This year will be quick and dirty without any still from the films themselves because I have a busy day ahead. Again, I was glad I did this exercise as I enjoyed all of the nominees greatly. I don't think F1 is as deserving as Mission Impossible: the Final Reckoning but I still could appreciate things about it. Note that several of these toy with changing ratings by a half-star or so, but I gave most 4.5 stars on Letterboxd, and dates seen in parentheses. Without further ado, in the order they were seen:
Sinners
Probably deserves 4.5 but felt it might be slightly overrating, and feel like I may have missed something. Regardless, it's worth watching. It will probably get nominated for Best Picture. It is no Get Out, but it is the best I've seen from Ryan Coogler thus far (have yet to see the Creed or Creed II so take that as you will).
Jordan may nab an Oscar nom for it, because his performance is fantastic. Probably the best I have seen him give (note again, have not yet seen Creed or Creed II). The only problem is if you nominate him, you have to nominate Miles Caton, and he seems to have the bigger part. Caton's performance is every bit as good as Jordan's, but Jordan has to play 2 roles, and he does it about well as Nicolas Cage or Rachel Weisz or Jeremy Irons did for that matter.
There's a social commentary in here somewhere, but not as obvious as in Get Out. It's closer to Us in that category. It's a horror film, but that element is not obvious (apart from the opening scene) until at least halfway through the runtime. Beyond that it's a period piece and arguably more affecting before the supernatural element takes over.
Of course there has to be some connection to our present moment, and if anything it is DEI. While the film is deeply indebted to the blues and black culture, it questions the nature of inclusiveness through a prism that I don't think has been done before. It is more about the concept of "community" than black culture, and there's also a mystical element to it that's rather intriguing and which provides the biggest laugh (at least for me). The epilogue with one of the great living legends of the blues is also fantastic. Think I'm boosting it up to 4.5 stars just because of him. (7/13/25)
One Battle After Another
It's too early to truly assess where One Battle After Another ranks. I didn't like it as much as Magnolia, but that is my favorite movie and PTA has been there, done that. It wasn't up to the level of The Master or Phantom Thread or There Will Be Blood, but those would all get 5 star rankings. It's at least equivalent to Punch Drunk Love, which I vaguely feel like I underrate. It's better than Inherent Vice but that is where I am going to pause.
Maybe it's not better than Inherent Vice. I've only seen that twice. Stylistically, they are the two most similar, which makes sense as they are both adapted (or semi-adapted) from Thomas Pynchon novels. The difference is that one takes place in the 60s or 70s, and this one takes place in present day. IV is about a detective and this is about a freedom fighter, but both Phoenix's and DiCaprio's performances owe a certain debt to Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski. Both also demand multiple viewings. All of PTA's films are more rewarding after multiple viewings, but it feels like neither of these can be fully understood after just one.
It's probably on the level of Boogie Nights, though obviously they are totally different. Boogie Nights has not aged particularly as well as his other films, but there was no mistaking it as a game-changer upon its release. And yes it's better than Hard 8, which most acknowledge as his weakest, but also acknowledge as a very good film on the whole. I would put it above Licorice Pizza as well, another movie that was much better on second viewing. That is a smaller, more personal film. Its follow-up is the "biggest" film PTA has made, though I still think Magnolia is bigger, as a deep meditation on the human condition.
I'll try not to spoil anything, as it wasn't spoiled for me. The trailers only give a vague idea of the plot of the movie. I'll just say I was surprised because it has a fairly conventional one. I mean, it is not conventional, but the nature of the "chase" certainly feels straight out of the Action genre and that is why it feels bigger budget movie.
As usual the performances are stellar. DiCaprio and Chase Infiniti should both receive Oscar nominations. Sean Penn and Benicio arguably deserve them as well. PTA obviously deserves nominations for screenplay and directing and I do think this will get a Best Picture nomination.
