Just A Little Bit Random

What Will Win Best Picture? 2024

For many people the 2024 Best Picture race for many has been leading to a certain winner for a number of weeks, even before awards season properly arrived. However, the Academy has been known to take a left turn sometimes with their eventual choices, and with the preferential ballot system, and the increasingly diverse face of votership, things may not actually be so certain. Especially with one of the most diverse and interesting, not to mention exciting, selection of Best Picture nominees we’ve seen for a good few years.

As I do around this time every year, in this piece I’ll be taking a look at each of the Best Picture nominees and looking at the forces working in their favour, and those working against them, when it comes to a possible win of the top award on Oscar night. Because, as mentioned, this is a particularly fascinating set of nominees, and looking at a number of winners over the last few years, is the idea of a ‘conventional’ winner increasingly going out the window?

Proving that this is no ordinary, at least by traditional standards, selection of Best Picture nominees from the off, Barbie was the biggest film of last year. While the Academy is no stranger to nominating box office success (look at Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: The Way Of Water’s nominations last year) they are to films such as Barbie. Yes, it was much celebrated for its themes of feminism and toxic masculinity, but Barbie was a comedy, a genre (alongside the likes of horror, or most direct genre films) which votership largely seems to lean away from. However, Barbie is evidently a very different film, that seen from the first trailers, and just how long it remained in the conversation after release.

Barbie stirred something, and not just a surge in ticket sales alongside an Oppenheimer double bill – I personally believe that a good chunk of Oppenheimer’s gross was from the Barbenheimer double bill and social media trend – within those who watched it. America Ferrera’s monologue bringing many of the themes and ideas to the fore is claimed by many to be what got her a surprise Best Supporting Actress nomination, after being missed out from a number of other key ceremonies, with help from the screenplay which is a frontrunner in the Adapted Screenplay category.

However, a film that has so much personality, and was brought to the fore by its director’s work has failed to earn Greta Gerwig another Best Director nod – after also being missed out to much uproar for her work on Little Women. Yet, this could give voters more reason to push the film, alongside the discussion around Margot Robbie failing to get a Best Leading Actress nomination. It certainly seems to be prominent in people’s minds still, not just when it comes to Ryan Gosling in Supporting Actor but also in technical categories such as Costume and Production Design, which show that it’s being thought about beyond the big categories.

Barbie may have failed to win the ensemble prize at the SAG Awards this year – where it was widely predicted to potentially prevail – with the Actors Branch of the Academy being the biggest of the 10,000+ membership. But, this isn’t about the performances, it’s about the film as a whole. And Barbie has undeniably lasted beyond its initial release, it has consistently been in the awards conversation and been one of the most praised and successful films of the year. A big studio blockbuster with its critiques of consumerism and the brand which created its IP in the first place, it’s not quite weird, but it’s a film with a huge deal of personality.

And in a world where the likes of Everything Everywhere All At Once can win Best Picture, Barbie really has a chance. Greta Gerwig is now three for three when it comes to her films receiving nominations for the top prize at the Oscars, and it genuinely feels like Barbie, with just how popular it is, could be the film that gets her a win. For voters it could well be more than Kenough.

While Barbie dominated the box office, its fellow double bill feature Oppenheimer had both commercial success and awards success. So far the film has won the top prize at the majority of precursors – including BAFTA, DGA, PGA and SAG; the PGA awards being notable for also using a preferential ballot system. It seems that it is the most widely loved film across many branches, also reflected in its 13 nominations – the most of any film this year – and the fact that its a frontrunner in a number of categories. Even Cillian Murphy seems to be stretching out in-front of Paul Giamatti who was for a long time believed to be a joint frontrunner in the Leading Actor race.

Christopher Nolan has firmly become an Academy favourite, and seems to be on his way to a Best Director Oscar, too. He’s been open about the bleakness of the final stages of his film, bringing it up in acceptance speeches at other ceremonies this year. However, the downbeat tone of Oppenheimer, particularly during its closing stages, could turn a number of voters away. Do they really want to award such a pessimistic film? Surely something celebratory or more emotionally affecting, not quite in the way of dread, would have more of a personal effect for them? However, they may also want to celebrate and push the message being sent within the film and what it’s trying to say about the nuclear weapons at hand, pushing it further up their ballots.

Oppenheimer is currently believed to be the frontrunner for this year’s Best Picture award, many consider it to be the only contender at this stage. However, it does still face some prominent, and equally interesting, competition. The book isn’t quite closed in this case, especially when it also still faces fierce competition in other categories and doesn’t seem to be a ‘confirmed’ winner in the likes of Adapted Screenplay – where Barbie is considered a potential winner.

There is also the chance that some voters could be tired of hearing about the film at this stage. This might sound like a somewhat ridiculous point, but it’s been a factor that Netflix has experienced on multiple occasions. Many believed they could have had a win with Roma, and especially with The Power Of The Dog, however with the amount of push and advertising they gave the latter in particular a number of places cited voters simply getting tired of the film, feeling as if they had seen too much of or about it. All Quiet On The Western Front last year seemed to be the streamer’s best shot at the award, especially with their For Your Consideration campaign being much less forced than before, and to some extent it seemed to work out with how consistently the film was in the awards conversation. Yet, Oppenheimer’s buzz seems to be still ongoing, having dropped very little since the Best Picture nominees were announced. The praise it has been receiving may very well continue, leading Christopher Nolan and co to the most prominent stage of awards season for just one more top prize.

When it comes to their Best Picture nominee this year, Netflix also seems to have gone for a more muted campaign, even more so than last year. While some might suggest that this is because they haven’t got much faith in its chances it could also be down to relying on its star and director. Bradley Cooper has unfairly become something of a punching bag this awards season for his personal connection to Leonard Bernstein, and his passionate portrayal of the conductor and composer. Largely this is on social media, a realm far outside of awards season, where luckily Cooper’s Best Leading Actor nomination doesn’t lie. A nomination which is more than deserved (in a category full of truly excellent performances all deserving of their nods – it’s perhaps the strongest category this year).

Cooper’s performance is a transformational one, the kind the Academy likes. The kind that also means the film gets a Makeup And Hairstyling nomination. With this in their minds, alongside Carey Mulligan’s Leading Actress nominated turn, Maestro could well be firm in voters’ minds. For a good while I wasn’t sure if the film would get a Best Picture nomination, but its awards success thus far, in terms of nominations, has meant that Maestro appears to have exceeded expectations. Even in terms of Oscar nods it’s done quite well, managing to obtain an Original Screenplay nomination if not the usually helpful Director and Film Editing mentions – although in a world where CODA can do as well as it did with just three nominations such nominations aren’t as ‘required’.

On the point of CODA, Maestro is perhaps the most direct and conventional of this year’s Best Picture nominees. While not a straightforward biopic of Leonard Bernstein as a conductor and composer, rather focusing on his relationship with wife Felicia Montealegre (Mulligan), it is the most traditional of the ten nominees this year. The kind of film that performs well with older voters, who still make up a good chunk of the Academy and help push films like CODA and Green Book.

While looking at its general reception Maestro might seem like something of an outlier from the rest of the pack, the success that it’s hand in terms of nominations, and indeed its overall style, including the passion that Cooper has clearly poured into its various aspects, makes it the kind of thing that Oscar voters really go for. It’s perhaps the most Oscar bait-y nominee this year – although that term seems rather derogatory nowadays. Does that mean that the film could be drowned out by more ‘unconventional’ films in a highly diverse line-up fully of variative personality? Maestro in some regards has already quietly exceeded expectations, and it could well do so again by picking up this year’s Best Picture award.

