Best Picture thoughts, 2025 edition

[dougo]

Ten years ago, I started a tradition of writing up my thoughts about the Best Picture Oscar nominees; this year, for the first time, I had already seen all ten nominees by the time they were announced! This was certainly a surprise, because I hadn't yet seen No Other Choice and I had fully expected it to get a nomination, but no dice for that. The nomination ceremony was almost two months ago, and I probably should have written these up back then, but I was busy finishing The MIT Mystery Hunt and then after that I got busy finishing my Oscars Death Race (and a few other races). But the awards ceremony is tomorrow so time is getting short!

According to tradition, these are in the order that I saw them:

Sinners

I'm always interested in seeing Ryan Coogler's films; Black Panther is my favorite Marvel movie, and I was rooting for it to win Best Picture. So I was looking forward to seeing Sinners, and it didn't disappoint: I thought it was pretty good! It didn't strike me as a Best Picture nominee at the time, though; it feels weird to say this now, given its nearly universal acclaim as a masterpiece (and its record-setting 18 Oscar nominations), but I didn't think it quite transcended its genre the way Black Panther did. That is, although the first hour or so of the movie is an absorbing portrayal of Jim Crow-era Mississippi with no hint of the supernatural, it becomes a fairly formulaic vampire movie (with its own twists on the tropes, of course). There's a particular musical moment that has been highly lauded, but I thought it was corny, and overall the music didn't wow me the way I wanted it to. Still, I did like it, and I'd be happy to see it win here.

F1

Vroom, cars go fast! I enjoyed this one almost as much as Sinners, but the idea of it being a Best Picture nominee was even further from my mind, even up to a few weeks before the nominations were announced, and even then it seemed like an outside shot. There's really no aspiration of it being more than a cars-go-fast popcorn movie, but I guess people really like that genre when it's done well and stars Brad Pitt. It feels like the token blockbuster on the list... except Sinners grossed almost 50% more than it domestically! Anyway, vroom.

One Battle After Another

Twice before in these writeups I've mentioned how Paul Thomas Anderson movies are hit-or-miss for me, and I'm sad to say this one was a miss. Which isn't to say I hated it; it's just below average for his films, mostly for some things that rubbed me the wrong way rather than any major failings. In particular, Leo DiCaprio's character felt like an attempt to poke fun at a clueless white dad frustrated with "woke", but the attempt came across as clumsy and tone-deaf, and just felt like it was written by a clueless white dad frustrated with "woke". I also think it was a mistake to transport the story of Vineland (which admittedly I haven't read) from tying the Reagan era back to the Nixon era into tying the Trump era back to the Bush era, which just feels nonsensical to me. I've seen people interpret the film as an alternate history and/or a prediction of the future, but neither of these ring true to me given how specifically "of today" many of the details felt. (Ironically, I suspect most of these things were written into the script before the 2024 election, so I'm even more confused about the intentions. How would this movie have been received today if Harris had won?) I also just felt icky about the whole relationship between Lockjaw and Perfidia, and probably not in the way it was intended to feel icky. Also, Jonny Greenwood's percussive score annoyed me. Anyway, like I said, these weren't fundamental deal-breakers for me, and the final action sequence impressed me enough to almost turn my overall opinion around about OBAA. Almost!

Frankenstein

I hadn't read Mary Shelley's novel when I saw Kenneth Branagh's 1994 adaptation, but I recall at the time that it was branded as being more faithful to the novel than previous movies (even putting her name in the title). I've since read the novel, and this Guillermo del Toro version felt more faithful to it than Branagh's, but I barely remember any details from that one so who knows. Regardless, I was into it at first, and the differences in this version, like Christophe Waltz's arms dealer, were promising but went nowhere, and by the end I felt underwhelmed by the whole exercise—and it didn't seem like anything more than an exercise. The visuals were striking on the big screen, but a lot of the CGI looked too cartoony (e.g. the wolves, and most of the Arctic scenes). Maybe that's less of an issue when watching at home on Netflix? But is that something we want to reward with a Best Picture nomination?

Bugonia

Yorgos Lanthimos is maybe even more of a hit-or-miss thing with me than PTA: I loathed The Lobster and Poor Things, but I adored The Favourite. Happily, Bugonia counts as a hit for me! It's funny, and tense, and successfully walks the tightrope of keeping you guessing until the end without feeling too contrived. Which is a shocking thing to say about a Lanthimos film! The commentary on corporate (un)ethics felt appropriately satirical without being either cartoonish or a moral bludgeon. My only complaint is that, as always, torture (depicted or implied) just isn't necessary to put in a movie, and I wish filmmakers would finally get over thinking it was. Despite this, it's my favo(u)rite of the nominees, and I'm sad that it has less than zero chance of winning any awards.