It would be weird to say the opening scene at the convent was my favorite in the movie (that would probably be the scene where DiCaprio seems to be channeling the trailer freak-out from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), but it was the moment that felt like an easter egg, if only because of the actress, so I was very touched by it.
The opening sequence feels like a trope borrowed from Christopher Nolan, but there is no question that PTA puts a personal stamp on it, and that it works.
Comments on the politics of the film are inevitable. It is uncompromising. Conservatives will point out that it perfectly captures how the liberal ideology is essentially violent. Then again I would hope that any that are actually sitting through a PTA film will understand that is unfairly reductive. The movie is about standing up for what's right, on topics that are fairly difficult to disagree on, unless one has a regressive and uneducated worldview. I don't think French 75 are exactly the same as Antifa but it feels like many will equivocate the two. So plenty of people will dislike this just because they demonize Antifa and obfuscate what it fights against. Whatever the case, it feels prescient, while still not pandering totally to the moment.
I'll have to see it again. I know it's a masterpiece but it's too hard to fully appreciate on just one viewing, and on the basis of that one viewing, I can only give it 4.5 stars. For now. (10/24/25)
Weapons
It's not February or March, but Thursday night I watched One Battle After Another and Friday night I watched Weapons and I'm pretty sure both are going to be honored by the Academy with Best Picture nominations. I've got to admit that for a decent stretch of this movie, I thought it was on par or possibly even better than OBAA. However by the end, OBAA is the superior film. Additional viewing would probably enhance both, but I think I might just need to see Weapons once or twice more, whereas I think I need to see OBAA at least three or four more times. There's more richness and depth to the latter.
I don't want to take away anything from Weapons, because it was quite good. My issue with it is what many may also have, which is that it could have stretched to heights that made it a truly astounding film. Instead it semi-crumples under the weight of its concept and turns into a more basic horror movie. I'm not sure what else it could have done, however. The vibe is kind of like Hereditary in this regard. You had Toni Collette in an iconic performance, which ultimately devolved into a pseudo-Rosemary's Baby reboot. Here you have great performances by Julia Garner and Josh Brolin and pretty much everyone else, and a pretty gripping story, and a relatively original narrative structure that feels like it borrows something from Slacker. This is why I think it will get nominated for Best Picture, and it is solid.
So it's a personal taste thing, this ambivalence about the shift towards horror films in the 2010s. There are a lot more of them than there used to be, and while they aren't all "slasher" movies like in the 80s-00s by and large, the genre is possibly overrated. Of course, Ari Aster and Robert Eggers are making great films also, and it's fair to say Zach Cregger's has joined their ranks with this. Of course, Jordan Peele is great.
Get Out did not win Best Picture, though I think you would be forgiven for mistaking that. It's probably the more memorable movie than Shape of Water. Most people thought Us was good, but not quite Get Out level, and while I liked Nope, that's probably his 3rd best, too. I would say Weapons isn't quite as good as Get Out, because it lacks the humor. There's a bit of humor in this, but it couldn't be called a Horror Comedy. It's probably on the level of Us, maybe slightly better.
It's all about the mood it creates that makes it great. Once it starts revealing the truth of the situation, it feels like a bit of a letdown. My friend asked, "Is this a Halloween movie?" and I said I wasn't sure, but I have to concede, yes, it is a Halloween movie, so I highly recommend watching it in the next 5-6 days. There isn't a Halloween theme to the movie though, and it's good because that might have made it even more obvious (Donnie Darko's Halloween theme was effective because it's hard to call that a Horror movie).
This isn't Cregger's debut film, but I think it's fair to say it's his breakout film. It's a great achievement, I just would have taken it more in the direction that The Leftovers took. That series arguably jumped the shark, but it also dialed up the intrigue and sustained suspense of a kind over many hours. Maybe Lost did that in a different way earlier, as well.