On the other side of Maestro, Poor Things is perhaps the complete opposite of a traditional Oscar film. While Yorgos Lanthimos appears to have become a quick Oscar favourite after the success of The Favourite in 2019 (and The Lobster’s Original Screenplay nod in 2017) his re-teaming with Emma Stone, a current frontrunner in the Leading Actress race, is a much weirder affair – perhaps his weirdest so far. Yet, a number of elements that bring about this ‘weirdness’ are in the general style of the film, much of which has received recognition in the technical categories at this year’s awards. A number of these races the film is widely predicted to win, or at least be a strong contender in; such as Production and Costume Design.

And while it’s a rather different film in terms of its style Everything Everywhere All At Once was last year’s winner, although perhaps with a bit more near-universal praise than Poor Things. The former was praised for its themes of families, particularly immigrant families, acceptance and the different relationship within them, working amongst the moments of multiverses where people have hot dog fingers or find themselves in a Ratatouille-esque situation with a raccoon. However, there’s a difference between such instances and the 18-rated sex, or “furious jumping”, scenes in a rather off-kilter film.

Yet, as Stone’s Bella Baxter explores the outside world for the first time, learning more about herself and expanding her mind themes of female independence and discovery become increasingly prominent. There are some who have seen themes of female autism within the central character’s journey of development throughout the film.

It’s these ideas that people have found within the film, and that the narrative plays with, which are so wonderfully summed up in the lasting closing shot, perhaps allowing for a more memorably film for voters as they reflect on that particular moment. However, there may be some viewers who don’t reach that point as the overall style of Poor Things may prove too much for them. However, the extent of its praise, and again the success of certain Best Picture winners in recent years, show that a big stylistic personality can be a help – and The Favourite was considered a frontrunner in its year, eventually losing out to Green Book.

A more recent release date – Searchlight Pictures pushed the film back to December in the States perhaps due to the SAG strike at the time and also for a bigger awards push after its festival run – could also help the film’s chances when it comes to being in voters’ minds. While recency bias has never been as major a factor for winning Best Picture as some would make out it can be a help, and Poor Things may just have it, alongside the favour of multiple branches (receiving a total of 11 nominations), including the major ones largely looked to for a potential Best Picture winner. The film has certainly received a lot of praise, and those who have loved it have really loved it, perhaps placing it a good way up their preferential ballots. And, as will be mentioned later, when it comes to the eventual Best Picture winner it’s the film/s more consistently placed 2nd and 3rd, and to some extent 4th, on ballots that matter more than at number one.

While Poor Things stands out as a film representing the changing face of the Academy with its overall style, The Zone Of Interest is an equally, if not more so, fascinating nominee in this year’s Best Picture race. It seems so unlikely that a film of this nature would have been nominated five or ten years ago, maybe even two or three. Yet, here a slice-of-life holocaust drama about the commandant of Auschwitz has obtained just this.

Jokes may have been stirring that nobody has seen the film due to the release strategy, however throughout awards season the film has maintained a place in the conversation. In some ways talk around it has grown as more have discovered it due to its awards attention, and the fact that many have talked about what an important film it is. Much of this impact coming from the strong emotional response that many have had to the shocking nature of the film, as it never enters the concentration camp but makes you aware of the events that are occurring within through the sound and visual detail surrounding the central home.

The sound which has picked up a key nomination, showing that it’s been noted how integral it is to the film, and that it’s had an effect. Like Production Design can be a key indicator for some films – as it was for Parasite a couple of years ago in terms of the way the central house worked there – the way that The Zone Of Interest uses sound is so much a part of why and how the film has worked for many audience members. It’s another case where the response to it has been so strong, particularly due to the way in which it leaves viewers after watching. This strong lasting effect could help to keep it in voters minds, pushing it up their ballots and bringing it strong consistent placements.

Add on Directing (this is a very Director’s Branch film) and Adapted Screenplay nominations and the film ticks off key categories. It may not have a Film Editing nomination or any acting nods – Sandra Hüller who could be a dark horse in the Leading Actress race for her turn in fellow Best Picture nominee Anatomy Of A Fall was believed by some to be a possible Supporting Actress contender for this film – but an almost certain International Feature win could push the film. It’s already in mind by some as a winner in that category, and while that might mean lower ballot placements to give other films a chance it may also help it as voters already view it as awards worthy, remember they think highly of it and give it a boost.

It feels like The Zone Of Interest is one of the most praised films in this year’s Best Picture race. I’ve seen very few people speaking less-warmly or simply against it, and that’s coming from a person who appreciates and likes the film but doesn’t love it (I personally think it would be at the bottom of my ballot if I was an Academy voter), there’s a strong case that the strong response to the film could be enough to push it across the line. Even if some, myself included, think that it might be one of the nominees that just about got into the race, but now it’s in it (like any other nominee), it’s a serious contender, and the strength of its reception could get it the biggest win on Oscar night.

If The Zone Of Interest is the kind of film that just wouldn’t have been recognised by the Academy in most years American Fiction is the film that usually goes under the radar. I genuinely believe that this particular nomination, and the success the film has had, is one of the most interesting things about this awards season. Not just because of its comedy, not just because of that comedy being satirical, not just because its original title was F*ck (without the asterisk), but because it simply feels like the kind of film that gets talked about as an awards contender for five seconds before being completely forgotten about. Yet, here it is as a Best Picture Oscar nominee, and a growing contender in the Adapted Screenplay race – particularly after an unexpected win in that category at BAFTA.

The Academy like to lean toward films with political relevance, and certainly American Fiction’s depiction of Black author Jeffrey Wright fighting against what he views as the industry’s want for books about stereotypical Black stories fits into that. And while it does show criticism towards the film industry – the reason some people believe May December got nothing more than an Original Screenplay nomination – and its frequent depiction of stories relating to slavery, gangs and general pain and suffering when it comes to Black people on screen, the focus is largely on the writing world (or is it?).

While there might not be a mention in either Film Editing or Director, American Fiction did manage to also pick up nominations in Supporting Actor (a truly deserved nomination for a wonderful piece of emotional understanding from Sterling K. Brown) and Original Score, which came as a surprise to some people. While Score isn’t a huge indicator of Best Picture, or shows technical aspects being considered in the way that Sound of Production Design could do, it does add one more point to American Fiction’s belt.

While it might not seem like one of the most talked about nominees it seemed like one of the most certain in the build-up to the nominations announcement. Again, while feeling like something that would normally be left out of the conversation, this has been firmly a part of it. Yes, the louder talk and conversation around a number of other nominees could lead to the film being drowned out, if it hasn’t been already, but it’s solid place in the conversation throughout awards season could help it along. Plus, if it does win Adapted Screenplay that could give it even more of a boost.

The film may not be the most loved, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be the most hated, even with what could be quite a divisive ending which could turn some voters away. This may be the kind of film that gets placed around the middle of ballots, which could damage it, but on the other hand if towards the higher end of this section it could lead the crew of American Fiction to be the final group on stage at the Dolby Theatre on March 10th. Best Picture often doesn’t go to the film that is most vocally loved, but the one that is most generally liked, the one that has the most consistent (positive) consensus.

The Zone Of Interest and American Fiction may be interesting signs of the evolving taste of the Academy, but one certainty has once again proved true, Scorsese is back, again. Like with most of his and Spielberg’s features Killers Of The Flower Moon was another strong awards contender from Scorsese even before it had premiered. Yet, often the case is that the film’s are considered frontrunners, even presumptive winners, up until the point where the nominations are announced and they drop out of the race. However, with this particular film it feels like the conversation around its potential Best Picture win lasted at least a week or two beyond this usual cut-off point.

