at SAG. It could still have a strong chance due to its acclaim, but it does feel that over time the conversation around The Brutalist has slightly diminished as a Best Picture winner, even if it seems likely to pick up Lead Actor and Director.
From here, a coin toss can properly be used, and may as well be the way I try to predict, although I’d still want to change my mind, or the side the coin has landed on every five seconds until the final envelope is opened tomorrow night. Anora and Conclave have emerged as the two big contenders at many of the precursors. The former was on its way to a sweep until the latter came along and picked up some notable wins. While BAFTA isn’t quite the best predictor, particularly over the last few years where it’s disagreed with the Oscars on a number of occasions, SAG makes up the largest shared grouping with Academy membership. The actors branch is the biggest in the Academy and if they lean towards Conclave again as Best Picture as they did with Best Ensemble, alongside with the possible push from a more international audience compared to Anora, then it could land the win. Although, Best Ensemble is, of course, an acting award for an ensemble performance rather than an overall film, but there can often be overlap between winners.
And the international point for Conclave can also be made for Anora where the film has also found strong favour from a variety of people. It also notably made a surprise win at the Directors Guild Awards, boosting Sean Baker’s chances in the Best Director category – if he wins there then Anora could very well win Best Picture – and also the film’s win at the Producers Guild Awards which also uses the preferential ballot system, and had most of the same nominees; exchanging I’m Still Here and Nickel Boys for A Real Pain and September 5.
Both films appear to have a similar audience spread and acclaim. If we’re looking at a slightly more modern Academy leaning – the kind that gives Best Picture to Moonlight and The Shape Of Water – then Anora seems likely to win. However, if we’re looking at an Oppenheimer or Nomadland Academy then Conclave seems to have it. The two almost seem to be at a 50/50 split in terms of likelihood. But, Conclave’s rise came after two key wins at BAFTA and SAG, where the latter was more for the ensemble side of things. Anora appeared to be blazing ahead before this, racking up the key guild wins.
And so, to the final prediction (which could change many times between writing this and the ceremony itself, who knows, I could jump back to The Substance, wouldn’t that be something?). But, I believe that the film the Academy will give the 97th Best Picture Oscar to will be Anora.
Just A Little Bit Random 