Finally, Justin Long is great and while his cameo is decent, he is underused. (10/25/25)
Marty Supreme
Not long after seeing Marty Supreme (about a month earlier from this writing), I saw a tweet/post on X that said something to the effect that "Letterboxd is homework for failed liberal arts grads" with a follow-up scene of a 39 year old living with his parents who has his review of Marty Supreme posted to the refrigerator. Not only having done flyinghouses.blogspot.com/ for the past 18 years, but this for the past couple years, I felt seen. Regardless, though this writing may be a waste of time, though no one is going to see me as an heir-apparent to the great Ebert, it has felt worthwhile to try to articulate a vision of a successful piece of art that stands the test of time. Marty Supreme is one such piece.
It has its flaws to be sure. For one it has the anachronistic soundtrack problem that an increasing number of movies today indulge. That being said I am not going to complain about Tears for Fears over the closing credits, which felt rather moving. I wouldn't complain about New Order casually being thrown into a montage sequence except that it made the movie feel set in the 1980s rather than the 1950s.
At first blush it feels worth mentioning both Good Time and Uncut Gems (and not worth mentioning how this is only one of the two Safdie brothers), because it feels pretty similar to those. There is a frantic, paranoid anxiety to these movies which can rub a person the wrong way. In the end though, most can put up with it. Most recognize that Adam Sandler was robbed of a nomination for Gems, which may be his single best performance. And some recognize Good Time as the moment that Robert Pattinson completed his transition from teen heartthrob to quirky leading man character actor. And many will recognize Marty Supreme as the moment that Timothee Chalamet found his r'aison d'etre.
Now, his performance in A Complete Unknown last year was stellar, and I thought better than Adrien Brody's in the Brutalist, but he did not win. I think he is all but a lock to win this year (even with Michael B. Jordan's dual roles in the record-breaking Sinners and Leo's brilliant burnt-out activist in OBAA). He has a drive to be the greatest (something perhaps inculcated briefly at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study before he abandoned completing his degree) and here he has achieved that, though I thought he had last year in how beautifully he handled the difficult proposition of becoming Bob Dylan. He is playing a real-life figure here again, but a far less famous one.
Many will say, this is not really a movie about ping-pong and while it's true, there are perhaps 20 or 30 minutes of "sports action" and those parts are also expertly directed. Chalamet noted that he played an insane number of hours playing ping-pong, and he does appear to be very, very good at it and the performance feels credible. I am sure he will have fun for the rest of his life challenging people to a game knowing that he will win.
The movie is basically about how he doesn't get enough respect and needs to get money to travel to Japan to play in a tournament that Kevin O'Leary was going to finance but then pulled back from. At least I think that was the case. I saw it a while ago.
It is mostly about the idea of Never Taking No for an Answer. And it is inspiring in this regard. There are random zany caper sequences that feel like outgrowths of Good Time and Uncut Gems but they are positioned to support the narrative in ways that feel more grandiose, in service of greatest aspiration (not just money alone).
Many will mention O'Leary as the worst part about the movie and it is true the role could have gone to someone that needed the money a little more and that it gives the movie a weird Shark Tank-vibe but it has to be intentional. There is even a part where O'Leary describes himself as a "vampire," which he often did (does?) on that show. He does challenge himself in a way or two and it is amusing to see him "act," but his casting is just as much for atmosphere.
Gwyneth Paltrow, playing O'Leary's wife, has a bit of a better time with her role, which feels like something of a "comeback." Unfortunately I came into this movie about 15 minutes late and also took a bathroom break right during whatever denouement with Paltrow happens, so I can't speak to it and will need a second viewing.
And I look forward to that. I haven't seen A Complete Unknown a second time yet. I would, but I would rather watch Marty Supreme a second time. I don't think it will win Best Picture but if Chalamet does not win Best Actor then it will only be because it is Sinners year. (12/27/25)
Frankenstein
I didn't expect it to be *bad*, but it was better than I thought it was going to be. It's been a long time since I read the original novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, but that also was better than I thought it would be.