Many have pointed out that Killers Of The Flower Moon is quite a different beast to Scorsese’s recent work – but as any great director his genres and topics have varied and changed throughout his career as he continues to challenge himself. It’s been praised for the way that it puts its story in the hands of the Osage people whose perspective we see the film from. Much of this reflected in praise for Lily Gladstone, who many are predicting to win the tight Leading Actress race, with her story being used as a key part of the campaign for her and the film. With her at the fore of people’s minds as a key figure throughout this awards season the film may well be alongside.

Yet, despite picking up ten total nominations – including a somewhat unexpected appearance in Best Original Song for Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People) – the film lacks a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination, the only Best Picture nominee this year to not obtain one. While some say that this is because Barbie was switched to the category and took its place, allowing for May December to make its way into Original Screenplay, the fact remains that Killers Of The Flower Moon doesn’t appear in this category. Even CODA a couple of years ago appeared in this very category, and eventually won it.

However, there’s plenty of star power involved in the film both in front of and behind the camera. Leonardo DiCaprio may not have received a Leading Actor nod, but Robert de Niro appears in Supporting while Scorsese achieved another Directing nomination. Frequent collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker is believed to be a strong contender for another Film Editing win, and Robbie Robertson could pull off a posthumous win in Original Score. But, could all of this play against the film? Many of these people already have their Oscars, yes that hasn’t stopped the Academy in the past, but when they’re figures of this calibre do they need another?

It all comes back to that idea that Killers Of The Flower Moon feels different. It’s not that the film has entirely been in the conversation, but its themes, ideas, characters and perspectives which are so key to it and the story that it’s telling. For some voters that may be worth celebrating. Plus, there has been plenty of praise directed towards the film. It may not be number one on the most ballots, but with how much it was, and has been, raved about it could get a good deal of high-ranking placements leading it to Scorsese’s second Best Picture win (The Departed was now 18 years ago after all…)

Also no stranger to the awards campaign trail is Alexander Payne, appearing in this particular Best Picture line-up with a (largely) Christmas film of all things. One that was released in late-October in the US, and received acclaim in the UK where it was released in mid-January. The festive season is just part of what brings The Holdovers its warmth and extended hand of welcoming and understanding. At one point it was considered a strong frontrunner in all of its races, even up to a week or two ago. However, as Guild awards took place and leaned towards Oppenheimer it seemed that it faded away in the conversation and got drowned out. But, there is still a lot of love for the film, and it still seems to be a strong contender in a number of its five categories – not just Da’Vine Joy Randolph’s effective lock-in for the Best Supporting Actress win, but many predict The Holdovers for a win in Original Screenplay.

Oscar voters are known to like to reward career work at times, largely in individual categories rather than Best Picture, and The Holdovers could be on the receiving end of that. Paul Giamatti is still believed by some to be strong competition for Cillian Murphy in Leading Actor, and if some go for Murphy they may go for Giamatti’s film in Best Picture instead, particularly if they also note that Payne is without a Best Director nomination. Plus, isn’t part of The Holdovers about supporting the underdogs and people coming together from their respective isolations?

The Holdovers feels like one of the strongest contenders in this year’s Best Picture race, helped by the fact that it seems to be very consistently liked, if not more so. It ticks off key nominations and while it might not have any technical mentions beyond Film Editing that perhaps speaks to the way that the film has emotionally affected voters. The key details, aside from Director, have been noted and remembered. While some might brush it aside now that awards season has largely panned out, I don’t think that it can be taken out of the race just like that.

I personally think that it’s one of the strongest contenders just because of how much it was praised and liked, plus it has so much of what the Academy sometimes leans towards in terms of its themes and presentation. While having traditional leanings there are open glimpses of mental health and grief (within the 70s setting that the film is based in) the warmth, humour and emotion have been consistently praised and mean that the film has been held in high regard (as if the Best Picture nomination doesn’t already say that). The only thing that seemed to knock it back was another film dominating the conversation. But, The Holdovers has always been close by, and its themes seem to have universally translated. The Academy has, as mentioned, an increasingly diverse range of members eligible to vote, and the agreement seems to be that The Holdovers is very good, particularly at what it does. With this consensus it could be the final film to win an award this Sunday night.

Let’s stay in cold climates for the moment as we switch to the film that has perhaps been in the awards conversation the longest this year, Anatomy Of A Fall. The Cannes Film Festival has increasingly become a solid predictor of Oscars success, while the Palme d’Or has led to a number of acclaimed and successful films, Oscar attention wasn’t always guaranteed. However, after Parasite’s big win in 2020, and Triangle Of Sadness slipping into the nominees last year, Anatomy Of A Fall has had a steady course to the ceremony since May of 2023. And throughout this awards season distributor Neon, and those behind the film, appear to have been throwing as weight as they can behind the film; and it seems to have worked. Out of all nominees Anatomy Of A Fall seems to be the one that has truly gained traction and attention across the season, growing in the conversation as the weeks have gone on.

There’s a strong argument to be made that Anatomy Of A Fall could win in each of the five categories that it’s nominated for. Whether this be through other contenders cancelling each other out, or on the other hand the pure strength of the film; perhaps both, it’s being discussed as a potential winner in each race. When it comes to the Original Screenplay, Director and Film Editing races references to these constantly bring into the conversation the ambiguity of the central trial, the fact that the film never truly leads the viewer in any particular direction. This decision is part of what has so greatly captivated viewers when it comes to the film and the way in which the narrative progresses and develops, delving into ideas of testifying, the truth and morality when it comes to both – particularly from a child’s perspective. The ambiguity keeping audiences thinking about the central trial and murder and playing on the mind, allowing the film to find a place in people’s minds and not just as a great film.

Leading Actress nominee Sandra Hüller, alongside border collie Palm Dog winner Messi (the last major awards contender to win this award was The Artist back in 2011), has become one of the leading faces of this awards season. A quiet contender in her acting race, the power of her performance, and prominence of herself (and Messi) throughout, has been much-discussed throughout awards season and kept the film in voters minds even longer, especially as the last few weeks have panned out. With these details in mind thanks to the push the film has been given the film may well be remembered fondly – and when thinking of fellow nominee The Zone Of Interest, in which Hüller also stars, Anatomy Of A Fall may also get a push in turn, and vice versa.

On the note of The Zone Of Interest, Anatomy Of A Fall isn’t present in the Best International Feature race due to France submitting (the also very good) The Taste Of Things instead – some claim that this was the former isn’t entirely in French, with a good deal of dialogue in English, while others have claimed that the film wasn’t submitted after writer-director Justine Triet was critical of the French government during an awards speech. With the film not present here some voters may push it for Best Picture, a vote for The Zone Of Interest there, one for Anatomy Of A Fall here. There are plenty of voters who will want to spread the love across the categories, and Anatomy Of A Fall very much seems like the kind of film that could receive a good deal of such favour.

Of course, the quietness could just be quietness. In most categories it could be a middling third-or-fourth choice contender, drowned out by the competition and therefore not thought of as much, having an effect in the Best Picture race. But, if unable to get wins in other places, why not give it a chance at the top prize, especially if it is thought of so highly? If other films are taking prominence, and being thought of more that might be the reason as to why not for some voters.