Train Dreams

I have to confess, I'm not really a fan of Joel Edgerton's acting performances. He was suitably menacing in The Underground Railroad, but I felt like he was really miscast in Dark Matter, Master Gardener, and The Plague; those characters needed to have something a little more going on than he can seemingly give. In Train Dreams, I think it sort of worked, in that it didn't seem out of place for him to have not much going on. But I still feel like another actor might have done just as well or better. Still, I was pretty enchanted by this quiet epic about the Industrial Revolution, and thus modernity, extending its reach even into the deep wilds of the American woods. Again, though, I have one big complaint: they didn't need to... well I won't spoil this one, but there's a thing that happens in the middle that's an infamous trope. It was depicted slightly ambiguously, at least, and I held out hope that it wasn't as it seemed, but although it was never fully confirmed or disconfirmed, I didn't like leaving it up to your own creative thinking to decide what actually happened. (Though I often do like that! Shrug!) Anyway, the film as a whole is a beautiful experience, and I was glad to experience it.

Sentimental Value

Of these ten nominees, I'm having the hardest time remembering exactly what I thought of this one. I remember being disappointed that it wasn't as good as Joachim Trier's previous film The Worst Person in the World; I remember thinking that Jay Kelly, which I saw a week later, covered similar ground but better. But specific complaints are a bit of a blank, oops. I think maybe I felt like I was supposed to feel bad for this successful, acclaimed director (played by Stellan Skarsgård) who had trouble relating to his family and trouble pursuing artistic goals while maintaining commercial success, but for some reason I just didn't feel moved by these clichéd first-world problems. But I think there was more to it than that... I keep saying I should probably write down my thoughts after seeing a movie. I still should! Or maybe just leave enough time to rewatch movies before trying to review them.

Hamnet

This one, I remember. I liked the beginning scenes of Agnes (Jesse Buckley) quietly communing with giant trees and hawks. As soon as William Shakespeare (Paul Mescal) shows up, though, it quickly soured. I may be misinterpreting what is implied about their first meeting, but to me it didn't seem consensual. And in general he seems to be portrayed as a blithe, privileged asshole who can barely string two words together. Okay, fine, I enjoy a certain amount of subverting the legend, and Hamnet isn't really about him anyway, certainly not in the sense of being a biopic or historically accurate. But if he had been a totally fictional character, it would still be unpleasant to watch, and then it was extra jarring to see him composing the "to be or not to be" speech in a contemplative moment by a pond. Meanwhile, Agnes's struggles with motherhood and subsequent outpourings of grief just go on forever, which is maybe what some people look for in an acting showcase, but I just found it grating. Also she's portrayed as barely in touch with the world of people and society, perhaps schizophrenic even; when she finally goes to London to see her husband at work, she, Shakespeare's wife, seemingly can't even comprehend what acting is! Again, maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but I can't help but blame the movie for misleading me if I'm wrong. But, despite all of this, there is a final moment that did truly move me, though I'm fairly sure it's not in the way that was intended: not about grief, or transcending it, but about crossing a line between observing and participating, between dreaming and living. It's hard to fully explain. I don't think what it evoked in me has anything to do with the rest of the movie, or Hamlet, or Shakespeare. But, it saved the movie for me. Also, the trees.

The Secret Agent

The Secret Agent successfully evokes the 1970s; I've never been to Brazil or South America, but I was alive in the '70s, and it felt like that. But it also evokes 1970s film, which I've also seen a fair amount of, and in recreating the shambolic pacing of those movies, it ends up being... shambolically paced. In other words, it gets both the good and bad parts right, and I think it could have rebalanced it a bit. It did at least recall the good parts of last year's Brazilian period piece I'm Still Here, while mostly avoiding the bad parts. But it wasn't as fun of a hang, and tried to cram in too many different tones and even genres. There are many subplots; some work better than others; but, one of them that involves a shark does eventually, well, "jump the shark". I liked the way it used the frame story, though even that didn't quite amount to what I wanted it to. Still, I appreciated the project as a whole as a project, if that makes any sense.

Marty Supreme

It would fun to say my feelings about this movie ping-ponged back and forth, but, I dunno, I just though it was mostly okay. Timothee Chalamet is engaging, as usual, as a character who's meant to be likably unlikable, swaggering but petulant when he doesn't get his way, which he usually does. And he goes through life making things happen, or having things happen to him, without a lot of rhyme or reason. It's a genre of not-quite-biopic that I am often underwhelmed by. But what really bugged me was the synthy soundtrack (by the Oneohtrix Point Never guy, whom I've actually seen perform live!) and specifically, the blazingly iconic '80s needle drops in a movie set in the '50s. Now, I think anachronistic music choices can work. But, like, it's already eyerolling to juxtapose a Tears for Fears minor hit with NYC tenement life, but then to actually use "Everybody Wants To Rule The World"? Why not just go ahead and also use "Don't You (Forget About Me)" and "Walk of Life"??

(See also last year's thoughts.)