For those that only know Frankenstein as a Halloween character, as I did, the actual original source material is more of a philosophical treatise wrapped in an early sci-fi novel. The movie grapples with some of the themes of the novel, but on a somewhat less sustained basis.
Ultimately this is not a scary movie, though the "prelude" will make it seem that way. I certainly did not remember any set piece taking place aboard a Danish ship in the Arctic, but I don't trust my memory from over 20 years ago. Briefly perusing the wikipedia entry, I can see that distrust is valid.
In short, this was written in 1818, and it, along with Sorrows of Young Werther (which I think was 1774), convinced me that I was able to appreciate literature from over 200 years in the past. The language was always difficult, it seemed, but not with these. They made total sense. One was translated from German and probably more digestible for modern audiences, but one is in English originally and unchanged. Both wrote these novels at very young ages and both betrayed a deep precociousness.
(I am trying to say that a proper adaptation of Sorrows of Young Werther is something the world needs--or maybe not--though I doubt it would inspire any rash of copycat suicides in the late 2020's; ironically or not, I am unclear if this book also inspired mad scientists to raise the dead, but it seems people have been obsessed with the idea for all eternity, and cryogenics are the apotheosis of that urge; these works strike at the heart of what it means to be human, and show that what goes on inside all of us can be felt across the great expanse of time, and we only know because of the artists who recognized the value of demonstrating that.)
As for the movie itself, Guillermo del Toro is at this point, one of the major international directors of our time that adopted American cinema. I first was familiar with him through Ebert's review of Cronos, which seemed like a fascinating movie, ironically or not, similarly focused on the idea of eternal life. I finally watched Cronos about 5 or 6 years ago and it is definitely not as "easy" as del Toro's later work. I probably need to see it again. In any case, he had a couple other things before Pan's Labyrinth hit and catapulted him into a higher category. He worked on some "blockbuster" fare like Blade II and the Hellboy movies and Pacific Rim (which I never saw--only the first Blade, though I've heard II and III are quite good). And I had never even heard of Crimson Peak. But of course everyone knows The Shape of Water.
Again, his career went into a higher category with that and winning Best Picture and Best Director Oscars, and Nightmare Alley had a lot of heat as his follow-up. It didn't do quite as well, but I enjoyed both. I did not see Pinocchio, but the original animated film was a favorite of mine growing up, and I am a bit afraid of being disappointed, though I have heard it is good.
I really think Frankenstein is the best movie of his that I have seen. I think it probably deserves to get nominated for Best Picture. Jacob Elordi and Oscar Isaac are both nominated for Golden Globes, and both deserve it. Del Toro should also be nominated for Best Director at the Oscars, though it will be a tall task to win this year in either category (I feel like PTA may have it more in the bag, or someone else, a first-timer). Neither Elordi or Isaac seems likely to win, but the recognition for each is deserved. Everyone knows Isaac is a great actor, but Elordi establishes himself in this in a way Saltburn or Euphoria only hinted at. It's a breakthrough performance for him that shows he has more range than people may have realized. This also feels like a breakthrough for Mia Goth, who has mostly worked in the horror genre and gracefully sidesteps into an adjacent one here. This isn't a horror film but there are elements of it. Sci-fi is fair, as would be drama, and comedy.
The problem with the movie's success is Poor Things, which was heavily feted recently by the Academy, and goes for a more slapstick version of similar ideas here. It is impossible to pretend that Elordi took nothing from Emma Stone's performance in that. And while Isaac certainly goes unhinged in his performance here, which is occasionally hilarious, it does not reach the degree of Mark Ruffalo's comic insanity. Regardless if pressed, I think I have to say I liked this better than Poor Things. That is more of a straight-up comedy and this is more of a serious drama that has moments of comedy. And while certain parts seem scary, there are also some very sweet moments. Ultimately like most great films, it may lead the way towards greater empathy and understanding for other beings in this world--human or not--and in this it is a success. (1/10/26)
Bugonia
Lanthimos has been prolific and his collaboration with Emma Stone equally so. Kinds of Kindness did not clean up at the Oscars last year like Poor Things had the year before, and Bugonia lands somewhere between the two. Kind of Kindness is extremely bizarre and plays more like a limited series than a movie. Poor Things seems like Lanthimos's "blockbuster" or "popcorn movie" and while Bugonia's present-day focus feels relevant and credible, it is randomly upsetting. There are still a few very funny moments but it is mostly rather dark and somewhat frustrating.