Anatomy Of A Fall has really subtly been playing in the background throughout this awards season. It’s been present for many months in the build-up and when it’s been key to strike it has done so. While it might not have won at many pre-cursors the occasional win and reference here and there – such as an Original Screenplay win at BAFTA – means that it’s remained consistently in the conversation, and grown over time. That growth could very well lead it to wins at the Oscars, including in Best Picture.

Finally, while Anatomy Of A Fall is quietly playing in the background as a contender in its various races, we move on to perhaps the quietest Best Picture nominee this year, Past Lives. With only two nominations – Picture and Original Screenplay – some have discarded Past Lives as an outside contender, however I disagree. I don’t believe that this would have been the film to not be nominated had Dune: Part Two been released last year and the writers and actors strikes not happened. Yes, this might be down to some bias due to thinking this one of the best films of 2023, but I think there’s a good deal of love behind the film – evidenced in its Best Picture nomination.

The lack of nominations does perhaps hinder its chances, despite some discussion of potential inclusion in acting and directing – if Celine Song were in the Director race she’d certainly get my vote – the film was always considered a just-outside contender to be nominated in such areas. However, when released Past Lives got a lot of love, and that echoed into a word-of-mouth success for it, eventually leading it to the awards trail – slightly similar to Drive My Car a couple of years back, although that film’s word-of-mouth grew on the awards trail leading it to Oscar nods that way. And while Drive My Car only won International Feature in the end, Past Lives is a slightly different film, and set of circumstances.

Past Lives story of changing people, immigrant families, ghosts of the past (both ourselves and others) and more truly resonated with a lot of viewers. To some extent it’s a film of what you bring to it you get out of it, and with the personal stories on display to connect to there’s a lot of emotion to be found as they pan out in recognisable fashion. Connecting to a film on such a personal, emotional level can really heighten it and the effect that it has. Such a profound effect could bring it to the fore in voters’ minds and push it up their ballot. There was, and continues to be, a lot of love for Past Lives and while that may just be echoes now, at least those echoes are still held and pushing the film to some extent.

The film has been faint in precursors. While it was included amongst the PGA nominees and won at BAFTA and the DGA awards (first-time feature for Celine Song, beating Cord Jefferson for fellow Best Picture nominee American Fiction) it wasn’t present at all at key guild ceremony SAG, the actors branch, again, marking the biggest percentage of Academy membership. While mentioned the presence of Past Lives has been pushed back by bigger names and contenders. But, it’s another film that brings about universal themes for many to connect to and empathise with as they unfold on screen. Leaving a profound lasting effect after the credits have rolled. If a film has a personal effect that says something to us we may be more likely to remember it and think about it favourably. With this in mind, that may well be the same for Oscar voters, potentially being enough to allow the power that Past Lives holds alone to be enough to lead it to Best Picture. After all, it’s the Best Picture race all others are separate contentions.

Now, we finally approach the whole point of this inconsistent, overlong ramble (if you’ve somehow read it all up until this point, thank you, I hope it hasn’t been too repetitive and boring), what will win Best Picture this year? Just before that it’s a good idea to have a quick rundown, once again, of the preferential ballot.

While every other category at the Oscars is voted on with a ‘most votes wins’ system Best Picture for over a decade now has been voted on by a preferential ballot. Voters will rank the ten nominees from best to worst and gradually nominees are removed, depending on how much favour they have, until a winner is found. The film with the least amount of first placements is removed, in this case the voters that picked said nominee then have their second choice become their first. This continues to happen until a film has 51% of first place picks, or more.

It’s for this reason that often the more consistently liked films, or least divisive ones, can have a tendency to win Best Picture over the ones that have had plenty of acclaim. The kind which have plenty of second and third, maybe even fourth, place rankings instead of just being placed at the top of the most lists.

When starting to whittle down the nominees it’s best to look at those which simply seem like outliers in the race, each year tends to have one or two that as soon as the nominees are announced it seems pretty clear they won’t win. In the case of this year Maestro stood out, largely because of its somewhat mixed response but also because it feels the most traditional film in a batch that has such varying personality and style. Alongside it Past Lives, while those who love it seem to very much do so, it hasn’t had the steam throughout awards season to be talked about very much aside from mentions that it’s nice to see it getting attention via nominations.

Then comes American Fiction, while it seemed certain that it would get a Best Picture nomination, alongside other nods, it never quite seems to have been talked about as much as other nominees. Not entirely getting lost in the crowd of the competition, it just never seems to have been talked about as a strong contender, although may get recognised for its screenplay, which seems to be the main point of attention throughout the season – aside from the performances of Wright and K. Brown.

Barbie, while having a huge personality, seems to have faded away throughout the season. Its Oscar chances look slim for Best Picture after the exclusion of Greta Gerwig in Best Director, and largely because the film leans so much into comedy. Comedy has never been a favourite genre for the often genre-phobic Academy. Barbie may have love on some ballots, but it doesn’t quite seem like it will be enough, despite a handful of nominations. In races where it was once seen as a contender it also seems to have slightly fallen behind and generally feels as if the film, despite its accomplishments and praise, isn’t being taken as seriously as a contender as it once was. In the vein of personality Poor Things, while it may be at the top of a lot of ballots, will likely be towards the bottom of a handful of others as it’s likely to be perhaps the most divisive nominee this year. While Everything Everywhere All At Once won last year, and The Shape Of Water in 2018, it simply feels like Poor Things might just be a bit ‘too weird’ for some voters, particularly when it comes to its strong R-rated nature and sex scenes which appear to have turned one or two voters away.

Now we find ourselves halfway through the nominees. With stronger contenders and the films that generally seem to have been talked about most as potential winners. For Martin Scorsese and Killers Of The Flower Moon it seems that once again it won’t be the case. Not really for an air of ‘he already has his Oscar’ – as mentioned The Departed was almost 20 years ago now… – but it simply feels that, while it was discussed for longer, his film has fallen out of the conversation. Lily Gladstone is the main talking point for the film, and she’s certainly had a lot of focus put on her and a likely Best Leading Actress win. However, it certainly seems that the focus has been on her rather than the film as a whole.

In the case of Anatomy Of A Fall, I do believe that there’s an argument to be made that it could win in each of its categories, but for the most part it seems to be a contender around the middle of the pack – aside from in Original Screenplay. It has attention, and its name has certainly grown over the last few weeks thanks to the pushes studios and distributors have given it (and Messi). But, much of this seems to be promotion and making sure that people are aware of the film rather than pushing it for awards. To some extent there have been more mentions of the dog rather than the film itself. There’s strength to Anatomy Of A Fall, and again a good case to be made for it potentially winning Best Picture, but it doesn’t seem to be so as while the film isn’t being talked about it’s not always about the central narrative and more about individual elements of it, even if it is the key ambiguity, and what helps to bring them about rather than the overall product for Best Picture.

Which leaves us with the three films that I think have the best chance at winning the top award on Oscar night. And it always seems that while my number one might match with other predicted winners, my other two never quite line up – perhaps me thinking about the preferential ballot too much. Nevertheless, I believe that the three films with the best chance this year are Oppenheimer, The Holdovers and The Zone Of Interest.

The Zone Of Interest has had a lot of praise for its haunting nature and just how much it has affected viewers. The downbeat nature seems to not have prevented it from winning a number of other awards and if anything pushes the idea of its importance. Very few have spoken against it, or given more middling thoughts on it, and it seems to be one of the most highly thought of films this awards season. It also can’t be simply said that ‘noone has seen it’, partly down to its nominations and success, and again just how highly it has been spoken of. But, its nomination, it feels, came slightly towards the back of the pack. Despite this, there is a good chance it could win. However, the fact that it’s the kind of thing the Academy usually steers away from in terms of presentation it may just find itself a distance away from the big win for something more direct in its depictions, and to some extent narrative.