The performances are all great. Of course you expect as much from Emma Stone and Plemons (who I usually only like about 50% of the time) but I would highlight Aidan Delbis, the autistic actor who plays Plemons's cousin. He probably deserves an Oscar nomination as much as Stone but he is not given quite as much to do (which the movie requires).
I didn't even clock that Alicia Silverstone played the mom, and as the movie winds down it becomes rather hard to tell if Plemons is really insane or if he is just constructing an elaborate allegory for what Stone and her company have done to his family and hometown and the world in general.
There is definitely a message here and it is a great satire of corporate America (Stone's directive that all employees are allowed to leave at 5:30 PM--but that it is not mandatory and they should finish their work and meet their quotas--feels sharp) and yet that element feels half-baked, to a degree. It's hard to write a review of this without spoilers but I'd rather not get into those. I would just say the ending indulges itself in something that a fair number of movies recently have also done--which both deepens it, and cheapens it. I have to think the ending is very divisive. Some people will love it, and some people will hate it. I was mildly amused.
I think Stone probably deserves her nomination here because she does fully commit to the role in a way she always does. I'm not sure this deserves the BP nomination (Pavements was better, but the Academy overlooked it entirely) but I didn't consider it a waste of time. It's a Lanthimos movie so what do you expect. It is not standard fare. It does have moments of greatness that feel sublime at times. It deserves recognition but it definitely will not be for everyone. I believe Lanthimos is going to take a break for a year or something, and I'd expect him to continue to be more ambitious in whatever he does next. (1/24/26)
Train Dreams
I'll have to watch Train Dreams again--at least, the first 15 minutes. I watched with a friend who distracted me with questions, as if I knew what the movie would be about. Like most movies, it's good to go into it knowing as little as possible.
This is a beautiful movie and it probably deserves more than 4 stars, but I can't say I liked it better than Marty Supreme or One Battle After Another or Sinners. Why not? Well it's a different sort of movie. It's an art movie. The viewer should soak it in. My viewing companion did doze off through the middle portion of it, and I am sure it was very pleasant.
The cinematography is beautiful. Joel Edgerton gives a great performance. It's very touching and heartwarming and also incredibly sad. It's entertaining, yes, but there is a bigger statement behind that probably will be clearer on a second viewing. It's about the sweep of American history, and I won't say what years it covers, because that's also vaguely portrayed. Finally it ends with a beautiful Nick Cave song over the credits. That song won't win over the K-Pop Demon Hunters song, and such is the tragedy of our times (if one knows of Cave's work over the past decade or so, his voice at the end is especially moving). I'll probably watch K-Pop Demon Hunters anyways just to see what the fuss is about. But I'll also watch this again. It's slow, meditative, and a bit funny at times (a sequence giving a snippet story about a group of incidental co-workers comes to find, as well as William H. Macy's presence, which stops just short of being an Oscar snub). It's vaguely a "Western" movie, and many may skip because of thinking it might be boring, but those that appreciate the genre will likely find much to love in it.
F1
This is the 4th year that I am trying to see all of the Best Picture nominations and F1 is probably the weakest of all I have seen (even if I may have given Emilia Perez a slightly lower rating, Zoe Saldana and Selena Gomez redeemed it slightly). I listened to the Rewatchables podcast episode on it as a way to convince myself that it was better than I thought, and it did that slightly. I admit that technically, it is an achievement.
But let's get the elephant out of the room: I am not a racing fan. I like cars, but I do not find the idea of attending an F1 event or a NASCAR race exciting. I do not watch them on TV.