Then there’s the case for Oppenheimer and The Holdovers. Oppenheimer has won almost everything this awards season. It’s predicted to pick up in the major categories at this year’s Oscars ceremony, and has won at most, if not all, of the major guild awards in the build-up to this year’s ceremony. The odds are firmly in its favour. But, then there’s the case of The Holdovers, the film that has been largely believed to be in second place to the former for most of the awards run. It’s perhaps the most consistently liked and praised film of the season. With many enjoying and connecting with the warmth it emits in the coming together of the central characters, with a trio of praised performances. It fits in with more traditional winners of recent years and is perhaps the film most likely to fare best on the preferential ballot thanks to more consistent placements in the top half.

When it comes to picking between the two it seems more obvious this year than in other more recent Best Picture races. Due to the success and wins that its had not just with top awards but in technical categories too, I finally bring this stupidly long annual waffle (I deeply apologise for the poor state of it this year) to a close by saying it seems very likely that this year’s Best Picture winner will be Oppenheimer.

Lisa Frankenstein – Review

Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 41 minutes, Director – Zelda Williams

Lisa (Kathryn Newton) finds herself at a distance with everyone around her, however the person who might help her in romance happens to be a reanimated corpse (Cole Sprouse)

Lisa Frankenstein feels like the brainchild of someone who grew up on The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Pretty In Pink and Weekend At Bernie’s – writer Diablo Cody says her protagonist’s name was inspired by Weird Science. It slots right into the mould of 80’s horror comedies with the teen movie twist to give it a further spark of life. The tone of bubblegum horror echoes the colours which surround central character Lisa (Kathryn Newton) and the more muted colours of her own, more gothic, world. Director Zelda Williams matches the style of a number of classic 80s movies and uses it to propel Lisa’s journey, and the film’s comedy, forward.

Since losing her mother (Jennifer Pierce Mathus) to an axe murderer two years earlier her dad (Joe Chrest) has remarried, to Carla Gugino’s Janet who believes that her step-daughter is crazy, with the only person who seems to extend a kind hand being step-sister Taffy (Liza Soberano). Dark poetry and social awkwardness mean that Lisa sticks out, at least people don’t know she hangs around the ‘haunted’ abandoned cemetery, yet still feels treated like a normal teenager. While keeping those around her at a distance she has a crush, school literary magazine editor Michael (Henry Eikenberry) that she’s trying to get closer to after an interaction at a party, which goes downhill after she’s inadvertently drugged.

When she needs it most a confidence boost arrives after a lightning storm. A strike lands on the grave she claims to like best in her cemetery hangout, bringing the corpse to life (in the form of Cole Sprouse). After an initial scare Lisa soon forms a bond with the grunting figure, having not-quite-one-way conversations with him as she tries to push herself with Michael. Yet, ‘The Creature’ needs help too, and thus a deadly string of events pan out which sees Newton’s entertainingly performed protagonist sewing missing body parts on her new undead friend, bringing them to life with the brilliantly named Kiss Of Life tanning bed in her garage.

Unlike Diablo Cody’s previously-penned horror-comedy, the divisive cult flick Jennifer’s Body, there’s no real hint of parody here. Instead, Lisa Frankenstein feels like a nostalgia-tinted homage to films of the 80s, as mentioned feeling right at home amongst them. There’s a familiarity on screen without things ever feeling rehashed or overdone, adding to the likable nature. Lisa is a character who could so easily be pulled two ways and feel inconsistent, yet Newton effectively handles her, capturing the gothic humour there is to be had in this character who is finally finding her confidence with the help of a dead Victorian-era man. This isn’t a film aiming for bite or full gothic qualities, the latter is certainly a present detail but when part of such a colourful world doesn’t dominate as a defining element.

The eventual mix is one that provides plenty of laughs throughout the 101 minute run-time. While things might feel about ten minutes too long there are plenty of sharply delivered lines making reference to the 1989 setting and the strange situations which are unfolding – The Creature becomes increasingly jealous after Lisa constantly friendzones him. There’s plenty of successful wit to be found throughout, at times delivered with a faint knowing grin to add to the entertainment factor and occasional fun there is to be had with this piece. As Lisa’s costumes become grander and bolder so does her personality. She strides forward with increasingly confidence and in turn her actions outside of school become more twisted, and it’s great fun to see it all unfold in such stylish fashion.

Bubblegum horror with a faint grin, Lisa Frankenstein feels at home with 80s teen movies and horror comedies without feeling dated or overfamiliar. Kathryn Newton helps bring through much of the sharp humour which helps to bring out the entertainment factor of this fun and stylish 80s-infused flick.

Spaceman – Review

Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 47 minutes, Director – Johan Renck

Isolated astronaut Jakub (Adam Sandler) begins to realise the toll that his mission has taken on his marriage, with a giant spider-like creature (Paul Dano) helping him to repair things.

Dialogue throughout Spaceman is somewhat minimal. Aimed to focus on the wise words being dispensed by Paul Dano’s giant spider-like creature Hanuš as he learns about Earth through the memories of Adam Sandler’s astronaut Jakub. For months Jakub has been isolated in space, with limited interaction with those at mission control (largely Kunal Naayar’s Peter) and diminishing contact with his wife, Lenka (Carey Mulligan). It’s this latter relationship which Spaceman aims to focus on as Hanuš notes the fractured marriage between Jakub and Lenka, which it seems the former hasn’t noticed during his months-long mission, and before.

As if to make the words shared between the pair seem wiser Sandler and Dano appear to have been instructed to deliver everything as slowly and softly as possible. After an initial scare at the creature sharing the ship with him – a nightmare early on sees a spider crawl through Jakub’s mouth and nose – the chocolate-spread-loving figure begins to give the “skinny human”, as he refers to Sandler’s character throughout, a social experience akin to therapy. Making him realise the state his marriage is in and then working on how to repair it, both at a rather slow pace.

While initially having hints of Charlie Kaufman in the styling and relationship between man and potential alien, the overall nature of Spaceman brings in an air of tediousness, as if better suited to a short film – even if based on Jaroslav Kalfař’s novel Spaceman Of Bohemia. The style which attempts to bring comfort and peace to Jakub as his emotions and life on Earth catch up with him backfires and means that scenes begin to drag. With not a huge deal of shift it also feels like there’s a stagnant nature to the events which brings a sense of disengagement after a while of little development.

Amongst the unfolding conversation in space we see brief glimpses of Lenka’s life back on Earth. However, it’s hard to connect with Mulligan’s character due to how little we see of her. While just as gradually paced these scenes still feel short and simply there to push Jakub’s isolation from another angle – at the very start of the film he’s confronted with the question of being the loneliest man in the world, before calling his wife to no response.

Things never quite feel as deep as the film perhaps wants to be, and at times thinks it is. While it has one or two moments to help ease it along the overall base feels like it’s relying on the style to push the limited ideas and developments it has. While these could work fine enough, the slowness of the finished product simply means that something potentially meditative feels lacking as it stumbles through itself without going as emotionally in-depth as it could do.

Spaceman starts out with promise and interest, however as it progresses the base conversations never feel as wise or in-depth as the film appears to be aiming for, leading to a disengaging handful of slow-to-develop ideas.

Dune: Part Two – Review

Cert – 12, Run-time – 2 hours 47 minutes, Director – Denis Villeneuve

While it seems that his journey is fulfilling an ancient Fremen prophecy, Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) plans to take down the Harkonnen family, who destroyed his own family, whilst having visions of a fatal future.