But even I have noticed that F1 has become a cultural phenomenon in recent years, probably because of whatever association is responsible for organizing the venture. They shut down the Loop in Chicago for a year or two so they could have a race, and sure the idea of doing a race through a downtown area of a city is amusing, but it's also a money grab and a gimmick to bring in new fans.
Is there anything wrong with that? No. This is part of what makes capitalism "great." Is this a commercial for F1? Yes. Indisputably.
I might have even liked Babylon better, though this was more aesthetically pleasing. There are definitely elements to it that I enjoyed, but it is repetitive, and too long. You know that Pitt is going to deploy some kind of trick "accident" that will bring out a safety car. I know nothing of the rules of F1 but the movie will teach you some vague idea of how individual racing times are measured. And I'll admit it is a little bit exciting to think that these races with so many variables often come down to tenths of seconds.
On a technical level, the movie is stellar. But by the last 30 minutes, I was ready for it to be over. Pitt's scene in Babylon where he understands he is being brought in as a "ringer," echoed there, and echoes here, as he was paid $30MM for this, I believe. He earns it, certainly. The movie was successful, and somehow, like Top Gun: Maverick, got nominated for Best Picture.
All I'm going to say is that the last Mission Impossible movie (if it is the last one) got robbed. I liked Top Gun: Maverick slightly more than this because there was more of a story about the characters, and less about fighter pilot maneuvering. But Mission Impossible: the Final Reckoning was better than that, and better than this. Cruise deserves recognition for shepherding that franchise for 30 years and pulling off incredible personal feats, as a borderline American version of Jackie Chan (though I am sure Chan's stunts were more outrageous and daring).
I was hoping that, like Marty Supreme, the movie would not be as much about the sport. That is not the case. This is a movie about racing. And it may be one of the greatest car racing movies in cinematic history. The Fast and the Furious franchise showed how successful that could be, and this takes it to Oscar-level. It's nice to recognize it, because some of the camerawork is rather ingenious, and the performances are all solid. But Joshua's love interest was apparently completely cut out of the movie, which feels sort of insane given its 2.75 hour runtime.
The movie goes around the world, which should be exciting, but the international footage is mostly limited to racetracks. A huge percentage of this movie takes place in such arenas.
It is unbelievably cliched. The Rewatchables was more charitable and referred to them as sports movie "tropes," and sure, they are, but they are also totally predictable. Even Pitt's monologue, about everything going quiet and feeling like flying, predictably is depicted near the end, as I knew it would be. There could have been a couple curveballs thrown into it, but it mostly plays it safe.
As it must, as this is a commercial for F1, and Apple TV+ even has another documentary about F1 racing, showing that the industry has a vested interest in bringing in a broader demographic (as Joshua references briefly in one scene). So maybe I'm a little cynical. I like sports movies just fine. I'm sure any racing fan will want to see this, even as the Rewatchables noted that true F1 fans, predictably, call out the movie as being unrealistic. Even I could tell that something seemed off about it, with these "workarounds" that let the Apex team perform better than they would otherwise due to Pitt's chicanery.
I would have given it 2.5 stars but I boosted it to 3 because it is an unqualified success on a technical level. Javier Bardem also redeems it to a degree, to say nothing of Pitt's own charisma. Any filmmaker that wants to capture high-intensity action should find much to learn and love in it. For viewers that couldn't care less about racing, it will not make them care--but I am sure younger and less cynical viewers than myself may be just intrigued enough to delve deeper into the mythology and become a fan of the sport. I will be shocked beyond belief if it wins Best Picture, and should that happen, will attribute it to a lobbying effort by the industry. (3/6/26)
Sentimental Value
Ah, the token foreign language film nominated for Best Picture. It has been a standard for nearly 10 years (excepting 2021). Such films were confined to the Best Foreign Language Film until the name of the category changed to Best International Feature in 2019, usually at least one of these films will get nominated for Best Picture as well now. This normally handicaps it in the Best Picture category, and makes it an odds-on favorite in the foreign category.