We’re not even at the 2024 ceremony yet, but it already seems as if Dune: Part Two is set to make the same kind of technical sweep at the Oscars next year as the first film did in 2022. The scale is just as grand, if not grander, as the rest of the universe travels to the desert planet of Arrakis when it seems that the long-prophesised Muad’dib has arrived – maybe in the form of the believed-dead Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet). Huge, mechanical ships and crafts scatter the surface of the planet with the threat of the Harkonnens displayed in their design. The search for the Fremen is on, they must be caught before the Harkonnens lose control of the spice of Arrakis, which in turn gives them control over the universe.

The attacks and battles look just as explosive on the big screen as before – and not just because of how many there are. The visual effects mixed with the costume and production design are seamless as the detail of the world is further fleshed out and made to feel lived-in – even when largely based around towering sand dunes. We spend a good time in this world seeing Paul fulfil each stage of the long-held Fremen prophecy of the Muad’dib – the figure who will lead them to a green paradise. While some no longer believe this prophecy there are those from the scorched, ‘uninhabited’ southern hemisphere who continue to hold it close.

When coming into play the dramatic scenes of conflict, delving into the state of religion on the planet and how Paul – a performance from Chalamet which becomes increasingly assured and passionate as his character develops – falls into place amongst it as his own journey takes course. Is he getting ahead of himself? How can he learn the ways of the Fremen while keeping them and his surviving family safe, all while trying to take down the Harkonnens – still a dark and threatening group, although we see generally little of them, now with added Austin Butler, doing some very noticeable acting as psychotic Feyd-Rautha. The drama is well handled and creates a number of interesting points outside of the big action sequences.

Yet, if the first film was build-up and world building, successful at both and in being its own product, for this yet again faithful adaptation of the second half of Frank Herbert’s classic sci-fi novel then this follow-up very much feels like further build-up to the third act. At almost three hours, although just 11 minutes longer than Part One, the run-time is truly felt here, especially when jumping from visually-packed action sequences to more restrained moments of narratively focused conversation. Things remain watchable, and the visual detail helps to create some engagement, but it doesn’t stop the slow-burn narrative from feeling just a little too slow. Taking its time to explore new elements of the world, and the Fremen as Paul learns about their ways and his own family – largely through mother Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) who herself goes through a number of changes over the course of the film.

There’s a lot going on throughout, even without the inclusion of bagpipes in Hans Zimmer’s still-effective score, but much of it feels like build-up and further exploration of a world we’ve already explored a good deal of. On the whole it works and helps to hold interest, whilst creating a stylistic intensity within the action sequences, where a number of fights are well tracked. Denis Villeneuve has once again made an arthouse-style blockbuster on a giant studio budget, and you can’t help but admire that fact, and how well he handles it.

Certainly engagement is created when these notes come through in the progression of Paul’s character, growing the seriousness and severity of his situation as he becomes more of a leader; a truly shouty scene truly selling Chalamet’s performance, but as a whole it can’t entirely lift a film up that feels as if a good deal of its focus is on the end goal instead of the full course that its central characters are taking.

Another visually immense trip to Arrakis that also feels like further build-up and world building trying to reach the third act. While holding worthwhile action and character details you just wish that sometimes the world development connected more to the interesting patches of narrative and character development.

Wicked Little Letters – Review

Release Date – 23rd February 2024, Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 40 minutes, Director – Thea Sharrock

When devout conservative Edith Swan (Olivia Colman) begins receiving a series of profane letters the finger is pointed to her foul-mouthed neighbour Rose Gooding (Jessie Buckley), however Rose insists innocence.

The profanity in Wicked Little Letters never quite enters in Deadpool-esque creativity. For the most part the case is intentionally so, “no one swears like that” Jessie Buckley points out when trying to prove that the offensive letters which have been spreading across the small coastal town of Littlehampton can’t have been written by her. The finger has been firmly pointed her way since the first page of profane correspondence fell through the door of her next door neighbour Edith Swan (Olivia Colman). “In the end I think it’s just jealousy” she explains to the investigating police officer (Hugh Skinner) interviewing her after the 19th letter.

The relationship between the central pairing has long been turbulent. Despite highly devout Edith seeing herself as something of a missionary, looking to help her new neighbour as soon as she moves in at the dawn of the 1920s, Rose’s language and behaviour remains a great barrier to her joining the Christian Women’s Whist club. It’s similarities in the coarse language which lead many to believe that Rose is the one sending the offensive letters, however she continues to insist she’s innocent; why would she send a letter when 1. she has her young daughter, Nancy (Alisha Weir), to care for and think about, and 2. she could just say it?

Colman and Buckley are, as you’d expect, highly enjoyable in their roles. Clearly having a good time with the swearier lines and simply being on screen with each other. Yet, while very much marketed as a comedy there’s a lot more drama to Wicked Little Letters than expected. Edith is controlled and restricted by her outraged father (Timothy Spall) while Rose is perhaps hiding details about her life before arriving in Littlehampton, and indeed trying her best to look after Nancy.

On the other side of the investigation is police officer Gladys (Anjana Vasan – who truly shines when her character comes into her own in the third act), officially labelled as ‘Woman Police Officer Moss’ her job is checking in on the wellbeing of female victims of crime. For much of the time we focus on such points the film is very much upfront with what it is presenting with not much else below the surface. There’s a convention to such strands which differs from the potential fun there is to be had with the more comedic beats.

Comedic beats which offer a good deal of humour, and not just within the language that’s portrayed – although there are a good deal of occasions where the strong language provides an amusing flourish every now and then. While perhaps not anything raucous, although pushed by the enjoyment the cast are having delivering f-bomb laden lines of dialogue, the laughs generally have an effect, and there’s a good deal to chuckle at throughout, even if it does find itself broken up by some longer moments of drama with less resolve than is perhaps wanted, something which seems like it’s going to be the case a few minutes before the actual ending begins to arrive. Yet, for what it does provide there’s an enjoyable nature to Wicked Little Letters, largely pushed by a cast who are getting a kick out of the material they’re given.

The emphasis of Wicked Little Letters is on the titular sweary communication, meaning that the drama often feels somewhat standard, and eventually not entirely resolved. Yet, an enjoyable cast brings through a good few chuckles here and there throughout the untroubling run-time.

Madame Web – Review

Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 56 minutes, Director – SJ Clarkson

When she starts to experience visions of the future, ambulance driver Cassie (Dakota Johnson) finds herself protecting three teenagers (Celeste O’Connor, Isabela Merced, Sydney Sweeney) from a man with spider-like abilities (Tahar Rahim) who is trying to kill them.

One of my favourite Letterboxd reviews is from user Patrick Willems describing Sony’s first entry into their Spider-Man Universe (SSU; formerly called the Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters – SPUMC), Venom. The review simply says “The #3 superhero movie of 2003.” If that’s the case, then Madame Web is towards the weaker end of such films. A common criticism of Sony’s recent batch of live-action Marvel features has been that they’ve felt about 20 years too late, and even if released at that time they still wouldn’t have flown high. Actually, set in 2003, blaring constant reminders which feel less like nostalgia but the clanging sound of ‘REMEMBER THIS!?’ showing the film thinking the audience might forget, this particular entry feels most at home in that year.

It also feels like a film trying to be legally different to Spider-Man. Despite the fact that Sony owns the rights to the character the handful of references to him, and the universe he’s a part of, are constantly interrupted or quickly moved on from as if there’s a fear there might be repercussions for doing so. The events and characters all feel like they’ve been plucked from a universe of Halloween costumes belonging to the ‘Spider Powered Hero’ universe.