This year, it's hard for me to say because I haven't seen The Secret Agent yet and these two films are represented in both categories. For some reason I vaguely feel that Secret Agent has more heat, and that Skarsgard has better odds at winning Best Supporting Actor.
In any case, Sentimental Value is a fine film with several powerful moments. It ultimately began to drag for me, but also created a meditative atmosphere of calm and contemplation. The plot is very basic.
When the film opens, we hear Nora's poem (or monologue) written as a child for an assignment on what object they would like to be. She chose her house and the house is the centerpiece of the film, and it's quite beautiful. She writes about how her parents' arguments were remembered as just being "noise" and how the house preferred noise to silence, after her father (Skargard) left.
The family dynamics are a bit sketchy in this, and I needed to check wikipedia to be sure of what was happening. But their mother has passed away and Skarsgard returns for the home, and to make what may be his final film, centered around it.
We then see Nora in the throes of stage fright on opening night of a new play. The start needs to be delayed five minutes as she requests a costume alteration and then rushes off at a moment for a quickie tryst with a supporting player. She is finally able to appear and seemingly pulls off a terrific performance.
We then see her with a child that almost seems like her own but is then revealed to be her nephew--at least it came off that way to me. She leaves her sister's house in frustration, though I thought her brother-in-law was her ex-husband and that she was dropping him off, or something.
I think the movie is meant to throw you in the middle without much exposition to gradually reveal itself, as it does through Skarsgard's films, and what he wants this next one to be. He meets Nora in a cafe and explains that he wants her to play the lead role--that he wrote it for her. She is touched, but she declines, due in part to her long simmering resentment towards him. Basically she and her sister feel that he abandoned the family (though her sister has edged closer to forgiveness), and when he spouts off about how much they mean to him, they think he is full of BS. Ultimately, he casts Elle Fanning in the role intended for Nora, and she eventually "becomes" her in somewhat disturbing ways.
It's worth noting that both sisters (Nora played by Renate Reinsve, and Agnes played by Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) and Fanning are all nominated for acting awards as well. This makes the movie sound like a masterclass in acting, and I suppose it is, as well as being extremely meta.
Clearly, there are a lot of great things about this film, so why did it feel like it dragged for me? I suppose because the plot was basic as it is, and the main "development" is an unveiling of family history and drama behind production of the film, which is acquired by Netflix, who may be inflicting their vision on Skarsgard. I thought, well, it was stupid of me to pay $6 to rent this on Amazon if it's using Netflix so prominently, because they must own it, but I suppose not. Credit where its due to question the whole notion of Netflix's entre into art films and its algorithmic taste-making business model.
It has a happy ending is all I will say, even though the film-within-the-film does not. The audience, I think, will be happy for the characters, but at least in my case, may feel like basically very little happened except re-establishing a certain bond with their father. I enjoyed this film but feel the ending leaves out a crucial piece and it's a decision that works fine.
I haven't seen the director's previous effort, The Worst Person in the World, but I recall hearing a bit about it at the time, and think a few people may consider it superior to this. Reinsve also plays the lead role in that, and I will need to see it soon. (3/11/26)
Hamnet
The only reason I'm not giving this 4.5 stars is the same reason people were upset that A Beautiful Mind won Best Picture some 24 years ago (though I stood in the minority as saying its win was justified over Moulin Rouge, Lord of the Rings Pt. 1, Gosford Park and In the Bedroom): it's awards bait. Some 28 years ago we had Shakespeare in Love and now we have Hamnet.
Full disclosure: I still haven't seen Shakespeare in Love, and even though I have read a few plays and sonnets, I've still never experienced King Lear, Othello, The Merchant of Venice and a few others. Hamlet, I know, but it's been so long that snippets of it only bring a vague recollection.
I will try to remain wary of spoilers, but it is probably stupid to pretend people do not know the tragic plot development that drives the narrative. In any case, we can pretend, and the way the reality is teased out is borderline masterful. To be clear, this is an excellent film and again, only dinging it because it was developed with the idea of being an awards contender. It had to be.
Am I upset that Chloe Zhao is barely a year older than me, and this is her 5th film, and 2nd time nominated as Best Director? Maybe, only because it reminds me once again of the abject failure of my life to make something great, when she has already done it twice (and I haven't seen the first two films, which I think I should, but not in a rush to see The Eternals). Am I upset that she may have been better poised for success? No, this is the way of the world. After all I just boosted Anemone.
Putting my disappointment in my self to the side, the film itself has a strong Train Dreams-vibe due to its setting. Jessie Buckley, who I will probably pick to win Best Actress along with everyone else, is reputed to be the "daughter of a forest witch," and seems like a proto-hippie. She has a 'meet-cute' with her counterpart, who just oozes with masculine charisma and seduces her effortlessly. Certainly, the movie makes this most famous writer of all time into more of an alpha than I thought he was. But then again I know nothing of his personal life.
Emily Watson plays his mother, and his father is actually the one to calm her down once he reveals that he will be having a child with Agnes (Buckley). His father is terrible through most of this movie, but in that moment understands he needs to love his son. And then his mother softens, and she takes in Agnes as her own, and their relationship ends up being rather touching.
There are three childbirth scenes in this (one with an auto-delivery), and there are several moments that are about as gut-wrenching as a PG-13 movie is allowed to get. It is not an easy watch. Both Buckley and Mescal are fantastic. Mescal was snubbed of an Oscar nomination but it is certainly an honorable mention. His work at the end of the film is remarkable.
Tears did not well up as often for this as they did for Elio, for me, but the tragic ending is both incredibly sad and incredibly beautiful. Like Sentimental Value, the art created by the character becomes very meta, and the film becomes something of an essay on the power of it. Art can be a way of coping with grief or disappointment, and at its best can transcend death. (There is a new Casting category this year, and while OBAA or Sinners may potentially clean up, the casting choices for Hamnet and the actor playing Hamlet are about as inspired as possible, and lend special power to the climax.)
Credit where it is due for this. It's awards bait, but it tackles extremely heavy themes and extremely heavy personalities and comes together as a fully-realized vision. I suppose when we set out to make great art, we imagine it may be recognized one day, and ambition should not count against value. Perhaps I'll read a biography of Shakespeare one day and decide that Hamnet is 75% fantasy but for the time being I am going to take this at its word and believe it gets most things right. Let the half-star ding be a drop down from 5. (3/13/26)
The Secret Agent
I'm a bit burnt out as it is the day of the Oscars and I'm not really sure what to say about this except that it's great. I picked Sentimental Value to win Best International Feature, but I think this deserves it. I'm trying to win, but if I lose because of this category, I won't mind. This is deserving.
It has a lot in common with I'm Still Here, the Brazilian film nominated in both categories last year. It's about the same period, roughly, only outlines the political situation along vague lines, and it has a present-day element that also involves finding lost family members (with a variation).
It is however more thrilling than I'm Still Here. And while lead performances are fantastic in both, Wagner Moura slightly edges out Fernanda Torres. It is a scary movie but also fun at times. It's an ode to the idea of the cinema also, with the role Jaws plays in it. Perhaps the scene that best encapsulates it is when the group of "refugees" are having a dinner gathering and talking about their plans for escape and how they are under "death threats" and someone says, let's not bring the energy down, put the music back on.
It's emotionally devastating in its own quieter way, with the tension teased out masterfully. I'm wary of revealing anything about the plot and probably only people that are very familiar with Brazilian history will understand it on a deeper level, as with I'm Still Here. But if you put all of that to the side and just look at it as an action/thriller/comedy/drama, it defies genres and should be recognized as a landmark achievement. Make no mistake that I really enjoyed Sentimental Value, but I do consider this the superior effort. (3/14/26)