Dakota Johnson’s Cassie Webb finds herself turning 30 and experiencing concerning visions of the future. Sometimes these are just a few seconds away others minutes before the event, it all depends on what’s convenient for the plot. When trying to get away from everything she sees a vision of three teenagers being attacked on a train. After rushing the trio back onto the platform the group are soon hunted by Tahar Rahim’s Ezekiel Sims – who has had visions of three masked heroes one day murdering him for many nights. Donning his own spider suit to match his wall-climbing abilities his aim is to kill the girls before they get to him in the future – his powers, initial want for the spider that presumably gave them to him and basically everything else about him is deemed completely irrelevant.

We get very brief glimpses of Mattie (Celeste O’Connor), Anya (Isabela Merced) and Julia (Sydney Sweeney) in their crime-fighting futures, but the most part they’re present for Cassie to save at the last minute. The quartet bring about a set of ranging performances from those which are seemingly in a comedy, those which you can tell the scenes which were filmed after they realised this likely wasn’t going to be the best film and those which are simply rubbish.

When the group first properly meet the jumps in time are chaotic and all over the place. A constant back and forth which pretty much make a confusing sequence of their own. Later on the visions are longer and more restricted to one thing, however a moment of frantically edited action leads to a decision which is frequently an Arthurian run away. In the end everything feels very generic and lacking in style. As if Cassandra Webb is a character with little story and detail to provide to a feature film. There feels to be little confidence in her from a screenwriting perspective, and indeed the universe as a whole, one which wants to be more connected to what’s around it but at the same time doesn’t want to properly reference it so as to be its own product. It simply leaves Madame Web struggling on its own underdeveloped island, one that hasn’t changed much since 2003.

Set in 2003 Madame Web feels like it belongs among the weaker films of that very year. Lacking in detail, and confidence, it moves along with confusing action sequences and underdeveloped ideas giving the impression that even the film doesn’t know what to do with the central characters it’s been given.

Bob Marley: One Love – Review

Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 44 minutes, Director – Reinaldo Marcus Green

As his fame rises across the globe, Bob Marley (Kingsley Ben-Adir) attempts to arrange a concert to unite Jamaica when his country is on the brink of civil war.

While not a direct biopic, largely focusing on Bob Marley (Kingsley Ben-Adir) attempting to unite his home country for Jamaica with his music, One Love still feels itch-inducingly conventional. Flashbacks to his origins, particularly in his relationship to his wife and backing singer, Rita (Lashana Lynch), may have some interest, but those leaning more into his start in music add little to the film overall. Even delves into the creative process as songs are gradually formed on the spot with fellow members of The Wailers lack a properly euphoric spark.

Jamaica is on the brink of civil war, with tensions and violence in the streets rising. Marley is a victim of this in the film’s opening stages when gunmen break into his home attempting to assassinate the singer. Sending his family to America while he eventually escapes to London Marley’s fame begins to rise rapidly, alongside the influence of reggae. With the release of his album Exodus and an upcoming world tour he attempts to spread the message of peace and one love to as many people as possible, with his eyes continuously set on his home – and an African leg of the tour, which record label representatives simply brand as uncommercial.

While a number of scenes have a very by-the-books presentation there’s still enough here to help things move by with ease. Part of it might be the familiarity, although at this stage with musical biopics it’s very much a factor that works against the film, however the best factor are the performances of Ben-Adir and Lynch. Both of whom put in engaging and effective performances which help to lift the film around them. Ben-Adir in particular demonstrates Marley’s points and messages with a likable and relaxed charisma, allowing the audience to buy into his mission more than the One Love concert sequence itself – largely because it doesn’t really exist.

Where the film best succeeds is not in the music itself but in Marley’s various relationships. The people who crop up throughout his life, inspire him and spur him on. While one or two moments might lead to slight bumps of convention – one particular outburst in the later stages of the film feels slightly out of character, although intentionally so it doesn’t entirely come across best – the group around the singer, not just those in his band, provide some interesting and engaging moments. As a whole there’s enough details and beats to engage throughout the film to stop it from feeling overly bland or distancing. There may be a lot of familiarity in the overall style, but thankfully a good leading performance helps to move things along and stop the proceedings from feeling overly bland, whilst also truly conveying the beliefs and motivation at hand.

While it might suffer heavily from feeling like another conventional biopic Bob Marley: One Love believes in its well-performed focus’ mission and beliefs, allowing the viewer to buy into them and for things to not dive into destructive blandness.

The Taste Of Things – Review

Release Date – 14th February 2024, Cert – 12, Run-time – 2 hours 15 minutes, Director – Anh Hung Tran

Cook Eugenie (Juliette Binoche) has been working for gourmet Dodin (Benoit Magimel) for over 20 years, what will it take for the pair to make an official romantic relationship?

Not since Harley Quinn’s egg sandwich in Birds Of Prey has there been such tempting displays of food porn lavishly poured onto the big screen. The opening twenty minutes of The Taste Of Things are largely constructed of little more than various dishes being put together. Little is said between the four bodies in the kitchen as they focus on the recipes at hand for a range of dishes being prepared for later in the day. In fact, the occasional sound of cooking and utensils is about all we hear for ten minutes before dishes begin to be sampled while the cooks are still busy preparing later courses. While engaging, and a sensory treat, the true effect of this extended sequence is saved for later in the film when another key meal takes place.

Roles are reversed between cook Eugenie (Juliette Binoche) and gourmet Dodin (Benoit Magimel) with an overall different tone to the proceedings. The pair have been working together for over 20 years, and it’s made clear that there’s more within their relationship, however there’s not an official romance – despite Benoit having proposed over the years, something brought up in more casual requests as they sit together one evening after a long day of work (and eating). Professionally the pair are admired with culinary skills which would have Studio Ghibli seething with jealousy. Admired by internationally renowned chefs and princes the dish of the day is always fine food.

So much attention to detail floods the eyes and ears throughout. Eugenie says after the many courses of the opening meal that while she wasn’t with the diners she had an even greater experience having spent so much time with the ingredients, and the final creations. She was with every smell, taste and sound as they changed and developed over time, and indeed so were we. These ideas manage to subtly play into the relationship between Eugenie and Dodin as the film plays out. While uncomplex in its overall narrative the priority is how things come across and the ways in which themes and details can be conveyed. And they’re put across rather effectively, with a gentle and engaging manner.

The culinary arts act as a way of communication, particularly during the second extended meal which is packed with subtle emotion and a good deal of heart. Complimented by the sound design (particularly foley artistry by Olivier Thys) and cinematography (by Jonathan Ricquebourg) which perfectly capture the feelings of each individual scene or sequence, fleshing them out and providing more subtlety to the ways in which they convey themes and tone.

Particularly in the final 15-20 minutes where things begin to feel somewhat overlong the way in which cooking is leaned into in these particular moments provides interest, and a fitting round off to the relationship which has been observed in the, frequently described as, ‘autumn years’ of the pair’s lives. As we explore this, and the clear feelings between the pair – alongside the things and reasonings which aren’t always said or expressed between them – the slow pacing fits the film. The pacing is made clear in the opening stages as the quiet cooking process is allowed to speak volumes – before the dishes flood the screen to be met with wonder, and envy, from the viewers.

It’s these treats which represent the best of the film and get the most of it across. Where the themes and emotions are still contained, but in subtle ways which are injected into the mood of the process. The feelings which wash across the character’s faces as they prepare and eat personal meals. Yet, none of these sequences ever feel flashy or overindulgent, or as if they’re showing off. That’s where the real inviting key comes through, yes the characters know the food is great, it’s mentioned enough by supporting characters and fellow gourmets, but these mentions never feel as if they’re trying to force anything. As a whole the film feels unforced and again is allowed to gently tell its story, if in ever so slightly lengthy fashion. This is a film where it becomes its own language, understood from the first few minutes and having a good deal of effect as it takes form and further meaning over time.

The Taste Of Things allows the culinary arts to become its own language, excellently captured in sound and vision the dishes are immensely inviting and their preparation speaks loudly as they’re filled with emotion and personal meaning from the characters.

The Iron Claw – Review

Release Date – 9th February 2024, Cert – 15, Run-time – 2 hours 12 minutes, Director – Sean Durkin

As wrestling coverage changes in the early 80s, the Von Erich family struggle with the increasing pressure put upon them to be the best.

A casual game of football doesn’t exist in the Von Erich family. However much the four brothers would like that to be the case their father (Holt McCallany) is constantly on the sideline, or right next to them, shouting at them to be the best, the strongest, in the family, the state, the country, the world. What should be a fun throw-around is underpinned by the drama of not being good enough. It’s something the siblings struggle with throughout their lives, their father reminding them of who his favourite is as he once again lists his ranking of his sons at the breakfast table. As the 80s arrive and wrestling coverage changes on TV the brothers find themselves under even more stress as they hurtle towards fame and heavyweight titles.

Our central perspective is Zac Efron’s Kevin – this is the kind of role Efron seems to have been searching for for a number of years now, and he knocks it out of the park – throughout this inspired-by-a-true-story tale. The biggest kick he gets out of wrestling, and life, is getting to spend time with his family – he tells girlfriend Pam (Lily James) on their first date that he’d love a huge house where everyone can live together, kids and grandkids. However, as each brother gets closer to their father’s goals the effects of the immense pressure weighing down on them are inevitably felt. They aren’t fighting with their opponent, or each other, but with themselves; with warring views on survival.

The second half brings many tough-to-watch sequences as events and decisions create a sense of fear as to where they might lead. Not just the physical toll which is made more than clear in the ring, but on the mental states of the characters too. We see, despite their exteriors, sometimes because of it – Jeremy Allen White’s Kerry starts to use steroids when it feels like he’s the only chance the family has at being the best – a weakening group, particularly in Harris Dickinson’s David. When we’re first introduced to Kevin his map of pulsing veins and muscles taking up the screen as he jumps out of bed to leap into morning exercise looks almost painful.

Even youngest sibling Mike (Stanley Simons), somewhat left behind in much of the build-up and first half of the film, gets his moment with one of the most affecting scenes; landing an emotional punch from a character with whom we don’t have a proper connection with for some time. It comes back to the firm Iron Claw pressing down on the Von Erich’s – a move created by their father which pins opponents down to the ground as they scream in pain until losing the match. While the film as a whole might feel slightly overlong it’s the heavier moments of drama showing just this in effect that keep you engaged. Especially in the knock-back emotional moments, contrasted well with a key moment of gentle peace in the later stages.

Throughout the consistent dramatic tension both in and out of the ring holds engagement and connection. It also means that the two worlds which should feel separate come across as very much the same, something which is acknowledged by the film and the eventual turns in the relationships between the Von Erich brothers, and more importantly their father. Through this themes of communication and expression, or rather the lake of it instead sticking to performances similar to wrestling personas, come through.

The family as a whole feel shut off from each other, and their feelings. When asking his mother (Maura Tierney) to speak to her husband about the pressure that is being put onto their children Kevin is simply told that that’s what his brothers are for, little change is made. When it comes to moments of tragedy her emotions remain restrained, leading to later feelings of increased pain later in the film, wonderfully shown in a scene between Tierney and James.

With the strong performances on display, and the ways in which they work together, The Iron Claw is the kind of film which ensemble cast awards should be for. The heavier drama and tragedy is well handed with plenty of effect, and a sense of fear worked well into such moments too. Everything comes together to create a compelling, if slightly lengthy, drama with a good deal working underneath the surface to increase the sense of pressure and need to be the best that is being put upon the central family.

A strong ensemble brings about plenty of knock-back effect to The Iron Claw, allowing for the pressure and tragedy to be felt without being overbearing. While it might feel slightly overlong its the way it handles its unfolding tale of performance and contradicting expressions which keeps you engaged throughout.

Migration – Review

Cert – U, Run-time – 1 hour 23 minutes, Directors – Benjamin Renner, Guylo Homsy

A family of ducks leave the safety of their pond for the first time in order to migrate to Jamaica for the winter, bumping into crazed herons and chefs along the way.

Migration is unlikely to change anyone’s mind about Illumination, or really trouble the mind long after it’s finished. In recent years many have associated the studio with overly familiar narratives wading through convention with more push for Minions over originality (Minions fans may well be amused by slapstick short film Mooned which precedes the feature – I personally still find a mild chuckle every now and then from the characters). Migration’s narrative is no different in terms of being a recognisable set of events as we follow the Mallard family, a group of ducks who have never left the safety of their pond due to father Mack’s (Kumail Nanjiani) fears of the outside world and the predators which lie in it.

However, when a group of birds travelling south for the winter make a rest stop at the pond Mack quickly becomes convinced to get away and take his family to Jamaica. Yet, there’s much more than just crazed herons (Carol Kane) in the wider world, there are merciless New York chefs who won’t hesitate to cook and serve the family if he catches them. As Mack and his family; wife Pam (Elizabeth Banks), children Dax (Caspar Jannings) and Gwen (Tresi Gazal) and elderly Uncle Dan (Danny DeVito – managing to get a couple of chuckles with the most cartoonish character in the film), make their way to the Caribbean the landscapes are undeniably well animated. In terms of animation quality Migration is perhaps the studio’s best looking film to date, with a slightly lower budget to most of their recent fare (at $72 million).

While you can see the stages and separate ideas in the narrative making for a structure of bits and pieces that you can see and feel going from one to the other, as the film goes on and the characters get into the wider world there’s more to like. Not anything new or challenging there’s at least a more amusing nature to the unfolding events, helped by a short 83-minute run-time, with the odd chuckle along the way.

The aforementioned villainous chef may create a bump or two – more in terms of feeling there simply for the sake of having an antagonist over anything else – but then again this might be down to not being overly present for much of the run-time. Treated as a silent character with the occasional grunt and audible sneer the film seems to be aiming for a Shaun The Sheep style with the character, but never quite lands this feeling due to not having the same kind of charm or humour in making the character the butt of the jokes, or the ways in which the protagonists outwit them.

Overall there’s a generally direct nature to Migration. It knows that it needs to get its characters from A to B (pond to Jamaica) and gets them there via the occasional challenge and new stage in the journey. Again, we’ve seen the outline (and indeed some elements of the presentation) of this narrative before, and there’s a good deal of familiarity on display, particularly in the first half. Yet, as things move along there’s enough to like about the air that the film creates for things to progress pleasantly enough for the time that they’re on. Thanks to a couple of lightly amusing gags, and to an extent a feeling that the film knows that it’s not trying to reinvent the wheel, there’s eventually enough here, largely once in the wider world, to make for a likable, if forgettable piece of work. It could easily feel much lazier.

Not exactly bringing anything new to the table, Migration won’t change anyone’s mind about Illumination. However, this latest, visually great, offering from the studio is amusing enough for the brief time it lasts with little trouble along the way, even if you can see and feel the individual stages of the narrative.